In the first century, numerous written accounts about the life and activity of Jesus Christ existed. (Luke 1:1-4) Only four of these gained the acceptance of the community of believers and were preserved throughout the centuries by copying and recopying. Although the writers do not identify themselves by name, the four accounts have been attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, provided information about what was commonly believed regarding the accounts that became part of the recognized Scriptures. He quoted Origen (c. 185 to c. 254 CE) as accepting the tradition that there were only four authentic evangels, the first being written by the former tax collector Matthew, the second by Mark (as Peter instructed him), the third by Luke, and the last one by John.
The earliest comments identifying Peter as the primary source of Mark’s account come from Papias (c. 60 to c. 135 CE), who also said of Matthew (as quoted by Eusebius) that he “collected the words [lógia] in the Hebrew language.” The comments of Papias regarding Matthew, however, are not specific enough to identify the apostle as the writer of the evangel.
Only Luke’s account, in being directed to Theophilus, provides a possible clue respecting the time it was written. According to Acts 1:1, Theophilus had received the first book about what Jesus did. The Acts account ends with the statement that Paul lived for two years in Rome under house arrest. If Acts was written shortly thereafter, the evangel would have been composed before 61 CE. For the most part, the various dates suggested for the four evangels are nothing more than conjectures, based chiefly on opinions respecting Jesus’ words about the destruction of Jerusalem.
Fragmentary papyrus manuscripts (P66 [thought to date from the second century] and P75 [believed to date from late in the second century or early in the third century]) contain the following superscription for the account traditionally attributed to the apostle John, “evangel according to John” (euangelion kata ioannen [P66]; euangelion kata ioanen [P75]). At the end of the third Gospel, P75 (one of the oldest extant manuscripts of this evangel) reads, “evangel according to Luke” (euangelion kata loukan).
Luke’s Prologue (1:1-4)
In his prologue, Luke indicates that the many then-existing narratives were based on what eyewitnesses had handed down. As for his own account, Luke carefully investigated everything and then wrote down the information in orderly sequence. His objective was to establish for Theophilus, whom he called “most excellent,” the certainty of the teaching that had been imparted to him orally. The designation “most excellent” may indicate that Theophilus occupied a high position or was held in high esteem. (Luke 1:1-4)
The Unanimous Testimony of All Four Accounts
All four accounts are unanimous in identifying Jesus as the unique Son of God. Comparatively brief as the evangels are, they have provided millions of believers throughout the centuries the basis for their faith in Jesus Christ and have had a significant influence on their lives. The consideration that follows combines the information from all four accounts and presents it, with some exceptions, in chronological order.
The Word (John 1:1-5)
In the Septuagint, the opening two words of Genesis are the same as in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1 (en arché [“in (the) beginning”]). The first chapter of Genesis portrays creative works as progressively coming into existence in response to what God says. This direct link of God’s speaking to the coming into existence of the creation appears to be preserved in the designation “the Word.” The reference to the Son as “the Word” suggests that God communicated through him and by means of him brought into existence the realities of his expressed will and purpose.
“In the beginning the Word was.” Before the countless ages that had passed since the universe came into existence the Word already “was” with the Father. The prophecy of Micah about Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem similarly pointed to his prehuman existence as reaching back to the infinite past. The Septuagint text of Micah 5:2 reads, hai éxodoi autoú ap’ archés ex hemerón aiónos (his goings forth [are] from [the] beginning, from [the] days of eternity.)
“The Word was with God [literally, the God].” In this case, the Greek preposition prós (“with”) may be regarded as indicating an interrelationship. “God” (theós) appears in the emphatic position as the opening term of the next statement. As the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), being “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and his very “imprint” (Hebrews 1:3), the Word is identified as theós, the only single Greek term that can adequately describe his nature. In the Greek text, the Word’s being distinct from the Father is evident from the absence of the definite article. (See the Notes section for an illustration of the structure of John 1:1.)
From the infinite past, the Word and God proved to be in a close mutual relationship. This aspect is revealed in his being with God in the beginning or prior to the start of creation. (John 1:2)
Everything came into existence through the Word. Apart from him, not a single creation came to be. (John 1:3)
Depending on the punctuation, life was in the Word or life came to be “in” or through the Word. The text could be understood to mean that the Word possessed life-giving power or that he imparted life to the creation. In the case of humans, this “life” was more than mere existence; it was “light,” or a life inseparably associated with an inner light that made moral decisions possible. That inner light or faculty of conscience is so powerful that it continues to shine in a morally corrupt world of darkness. Although surrounded by darkness, this light has not been extinguished. (John 1:4, 5)
Note: To illustrate the way theós, as applying to the Word is used, the following sentence preserves the order of the Greek words and substitutes “child” and “male”: In [the] beginning was the child, and the child was with the male, and male was the child.
Aged priest Zechariah and his barren wife Elizabeth, also in the line of descent from Israel’s first high priest Aaron, lived uprightly and blamelessly, conscientiously observing God’s commands set forth in the Mosaic law. In the culture of that time, their childlessness would have been stigmatized, with many considering it to be a sign of divine disfavor. (Luke 1:5-7)
As a member of the division of the priestly division of Abijah, Zechariah carried out his duties during his designated period of service. Centuries earlier, King David had arranged for 24 divisions of priests. The division of Abijah was the eighth of the 24 divisions. (1 Chronicles 24:3-10) Each division served for one week every six months, with the entire priesthood being present for the annual festivals.
It was then toward the close of Herod the Great’s long reign over Judea. One day, during the period of his priestly service, Zechariah was chosen by lot to enter the temple to offer the incense. According to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:2), the superintendent or officer of the temple invited priests who had not shared in this service before to cast lots. Twice each day, in the morning and in the evening, a priest would burn incense on the alter inside the holy of the temple. (Compare Exodus 30:7, 8.) When he did so, no one else would be inside the sanctuary. The account does not indicate whether Zechariah entered the sanctuary in the morning or in the evening. If the Mishnah reflects the procedure then followed, Zechariah would have shared in this honorable service for the first time in his life. Outside, the assembled worshipers prayed while he officiated in the sanctuary. (Luke 1:8-10)
The sight of an angel on the right side of the altar of incense startled Zechariah and made him apprehensive. “Fear not,” the angel reassured him, and added that his prayer had been answered. (Luke 1:11-13) It is not likely that this would have been a personal prayer for a son. In his capacity as priest, Zechariah would more likely have prayed for the “redemption of Jerusalem” or the deliverance the coming of the Messiah would bring about and which godly Israelites eagerly awaited. (Compare Luke 2:38.)
The angel related the joyful news that Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth would bear a son, to be named John. This son would be a source of great joy to him and to many others. John would be great before God. As one specially chosen, he was not to drink wine or any other intoxicants. From birth, he would be filled with holy spirit. His role would be to cause many Israelites to change their ways and to return to God. The dynamic energizing spirit and power in evidence on the earlier prophet Elijah would be at work in John. He would turn the “hearts of fathers to children and the disobedient to the understanding of the upright, to prepare a people for the Lord.” (Luke 1:13-17)
The angel’s words indicated that John’s activity would lead many to a major transformation of their lives, involving the “heart” or the deep inner self. The focus would be on the restoration of proper relationships, which would start with the family and extend to fellow Israelites. Ultimately and most importantly, the people needed to come into a right relationship with God. John would be urging his people to cease being disobedient to the Almighty and start acting in harmony with the understanding or wisdom that distinguishes upright persons. All responding properly would thus be made ready for the Lord, the promised Messiah.
As a priest, aged Zechariah would have been well-acquainted with the history of his people and that long-barren women like Sarah, Rebekah, the wife of Manoah, Hannah, and the hospitable woman of Shunem did become mothers. Moreover, he found himself in God’s temple and heard the promise from an angel, a reliable messenger. Yet, Zechariah’s response was not one of joyous acceptance with unwavering faith. His words reflected doubt, “How am I to know this? For I am old and my wife is advanced in days.” (Luke 1:18)
The angel replied with words of strong reproof. “I am Gabriel, who stands before God, and I was sent to speak to you and announce these glad tidings to you. And, see! you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things occur, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” (Luke 1:19, 20) Especially because of what he knew and the unique circumstances, Zechariah had a sound basis for believing the message conveyed to him. His doubting merited correction and discipline.
The interchange with Gabriel resulted in Zechariah’s being in the sanctuary much longer than was customary. So the assembled worshipers began to wonder about the delay. For Zechariah, confirmation of Gabriel’s words followed immediately. On coming out of the temple, he could not speak. His inability to vocalize the priestly blessing, coupled with the signs he made (likely with his hands, head and lips), made the people realize that he had seen a vision. (Luke 1:21, 22)
Zechariah completed his period of service and returned home, unable to speak about his experience to Elizabeth. (Luke 1:23) Based on what happened later, he probably communicated with her by signs and in writing. (Compare Luke 1:62, 63.)
After Elizabeth became pregnant, she remained in seclusion for five months. When it would have been clear to observers that the reproach of barrenness had been removed from her, she resumed her usual routine in the community. (Luke 1:24, 25)
In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. She lived in Nazareth, a city of Galilee, and was engaged to Joseph from the royal house of David. (Luke 1:26, 27) Through the prophet Nathan, David had been divinely promised that his royal line would continue in existence, and this provided the basis for the Messianic hope, the coming of a king greater than David. (2 Samuel 7:8-16; compare Acts 2:30, 31.)
According to the literal reading of the Greek text, the angel greeted her with the words, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord [is] with you.” (See the Notes section for additional comments.) To be addressed as exceedingly favored and having God’s attentive care greatly perplexed Mary, causing her to wonder just what this greeting signified. Gabriel reassured her with the words, “fear not,” informed her of having found favor with God, and then told her that she would give birth to a son, to be named Jesus. This son would be great, “be called Son of the Most High,” receive from God the throne or royal authority of his ancestor David, and “reign over the house of Jacob forever.” His kingdom would never come to an end. (Luke 1:28-33)
Unlike Zechariah who responded to Gabriel’s announcement with doubt, Mary only raised the question as to how this would come about as she was unmarried and not intimate with a man. The angel explained to her that this would be made possible through the operation of holy spirit or the “power of the Most High.” Because the conception would result from the mighty working of divine power, the son to be born would be “called holy, [the] Son of God.” (Luke 1:34, 35)
It may well be that, for the first time, Mary learned from Gabriel that her relative Elizabeth, who had long been barren, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy and would give birth to a son. Elizabeth’s pregnancy, as Gabriel indicated, proved that nothing would be impossible with God. (Luke 1:36, 37)
Mary’s response proved to be one of remarkable faith. No virgin had ever conceived through the direct working of God’s mighty power, and she must have known that she would never be able to convince others of having maintained her virginity. Yet, with full trust in the Most High and his care for her and the son to be born, she declared her willingness to be God’s servant, letting everything take place according to what Gabriel had told her. At that point, the angel departed. (Luke 1:38)
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm for pictures of and comments about Nazareth.
As a greeting, the Greek term chaíro (“rejoice”) expressed an implied wish for the happiness or well-being of the person being addressed. It functioned much like the Hebrew shalóm (“peace”), which also conveyed the thought of well-being, and may have been the expression Gabriel used.
Jesus’ future kingship is described in a way that accommodated common Messianic expectations. The reality, although including an everlasting rule over the “house of Jacob” or Israel, is far grander. Mary, however, would not at that time have been able to grasp a description in terms unfamiliar to her. (Luke 1:32, 33)
In Luke 1:35, “holy spirit” and “power of the Most High” are parallel expressions, as are also the words “come upon” and “overshadow.” It should be noted that Mary would not have understood Gabriel’s words to mean anything other than what she knew about God’s spirit from the “holy writings” that were read in the synagogue. Those “holy writings” confirm that “holy spirit” is God’s power, dynamically at work in a holy or pure way for the accomplishment of his will.
It appears that Gabriel’s words about Elizabeth prompted Mary to undertake the long trip to Judea without delay, hurrying to see her relative. A day’s journey would have been about 20 miles, and so it may have taken Mary about four days to reach the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth in a city located in the mountainous region of Judea. When Mary entered their home and greeted Elizabeth, the infant in her womb leaped. (Luke 1:39-41) This confirmed the angel Gabriel’s words that John would be filled with holy spirit from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15) His joyous leaping, under the apparent impulse of holy spirit, served to acknowledge the superiority of the son to whom Mary would give birth.
Guided by holy spirit, Elizabeth, in a loud voice, pronounced her young relative Mary as blessed among women and the “fruit of her womb” as blessed. “How can I be so favored,” Elizabeth continued, “that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” It had been her unborn baby’s joyous leaping when she heard Mary’s greeting that revealed to Elizabeth that her relative’s son would be her Lord, the Messiah whom all godly Israelites eagerly awaited. Elizabeth acknowledged Mary (unlike her husband Zechariah who had doubted) as having believed and called her fortunate, happy, blessed or in a desirable state of felicity, for everything that God had spoken by means of Gabriel would take place. (Luke 1:41-45)
Mary’s expressions of thanksgiving and praise parallel thoughts in the Psalms and in the words of Samuel’s mother Hannah. (1 Samuel 2:1-10; also see the Notes section for comparison purposes.) “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked upon the lowliness of his slave. For, see! from now on all generations will call me fortunate, for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy [is] his name. And his mercy [is] from generation to generation to those fearing him. He has displayed might with his arm. He has scattered those arrogant in the reasoning of their heart. He has brought down sovereigns from thrones and exalted the lowly. Hungry ones he has filled with good things, and the wealthy he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, having remembered mercy, just as he promised to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his seed forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)
Mary’s “soul” or she herself exalted or glorified her God. Her “spirit” or the motivating and energizing force of her inner life was filled with boundless joy on account of God to whom she looked as the savior or deliverer of his people from their distress. Humbly she acknowledged herself as his slave, expressing her appreciation for his having looked upon her with favor. Because of the son to whom she would give birth, people from all generations to come would recognize that she had been granted an exceedingly fortunate, blessed, or happy state. In view of developments involving her yet unborn son, the Mighty One had performed great or incomprehensibly astounding things for her. God’s name or he himself is “holy” or pure in the ultimate sense. Those having reverential regard for him in every generation would experience his mercy or compassionate concern and care.
It appears that Mary discerned that divine power would be prominently in evidence through the son to whom she would give birth and therefore mentioned the powerful working of God’s “arm” or might. Through the exercise of divine power, a tremendous reversal would take place. Those haughty in the thoughts of their hearts or in the reasoning and intentions of their inmost selves would be scattered, as are those who suffer defeat in battle. Rulers would be unseated, whereas the lowly would be exalted. Hungry ones would be fully satisfied, but those who had everything would come to have nothing. God’s people, those whom he recognized as his servant Israel, would experience his mercy in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and to his offspring.
For three months, Mary stayed with Elizabeth. As Mary is not referred to as being present immediately after the birth of John, this suggests that she left shortly before that joyous event. Possibly because of being able to join a group of travelers, she departed for her home prior to John’s birth. (Luke 1:56)
Notes:
The Scriptural record provides no information about Mary’s family. Nothing is said about whether her parents or only her mother or father were still alive and with whom she lived in Nazareth. According to tradition dating from the second century, her mother was Anna, Elizabeth’s sister, and her father was Joachim. On account of the many fantastic elements in accounts like the Protevangelium Jacobi (Protevangelium of James), it is impossible to determine which parts (if any) preserve a reliable tradition. This would include the statement that Mary was sixteen years old at the time she visited Elizabeth.
Considering the possible dangers lone travelers faced, Mary may have traveled in the company of others. It seems less likely that she would have done so by herself, especially since numerous opportunities existed for joining others as they made their way to Jerusalem in Judea. Throughout the course of the year, families from Nazareth and other cities and towns of Galilee would make the long trip to the temple there, to offer the sacrifices prescribed by the law.
The visit with Elizabeth made it possible for Mary to express her joy and faith to someone who best understood her feelings. It also provided her with an opportunity to assist Elizabeth during the more difficult part of her pregnancy.
The parallels in the language of Mary’s expressions and parts of 1 Samuel and Psalms are more apparent when compared with the reading of the Septuagint. For this purpose, the Greek is here provided in transliterated form (followed by an English translation).
1 Samuel 1:11: epiplépses epí tén tapeínosin tés doúles sou (“you would look upon the lowliness of your slave”)
Luke 1:48: epéplepsen epí tén tapeínosin tés doúles sou (“he has looked upon the lowliness of his slave”)
Psalm 111:9 (110:9, LXX): hágion kaí phoberón tó ónoma autoú (“holy and fear-inspiring [is] his name”)
Luke 1:49: hágion tó ónoma autoú (“holy [is] his name”)
Psalm 103:17 (102:17, LXX): tó dé éleos tou kyríou apó toú aiónos kaí héos tou aiónos epí toús phobouménous autón (“but the mercy of the Lord [is] from age to age upon those fearing him”)
Luke 1:50: kaí tó éleos autoú eis geneás kaí geneás toís phobouménous autón (“and his mercy [is] from generation to generation to those fearing him”)
Psalm 89:10 (88:11, LXX): en to brachíoni tés dynámeós sou dieskórpisas toús echthroús sou (“with the arm of your strength, you scattered your enemies”)
Luke 1:51: epoíesen krátos en brachíoni autoú, dieskórpisen hyperephánous dianoía kardías autón (“He has displayed might with his arm. He has scattered those arrogant in the reasoning of their heart.”)
Psalm 107:9 (106:9, LXX): psychén peinósan enéplesen agathón (“hungry souls he has filled with good things”)
Luke 1:53: peinóntas enéplesen agathón (“hungry ones he has filled with good things”)
When news about Elizabeth’s giving birth to a son reached her neighbors and relatives, they rejoiced with her and recognized that God had shown her great mercy. On the eighth day, as the law required, the baby was circumcised, and those present for the occasion wanted the boy to be named Zechariah after his father. Elizabeth objected, insisting that he would be called “John” (meaning “YHWH has been gracious”). They responded that no one among her relatives had that name and then motioned to the father to find out from him what the boy’s name should be. Zechariah indicated his desire to be given a tablet and then wrote, “John is his name.” This amazed all of them. (Luke 1:57-63)
At this point, Zechariah was again able to speak and blessed God. (Luke 1:64) Filled with holy spirit, he prophesied, saying: “Blessed [be the] Lord, the God of Israel, because he has looked upon and effected deliverance for his people. And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, just as he spoke from of old through the mouth of his holy prophets [about] salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all those hating us; to extend [the] mercy [promised] to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us to serve fearlessly in purity and uprightness before him all our days [upon] being rescued from the hand of our enemies.” (Luke 1:67-75)
Zechariah’s words focused on the deliverance God, through the promised Messiah, would bring about for Israel. Mary’s unborn child would prove to be the “horn” in the royal line of David. The expression “horn” pointed to the power he would have to effect the deliverance the ancient Hebrew prophets foretold. That deliverance would be an expression of divine mercy or compassion and a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham that contained the promise of liberation from oppression. Whereas the promise to Abraham included the future rescue of the Israelites from enslavement in Egypt (which rescue, in fulfillment of the covenant promise, had occurred centuries earlier), the oath-bound covenant continued in effect and thus provided a basis for hope in other divine acts of deliverance. (Genesis 15:13-16) Just as Israel’s rescue from Egypt made it possible for the people to serve their God without fear, the liberation to come through the Messiah would likewise grant those being freed the opportunity to serve God fearlessly in purity and uprightness all the days of their life. As the son born to Mary, Jesus, the Son of God, later revealed, he would free humans from slavery to sin and the enemy death. (John 8:21-23, 34-36) While Zechariah expressed the thought of deliverance in terms characteristic of the ancient Hebrew prophets, his words harmonized fully with the far grander salvation the Son of God would bring about.
Zechariah then pointed to the role his son would fill. John would be a “prophet of the Most High,” going before the Lord, the promised Messiah, to prepare his ways or to ready people for his appearance. John would do this by imparting knowledge to the Israelites about salvation made possible through the forgiveness of their sins. Zechariah continued, “Because of the tender mercy of our God, dawn from on high will come upon us, to shine upon those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death [and] to guide our feet into the path of peace.” On account of God’s great compassion, a new day would dawn with the arrival of the promised Messiah, dispelling the gloom and intense darkness that seemed to eclipse all hope. Guided by the light his coming would bring, those who chose to walk in that light would find themselves on the “path of peace” or would be conducting themselves in a way that would promote their eternal well-being as persons enjoying peace with God. (Luke 1:76-79)
Upon hearing about (or witnessing) developments at the time John was circumcised, neighbors were filled with a reverential fear, and others in the mountainous region of Judea started to talk about these things. The news regarding John made a deep impression, causing people to wonder, “What really will this boy come to be?” God’s hand or the operation of divine power was with the child. (Luke 1:65, 66)
Matthew’s account passes over in silence about how and when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant through the operation of holy spirit. An engagement required a woman to remain chaste, and unfaithfulness to her future husband constituted adultery. Moreover, the engagement was just as binding as marriage and could only be terminated by giving the woman a divorce certificate that would allow her to marry another man. Therefore, Joseph faced a serious dilemma on account of Mary’s pregnancy prior to their being united in marriage. To all appearances, she had been unfaithful, and the truthful explanation Mary may have given him could not be verified. While miracles had occurred in the past, nothing of this nature had ever taken place. (Matthew 1:18)
Being righteous or a man who wanted to do what is right, Joseph did not want to expose Mary to public shame. So he considered divorcing her secretly, perhaps in the presence of two witnesses. Then, in a dream, an angel appeared to him and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for what is conceived in her is through holy spirit. And she will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:19-21)
Upon awakening from his dream, Joseph followed through on the angelic direction and took Mary as his wife but had no intimate relations with her until she gave birth to the son whom he called Jesus. (Matthew 1:24, 25)
Mary’s pregnancy fulfilled the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14), “Behold! The virgin will conceive and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name ‘Immanuel,’ which means, ‘With us [is] God.’” (Matthew 1:22, 23; see the Notes section for a detailed consideration of Isaiah’s prophecy and its relation to the foretold Messiah.)
Notes:
The name “Jesus” means “YHWH is salvation” and so pointed to his role as God’s means for salvation or deliverance from sin. As the angel explained, this is the name the child should be given because he would “save his people from their sins.”
With the exception of different forms of the verb for “call,” the wording of Isaiah 7:14 in extant Septuagint manuscripts is the same as in Matthew 1:23. The Masoretic Text refers to the woman who would give birth as ‘almáh (a young woman who may be either a wife or a virgin). In the Septuagint and in Matthew 1:23, the corresponding term is parthénos, (“virgin”). By reason of her engagement, Mary already belonged to Joseph as his “young woman” and was also a virgin. The more specific Greek term reflected the precise circumstances that uniquely applied in Mary’s case. Knowing Jesus to be the Son of God whose life as a human came about through the direct operation of holy spirit and not the usual process of procreation, Matthew recognized that the words of Isaiah 7:14 matched exactly what had occurred in Jesus’ case and could therefore refer to them as having been fulfilled.
Isaiah’s prophecy does, however, also relate to the situation existing in his time. The Syrian king Rezin formed an alliance with Israelite king Pekah. Both were intent on overthrowing King Ahaz, replacing him with the son of Tabeel. Upon coming to know about this conspiracy, Ahaz and his subjects gave way to fear. YHWH directed Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub to meet Ahaz. The message for the king was that he should not lose courage, for the attempt to dethrone him would fail. (Isaiah 7:1-9)
Ahaz was invited to ask for a confirmatory sign, but the faithless king refused to do so. Nevertheless, through Isaiah, YHWH did announce a sign: “The maiden [is] pregnant and is bearing a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” Before this boy would be able to discriminate between good and bad, the threat from the kingdoms of Israel and Syria would have ceased to exist, and he would be eating curds and honey. The kingdom of Judah, however, would be subjected to Assyrian aggression. (Isaiah 7:10-17)
Historically, the conquest of Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III brought an end to the threat of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Syria. The Syrian capital Damascus fell to the Assyrian forces, and King Rezin was killed. The Assyrians invaded the Israelite territories of Gilead, Galilee, and Naphtali, taking many of the inhabitants into exile. The kingdom of Judah also suffered from Assyrian invasion. (2 Kings 15:29; 16:9; 1 Chronicles 5:6, 26; 2 Chronicles 28:20) This may explain why the boy Immanuel is spoken of as eating curds and honey. Assyrian campaigns disrupted the usual agricultural operations, forcing many in the kingdom of Judah to subsist largely on wild honey and dairy products. (Isaiah 7:20-25)
The identity of the maiden and her child in the time of Isaiah is unknown, and this aspect more readily served the purpose of pointing forward to the birth of the promised Messiah, Jesus. As the direct representative of his Father, Jesus lived up to the name “Immanuel,” meaning “with us [is] God.” In the person of his unique Son, God was indeed with his people.
While Quirinius governed Syria, Caesar Augustus (who ruled from 27 BCE to 14 CE) ordered a census, which required Joseph (as a descendant in the royal line of David) and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, David’s city. In Bethlehem, Mary gave birth to Jesus, swaddled him, and placed him in a feeding trough for animals. (Luke 2:1-7)
At the time of Jesus’ birth, shepherds were still living out in the field at night, watching over their flocks. That night, an angel appeared to them and divine “glory” or brilliant light shone around them. Great fear then gripped the shepherds. After reassuring them with the words, “fear not,” the angel continued, “I am announcing to you glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people, for today was born a savior, who is Christ the Lord, in David’s city. And this [is] the sign for you: You will find a swaddled infant lying in a manger.” Suddenly, a multitude of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory in the heights to God and upon earth peace among men of good will.” (The expression “men of good will” designates persons toward whom God’s good will or favor is directed.) Whereas the angels were moved to express joyous praise respecting God’s arrangement for salvation through his Son, many humans have not responded with joy and gratitude even though they, and not the angels, are the intended beneficiaries. (Luke 2:8-13)
After the angels left, departing into heaven, the shepherds hurried to Bethlehem. There they saw Mary, Joseph, and the infant lying in a manger. The shepherds related what had been revealed to them about the child. (Luke 2:15-17) Upon returning to their flocks, they glorified and praised God for all they had been told and had been privileged to see. (Luke 2:20)
“All who heard” the words of the shepherds were filled with wonderment. In Mary’s case, the words made a deep and lasting impression. She treasured them, and they were expressions on which she pondered in her “heart” or in her inmost self. (Luke 2:18, 19) The reference to “all who heard” would not be limited to Joseph and Mary and likely is to be understood as meaning all with whom the shepherds, on other occasions, shared what they had seen and heard.
Notes:
Based on the biblical account, the census was taken while Herod the Great reigned. Existing historical references to Quirinius from the final part of Herod the Great’s reign, however, do not provide the specifics needed for establishing in what capacity Quirinius may have governed Syria before Jesus’ birth.
The Greek word in Luke 2:7 is katályma, which often has been translated “inn.” In the parable about the compassionate Samaritan, where the reference definitely is to an inn, the Greek term is pandocheíon. (Luke 10:34) The term katályma, in other contexts, designates a “guest room” (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11) and basically denotes a “lodging place.” Therefore, Joseph and Mary may actually have been accommodated in a very modest home where the guest room was already occupied. In such a humble home, animals would have been kept in the courtyard, with a manger being a hollow place in a stone platform above the courtyard. On the platform itself, people could be accommodated.
According to ancient tradition dating back to the second century, Jesus was born in a cave. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (78), wrote that when Joseph could not find lodging in Bethlehem “he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village.” No reliable evidence exists for confirming this frequently repeated tradition.
Bethlehem is situated about 2,500 feet above sea level. During the rainy season in winter, low temperatures at night may sometimes drop to the freezing point. Wintertime, therefore, would not fit the circumstance of shepherds keeping watch over their flocks at night. If Daniel 9:27 is correctly understood to foretell Christ’ death in the middle of a seven-year week (although there is no general agreement about the application of the Daniel passage), this would mean that his ministry lasted three and a half years. Since Jesus died in the spring, this would place his birth in the fall.
See http://bibleplaces.com/bethlehem.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethlehem.
The genealogy in Matthew and the one in Luke establish that Jesus Christ is a descendant of David, with Matthew’s list having an introduction specifically identifying Jesus Christ, as “son of David, son of Abraham.” While of particular significance to Jews who expected the Messiah to come in the royal line of David, this aspect would have been of lesser concern to non-Jews. Apparently with non-Jews in mind, Luke traced the genealogy back to the beginning of the human race. For the most part, the names from Adam through Abraham (appearing in the reverse order in Luke) are the same as those found in Genesis 5:3-32 and 1 Chronicles 1:1-4, 24-27. The names are Greek transliterations, and the spellings in extant manuscripts of Luke’s account and the Septuagint text do vary at times.
In the extant text of Luke 3:36, 37, the name “Cainan” appears twice, as a son (or descendant) of Enosh and also as a son (or descendant) of Arpachshad (Arphaxad). The inclusion of Cainan between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah (Sala, the Greek spelling in LXX and Luke) agrees with the Septuagint (but not the Masoretic Text) listing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12, 13.
From Abraham to David, extant manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, for the most part, have the same names with the same Greek spellings. (See the Notes section for variations in manuscript readings.)
After David, Matthew traces the lineage through Solomon, whereas Luke does so through David’s son Nathan. (2 Samuel 5:13, 14; 1 Chronicles 3:5) Both Matthew and Luke include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel but then immediately diverge. While Matthew lists Jechoniah (Jeconiah, Jehoiachin) as the son of Shealtiel, Luke lists Neri. The absence of any reference to Neri in the biblical record makes it impossible to determine precisely how he was related to Shealtiel.
Already in ancient times, the significant difference in the two genealogies was recognized as problematic. Julius Africanus (170-245) concluded that levirate marriage was involved, with Joseph being the offspring of a man having the same mother as the deceased brother but a different father. If Jacob was indeed the deceased brother, Joseph would have been the natural son of Heli but the legal son of Jacob. A possible explanation from a later period is that Matthew traced the lineage through Joseph, whereas Luke did so through Heli, the father of Mary.
Both possible explanations for the difference in the genealogies have their defenders and their detractors. Whereas the conjecture of Julius Africanus requires extraordinary circumstances (the same mother but different fathers for two brothers), it reveals that he knew of no tradition identifying Heli as Mary’s father. The second-century “Protevangelium of James” speaks of her father as having been Joachim.
Only Matthew includes women in the genealogy. Tamar, a Canaanitess, tricked her father-in-law Judah into having relations with her because he did not make his son Shelah available for levirate marriage. (Genesis 38:6-19) Rahab, a Canaanitess of Jericho and a prostitute, hid the two Israelite spies and secured their safety. On account of her act of faith based on what she had heard about YHWH’s dealings with his people, Rahab and her relatives did not lose their lives. She later married Salmon (Salman, Sala) of the tribe of Judah. (Joshua 2:1-21; 6:22-25; 1 Chronicles 2:11) Widowed Ruth the Moabitess accompanied her widowed mother-in-law Naomi from Moab to Judah, declaring her oath-bound determination to remain with her, to worship YHWH, and to be part of his people. Through the arrangement of levirate marriage, she came to be the wife of Boaz. (Ruth 1:15-17; 4:9-12) Bath-sheba with whom King David had an adulterous relationship and whose husband he arranged to have killed in battle to cover up his sin is not mentioned by name. She is referred to as “the one of Uriah,” thus, in effect, representing David as raising up offspring for the loyal Hittite warrior whose death he had plotted. (2 Samuel 11:2-17) The mention of these women in the genealogy provides indirect evidence for the trustworthiness of the biblical record about the royal line. It is inconceivable that anyone would have invented this kind of information.
The genealogy in Matthew is arranged in three segments of fourteen generations — from Abraham to David (14 names), from David to the Babylonian exile (14 names, starting with David and ending with Josiah), from the Babylonian exile until the Messiah (14 names, starting with Jechoniah [Jeconiah, Jehoiachin] who was taken into Babylonian exile and ending with Jesus). This arrangement may have been designed to function as a memory aid. (Matthew 1:17) Although not including all the preserved names in the royal line (Ahaziah, Jehoash [Joash], Amaziah, and Jehoiakim are omitted), the genealogy is sufficient to establish that Jesus can be identified as “son of David, son of Abraham.”
The omission of Ahaziah, his son Jehoash (Joash), and his grandson Amaziah may be significant. Ahaziah was the son of King Jehoram and Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. The notoriously evil conduct of Ahab and Jezebel led to divine condemnation of the entire house of Ahab. Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah and father of Jehoiachin (Jechoniah, Jeconiah), may have been omitted on account of his abominable record of corruption and bloodshed.
Notes:
Greek spelling variations for names include the following: Iáred (Genesis 5:15-20; 1 Chronicles 1:2, LXX) and Iáret (Luke 3:37); Salmán (Ruth 4:20, LXX), Salmón (1 Chronicles 2:11, LXX; Matthew 1:4, 5), and Salá (1 Chronicles 1:24, LXX; Luke 3:32, 35); Bóos (Ruth 4:21; 1 Chronicles 2:11, 12; LXX; Luke 3:32) and Boés (Matthew 1:5); Obéd (Ruth 4:21, 22; 1 Chronicles 2:12, LXX) and Iobéd (Matthew 1:5; Luke 3:32); Asa (1 Chronicles 3:10, LXX) and Asáph (Matthew 1:8).
For Luke 3:33, there are various manuscript readings, including “[son] of Amminadab, of Admin, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Adam, of Admin, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aminadam, of Aram, of Almei, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Amminadab, of Admin, of Aram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aram, of Amminadab, of Armin, of Arnin, of Hezron of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aminadam, of Joram, of Aram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Amminadab, of Aram, of Joram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah.” “Admin” and “Arni,” the two names often appearing in manuscripts of Luke, are missing from 1 Chronicles. In Matthew’s genealogy “Aram” (Ram) is the name between Hezron and Amminadab.
On the eighth day, the infant was circumcised. Joseph and Mary, in keeping with divine direction conveyed through the angel Gabriel to Mary and later through an angel in a dream to Joseph, named the boy Jesus. (2:21)
According to the Mosaic law, a woman remained in a state of ceremonial uncleanness for seven days after the birth of a boy. After the completion of an additional 33-day purification period, the woman was required to present a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. If she could not afford a lamb, she could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons. (Leviticus 12:1-8)
After the completion of the purification period, Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to present the infant Jesus at the temple. By presenting him there to the Most High, they fulfilled the legal requirement designating every firstborn male as holy to God. (Exodus 13:2, 12, 15) Mary availed herself of the provision allowing her to offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons. (Leviticus 12:8) This reveals that Joseph and Mary had limited means and that the magi had not as yet come to Bethlehem. The costly gifts of the magi would have provided Mary with the needed resources to offer a year-old lamb. (Luke 2:22-24)
While Joseph and Mary were at the temple, upright Simeon came up to them. This reverential resident of Jerusalem eagerly looked forward to the time when consolation would come to Israel through the promised Messiah. By means of God’s spirit, he had received a revelation that he would live to see the Messiah or “Christ of the Lord.” Under the impulse of God’s spirit, he had come to the temple and approached Joseph and Mary. Taking Jesus into his arms, he praised God and said, “Now, Sovereign Lord, according to your word, you are letting your slave go in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all the peoples — a light for revelation to the nations and a glory for your people Israel.” (Luke 2:25-32)
Having seen the one who would grow up to reveal himself as the promised Messiah, Simeon felt that he could die in peace, content that his earnest desire respecting Israel would be fulfilled. His prophetic words of thanksgiving indicated that the arrival of the Messiah would benefit people of other nations. The Messiah would serve as a “light for revelation to the nations,” showing how people could be rescued from their state of darkness, a sad condition without God and hope and an empty life spent in ignorance and sin. (Compare Isaiah 42:6, 7; Ephesians 2:12; 4:17, 18; 5:7-12; Titus 3:3; 1 Peter 1:14, 18, 19.) As the one through whom all the divine promises would be fulfilled (including liberation from sin and death), the Messiah would be a glory to Israel. For the Israelites, having him come from their midst would be an unparalleled noble distinction. Years later, Jesus said to a Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews,” for he, as the promised Messiah, was an Israelite according to the flesh. (John 4:22)
Upon hearing Simeon’s words about Jesus, Joseph and Mary could not help but be amazed. (Luke 2:33) Simeon blessed them and then directed his words to Mary. Her son would cause the rising and falling of many in Israel. This indicated that there would be those who would accept him, while others would reject him. All who responded in faith, accepting him as the promised Messiah, would rise from their low estate as sinners to enjoy the dignity of reconciled children of God. All who persisted in unbelief would fall, losing out on everything, including their imagined status as being privileged “sons of Abraham.” Jesus would be a sign against whom hateful talk would be directed. By what he would say and do, he would be God’s sign to the people (as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and Isaiah and his sons proved to be signs to Israel). (Isaiah 8:18; Luke 11:30) Because of the suffering Jesus would experience, the effect would be like that of a sword run through the “soul” of Mary or through her herself. The impact Jesus would have on others and their response would expose the thoughts of many hearts or would reveal people’s inmost selves. (Luke 4:34, 35)
Eighty-four-year-old Anna, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, also approached Joseph and Mary. Evidently filled with gratitude for having been able to see the infant, she gave thanks to God. Anna, after seven years of marriage, had been widowed and remained single for the rest of her life. She spent her time at the temple, rendering service during the day and the night. This godly woman fasted and persisted in intense prayer. After having seen Joseph and Mary with the infant, she spoke about the boy to all who were awaiting Jerusalem’s deliverance. Anna did not indiscriminately broadcast the joyous news about the coming deliverer who had been born but shared the information with those who, like her, had looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and the liberation he would bring about. (Luke 2:36-38) In view of the kind of ruler Herod the Great had revealed himself to be, she must have been aware that he and others would not welcome this news.
Notes:
The words of Luke 2:23, “every male opening a womb should be called holy to the Lord” is not an exact quotation but accurately expresses the regulation as set forth in Exodus (13:2, 12, 15).
In Luke 2:24, the words regarding “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” convey the same meaning as in the extant text of Leviticus 12:8 in the Septuagint, but the words are not identical.
Close to the end of Herod the Great’s rule, magi (astrologers) arrived in Jerusalem. While in their own land, situated a considerable distance to the east, they had seen a star that caused them to conclude that the king of the Jews had been born. They seemingly thought that this would have been known in Jerusalem, prompting their inquiry about the location of the newborn king. Their purpose for wanting to see him was to prostrate themselves before him, acknowledging him as king and presenting him with precious gifts befitting one who would eventually reign. (Matthew 2:1, 2)
News about their arrival and inquiry greatly disturbed Herod and the general populace of Jerusalem. Herod called for the chief priests and Jewish scribes to assemble and then asked them where the “anointed one” (the Christ) would be born. Based on the prophecy of Micah (5:1[2]), they answered, “Bethlehem of Judah.” (Matthew 2:3-6)
Thereafter Herod arranged a secret meeting with the magi and found out from them just when they had seen the star. It would appear that he wanted to raise no suspicion about his real intent and so sent them to Bethlehem unaccompanied by anyone from his court. He requested that they carefully search for the newborn king and, upon finding him, report back to him, as he, too, wanted to prostrate himself before him. (Matthew 2:7, 8)
Upon starting out for Bethlehem, the magi again saw the star they had seen earlier and were overjoyed. The star went ahead of them, leading them on their way. Then, in Bethlehem, based on the position of the star in relation to the houses, the magi located the home where the child was, entered, saw him with his mother Mary, prostrated themselves before him, and presented gold, incense, and myrrh as gifts. Warned in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi returned to their own country by another route. (Matthew 2:9-12)
Notes:
The inhabitants of Jerusalem must have known how seriously Herod viewed any possible threat to his rule, and this may be the reason for their alarm about the inquiry of the magi.
The quotation from the prophecy of Micah departs considerably from the extant text of the Septuagint (which reflects the wording of the Masoretic Text) but preserves the basic thought. The Septuagint reads, “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, few are you to be among the thousands of Judah. From you will come forth to me the one to become ruler in Israel.” Matthew 2:6 says, “And you, Bethlehem, [in the] land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you will come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
Reference works, based on the way the comments of Josephus are commonly interpreted, usually place the death of Herod in 4 BCE. This date appears to be too early to fit Luke’s account about the start of John’s proclamation of repentance and the baptism of Jesus. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus Caesar in 14 CE, John began to serve as a prophet. At the time of his baptism by John, Jesus was “about thirty years old.” (Luke 3:1-3, 21-23) A 4 BCE date for Herod’s death would place Jesus’ birth approximately two years earlier (c. 6 BCE), raising a question regarding his being “about thirty years of age” in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (28/29 CE). A commonly proposed solution is to interpret the “fifteenth year of Tiberius” to mean the fifteenth year from the start of his coregency with Augustus Caesar (or between 11 CE and 13 CE instead of 14 CE).
Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 1; War, I, xxxiii, 8) indicates that Herod the Great ruled for 34 years after the execution of Antigonus and 37 years after the Romans had made him king. He also refers to an eclipse of the moon taking place shortly before Herod’s death. (Antiquities, XVII, vi, 4) A partial eclipse of the moon did occur on March 13, 4 BCE (Julian calendar). Because this eclipse was partial, some favor 5 BCE as the year in which Herod died. In that year two total eclipses occurred, one on March 23 (Julian calendar) and the other on September 15 (Julian calendar). Not until January 9 (Julian calendar) of 1 BCE did another total eclipse of the moon take place, and the year 1 BCE would more closely agree with Jesus’ having been about 30 years of age at the time of his baptism (after John began his activity in the fifteenth year of Tiberius or in 28/29 CE, according to the usual reckoning).
On September 2, 31 BCE, the forces of Octavius (later Augustus Caesar ) defeated those of Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) in a naval battle near Actium in Greece. (Antiquities, XV, v, 2) Josephus places this event in the seventh year of Herod’s reign. When counted from the time Herod ruled after the death of Antigonus, six full years and some months of his reign had passed, with about 28 years of a 34-year rule remaining or with about 31 years of a 37-year rule remaining. Those who favor the 4 BCE date for Herod’s death start the count from the year 37 BCE, which they take to be the beginning of the 34-year rule. The minority view is that the Romans appointed Herod as king late in 39 BCE and that his first official regnal year began in 38 BCE and ended in the month of Elul (August/September) of 37 BCE. When Herod’s reign as a Roman appointee is counted as starting in the year 38/37 BCE, this would support the 1 BCE date for Herod’s death.
According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, iv, 6), Philip the tetrarch, the son of Herod by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, died after a 37-year rule in the twentieth year of Tiberias’ reign, which would have been 33/34 CE. This would harmonize with a date of 4 BCE for Herod’s death. But there are editions of the Antiquities dating from before 1700 that read “twenty-second year of Tiberius,” supporting the 1 BCE date for the death of Herod.
The chronological references in the writings of Josephus regarding Archelaus and Antipas are usually understood as supporting the 4 BCE date for Herod’s death. In 6 CE, Augustus Caesar banished Archelaus after a rule of about nine or ten years. (Antiquities, XVII, xiii, 2; War, II, vii, 3; Cassius Dio, LV, 27, 6) Antipas, based on numismatic evidence, ruled 43 years. His rule ended in the second year of Caligula (Gaius Caesar) or in 38/39 CE. Caligula, on the basis of letters from Agrippa, banished Antipas for requesting to be elevated from tetrarch to king. (Antiquities, XVIII, vii, 2; War, II, ix, 6) In connection with Archelaus and Antipas, arguments in support of the 1 BCE date for Herod’s death primarily rest on assumptions about a coregency for Archelaus and antedating for Antipas.
In the extant text of Josephus, acknowledged mistakes and inconsistencies in the way he dates events exist. For example, according to his Antiquities (XIV, ix, 2), Herod was made governor of Galilee at the age of 15, but 25 is regarded as having been the correct age. In Antiquities (XVII, xiii, 2), Josephus indicates that Archelaus was banished in the tenth year of his rule, but, in War (II, vii, 3), he says that it was in the ninth year. Consequently, without clear corroborative evidence from other sources, one simply cannot be certain about various dates.
A definitive answer respecting the year of Jesus’ birth is not possible, and conflicting views will doubtless continue to be advocated. As the prime focus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is on Jesus’ activity after his baptism, there is no pressing need for seeking a definitive solution about the year of his birth.
Throughout the centuries, many have been troubled by the account about the magi. The Israelites were directed to have nothing to do with astrological observations and other means used by surrounding nations in attempts to predict future events. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; compare Isaiah 47:13, 14; Jeremiah 27:9, 10; 29:8, 9.) Although Matthew was not moved to do so, many have felt the need to explain that astrology is wrong and have even concluded that the appearance of the “star” and the subsequent arrival of the magi in Jerusalem figured in a satanic plot to bring about Jesus’ death as a child. Divine intervention only came to prevent the magi from returning to Herod. In cases where God is perceived as being far away from the magi, nothing about them is regarded in a positive light.
When, however, a person looks upon this account as an evidence that God can lead sincere seekers to a noble goal and make allowances for their seriously flawed views, the account takes on a very different meaning. Whatever partial knowledge the magi may have had about the significance of the birth of a future king of the Jews, they acted on it. The child they planned to acknowledge as king and for whom the precious gifts were intended would not then have been able to favor them in any special way. Their only reward would have been finding the object of their quest, a quest, which, on the basis of their limited knowledge, deserved considerable effort.
May it, therefore, not be that the account serves to show that God is not far away from any member of the human family? Our heavenly Father did not prevent the magi from finding his Son, acknowledging him as king, and leaving their precious gifts, and what God allows is his work. May we not rightly conclude that sincere seekers (regardless of how very wrong some of their views may be) can find Christ and the heavenly Father through him and be favorably received?
Numerous traditions arose in the centuries that passed about the magi, with their being designated as three kings (probably based on the three gifts). Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar are the names by which they came to be known in the West. In the East and Ethiopia, they came to be called Hor, Karsudan, and Basanater. Among the Armenians, they were Kagbha, Badadakharida, and Badadilma. In Syria, they came to be known as Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas. None of these traditional names have any historical support. Matthew’s account reveals nothing about how many undertook the journey nor is any clue provided about their identity or their land of origin. Still, the absence of specifics has not prevented numerous conjectures from being made about them even in recent times.
After the departure of the magi, an angel warned Joseph in a dream that Herod had determined to kill the child and directed that he, Mary, and the boy flee to Egypt. Without delay, Joseph obeyed. While it was still night, the family started on their journey. Under the cover of darkness, their departure would have gone unnoticed. (Matthew 2:13, 14)
Realizing that the magi had not complied with his request to return with a report about the child and that his objective had been foiled, Herod became enraged and ordered the slaying of all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were under the age of two. Basing his order on the time he had ascertained from the magi, he determined the age bracket of those he wanted to be killed. (Matthew 2:16)
The population of Bethlehem and its environs would have been comparatively small, and the number of boys killed may have been around twenty. So, if it had not been mentioned in Matthew’s account, the event (considering the other atrocities committed during Herod’s reign) would not have been of such monumental significance as to have been preserved in history.
For the mothers who lost their sons in this brutal manner, the grief and pain would have been indescribable. Their bitter experience paralleled that of the people of the kingdom of Judah when the conquering Babylonians ripped them from their land and took them into exile. At that time, in Ramah, Rachel (the mother of Benjamin [whose descendants formed a significant part of the population], possibly representing the people as a whole) wept profusely. Situated in the territory of Benjamin, Ramah may have been the place where the Babylonians assembled captives to be slaughtered or exiled, giving rise to lamentation. Likewise, the bereaved mothers in and around Bethlehem must have wept bitterly, fulfilling the words recorded in the book of Jeremiah (31:15; 38:15, LXX), “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and much lamenting; Rachel weeping for her children, and she does not want to be comforted, for they are not.” (Matthew 2:17, 18)
Notes:
The costly gifts of the magi would have provided the family with funds to sustain them in Egypt. Additionally, they would have been able to be among fellow Jews. The city of Alexandria, for example, had a large Jewish population.
It may be noted that, on account of rulers, the life of Moses and that of Jesus were threatened while they were helpless little ones. In both cases, parental action played a role in their preservation. (Exodus 2:1-9)
Though differing from the Greek text of Matthew 2:18, the extant Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 31:15 (38:15) conveys the same thought. The Septuagint reads, “A voice was heard in Ramah, of mourning and of wailing and of lamenting. Rachel did not want to cease weeping for her sons, because they are not.”
The words of the Scriptures to which Matthew referred as having been fulfilled are found in a specific historical setting. In the case of Jesus, they precisely described developments associated with his life and so were fulfilled. They took on a fullness of meaning they did not have in all the centuries that had passed since they were first committed to writing.
Herod’s order to kill the boys aged two years and under reflects his response to any threat to his reign and the continuance of rulership in his line of descent. According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, II, 4), certain Pharisees predicted that “God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it.” Upon learning about this, Herod “slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused ... He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold.”
Joseph remained in Egypt with the family until the death of Herod. As God considered Israel collectively as his “son” and called him out of Egypt, so he also called his unique Son out of Egypt. In the case of Jesus, the words of Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) applied in a direct way and thus were fulfilled. (Matthew 2:15)
Upon Herod’s death, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, telling him to return to the land of Israel with the child and his mother, for those seeking the life of the boy were dead. Joseph heeded this directive, but news that Archelaus ruled over Judea instead of Herod made Joseph fearful. In a dream, he received a warning that confirmed the validity of his fear, prompting him to head for Galilee with his family and to settle in the city of Nazareth. (Matthew 2:19-23)
The name “Nazareth” appears to incorporate the Hebrew word nétser, meaning “sprout.” Possibly this is the basis for Matthew’s statement (2:23) that Jesus’ being called a Nazarene fulfilled the words of the prophets, as they foretold the coming Messianic “sprout” (Isaiah 11:1; see also Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12, where a different Hebrew word tsémach also signifies “branch” or “sprout.”)
The Scriptural record reveals little about Jesus’ early life in Nazareth. In time, he came to have brothers (James, Joses [Joseph], Judas, and Simon) and sisters. (Mark 6:3) As he grew older, he gave evidence of being very wise and having God’s favor. (Luke 2:39, 40)
Evidence of Jesus’ remarkable wisdom is revealed by an incident narrated in Luke’s account. Joseph and Mary customarily attended the festival of the Passover in Jerusalem. When Jesus was twelve years old and the family probably included other children, he stayed behind in the city at the time his parents left. Likely occupied with caring for the smaller children, they assumed that he was among relatives or friends. When, however, they had completed a day’s journey and he did not join them, they became concerned and began to look for him. Not finding him in the company of fellow travelers, they returned to Jerusalem. After three days, they located him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening and asking questions. The understanding his words and answers revealed amazed everyone who heard him speak. His parents were astonished when seeing him in this setting. (Luke 2:41-48)
Mary voiced her motherly concern, “Child, why did you do this to us? See, your father and I have been greatly worried, looking for you.” Knowing that God was his real Father, Jesus was surprised that it did not occur to them that he would be in the temple. He replied, “Why did you look for me? Did you not know that I must be in the [house] of my Father?” Joseph and Mary, though, did not grasp the significance of Jesus’ reference to his heavenly Father. Still, his words did make a deep impression on Mary, and she treasured them in her heart or in her deep inner self, likely reflecting on what he may have meant. (Luke 2:48-51)
In the intervening years, Jesus conducted himself as an obedient son and learned the carpenter trade from Joseph. As he grew physically, he gained the favorable recognition of those with whom he interacted, and others could see him as person upon whom God’s favor rested. (Luke 2:51, 52)
Notes:
In the extant text of the Septuagint, Hosea 11:1 reads, “Out of Egypt I called his children.” Matthew’s quotation, however, agrees with the Masoretic Text (“Out of Egypt I called my son”).
Not long after the military force that had been in Herod’s service proclaimed Archelaus as king (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 2), the Jews assaulted a regiment of soldiers he had sent to quell unrest stemming from his refusal to grant earlier requests. Thereupon he sent his whole army to the temple area, with orders to kill. The military force then slew 3,000 men. (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 3) Possibly news of this event reached Egypt, contributing to Joseph’s initial fear about taking up residence in territory under the rule of Archelaus.
Steeped in idolatry, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, the world in the first century CE was in darkness, the darkness of moral degradation and superstition. Having lived and labored in many of the major cities then existing, the Roman citizen Paul possessed firsthand knowledge about the greatness of that darkness and described humans who chose to suppress the voice of conscience. “They were filled with all [manner] of unrighteousness, depravity, covetousness, viciousness, envy, murder, discord, treachery, [being] ill-tempered, detractors, defamers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, devoid of natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:29-31)
Into this world of darkness, the “light,” in the person of God’s unique Son, was about to come, effecting liberation for all who chose to accept it. Among earth’s inhabitants, only the Jews and those who had come to believe the message contained in their sacred writings were acquainted with the true God. In keeping with the promises contained in those sacred writings, the Most High raised up a prophet to prepare his people for the arrival of the “light.” This prophet was John, the son of the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. John testified concerning the light, leading others to respond in faith. The “true light” would impart “light” to all men or people everywhere, providing enlightenment about his Father and how to enter into an abiding relationship with him as his approved children. (John 1:6-9)
In the person of God’s Son, the “light” was about to make an entrance into the world of mankind, the world to which he was not new. Through him, the human family had come into existence. Therefore, humans should have recognized him as one with whom they had a relationship, but they did not. He came to his own people, the only people who professed belief in his Father, but the majority did not accept him. In the case of those who did respond in faith, he made it possible for them to become God’s children. Their newness of life or new birth could not be attributed to “blood” (a particular line of descent), “flesh” (natural procreation), or the “will of man” (adoption). They were born “from God.” (John 1:9-13)
John, after having spent some time in the wilderness, began his public activity in the vicinity of the Jordan River. (Luke 1:80) At the end of the third decade of the first century CE, during the reign of Tiberius, he called upon his fellow Israelites to repent of their sins and, in expression of their repentance, to be baptized by him. (See the Notes section for the names of other ruling authorities at that time.) In keeping with the seriousness of his message, John lived an austere life in the wilderness. His diet consisted of wild honey and locusts (insects that were clean according to the terms of the Mosaic law and provided him with food high in protein). John’s garment probably consisted of camel hide still covered with the hair, and his belt likely was just a strip of leather. (Matthew 3:1-4; Mark 1:4, 6; Luke 3:1-4) Another possibility is that the garment was made from rough cloth woven from long camel’s hair.
John’s preparatory activity for the arrival of God’s Son fulfilled the words recorded in Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3-5): “Look! I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; see the Commentary section for Malachi 3:1.) “A voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4) “Every ravine will be filled, and every mountain and hill leveled, and curves will be straightened and uneven places [made] into smooth ways. And all flesh will behold the salvation of God.” (Luke 3:5, 6)
As the foretold messenger, John cleared the way before God’s Son by preparing fellow Israelites to accept him. Initially, John appears to have proclaimed the message about “baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins” in settlements along the Jordan. (Luke 3:3) Emphasizing that the promised Messiah, the king in the royal line of David, was about to appear on the scene, John declared, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Matthew 3:2) Then as news about his activity began to spread, people from Judea, the region along the Jordan, and the city of Jerusalem started coming to him in increasing numbers and were baptized after confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:5, 6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7) This suggests that John remained in a specific area for a time.
Among those who came were Pharisees and Sadducees to whom John directed strong denunciatory words, as they were not rightly motivated. “Offspring of vipers, who has shown you how to escape from the wrath to come? Then produce fruit befitting repentance. And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham [as our] father.’ For I say to you, From these stones [the ones they could see and to which John may have pointed], God is able to raise up children for Abraham. Already the ax lies at the root of the trees [to cut them down]. Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and tossed into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9) While they imagined that the merits of Abraham guaranteed God’s favor, John made it clear that this was not the case. What counted was genuine repentance and not natural descent from the patriarch. The Most High did not depend on natural descent for there to be offspring for Abraham.
In response to John’s proclamation, people asked, “What should we do?” His replies indicated that fruit befitting repentance involved treating others in a compassionate and just manner. “Let the one who has two garments share with the one who has none, and the one with food let him do likewise.” To tax collectors, he said, “Do not ask for more than the required rate.” They were not to enrich themselves by dishonest means. He admonished soldiers serving in the Jewish force not to resort to extortion or to accuse others falsely, but to be satisfied with their provisions. They were not to use their position to exact payment under false pretenses and thus procure unjust gain for themselves. (Luke 3:10-14)
The people were in expectation of Messiah’s coming and wondered whether John might not possibly be the one. He made it clear to them that he was not the Messiah, identifying this coming one as being stronger than he was. John revealed that the coming one would possess such greatness that he would not consider himself deserving of rendering the menial task reserved for slaves — stooping down to loosen the strap of his sandal. While he baptized with water, the coming one would baptize with “holy spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:15, 16)
Persons whom John baptized with water were immersed in that element, as were utensils for cleansing purposes. (Mark 7:4) Similarly, those whom the Messiah would baptize with holy spirit would experience the powerful working of God as persons immersed in the element of the spirit. They would be “clothed” with power from the Most High, being energized or motivated to conduct themselves in a divinely approved manner and to carry out God’s will. (Luke 24:49)
Baptism with “fire” appears to denote a fiery judgment to befall those who refused to repent, for John added, “The winnowing shovel [is] in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire.” Also in other ways, John exhorted those who came to him as he proclaimed the glad tidings about the coming Messiah. (Luke 3:17, 18; Matthew 3:12)
Notes:
Mark’s account starts with John’s activity as a prophet, linking it to the beginning of the glad tidings about Jesus Christ, God’s Son. (Mark 1:1) This is appropriate, for it was then that the preparation for Messiah’s arrival began, and the opportunity opened up for repentant ones to share in the privileges and blessings that would follow.
Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius, governed Judea for ten years. Herod (Antipas) held the position of tetrarch of Galilee. His brother Philip (whom Josephus calls Herod; the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem) was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitus. Both regions were located northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Lysanias the tetrarch ruled Abilene. An inscription found at Abila (anciently the principal city of Abilene) appears to mention this Lysanias and identifies him as a tetrarch. Abilene designated a territory to the northwest of Damascus. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, held the actual office of high priest, which years earlier Annas had occupied and who as ex-high priest continued to wield great authority. (Luke 3:1, 2)
The extant text of Isaiah 40:3-5 in the Septuagint differs somewhat from the quotations in Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4-6. Where Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s quotations say “his paths,” the Septuagint reading is, “the paths of our God.” The Septuagint adds “all” before “the curves” (Luke 3:5) and then continues, “and the uneven places into level places [pedía, also meaning ‘plains’ or ‘fields’]. And the glory of the Lord will be seen, and all flesh will behold the salvation of God.”
The Isaiah passage appears in a setting of comfort for Jerusalem, with the way being prepared for the Most High to lead his people back from exile. As then, return to divine favor required that the Israelites repent. Accordingly, John’s proclamation in the wilderness of Judea proved to be the very message conveyed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness (mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy). In connection with the return from Babylonian exile, no literal voice was heard in the wilderness. So, in a more complete sense, John fulfilled the role of the one crying out.
It may be noted that the Hebrew words for “stone” (’éven) and “son” or “child” (ben) suggest a play on words in John’s statement about raising up children for Abraham from stones. (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8)
Jesus was now about thirty years of age. The people of Nazareth knew him as the carpenter and regarded him as the son of the carpenter Joseph. (Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22) At the time, Joseph does not appear to have been alive, for he is never mentioned as being with Mary on any subsequent occasion. The other children, considering their later expressions of unbelief, may have known nothing about Jesus’ miraculous birth. (John 7:3-5) After their return to Nazareth, Joseph and Mary may wisely have chosen not to share this information with anyone. It would not have benefited their daughters and their sons James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon. The children would have been burdened with knowledge that could have given rise to serious problems and imposed upon them the obligation never to talk about this aspect of Jesus’ life. No outsider hearing about the miraculous birth would have believed it and, considering the then-existing political situation, any hint of Messianic claims posed a grave danger.
The Scriptural record does not reveal what John may have known about his relative Jesus or whether their paths crossed in earlier years. Zechariah and Elizabeth, as godly parents, are more likely to have waited on the Most High to reveal his purpose respecting their son and Jesus, not focusing their son’s attention on developments surrounding his birth and that of Mary’s son.
For Jesus, his life as a carpenter was about to end. Departing from Nazareth in Galilee, he headed for the location along the Jordan River where John was baptizing. Jesus had no sins to confess, but he identified himself with the sinful people who responded to John’s proclamation. The preserved record is silent about why John objected to baptizing Jesus, saying, “I need to have you baptize me, and you are coming to me?” Jesus indicated that it was proper for the baptism to take place, making it possible for both of them “to fulfill all righteousness.” John would have been acting in his divinely granted capacity as the one to prepare the way for the Messiah, and Jesus, in identifying himself with the sinful people, declared his acceptance of his Father’s will for him to die for sinners. (Hebrews 10:5-10) Jesus’ words persuaded John to consent, and he baptized him. (Matthew 3:13-15; Mark 1:9)
Upon being raised out of the water of the Jordan, Jesus prayed. He and John then saw the heavens, the sky, or the celestial dome part (as if ripped open) and God’s spirit made visible “in bodily form like a dove” descending upon him. From the opened sky above came God’s voice, acknowledging Jesus as his beloved Son with whom he was well pleased. (Matthew 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22)
Earlier, God had revealed to John how he would be able to identify the coming one who would baptize with holy spirit. It would be one upon whom the spirit would descend and remain. Having witnessed this in the case of Jesus, John could testify concerning him, “This is the Son of God.” Not until he had this undeniable confirmation did John truly know who Jesus was. (John 1:32-34)
Notes:
Regarding the descent of the spirit, the accounts are slightly different (“descending like a dove [and] coming upon him” [Matthew 3:16 (a number of ancient manuscripts do not include “and”]; “descending like a dove into him” [Mark 1:10; numerous manuscripts read “upon him”]; “bodily shape like a dove upon him” [Luke 3:22]; “the spirit descending and remaining upon him” [John 1:33]). The manner of the descent in a form like a dove from the opened celestial vault proved that the spirit had come upon Jesus from his Father. For a time this “bodily form like a dove” remained on Jesus and then vanished, entering “into” him (according to the reading of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and other ancient manuscripts of Mark’s account).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not identical in the way they word God’s expression about his Son. This is understandable, as the words were not originally spoken in Greek. It should be noted, however, that the same message is preserved in all three accounts.
Tempted by the Devil
Under the impelling power of God’s spirit, Jesus went into an isolated area in the wilderness of Judea, where wild animals made their home. (Mark 1:12, 13) Since Jesus was moved by the holy spirit to go and then stay in the wilderness, his being there was his Father’s will. Moreover, the harsh circumstances in an inhospitable environment provided the devil with an opportunity to tempt Jesus. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1)
The preserved accounts do not reveal the manner in which the devil approached Jesus and how the scenes changed from the wilderness to other locations. A possible clue is the reference to the very high mountain from which the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. (Matthew 4:8) No mountain on earth could have provided a vantage point from which the splendor of all the then-existing kingdoms could be seen. This suggests that Jesus did not leave the wilderness but, by means of a vision, was transported to the top of a high mountain and earlier to the temple in Jerusalem.
After a period of 40 days without food, Jesus experienced intense hunger and must have felt very weak. At what would have been an extremely vulnerable point from a physical standpoint for him, the devil made his approach. “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” (Matthew 4:2, 3; Luke 4:2, 3, where the singular “this stone” appears)
Jesus knew that it was not his Father’s will to use miraculous powers to satisfy the cravings of his fleshly organism. The performance of a miracle was not an option open to other humans and so would have been a misuse of divinely granted power. It would have shown a lack of faith in his Father as the one who could provide for him and sustain him. His Father, by means of his spirit, had willed for him to be in the wilderness, and his Father would also indicate when it was time to leave. Obedience to his Father would require humble submission to his will regardless of how distressing the circumstances might be, trusting fully in his love and care.
The Israelites, upon leaving Egypt, failed in this respect, complaining that Moses and Aaron had brought them into the wilderness to die of starvation. (Exodus 16:3) They thus showed lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them despite having seen his intervention in effecting their liberation from Egypt.
Jesus refused to entertain the devil’s proposal. In rejecting it, he quoted from the book of Deuteronomy (8:3), “Not from bread alone does man live, but upon every word coming from God’s mouth.” (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) Jesus chose trustingly to depend on his Father and to be sustained by whatever his Father’s expressed word would provide. In the case of the Israelites, manna was God’s provision, making it clear to them that man does not live on bread alone (or on the usual food that was then not available to them).
Jesus had expressed his total reliance on his Father, and the devil countered with the suggestion that Jesus demonstrate that unqualified trust. The devil brought him to the “holy city,” Jerusalem, positioning him on the summit of the temple, and then quoted Psalm 91:11, 12, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and upon [their] hands they will carry you, that you never should strike your foot against a stone.’” (Matthew 4:5, 6; Luke 4:9-11)
Had Jesus come floating down from the pinnacle of the temple, the multitude in the temple courts would have been amazed and would doubtless have accepted this spectacular sign as an indication of the arrival of their promised Messiah. This, however, was not God’s will. For Jesus to leap from the top of the temple would have been deliberately placing himself in a life-threatening situation and demanding that his Father come to the rescue to enable him to make a showy impression before onlookers. It would not have been an act of faith but a sinful testing of God.
Again, quoting from the book of Deuteronomy (6:16), Jesus replied, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12) Unlike the Israelites who yielded to temptation and put God to the test in the wilderness, Jesus stood firm in his refusal to do so. In the case of the Israelites, they quarreled with Moses about the lack of water, complaining that they, along with their children and livestock, would die of thirst. They tested God when saying, “Is YHWH among us or not?” (Exodus 17:3-7) The question implied that the Most High should do something if he was really among them. In effect, they challenged God to act. Similarly, for Jesus to have cast himself from the summit of the temple would have constituted a faithless demand expressed in rash action, a demand that his Father reveal his presence by saving him from the danger he had deliberately created for himself.
Next, from atop a very high mountain, the devil, in an instant, showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This glory or splendor could have included the impressive buildings and the luxurious surroundings of those exercising ruling authority. It would have been a display designed to captivate the faculty of sight, creating a desire for all that came to view. The devil expressed his willingness to give everything to Jesus for just one gesture. All that the devil asked of Jesus was that he prostrate himself before him, thereby acknowledging that the kingdoms of the world had been given to him and that he could give everything to anyone he wished. Instead of having to follow a path of humiliation and suffering, Jesus could have everything by engaging in just one simple act of prostration. In reality, though, the devil did not have legitimate claim to anything but exercised rebel authority. Jesus rejected the devil’s offer with the words from Deuteronomy (6:13), “The Lord your God you should worship [Or: To the Lord your God you shall prostrate yourself], and him alone you should serve.” God alone is the source of all rightful authority, and he alone is worthy of worship and service. Otherwise, no one has the right to ask for even one display of the kind of submission that would suggest being in possession of more than creature status. (Matthew 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8)
The devil departed from Jesus, but this would not be the end of his future attacks. He would be watching for another time to assail God’s Son. (Luke 4:13)
After the devil left, angels came to minister to Jesus. Part of that ministering doubtless included providing food and water for him, enabling him to have the strength needed to make his way out of the wilderness. (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13; compare 1 Kings 19:5-8.) In view of the course on which Jesus was now about to embark among the Israelites and its eventual outcome in rejection and a shameful death, the angels may also have strengthened him with words of encouragement. (Compare Luke 22:43.)
Notes:
With reference to the strong impulse God’s spirit exerted on Jesus to prompt him to go into the wilderness of Judea, Mark used the Greek word ekbállo, which can have the sense of “drive out” or “force to leave.” In this case, the significance would be to “cause to go.”
See http://bibleplaces.com/judeanwilderness.htm for pictures of and comments about the Wilderness of Judea.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 8:3 (regarding not living on bread alone) and the quotation in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 are identical.
Recognizing that man does not live on bread alone means acknowledging one’s complete dependence on God and trusting him fully, refusing to satisfy the desires of the flesh or the physical organism by any means that would call into question his ability to provide for, sustain, and strengthen his servants.
Luke did not record the temptation of Jesus in chronological sequence, as did Matthew. The arrangement Luke chose seemingly would have been of greater significance to non-Jewish readers, with the temptation involving the temple in Jerusalem being mentioned last.
The quotation from Psalm 91:11, 12 (90:11, 12, LXX) in Luke’s account is more complete than in Matthew’s account. For the basic portion that is quoted, both Matthew and Luke match the wording of the Septuagint.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:16 (about not testing God) is the same as the quotation in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12.
It should be noted that, in a sacred location, the devil misused the Scriptures. Awareness of this can serve as a powerful warning. Just because a certain activity may, within a particular “church” or movement, be considered sacred or viewed as an expression of faith, does not make it such. Whenever a certain service places individuals in circumstances that make it extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to care for their basic needs without receiving repeated help from others, their choosing such service is much like casting themselves from the summit of the temple and believing that God is obligated to come to their aid. On the other hand, a particular activity may amount to little more than an outward display of godliness and trust in God. Engaging in the activity may do little more than provide participants (and the movement itself) with the means for boasting or promoting themselves.
Not infrequently men wielding authority in religious movements misapply the Scriptures and succeed in persuading others to undertake unwise activity with the objective of furthering the causes of their respective movements, or to risk their freedom, security, or even their lives. Tragically, among those who are convinced to believe that they are serving God by following the directives of a leadership claiming to have divine backing will be persons who end up experiencing needless hardships and suffering. Whenever individuals consider themselves or their particular movements as heaven’s favorites, grave danger exists. Especially when movements are portrayed as the exclusive possessors of “the truth,” darkness may be represented as light, error as truth, and unreality as reality. Spiritual discernment is needed to differentiate between genuine faith and what really amounts to an improper testing of God.
The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:13 differs from the quotation in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8. Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (with the exception of Codex Alexandrinus) use “fear” instead of a term denoting an act of prostration or worship. “YHWH your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (Masoretic Text) “The Lord your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (LXX) “The Lord your God you shall worship, and him alone you shall serve.” (Codex Alexandrinus)
There are persons who seize or accept authority and want others to acknowledge them in ways that far exceed the kind of recognition to which they may be entitled. Whereas Jesus refused to accept the offer for position and power on the devil’s terms, many, throughout the centuries, have yielded to this type of offer. To assure the continuance of their own position or comparative well-being and not to jeopardize receiving future benefits, they have complied with requests or demands they knew to be wrong or have in other dishonorable ways sought to curry favor. In effect, they have prostrated themselves before mere creatures.
When prominent individuals in religious movements represent themselves as God’s appointees or allow others to make such claims, they pose a serious threat to the spiritual well-being of those who are induced to believe that whatever policies or teachings they promulgate should be regarded as coming from God. A careful review of the official publications of movements that claim to be “the truth” will often reveal a less than honest admission of past errors. Highly questionable aspects in their history are greatly minimized, and prominent ones who conducted themselves in an abusive and morally corrupt manner continue to be portrayed as God’s chosen instruments. Accepting the claim that the leadership serves by God’s appointment, the majority of the members are willing to grant to humans the kind of submission that is not divinely authorized and, unwittingly, make themselves idolaters. Part of the gain for such idolatry is maintaining a good standing within the movement, a social framework for sharing in various activities, and the potential for being given positions or special assignments only open to those considered to be exemplary members.
The strong persuasive power of a temptation primarily lies in its opening up a seemingly easier and speedier way to make gain or to attain a desirable end than the existing circumstances would legitimately allow. Everything the devil proposed to Jesus either suggested a way to satisfy a pressing physical need or a means for gaining recognition and position without undertaking a course of self-denial, hardship, and suffering. Moreover, the suggested objectives could be attained immediately, without having to wait patiently under unfavorable circumstances.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not provide the source of their information about the devil’s efforts to tempt Jesus. A likely possibility is that Jesus himself told some, if not all, of the apostles about his experience in the wilderness, admonishing them to resist the devil.
In Jerusalem, John’s preaching raised concerns among the Pharisees. Probably because John was the son of a priest and therefore himself a priest in the Aaronic line of the tribe of Levi, the Pharisees sent a delegation of priests and Levites to question him. Arriving at Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John was then baptizing, they asked him, “Who are you?” This question implied that they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting and what basis he had for his activity. In response, John told them he was not the Christ. Answering their other questions, he said that he was neither Elijah nor “the prophet.” (John 1:19-21, 24, 28)
Although John did the work of the foretold Elijah, he was not the Elijah who had lived centuries earlier and whom the questioners expected to return literally. Seemingly, they also believed that “the prophet” greater than Moses would appear before the coming of the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) That “prophet,” however, proved to be the one for whom John was preparing the way.
Wanting a specific answer from John, an answer they could relate to those who had sent them, they again raised the question, “Who are you?” Referring to the words of Isaiah (40:6), John identified himself, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord.” The delegation then asked why he was baptizing if he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. John’s reply focused on the greatness of the one to come and before whom he was preparing the way, “I baptize in water. In your midst, one is standing whom you do not know. [As for] the one coming after me, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal.” (John 1:21-27)
The next day, after the interchange with the questioners from Jerusalem, John saw Jesus (after his return from the wilderness) approaching and then said to those within hearing distance, “See, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) This identification suggested that Jesus, like the lambs offered daily at the temple, would die sacrificially for the sins of mankind.
Stressing the greatness of Jesus, John called attention to what he had said earlier. “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who comes to be ahead of me, because he was before me.’” John thus revealed that Jesus would surpass him and, in relation to time, had priority. He already “was” before John’s birth. (John 1:30)
John acknowledged that he did not know Jesus in the manner that he then could identify him but did baptizing so that he would be revealed to Israel. Before John started his activity of calling the people to repentance and baptizing, God had revealed to him that the one upon whom he would see the spirit descending and remaining would be the one who would baptize with holy spirit. As he did see the spirit coming down like a dove from heaven and remaining on Jesus, John testified, “This is the Son of God.” (John 1:31-34)
The next day Jesus again went to the area where John was baptizing. At the time, John was standing with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus walking, he said to them, “See, the Lamb of God!” This prompted the two disciples to leave and head toward Jesus. (John 1:35-37)
Notes:
The location of Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John did baptizing, is unknown.
After the laws respecting becoming a Jewish proselyte were codified, a man had to submit to circumcision and, after the wound healed, to immerse himself in water in the presence of witnesses. The immersion served as a cleansing ceremony. Whether the practice existed when John the Baptist began his activity cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, John’s baptism for repentant Israelites was different. He did the baptizing, and it was not an arrangement for non-Jews.
The prophecy of Ezekiel indicated that God would cleanse the Israelites by sprinkling clean water upon them and then would put his spirit upon them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27) Zechariah’s prophecy (13:1) pointed to the time when God would open a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness. Such prophecies may well have given rise to the expectation of the coming of one who would act as the agent to carry out God’s work of cleansing by means of water, and the Jews would understandably have concluded that this one would be an extraordinary personage—the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet like Moses.
The example of John the Baptist as a true prophet, in focusing on Jesus Christ (and not himself), contrasts sharply with the kind of self-promotion often carried on in denominational and nondenominational churches or various movements professing to be Christian. Such self-promotion and the kind of claims made respecting the importance of the church or the movement not infrequently are more prominent features than is emphasis on Christ’s important role as the only one through whom a relationship with the Father is possible.
Aware that he was being followed, Jesus turned and asked John’s two disciples, “What are you seeking?” This question served as an invitation for them to express their wishes respecting him. They addressed him as “Rabbi” (“Teacher”) and asked, “Where are you staying?” Their question implied that they wanted to spend time with him. Jesus invited them to come with him and to see for themselves. They then remained with him that day. It was about the tenth hour when they arrived where Jesus was staying. Possibly this was Roman time or about 10:00 a.m., as roughly only two hours would have remained before the start of a new day according to Jewish reckoning. With the Jewish day (the daylight hours) starting at 6 a.m., the tenth hour would have been 4:00 p.m. (John 1:38, 39)
One of the disciples was Andrew, the brother of Simon (to whom Jesus would later give the name Peter). The other disciple likely was John the brother of James. This is suggested by the fact that John is never named in a single verse of the account to which he is linked as the writer. (John 1:40)
Upon leaving Jesus’ company, Andrew located his brother Simon and excitedly told him, “We have found the Messiah” (Christ or the Anointed). With his brother, Andrew then headed back to the place where Jesus was staying. Upon seeing Simon, Jesus said to him, “You are Simon, son of John [Jonah]. You will be called Cephas” (Peter). The name “Cephas” or “Peter” means “rock,” and this name reflected Jesus’ confidence in Simon as one who would prove to be rocklike or solid in his faith and provide strengthening aid to fellow believers. (John 1:41, 42; Mark 3:16; compare Luke 22:32.)
The next day Jesus wanted to leave Judea to go to Galilee. He personally approached Philip, doubtless also one of John’s disciples, inviting him to be a follower. Philip must have known Peter and Andrew. Before taking up residence in Capernaum, Peter and Andrew, like Philip, lived in Bethsaida, a town on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. (John 1:43, 44; compare Luke 4:31-39.)
Philip then located Nathanael, telling him, “The one of whom Moses wrote in the Law and the Prophets we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” The link to Nazareth appeared puzzling to Nathanael, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” His question may suggest that Nazareth did not have a good reputation. On the other hand, Nathanael may have meant that he found it difficult to believe that the promised Messiah, the great good to which Philip had referred, would come from this city in Galilee (and not Bethlehem in Judea). Could it really be that the Messiah, of all places, would have Nazareth as his home? Philip did not try to persuade Nathanael with words but invited him to come and find out for himself. (John 1:45, 46)
As Philip and Nathanael approached, Jesus’ first words to Nathanael were, “See, a true Israelite in whom nothing is false.” Surprised by this observation from one whom he had never met, Nathanael responded, “How do you know me?” Revealing that he had knowledge about Nathanael beyond the ordinary, Jesus told him that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip called him. An event or circumstance associated with that fig tree revealed the kind of person he was, and Nathanael immediately grasped the significance of Jesus’ words. With conviction, he replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” Having believed on the basis of being told that he had been seen under the fig tree, Nathanael heard Jesus say that he would see things greater than this. In fact, he and the other disciples would see heaven opened and “the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man.” Through him, the very heavens would be opened up to them. (John 1:47-51; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
From this time onward, these early disciples (and those who would join them later) came to see in Jesus, though having become flesh, a divine glory or splendor. His was the glory of an only-begotten of a father. He was the unique one, full of kindness and truth. As the one full of “kindness,” favor, or grace, Jesus manifested a gracious disposition of unparalleled love. He himself was the living truth, the one through whom all the promises of God find their fulfillment and the one who, through his attitude, words, and deeds, provided to humans the most complete disclosure possible regarding his Father. (John 1:14)
He alone, as John the Baptist had testified, already “was” prior to his arrival on the earthly scene. From the fullness of the Son of God, his disciples received kindness “upon” (literally, “instead of” [antí]) kindness, or favor upon favor. This favor or kindness was unearned and unmerited. The disciples continued to be the objects of Jesus’ care and compassionate concern as he taught them, came to their aid and defense, and, finally, in expression of his boundless love, gave his life for them. (John 1:15, 16; see additional comments in the Notes section on verse 16.)
Whereas the law had been given through Moses, through Christ came the favor and truth or the full expression of godly kindness and the complete revelation of divine truth. Unlike humans who have never seen God, Jesus had both seen him and enjoyed an intimacy with him reaching into the infinite past. That intimacy is revealed in the expressions used concerning him. He is the “only-begotten,” the unique one, the one and only. “God” (theós), if this is the original reading of John 1:18 (later manuscripts read, “only-begotten Son,” signifying unique Son), describes him as being exactly like his Father. The closeness to the Father is further shown by his being portrayed in his bosom position. This is the kind of intimacy a person would enjoy when reclining in front of another person on the same couch while eating a meal. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus could reveal him to others in a way that no one else could. (John 1:17, 18; see additional comments in the Notes section on verse 18.)
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/bethsaida.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethsaida.
See http://holylandphotos.org for pictures of and comments about Cana. Enter “Cana” in the “search” box.
John’s account does not reveal what happened under the fig tree or what may have been Nathanael’s thoughts. Whatever was involved, Nathanael recognized that Jesus’ knowledge respecting him was of a miraculous nature, removing any doubt from his mind about Jesus’ true identity.
Nathanael is only mentioned in John’s account. Based on the mention of Philip and Bartholomew together in listings of the apostles, Nathanael and Bartholomew appear to be the same person. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14) Similarly, Matthew is also called Levi. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29)
The reference to the ascending and descending of angels from the Son of Man somewhat parallels what Jacob saw in his dream at Bethel. In that case, angels descended and ascended by means of a ladder-like or stair-like arrangement that reached from the land to the sky, and the Almighty was positioned at the top. Jacob then heard God’s promise that through his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Genesis 28:12-14) As the apostle Paul wrote when referring to the promise first made to Abraham, that seed proved to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16) Jesus’ statement therefore may also have served to confirm Nathanael’s expression of faith, “You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
Not until after Jesus’ death do angels figure prominently in the biblical accounts, being seen at various times. (Matthew 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:11, 12; Acts 1:10, 11) Manuscript evidence concerning the appearance of an angel in the garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Jesus is inconclusive. The omission of this incident in early extant manuscripts suggests that it may not have been mentioned in Luke’s original account. (Luke 22:43) So it would appear that Jesus’ words about the ascending and descending of angels relate more to the disciples being able to see the free approach he had to his Father and that angels were always available to minister to him. (Compare Matthew 26:53.)
In John 1:16, the words about receiving “favor upon [anti; literally, “instead of”] favor” could be understood to mean receiving unmerited kindness followed by receiving even greater unmerited kindness.
In John 1:18, the Greek term monogenés (often rendered “only-begotten”) points to the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. There is no other son like him. The emphasis is not to be placed on the second part of the compound (begotten), but the expression is to be regarded as a unit. This is evident from the way the term is used in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew term yahíd (only, only one, alone). Jephthah’s daughter was his only child. (Judges 11:34) The psalmist pleaded that YHWH might rescue his “only-begotten one” (Brenton), meaning the only life he possessed or his precious life. (Psalm 21:21 [22:20(21)]; 34:17 [35:17]) He also prayed for mercy because he identified himself as an “only-begotten,” that is, one of a kind (like an only child). In this case, the Hebrew often has been translated “lonely” or “alone.” (Psalm 24:16 [25:16])
Possibly on the third day after Nathanael’s first meeting Jesus, a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee. Among those present were Jesus’ mother Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. Likely there were six disciples at this time, Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), and John and his brother James. While the record is silent about when James became a disciple, it would seem reasonable that John (probably the unnamed disciple mentioned in the first chapter of John) would have shared the news about Jesus with his brother. Their mother appears to have been Salome, usually identified as the wife of Zebedee. She may also have been Mary’s sister. (Compare Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 with Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40, 41.)
During the wedding festivities, the supply of wine ran out. Mary became concerned about this embarrassing development. Her personal interest in preserving the joyous spirit of the occasion appears to be more typical of a relative or a close family friend than of an invited guest. She approached Jesus, informing him that there was no more wine. Possibly based on what her son had done at other times, she apparently believed that he would be able to come up with a solution for the problem she had brought to his attention. His initial reply to her, however, indicated that their relationship had changed. As the Christ, God’s unique Son, he would be the one to initiate action in his own time. A literal English translation of his words is harsher in tone than is the Greek, where the term for “woman” gyné can also denote “lady” or “wife.” For this reason, a number of translations represent Jesus as addressing Mary as “dear woman.” His response in question form was, “What to me and to you?” The idiomatic expression implied that in this specific matter the two of them had nothing in common. Jesus then added, “My hour has not yet come” (possibly meaning the time for him to intervene to handle the problem regarding the wine or the time for him to reveal his identity as the promised Messiah). Mary evidently understood that Jesus would no longer be taking motherly direction from her but did not doubt that he would act. This is suggested by her words to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:1-5)
For ceremonial washing purposes, six large stone jars were available. Each of these could hold two or three measures (perhaps bath measures or roughly between 12 and 18 gallons). Jesus directed the servants to fill the containers with water and then to take a sample of the liquid to the master of the festivities. The servants did not tell him the source of the liquid. Upon tasting it, he perceived it to be choice wine and thereafter told the bridegroom that he had not followed the customary procedure. Unlike others, the bridegroom had set out the inferior wine first and reserved the best wine until the guests had partaken to a degree where their sense of taste had ceased to be keen. (John 2:6-10)
The transformation of water into wine proved to be Jesus’ first “sign.” It indicated that his ministry would differ markedly from that of John the Baptist, who lived an austere life and never drank wine. (Matthew 11:18; Luke 1:14) John proclaimed a serious message, calling upon the people to repent, and his bearing and actions harmonized with a spirit of godly sorrow. The arrival of the Messiah, however, opened up a period of joy and hope, extending to responsive ones the opportunity to become sharers with him in his royal realm and all the blessings associated therewith. By means of this first sign, Jesus also manifested “his glory” or magnificence, revealing his divinely granted power, his role as a benefactor, and the kind of joy he alone would be able to impart to his disciples. Whereas the disciples had earlier made expressions of belief in him as being the Messiah and God’s Son, this sign, as a manifestation of his glory, served to deepen their faith. As the biblical record states, “His disciples believed in him.” (John 2:11)
Notes:
See http://holylandphotos.org for pictures of and comments about Cana. Enter “Cana” in the “search” box.
The term “sign” (semeíon) designates an occurrence that is viewed as having a special significance. In the context of John 2:11, the Greek word refers to a miracle or a miraculous sign. All the “signs” Jesus performed served to identify him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. At the same time, the individual “signs” revealed aspects about him or his activity.
After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum, a city on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Originally Peter and Andrew had lived in nearby Bethsaida. At this time, however, they were residing in Capernaum, and the city may also have been the home of James and John. (Compare Mark 1:16-21.) As the Passover was near, Jesus, his brothers, his disciples, and Mary did not remain there long. To observe the Passover, they traveled to Jerusalem. (John 2:12, 13)
There, in the “temple” (hierón) or, more specifically, the Court of the Gentiles, which was part of the extensive temple complex, Jesus saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. Worshipers would buy animals for sacrifice and exchange coins that were unacceptable for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and possibly also for the purchase of sacrificial animals. (John 2:14)
For the merchants and money changers, this proved to be a profitable enterprise. The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE and consisting of a collection of ancient Jewish traditions, says (Shekalim 1:3) that money changers set up in the temple area on the 25th of Adar (February/March). This Jewish work also reveals extreme price gouging in connection with the sale of sacrificial animals. On one occasion, a pair of doves was being sold for 25 times more than the usual price. (Keritot 1:7)
Filled with indignation about the defilement of a sacred location with commercial activity, Jesus made a whip of ropes and drove the sheep and cattle out of the temple area, forcing the sellers to leave with their animals. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and told the sellers of doves to leave with their birds, rebuking them for having turned his Father’s house into a place of business. Upon witnessing Jesus’ taking such firm action, the disciples recalled the words of the psalmist, “The zeal for your house will consume me.” (Psalm 69:9[10]; John 2:15-17)
Based on the words recorded in Malachi 3:1-7, the Jews may have expected the promised Messiah to take decisive action in connection with the sanctity of the temple. His foretold role included purifying the Levites for offering acceptable sacrifices. It therefore appears that certain Jews challenged Jesus to show them a sign, a sign establishing Messianic authority to stop commercial activity in the temple complex. In response to their challenging question about what sign he would be showing them, Jesus replied, “Pull down this temple [naós, usually applying to the main sanctuary building], and in three days I will raise it.” In disbelief, they said, “This temple [naós] was built in 46 years, and you are going to raise it in three days?” Neither they nor his disciples understood that Jesus was speaking about “the temple [naós] of his body.” Not until Jesus was raised from the dead did his disciples understand what he meant. It was then that they believed the “Scripture” foretelling Jesus’ resurrection and the “word” he spoke in the temple area relating to his rising from the dead. (John 2:18-22)
While in Jerusalem for the Passover and the seven-day festival that followed, Jesus did perform miraculous signs. Witnessing these signs, many came to believe in “his name” or in him. Jesus, however, recognized that those who initially responded favorably did not have a solid faith. He did not trust himself to them, for he knew them all or he knew who they really were at heart and understood human weaknesses fully. He did not need anyone else’s testimony about “man,” for “he knew what was in man.” (John 2:23-25) Jesus discerned how easily humans could be swayed or wrongly influenced despite having clear evidence respecting the rightness of a particular course.
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
From the historical information contained in the writings of Josephus, it is not possible to determine just what the Jews in the temple area meant when saying to Jesus that the temple was built in 46 years. Work on the entire temple complex was not completed until some six years before the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. As for the start of the rebuilding undertaken at the direction of Herod the Great, Josephus says in War (I, xxi, 1) that it was the 15th year of Herod’s reign, whereas in Antiquities (XV, xi, 1) he states that it was the 18th year. If the reference to the 15th year is not in error, possibly it was then that preparatory work began, with actual construction on the site not commencing until the 18th year.
Jesus’ answer about a sign was basically the same as his reply on other occasions when challengingly asked for a sign. This sign, which came to be widely known, was that he would rise in three days. (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:4; 27:62-64; Luke 11:29) Jesus could refer to raising “the temple of his body” in three days, as his Father had granted him the authority or right to surrender his “soul” or life and to receive it again. (John 10:18)
One night during Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council or the highest religious authority), came to see him. Likely Nicodemus was aware of negative sentiments about Jesus among influential Jews and may have chosen to be cautious to avoid potential problems. A night visit would also have been more suitable for an uninterrupted private interchange. He addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” and acknowledged him as a teacher having come from God, for the miraculous signs he had performed proved that God was with him. The first person plural verb oídamen (“we know”) may indicate that he was aware of others who recognized Jesus as having come as a teacher from God. On the other hand, this could simply be the editorial first person plural verb. (John 3:1, 2)
In response, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) The expression “amen, amen” signifies “truly, truly,” and serves to introduce an important truth in a solemn manner. For one to see the “kingdom of God” (or to be part of the royal realm where the Most High is recognized as Sovereign and all the members thereof share in the blessings and privileges he grants) requires a tremendous change. The Greek term ánothen means either “above” or “again.” Earlier in John’s account, the new birth is attributed to God (John 1:13), and this suggests that “born from above” (instead of “born again”) is the preferable significance.
Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant. He replied, “How can a man who is old be born? Indeed he cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born.” Clarifying what the new birth involves, Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless a person is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whoever is born from flesh is flesh, and whoever is born from spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I say to you, You must be born from above [ánothen]. The wind [pneúma, meaning “wind” or “spirit”] blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it has come and where it is going. Thus [it] is [with] everyone who is born from the spirit.” Still not grasping the significance of Jesus’ words, Nicodemus said, “How can these things take place?” Based on his knowledge of the Scriptures, he should have understood what Jesus meant. This is evident from Jesus’ response, “You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?” (John 3:4-10)
As a recognized teacher among fellow Jews, Nicodemus knew what the holy writings contained. The prophets Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel, for example, spoke about a future outpouring of God’s spirit. Isaiah referred to mourning resulting from divine chastisement as ending upon God’s spirit being poured out from on high upon the people. (Isaiah 32:12-15) Joel’s prophetic words (2:28, 29) indicated that the spirit would be poured out on sons and daughters, men and women, young and old. Ezekiel (36:25-28, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) specifically mentioned cleansing as preceding the outpouring of God’s spirit: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God.”
Repeatedly, the prophets urged the people to repent and change their ways in order to be recipients of God’s mercy and blessing. (Isaiah 1:15-20; Ezekiel 18:31; Joel 2:12-14; Malachi 3:7) Therefore, from what he knew the prophets had proclaimed, Nicodemus should have understood that repentance preceded a cleansing as by water and only then would God pour out his spirit upon those whom he recognized as clean before him. This was also the message John the Baptist proclaimed, and his immersing Israelites in the Jordan followed an acknowledgment of their sins. Moreover, he announced the future outpouring of God’s spirit, saying of the one to come, “he will baptize you with holy spirit.” (Matthew 3:2, 5, 6, 11; Luke 3:10-16)
Accordingly, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, without being made new by the kind of cleansing represented by the water and receiving God’s spirit, a person would not be able to “see” the kingdom of God. He would not be recognized as one of God’s people and so could not possibly be in his royal realm.
Born of flesh, all humans are flesh, and are burdened by the flawed condition they have inherited. This is why all are sinners, repeatedly disappointing themselves and others in attitude, word, and deed. All are in need of help from outside the human sphere. That aid must come from “above” or the realm of the spirit. A newness of life can only be brought about by an operation of God’s spirit, and the outward manifestation thereof would be a marked change in conduct, motivated by a desire to do God’s will. As Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus, just how God’s spirit operates within an individual cannot be perceived. One can hear the wind and observe its effects, but one cannot see its source or where it is going. Nevertheless, just as the wind is real and its effects are real, the invisible working of God’s spirit within individuals is real.
The Son of God, having come from the spirit realm, fully understood the functioning of holy spirit. He knew what none of earth’s inhabitants knew and had seen what they had never seen. His authoritative testimony, however, did not gain general acceptance. The transformation about which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus related to the earthly realm, for it involved a change in the human condition. If this earthly aspect was not believed, how could it possibly be that Jesus’ words about heavenly things only known to him would be believed? No man had ascended to heaven, precluding any possibility of possessing testimony regarding heavenly things. Jesus, though, had descended from heaven. When referring to himself as the “Son of Man,” Jesus evidently identified himself as the promised Messiah portrayed in the book of Daniel (7:13, 14). Having come from heaven, he alone could teach what no one else could. Additionally, only he could reveal how an eternal relationship with his Father would be possible. (John 3:11-13)
An event during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness revealed an aspect of how restoration to divine favor would come about. When many Israelites died from being bitten by poisonous serpents, Moses was divinely instructed to make a serpent and place it on a pole. Anyone bitten by a serpent, upon looking at the bronze serpent Moses had made, would live. There was nothing in that metal serpent that could remove the lethal venom from those who had been bitten. Their response to God’s arrangement made it possible for them to continue living. (Numbers 21:5-9)
Similarly, response in faith to Jesus’ being lifted up on the implement on which he would die would lead to eternal life. Just as the Israelites acknowledged their sin and had to recognize the danger in which they found themselves because of having been bitten, humans must acknowledge their sinful state, recognize the death-dealing effects of sin, and avail themselves of God’s provision through Christ to be liberated. It is an arrangement that reveals the hideous nature of sin (considering what Jesus endured for sinners) and God’s great love by having his Son die for the world of mankind, reaching the inmost selves of those who believe and appreciatively acknowledge that God and Christ did this for them so that they might live in eternal fellowship with them. (John 3:14-16)
In expression of his boundless love, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, depriving humans of all hope, but to save the world of mankind, opening up to all the opportunity for eternal life or an abiding relationship with him. The individual responding in faith would not have a condemnatory judgment expressed against him. A failure to put faith in the “name” or in the person of the unique Son of God when the testimony concerning him is presented would, however, lead to adverse judgment. (John 3:17, 18)
The only-begotten or unique Son of God is the “light” that came into the world, dispelling the darkness of ignorance and evil. Whenever people love the darkness more than the light, preferring a life contrary to God’s upright ways, they are not drawn to his Son. Having chosen to engage in wicked works, harming themselves and others by their lawless actions, they hate the light embodied in him. They do not want their works to be exposed by the light that radiates from God’s Son. (John 3:19, 20)
The person who “lives the truth,” striving to harmonize his life with what is true and right, is drawn to the light. Instead of fearing exposure, such a person makes a confident approach, letting the light reveal his works as having been done “in God.” The expression “in God” suggests that the individual recognized the need for divine aid and lived a life that acknowledged the Most High and focused on pleasing him. (John 3:21)
Note:
The words of John 3:16-21 are not necessarily part of the discussion with Nicodemus, but may be the comments of the writer of this account. Translations vary in the placement of the quotation marks, either ending the quotation with verse 15 or verse 21.
Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them, and they did baptizing, evidently at his direction or with his approval. (John 3:22; 4:1, 2) As there was abundant water in Aenon near Salim, John did baptizing there, and people continued coming to him to be immersed. (John 3:23, 24)
In the minds of the Jews who disputed with John’s disciples about purification, baptism would have been associated with cleansing, especially in view of the call to repentance. The nature of the argument is not specified in the account. In view of what his disciples later said to John, it would appear that the dispute centered on what seemed to be competing baptisms. John had ceased to be the only one doing baptizing. The disciples of John called to his attention that the one concerning whom he had testified was baptizing and that “all” were going to him. They attributed to Jesus what his disciples were doing and appear to have been disturbed by the decreasing number of people coming to John. (John 3:25, 26)
Responding to their concern, John told them that a man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from above or by God. As he reminded them, they knew full well that he had said, “I am not the Christ,” and that he had been sent to prepare the way before him. Likening himself to the bridegroom’s friend, John continued, “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The bridegroom’s friend stands and hears him, rejoicing greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore, this, my joy, has been made complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:27-30)
The Son of God had come from above and so was above all. Although a prophet, John had not come from the realm above. He was from the earth and was limited to conveying information that related to the earthly sphere. Although God’s unique Son had come from heaven and is above all and could testify about things that no one from the earth had seen or heard, people generally did not accept his testimony. (John 3:31, 32)
The person accepting this testimony placed his seal upon it, certifying that God is true or that he had kept his word to send the one who was promised to come. With the fullness of God’s spirit operating upon him (unlike the prophets to whom the spirit had been given by measure), Jesus spoke his Father’s words. As the one whom he dearly loved, the Father had given everything into the hands of his Son — everything relating to the eternal future of the world of mankind. To have faith in the Son would result in coming into possession of eternal life or a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with the Father. Those who reject the Son will not see life or experience an abiding life as persons whom the Father approves and loves. As persons against whom a record of sin remains, they continue to be the objects of God’s wrath or disapproval. (John 3:33-36)
Whereas Jesus’ disciples and not he himself did baptizing, the news reached the Pharisees that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John. Learning about this development, Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee. (John 4:1-3) According to Matthew 4:12 and Mark 1:14, Jesus’ departure coincided with John’s arrest and imprisonment for having exposed the wrongness of Herod Antipas’s incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Mark 6:17, 18) This suggests that the apparent jealousy of the Pharisees and John’s imprisonment created an environment hostile to Jesus. As his time for laying down his life had not yet come, he may have left for Galilee, where the potential personal risks would not have been as great.
Notes:
There is a question as to whether the words of John 3:31-36 are part of John the Baptist’s testimony. The revelatory nature of the comments about God’s Son would seem to indicate that this is a summation of the gospel writer. As in the case of verses 16-21, translators vary respecting the placement of the closing quotation marks, either including verses 31 through 36 or ending the quotation with verse 30.
The location of Aenon near Salim is uncertain.
On their way to Galilee, Jesus and his disciples traveled the more direct route through Samaria. Arriving at a well the patriarch Jacob had dug centuries earlier and which was in a field that came to be the legal possession of Joseph, Jesus, tired from the journey, seated himself there while his disciples went into the nearby city of Sychar to buy food. It was about the sixth hour or noon (according to Jewish reckoning). (John 4:4-6, 8)
When a Samaritan woman arrived to draw water from the well, Jesus asked her to give him a drink. Surprised that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for a drink (as Jews did not associate with Samaritans), she said, “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” Endeavoring to shift her focus to what he could provide for her, Jesus replied, “If you had known the gift of God and the one who said to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The Samaritan woman, however, did not understand what Jesus meant but continued to focus on literal water, telling him that he had no means for drawing water from the deep well. “Where, then,” she asked, “can you get this living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us the well and who himself and his sons and his flocks drank from it?” (John 4:7-12)
Drawing a distinction between the water from the well and the “water” he could provide, Jesus said, “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. The one, however, drinking from the water I shall give him will never thirst, but the water I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” With her mind still fixed on water, the woman did not comprehend Jesus’ words. “Sir, give me this water,” she said, “that I may not thirst and may not have to come here to draw [water].” (John 4:13-15)
If the Scriptural account basically contains the entire conversation, Jesus did not explain how his words related to him and how, through him, all that was essential for eternal life could be obtained. He used another approach to direct her attention beyond her mundane concerns, asking her to call her husband. Acknowledging the correctness of her response about not having a husband, Jesus continued, “You have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” His reply made her realize that he was no ordinary man. He was a prophet. This prompted her to bring up a matter that had seemingly lain dormant in her mind. “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain [Gerizim], but you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” Her implied question was, Which view is correct? (John 4:16-20)
Jesus then revealed that the time was at hand when geographical locations would cease to have any bearing on worship. “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know. We [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is [here], when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for also such ones the Father seeks to worship him. God [is] spirit, and those worshiping him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21-24)
With Jesus’ arrival as the promised Messiah, the “hour” or time had come for a change in the arrangement for worship. No longer would worship be associated with a specific location like Mount Gerizim or the temple in Jerusalem. Because the Samaritans were only acquainted with the Pentateuch and did not have the complete revelation about God available in the writings of the Hebrew prophets, they were worshiping one whom they did not fully know. The Jews, on the other hand, were in possession of all the “holy writings.” From among them, the Messiah was promised to come. Therefore, as Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.”
Worship “in spirit” is not dependent on a particular location or any other external factors. Regardless of the time or circumstances, true worshipers are in possession of a worshipful attitude. Worship “in truth” harmonizes with the complete revelation the Father has provided respecting himself. The full disclosure became available through his Son, who is the “truth.” Jesus flawlessly mirrored his Father. Therefore, seeing the Son was just like seeing God. The Father is seeking those whose worship is not governed by externals. He is “spirit” and therefore not to be linked in any way to the realm of the physical. Worship that is acceptable to him must be “in spirit and truth,” reflecting who he is (based on the complete revelation he has provided). Being “in truth,” such worship would also be genuine and not a mere expression of the lips or a ritualistic routine. (Compare 1 John 3:18.)
At this point, the woman acknowledged that she knew Messiah was coming and that he would make everything known. In keeping with her expectation about the Messiah, Jesus identified himself openly to her in a way that he did not among his own people. “I am [the Messiah], the one speaking to you.” (John 4:25, 26)
In the then-existing culture, men did not freely converse with women in the manner that Jesus did. So, when the disciples returned from having purchased food, they wondered why he was speaking with a woman, but no one could bring himself to ask what she wanted or why Jesus was speaking to her. (John 4:27)
Indicating that she planned to return, the woman left her water jar and headed back to the city. As Jesus had revealed that he knew intimate details about her life, she invited men of the city to see the man who had told her “all” that she had done and expressed the thought that he could be the Messiah. Based on her words, the men departed from the city to meet Jesus. (John 4:28-30)
During the intervening time, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. He, though, told them, “I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge.” This perplexed the disciples, causing them to wonder whether someone else had brought him something to eat. Clarifying his statement, Jesus continued, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Yet [éti, missing in a number of ancient manuscripts] four months it is, and [then] comes the harvest’? Look! I say to you, raise your eyes and behold the fields, that they are white, [ready] for [the] harvest. Already the reaper is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. For in this, the saying is true, ‘One is the sower, and another the reaper.’ I sent you to harvest [that] on which you had not labored. Others labored, and you have entered into their labor,” benefiting from the preparatory work others had performed. (John 4:31-38)
For Jesus, doing his Father’s will brought refreshment comparable to partaking of nourishment. The fields ripe for harvesting denoted the people who would be ready to respond to the message about him that his disciples would proclaim. The Samaritans who were then making their way to see Jesus illustrated the bountiful harvest of people that lay ahead. Those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God would come into possession of eternal life (a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with him and his Father). As “fruit” of the harvest, people would be gathered for eternal life.
The time would come when both those who shared in the preparatory work and those who participated in the harvest could rejoice together. The Hebrew prophets had labored while subjected to abuse and bitter opposition, and their words survived in written form, giving rise to hope respecting the coming of the Messiah. The last of the prophets who had faithfully labored until his arrest and imprisonment was John the Baptist. Even the testimony of the Samaritan woman about her conversation with Jesus served as preparatory sowing. Jesus’ disciples would benefit from all the sowing that had been done in the past, finding joy in gathering “fruit for eternal life.”
Based on what the woman had told them, many Samaritans came to believe in Jesus. Her basic message about him was, “He told me everything I did.” The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them, and he accepted their invitation, remaining with them for two days. Based on their personal experience with Jesus, many more came to believe. They then told the woman that their conviction was not based on just what she had said, adding, “We know that he is truly the Savior of the world.” (John 4:39-42)
The faith many Samaritans showed is remarkable. They did not see Jesus perform a single miraculous sign but believed in him because of what they first heard he said to the woman and, later, what they heard from him personally.
Whether Jesus’ disciples remained with him two extra days in Samaria is not specifically stated in the biblical account. At some point during the course of their travel northward, however, they began to head to their own homes.
After the two days in Samaria, Jesus departed for Galilee. Whereas the Samaritans had invited him to stay, he could testify that in his own country (or among his own people) a prophet has no honor. (John 4:43, 44)
Notes:
Sychar is considered to be ancient Shechem. See http://bibleplaces.com/shechem.htm for pictures of and comments about Sychar and Mount Gerizim.
The words about four months until the harvest may have been a proverbial saying, indicating that from sowing until harvesting was a period of four months. As a proverbial saying, the reference would provide no clue as to time of the year Jesus and his disciples were in Samaria.
In John 4:35, the Greek word héde (already) may either indicate that the fields were already white for harvesting or that the reaper was already receiving wages.
At the seven-day festival following the Passover, the Galileans present for the observance had witnessed Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem, including his miraculous signs and his cleansing the temple of commercial activity. Based on what they had seen, they welcomed him. (John 4:45)
Arriving in Cana, where he had earlier turned water into wine, he met a royal official from Capernaum, where Peter and Andrew and seemingly also James and John resided. This official’s son was seriously ill. Upon learning that Jesus had come from Judea, this man set out to meet him, requesting that he come to Capernaum to heal his boy who was then close to death. (4:46, 47)
Jesus responded, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe.” (John 4:48) According to the Greek text, the verbs are second person verbs, not the singular (“you see” and “you believe”). This suggests that Jesus’ words were designed to test the genuineness of the royal official’s faith. Was the man like the many others who personally wanted to see signs and wonders before they would put faith in Jesus?
This official’s next words reflected the desperate plea of a father for his son and the belief that Jesus alone could cure him. “Sir [or, Lord], come down before my boy dies.” Instead of accompanying the father back to Capernaum, Jesus told him to return, assuring him, “Your son lives.” He believed what Jesus told him and departed. The measure of faith he had then manifested was strengthened during the trip back to Capernaum. While he was on his way, his slaves met him, telling him that his son was alive and well. In response to his inquiry about when his son’s health improved, the slaves said, “Yesterday, in the seventh hour [about 1:00 p.m., according to Jewish reckoning], the fever left him.” This was the very time Jesus had said to him, “Your son lives.” Therefore, he “believed” (evidently in Jesus and with greater conviction than he had upon first heading back to Capernaum) and so did his household. (4:49-53)
This was the “second sign” Jesus performed in Galilee, and the first one since his return from Judea. How many miracles Jesus did earlier in Judea is not disclosed in the biblical accounts. (John 4:54) Like the other miracles, the “second sign” served to identify Jesus as the Son of God. It demonstrated the greatness of the divine power operating through him, as he did not have to be present personally for the cure to occur.
With God’s spirit operating mightily upon him, Jesus began to teach in the synagogues of Galilee. Many began to talk about him in a favorable way and the news about him spread. As a result, he came to be honored or highly respected by all. (Luke 4:14, 15)
Wherever he traveled in Galilee, Jesus proclaimed “the evangel of God.” Being of God, this message was one his Father willed for him to preach. The evangel, good news, or glad tidings Jesus proclaimed revealed that the time had been fulfilled, indicating that the time had come for the arrival of the Messiah in fulfillment of the promise made through the prophets. “The kingdom of God” had then drawn near, for Jesus, the Messiah or Christ of God and the King of Israel (as Nathanael had earlier acknowledged him to be), was then in the midst of the Jews. Jesus called upon his people to repent and to believe in the evangel, the glad tidings that focused on him as the Messiah, the Son of God. (Mark 1:14, 15; John 1:49)
He returned to Nazareth where he had spent most of his life and had labored as a carpenter. On the Sabbath day, as was his custom, he went into the synagogue, where the Scriptures were read aloud to those assembled. He apparently was invited to read and stood up to do so. After being handed the scroll of Isaiah, he located the section from where he would begin and then started to read, “[The] spirit of the Lord [YHWH (in the Hebrew text of Isaiah)] [is] upon me, for he has anointed me to proclaim glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to announce release to the captives and to give sight to the blind, to send off the oppressed for release, to announce the favorable year of the Lord [YHWH (in the Hebrew text of Isaiah)].” (Luke 4:16-19)
After completing the reading, Jesus rolled up the scroll and handed it to the attendant (to be properly stored) and then sat down. Whereas the individual would read while standing, he would make any explanatory comments from a seated position. Therefore, when Jesus sat down, all eyes in the synagogue focused on him, waiting for him to comment. It appears that his opening words were, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing [literally, “in your ears”]).” The fact that those in the synagogue reportedly “testified” or made favorable comments and marveled at the gracious words he spoke indicates that Jesus provided a more extensive exposition. Nevertheless, they considered him as just one of the common people of Nazareth, saying, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” (Luke 4:20-22)
Discerning their attitude, Jesus responded, “All of you will say to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ The things we heard you did in Capernaum do also here in your own home [area].” Continuing, Jesus told them “that no prophet is accepted in his home [area].” Calling attention to ancient history, he said, “There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was shut for three years and six months (as great famine came to be over all the land), and to none of them was Elijah sent but to a widowed woman of Zarephath of Sidon. And there were many lepers in Israel [during the time] of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4:23-27)
Jesus’ words forced those assembled in the synagogue to look at their unbelief in him against the backdrop of their ancient history. Their ancestors had not honored the prophets, with resultant loss to themselves. Yet, non-Israelites (the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian) had been richly blessed through them. Instead of accepting the lesson of ancient history and coming to see their error in the way they looked upon Jesus and their wanting to see signs, those in the synagogue became filled with rage. Angered that they had been likened to faithless Israelites in the days of Elijah and Elisha, they seized Jesus and led him away to the edge of the hill on which the Nazareth was built. Their intent was to throw him down from the elevated location. He, however, got free, passed through the midst of the group, and went on his way. (Luke 4:28-30)
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm for pictures of and comments about Nazareth.
The expressions “kingdom of God, “kingdom of the heavens,” and “kingdom” all relate to God’s rule by means of his Son. The kingdom is the royal realm where God’s reign is recognized and believers enjoy the protective care and blessings promised to them. With the arrival of the Messiah or God’s appointed King, the kingdom had drawn near, and the time had come for individuals to become part of the royal realm as persons who had repented of their sins and wanted to be under divine sovereignty to be exercised through him. The praiseworthy change in the lives of Christ’s disciples, which transformation is effected through God’s spirit, constitutes the evidence of the kingdom’s operation. Yet future is the coming of the kingdom in power, when Christ will manifest his royal authority and remove all who violently oppose him and reward his genuine disciples by having them share in his rule as God’s anointed one.
In Luke 4:18, later manuscripts include the words “heal the brokenhearted,” and this addition may be attributed to copyists who thought to harmonize the quotation with the reading of the Septuagint (Isaiah 61:1), which reading also agrees with the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. Whereas Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint, as in the quotation in Luke 4:18, refers to restoring sight to the blind, the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah do not mention the blind. The Hebrew text has been commonly understood to refer to the release of persons who are bound or confined in prison.
At his baptism, Jesus had been anointed with God’s spirit, and was thus empowered to fulfill the commission contained in Isaiah’s prophecy. The “poor” designated the afflicted and disadvantaged who recognized their need for God’s help. Burdened by the weight of human traditions that went far beyond the requirements of the law, the Jews found themselves in the condition of captives. For responsive ones, the liberating message Jesus proclaimed led to their gaining refreshing freedom. Jesus made it possible for those who had been spiritually blinded by the religious leaders to see clearly, accepting him as the promised Messiah. He also opened the eyes of those who were physically blind. The proclamation of “release” to the oppressed may allude to the kind of release associated with the Jubilee year when Israelites who had sold themselves into slavery were again free and had their land inheritance restored to them. For all who then found themselves in an afflicted or oppressed state, the glad tidings Jesus announced brought hope and comfort comparable to a release from distress in the Jubilee year. It was then the “year” for gaining God’s favor or a favorable time the Most High was extending to become recipients of his approval and blessing.
In Luke 4:19, the quotation could either be understood to mean “to announce the favorable year of the Lord” or “to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.” The extant text of Isaiah 61:2 in the Septuagint has a form of the Greek word kaléo (“to call,” “to summon”) instead of kerysso (“to proclaim,” “to announce,” “to preach”)
According to Luke 4:23, Jesus had already done things in Capernaum. Based on John’s account, this could have included the healing of the royal official’s son. While Jesus had earlier spent time in Capernaum, none of the biblical accounts mention his having performed any miracles at that time. Whether Jesus spent time in Capernaum on another occasion prior to his return to Nazareth or whether Luke’s account here does not follow a strict sequential order cannot be determined with certainty.
After leaving Nazareth, Jesus made his home in Capernaum and, initially, appears to have labored alone, proclaiming the need for repentance and the news that the “kingdom of heaven” or the “kingdom of God” had come near. Galilee included the ancient tribal territories of Zebulun and Naphtali. Jesus’ ministry there fulfilled the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, [by] way of the sea, across from the Jordan, Galilee of the nations — the people sitting in darkness have seen a great light, and for those sitting in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.” (Matthew 4:13-17; see the Notes section for additional comments about Isaiah’s prophecy.)
In time, Jesus began to choose men from among his disciples to be more closely associated with him in his activity. On one occasion, as he stood beside the Sea of Galilee (the lake of Gennesaret), many people gathered around him and were pressing in upon him, desiring to hear the “word of God.” On the shore were two boats, and the fishermen were washing their nets. Jesus stepped into the boat belonging to Simon Peter and asked him to pull out a short distance from the shore. Seating himself in the boat, Jesus began to teach the crowds. (Luke 5:1-3)
After having finished speaking, he told Peter and his brother Andrew to take the boat to deep water and let down their nets for a catch. Although having toiled all night without catching anything, Simon Peter agreed to act on Jesus’ directive. Upon doing so, Peter and Andrew caught so many fish that the nets began to rip. They motioned to their partners, James and John (the sons of Zebedee), to come to assist them. (Luke 5:4-7)
Together, they filled both boats to the point that they were about to sink. Seemingly because of feeling unworthy on account of being a sinner, Simon Peter fell to his knees before Jesus, and was emotionally moved to say, “Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord.” The tremendous catch of fish astonished all four fishermen, and Jesus reassured Peter, “Fear not; from now on you will be catching men.” After bringing the boats back to the shore, Peter, Andrew, James, and John responded to the call to follow Jesus. (Luke 5:7-11; see the Notes section for more details.)
Departing from the seashore, Jesus and his disciples walked to Capernaum. (Mark 1:21) They probably headed for the home of Peter and Andrew.
Notes:
The quotation from Isaiah 8:23(9:1) and 9:1(2) in Matthew 4:15, 16 varies somewhat from the extant text of Septuagint manuscripts. The Septuagint reads, “Country of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, [by] way of the sea, and the rest who dwell by the seashore and across from the Jordan, Galilee of the nations, the parts of Judea: O people who walk in darkness, see a great light! O dwellers in the country and shadow of death, light will shine upon you.”
Not all Septuagint manuscripts include the words “way of the sea.” The expression “across from the Jordan,” as relates to the location of Galilee, would mean the region across from the Jordan when coming from the east.
After “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” the Masoretic Text reads, “and in the latter time he will cause the way of the sea to be honored.” This differs considerably from the extant Septuagint text, which mentions no such development regarding the “way of the sea.”
Situated in the northern part of the ten-tribe kingdom, Naphtali and Zebulun often suffered from enemy attacks. During the reign of Pekah, Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III invaded, conquering Galilee and taking inhabitants of Naphtali into exile. (2 Kings 15:29) As Isaiah 8:22 indicates, this proved to be a period of distress and darkness, with no bright prospect. The time would come, however, when such humiliating treatment as the Assyrians had meted out would not be experienced, when Naphtali and Zebulun would be honored. After the exile, the region of Galilee again became populous. Contrasting with the gloom and distress of the past, the time of restoration was a period of joy comparable to a celebration at the time of harvest. (Isaiah 9:3) As if a new day had dawned, the darkness had been dispelled. Where people had once walked in darkness or resided in gloom on account of difficult circumstances, living in the land of “deep shadow,” there then came to be a light.
Centuries later, when God’s Son engaged in extensive activity around the Sea of Galilee, light did indeed shine upon the people. As the “light of the world” (John 8:12), Jesus Christ brought comfort and hope to the oppressed and disadvantaged ones. He also liberated many from their physical afflictions. Most importantly, he refreshed them spiritually and opened up to all who accepted him the inestimable honor of being God’s children and benefiting from his guidance and loving care.
The events surrounding the response of Peter, Andrew, James, and John to Jesus’ invitation to follow him are presented in a very brief way in Matthew and Mark. According to Matthew’s account, Jesus walked along the shore of the Sea of Galilee when he saw Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea. He invited them to follow him and told them he would make them “fishers of men.” “They immediately left their nets and followed him.” He then saw the brothers James and John in the boat with their father Zebedee. They were mending their nets. When Jesus called them, they immediately left the boat and their father to follow him. (Matthew 4:18-22) Mark’s account is almost identical, with the exception of the addition that there were also hired men with Zebedee. (Mark 1:16-20) This detail reveals that James and John did not leave their father without assistance.
Luke’s account provides more detail, and first introduces the four fisherman as being outside their boats and washing their nets. Initially, though, as Matthew reports, Jesus may have seen Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea. After the surprisingly large catch of fish, Peter and Andrew brought their boat to the shore, as did James and John. A comparatively short distance would have separated the two boats, and the men would have busied themselves in attending to the catch.
During fishing operations, nets would at times tear, and so it would not have been unusual for Jesus later to have seen James and John mending their nets. When Peter and Andrew tried to pull up the large catch, their nets did tear. The account does not say that James and John, on coming to assist, also used their nets and that these ripped in the process. This is, however, a possibility. On the other hand, James and John may have been mending tears in their nets from other fishing operations.
In Luke 5:10, the reassurance about not being afraid is specifically directed to Peter. The aspect concerning “catching men,” however, applied to all four fishermen, as the Greek verb for “will be catching” is second person plural.
The condensed accounts should clearly not be taken to mean that Peter and Andrew left the fish to rot in the boat and the nets in disarray. The major change in their life was that they were from then onward far more closely associated with Jesus in his activity and witnessed most of what he said and did. The biblical accounts serve to identify Jesus as the Son of God, and how the disciples cared for family affairs during this period does not contribute to the all-important message. So the absence of this kind of information should not be taken to mean that the disciples neglected basic responsibilities and left wives and children to fend for themselves as best they could. When Jesus extended the invitation to Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow him, they did not put off accepting it but responded without delay. They let nothing interfere with what acceptance of Jesus’ invitation required of them. As “fishers of men,” they would search for responsive ones and share with them the message that Jesus directed them to proclaim.
It may be noted that the disciples continued to use a boat, likely the one belonging to Peter. After Jesus’ resurrection, Peter and six other disciples went fishing, and the net in which 153 large fish were caught was in good condition. (Matthew 8:23; 9:1; 13:1, 2; 14:13, 22; 15:39; Mark 3:9; Luke 8:22, 23; John 21:2, 3, 11)
See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for pictures of and comments about the Sea of Galilee.
On the Sabbath day, Jesus, accompanied by the four disciples, went to the synagogue and began to teach those assembled. His teaching “astonished” (ekplésso) the people, for he taught as one having authority and not as did the scribes. Whereas the scribes quoted prominent rabbis from the past, Jesus did not base his teaching on tradition but made direct application of the Scriptures (as evident from later accounts about his teaching). (Mark 1:21, 22; Luke 4:31, 32)
Suddenly, a man, under the influence of an “unclean spirit” or the “spirit of an unclean demon” began to scream, “What [is there between] us and you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the holy one of God.” Jesus did not allow any further expressions, saying: “Be silent and come out from him.” At that, the man was seized by a convulsion and a loud scream followed. Unharmed by the convulsion, the man was freed from his affliction. Amazed, those who witnessed this exclaimed, “What is this? A new teaching? With authority [“and power,” Luke 4:36], he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” Thereafter word about this incident spread to other parts of Galilee. (Mark 1:23-28; Luke 4:33-37)
The way those in the synagogue expressed themselves shows that they did not recognize that the powerful work they had witnessed revealed Jesus to be the promised Messiah. Their amazement appears to have been limited to attributing the development to a new teaching.
Notes:
The Greek word ekplésso (“to be astonished,” “astounded,” or “amazed”) may also signify “to be shocked.” At least a number of those in the synagogue may have been disturbed or shocked about the manner of Jesus’ teaching. It is not uncommon for people to become uncomfortable when experiencing something unfamiliar or new to them.
Possibly persons whose affliction was attributed to an “unclean demon” would repeatedly scream filthy and abusive terms. The many instances of demon possession may not, in every case, have been such. In the first century, serious mental illness and other ailments were often regarded as being caused by malign spirits. While there are definite instances (based on the details provided) that point to actual demon possession, often those who brought the afflicted ones to Jesus believed this to be the reason for the suffering. The Son of God would have dealt with the situation according to then-existing beliefs, as the people would not have understood any explanation about the real cause of serious mental illness and other ailments. Just as Jesus “rebuked” the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:39), he would have “rebuked” the agent people believed to be responsible for the suffering of the afflicted individuals.
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
Jesus and his disciples left the synagogue and entered the home of Peter and Andrew. At the time, Peter’s mother-in-law had a high fever. Informed about this, Jesus took hold of her hand, raised her up, and “rebuked the fever.” Liberated from the fever and with her full strength restored, the mother-in-law got up and began to serve Jesus and the others, probably providing food for them. (Matthew 8:14, 15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38, 39)
In the evening, after the Sabbath had ended at sundown, people came to the home, bringing the sick and those they believed were suffering from demon possession. Jesus healed the sick and those who were possessed, many of whom screamed, “You are the Son of God.” He, however, did not permit them to speak, as they knew him to be the Christ. The cures Jesus effected fulfilled the words of Isaiah’s prophecy (53:4), “He took our infirmities [away] and carried our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16, 17; Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40, 41)
It appears that Jesus stayed overnight at Peter’s home. While it was still dark, he got up early in the morning and then headed for an isolated area, where he could pray. (Mark 1:35)
In the meantime, people probably came to the house, looking for Jesus. Peter and the other disciples searched for him. Upon finding him, Peter said, “All are seeking you.” (Mark 1:36, 37) According to Luke’s account, quite a number of people seem to have followed the disciples and tried to prevent Jesus from leaving Capernaum. He, however, replied, “I must proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom of God also in other cities, because for this [reason] I have been sent.” (Luke 4:42, 43) In Mark’s account, Jesus directed his words to Peter and the other disciples, “Let us go elsewhere, into the neighboring towns, that there also I may preach; for this [reason] I have come.” (Mark 1:38) Accompanied by his disciples, he went throughout Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, curing every disease and ailment among the people, and liberating many from the power of the demons. (Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:39)
Notes:
The inhabitants of Capernaum observed the Sabbath and so waited until after it ended to bring the sick and those suffering in other ways.
The quotation of Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17 does not follow the wording of the extant Septuagint text, which reads, “This one carries our sins and undergoes pain for us.” The quotation in Matthew does, however, agree with the reading of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. “Surely he has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains.” The extant Septuagint text is somewhat closer to the thought expressed in the Targum of Isaiah, “He shall pray for our transgressions and our iniquities.”
According to the reading of Luke 4:44 in the oldest manuscripts, Jesus preached in the “synagogues of Judea.” If this is the original reading, “synagogues of Judea” may designate the synagogues in the land where the Jews lived and not specifically those in the region known as Judea, situated on the southern border of Samaria. Later manuscripts read “Galilee.”
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
During the course of Jesus’ activity in Galilee, a man afflicted with leprosy approached him. Kneeling before him and bowing down with his face touching the ground, he pleaded, “Lord, if you want to, you can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out with his hand and touched him, saying, “I want to; be made clean.” Although the man had been “full of leprosy,” suggesting a serious advanced state, every trace of the disease vanished immediately. (Matthew 8:2, 3; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 5:12, 13)
Jesus sternly charged the healed leper not to let anyone know about his miraculous cure but to present himself before the priest and comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law “for a testimony to them.” By following the prescribed purification procedure, the cured leper would be pronounced clean, providing testimony to all that he had been healed. (Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14; see the Notes section for requirements of the Mosaic law.)
Instead of appreciatively heeding Jesus’ directive, the healed leper spread the news far and wide. As a result, crowds would gather and Jesus could no longer enter cities openly. So he remained in the sparsely populated areas, but the crowds still kept coming to hear him and to be healed. (Mark 1:45; Luke 5:15) In order to have the needed privacy for prayer, Jesus had to find deserted places. (Luke 5:16)
Notes:
The Greek term for leprosy (lépra) can refer to a variety of skin diseases, including the disfiguring Hansen’s disease.
In Mark 1:41, a form of splanchnízomai (have compassion) is supported by the reading of most manuscripts. A fifth-century manuscript contains a form of orgízo (to be angry). This reading may have arisen from an effort to harmonize the stern charge Jesus gave the man not to spread the news and then dismissing him with the directive to show himself to the priest. The compassion the Son of God showed, however, would not preclude his being firm about not wanting talk about his healing activity to be spread.
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)
When Jesus returned to Capernaum (his “own city”) with his disciples, he likely stayed in the home of Peter and Andrew. Once it became known that Jesus was again in the city, many people came to the house. According to Luke’s account (5:17), among them were Pharisees and teachers of the law from towns in Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. It would appear that the crowd filled the house and the courtyard. So many had gathered that even outside the home the entrance was blocked. (Matthew 9:1; Mark 2:1, 2)
While Jesus addressed the people, four men came, carrying a paralytic on a mat. Unable to get to Jesus, the men climbed up the outside stairs to the flat roof. They then dug an opening through the earthen roof and lowered the paralytic in front of Jesus. Seeing this evidence of their faith in him as one who could cure the paralyzed man, Jesus said, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:3-5; Luke 5:18-20)
Hearing this, the scribes and Pharisees who were there began to reason within themselves that Jesus was blaspheming, as only God could forgive sins. Discerning their thoughts, he said, “Why are you thinking these things [evil (Matthew 9:4)] in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and pick up your mat and walk?” (Matthew 9:3-5; Mark 2:6-9; Luke 5:21-23)
To let them know that he, the Son of Man, had “authority to forgive sins,” Jesus said to the paralytic, “I say to you, Get up, take your mat, and go to your home.” The paralytic then got up, immediately picked up his mat, and departed in front of the amazed onlookers. Those who witnessed this miracle were filled with a reverential fear and glorified or praised God, saying, “Never have we seen anything like this!” (Matthew 9:6-8; Mark 2:10-12; Luke 5:24-26)
Notes:
Much of Jesus’ activity centered in Capernaum and, therefore, came to be known as his “own city.” (Matthew 9:1)
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
In Matthew 9:2 and Mark 2:5, Jesus is quoted as addressing the paralytic as “child,” whereas Luke 5:20 says “man.” This could be understood to mean that the paralytic was a young man. Another possibility is that the designation “child” functions as an expression of compassionate or loving concern for the paralytic and could be rendered “my dear man.”
As the unique Son of God who would lay down his life in sacrifice to make forgiveness possible for all who responded in faith, Jesus, while on earth, possessed the authority to forgive sins. He discerned the genuineness of the paralytic’s faith and responded to him accordingly.
Physical ailments were commonly attributed to a person’s having sinned. On one occasion the disciples expressed that belief regarding a blind man, asking whether his blindness was to be attributed to his own sin or that of his parents. (John 9:2) When assuring the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven, Jesus made it clear to him that he was not under God’s disfavor. Therefore, upon being cured physically, the man also ceased to be burdened by any feelings of guilt. The assurance of forgiveness, confirmed by the miracle, resulted in making him well in all respects. While this assurance caused the scribes and Pharisees to find fault, it served to benefit that formerly afflicted man. In his love and compassion, Jesus did not hold back from saying what was needed despite knowing the kind of unfavorable reaction that was forthcoming from some who were then present.
Jesus’ telling the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven would not have proved that this had actually occurred nor could it be disproved with tangible evidence. When, however, the paralytic got up and walked away with his mat, Jesus’ words were undeniably confirmed. Therefore, the more difficult saying, the one requiring a miracle for it to be revealed as authoritative, was to say to the paralytic, “Get up and pick up your mat and walk.” (Mark 2:9)
It is most unlikely that those who witnessed the miracle would all have used the same words. This is reflected in the difference between Mark 2:12 (“Never have we seen anything like this!”) and Luke 5:26 (“We saw remarkable things today!”).
Matthew (also known as Levi) doubtless was one of the tax collectors who responded to John the Baptist’s call to repentance. From the place where he collected taxes near the Sea of Galilee (probably on the outskirts of Capernaum), Matthew may often have heard Jesus speak and must have known about his many miracles. Therefore, when Jesus called him to follow him while he was seated at the tax collector’s booth, Matthew did not hesitate to do so. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:13, 14; Luke 5:27, 28)
Probably to celebrate the honor that had been extended to him and to inform his friends and acquaintances about his new role, he invited them to his home for a banquet along with Jesus and his disciples. Observing this, the Pharisees and scribes made an issue of it, saying to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat [and drink (Luke 5:30)] with the tax collectors and sinners?” They implied that Jesus desired the company of those who failed to live up to the law. Tax collectors were in the service of a foreign power (Rome) and had a reputation for dishonesty, charging more than the required tax rate to make gain for themselves. As a tax collector, Matthew would not have been regarded as a desirable associate. Understandably, therefore, his guests were fellow tax collectors and others with a bad reputation. (Matthew 9:10, 11; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:29, 30)
Overhearing their complaining, Jesus corrected the wrong view of the Pharisees and scribes, telling them that those who were well, unlike the ailing, did not need a physician. The Pharisees and scribes imagined themselves to be in an acceptable condition before God and so were unaware of their need of the kind of spiritual healing available through Jesus. The sinners and tax collectors, on the other hand, recognized their need for repentance and forgiveness. They welcomed Jesus as one who could help them. (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31)
Backing his statement from the Scriptures, Jesus quoted from Hosea 6:6 and directed the Pharisees and scribes to learn from the words, “I want mercy and not sacrifice.” In keeping with his Father’s desire for mercy to be shown to those in need, Jesus pointed out that he came to call sinners, not the righteous, that is, those who regarded themselves as righteous before God by reason of their legalistic observance of the law. In reality, though, they were not truly upright, failing to manifest the love, justice, and compassion that the law required. (Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; compare Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42.)
It appears that Jesus banqueted with his disciples on what may have been a fast day (either Monday or Thursday) observed by the Pharisees. This prompted some disciples of John the Baptist to ask him, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [often (not in all manuscripts of Matthew)], but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
In reply, Jesus indicated that it was inappropriate for the guests [literally, “sons”] of the bridegroom to fast while the bridegroom was with them. When, however, he would be taken away from them, they would fast. (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19, 20; Luke 5:34, 35) Illustrating the point further, Jesus used two likenesses or parables.
No one would patch an old garment with a new, unshrunk piece of cloth. Upon being washed, the new fabric would shrink, pull away from the material of the old garment, and worsen the tear. (Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21) Luke 5:36 identifies the source of the patch as a new garment. The new fabric would not match the old cloth, and both garments would be ruined.
No one would put new wine into old wineskins. Lacking elasticity, the old wineskins would burst from the fermenting of the new wine, and the new wine would spill out. To prevent this, new wine would be poured into new wineskins. (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37, 38)
People, however, have a tendency to resist change, preferring the old and familiar. As Jesus said, “No one who has drunk the old [wine] wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:39)
By means of the parables, the Son of God emphasized that his teaching could not be fitted into the old traditional mold. Any attempt to do so would work out ruinously for his dynamic teaching and would wreck the old traditional way. This should have helped the disciples of John the Baptist to see that their loyalty to him was not to interfere with their becoming Jesus’ disciples, as John’s preparatory work had served its purpose.
Notes:
Matthew, Mark and Luke word the point about fasting somewhat differently. “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [often], but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14) “Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18) “The disciples of John fast frequently and pray, as also [do the disciples] of the Pharisees, but your [disciples] eat and drink.” (Luke 5:33) The differences in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are understandable. The words were not originally spoken in Greek, and the writers of the accounts conveyed the sense of what the disciples of John said and not their precise words.
During the time Jesus was dead, the disciples, overcome with grief, would doubtless have fasted. After his ascension to heaven, the disciples also fasted for specific reasons. In time, believers came to include Pharisees, and they may have continued with their fasting routine, as it was not wrong in itself. Generally, though, early believers do not appear to have set aside specific fast days.
The various manuscript readings do not make it possible to determine for which festival Jesus went to Jerusalem. (John 5:1) While the oldest extant manuscripts omit the definite article before “festival” (heorté), many later manuscripts include it. Based on the definite article, many have thought that this would have been the most prominent of the three annual festivals — the Passover (followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread). A ninth-century manuscript does, in fact, read ázymos, identifying the occasion as being the Festival of Unleavened Bread. A fourteenth-century manuscript, however, refers to it as “the Festival of Tabernacles” (he skenopegía).
While in Jerusalem, Jesus, on a Sabbath day, passed by the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda or Bethsaida [according to other manuscript readings]), which was situated near the Sheep Gate, the northeastern entrance into the temple area. In the five porticoes that had been constructed for this pool, many afflicted persons were lying, including the blind, the lame, and the crippled. Among them was a man who had suffered from his ailment for 38 years. Aware of this man’s pitiable state for many years, Jesus said to him, “Do you want to get well?” The man explained that he had no one to put him into the pool when the water would get stirred up. While he would then try to make it into the pool, someone else would precede him. Jesus told him, “Rise, pick up your mat, and walk.” Immediately cured from his affliction, the man got up, took hold of his mat, and started to walk. (John 5:2-9)
Seeing the cured man carrying his mat, fellow Jews told him that it was unlawful for him to do this on the Sabbath. He replied that the man who had made him well had told him to pick up his mat and walk. Instead of rejoicing about the marvelous cure, the objectors continued to focus on what they perceived to be a violation of the law, saying, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up [your mat] and walk’?” The cured man could not answer this question, for Jesus had not identified himself and, because of the crowd there, had walked away. (John 5:10-13)
Later, Jesus found the cured man in the temple complex. Whether he chose to look for the man or just happened to meet him again is not disclosed in the biblical account. Jesus did use the opportunity to admonish him not to sin any more and thus to avoid having something even worse than the 38 years of suffering befall him. This could suggest that the man had in earlier years lived a sinful life that brought on his affliction. Now that he was again well he should have been concerned about not repeating past wrongs and sinning with full knowledge of the serious consequences. (John 5:14)
The biblical record does not state why the cured man felt impelled to reveal Jesus’ identity to the Jews who had accused him of breaking the law by carrying his mat on the Sabbath. It seems most unlikely that he thought that this would bring trouble to his benefactor. As he appears to have made a point of the fact that Jesus had restored him to sound health, the man may have felt that this would cause them to draw a positive conclusion about his healer and cease making an issue about his carrying the mat on the Sabbath. (John 5:15)
Those who regarded what had taken place in connection with the cured man as a violation of the law, however, made Jesus the object of their hostility. Establishing his right to do good deeds on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his opponents, “My Father has been working until now, and I continue working.” The Jews would have believed that God completed his creative activity but continued to work, extending his blessing and expressing his judgment. Based on their holy writings, they would have known that God’s works included healing and making alive. (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7) In imitation of his Father, Jesus continued to work, doing good deeds on the Sabbath. (John 5:16, 17)
Recognizing that he was referring to God as his Father in an intimate way, those hearing Jesus’ words became enraged, intent on killing him. In their minds, he had violated the Sabbath and called God his own Father in a very personal manner that was foreign to them, prompting them to conclude that he was blasphemously making himself “equal to” or like God. (John 5:18)
Jesus’ reply revealed that they were wrong in their thinking that he was making himself equal to God, for he never acted independently of his Father. He solemnly affirmed the certainty of his words with “amen, amen” and stressed that he did not act on his own authority respecting a single deed but only did what he saw his Father doing. Whatever the Father did, the Son did likewise. Calling attention to the close relationship with his Father, Jesus continued: “The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he himself does, and works greater than these he will show him, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and restores life, so also the Son restores life to whomever he wishes. For the Father judges no one but has granted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my word and believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and is not condemned but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:19-24)
As the intimate and dearly beloved of his Father, the unique Son possessed complete knowledge of his Father’s activity. In this context, the deeds of the Father specifically relate to humankind. The Father would do works even more astonishing than one like the restoration of good health to the man who had been afflicted for 38 years. The more impressive works would amaze those beholding them. As Jesus’ words revealed, those astonishing works involved more than temporary cures from affliction. The Father would make it possible for his Son to raise the dead and give them life.
As the one to whom the Father had granted judgment authority, the Son would be in position to judge those whom he restored to life. Being the possessor of life-giving power like his Father and judge by his Father’s appointment, Jesus would be deserving of honor. All, in fact, should honor him as they would rightly honor the Father. A refusal to honor the Son would signify a refusal to honor the Father, as the Father had sent him.
In his capacity as judge, the Son would not express condemnatory judgment against those who believe in him, acknowledging him as God’s beloved Son and living a life that gives evidence of their belief or faith. Those who “hear” his word, accepting it in faith and acting on it, and who believe that the Father had sent his Son come into possession of eternal life. It is a life of an abiding approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Possessors of this eternal life, a newness of life as divinely approved persons, do not face condemnatory judgment. From a state of being dead in sins and therefore without a divinely approved standing, they have entered into the realm of life.
In past generations, this opportunity had not been opened up, as Jesus continued, “Amen, amen, I say to you that the hour is coming and is now when the dead will hear the voice of God’s Son and those hearing [it] will live.” Those who paid attention to Jesus’ words and embraced them in faith ceased to be dead in trespasses and sins and began to enjoy a newness of life. With the arrival of God’s Son on earth, the “hour” or time for this marvelous development had arrived. (John 5:25)
The Father, who had “life in himself” or life-giving power also granted the Son to have the same life-giving power. Jesus explained that he had been granted authority to render judgment because of being the “Son of Man.” By speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he identified himself with the one like a “son of man” (mentioned in Daniel 7:13, 14) to whom the Most High would grant kingship. (John 5:26, 27)
Jesus’ statement, “Do not be amazed at this,” could apply either to his words about being the “Son of Man” with divinely granted authority to judge or to his next comment about his restoring life to the dead and thereupon judging them. He continued speaking about himself in the third person, “The hour is coming when all in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.” Those who revealed themselves to be doers of good during their lifetime would then experience the “resurrection of life,” from then onward enjoying life eternally as persons having an approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Practicers of vile deeds, those who had set themselves in opposition to God’s ways, would face a “resurrection of judgment,” a condemnatory judgment commensurate with the life they had lived. (John 5:28, 29)
These words of Jesus parallel Daniel 12:2 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote about judgment, (2 Corinthians 5:10 (NAB), “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”
Christ’s judgment would conform to the highest standard of justice. He continued, “I can do nothing of myself, as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, for I seek [to do] not my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” (John 5:30) In judging, Jesus would not handle matters as if he were a law to himself. His Father is the source of the ultimate standard of justice, and it is to him that Jesus would always listen, assuring absolute impartiality. At all times, he would seek to do his Father’s will, never deviating therefrom to do his own will and failing to uphold what the demands of flawless justice require.
Jesus acknowledged that, if he merely testified respecting himself, his testimony could not be accepted as true, for it would be lacking the needed confirmation from at least one other witness. (Compare Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; 1 Timothy 5:19.) There was, however, another witness who bore testimony concerning him, and Jesus knew the testimony of this other witness to be true. The dependable witness was not a man. (John 5:31, 32)
Prominent Jews from Jerusalem had sent a delegation of priests and Levites to John to question him about his activity. On that occasion, John provided testimony that focused on the Messiah, the one for whom he was preparing the way. (John 1:19-27) Jesus, though, was not “accepting” the testimony from any man as if he depended upon it. He had testimony from a much higher source than man, making testimony from a human source unessential for confirmation of his identity. Jesus did not, however, reject John’s testimony. With the objective of leading his listeners to salvation or liberation from enslavement to sin, he called attention to John’s truthful witness. (John 5:33, 34)
Jesus wanted his listeners to reflect on John’s words and to act on them, leading to their acceptance of him as the promised Messiah. John proved to be a shining lamp, providing enlightenment about what was essential for being ready for Messiah’s appearance. For a short time (an “hour”), the people rejoiced in the light from this lamp, with many coming to John, listening to what he proclaimed, and being baptized by him in acknowledgment of their sinful state. (John 5:35; compare Matthew 3:1-6.) Eventually, however, increasing numbers looked upon him negatively, slanderously referring to him as being demon possessed. (Matthew 11:16-18)
The miraculous works his Father had empowered Jesus to do served as testimony far greater than what John could give. These works undeniably established that he had come from God. (Compare John 3:2; 9:24-38.) As Jesus said, “The works that I am doing testify about me that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36) By means of the works he had given Jesus to do, his Father testified that he was his beloved Son. (Compare Hebrews 2:2-4.)
When telling those to whom he was then speaking that they had never heard God’s voice nor seen his form, Jesus did not refer to their not having such an experience in the literal sense. The holy writings, which they claimed to believe, contained God’s words and presented a clear vision respecting him. (Compare Exodus 20:18-22; 24:9-11; Judges 13:21-23; Job 38:1; 42:5; Isaiah 6:1-5; Ezekiel 1:26-28.) Their response to Jesus, the unique Son of God who flawlessly reflected the image of his Father, proved that they had not heard God’s voice as conveyed through the holy writings nor did they see God in the way he had revealed himself in these writings. God’s revelatory word did not abide in them. It was no part of their inner self, and so they lacked the essential light for recognizing the Son. This was the reason for their refusal to believe him as the one whom the Father had sent. (John 5:37, 38)
They did search the scriptures, thinking that through them they would have eternal life or a life as God’s favored people. Despite their searching, though, they failed to see the vital truth respecting the activity of the coming Messiah and allowed themselves to be blinded by what they wanted him to be. (Compare Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Isaiah 53:1-12.) The kind of life they were seeking could only be obtained by coming to Christ, acknowledging him as God’s unique Son who could liberate them from enslavement to sin. But, as Jesus said, “You do not wish to come to me so that you might have life.” (John 5:39, 40)
Jesus felt no need to have men bestow glory or honor upon him, seeking to please them in efforts to gain their favor or approval. He was fully aware that those to whom he spoke did not have the love of God in themselves. Their refusal to love him showed that they did not love the Father who had sent him. He had come in his Father’s name, faithfully representing him in word and deed. Yet those who heard Jesus’ words refused to accept him. If, on the other hand, someone came to them in his own name, acting and speaking on his own authority, they would accept him, evidently because they would be of kindred spirit and would be hearing what they wanted to hear. (John 5:41-43)
They had the wrong view of glory, wanting the praises of men, which required an appeal to those aims and desires that pandered to the flawed human condition. They did not seek the glory or praise that had its source in the only God, not wanting to submit themselves fully to his will and ways. (John 5:44)
Although Jesus thus reproved their unbelief, he could say that they had another one who accused them for their faithlessness. That one was Moses, the very one in whom they had set their hope. If they had truly believed Moses and the Messianic prophecies recorded in the sacred writings they attributed to him, they would have believed Jesus. How, though, could they believe Jesus’ words if they did not really believe the writings of Moses, writings which they claimed to believe as being of God? (John 5:45-47)
Notes:
The measure of uncertainty about which festival was involved also makes the placement of the event uncertain.
The Greek text of John 5:2 does not include the word “gate.” Based on the context, the term has been included in translations.
According to the oldest manuscripts, there is no mention about the reason for the stirring up of the waters in the pool. Later manuscripts say that an angel stirred up the waters and that the first person then stepping into the pool would be cured of whatever ailment he may have had.
The words “amen, amen, I say to you,” found in John 5:19, 24 and 25, constitute a solemn declaration and strong assurance of the statements thus introduced.
The biblical record does not mention when Jesus left Jerusalem and resumed activity in Galilee. Only John’s account refers to his having been in Jerusalem for a festival and having cured an afflicted man at the pool of Bethzatha. This account next narrates events that occurred in Galilee shortly before the Passover. (John 6:4)
One Sabbath, Jesus and his disciples were walking on a path leading through grainfields in Galilee. The hungry disciples, in keeping with a provision of the law, began picking some ears (either of barley or wheat), rubbing them in their hands, and then eating the grain. (Deuteronomy 23:25) Observing this, certain Pharisees objected, viewing their activity as harvesting and threshing and, therefore, unlawful on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1, 2; Mark 2:23, 24; Luke 6:1, 2)
In response, Jesus reminded the Pharisees of what David had done when he and the men with him were hungry. He accepted shewbread from the priest at the sanctuary, which bread, according to the law, only priests were entitled to eat. Jesus then called attention to the fact that the priests at the temple worked on the Sabbath and yet remained innocent of wrongdoing while carrying out their sacred duties. The Pharisees knew that, outside the temple area, the kind of activity in which priests and Levites engaged on the Sabbath would have been a violation of the law. With reference to himself, Jesus told them, “Something greater than the temple is here.” As the promised Messiah, the unique Son of God, Jesus was greater than the temple, and he did not consider what the disciples did as wrong. Their hunger was real, and human need took precedence (as the case of David illustrated). Stressing the spirit of the law, Jesus added, “If you knew what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent ones.” (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 12:3-7; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4)
A day of rest served to benefit man. It was not a matter of man being created for the purpose of observing a day of rest. Again calling attention to his identity, Jesus said, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” As Lord of the Sabbath, it was at his disposal for doing positive good, and no one had the authority to condemn his disciples for any activity that he deemed appropriate on that day. (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 6:5)
Notes:
According to 1 Samuel 21:2-6, David obtained the shewbread from Ahimelech. The extant text of Mark 2:26 mentions Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. It should be noted, however, that Mark 2:26 does not say that Abiathar gave the shewbread to David. This did take place during the general period in which Abiathar served as high priest, for King Saul had Ahimelech executed shortly after David received the shewbread and Abiathar escaped being massacred along with his father and other priests. (1 Samuel 22:11-23)
The extant Septuagint text of Hosea 6:6 is the same as the quotation in Matthew 12:7.
Every Sabbath, Jesus customarily went to the synagogue in whatever town or city in Galilee he happened to be at the time and would teach. (Compare Luke 4:16.) On this particular occasion, scribes, Pharisees, and a man afflicted with an atrophied, paralyzed, or crippled right hand were present among those assembled. The scribes and Pharisees watched whether Jesus would cure the man, seeking to accuse him of violating the law. Probably one of their number raised the question, “Is it permissible to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12:9, 10; Mark 3:1, 2; Luke 6:6, 7)
In response, Jesus asked whether a man whose sheep had fallen into a pit on a Sabbath would not lift it out. (Matthew 12:11) Those who were seeking an accusation against Jesus knew that it would primarily be in the man’s interest to help his sheep and that his doing so would, to a lesser extent, be for the sake of the animal. A man, as Jesus pointed out, had greater value than a sheep, and so it was allowable to do good on the Sabbath. He then requested the afflicted man to stand up and position himself in front of everyone. Their seeing him should have given rise to feelings of compassion and a desire to see him cured. The way they reasoned, as Jesus knew, did not allow them to respond mercifully. They would have been more concerned about making sure their sheep was safe than about promoting the welfare of a fellow Israelite. (Matthew 12:12; Mark 3:3; Luke 6:8)
Jesus asked, “Is it permissible on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a life [soul], or to kill?” For Jesus to have left the man in his afflicted state when he was in a position to bring him relief would have been a callous act or evil. Apparently recognizing what Jesus’ question implied in relation to the man, those assembled refused to answer. As Jesus looked around at the faces of those in the synagogue, he saw no evidence of fellow feeling for the man. Their lack of compassion angered and greatly distressed him. He then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” Immediately the man’s right hand was restored to the sound condition of the left hand. (Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:4, 5; Luke 6:9, 10)
Infuriated at what they regarded as a violation of the Sabbath, the scribes and Pharisees were determined to put a stop to Jesus’ activity. Although they were at enmity with the supporters of Herod Antipas, they thereafter joined them in plotting how they might destroy Jesus. To attain their objective, they needed the political backing of those whom they actually hated and so were willing to cooperate with them in an effort to rid themselves of the object of their hostility. (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6; Luke 6:11)
Note:
According to Jerome, the evangel the Ebionites used referred to the man as a mason who pleaded with Jesus to restore his hand so that he could again make a living and not have to endure the disgrace of being forced to beg for his food.
With his disciples, Jesus departed for the area around the Sea of Galilee, where his safety would not have been imperiled by the plotting of his enemies. Many from Galilee followed him. News about his activity had spread extensively, and multitudes also came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumaea (bordering Judea on the south), the region on the east side of the Jordan, and the area around Tyre and Sidon (major cities north of Galilee). (Matthew 12:15; Mark 3:7, 8)
To avoid having the crowds crush him, Jesus requested that his disciples have a boat ready for him. This likely would have been Peter’s boat. (Mark 3:9) From the boat, Jesus could address the crowds. The availability of the boat also facilitated his being able to travel to other areas along the seashore.
Jesus had healed many people. So those afflicted with diseases would press upon him, seeking to touch him. Under the control of unclean spirits, persons would shout, “You are the Son of God.” Often Jesus would rebuke them, not allowing them to continue calling attention to his identity. (Mark 3:10-12) In this way, he made it clear that he had nothing in common with the demons and did not want their testimony. To the extent possible, Jesus sought to prevent situations that could lead to his being misrepresented.
He instructed those whom he healed not to spread the word about their cures. Jesus wanted to prevent stirring up needless excitement and the gathering of huge crowds. The way in which he handled matters fulfilled the words of Isaiah 42:1-4. According to Matthew 12:18-21, the prophecy says, “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul has taken delight. I will put my spirit upon him, and he will announce judgment to the nations. He will not quarrel nor cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the squares. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering [wick of] flax he will not extinguish, until he has brought judgment to victory, and in his name nations will hope.”
Jesus proved to be the Messianic “servant,” whom his Father had chosen to do his will. This involved laying down his life in sacrifice to make it possible for humans to be forgiven of their sins and to be reconciled to the Father. At the time of Jesus’ baptism, his Father acknowledged him as his beloved with whom he was pleased. (Matthew 3:17; compare Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:5-13.) He was then anointed with holy spirit and thereafter began a proclamation of judgment. The message revealed divine justice and how to gain a right relationship with God and also made it clear that serious loss would result from failure to respond in faith. Whereas Jesus primarily focused on the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he later did “announce judgment to the nations” through his disciples.
The Son of God did not engage in noisy public debating. He refused to be like those who called attention to themselves, were intent on having the masses hear them, and made loud pronouncements in areas where large numbers of people would customarily gather. The lowly or humble and the afflicted among the people resembled bruised reeds and lamp wicks about to go out. They had little from their hard toil and experienced oppression. Among them were many who suffered from diseases and infirmities. Unlike those who made the lot of the lowly more difficult, Jesus compassionately and lovingly brought relief to those who looked to his Father for help. He provided them with comfort and hope, healed many afflicted ones, and infused the lowly and those in distress with new life. Through his activity, he brought what is just or right to victory or accomplished his Father’s will respecting justice. To people of the nations, he (the one bearing the name) came to be the one on whom they could set their hope and, through him, come to be approved children of God. (For additional comments on the quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4, see the Notes section.)
Notes:
The quotation of Isaiah 42:1-4 in Matthew 12:18-21 largely follows the reading of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. A major difference is in Isaiah 42:4, where the Hebrew text says, “He will not grow faint and not be crushed until he has set judgment in the earth, and for his law the islands [or, coastlands] shall wait.”
This could be understood to mean that YHWH’s servant, the Messiah, would not tire out or become discouraged on account of the unresponsiveness he would be facing, but he would succeed in accomplishing his mission respecting judgment or justice. He would reveal what is right or just. In this case, “law” would mean Messiah’s authoritative teaching. Nations other than Israel would wait for it, indicating that non-Israelites would desire to receive this teaching or law. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah says that the isles or coastlands would “inherit” the law, suggesting that they would accept the authoritative teaching and make it their own, faithfully submitting to it.
The extant Septuagint text differs in numerous respects from the quotation in Matthew and the Hebrew text. It reads, “Jacob [is] my servant. I will support him. Israel [is] my chosen one. My soul has welcomed him. I have put my spirit upon him. Judgment he will bring forth to the nations. He will not cry out or let loose [his voice] nor will his voice be heard outside. A bruised reed he will not crush, and a smoking [wick of] flax he will not extinguish, but in truth he will bring forth judgment. He will shine forth and not be broken until he has set judgment upon the earth, and upon his name nations will hope.” There is a possibility that this translation is an interpretive rendering, identifying the servant as the people of Israel rather than the Messiah.
In Matthew 12:21, the point about the hoping of the nations in the name agrees with the reading of the Septuagint but differs from the wording of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah.
The mountain that Jesus ascended and where he spent the entire night in prayer before choosing the “twelve” may have been located near the Sea of Galilee, as there is no indication in Mark’s account that Jesus left the general area around the seashore. In the morning he called the twelve to him, empowering them to expel demons and to cure sicknesses and infirmities. He also commissioned them to proclaim the glad tidings (the message about gaining divine approval and having God as the Sovereign of one’s life). To the twelve, he gave the name “apostles,” meaning “ones sent out.” (Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:13-15; Luke 6:12, 13) The twelve apostles were Simon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Judas the son of James), Simon the Cananaean, and Judas. (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16)
All of them appear to have originally been disciples of John, as the qualifications for a replacement for Judas included being a witness respecting Jesus’ baptism by John. (Acts 1:21, 22) Only John could have provided firsthand testimony to his disciples about what he saw and heard on that occasion.
John the Baptist specifically pointed Jesus out to Andrew and John (who does not identify himself in the gospel attributed to him). Andrew introduced his brother Simon to Jesus, and at that time Jesus gave him the name Cephas or Peter, meaning “rock.” (John 1:35-42)
Although not mentioned in the biblical record, John likely was instrumental in leading his brother James to Jesus. If Salome was indeed Mary’s sister, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were Jesus’ cousins. To them, Jesus gave the name “Boanerges” (“sons of thunder”), which designation perhaps described their fiery disposition. (Mark 3:17)
In John’s account (1:44-47), Philip is mentioned as introducing Nathanael to Jesus. The fact that Philip and Bartholomew are linked in the lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark, and Luke suggests that Nathanael is another name for Bartholomew.
Not until later did Jesus invite the tax collector Matthew or Levi to be his follower. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14) As to Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Judas the son of James), Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the biblical record provides no information at what point before their selection as apostles they had become close disciples of Jesus. If the designation “Iscariot” is correctly understood as meaning “man of Kerioth,” this could mean that the betrayer Judas was from the Judean town of Kerioth. All the other apostles were Galileans. (Compare Acts 1:15; 2:1, 6, 7.)
Notes:
The term Cananaean appears to be a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “zealot” or “enthusiast.” Luke’s account uses the Greek term zelotés (“zealot”). This may well mean, as many have concluded, that Simon had formerly been associated with the political faction known as the Zealots.
Another possibility is that the appellative describes Simon as a person of exemplary zeal.
Traveling throughout Galilee, Jesus taught in the synagogues, proclaimed the glad tidings of the kingdom (the message that revealed how to gain an approved relationship with his Father and to be part of realm where he is the Sovereign), and healed the sick and infirm. News about his activity spread among Jews living in areas beyond the borders of Galilee and Judea, including the Roman province of Syria, the Decapolis, and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. This resulted in people coming to Jesus in large numbers from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region east of the Jordan. They would bring the sick, those whom they perceived to be demon possessed, the epileptics, and the crippled, and he would heal all of them. As power to heal proceeded from him, the afflicted would seek to touch him. (Matthew 4:23-25; Luke 6:17-19)
Notes:
The Decapolis was a region of ten predominantly Greek cities, which appear to have formed a league sometime during the first century BCE. Of these cities, only Scythopolis was located west of the Jordan. Damascus occupied the most distant northeastern location, and the eight other cities were situated east of the Jordan.
In his Natural History (V, 16 [English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley]), the first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote the following regarding the Decapolis: “On the side of Syria, joining up to Judaea, is the region of Decapolis, so called from the number of its cities; as to which all writers are not agreed. Most of them, however, agree in speaking of Damascus as one, a place fertilized by the river Chrysorroös, which is drawn off into its meadows and eagerly imbibed; Philadelphia, and Rhaphana, all which cities fall back towards Arabia; Scythopolis (formerly called Nysa by Father Liber, from his nurse having been buried there), its present name being derived from a Scythian colony which was established there; Gadara, before which the river Hieromix flows; Hippo [Hippos], which has been previously mentioned; Dion, Pella, rich with its waters; Galasa [Gerasa], and Canatha.”
During the period of his activity in Galilee, Jesus’ typical teaching appears to have included at least parts of what has become known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” Matthew (5:1) specifically reported that Jesus ascended a mountain upon seeing the crowds, seated himself, and then, with his disciples near him, began to teach. Although his words were directed to the disciples, seemingly the acoustical properties of the location made it possible for the rest of the people to hear his strong voice. (Matthew 5:2)
Luke included much of the same material in his considerably shorter account but mentioned Jesus and many of his disciples being in a plain and surrounded by a large crowd from Judea, Jerusalem, and the coastal regions of Tyre and Sidon. (Luke 6:17-19) This suggests that two separate occasions may have been involved. It was not unusual for Jesus to repeat vital aspects of his teaching as he traveled from place to place. (For examples of repeated teaching on other occasions and the differences between Matthew 5:1-7:29 and Luke 6:20-49, see the respective Notes sections.) Those who believe that Luke 6:20-49 and Matthew 5:1-7:29 relate to the same occasion commonly suggest that the plain mentioned in Luke’s account may have been a level area on the elevated site.
Jesus pronounced those “fortunate” or “happy” who would usually not be considered such. The Greek term makários is descriptive of a privileged, enviable, or desirable state. In this context, the fortunate aspect involves a person’s having a yearning for a right relationship with God and for his guidance, help, and blessing.
The “poor in spirit” are persons who recognize their dire impoverished state. “In spirit” or in attitude, they see themselves as helpless. Their disposition is the opposite of those who are arrogantly self-reliant and consider themselves as needing nothing. (Compare Revelation 3:17.) Despite their trials and suffering, the “poor in spirit” cling to their faith in God. They are not like persons who fail to use good judgment, engage in risky behavior, or take needless chances and then blame God for their suffering or misfortune. (Compare Proverbs 19:3.) The “poor in spirit” are fortunate, “because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.” Their disposition is such that they perceive their need for God, wanting to be part of his realm. Therefore, they willingly subject themselves to his guidance and direction. As persons whom God approves and who accept him as their Sovereign, they are, in fact, in his realm and so his kingdom or the “kingdom of the heavens” is theirs. (Matthew 5:3)
Not all persons who mourn may be considered fortunate, but those who mourn for the right reasons do find themselves in a desirable state. Whenever persons mourn in a godly way about their own flawed or sinful condition and the injustices and oppression existing in the world, they will, as Jesus said, “be comforted.” Their comfort would include being forgiven of their sins, having the inner assurance of God’s abiding love, and possessing the trust or faith that his coming day of judgment or reckoning will rectify all matters. (Matthew 5:4)
The “meek,” “humble,” “gentle,” or “considerate” are persons who do not have an exalted opinion of themselves. They are not impressed by their own importance and do not look down upon others with disdain nor treat them in a harsh or hateful manner. Unlike oppressors who seem to have power on their side, the “meek” or “gentle” appear to be at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, it is the meek who “will inherit the earth” or the land. In Psalm 37:10, 11, where the same thought is expressed, the contrast is drawn between the short time the evil oppressor is able to exercise control and the continuance of the meek on the land and their enjoyment of its fruitage. Likely many, if not all, who heard Jesus would have been reminded of the psalmist’s words and would have understood Jesus’ comments accordingly. While corrupt oppressors may dominate for a period, they are not the owners of the earth or land. The ones to whom God grants the inheritance will come to enjoy everything it embraces, and they are the meek or gentle who will continue to live after the oppressors are no more. (Matthew 5:5)
A hungering and thirsting for righteousness would denote an intense yearning to be righteous or upright from God’s standpoint. Such hunger and thirst would stem from an individual’s recognition of personal shortcomings in attitude, word, and action, and from an ardent desire to be a better person. The filling of this hunger and thirst would include coming into possession of the assurance of God’s forgiveness and the conviction that, in the future, one will experience complete deliverance from the sinful condition. (Matthew 5:6)
The merciful treat others in a compassionate manner, responding lovingly to their needs and showing consideration for the weaknesses associated with the flawed human condition. Those who deal compassionately with fellow humans are more likely to prompt a kindly response from others in their own time of need than are persons who have been harsh and demanding. The Most High also deals with individuals according to the way in which they have treated fellow humans. (Compare Matthew 18:35.) As Jesus said, “Fortunate are the merciful, because they will be granted mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)
Persons who are “clean in heart” are pure, not defiled or corrupt, in their inmost selves. They are not unduly suspicious and quick to ascribe bad motives to others. Their inner life is upright, and this makes it possible for them to have a clear vision of God as the Holy One. (Matthew 5:8) When Job, for example, came to recognize the greatness of his lack of knowledge in relation to his God, he was able to say, “Now my eye sees you.” (Job 42:5, NRSV) Those whose inner life is corrupt cannot see God, but their expressions about him will reflect the darkness of their inmost selves. (Compare Titus 1:15.)
“Peacemakers” are persons who promote good relationships with and among others. They do not incite quarrels, strife, and disputes but seek to effect reconciliation, using their influence to resolve differences and to further a better understanding with and among individuals. Peacemakers do not insist on the letter of the law but look at matters humanely. Jesus said that they would be called “sons of God.” His Father is the “God of peace” (Romans 15:13), and peacemakers, therefore, are like he is. (Matthew 5:9)
Those who find themselves among the persecuted for righteousness’ sake are in a desirable state, “because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.” Their suffering is for the right reason, and God acknowledges them as his approved servants in his realm. He is their Sovereign. (Matthew 5:10)
It is not pleasant for a person to be misrepresented, persecuted, and spoken against in abusive terms. When, however, individuals are reviled, persecuted, and maligned for the sake of God’s Son, they are fortunate, as what they are facing is because of their being divinely approved. They have reason to rejoice, for their reward is great “in the heavens,” indicating that God will abundantly reward them. Further assuring them of their approved standing before the heavenly Father is the fact that formerly the Hebrew prophets also experienced persecution. (Matthew 5:11, 12)
Notes:
In Luke’s account, there are fewer clarifying terms, and the list of those who can be considered as being in a fortunate state is shorter. The fortunate include those who were then “poor,” “hungry,” and weeping, and those who would be hated, excluded, and reviled, and have their name cast out as wicked “for the sake of the Son of Man.” (Luke 6:20-23)
Instead of referring to the comfort those who “weep” or mourn would experience, Luke 6:21 says, “you will laugh.” This indicates a complete reversal, their weeping for the right reason would be transformed to rejoicing.
The words “cast out your name as wicked” may denote being expelled from the synagogue and thus represented as an evil person before others. (Luke 6:22) Perhaps being excluded (in a more limited way than by expulsion) and reviled preceded this severe measure. It may be noted that, before expelling the cured blind man, those who took this action reviled him. (John 9:34)
The “leaping” (Luke 6:23) would be a leaping for joy. Numerous translations make this explicit.
Luke 6:24-26 describes those who appear to be in a favorable situation but are not. The expression ouaí, commonly rendered “woe,” conveys the sense of “too bad” or “how terrible.”
Those who were then rich, regarding themselves as not being in need of anything, had all they would ever get. Their present state and the value they attached to it would be their only consolation or comfort. (Luke 6:24)
Persons who then thought of themselves as filled would experience a reversal, becoming painfully aware of their emptiness. They would hunger. As individuals possessing everything they deemed important and enjoying their status and belongings, they then did laugh. Faced with the loss of everything, however, they would end up weeping and mourning. (Luke 6:25)
It might appear that being spoken of in glowing terms by all would be desirable. Israelite history, though, confirmed that this was not the case. It was the false prophets concerning whom the Israelite “fathers” or ancestors spoke well. (Luke 6:26)
Unadulterated salt, a crystalline compound of sodium and chlorine, does not lose its saltiness. The impure salt common in the first century, however, could become tasteless. In a humid environment, the sodium chloride could progressively leach out, making the substance useless for flavoring and as a preservative. People would then throw out the valueless residue on paths, where passersby would repeatedly trample upon it.
For Christ’s disciples to remain the “salt of the earth” would require their continuing to be an influence or force for good. Their adherence to the highest standard of honesty, industriousness, conscientiousness, and moral rectitude would exert a restraining force on those around them and counteract the tendency toward moral degradation. By refusing to resort to filthy and abusive speaking, they would cause others to become more circumspect in their expressions. Like salt that can make foods more flavorful, disciples of God’s Son, through their compassionate and loving response to those in need, their kind, impartial treatment of fellow humans, and their friendly and caring disposition, can contribute to making life more pleasant for those with whom they interact. On the other hand, their failure to live exemplary lives and to be actively engaged in doing good for others would make them unfit to serve as the “salt of the earth” and, therefore, without value. (Matthew 5:13)
Note:
When his disciples argued about who among them was greater, Jesus repeated and expanded upon aspects of the teaching regarding salt. (Mark 9:33, 34, 49, 50) After illustrating the need to consider the cost of discipleship, he also commented on the loss of saltiness and the consequences thereof. (Luke 14:25-35)
Disciples of Christ are to serve as the “light of the world,” revealing to observers the splendor of godly conduct in attitude, word, and deed. In a world darkened by moral corruption, lack of love, and ignorance of God’s lofty standard of justice, Christ’s disciples should stand out as different, like a brilliant light surrounded by darkness. A city situated on a hill is not concealed from view. (Matthew 5:14)
Ancient lamps were often made of earthenware and served as a container for a flammable liquid, commonly olive oil. Enclosed lamps were equipped with a spout for holding the wick and a centrally situated hole for filling the vessel with oil. No one would think of hiding a lighted lamp under a container, as that would be contrary to its purpose to provide light for those in the house. The vessel was placed on a lampstand. (Matthew 5:15)
Like a city on an elevated site and a shining lamp on a stand, Christ’s followers were to let their light shine. Others should be able to see their praiseworthy works — their exemplary conduct and their doing of positive good for fellow humans. Because of imitating God’s love, compassion, and justice, Christ’s disciples would reveal themselves to be children of the Most High and would thus honor him. As a result, observers who would come to recognize the reason for their commendable disposition, words, and actions would glorify or praise the heavenly Father. (Matthew 5:16)
Note:
Among other parables, Jesus included the point about not hiding a lighted lamp. (Mark 4:1, 2, 21-23; Luke 8:4, 16-18)
Jesus did not invalidate the law and the words of the prophets but fulfilled them, revealing the full intent and significance of what was set forth in the sacred writings. Through his example and teaching, he showed what it meant to live according to the spirit of the law and the admonition of the prophets. With a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus revealed that there was a greater likelihood for heaven and earth (the realm in which humans find themselves for a few decades) to pass away than for one iota or one tiny part of a letter to pass away from the law without everything taking place. Jesus carried out his activity fully within the framework of the law, not deviating from its purpose in any respect. (Matthew 5:17, 18)
Like the Hebrew letter yod, the Greek letter iota is the smallest letter of the alphabet. According to the Greek text, the word “horn” (keraía) denotes a small part or stroke of a letter. In Hebrew, for example, a slight difference distinguishes the daleth (D) from the resh (R), and so even a small change in a letter can alter the meaning. Jesus’ solemn declaration made it clear that his life and teaching upheld the lofty principles of the law in every way.
Anyone disregarding or nullifying even one of the least commandments, or a command that related to less serious aspects of life, and teaching others to this effect would be “called least in the kingdom of the heavens.” Individuals doing so would be setting themselves against God, the Lawgiver, and would thereby demonstrate that they did not want him as their Sovereign. Accordingly, they would be “least in the kingdom of the heavens” or, in actuality, have no share in the realm where he is recognized as King and in the privileges and blessings associated with this realm. Those who endeavored to live up to the law and taught others to do likewise demonstrated a proper regard for the Lawgiver and would be “called great in the kingdom of the heavens.” As persons who humbly acknowledged God as their King and willingly submitted to his upright ways, they would be part of his realm and “great” from his standpoint. Their greatness would stem from their being recognized by him as his devoted servants. (Matthew 5:19)
The Son of God stressed the need for living according to the highest standard of uprightness. The kind of righteousness characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees fell far short of what God required. (Matthew 5:20) Their righteousness was merely an insistence on the letter of the law according to revered traditional interpretations and was devoid of genuine love, justice, and compassion. It was a righteousness that distorted the truth about the Lawgiver, for it did not reveal him to others as a “merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity, continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless.” (Exodus 34:6)
In disposition, word, and deed, the scribes and Pharisees failed to sanctify God’s name or made him to appear before others as lacking in love and compassion. Their persistence in this course stood in the way of entrance into the kingdom. They and those whose righteousness did not exceed theirs would not be approved servants in God’s realm. Similarly, centuries earlier, when Moses and Aaron failed to sanctify God’s name by misrepresenting him to the Israelites in word and action, they lost out on being able to enter the Promised Land. (Numbers 20:10-12)
Note:
On another occasion, in remarks directed to the Pharisees, Jesus pointed out that the law would not pass away without being fulfilled. (Luke 16:14, 17)
Those who heard Jesus’ words knew that the command not to murder had applied from ancient times, and that individuals guilty of murder would face severe judgment. (Matthew 5:21) The law also indicated that certain acts were tantamount to murder, as they were expressions of violent rage. The penalty for murder, for example, was imposed on anyone who struck his father or mother or cursed either one of them. (Exodus 21:15, 17) Accordingly, the command prohibiting murder had as its intent more than restraining individuals from going to the point of killing someone, and Jesus made this clear in his teaching.
Anyone who continued in a state of wrath toward his brother would make himself liable for judgment (like one guilty of an offense that merited judicial action). The hearers likely would have understood the “brother” to have been a fellow Israelite, one related to them by reason of their common descent from Jacob or Israel. (Matthew 5:22)
Even more serious would be calling a brother rhaká (an expression of abuse, which may be a transliteration of an Aramaic term meaning “empty one” and conveying the sense of such abusive terms as “numskull,” “nitwit,” or “stupid”). According to Jesus’ teaching, the person who used such abusive language made himself guilty of an offense comparable to a crime that was serious enough for the Sanhedrin or Jewish supreme court to handle. (Matthew 5:22)
Anyone who called his brother a “fool,” or condemned him as a morally worthless person deserving of the severest punishment, would make himself liable for Gehenna. (Matthew 5:22) Instead of loving his brother, the individual would be showing extreme hatred for him, regarding him as a person unfit to continue living. Therefore, the judgment such a hateful person wished to befall his brother would, in keeping with retributive justice, be expressed against him. One who experienced the judgment of Gehenna would come to be like a carcass tossed on a garbage heap and would remain in a state of condemnation, forever deprived of the eternal life of fellowship with God and Christ. (Compare Isaiah 66:24.)
Notes:
In Matthew 5:22, the Greek participle for “being angry” is in the present tense and so suggests a continued state of anger. Numerous manuscripts include the word eiké, meaning “for no reason,” and thus imply that there might be justification for being angry. It appears likely that this was a scribal attempt to make Jesus’ statement less all-embracing. The word is missing in such ancient manuscripts as partially preserved P67 (second century) and fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.
In the Scriptures, the designation “fool” relates primarily to one who is morally corrupt. Isaiah 32:6, 7 (NJB) describes such a person as follows: “For the fool speaks folly and his heart is set on villainy; he is godless in his actions and his words ascribe error to Yahweh; he starves the hungry of their food and refuses drink to the thirsty. Everything to do with the rascal is evil, he devises infamous plans to ruin the poor with lying words even when the needy has right on his side.”
Gehenna is evidently to be linked to the Valley of Hinnom, where unfaithful Israelites anciently engaged in idolatrous rites. Godly king Josiah eradicated idolatry and defiled the location, at which time or later the valley came to be used as a refuse dump. (2 Kings 23:10) It appears that this is the reason fire and worms or maggots are associated with Gehenna, and the judgment of Gehenna denotes the severest punishment possible.
When an Israelite came to the temple to present a sacrifice, he was to make sure that his brother or a fellow Israelite did not have a valid reason for a complaint against him. Jesus urged the one remembering that his brother could fault him to leave the temple, mend the strained relationship, and then return to present his gift or sacrifice. (Matthew 5:23, 24)
A failure to settle disputes quickly can have serious consequences. The wise course is to straighten out a matter before it leads to a judicial proceeding. Jesus warned that a failure to act swiftly (while there was still time before the accuser presented his case before the judge) could lead to a severe judgment — imprisonment with no hope of release until the last quadrans, a Roman bronze coin of low value, was paid. (Matthew 5:25, 26) Sixty-four quadrans equaled one denarius, which was the equivalent of a day’s wages.
Note:
At the time Jesus exposed the failure of those who refused to put faith in him, he repeated the teaching about settling a dispute. In this particular setting, he appears to have been illustrating the need for making peace with God before it would prove to be too late. (Luke 12:54-59) In view of the earlier reference to making peace with one’s brother so as to be at peace with God and in a proper condition for offering a sacrifice, this thought may also be inferred from the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.
All who listened to Jesus knew the command about not committing adultery. (Exodus 20:14) They had often heard it. The Son of God revealed that living in harmony with the full import of this command involved more than not engaging in the immoral act. For a man to continue looking at a woman to the point of arousing a passionate desire for her would mean that, in his heart or his deep inner self, he had already committed adultery. The desire to commit the sinful act would have been fully developed. (Matthew 5:27, 28)
Jesus then directed attention to rooting out wrong desires before they develop and lead the individual to sin. “If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and toss it away from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your [body] members than for your whole body to be tossed into Gehenna. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and toss it away from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your [body] members than for your whole body to go off into Gehenna.” Neither the eye nor the hand is responsible for an individual’s “stumbling” or being induced to sin, but wrong desires lead to misusing the eye or the hand. These wrong desires must be forcefully and decisively rendered inoperative, comparable to surgically removing a diseased body part to save the rest of the body. For the whole body to be cast into Gehenna would signify the permanent loss of eternal life, being forever cut off from an abiding relationship with God and all the blessings associated therewith. Far better it is to lose something the flesh may crave than to be eternally cut off from God. (Matthew 5:29, 30)
The law allowed a man to divorce his wife, but required that she be given a “certificate of divorce,” which freed her for remarriage. (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2) This provision, however, did not set aside God’s original purpose respecting marriage. After quoting what had been said about divorce, Jesus continued, “But I say to you that anyone divorcing his wife, except for unchastity [porneía], causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31, 32)
The “certificate of divorce” constituted a legal proof that the husband no longer considered the woman as his wife and had released her from all legal obligations to him. Deprived of her home and commonly without any means to support herself, the woman would be forced to seek the security that marriage to another man could provide. Then, upon beginning to live as a wife with another man, she would commit adultery, but the divorce certificate protected her from being legally charged as an adulteress. Likewise, the man who married her would be committing adultery, but her divorce certificate cleared him from being legally charged as an adulterer. Thus a man who divorced his wife would be committing a grave wrong, making himself responsible for causing his wife and another man to enter a relationship that, without the existence of the divorce certificate, would be adultery in every respect.
In case the married woman had made herself guilty of unchastity or unlawful sexual intercourse, she would be entering into a relationship with another man as an adulterous woman and not merely as a wife who had been rejected by her husband. The husband to whom she had been unfaithful and who divorced her would not be responsible for having created the circumstances that would cause her to seek a relationship with another man.
On another occasion, when certain Pharisees raised a question about the certificate of divorce, Jesus replied, “Moses, on account of your hardheartedness, permitted you to divorce your wives, but this was not so from the beginning.” There was no provision for divorce in the case of the first human pair, Adam and Eve. Thus Jesus made it clear that marriage was to be a permanent union, with the later concession about divorce serving to prevent the kind of abuses to which women could have been subjected by husbands who had rejected them but who were nevertheless bound to continue living with them in the marriage arrangement. (Matthew 19:3-9)
Notes:
Although disciples of Christ do have the help of God’s spirit, this does not mean that no exertion on their part is needed to resist wrong desires. Sin must not be allowed to acquire a base of operation. (Romans 6:12-14; 8:5-14; Colossians 3:5)
It should be noted that Jesus’ comments about divorce are limited to what is set forth in the law, which included no provision for women to initiate divorce proceedings. According to the law, a married man was guilty of adultery only if he had relations with another man’s wife or an engaged woman.
Among the Jews, it had become common to resort to oaths in daily life. This is reflected in the admonition contained in the book of Sirach (written in Hebrew early in the second century BCE and translated into Greek by the writer’s grandson after 132 BCE). The writer included the admonition: “Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing, or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name. Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts, so one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin. A man who swears often heaps up obligations.” (Sirach 23:9-11, NAB)
The Pharisees established a gradation for oaths, setting aside the binding nature of certain formulas. According to ancient Jewish sources, swearing by heaven, the earth or the sun was not considered to be an oath even if the intent of the individual had been to swear by the Creator. It was customary to swear by various things, including Jerusalem, the temple, the altar, sacrifices, and the life of one’s head. One prominent rabbi (Judah) is quoted in the Tosefta as saying: “He who says, ‘By Jerusalem,’ says nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow toward Jerusalem.”
So it must have been common knowledge that it had been said to those of old, “You must not swear falsely, but you must pay your vows to the Lord.” Jesus, however, directed his comments against the practice of resorting to the use of oaths to add credibility to statements or promises. “Do not swear at all,” he said and then pointed out that, even though not mentioned in the particular formula being used, God was involved when swearing by heaven, the earth, or Jerusalem. This is so because heaven is God’s throne, the earth is his footstool, and Jerusalem is his city. The Most High is the Sovereign and, therefore, Jesus referred to Jerusalem as the “city of the great king.” (Matthew 5:33-35)
Presenting the reason for not swearing by one’s head, the Son of God said, “You cannot make one hair white or black,” showing that humans have no real control of their life even in insignificant matters. Therefore, instead of swearing to assure others they were speaking the truth or excusing nonfulfillment of a promise or agreement on the basis that a particular formula used in swearing did not impose a binding obligation, all who heed Jesus’ teaching should be dependable respecting their word, letting their “Yes” mean “Yes” and their “No” mean “No.” (Matthew 5:36, 37) He identified whatever went beyond not maintaining trustworthiness in word as being from the wicked one, the “devil” or “slanderer,” with whom lying had its start. (Compare John 8:44.)
When handling legal cases, elders in ancient Israel were to apply the principle, “eye for eye and tooth for tooth,” imposing just penalties that fit the crimes. (Exodus 21:22-25; Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:16-21) This legal precept, however, came to be wrongly used to justify retaliation. Addressing this aspect, Jesus said, “Do not resist one who is wicked; but if someone slaps [rhapízo] you on the right cheek, turn the other [cheek] also to him.” Striking someone on the right cheek with the back of the right hand would have been an insult designed to provoke the one slapped into a fight. For one to retaliate in kind would have meant that the person bent on doing evil had succeeded in attaining his objective. By turning the other cheek, the one slapped would usually prevent the situation from escalating into a vicious struggle. (Matthew 5:38, 39)
The chitón, commonly translated “tunic,” designated the garment worn under the himátion, often rendered “cloak.” If faced with being taken before a judge to forfeit a tunic, the one following Jesus’ advice would also give up his cloak, the more valuable garment. Thereby the individual would avoid getting embroiled in a legal confrontation (with a strong possibility of an unfavorable decision) and all the stress associated therewith. (Matthew 5:40)
During the time Jesus was on earth, the Romans exercised authority. At any time, Roman soldiers could impress a passerby into service. Instead of grumbling about being forced to carry a load for a mile and yielding to emotionally harmful resentment, the one heeding Jesus’ words would willingly discharge the service, carrying it out for an additional mile. This would aid the individual to maintain a disposition conducive to better mental, emotional, and physical well-being. (Matthew 5:41)
Jesus then said, “Give to the one asking, and do not turn away from the one wanting to borrow from you.” When in possession of the means to aid those in need, one acting in harmony with Jesus’ teaching would be willing to respond to requests for help. Liberality has a wholesome effect on the individual, promoting an inner peace and the joy that comes from being able to share in alleviating human suffering. (Matthew 5:42)
Notes:
Verses 29 and 30 of Luke 6 read, “To the one striking you on the cheek, present the other [cheek] also; and to the one taking your cloak [himátion], do not withhold even your tunic [chitón]. Give to everyone asking you; and from the one who has taken your things, do not ask them back.” The situations on which Jesus commented differ from those he mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount (recorded in Matthew’s account).
The Greek word for “strike” (typto) signifies to administer a blow. Luke’s account uses the participial form of the word in the present tense to designate the one doing the striking, and the present tense could denote someone who repeatedly strikes. The person using his right hand to “slap” (rhapízo) someone on the right cheek would do so with the back of the open hand, but the individual intent on hurting someone would usually hit with his fist. Even when confronted by someone determined to inflict blows, the person who does not hit back (but shields himself) can often minimize personal injury.
Luke’s account presents a case where the individual is faced with having his cloak taken from him. The one following through on Jesus’ teaching would not try to prevent the seizure of his cloak and would not even withhold his tunic. Such willingness to part with possessions frequently contributes to avoiding confrontations with very serious outcomes.
In Luke’s account, the “asking” could be in the form of a demand and not necessarily an asking based on need. The point about asking back involves things that were taken. This suggests that in both cases the “asking” could involve “demanding.”
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’” (Matthew 5:43) Whereas the law did command the Israelites to love their neighbors or their fellows, it did not command them to hate their enemies. They were, in fact, to avoid harboring grudges or seeking revenge. (Leviticus 19:17, 18)
In keeping with the spirit of the law and the example of his Father, Jesus rejected the view that love of neighbor implied hatred for one’s enemy, saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those persecuting you.” (Matthew 5:44) Such love would be demonstrated by continuing to treat them kindly as fellow humans, not seeking to harm them but coming to their aid in time of need. Praying for persecutors would include petitions that they would come to see the error of their ways, accept God’s arrangement through Christ so as to come into possession of eternal life, and be forgiven of their sin. (Compare Acts 7:60; 1 Timothy 2:1-4.)
By loving their enemies and praying for their persecutors, Jesus’ disciples would reveal themselves to be “sons of [their] Father in the heavens.” They would be imitating his example and thus be like him. He does not prevent persons who conduct themselves in a lawless and unjust manner from enjoying the benefits of the natural cycles that make life on earth possible. As Jesus said of his Father, “He makes his sun rise upon the wicked and the good, and [makes it] rain upon the upright and the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45)
“If you love those loving you,” Jesus continued, “what reward do you have? Is this not also the same thing the tax collectors are doing? And if you only greet your brothers, what exceptional thing are you doing? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:45-48)
It is easy to love those who reciprocate with love, and the display of such restrictive love brings no “reward.” Observers would not consider it noteworthy and deserving of particular credit. Even tax collectors who were known for their dishonesty, enriching themselves by charging more than the tax rate, loved their friends. To limit one’s greetings only to a particular circle and ignoring others would not be something noteworthy. By comparison, persons without any belief in God then would not even slightly fall short. To be “perfect” or “complete” as God is would mean placing no limits on love. It would be the opposite of restricting one’s care and concern to a select few and excluding all others.
Notes:
Luke’s account regarding Jesus’ teaching on love and compassion parallels thoughts in Matthew 5:43-48. To those listening to him, Jesus said, “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27, 28) Disciples of God’s Son would not manifest a retaliatory spirit, never acting unlovingly or hatefully toward anyone. They would not withhold needed aid from those who may have treated them hatefully. Others may curse or mistreat them, but they would not respond in kind. They would bless those who may seek their injury or express the prayerful desire that the final outcome for such ones would ultimately prove to be a favorable one.
For Jesus’ listeners simply to love those loving them and to do good to those doing good to them would not make them stand out as different from sinners or persons known for living a godless life. Therefore, they should not have expected any reward for doing so. Even lawless ones love their friends and do good things for those who do good things for them. (Luke 6:32, 33)
There is nothing particularly exceptional about lending money to someone with the expectation that the full sum would be repaid. Even “sinners” or godless persons may do that. Lending money to someone in need when there is a possibility that nothing may ever be repaid, however, is an expression of compassion that goes beyond what “sinners” may be willing to do. (Luke 6:34)
Summing up his teaching on love and compassion, Jesus said, “Love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back, and your reward will be great. And you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ingrates and the wicked. Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate.” (Luke 6:35, 36)
Persons whose love and compassion reflect that of the Most High demonstrate that they are his “sons” or his children. Their actions are like his, for he continues to allow thankless and lawless ones to get enjoyment from life, not depriving them of life’s necessities. The Most High will abundantly reward his Son’s disciples for responding to everyone with love and compassion and never turning a blind eye to genuine need.
It is noteworthy that, whenever a marked sectarian spirit develops within a group, Jesus’ admonition is ignored. Persons who live exemplary lives and sincerely desire to be disciples of God’s Son may be looked upon as wicked and not even be extended common courtesies if they disagree with a particular teaching of the movement with which they may have been associated. Even godly individuals who never were associated with the movement may be regarded as divinely disapproved and bad companions. Rejection of an interpretation is equated with disloyalty to God even if there is an acknowledged possibility that the interpretation could be in error, and certain scriptures (for example, 2 John 10, 11) are misapplied in order to justify the course that the membership is required to follow.
When the carrying out of “righteousness” or right deeds has as its objective to be seen by others with a view to gaining their esteem, this has no value in the eyes of God. After urging his listeners to guard against practicing their righteousness before people to be seen by them, Jesus said that a failure to do so would lead to receiving no reward from the heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:1)
Showy public display should not accompany rendering aid to those in need. In their giving, hypocrites trumpeted what they were doing, making it as noticeable as possible. In the synagogues and on the streets, where others could see them, they did their giving. They wanted to appear as compassionate persons and be “glorified” or praised in glowing terms as being generous and caring. Thus they revealed themselves to be hypocrites, for they were primarily interested in the favorable recognition their giving would bring and did not have genuine concern for the needy. (Matthew 6:2)
Jesus solemnly declared with an introductory “amen” (truly), “I say to you, They have received their reward.” Aside from the praise they craved, no other reward would they be getting. For giving to have value in God’s eyes, Jesus said that the right hand should not know what the left hand is doing. Aid to those in need as an expression of care and compassion should be extended in “secret,” without any public display. The heavenly Father who witnesses what is hidden from human view will then recompense rightly motivated kindnesses. (Matthew 6:2-4)
With reference to prayer, the hypocrisy Jesus censured was the desire to be seen as pious. According to ancient Jewish sources, the arrival of the hour of prayer required that the activity in which one was then engaged be halted. To pray, men picking fruit from the top of a tree would descend, and those riding donkeys would dismount. The Tosefta (Berakhot, 3:18), however, indicates that a person could remain seated on the donkey if it could not be restrained from running away. Reportedly, by pausing a long time before and after prayers, individuals could make it appear that they were making their petitions for a much longer period than was actually the case.
Those who wanted others to admire their zeal and piety timed their activities in order to arrive at locations where many people would observe them standing in an attitude of prayer. Regarding those who “loved” to be seen standing in the synagogues and at the street corners as they prayed, Jesus solemnly declared, “Amen [Truly], I say to you, They have received their reward.” His Father had no regard for such wrongly motivated prayers, and the praise of humans would be the one and only recompense. (Matthew 6:5)
Petitions sincerely made, without any intent for others to observe one in an attitude of prayer, are the ones God hears. In the privacy of one’s room and with the door closed, one can pray hidden from human view. Concerning such prayer, Jesus added the assurance, “Your Father who sees in secret will recompense you,” responding favorably to the petitions made with the right spirit and in harmony with his will. (Matthew 6:6)
Among the nations, people who worshiped various deities also prayed, rambling on extensively (often repeating the same formulaic phrases) and believing their many words would lead to a favorable hearing. Jesus admonished his disciples not to imitate them but to keep in mind that the heavenly Father already knew their needs before they even made their petitions. (Matthew 6:7, 8)
Indicative that they were not alone but part of a family of God’s beloved children, they would rightly direct their prayers to “our Father in the heavens.” (Matthew 6:9) This, however, does not mean that all prayers must include “our,” for this pronoun is missing in Luke 11:2.
For God’s name to be “hallowed” or “sanctified” could either mean that humans would, in increasing numbers, come to honor him as the bearer of the holy name or that he would reveal himself to be the holy God through direct intervention in human affairs. As a petition that precedes an appeal for his kingdom to come, it more likely is to be understood as relating to his action in sanctifying his name, making himself known by manifesting his power. (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)
Asking for God’s kingdom to come would mean requesting that his sovereign will be expressed on earth, culminating in the end of any competing demands from other rulerships. (Compare Daniel 2:44.) Believers, by reason of their being no part of the world alienated from the heavenly Father, are in the kingdom of his beloved Son. (Colossians 1:13) They recognize Jesus Christ as God’s appointed king and conduct themselves as loyal subjects in the realm where his Father is the Supreme Sovereign. In the world, therefore, theirs is an alien status, and they find themselves faced with demands requiring them to disregard humans in order to choose to do God’s will, leading to their suffering for doing what is right. As for those who are part of the world of mankind alienated from the Most High, they are not in his realm. Praying for the kingdom to come is an appeal for the existing condition to end, with a world that is in a state of rebellion against God and all the problems associated therewith to pass away. (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2)
In heaven, the holy spirit realm, all are in complete harmony with God’s sovereign will. For his will to be done also on earth as it is done in heaven would signify that there be perfect unity in both realms, with angels and humans carrying out his will and being at one with him and with one another. The basis for this marvelous unity would be love. (Matthew 6:10, but not in Luke’s account)
In the petition relating to “bread” (ártos), the Greek term epioúsios appears. There is uncertainty about the precise significance of epioúsios. Not having seen this word in other writings or hearing it used in common speech, Origen (185? to 254? CE) concluded that it was a coined term. Considering Jesus’ admonition not to worry about the next day (Matthew 6:34) and the fact that manna was a daily provision of one omer (about two dry quarts) per person (Exodus 16:16-18), one may reasonably conclude that the petition is for “needed” bread or “essential” sustenance for the day. (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3)
A sin is an offense against God and often also an offense against a fellow human. The sinner thus comes to be in the place of a debtor to God and to anyone else he may have sinned against. This means that sinners need to be extended forgiveness to be released from their debtor status. In Matthew 6:9, the petition is, “Forgive us our debts,” but in Luke 11:4, the plea is, “Forgive us our sins.” This is followed by an acknowledgment of having personally displayed a forgiving spirit (“as we also have forgiven our debtors” [Matthew 6:12]; “for we ourselves also forgive everyone indebted to us” [Luke 11:4]). Therefore, as forgiving and merciful children, we look to our heavenly Father to forgive us our debts or sins.
The plea not to be led into temptation could embrace not being permitted to come into circumstances beyond one’s strength to endure and, instead, could involve being fortified to resist succumbing to sin. The Greek word ponerós could either denote the “evil one” (the devil) or the “evil thing.” To be delivered from the “evil one” would mean to be shielded from his gaining the opportunity to lead one into sin. (Compare Luke 22:31; John 13:2; 1 Peter 5:8.) On the other hand, deliverance from “evil” would mean being safeguarded from anything that could result in ruining a right relationship with our heavenly Father.
Emphasizing the need to maintain a forgiving spirit, Jesus taught that those who are willing to forgive fellow humans their trespasses could look to his Father to forgive those they commit. As for those who are unforgiving and merciless, they cannot expect God to forgive them. (Matthew 6:14, 15)
Notes:
Jesus’ teaching about prayer is directed against the display of private devotions for the purpose of being seen, and his comments do not include prayers in which a community of believers join and to which they add their personal “amen.”
Traditionally, there were three hours of prayer. Acts 3:1 links the ninth hour or 3 p.m. to an “hour of prayer.” Josephus, in his Antiquities (IV, viii, 13), mentions two times for prayerful remembrance: “Let everyone commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors.”
On another occasion, Jesus taught his disciples about prayer in response to their request. (Luke 11:1) Luke 11:2-4 parallels Matthew 6:9-13, but the wording differs and the prayer is shorter, indicating that Jesus’ words serve as an example of appropriate prayer and not as a formulaic expression to be repeated by rote.
The word “name” does not refer to the transliterated four letters YHWH appearing over 6,800 times in the Masoretic Text and uniquely distinguishing him as the true God (the One who is). “Name” stands for the heavenly Father, the bearer of the name or the God he has revealed himself to be.
A number of translations render the petition about the sanctifying of God’s name in a manner that would relate to the action of humans. “Help us to honor your name.” (CEV) “May your holy name be honored.” (GNT, Second Edition) “Your name be honored as holy.” (HCSB) “May your name always be kept holy.” (NCV) This, however, does not appear to be the preferable significance. In the prophecy of Ezekiel, divine action is revealed as resulting in the sanctification of God’s name. The Septuagint rendering of Ezekiel 38:23 uses a form of the same Greek word for “sanctified” as found in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2 and specifically identifies the sanctification as a result of God’s action in expressing his judgment against “Gog” and “many nations with him.” (Ezekiel 38:22) According to the Septuagint, Ezekiel 38:23 reads, “And I will be exalted and sanctified and glorified; and I will be known before many nations, and they will know that I am the Lord [YHWH, Masoretic Text].”
In times of great personal distress or when a serious situation faced the community, many customarily prayed and fasted, eating no food from the time of getting up in the morning until their retiring for the night. According to ancient Jewish sources, the person fasting on the day of atonement was not to wash or anoint his body or any part thereof. If, however, any body part had become dirty with excrement or filth, he could wash, and the sick could anoint themselves with oil or put oil on a scab.
One way those engaging in frequent fasting made a display thereof was to blacken their faces with ashes. Concerning a prominent rabbi of ancient times (Joshua Ben Ananiah), it was said that his face was black from fasting. Those who fasted appear to have made themselves look as miserable as possible.
Jesus identified as hypocrites persons who fasted for others to notice them, because their main objective involved the manner in which observers would regard them instead of a sincere desire to reflect the intensity of their appeal to God. Therefore, as Jesus had said about wrongly motivated prayer, such persons had received their reward. Whatever expressions of praise observers would make constituted the one and only recompense. (Matthew 6:16)
The Son of God taught his disciples to avoid making a show respecting personal fasting, not altering their appearance in any way. Instead, they were to wash their faces and put oil (commonly olive oil) on their heads. The oil would protect the exposed areas of the head and neck from the penetrating rays of the sun and would keep the skin supple. Jesus’ Father would take note of the sincere fasting, though done in secret or hidden from human view, and would respond favorably to the appeal associated therewith. (Matthew 6:17, 18)
Material possessions are transitory, with most of them deteriorating in a comparatively short time. Anciently, garments could not be protected from the ravages of moths in the caterpillar stage, and there were no security systems to deter thieves from breaking into homes and stealing. Rust, then as now, ruins what was once attractive. Material possessions are never secure. They may depreciate or be stolen, ruined, or destroyed. Jesus’ admonition not to make the accumulation of material “treasure” the prime focus in life continues to be applicable. (Matthew 6:19)
The wiser course is to store up “treasure in heaven,” the place of ultimate security. It is by using one’s assets, time, and energies unselfishly for the good of others out of loving concern for them that one makes a record that is divinely approved. Building up an account of generous giving based on one’s ability and in expression of genuine compassion is comparable to making a deposit in heaven, for the recompense will be received from the Most High. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews assured fellow believers: “God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name [or for him], having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.” (Hebrew 6:10) No moth, no rust, no thief, or any other destructive agent can lessen the value of the treasure deposited in heaven. (Matthew 6:20)
Whatever one may consider as being of chief value will be the object on which one’s heart or one’s desires and affections are centered. As Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.” (Matthew 6:21)
Note:
According to Luke’s account (12:33, 34), Jesus, on another occasion, repeated the teaching about storing up treasure in heaven.
Without sight, one’s world becomes a world of darkness. The eye functions like a lamp for the body, making it possible to perceive everything that light makes visible. (Matthew 6:22) When, however, the eye does not focus properly, images are distorted, and whatever is perceived by means of the eye cannot be trusted. The manner in which one views matters is a reflection of one’s inner moral and spiritual condition.
When the eye is “simple,” sound, or properly focused, it serves as a dependable lamp for the body. The Greek word for “simple” (haploús) can, in a moral sense, also signify “sincere,” “straightforward,” “guileless,” and “generous.” Rightly focused on the realm belonging to eternity and not on transitory material assets, the “eye” makes the whole body bright, engendering a compassionate and loving concern for others and a desire to live a godly life.
Whenever the focus is on nothing nobler than material possessions or, even worse, directed by debased or impure motives and desires, the whole body or the whole being of a person exists in a state of deep darkness. It is then that the eye is bad or sick, functioning contrary to its purpose as a provider of light for the body. With the faculty of conscience not supplying light or clear direction, the individual’s state of darkness is indeed great. The very faculty that should be the source of light would then prove to be darkness, and, as Jesus said, “How great that darkness is!” (Matthew 6:23)
Note:
In Luke 11:34-36, the basic teaching about the “eye” is repeated. The occasion, however, is not the same.
It is impossible to slave for two masters, with each one demanding different services at the same time. A slave would be forced to make a choice, and that choice would be based upon which master he preferred. The slave would choose to be devoted to the master he loved, and hate or not like the one whom he rejected or despised as being undeserving of his service. Applying the principle, Jesus said, “You cannot slave for God and for mammon.” (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13 repeats these words but in connection with another occasion.)
The transliterated term “mammon” (mamonás) is understood to mean “wealth” or “possessions.” Service to God includes the willingness to use one’s resources to aid those in need. When, however, a person’s life is centered on increasing possessions, compassionate concern for others is either relegated to an insignificant place or ceases to exist. A godly life of generous giving is impossible for the individual who is enslaved to material assets.
Regarding life’s necessities, Jesus basically taught, “Do not worry.” Instead of giving in to anxiety concerning the need for food, drink, and clothing, disciples of God’s Son were to look to his Father to make it possible for them to have life’s essentials. The “soul” or one’s existence as a person is more than just a matter of having food, and the body is more than just an object to be clothed. Life as a human does not mean merely existing to eat and to wear garments. (Matthew 6:25)
Through his Father’s providential care, as Jesus pointed out, birds are able to obtain food, although they do not sow, harvest, or gather supplies into storage places. Applying the object lesson, Jesus raised the questions, “Are you not worth more than they are? Who of you by worrying can add a cubit [a small amount (a measure of merely some 18 inches) of length] to his life?” (Matthew 6:26, 27) Everyone listening knew that their worth was far greater than that of birds and that worry would accomplish nothing.
As to clothing, Jesus called attention to the “lilies” or common flowers growing in the fields. Although neither laboring nor spinning, the flowers were robed in splendor exceeding that of Solomon, the wealthiest of Israelite kings. Jesus could authoritatively say this, as he had seen the magnificence of Solomon’s attire. In view of the beauty with which God has arrayed the flowers that quickly fade and may the next day, when dry, be cast into an oven to start a fire, would he not also clothe the disciples? Jesus’ referring to them as having “little faith” may imply that they had a tendency to be anxious despite evidence of God’s providential care for the creation. (Matthew 6:28-30)
Concluding his teaching about not worrying, Jesus added that his disciples should not be like the people of the nations who do not know God and anxiously say, “What are we to eat? What are we to drink? What are we to put on?” For such people, “seeking” life’s essentials or being fully occupied by thoughts and efforts to acquire food, drink, and clothing was their whole existence. (Matthew 6:31, 32)
In the case of his disciples, Jesus continued, “Your Father in the heavens knows you need these things. Seek, then, first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be granted to you. Therefore, never worry about the next day, for the next day will have its own cares [literally, worries or anxieties]; enough for each day [is] its own trouble.” (Matthew 6:32-34) In his providential care, our loving heavenly Father will not overlook our needs, all of which are fully known to him. Never will he abandon those for whom seeking his kingdom and his righteousness occupies the foremost place in life and who prove themselves to be willing and dependable workers, conscientiously using their God-given abilities to obtain life’s necessities.
Seeking God’s kingdom would involve earnestly desiring to have him as our Sovereign, submitting ourselves to do his will and looking to him to sustain us. For us, seeking his righteousness could include endeavoring to live uprightly and trusting fully in his saving justice, confident that he will always fulfill his promise to provide and care for us. It is enough for one to have to deal with daily problems or concerns without adding to one’s burdens by needless and unproductive worry.
Notes:
At another time, according to Luke 12:22-32, Jesus repeated this vital teaching about anxiety.
The objective of seeking something is to find it and to have it in one’s possession. Therefore, seeking God’s kingdom relates to wanting to be under his sovereignty and living accordingly, and seeking his righteousness could embrace desiring to be upright in harmony with his will and also to be a recipient of his just dealings. God’s justice or righteousness can be depended on, as he always fulfills his word.
Judgmental individuals, those who are quick to censure or condemn, place themselves in line for the same treatment. Therefore, wise are all who heed Jesus’ admonition, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” The “measure” or standard of judgment the censorious person uses is the very one by which others will judge him. (Matthew 7:1, 2; Luke 6:37)
Those who listened to Jesus’ teaching about judgment would have considered a fellow Israelite to be a “brother.” The Greek term kárphos designates a particle of wood, chaff, or straw, and can apply to a speck or a splinter, whereas the word dokós designates a beam or a heavy piece of timber. Addressing those who were inclined to be judgmental, Jesus said, “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but do not notice the beam in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get rid of the speck from your eye,’ when, see! [there is] a beam in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3, 4; Luke 6:41, 42)
Censorious individuals are quick to notice the minor flaws of others but to overlook their own faults, which, by comparison, may actually be more like a beam than a speck. With their vision or personal judgment obscured, they are in no position to help a brother in overcoming a flaw. On account of their own serious failings, they would likely cause great harm in their attempt to do so.
Jesus referred to the seriously flawed judgmental person as a “hypocrite.” (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42) Censorious individuals adopt a double standard, minimizing their own faults and exaggerating those of others. They may even condemn certain traits in others but consider them desirable in their own case. For example, they may call someone else hypercritical for making certain expressions but view themselves as having keen discernment for reacting similarly in comparable situations.
Endeavoring to free oneself of undesirable traits is extremely difficult. Bad habits are not easily replaced by good ones. So, the one with the serious fault comparable to a beam needed to rid himself first of his own obstacle in order to see clearly. Then he would be in a far better position to act with compassionate insight in an effort to aid his brother to get rid of a “speck.” (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42)
There are times, however, when judgments do have to be rendered regarding others and when a failure to do so would be harmful. “Do not give the sacred thing to dogs nor cast your pearls before pigs,” said Jesus. There are individuals who have no appreciation for sacred things or spiritual treasures. Attempts to share with them precious thoughts about God and his lofty ways would be comparable to an Israelite’s throwing meat from a holy communion sacrifice to dogs or valuable pearls to swine. Pigs would only trample upon the pearls and may then turn around and injure the one who foolishly threw the gems in front of them. Similarly, unappreciative persons would commonly resort to ridicule and make light of what was truly noble, trampling upon it. They may even flare up in anger and injure the one who failed to use discernment. (Matthew 7:6)
Notes:
In Luke 6:37 and 38, there is an expansion of the thought about giving and receiving. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged, and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Release [as when forgiving the transgressions of others or freeing them from the obligation to repay a debt], and you will be released [or pardoned]. Give, and it will be given to you.” The degree to which the generous giver would receive is likened to having a good measure of grain poured into the upper fold of a garment and then having the entire amount pressed down and shaken. Thus the amount would be the largest quantity possible, reaching the point of running over. “With the measure with which you measure, it will be measured back to you.”
The words of Luke 6:39 and 40 do not have a parallel in Matthew’s account. A blind man cannot serve as a reliable guide for another blind person. Unable to see a pit in the path, both he and the one he was leading would fall into it. Likewise, those presuming to be guides for others, trying to correct their faults, can bring harm to themselves and those whom they are endeavoring to set straight. The person being instructed will become like the one providing the teaching. Therefore, discernment is needed in determining whose teaching one would be willing to accept. Those who choose God’s Son as their trustworthy instructor are truly wise, for his teaching would always prove to be dependable and would never lead to a ruinous fall.
“Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks finds, and to everyone who knocks it will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7, 8; Luke 11:9, 10) These words of Jesus express a general principle. By way of contrast, a request cannot be granted until it is made, the individual who refuses to seek will not find, and the door will not be opened to the person who chooses not to knock.
Illustrating his point about making requests, Jesus raised two questions with an implied negative response. Would a father hand a stone (something resembling a loaf but of no value for nourishment) to the son who asks for bread? Would he give a serpent (a creature that was unclean for food according to the requirements of the Mosaic law) to the son who requests a fish? (Matthew 7:9, 10)
Applying the point made with his questions, Jesus then gave the assurance that, since flawed (literally, “wicked,” “bad,” or “evil”) fathers know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so would the heavenly Father “give good things to those who ask him.” (Matthew 7:11)
Notes:
Luke’s account (11:9-13) repeats the basic thoughts and mentions them in connection with another occasion during the course of Jesus’ ministry. The two questions are whether a father would give a serpent to the son who asks for a fish or whether he would give a scorpion to the son who requests an egg. Then, instead of mentioning that the heavenly Father would give “good things,” Luke 11:13 says that the Father would give “holy spirit.”
Both Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13 start with the words, “If, then, you, [although] being bad, know how to give good gifts to your children.” The Greek word for “bad,” “evil,” or “wicked” is ponerós and serves to contrast the flawed human with the Father who is holy or pure in the absolute sense. This adds emphasis to Jesus’ assurance that his Father would always give good things to those who ask him.
“All things you want men [or, people] to do to you, you should thus also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31) Treating others like one would want to be treated has come to be known as the “golden rule.” Acting in harmony with it reflects a caring, loving, just, and compassionate disposition. The law given to Israel and the words of the prophets repeatedly stressed the need for acting impartially and with love and compassion. Therefore, Jesus could say that treating others in the manner in which one would want to be treated “is” or expresses the sum of the guidance set forth in the law and by the prophets.
Notes:
In Luke 6:31, the wording is slightly different, “And as you want men [or, people] to do to you, do to them likewise.”
Tobit 4:15 (NRSV) presents a negative form of this admonition, “And what you hate, do not do to anyone.” Adherence to this advice would merely require not harming others, but Jesus’ counsel calls for positive action when interacting with fellow humans.
There have been those who want to improve upon Jesus’ words, changing the directive to be, “Treat others as they want to be treated.” This, however, assumes knowledge that one would not necessarily have, and there are times when individuals would want to be treated in a manner that violates the teaching of God’s Son. The positive form in which Jesus framed his words is appropriate at all times and in all situations, as the individual, in his interaction with others, is fully aware of how he would want to be treated.
One would readily see a spacious road where many are walking and not even notice a small gate leading to a cramped, difficult path. Even in case some individuals spotted the small gate, they would generally choose the easier and well-traveled road. People tend to feel more secure when they observe many on the same course. It gives them confidence that the road is the right one to take, eliminating the need for personal evaluation. When it comes to matters of life, they find it comfortable to be in step with the majority and not to be looked upon disdainfully for being outsiders.
Jesus, however, taught that, when it comes to one’s course in life, the broad road should not be the option of choice. “Enter through the narrow gate,” he said, “because wide [is] the gate [like the main gate leading into a city] and broad [is] the road leading to destruction, and many are those who enter through it.” Emphasizing the right choice, Jesus continued, “Narrow [is] the gate and arduous [is] the road leading to life, and few are the ones who find it.” (Matthew 7:13, 14) Although appearing to be right, the broad road leads to loss and ruin. By contrast, the difficult path, requiring one to break away from the crowd, is the way that leads to life.
For those who heard and saw Jesus, the decision to accept him as the promised Messiah and the Son of God and then to follow his example and teaching proved to be the difficult path, the one leading to life. A person’s starting and continuing to walk on this arduous path resulted in disapproval, reproach, and even the possibility of violent treatment. The attitude of the most influential members of the Jewish nation is reflected in the words later spoken to officers sent to arrest Jesus but who had failed to do so, “Have you also been deceived? Has anyone of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law—damned they are.” (John 7:47, 48)
Notes:
The word translated “arduous” is a form of the Greek word thlíbo, which can mean to “press upon” or “crowd,” “constrict,” “afflict,” or “oppress.” These meanings suggest a hard or difficult path.
Jesus’ words reveal that security is not to be found with the crowd. Often, when individuals become disillusioned by a religious movement, a denomination, or a nondenominational body, they cast about for another group, seeking a more comfortable environment and social framework. They never seem to come to recognize that being a disciple of God’s Son means being attached to him, and that the family of God’s children includes all who love the Father and his Son as reflected in upright conduct and compassionate and loving concern for fellow humans.
Traveling on the difficult path is not a group endeavor. It is not a matter of subscribing to a specific “statement of faith,” nor does it mean following the routine a particular religious movement may advocate. Rather, it is a daily walk with God and Christ, with the full awareness of personal accountability.
Other individuals, upon discovering that the movement with which they may long have been associated is not what it claims to be, jettison whatever belief in God and Christ they may have had. They may then seek out others with the same experience and form a loose network of malcontents, venting their anger against a system they have come to view as deceptive and as having robbed them of opportunities that could have meant a better life for them. Although free of the movement, they still feel the weight of its chains and struggle hard against it. Sadly, they choose not to enter through the narrow gate and follow the difficult path leading to life.
Jesus warned about being on guard against false prophets, those who, in their proclamations, would misrepresent him and his Father. Outwardly, they would appear as sheep, innocent and inoffensive. In actuality, they would be ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, exploiting and injuring all whom they succeeded in deluding. (Matthew 7:15)
They would be recognized by their fruits — their disposition, conduct, and objectives. Persons producing good “fruits” would reveal themselves to be loving, compassionate, and impartial, seeking not personal advantage or gain but being intensely concerned about honoring God. Good and bad fruit would be as recognizable as that on a vine or tree. No one gathers grapes from a thorny shrub, or figs from thorny plants. A good tree does not yield bad fruit, and a rotten tree does not produce good fruit. Unproductive trees or those yielding worthless fruit were cut down and burned, as, in the first century, owners had to pay tax for these trees. For emphasis, Jesus repeated the words, “You will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16-20; Luke 6:43, 44)
There are those who would call Jesus, “Lord, Lord,” using the right expression and doing so with a seeming intensity of feeling (as suggested by the repetition). Nevertheless, they would not enter the “kingdom of the heavens,” never becoming part of the royal realm where God is recognized as Sovereign. To gain entrance into that realm and coming to enjoy all the benefits and blessings associated therewith requires, as Jesus said, “doing the will of [his] Father.” (Matthew 7:21) Moreover, Luke’s account (6:46) indicates that their calling Jesus “Lord” was insincere, for they did not carry out the things he told them to do.
In “that day,” when the identity of those wanting God as the Sovereign of their lives is confirmed, many will claim that this was their desire. They would then point to having performed works they considered deserving of commendation. “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and did we not expel demons in your name, and did we not do many impressive deeds in your name?” (Matthew 7:22)
Although he is Lord and rightly addressed as such and the works enumerated are not deeds that would merit censure, Jesus would not acknowledge them as approved and as ever having had a relationship with him. Rejecting them, he would then say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:23) They would claim to have acted in his name or as representing him, but this would not have been so in actuality. They had failed in doing his Father’s will. Whatever their motivations, conduct, and deeds may have been, those who will be rejected brought no honor to Jesus nor to his Father.
Notes:
Jesus’ words are sobering, calling for serious self-examination as to whether one’s words and actions are focused on advancing his honor. Both as an individual or as part of a group, one can fall into the trap of promoting an agenda or working for a cause and winning supporters for it. The activity may then be mistakenly regarded as an expression of genuine faith. Whenever the tendency is to promote self or a particular movement, the danger of failing to live a life that truly brings praise to God and Christ is very real.
What counts with Christ is that we do his Father’s will. This requires being on guard against anyone who would make one the victim of a system, laboring for it and its interests.
In Luke 6:45, the aspect about fruit is amplified with the words, “A good man, from the good treasure of his heart, produces good, and the evil [man], from the [store of] evil, produces evil; for out of the heart’s fullness, the [his, in other ancient manuscripts] mouth speaks.” The true inner self of a person, the “heart,” is revealed through the expressions that come out of the mouth. These would be the spontaneous, unguarded expressions that are the real reflection of the individual’s inner life. Jesus expressed a similar thought on another occasion. (Matthew 12:35)
Jesus likened the one hearing his words and acting in harmony with them to a wise builder. Erected on a solid foundation of rock, his house would withstand rain, flash floods, and fierce winds. (Matthew 7:24, 25; Luke 6:47, 48)
The one hearing Jesus’ words and disregarding them would be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. With the coming of the rainy season and accompanying floods and powerful winds, his house would collapse and be reduced to ruins. (Matthew 7:26, 27; Luke 6:49)
Jesus’ teaching had a profound effect on those who heard him, as it differed markedly from that of the scribes. For their authority, the ancient scribes and rabbis drew on the traditional teaching of those who preceded them. Reportedly, Hillel the Great discussed a certain subject accurately all day, but his teaching was not accepted until he, at the end, said, “So I heard from Shemaia and Abtalion.”
Unlike the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus spoke authoritatively, never basing his teaching on tradition but referring only to the Scriptures or appealing to the authority his Father had granted him. It is this distinctive feature of Jesus’ teaching — his speaking with authority completely independent of tradition — that astonished the crowds who listened to him. (Matthew 7:28, 29)
Notes:
The basic message of Matthew 7:24-27 and Luke 6:47-49 is the same. In Luke’s account the one likened to a wise builder is also referred to as coming to Jesus, indicating that he is a person who wanted to hear the teaching of God’s Son. Luke 6:48 includes the additional detail that the builder dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock, but the passage does not mention the rain and the winds. Having been erected on the solid foundation, the house could not be shaken by the force of the river (at flood stage) lashing against it. The one who heard but did not act on Jesus’ teaching is then likened to a man who built his “house on the ground without a foundation.” Against this house, the raging river burst, causing it to collapse at once, “and great was the ruin of that house.”
Regardless of the circumstances, faithful adherence to Jesus’ teaching places one on a solid foundation and leads to abiding benefits. Allowing others to alter or weaken his teaching or wrongly to equate mere interpretations with his clear instruction is comparable to building on sand, with resultant serious spiritual harm. It is vital that we indeed listen to and heed Jesus’ words and not what others, through the filter of their paradigm, represent as his teaching.
During the time Jesus ministered in Galilee, Rome had a military presence in the region. Among the soldiers were men who retained their humanity and befriended the Jews. In Capernaum, one Roman centurion (a commander of 100 soldiers) came to be highly regarded among the elders of the city. He was a compassionate man who deeply cared about his ailing servant who appeared to be at the point of dying. (Luke 7:1, 2) Paralyzed, the servant suffered terribly. (Matthew 8:5, 6)
So, when Jesus was back in the city, this centurion, having heard about him, directed a request to Jewish elders of the city. Through them, he wanted to appeal to Jesus to cure his servant. (Luke 7:3)
The elders earnestly pleaded with Jesus, telling him that the centurion was deserving of having his request honored. “He loves our nation,” they said, “and built the synagogue for us.” (Luke 7:4, 5)
Jesus expressed his willingness to cure the servant and then left with them to go to the centurion’s home. As they approached, he sent friends to tell Jesus that he did not consider himself worthy of having him enter his house and that this was also the reason for his not having made his request personally. Believing that Jesus would not actually have to see his servant, the centurion had his friends convey the following message, “Say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes. And to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does [it.]” As far as the centurion was concerned, Jesus authoritative word would be sufficient to effect the cure. (Luke 7:6-8; compare Matthew 8:8, 9.)
Upon hearing these words expressive of a conviction supported by sound reasoning, Jesus marveled and said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, I have not found faith this great in Israel.” The centurion’s remarkable faith gave evidence that many non-Jews would respond in faith, whereas Jesus’ own people would miss out on being part of the royal realm where God is recognized as Sovereign, losing out on all the blessings associated therewith. Speaking prophetically, Jesus said, “Many will come from east and west and recline [as when partaking of a meal] with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness. There the weeping and the gnashing of teeth will be.” (Matthew 8:10-12; Luke 7:9)
Jesus’ listeners would have understood Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have been their illustrious ancestors to whom the divine promises were made. As their descendants, the Jews were in line for being sharers in the “kingdom of the heavens.” This, however, called for them to accept Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God and the king by God’s appointment. Their failure to do so would result in great loss. From east and west, non-Jewish peoples would put faith in Jesus and come to share the benefits of being in the royal realm. Cast out for their rejection of God’s appointed king, the “sons of the kingdom,” heirs to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would weep and clench their teeth, trying vainly to hold back their bitter tears on account of their loss.
It appears that Jesus also expressed himself to the effect that the cure be accomplished according to the centurion’s faith. In that “hour,” the healing occurred. (Matthew 8:13) Upon their returning to the house, the ones whom the centurion had sent found the slave fully recovered. (Luke 7:10)
Notes:
Matthew 8:5-13 reflects common usage, whereas Luke 7:1-10 provides the more specific details. Although conveyed through others, the words were those of the centurion, and the narrative in Matthew portrays the interchange as taking place between Jesus and the centurion. The account in Luke, however, relates how the centurion communicated with Jesus. Therefore, the words Jesus spoke to those who represented the centurion are referred to in Matthew 8:5-13 as having been directed to him.
The centurion must have known that Jews did not freely associate with non-Jews in their homes. (Compare Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3.) Possibly, therefore, thinking that entering the house of a non-Jewish stranger could be problematic for Jesus, the centurion may have humbly and considerately expressed his unworthiness to have him do so.
With his disciples, Jesus left Capernaum for other parts of Galilee. Besides his disciples, a large crowd followed. (Luke 7:11)
Near the city of Nain, Jesus performed an astounding miracle. When he and those accompanying him approached the city gate, they saw a funeral procession. The young dead man being carried out for burial was the only son of a widow. A sizable crowd accompanied the weeping mother. Moved with compassion for her, Jesus approached, telling her not to weep. He then touched the bier, and those carrying it stopped walking. In response to Jesus’ words, “Young man, I say to you, rise,” he sat up and began to speak, and Jesus presented him to his mother. (Luke 7:12-15)
All who witnessed this resurrection were filled with a reverential fear or awe and glorified or praised God. “A great prophet has been raised up among us!” they exclaimed. “God has shown concern for his people.” (Luke 7:16)
News about Jesus in connection with this miracle spread widely. The “word” or news reached “the whole of Judea” and “all the surrounding country.” In this case, “Judea” may be understood to refer to all the land in which the Jews resided and not just the region south of Samaria, and “all the surrounding country” would then mean areas beyond the region embraced by the designation “Judea.” (Luke 7:17)
Notes:
This resurrection may well have reminded those witnessing it that the prophet Elijah had resurrected the only son of a widow in Zarephath and that Elisha had raised the only son of a hospitable woman at Shunem. (1 Kings 17:9, 13-23; 2 Kings 4:32-37) Understandably, inhabitants of Nain would have been moved spontaneously to acknowledge, “A great prophet has been raised up among us!”
Nain is commonly identified with a site located roughly twenty miles southwest of Capernaum.
While John the Baptist was in prison, his disciples told him about all that Jesus was doing. Prior to his confinement, John had called attention to the judgment role the one coming after him would fill and, therefore, would have expected to hear about works suggesting that Jesus had commenced preparing for its execution. He also may have wondered why he was not being freed from imprisonment. To John, reports about the miracles would not have suggested that his message about Jesus was being fulfilled. So he sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come or are we to expect another?” (Matthew 3:12; 11:2, 3; Luke 3:7-9; 7:18, 19)
At the time John’s disciples arrived to make their inquiry, Jesus cured many people of their afflictions, liberated those suffering from demon possession, and restored sight to the blind. (Luke 7:21) Jesus did not provide a direct answer to John’s question but replied in a manner that would have enabled him to draw the right conclusion. “Tell John what you have seen and heard. The blind [now] see, the lame walk, lepers are being cleansed, and the deaf hear. The dead are being raised, the poor are having the glad tidings proclaimed [to them], and fortunate is whoever does not take offense at me.” (Luke 7:22, 23; Matthew 11:4-6)
Jesus’ response somewhat echoes the prophetic words of Isaiah (61:1) and appears to reflect the then-existing expectations regarding the Messiah. A nonbiblical Dead Sea scroll (4Q521) contains the expression “his Messiah” (likely to be understood as meaning God’s Messiah). Then, in a messianic context, this scroll reads, “He will heal the sick, make the dead alive, and proclaim glad tidings to the poor.”
The words about not taking offense or stumbling relate to not allowing preconceived views or expectations to stand in the way of accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Those who let nothing or no one interfere with their response in faith are pronounced fortunate, because they came to enjoy the desirable state of well-being based on an approved relationship with the Most High.
After John’s two disciples departed, Jesus directed his comments about him to the crowd. “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed being swayed by the wind? Then, what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold! Those in splendid apparel and living in luxury are in the palaces of kings. Then, what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, even more than a prophet. Concerning him it is written, ‘Look! I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ [Amen, according to some manuscripts and also in Matthew] I say to you, Among those born of women, no one is greater than John, but the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:24-28; Matthew 11:7-11.)
John proved to be a courageous prophet, not even holding back from reproving Herod Antipas for his incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Matthew 14:3, 4) By no means could John be swayed from a firm stand for what is right and, therefore, could never be likened to a reed moving to and fro in the wind. He was dressed in austere attire and subsisted in the wilderness on locusts and honey. John did not possess anything that resembled the splendid apparel and luxurious surroundings of the servile flatterers or sycophants whose position depended on maintaining the favor of rulers. In his courageous bearing and words, he had nothing in common with such fawning men.
John was more than just another prophet God had raised up among his people. Centuries earlier, he had been promised to come as the messenger to prepare the way for the Messiah. (Malachi 3:1) In this unique role, John was greater than all the prophets who had preceded him. Nevertheless, the least in the kingdom of God would be greater than he had been in his capacity as the foretold messenger.
Jesus explained that a new development in connection with the “kingdom of the heavens” had its start in the “days of John the Baptist.” The time had arrived and then continued for individuals to become part of the realm where God is Sovereign and to begin enjoying the blessings and benefits this would mean for those seizing the opportunity. In connection with the kingdom, Matthew 11:12 (also Luke 16:16) represents Jesus as having used a word (biázo) that in its basic sense means “to be violent” and in the passive voice “to experience violence.” This may mean that violent opposition is directed against God’s kingdom, and that violent opposers deprive those yielding to them the opportunity to become part of the royal realm. Another possibility is that, in this case, biázo has the sense of directing forceful effort to attain the kingdom and that those exerting themselves fervently would gain entrance. (See the Notes section for the ways in which Matthew 11:12 has been interpretively rendered.)
The law and the prophets prophesied until John came on the scene, pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah. John, however, filled the role of the foretold Elijah, preparing the way for the Messiah’s actual arrival. As Jesus said regarding John, “If you wish to accept it, he is [the] Elijah [foretold] to come.” The proper follow-through for those who were willing to accept that John was the promised Elijah would have been to recognize that the Messiah had arrived and that the marvelous works Jesus did undeniably established his identity as the Son of God. Jesus’ words to those with ears to listen served to admonish them to draw the correct conclusion and to respond in faith. (Matthew 11:13-15)
Luke’s account (7:29, 30) introduces a parenthetical expression that has been understood to refer to hearing what either Jesus or John had said. A number of translations have chosen to make this explicit in their renderings. “All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.” (NIV) “All the people, yes, even the tax collectors, when they heard John acknowledged God and were baptized by his baptism. But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law frustrated God’s purpose for them, for they refused John’s baptism.” (J. B. Phillips) “Everyone had been listening to John. Even the tax collectors had obeyed God and had done what was right by letting John baptize them. But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to obey God and be baptized by John.” (CEV)
It would appear preferable to regard the “hearing” to relate to the message John proclaimed, for Jesus’ words specifically focused on John. Those who heeded John’s message, including the tax collectors, acknowledged that he was declaring God’s word when urging them to repent of their sins. By following through and submitting to baptism, they “justified” God or confessed that he was right when requiring them to repent. The Pharisees and men versed in the law who disregarded the “counsel of God” conveyed through John did not repent and get baptized.
In their response to him and John, Jesus likened the people to children in the marketplace who declined to share in any form of play other youngsters initiated. If one group of children played the flute, the others refused to dance. When the flute players chose to wail instead, the others did not join in and weep. Neither acting out a joyous event nor pretending to be present for a sad occasion was to the liking of those being invited to participate in playing. Nothing pleased them. Similarly, when John the Baptist did not partake of customary meals and drank no wine, people maligned him as having a demon. Jesus, “the Son of Man,” did eat the usual fare, even accepting invitations to banquets, and drank wine. Yet, those who condemned John also slandered Jesus, calling him a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. They implied that Jesus delighted in being associated with the basest elements of society and reveled in food and drink. (Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-34)
The detractors failed to see that the conduct of John and that of Jesus harmonized with their message and produced desirable fruitage. As Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified by its works.” (Matthew 11:19) “Wisdom is justified by all its children.” (Luke 7:35) The austere life of John suited his message of repentance, and the joys and blessings opened up through the Son of God were appropriate for sharing in pleasant table fellowship, which provided opportunities for bringing spiritual benefits to responsive ones. The wisdom evident in the ministries of John and Jesus and in their personal bearing was thus vindicated by its “works” (by its “children”) or the good results in the lives of all who heeded what they heard.
Notes:
With minor variations, the wording of Matthew (11:4-11, 16-19) and Luke (7:22-28, 31-35) is basically the same. In Matthew 11:8, the less specific designation “soft things” appears twice, but Luke 7:25 uses the expressions “soft garments” or “soft robes” and “splendid apparel.” Only Luke’s account mentions the point about “living in luxury.” According to many later manuscript readings of Luke 7:28, John is identified as a prophet, and Matthew 11:11 refers to him as “John the Baptist.” Whereas Matthew 11:11 says “kingdom of the heavens,” Luke 7:28 reads “kingdom of God.”
The words of Matthew 11:12 have been variously translated, with some renderings being literal and others departing considerably from the Greek text. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (ESV) “From the time John preached his message until this very day the Kingdom of heaven has suffered violent attacks, and violent men try to seize it.” (GNT, Second Edition) “And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and violent people attack it.” (NLT) “Since the time John the Baptist came until now, the kingdom of heaven has been going forward in strength, and people have been trying to take it by force.” (NCV) “From the time of John the Baptist until now, violent people have been trying to take over the kingdom of heaven by force.” (CEV) Seit Johannes der Täufer da ist, richtet Gott seine Herrschaft auf, wenn auch Gewalttätige versuchen, es zu verhindern. (“Since John the Baptist has been here God has been establishing his rule, even though violent ones try to prevent it.” [The German Hoffnung für Alle]) Als der Täufer Johannes auftrat, hat Gott angefangen, seine Herrschaft aufzurichten; aber bis heute stellen sich ihre Feinde in den Weg. Sie hindern andere mit Gewalt daran, sich dieser Herrschaft zu unterstellen. (“When the baptizer John appeared, God began to establish his rule; but until today its enemies position themselves in the way. With violence, they hinder others from submitting to this rule.” [The German Gute Nachricht Bibel])
Jesus did most of the works demonstrating divine power in the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, located near or on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Although having witnessed many miracles, most of the inhabitants of these cities refused to repent and change their ways, persisting in unbelief. This prompted Jesus to reproach them. (Matthew 11:20) On account of their great loss, his pronouncement of woe must have been accompanied by great sadness. (Compare Luke 13:34; 19:41, 42.)
If the people of Tyre and Sidon, the non-Israelite cities on the Phoenician coast, had witnessed the miracles Jesus performed, they would long previously have repented, expressing their sorrow by putting on sackcloth and seating themselves on ashes. The arrival of the day of judgment would, therefore, prove to be more bearable for the people of Tyre and Sidon than for the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida who saw Jesus’ mighty deeds. (Matthew 11:21, 22; Luke 10:13, 14)
As for Capernaum, it would not be exalted heaven high but would be brought down to the lowest level (Hades or the realm of the dead). (Compare the different subject matter but the similar contrast in Amos 9:2; see the Notes section on Matthew 11:23.) If the morally corrupt inhabitants of Sodom had been granted the opportunity to see the working of divine power like the people of Capernaum did, they would have repented, and the city would still have existed when Jesus was on earth. On the day of judgment, the situation would be more bearable for the former inhabitants of Sodom than for the unrepentant inhabitants of Capernaum. (Matthew 11:23, 24; Luke 10:15)
Jesus’ words suggest that the judgment destined to come upon the unbelieving inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum would be more severe than that on the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom. He did not, however, reveal just how the judgment would be more tolerable or bearable. Later, in one of his parables, he did indicate that the kind of punitive judgment to be administered would depend on the degree of accountability. (Luke 12:47, 48) It was sufficient for unbelievers to be warned about the seriousness of the coming judgment without being provided with specifics. By reason of what they had seen and heard, the inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were far more accountable for their actions than the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom.
The unresponsiveness of the majority did not embitter Jesus. With holy spirit operating upon him, he rejoiced about those who did come to repentance and put their faith in him. “I thank [exomologéo] you,” he prayed, “Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and have revealed them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it came to be pleasing before you.” (Matthew 11:25, 26; Luke 10:21; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21.)
For the most part, the prominent ones among the Jews, the wise and learned in their midst, were more concerned about maintaining their position and upholding tradition than they were in doing God’s will. Therefore, the matters relating to coming to enjoy an approved relationship with the Father through his Son remained hidden from them. The Father let them remain blind and thus kept them from seeing their need for repentance and putting faith in his Son. Yet, to the lowly, the ones whom others regarded as insignificant, mere babes, the Father had revealed what was necessary, and they responded in faith. Their disposition was such that they were receptive to the message and person of his Son, and the Father favored them with unobstructed hearing with attentive ears.
To his Son, the Father had committed “all things” pertaining to having his approval. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus alone truly knew him and was fully known by him. In a manner that no one else could, Jesus revealed his Father to anyone whom he chose. The ones chosen would thus also truly come to know the Father as those enjoying an approved relationship with him. Jesus’ choice, as evident from those who became his loyal disciples, were all persons who had repented of their sins and came to acknowledge him as the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22)
No one, however, was debarred from coming to him. To all who carried a heavy burden (suffering or oppression of any kind, the weight of compliance with traditions, or feelings of guilt and unworthiness), he extended the invitation to come to him, and he would grant them rest or refreshment. Instead of the oppressive yoke that weighed down on them and brought them pain and grief, he invited them to accept his yoke and to learn from him. He was no oppressive master, with an arrogant or superior bearing. Jesus was gentle and, in his heart or deep inner self, lowly. There was nothing about the Son of God that would make others feel inferior or worthless. He was tender and loving, displaying the spirit of a caring servant and not the harsh attitude of a superior. Therefore, the yoke of discipleship that he offered would be easy to carry, and the load would be light. It was not a life governed by a multitude of rules and regulations but a life of love stemming from an internal desire to be pleasing to him and his Father. (Matthew 11:28-30)
Notes:
In Matthew 11:23 (and the parallel passage of Luke 10:15), a number of translations present the contrast by other than a literal rendering of “heaven” and “Hades.” “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.” (NIV) “And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to the depths.” (NCV)
The word exomologéo, a form of which is found in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, signifies to confess or acknowledge openly. In the context of Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, the term may either mean “thank” or “praise.”
See http://bibleplaces.com/bethsaida.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethsaida.
See http://holylandphotos.org/ for pictures of and comments about Chorazin and Tyre.Type either Korazin or Tyre in the Search box to obtain the specific information on each one.
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
Jesus accepted an invitation to share a meal in the home of Simon, a Pharisee. Possibly because of having heard or witnessed Jesus’ miracles, Simon’s curiosity about this “rabbi” of Galilee had been aroused and he wanted an opportunity to interact with him personally. As on other occasions, Jesus would primarily have been concerned about the spiritual well-being of those with whom he chose to associate. (Luke 7:36)
According to the arrangement for serving meals at that time, couches would have been positioned around three sides of a table, with the remaining side providing access for servants to bring in the food. While reclining on the couches, the host and the guests would not be wearing their sandals. Supporting themselves on the left arm, those eating would partake of the food with their right hand.
The account does not say whether those in Simon’s home were eating in the courtyard or in a room adjacent thereto. Uninvited persons would have had access to the courtyard, and it was customary for people to go to homes where rabbis had been invited in order to learn from them.
A woman in the city who had the reputation of being a sinner, possibly a prostitute, heard the news that Jesus was eating in the Pharisee’s home. She doubtless had heard Jesus speak and may even have witnessed his miracles. It appears that, based on what she had heard or seen, she had been moved to make changes in her life and came to appreciate and love Jesus for what he had done for her. Confident that he would not turn her away, she took an alabaster jar filled with myrrh or perfumed ointment and headed for Simon’s house. (Luke 7:37) As a woman with an unsavory reputation, she knew that she would not be a welcome sight, but her love for Jesus and her trust in him prompted her to go where she would not be wanted.
Upon arriving at the house, she stood behind Jesus, at his feet. Emotionally moved by his spirit of love and compassion, she began to weep, and her tears fell upon his feet. She then wiped his feet dry with her long hair, continued kissing them, and poured upon them the perfumed ointment she had brought along. (Luke 7:38) Observing this, Simon reasoned that Jesus could not be a prophet, for a prophet would have known the kind of sinful woman who was touching him. (Luke 7:39)
Discerning Simon’s reaction, Jesus spoke up, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” replied Simon, “speak.” Jesus then told about two debtors, one owing 500 denarii (the denarius being the usual daily wage for a worker) and the other 50 to the same creditor. Neither debtor was able to repay the amount owed, and the creditor kindly canceled their debts. Jesus then asked Simon, “Which one of them will love him more?” Simon concluded that it would be the one who had the greater debt. (Luke 7:40-43)
Jesus acknowledged, “Rightly you have judged.” Applying the point of his parable about the two debtors, Jesus turned toward the woman and directed his words to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, [and] you gave me no water for my feet, but she, with her tears, wet my feet and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but she, from the time I came, did not stop kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with perfumed ointment.” (Luke 7:43-46)
Simon had not extended to Jesus the customary gestures of hospitality, which included making provision for washing the guest’s feet, greeting him with a kiss, and applying olive oil to the exposed areas of his head. In expression of her love and appreciation, however, the woman had done everything Simon had neglected to do.
Because of the way she had responded to him, Jesus continued, “Her sins, though many, are forgiven because she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” To the woman, he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” Those reclining at the table, however, reacted negatively, reasoning within themselves, “Who is this who can even forgive sins?” Jesus next words to her revealed why she gained forgiveness, reassuringly he said to her, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” (Luke 7:47-50) The basis for forgiveness is faith or trust in Jesus, and the woman had demonstrated that she had genuine faith and love. Therefore, she could depart in peace, free from the burden of guilt for past sins.
With his twelve apostles, Jesus traveled to towns and villages in Galilee, proclaiming the glad tidings of God’s kingdom. His message revealed how individuals could become part of the realm where his Father is recognized as Sovereign. Many accompanied Jesus and his apostles, including some women whom he had cured of their ailments or liberated from demon possession. Among them were Mary, called Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna. (Luke 8:1-3)
Jesus had expelled “seven demons” from Mary. This may not necessarily mean “seven” in a literal sense but may denote a very serious case of demon possession. Mary may have been called Magdalene because of coming from Magdala, a town on the west coast of the Sea of Galilee and about six miles southwest of Capernaum.
Joanna appears to have been a woman of considerable prominence. Her husband Chuza was in the service of Herod Antipas. He is identified as occupying the position of epítropos, (steward or manager). In extrabiblical sources, the term epítropos is even used for men who served in such high offices as governors and procurators. Nothing in the context is specific enough to determine just what Chuza’s official position entailed and whether he was still alive at the time Joanna began following Jesus.
The women seem to have had considerable means at their disposal and used their resources to assist Jesus and the apostles. They may have arranged to provide meals and other essential services. (Luke 8:3)
Large crowds began to gather around Jesus and even scribes from Jerusalem came down to the area in Galilee which was the focus of his activity. The constant presence of crowds did not permit Jesus and his apostles to have the needed time to eat. News about these developments, possibly including word about the hostility of the Pharisees, caused Mary and his brothers to become concerned. They concluded that Jesus had lost his senses and needed to be rescued from the situation that had come into existence. (Mark 3:20-22)
On one occasion, people brought a man whose blindness and inability to speak they believed to be caused by demon possession. Jesus cured the afflicted man, enabling him to speak and to see. Amazed, those witnessing the miracle wondered, “Might he not be the son of David [the promised Messiah]?” (Matthew 12:22, 23) Hearing this, the Pharisees (the scribes that had come from Jerusalem [according to Mark 3:22]) did not deny the miracle but concluded that Jesus performed it by the power of Beelzebul (Beelzebub) or the devil, the ruler of the demons. (Matthew 12:24)
Aware of the thinking of those who opposed him, Jesus exposed the folly of their reasoning. “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How, then, will his kingdom stand? And if I, by Beelzebul, cast out the demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they [your sons, probably meaning the disciples of the Pharisees] will be your judges.” (Matthew 12:25-27; Mark 3:23-26)
It would have been unreasonable for Satan to work against his own interests, creating loss in his realm. Furthermore, the Pharisees would never have contended that their “sons” or disciples engaged in expelling demons by satanic power. They would have attributed such exorcism to the power of God. So, their own “sons” or disciples exposed them as having come to totally inconsistent conclusions when claiming the very opposite about Jesus.
“If, however,” Jesus continued, “I cast out demons by God’s spirit, then God’s kingdom has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the house of a strong man and seize his belongings, unless he first binds the strong man?” Deprived of his ability to prevent the seizure of his goods, he would be vulnerable. It would then be possible to enter his house and rob him. (Matthew 12:28, 29; Mark 3:27) The expulsion of demons through the powerful working of God’s spirit identified Jesus as God’s anointed king and as exercising royal authority that even the demons had to obey.
All who did not take their stand for Jesus, demonstrating themselves to be “with him,” were “against” him. Those who did not “gather” with him, actively supporting his work, made themselves guilty of “scattering” or trying to interfere with his labors. (Matthew 12:30)
Jesus stressed the seriousness of attributing his good works to satanic power. People who, in ignorance, became guilty of blaspheming or reviling God’s Son or sinned seriously could be forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:13-16.) Blaspheming God’s spirit, persistently maintaining that the unmistakable evidence of the working of divine power for the accomplishment of good was satanic or demonic, would not be forgiven then or in the age to come. It would always be an unforgivable sin. (Matthew 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28-30)
To “make the tree good” would denote to consider the source of the fruit as good and, therefore, the fruit itself as good. When, however, the tree is “made rotten” or the source of the fruit is viewed as bad, the fruit is likewise regarded as bad. Those who opposed Jesus viewed him as evil, and so they called his good works (the “fruit”) the product of evil. The Son of God, however, set forth the trustworthy standard for judging, “A tree is known by its fruit.” His works were undeniably good, establishing that he, as the one through whom they occurred, was good. (Matthew 12:33)
Therefore, all who reviled his good works revealed themselves to be evil, “the offspring of vipers.” As wicked persons, how could they possibly “speak good things”? It is out of the “abundance of the heart” or from all that constitutes the inmost self that the “mouth speaks,” the unguarded words revealing the true identity of the individual. Out of the “good treasure [of his heart, according to some manuscripts],” the depository of his deep inner self or the real person, the good man brings forth good things. The evil or corrupt person brings forth evil things from his “evil treasure” or his inmost self, which identifies him as the person he truly is. (Matthew 12:34, 35)
In the future, everyone would have to render an account for their words and actions. The judgment to be executed upon those blaspheming or reviling God’s spirit (as the scribes and Pharisees had done when attributing Jesus’ good works to demonic power) would be very serious. As Jesus continued, “In the day of judgment,” people would have to give an account for every worthless saying they had uttered. By their words, they would be either justified (acquitted or vindicated) or condemned. (Matthew 12:36, 37)
Then, in response to what Jesus had said, some of the scribes and Pharisees asked for a “sign.” They were not satisfied with the many signs or miracles Jesus had performed and which provided clear evidence that he was the Messiah, God’s unique Son. The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees wanted a spectacular heavenly sign that, in their estimation, would be required to establish his identity as the Messiah who was promised to come. Jesus then referred to the existing generation of which they were a part as “wicked and adulterous” and revealed that their unbelief would not be accommodated. It was a “wicked” generation in its hatred of Jesus and its denial of the operation of divine power through him. By refusing to accept him as the one whom his Father had sent, that generation was guilty of unfaithfulness to his Father and disregarded the covenant that required submission to his will. This unfaithfulness constituted adultery. (Matthew 12:38, 39)
The kind of sign the wicked and adulterous generation wanted would never be granted. No sign other than the sign of the prophet Jonah would be given to that generation. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the large sea creature for “three days and three nights,” the Son of Man would be in the “heart of the earth” or in the tomb for “three days and three nights.” Accordingly, the definitive sign would be the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after parts of three days in the tomb. Even that sign, though, would not persuade those who had hardened themselves in unbelief. So, as Jesus said, the people of Nineveh would rise in the judgment and, because of their having repented upon hearing Jonah’s proclamation, would condemn the generation of unbelieving Jews who saw and heard someone far greater than Jonah. (Matthew 12:39-41; see also Jonah 1:17; 2:10; 3:4-10.)
Likewise, the “queen of the South” would rise in the judgment and condemn the unbelieving generation. Based on reports she had heard, the queen of Sheba (probably located in southwestern Arabia) traveled many miles to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The unbelieving generation, though, had someone in their midst who was far greater than Solomon but turned a deaf ear to him. The course of the queen of Sheba thus stood in marked contrast to that of the generation that persisted in unbelief. (Matthew 11:42; see also 1 Kings 10:1-10.)
Jesus emphasized the grave danger in which the faithless generation found itself. To illustrate this aspect, he drew on then-existing beliefs about unclean spirits. Upon coming out of a man, an unclean spirit passed through dry areas, searching for a resting place. Unable to locate such, this spirit decided to return to its former abode and found it unoccupied, swept clean, and orderly. It then went on its way and found seven other spirits even more evil than it was, and all of them made their home in its former residence. The final condition of the man then came to be worse than the former undesirable state. Jesus concluded with an application of this likeness, saying, “Thus also it will be with this wicked generation.” (Matthew 12:43-45)
In the past, the “demon” that had taken hold on unfaithful Israel proved to be idolatry, particularly Baal worship. After the Babylonian exile, however, the former idolatry no longer posed a threat. Eventually, though, worse “demons” found a home. The legalism that developed, which came to be devoid of love, compassion, and justice, brought the generation existing during the time Jesus was on earth into a more ruinous state. The low level to which unbelief plunged them became more and more evident from their hatred of the unique Son of God and their wanting to bring about his death.
While Jesus continued talking, Mary and James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon arrived, wanting to speak to him and have him leave with them. The disturbing reports they had heard made them feel they needed to take control of the situation, for they had concluded that he had lost his senses. Unable to get near him because of the crowd around the house where he was, they got word to him through others. Told that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him, Jesus, by extending his hand in the direction of his disciples who were sitting around him, identified them as his mother and brothers. Then he added, “Whoever does the will of my Father in the heavens is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:21, 31-35; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20) According to Luke 8:21, his mother and brothers would be those hearing God’s word and acting in harmony therewith.
Notes:
Josephus, in his Antiquities ( VIII, ii, 5), provides evidence that exorcism was practiced in the first century. He attributed to Solomon the procedure for expelling demons. “And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man.”
A Dead Sea scroll (11QAprocryphal Psalms) dated from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE contains four psalms used for exorcism, one of which is Psalm 91. The other three are not found in the book of Psalms. Of these three, one is ascribed to Solomon and indicates that YHWH would send a powerful angel against the demons and that they would be sent into the great abyss or the deepest Sheol.
It should be noted that Jesus did not use any special procedure or resort to a display for spectators. Possibly because the Pharisees had maligned him as being in league with the demons, Jesus chose to contrast his greatness with that of Solomon, whose name was commonly associated with exorcism. Those hearing Jesus, based on their beliefs about exorcism, should have been able to discern that his casting out of demons and performing other powerful works confirmed his being greater than Solomon.
While there are variations in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the basic thoughts are the same. Identical wording for quotations should not be expected, as the narratives were composed in Greek and not in the language Jesus or others originally spoke. Minor details preserved in one account but not repeated in another provide indirect proof that the writers produced them independently of one another, based on the information available to them.
The reference to “the house” in Matthew 13:1 suggests that a specific home is meant. Possibly it was the home of Peter and Andrew in Capernaum. After leaving the home, Jesus set out for the Sea of Galilee. Seeing him, many people began to gather around him. He then boarded a boat, seated himself, and began to speak to the crowd standing on the beach. (Matthew 13:2; Mark 4:1; )
Unlike the limited use he had made of parables or likenesses in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus now began to teach exclusively with parables. These parables portrayed scenes from daily life and served to convey spiritual truths. (Matthew 13:3; Mark 4:2; Luke 8:4)
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.
See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for pictures of and comments about the Sea of Galilee.
As a sower began to broadcast seed, some of it fell on the hard-packed soil alongside the path leading through the field. The birds flew down and ate it. Other seed fell on a thin layer of soil covering rock. The seed germinated quickly, but the thin layer of soil made it impossible for a good root system to develop. Subjected to the sun’s intense heat, the sprouted grain dried up. Still other seed fell among thorns, which deprived the sprouting grain of essential growing conditions, choking it. The seed that fell on good soil eventually yielded a harvest one hundred times, sixty times, or thirty times greater than the amount sown. (Matthew 13:3-8; Mark 4:3-8; Luke 8:5-8)
Jesus revealed that his words involved more than just telling a story about a sower and what happened to the seed he broadcast. He called upon those with ears to listen. Jesus wanted the people to listen attentively and to seek to understand the spiritual truths being conveyed. (Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8)
The disciples appear to have noted a change in Jesus’ manner of teaching. They later asked him privately why he taught the people with parables. He explained that the parables served to hide the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens from those who chose not to be his disciples. (Matthew 13:10, 11; Mark 4:10, 11; Luke 8:10)
“To you,” said Jesus, “it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens, but to them it has not been given.” In the case of those who “had” or were in possession of the precious truths Jesus had imparted, more would be given them, and they would come to have an abundance. Persons who did “not have,” failing to recognize the inestimable value of Jesus’ teaching and acting on it, would lose even what they may have had. Their memory of Jesus’ words would not stimulate further reflection and so would convey no real significance to them. (Matthew 13:11, 12; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10)
Continuing, he explained that he spoke in parables to conceal spiritual truths from those who, in their hearts or their inmost selves, really did not want them. They “looked,” but not with the intent of seeing. They “heard,” but did not hear or listen responsively. They did not comprehend. In their case, the words of the prophet Isaiah found fulfillment or applied, “Hearing, you will hear and not comprehend. And looking, you will look and not perceive. For the heart [mind] of this people has become dull. And, with difficulty, their ears have heard, and they have shut their eyes so that they may never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and comprehend with their heart [mind] and turn around, and I would heal them.” (Matthew 13:13-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10)
These words of Isaiah (6:9, 10, LXX) indicate that the people deliberately shut their eyes and closed their ears, refusing to draw the correct conclusions from what they saw and heard. Instead of turning around, coming to repentance, they persisted in their unbelief or faithlessness and lost out on the healing available to them. Although hearing the parables Jesus related and seeing his works, they remained without understanding.
As for his disciples, he indicated that they were fortunate or in an enviable situation. Their eyes did see, and their ears did hear. “Amen (truly), I say to you,” Jesus continued, “Many prophets and righteous ones wanted to see what you are seeing and did not see [it], and to hear what you are hearing and did not hear [it].” Prophets and godly persons in the past looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and the disciples enjoyed close association with him, hearing his teaching, witnessing his miracles, and experiencing his compassion and love. (Matthew 13:16, 17)
Unlike the unbelieving people, the disciples wanted to understand Jesus’ words. Discerning that his disciples would not comprehend other parables without his telling them the meaning of the one about the results from the sower’s work, Jesus gave them the explanation. (Mark 4:13)
The “seed” is the “word of the kingdom” or the “word of God” (the message that related to God’s royal realm and his appointed king, Jesus Christ, his unique Son). People who heard the message but whose “heart” or inmost self remained unaffected would lose all benefits. In their case, the circumstances would be comparable to seed falling on hard-packed soil alongside the path and which seed birds swooped down to eat. Although having heard the message, the individuals involved would never really think about it and then respond positively. Distracted by the traffic running through their lives or by constant activity, they would remain impervious to God’s word or message. Their heart or inner self would prove to be like the trampled-upon path and soil on both sides of it. The wicked one, Satan, or the devil would snatch the word from their heart, preventing them from believing the message that had been lost to them. Consequently, they would not be saved from divine wrath and would not gain the real life of a never-ending relationship with the Father, which relationship was only available through the Son. (Matthew 13:18, 19; Mark 4:14, 15; Luke 8:11, 12)
There are those whose response to the word is comparable to the sprouting of seed from a thin layer of soil covering rock. They accept the message with joy or an initial burst of great enthusiasm, but they do not truly give it serious consideration or appreciatively reflect on its inestimable value. The message does not become part of their deep inner self, merely proving to be like sprouting grain without essential roots. Theirs is an emotional surface acceptance of the word. Then, when faced with distress or persecution because of having believed the message, they are stumbled or give up, no longer letting it influence any aspect of their lives. (Matthew 13:20, 21; Mark 4:16, 17; Luke 8:13)
In its impact on individuals who give in to worries or daily anxieties about making a living, who desire to become rich, or who become preoccupied with pleasures, the message is like sprouting seed that the thorns choke. They may believe the word for a time and be positively affected by it. Eventually, though, the anxieties of life, the desire for riches, or pleasure seeking crowd out the desire to live a life of faith as loyal disciples of God’s Son. The end result is no fruit in the form of words and deeds based on acceptance of the word. (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:18, 19; Luke 8:14)
All who accept the word and for whom it comes to be a precious deposit in their inmost selves are like good soil where the seed can sprout, grow, flourish, and produce fruit. Even for good soil, however, productivity may vary, with yields of thirty, sixty, and a hundred times the amount sown. Numerous factors beyond one’s control can affect what one may be able to do in advancing the cause of Christ. Nevertheless, the evidence of being a genuine disciple of God’s Son should be discernible from the expressions being made and the kind of life being lived. (Matthew 13:23; Mark 4:20; Luke 8:15)
In another parable, Jesus likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to a “man who sowed good seed in his field,” which an enemy later oversowed with seeds from weeds. During the night, while people were asleep, this enemy sowed among the wheat and then left. When the wheat sprouted and the ears developed, the weeds also appeared. This puzzled the servants of the owner of the field. “Master,” they asked, “did you not sow good seed in your field? From where, then, did the weeds come?” He explained that an enemy had oversown the field. Concerned, the servants asked him whether they should get rid of the weeds. He, however, did not grant them permission to do so, telling them that, when pulling up the weeds, they could also uproot the wheat. Both weeds and wheat should be allowed to grow together until the time of the harvest. At that time, the reapers would first collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, whereas the wheat would be harvested and stored. (Matthew 13:24-30)
Later, after he had dismissed the crowd, Jesus returned to the house (likely Peter and Andrew’s home in Capernaum) with his disciples. They then approached him with the request that he tell them the meaning of the parable about the weeds in the field. (Matthew 13:36)
He explained the “sower of the good seed” to be the “Son of Man.” (Matthew 13:37) By proclaiming the glad tidings of the kingdom, the message revealing how individuals could become part of God’s royal realm, Jesus had gathered disciples, individuals who sincerely desired his Father as their Sovereign and wanted to do his will.
The “field is the world,” the world of mankind in which, on account of Jesus’ activity (“sowing”), the “good seed,” “sons of the kingdom,” those belonging to God’s royal realm, or genuine believers could be found. Seizing the opportunity to introduce a ruinous element, the enemy or the devil did his nefarious sowing while people were sleeping (doing so secretly, as under the cover of darkness). So, in the world, the “sons of the kingdom” (good seed or wheat) and the “sons of the wicked one” (weeds) who belonged to the devil’s realm came to be intertwined and, initially, could not even be distinguished. (Matthew 13:38, 39)
“The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.” This present age is destined to culminate in the execution of divine judgment. At that time, there will be a development comparable to pulling up weeds and burning them. Jesus himself, the “Son of Man,” will send forth his angels to collect out of his kingdom all those causing offense and practicing lawlessness and then toss them, like bundled weeds, into a fiery furnace. The condemnatory judgment the fiery furnace represents would occasion weeping and gnashing of teeth. This “weeping” would be on account of the pain of loss. In a vain effort to stifle tears of bitter grief, the condemned would gnash or clench their teeth. (Matthew 13:39-42)
For the upright ones, the outcome at the “end of the age” would be very different. They would “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Theirs would be the splendor of those whom God approves, sharing in all the benefits and blessings to be enjoyed by those in his realm. Again, stressing the need for attentive listening and appropriate action, Jesus added, “Let the one having ears listen.” (Matthew 13:43)
This parable reveals that no humanly devised standard (such as a list of doctrines) can be used to differentiate “weeds” from “wheat.” Humans have not been authorized to root out those whom they perceive to be weeds based on their particular view of “doctrinal purity.” As history has repeatedly demonstrated, human efforts to eliminate “weeds” have brought about untold suffering, with the self-appointed weed pullers repeatedly making themselves guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. The sectarian spirit prevalent in many movements continues to cause harm, as individuals imagine themselves to be serving Christ’s interests while abusing those who may not accept their unique doctrines. With the angels acting under the direction of God’s Son, no mistakes will be made, but the judgment will be just in every respect.
Note:
The Greek word translated “weed” (zizánion) is thought to refer to “bearded darnel,” which looks much like wheat until the ear appears. The alleged poisonous properties of darnel are commonly attributed to a fungus. When eaten inadvertently, darnel has reportedly caused dizziness and diarrhea.
Placing a lighted oil lamp under a container or a bed would be contrary to its purpose. To give light to those in a house or those entering it, the lamp is placed on a stand. (Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16) Accordingly, those who embraced Jesus’ teaching should serve as lighted lamps, sharing it with others and living in harmony therewith. The teaching Jesus imparted privately to his disciples was not meant to be kept secret. This appears to be the sense of his words indicating that the ultimate objective of hiding or concealing is disclosure. (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17)
Jesus admonished those hearing his teaching to pay attention to how they listened, the purpose being that they would do so attentively and put themselves in a position to recall his words. The measure of attention they would give would determine the measure of the benefit they would receive. Those who paid attention, making Jesus’ teaching their own or coming to have it in their possession would receive even more, continuing to increase in their understanding of his teaching. Those who failed to focus on what he said, never really thinking about it, would lose even what they thought or imagined they had. (Mark 4:23-25; Luke 8:18)
Another feature of the “kingdom of God” is its being like seed that grows without the planter’s contributing toward the growth or knowing just how it comes to sprout and flourish. Day after day, while the man who planted the seed sleeps and then rises in the morning to engage in the day’s activity, the ground of itself (or without his intervention) produces the stalk and then the ear. Once the grain is ripe, he harvests it with his sickle. (Mark 4:26-29)
As the message about the opportunity to become part of God’s realm spread through the activity of Jesus and later of his disciples, observable results were produced. An increasing number of responsive ones entered the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign, and significant changes occurred in their lives. The manner in which these positive results came about, like the sprouting and growing of a plant from a seed, remained hidden from human view. God makes growth possible, and this explains why, with the passage of time, genuine believers come to be more and more like Jesus Christ and his Father. (Compare 1 Corinthians 3:6, 7.) At the time of the “harvest,” all who are genuine believers will be revealed as approved and desirable from God’s standpoint, just like mature grain is identified as suitable for humans.
Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to a mustard seed that grows to become a “tree.” Of the seeds that his listeners planted, the mustard seed would have been one of the smallest. Its potential for growth, however, was far greater than that of larger seeds. The commonly cultivated black mustard (Brassica nigra) may attain a height of fifteen feet. In the autumn, when the branches have hardened, small birds such as finches perch on them and feed on the seeds. It appears that the reference to the “nesting” of birds “in the shade” of the mature mustard plant is to be understood of their alighting and remaining on the branches to feed (as if they had made their nest or home there). (Matthew 13:31, 32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18, 19)
The basic point of the parable appears to be that an insignificant start may result in astonishing growth. Historically, the message about God’s kingdom, with its focus on Jesus Christ, reached the distant parts of the then-known world in less than three decades. (Compare Colossians 1:23.) As a consequence, many thousands began to identify themselves as belonging to God’s realm and as having ceased to be a part of the world alienated from him. This development would have been difficult to imagine when Jesus’ activity first began.
In another parable, Jesus compared the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to leaven that a woman added to three seahs of dough. Once added or “hidden,” the leaven would not be visible but would start the fermenting process. It was common for women to use leaven, and there is no reason to think that any of Jesus’ listeners would have imagined that he was portraying something sinister when referring to the woman as “hiding” it in the dough. Three seahs would have been a large quantity, amounting to about 20 dry quarts. Although the amount of leaven or fermented dough was relatively small, it served to ferment the entire batch into which it was mixed. (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20, 21)
The parable suggests a quiet and imperceptible working of a seemingly insignificant nature and which produces remarkable observable results. This fits how the message about God’s kingdom spread far and wide and led to dramatic changes in the lives of those who responded to it in faith, becoming part of God’s realm.
Once Jesus began to make exclusive use of parables in his teaching, he appears to have continued doing so when speaking to the crowds. Observing the extent of which they were “able” or willing to listen, he would determine when to stop speaking to them. (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:33) To his disciples, however, he would explain everything they needed to know. (Mark 4:34) According to Matthew 13:35, his use of parables “fulfilled” the words “spoken through the prophet,” which are then quoted, “I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter things hidden from the founding [of the world (according to many manuscripts)].” (See the Notes section for additional comments.)
After Jesus left the crowd and explained the parable of the weed and the wheat privately to his disciples, he related other parables to them. (Matthew 13:36-43)
Notes:
The superscription of Psalm 78 links the composition to Asaph. According to 1 Chronciles 25:2, the Levite musician, a contemporary of David, did prophesying. Therefore, in Matthew 13:35, the quotation from Psalm 78:2 is rightly attributed to a prophet.
The extant Septuagint text of Psalm 78:2(77:2) does not match the Greek of Matthew 13:35. Although starting with the words, “I will open my mouth in parables,” the Septuagint continues, “I will utter riddles from the beginning.” The Masoretic Text reads likewise. “Riddles” or enigmatic sayings could be spoken of as “hidden” or “concealed” things. Considerable mental effort is required to uncover their meaning. The expression “founding” or “founding of the world” denotes “from the beginning” or “from of old.” So, although the words of Matthew 13:35 differ from the Septuagint reading and a more literal rendering of the extant Hebrew text, the meaning being conveyed is basically the same.
Anciently, in times of war, people commonly hid valuables in the ground. If the individual doing so was killed or taken prisoner, knowledge about the hidden “treasure” would be lost. Years later, while plowing a field, a plowman might discover the hidden “treasure.” Recognizing the value of his find, he would do whatever he could to obtain the field and thereby acquire the treasure.
Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to a “treasure” a man found in a field and his subsequent sale of all his possessions to be able to buy this field. (Matthew 13:44) In the parable, the man did not begin his work in the field in order to look for a treasure. It was an unexpected find. Similarly, individuals may not necessarily have been searching for something that would add inestimable value to the life they were living. Then, when they hear the message about God’s kingdom and what it can mean for them to be part of his realm, they recognize its value and do whatever is required of them to have God as the Sovereign of their lives.
Unlike the man who stumbled upon a treasure in a field, the merchant of Jesus’ next parable actively searched for pearls of exceptional value. Upon finding one especially precious pearl, he sold everything he had to buy it. (Matthew 13:45, 46) In relation to the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God,” this indicates that there are persons who seek and long for a right relationship with the Most High. Upon hearing the message about Jesus Christ, they recognize that they have found the object of their search and sacrifice everything that may be necessary in order to be in the realm where his Father is the Sovereign.
Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” to a dragnet cast into the sea and by means of which fish of all kinds are caught. When the net is full, the fishermen pull the net ashore and, after seating themselves, select all the fish suitable for food. According to the Mosaic law, only fish with fins and scales could be eaten, and these would be put into containers. The rest of the catch would be discarded. (Matthew 13:47, 48)
Commenting on the parable, Jesus repeated points he had made when explaining to his disciples the parable about the weeds and the wheat. At the “end of the age,” which would be the time for the execution of divine judgment, the angels would separate the wicked from the upright. The dreadful judgment to befall the wicked is compared to their being tossed into a “fiery furnace.” The realization of their great loss would cause them to weep and to gnash their teeth in an attempt to hold back their tears of bitter grief. (Matthew 13:49, 50)
The parable indicates that the means or the instrument through which individuals may come to know about the “kingdom of the heavens” would, like a dragnet, gather both true and false believers. Not all professing to believe in the Son would prove to be his disciples, persons who had ceased to be part of the world alienated from his Father and who were doing his will. At the “end of the age,” the angels would be used to identify those who truly belonged to God’s realm and who would then share in all the blessings associated with being found divinely approved.
When Jesus questioned his disciples whether they had understood his parables, they replied, “Yes.” He then continued, “Every scribe, having been taught about the kingdom of the heavens, is like a man, [the] master of the house, who brings out new and old things from his [stored] treasure.” (Matthew 13:51, 52)
A scribe or learned person came to be such upon first being instructed, preparing him to teach others. Jesus’ disciples, having been taught by him about the kingdom of the heavens, came into possession of a precious treasure. Like the master of a house, they could bring both new and old things out of this depository. The new things would have related to Jesus and his teaching, whereas the old things would be the law, the psalms, proverbs or wise sayings, and the words of the ancient Hebrew prophets contained in the accepted collection of sacred writings. In their teaching, the disciples would make use of the “holy writings” and the words of Jesus.
In the evening of the day he had taught the people with parables, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let us go to the other side of the lake [the Sea of Galilee].” (Mark 4:35; Luke 8:22) As on a later occasion, he may have felt the need for all of them to be away from the crowds in order to get some rest in an isolated area. (Mark 6:31)
Earlier, Jesus had arranged for the disciples to have a boat at his disposal, making it possible for him to speak to the people from the boat without being crowded by them. (Mark 3:9) This likely was Peter’s boat and the one that Jesus, on this occasion, boarded with his disciples. (Matthew 8:23) Mark 4:36 says that there were “other boats” with Jesus, but no specifics are included nor is any later mention made of these boats.
During the crossing, Jesus, in the stern of the boat, rested his head on a cushion (proskephálaion) and fell asleep. Suddenly, a tremendous storm whipped up high waves, which violently tossed the boat and began filling it with water. As the boat was being swamped, the disciples feared that they would drown. They woke Jesus, saying to him, “Teacher, does it not matter to you that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:37, 38; Matthew 8:24, 25; Luke 8:23, 24)
Jesus got up and called upon the wind, waves, and water to be still, and immediately all became calm. He also asked the disciples why they were afraid. (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24) According to Matthew 8:26, he referred to them as having little faith, and in Mark and Luke his words to them are presented as a question. “Do you still not have faith?” (Mark 4:40) “Where [is] your faith?” (Luke 8:25)
From a human standpoint, the probability of drowning was very real. The disciples, however, had the Son of God with them, which should have assured them that the heavenly Father would never let them perish with his Son. The miracles they had witnessed should have given them a strong basis for faith in deliverance from perilous circumstances.
Upon witnessing what happened after Jesus calmed the wind and the lake, the disciples were filled with great fear and astonishment. They said to one another, “Who really is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25) Their reaction and words suggest that they did not yet fully comprehend the greatness of God’s Son, a greatness that transcended that of the person whom they had expected the foretold Messiah to be.
Notes:
At its widest point from east to west, the Sea of Galilee measures about seven and a half miles and its longest length is approximately thirteen miles. (See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for additional information and pictures.) Luke’s account refers to this body of water as a “lake,” whereas Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts speak of it as a “sea.”
The Sea of Galilee lies about 700 feet below seal level and approximately 40 miles southwest of Mount Hermon, with an altitude of more than 9,200 feet above sea level. Hills and mountains surround the lake on the east and the west, where the air temperature is lower than at the level of the water. Therefore, it is not uncommon for winds to rush down from the higher elevations, creating a choppy lake that poses a danger for small boats and their occupants.
In Matthew 8:24, the severe storm is called seismós mégas, which commonly designates a “great earthquake,” and here appears to describe the storm from the standpoint of the extreme effect it produced, with the boat being shaken as are buildings during an earthquake.
In Mark 4:38, the Greek word proskephálaion designates an object on which one can rest the head.
The accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke vary in the wording of Jesus’ fearful disciples. “Lord, save [us]. We are perishing.” (Matthew 8:25) “Teacher, does it not matter to you that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:38) “Master, Master, we are perishing.” (Luke 8:24) The differences are understandable when one considers that a number of the disciples probably spoke up and that their expressions were conveyed in a language other than the one in which they were originally made. All three accounts represent the disciples as saying, “we are perishing,” suggesting that the peril was so great that they felt certain about their doom.
While there are also other differences in the accounts, the basic message is the same. One should not expect precise correspondency, as the writers chose their own wording and presented the sequence of events as suited their particular purpose.
It is of note that a partially preserved nonbiblical Dead Sea scroll (4Q521) indicates that the “heavens and the earth” would obey God’s Messiah. There is a possibility that a missing portion of the next line in this scroll originally included the “sea” as also obeying. If this was a common view, the disciples would have had additional reason for not giving in to fear during the storm.
The Demoniacs
There is no indication in Matthew, Mark, or Luke when Jesus and his disciples arrived on the other side of the lake. Furthermore, manuscript readings vary when referring to the specific region where they disembarked. One area that would appear to fit the description in the accounts lies approximately at the midway point of the lake’s eastern shore. Caves and rock-cut tombs are in the vicinity, and steep hills rise from the shoreline. All that can be said with certainty, however, is that the accounts identify the territory as situated on the east side of the Sea of Galilee or opposite Galilee. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26; see the Notes section for additional information.)
When Jesus and his disciples started walking on the shore, two men (demoniacs) saw them and came running toward them. These men were in an extremely disturbed mental state and behaved much like savage beasts. Out of fear, people did not travel by the area where they had their haunt, for the two men were extremely fierce. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:6)
The accounts of Mark and Luke provide details about one of the men, making no mention of the second man. Perhaps this was because he alone later expressed the desire to accompany Jesus.
This man is described as under the control of an “unclean spirit” or of “demons.” He had lost soundness of mind and his identity as a human with family ties. For a long time, he had worn no clothes, had stopped living in a house, and (with the other man) found shelter from the elements either in burial caves or rock-cut tombs. People had made attempts to control him, guarding him and repeatedly binding him with chains and fetters, but he would break free and run away. No one had the strength to subdue him. Day and night his screams could be heard among the tombs or from the hillside. With rocks, he would inflict wounds upon himself. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2-5; Luke 8:27, 29)
Upon arriving at the place where Jesus and his disciples were, both men likely prostrated themselves before him. In response to his directive for the men to be liberated from their derangement, they appear to have screamed individually, “What to me and to you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” (Mark 5:6-8; Luke 8:28) In Matthew 5:29, the question is found in the plural (“us”), as both men are represented as shouting. The idiomatic expression (“What to me and to you?”) implies that the parties had nothing in common, and it constituted an objection. (For additional comments, see the Notes section.) Modern translations commonly render the words in one of two ways. “What do you want with me?” (CEV, NCV, NIV, NJB, REB) “What have you to do with me?” (NAB, NRSV)
Jesus responded with the question, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” came back the reply. A Roman legion consisted of 6,000 men and so the designation served to indicate control under many unclean spirits. (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30; see the Notes section for additional comments.) The reply suggests that the man had no recollection of his own name or identity.
This reply was followed by the request not to be sent into the “abyss” (Luke 8:31) or “out of the country” (Mark 5:10). Such a future judgment appears to be referred to in Isaiah 24:21 and 22 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]): “In that day, the LORD [YHWH] will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth. They shall be gathered in a dungeon as captives are gathered; and shall be locked up in a prison. But after many days they shall be remembered.”
In the distance, many pigs were feeding, and the demons pleaded for permission to enter the animals. (Matthew 8:30, 31; Mark 5:11, 12; Luke 8:32) According to Matthew 8:32, Jesus said “Go!” Immediately, the men were freed from their pathetic mental state. When the demonic power took control of the pigs, they became crazed. The entire herd, numbering about 2,000, panicked, began to run and then plummeted into the lake, where they perished. The herders fled, entered the town, and there (and in the surrounding area) related what had happened. (Matthew 8:33; Mark 5:13, 14; Luke 8:33, 34)
Upon hearing the report of the herders, the populace went to the location where the events had occurred. When they arrived they saw the formerly deranged man whom neither fetters nor chains could control sitting at Jesus’ feet. The man was clothed and in full possession of his mental faculties. (Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35)
Neither Mark nor Luke make any mention about how the man obtained clothing. The most likely explanation is that Jesus’ disciples were in position to provide him with the needed attire. They were familiar with the teaching of John the Baptist that the one with two garments should share the extra garment with the one who had none, and Jesus had reemphasized this teaching about responding compassionately to the needs of others by his own words and actions. (Luke 3:11) The disciples had a common fund on which they could draw in order to help the poor, and there appear to have been occasions when they took along an extra garment when traveling. (Matthew 10:9, 10; John 13:29)
To the people of the region, the man’s restoration and the development involving the pigs (as eyewitnesses related the incident to them) would have been clear evidence of the working of a power far greater than the ordinary. They were filled with fear, but it was not the kind that produced a reverential regard for the Most High whom Jesus represented and whose love and compassion he had revealed. Instead, the populace asked Jesus to leave the region. (Matthew 8:34; Mark 5:15-17; Luke 8:35-37)
As Jesus was about depart with his disciples, the healed man pleaded to be able to accompany him. Jesus, however, did not grant the request. He instructed him to return to his home and his family and to tell them all that God had done for him and the mercy he had been shown. (Mark 5:18, 19; Luke 8:37-39) This directive differed from Jesus’ usual command not to make his miracles known. In this case, however, he had been asked to leave the region, and so he left a personal witness behind. The cured man’s favorable testimony could set straight any distortion about his benefactor and the death of the pigs. (See the Notes section for additional comments.)
As Jesus had requested, the cured man did depart for his home. In the town and the surrounding region of the Decapolis, he made known what Jesus had done for him. His testimony resulted in wonderment among the people who heard it. (Mark 5:20; Luke 8:39; for information about the Decapolis, see Notes section.)
Notes:
In Matthew 8:28, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of later manuscripts refer to the “country of the Gadarenes,” which area has been associated with Gadara (a city located about six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee). The original reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus is “country of the Gazarenes.” A corrected reading, however, is “country of the Gergesenes,” which is also what many later manuscripts say. Another manuscript reading is “country of the Gerasenes.”
According to fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (original reading), Mark 5:1 reads “country of the Gerasenes,” which is also what a number of later manuscripts say. Other manuscripts read “country of the Gadarenes,” “country of the Gergystenes,” and “country of the Gergesenes.”
In Luke 8:26, a third century papyrus manuscript (P75), fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and a number of later manuscripts say “country of the Gerasenes,” which region has been linked to Gerasa (a city located nearly 35 miles south and east of the Sea of Galilee). Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus reads “country of the Gergesenes,” which is also what a number of later manuscripts say. Numerous other manuscripts contain the reading “country of the Gadarenes.”
The “country of the Gergesenes” has been identified with Gergesa, which site lies approximately at the midway point of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Based on the biblical accounts, this location would seem to fit best. In view of the variations in the manuscript readings, however, any definitive conclusions are impossible. Whether the area mentioned in Matthew 8:28 is part of a larger territory referred to in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 can likewise not be determined with any degree of certainty.
Like Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28, Matthew 8:29 refers to torment but adds an additional thought. “Have you come here to torment us before [the] time?” This question suggests that the demons recognized they would face a future judgment but that it was then not the appointed time for that judgment to be executed.
While there are differences in the wording of Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28, the basic thought is the same in all three passages. One of the differences in Luke 8:28 is that the request not be tormented is preceded by “I beg you.” In Mark 5:7, the request is introduced with the words, “I adjure you by God.”
Mark 5:9 and Luke 8:30, though conveying the same thought, represent it somewhat differently. In Mark 5:9, the words “there are many of us” are part of the reply, whereas Luke 8:30 only mentions the designation “Legion” as the reply and then adds the explanation, “for many demons had entered into him.”
Jesus liberated two men from a pitiable state of extreme suffering, and the developments in connection with the pigs serve to provide evidence respecting the horrific mental affliction that plagued the men. Their value as humans restored to soundness of mind should be regarded as having been of greater value than that of many pigs, which were unclean to the Jews. The animals were being raised for slaughter as food for non-Jews. By present-day standards, the method or methods by which these pigs were to be killed would not have been considered humane.
The Son of God did not cause the pigs to behave in a crazed manner and to plunge into the Sea of Galilee. He did not choose to perform a miracle to prevent financial loss to the owners and preserve the life of the pigs for a death that could have been worse than drowning. The writers of the accounts did not feel impelled to provide explanations for what Jesus did or did not do, and there really is no reason for attempting to do so at a time when only an abbreviated version about the incident exists. What should stand out is that Jesus deeply cared about people and reached out compassionately to those whom others had tried cruelly to control with confining chains and fetters and avoided out of fear of being harmed. The people in that region did not value what Jesus had done for the afflicted men, but entreated him to leave the area.
The Decapolis was a region of ten predominantly Greek cities, which appear to have formed a league sometime during the first century BCE. Of these cities, only Scythopolis was located west of the Jordan. Damascus occupied the most distant northeastern location, and the eight other cities were situated east of the Jordan.
In his Natural History (V, 16 [English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley]), the first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote the following regarding the Decapolis: “On the side of Syria, joining up to Judaea, is the region of Decapolis, so called from the number of its cities; as to which all writers are not agreed. Most of them, however, agree in speaking of Damascus as one, a place fertilized by the river Chrysorroös, which is drawn off into its meadows and eagerly imbibed; Philadelphia, and Rhaphana, all which cities fall back towards Arabia; Scythopolis (formerly called Nysa by Father Liber, from his nurse having been buried there), its present name being derived from a Scythian colony which was established there; Gadara, before which the river Hieromix flows; Hippo [Hippos], which has been previously mentioned; Dion, Pella, rich with its waters; Galasa [Gerasa], and Canatha.”
See http://bibleplaces.com/gerasa.htm regarding Gerasa, one of the cities of the Decapolis.
After Jesus and his disciples arrived on the western shore of the Seal of Galilee, probably in the vicinity of Capernaum, a large crowd gathered around him. His still being by the lake when people came to him suggests that, while the boat was yet a distance away from the shore, he had been recognized and the word had spread that he was coming. (Mark 5:21) According to Luke 8:40, the crowd was waiting for Jesus and welcomed him.
The Plea of Jairus
One of the men who came to Jesus was Jairus, a leader of a synagogue. In his official capacity, he would have been primarily responsible for the maintenance and the physical arrangements associated with the meeting place for worship. Jairus dropped to his knees before Jesus and prostrated himself. He repeatedly begged him to come to his home and then to lay his hands on his seriously ill daughter to restore her to health, for she was about to die. The twelve-year-old girl was his only child. Accompanied by his disciples, Jesus departed with Jairus, and the crowd followed and pressed in on him. (Matthew 9:18, 19; Mark 5:22-24; Luke 8:41, 42)
A Woman With Hemorrhage
Among the people was an afflicted woman. During the course of the twelve years she had suffered from hemorrhages, she had gone to many physicians and eventually had exhausted all her resources. Their would-be cures proved to be very painful and did not benefit her. The condition worsened progressively, and no one was able to help her. Having heard about Jesus’ activity, the woman concluded that, if she could only touch his garment, she would be restored to health. (Matthew 9:20, 21; Mark 5:25-28; Luke 8:43)
Though greatly weakened from her loss of blood, she summoned all the strength she could to get near enough to Jesus to touch the fringe of his garment. Upon having done so from behind him, the woman immediately sensed that she had been healed. (Matthew 9:20; Mark 5:27-29; Luke 8:43, 44)
Aware that power had gone out of him, Jesus turned around and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” (Mark 5:30) All those around him denied having done so, and Peter was quick to point out that Jesus was being crowded and the people were pressing in on him. (Luke 8:45) According to Mark 5:31, Peter was not the only disciple who expressed himself to this effect. Other disciples were also puzzled by Jesus’ question about having been touched.
Knowing full well that power had gone out of him, Jesus insisted that he had been touched in a manner that differed from inadvertent contact. He then looked around to see who had done so. (Mark 5:32; Luke 8:46)
Fearful and trembling, the woman, realizing that she had been cured and could not remain unnoticed, fell down before Jesus. In the hearing of all present, she explained why she had touched him and how she had immediately thereupon been healed. (Mark 5:33; Luke 8:47)
Jesus allayed her apprehension, initially assuring her, “Take courage” (a form of the Greek word tharséo) or do not be afraid. (See the Notes section for additional comments.) Lovingly, he addressed her as “daughter,” an expression of endearment, and identified the reason for the cure as having been her faith in him and not the mere touching of his garment. “Your faith has saved you [made you well],” said Jesus. “Go in peace, and be healthy, [free] from your affliction.” From that very “hour” or time, the woman was well. (Matthew 9:22; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48)
The Son of God showed great love and compassion for the woman when causing her to reveal what had happened to her. For twelve years she had been ceremonially unclean. This was a condition that could bring defilement to anyone who might inadvertently touch her or any object that she had touched. (Leviticus 15:25-27) Her state of uncleanness doubtless was public knowledge, and everyone who knew about it would have avoided getting close to her. They would not have wanted to be inconvenienced by having to wash their clothes, bathe, and personally remain ceremonially unclean until the evening. This meant that she had to deal with her affliction in isolation, without experiencing any comforting touch or embrace. The news about her cure would have spread quickly among all those who knew her, making it possible for her once again to enjoy normal contact with everyone. Furthermore, Jesus used the opportunity to help her spiritually, making it clear to her that her faith or her trust in him had led to her being cured.
Resurrection of Jairus’s Daughter
At the time Jesus was still speaking to the woman, Jairus received the sad news that his daughter had died. His worst fear had become reality. Those who brought the message advised that he no longer trouble Jesus (the “teacher”). Overhearing the conversation with Jairus, Jesus spoke reassuringly to him, “Fear not; only believe, and she will be saved.” (Mark 5:35, 36; Luke 8:49, 50) These comforting words must have had a calming effect on Jairus, especially since he had just witnessed the cure of the afflicted woman.
Jesus then appears to have dismissed the crowd and permitted only Peter, James, and his brother John to accompany him. (Mark 5:37) At the home of Jairus, many people, doubtless including professional mourners, created much commotion, with weeping and loud wailing being intermingled with flute playing. Jesus asked all of them to leave, telling them to stop their weeping and that the girl had not died but was sleeping. At that, likely primarily the professional mourners gave way to scornful laughter, for they knew that the girl had died. The only ones Jesus permitted to be in the home with him were the girl’s parents and Peter, James, and John. (Matthew 9:23, 24; Mark 5:38-40; Luke 8:51-53; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
With everyone else outside, Jesus entered where the girl was lying. He took hold of her hand, saying Talitha koum (“Maiden, I say to you, Rise!”) With her “spirit” or life force having returned, she began to breathe, got up, and then began to walk. Her parents were overcome with joy and amazement. Repeatedly, Jesus ordered them not to let anyone know what had happened and instructed them to give their daughter something to eat. (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:40-42; Luke 8:54-56)
To the extent possible, Jesus wanted to prevent needless publicity and the spread of sensational reports that attracted crowds for reasons other than faith in him as the promised Messiah. Relatives, friends, acquaintances, and others would learn soon enough that the twelve-year-old girl was alive and well. For Jairus and his wife, the appropriate action was to attend to their daughter’s needs and to reflect appreciatively on what God had done for them by means of his Son. Understandably, though, as it became known that the daughter was alive, the news did spread extensively. (Matthew 9:26)
Two Blind Men
When Jesus left the home of Jairus, two blind men began to follow him. They cried out, “Pity us, Son of David.” Their words acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah, the descendant of King David. (See the Notes section for additional comments about the designation “Son of David.”) The biblical record does not reveal why he did not immediately respond to their cry to be shown mercy by curing their blindness. Undeterred, the blind men continued to follow him, entering the house where he was staying. (Matthew 9:27, 28) If the home of Jairus was in Capernaum, the most likely place for Jesus to stay would have been the home of Peter and Andrew. (Compare Mark 1:21, 29; 2:1.)
In the privacy of the home, Jesus asked the men whether they believed that he could cure their blindness. They answered, “Yes, Lord.” Touching their eyes, he said, “Let it happen to you according to your faith.” They were then able to see. Though Jesus ordered them not to let others know about this, they, like others whom he had healed, failed to heed their benefactor’s charge to them and spread the news everywhere. (Matthew 9:28-31)
A Mute Man
After the two men had left, people arrived with a man whose inability to speak they attributed to demon possession. Upon hearing the mute man speak in response to Jesus’ exercise of divine power, those who witnessed this exclaimed, “Never has the like been seen in Israel!” Certain Pharisees, however, blasphemously spoke of the good work that had benefited the afflicted man as having been accomplished by the power of the ruler of the demons. While they could not deny the miracle, they found justification for their hatred of God’s Son and their persistence in unbelief by slandering the source of the powerful work they had witnessed. (Matthew 9:32-34)
Notes:
The Scriptures do not explain the metaphysical factors involved in effecting the cures. Jesus’ being able to sense a change in his body suggests that the healings drew on his physical strength.
The Greek word tharséo, found in Matthew 9:22, means “be courageous” and conveys the thought of being resolute or unafraid.
The words of Jesus regarding the girl’s sleeping (Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52) are evidently to be viewed from the standpoint of the final outcome. Though she had indeed died, her death was but a temporary sleep.
The collection of psalms known as the “Psalms of Solomon” and believed to date from the first century BCE refer to the messianic king as the “Son of David.” In that collection, Psalm 17:21 reads, “See, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, [the] Son of David, in the time that you chose, O God, to reign over Israel your servant.” The chief priests and scribes objected when Jesus was called the “Son of David,” indicating that the expression was commonly understood to designate the Messiah. (Matthew 21:15, 16)
Upon returning to Nazareth with his disciples, Jesus, as was his custom on the Sabbath, went to the synagogue. Those assembled there knew him to be an exemplary person, were acquainted with his close relatives, and had heard about his miraculous works. Hearing him teach on this occasion, they responded with amazement but could not bring themselves to believe that he was the promised Messiah. (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:1, 2)
All they did was to question how it could be that Jesus had been endowed with such outstanding wisdom as reflected in his teaching and had been empowered to perform miracles. In their estimation, he was just the carpenter of Nazareth and a carpenter’s son. His mother was Mary, his brothers were James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, and his sisters were still living in the town. To the townspeople there seemed to be nothing out of the ordinary about the family. Their view of him as a man of Nazareth and whose family they knew proved to be the obstacle that prevented them from responding to him in faith. They “stumbled at him.” In view of their lack of faith, Jesus was moved to call attention to the fact that a prophet is without honor in his home area, among his relatives, and in his own house. (Matthew 13:54-57; Mark 6:2-4)
Even among the afflicted people of Nazareth, few came to him to be healed. Therefore, upon only an insignificant number of sickly ones did he lay his hands and cure them. If it had not been for their lack of faith, Jesus would have been able to bring relief from suffering to many more. For Jesus, their unbelief, despite what they knew and had observed and heard, was a cause for wonderment. He left the town with his disciples and spent time teaching in various towns and villages of Galilee. (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5, 6)
Traveling from one town or village to another with his disciples, Jesus taught in the synagogues, declared the glad tidings about the kingdom, and cured the afflicted. His message focused on how responsive ones could become part of the realm where his Father is recognized as Sovereign and share in all the promises and blessings this signified. Observing the sad plight in which the people found themselves, the Son of God was moved with deep compassion for them. He perceived them to be like abused and helpless sheep without the compassionate concern and dependable guidance of a caring shepherd. (Regarding the Greek terms describing the sheep in Matthew 9:36, see the Notes section.) In view of the needy condition of the people, Jesus told his disciples, “The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few. Therefore, petition the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” (Matthew 9:35-38)
As in the case of a field of grain ready to be harvested, the potential existed for many to become part of the realm where God is Sovereign. At the time, there were few laborers who could point out the way for others to gain a divinely approved standing. Consequently, Jesus called upon the disciples to pray to the heavenly Father, the “Lord of the harvest,” for an increase in the number of workers.
During the course of his public activity, Jesus summoned the twelve disciples who were most closely associated with him. He empowered them to free people from the control of “unclean spirits” and to cure the sick and infirm. The twelve came to be known as “apostles” (“ones sent out”), for Jesus sent them out to do the good works for which he had granted them the authority and to proclaim the message about the “kingdom of God.” (Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1, 2; for additional details about the apostles, see the section “Choosing the Twelve” under the heading “Back in Galilee.” )
He sent them forth by twos (Mark 6:7), possibly according to the way in which they are listed in Matthew 10:2-4 (Peter and Andrew; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot).
The instructions Jesus gave to the apostles included both specifics relating to that particular mission and admonition that would apply in the future. At this time, they were not to go among the non-Jewish peoples nor to any Samaritan town. They were to limit their activity to fellow Jews, giving exclusive attention to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” These “lost sheep” would be persons who recognized their helpless state and would respond favorably to the message the apostles proclaimed. (Matthew 10:5, 6)
Jesus told the apostles, “As you go, proclaim, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received free, give free.” (Matthew 10:7, 8) In the person of the promised Messiah (the “king of Israel”), the “kingdom of God” had indeed drawn near. (Compare John 1:49.) While the apostles did not then specifically proclaim Jesus to be the king, they did impart the knowledge needed for others to put faith in him (which included the admonition to repent of their transgressions), demonstrating that they wanted to be in the royal realm where he is the king by his Father’s appointment. (Compare Mark 6:12.) Jesus had not asked for any payment for empowering the apostles to perform miracles that would demonstrate to others that they had divine backing for their proclamation about the kingdom. Therefore, the relief that they would bring to the afflicted was likewise to be made available without cost.
As workers of good, the apostles, however, did have the right to receive food and lodging from responsive fellow Israelites. With full trust in God’s providential care and the hospitality of favorably disposed individuals, they were not to equip themselves in a manner typical of travelers. According to Jesus’ instructions, they would not take along any gold, silver, or copper coins for making purchases, any bread, and any bag with supplies. They would only wear the essential attire and their sandals. (Matthew 10:9, 10; Mark 6:8, 9; Luke 9:3; see the Notes section regarding the differences in the instructions.)
Upon entering a town or village, the apostles were to search for “deserving” or “worthy” ones, persons who would appreciatively accept them and their message. These individuals would reveal themselves to be worthy of the precious spiritual benefits the apostles were able to impart. In the homes of these worthy ones, the apostles were to stay until such time as they would leave for another place. (Matthew 10:11; Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4) Their remaining in one house in the town or village would have made it easier for other inhabitants to find them if they wanted to benefit from their ministry. It would also have reflected proper regard for those who initially extended hospitality, as the apostles would neither seek nor accept what might have appeared to be better accommodations.
When first entering the house where the owner extended hospitality, they were to greet the household. (Matthew 10:12) This would have been with the customary “shalom” (“peace,” a wish of well-being resulting from God’s blessing). In the case of those who proved themselves to be worthy, the apostle’s wish for peace would come upon the household. If, however, the residents of the house later revealed themselves undeserving, rejecting the message the apostles proclaimed, the expression of peace was to return to them. (Matthew 10:13) This suggests that they were not to allow unresponsiveness to rob them of their peace, the tranquility they enjoyed as persons having divine approval.
Whenever the apostles came to a place where they and their message were rejected, they were to shake the dust off their feet upon leaving that particular house, town, or village. This gesture would serve as a testimony against the unresponsive ones. In the day of judgment, the very dust would testify against them as having been persons who rejected the message the apostles proclaimed, did not repent of their transgressions, and refused to accept the marvelous opportunity of coming to be part of the realm where God is acknowledged as Sovereign. As individuals who possessed knowledge about the Most High and witnessed miracles that verified the dependability of the message the apostles declared, their accountability was greater than that of the corrupt inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham and Lot. Therefore, as Jesus stated with a solemn “amen” (“truly”), it would be more bearable for the “land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment” than for the inhabitants of a town or village who refused to listen to the apostles. This indicates that, on account of the greater accountability, the judgment would be more severe. (Matthew 10:14, 15; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5)
According to ancient Jewish sources, dust from outside the land of Israel defiled by one’s carrying or touching it. Therefore, the apostles, when shaking the dust off their feet, could also have been indicating that the rejection of the message revealed the people to be impure and as having no relationship with God. They were leaving the unbelieving people behind as persons with whom they would have no further contact, taking nothing of theirs with them, not even the dust on their sandals.
Jesus alerted the apostles to the fact that they would be encountering enemies who would seek to harm them. He likened his followers to defenseless sheep being sent out among wolves. This called for them to become “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) In pursuing their prey, serpents are cunning. They conceal themselves and quickly slither away from any threat. So, the apostles would wisely remain alert, not exposing themselves to danger but acting swiftly to avoid it. Possibly because deceit is associated with the serpent in Eden, they were reminded to maintain their innocence, not resorting to anything of an underhanded nature that would be associated with the characteristic of serpents. The harmless, inoffensive nature of doves would be more in keeping with their activity, which would never injure anyone but would always result in the greatest good possible for those who responded favorably to their proclamation about the kingdom.
Jesus then prepared the apostles for what they, in the future, could expect from men who would violently oppose their activity. He admonished them to be on guard. Opposers would hand them over to be tried by Jewish courts, and they would be scourged in the synagogues, being regarded as enemies of their own countrymen and meriting severe beating. For the sake of Christ or because of representing him, they would be dragged before governors and kings. Their appearance before these non-Jewish rulers would serve as an opportunity to testify to them about him. Besides being presented to the kings and governors, the testimony would also be heard by others, resulting in a witness to non-Jewish peoples. (Matthew 10:17, 18)
While in the process of being taken before rulers, the disciples were not to give way to worry as to how to present their case. Jesus assured them that, in that “hour” or at that time, what they needed to say would be given to them. The spirit of the heavenly Father would be speaking through them, enabling them to bear witness in an effective manner. (Matthew 10:19, 20)
In the case of Christ’s disciples, unbelieving family members would turn against them. Close relatives who formerly loved them would become hatefully hostile. A brother would betray his own brother, handing him over to ruling authorities to be executed. A father would deliver up his own child to be put to death, and children would take a stand against their parents and have them killed. On account of Christ’s name or being identified as belonging to him as his disciples, believers would come to be hated by all, evidently meaning all who persisted in unbelief. Jesus then added, “The one, however, who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:21, 22)
In view of the portrayal of intense persecution with death as a possible outcome, the “end” may signify the end of a person’s life. Salvation is assured for all who endure faithfully, loyally remaining true to the Lord Jesus Christ and not denying him when faced with bitter opposition.
When encountering persecution in a particular city, Christ’s disciples were to flee to another city, not needlessly endangering their lives by remaining in a place where opposers were intent on killing them. In the time intervening between the commencement of the work for which the Son of God had commissioned the apostles until his coming again, Christ’s followers would not run out of places to reach with the message about the kingdom. Introducing his statement with a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus told the apostles that they would not “finish [their activity in] the cities of Israel.” (Matthew 10:23)
The Son of God had not yet revealed to them that their preaching and that of other disciples would extend far beyond the land of Israel. Therefore, it seems that Jesus framed his statement in keeping with what the apostles knew and would have understood. This suggests that the cities of Israel are only representative of the places to be reached with the glad tidings that focused on Jesus as the king by God’s appointment. From the standpoint of Christ’s disciples, there would never be a time prior to his return that their work would be completed. Consequently, it does not appear to be necessary to identify the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman forces as an expression of the coming of the Son of Man for judgment. His followers did not stop telling others about him after that event. Therefore, the reference could be to Christ’s coming in glory.
Disciples of Christ should not be surprised about future mistreatment. A disciple, pupil, or learner is not above the teacher, and a slave or servant is not above his lord or master. In keeping therewith, it is altogether enough or fitting that a disciple come to be like his teacher and a slave like his lord, being recipients of the same kind of treatment. The Son of God is both the Teacher and the Lord of believers. Since the householder or master of the house (which is the position of Jesus in his relationship to the household of believers) was called Beelzebul (a designation that was applied to the devil), how much more so would the members of his household be slanderously thus labeled! (Matthew 10:24, 25)
The disciples were not to be afraid of those who would seek to mistreat them. In harmony with the admonition Jesus had previously given, they would exercise due caution and not foolishly place themselves in a dangerous situation. Nevertheless, they were not to give in to fear and become silent, failing to make known the good news about Christ. Whatever is covered should be uncovered, and whatever is secret should become known. As Jesus added, “What I tell you in the darkness, relate in the light, and what you hear [whispered] into the ear proclaim from the roofs” (which were flat and accessible by means of ladders or outside stairs). (Matthew 10:26, 27)
Jesus had taught the apostles privately. What he imparted to them had been covered and hidden from others, but he did not intend for his teaching to remain covered (as if hidden in darkness) and secret. Instead, the apostles were to make it known in the “light” or openly for others to learn, and the truths they had heard from him privately they were to proclaim publicly like announcements that would be made from roofs so that all could hear. Their courageous proclamation would expose them to danger from those who would not respond favorably. Therefore, Jesus again emphasized the importance of not becoming fearful. “Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28)
Humans can render the body lifeless, but they cannot destroy the “soul” or the person as a whole and in possession of the God-given right to live in fellowship with him. The killing of the body has no effect on the future life to be enjoyed in keeping with God’s purpose and promise. Therefore, the one who should rightly be feared is the heavenly Father. He can destroy both the body and the soul or the entire person, permanently cutting off the individual from the real life of fellowship with him. That terrifying judgment is destruction “in Gehenna” and, according to Isaiah 66:24, is comparable to one’s being cast into a garbage dump where fires burn continually and maggots feed on whatever the flames do not reach.
Whereas the judgment is severe, Jesus did reveal that his Father’s will is to aid believers to maintain faithfulness because they are precious to him. The Son of God reminded the disciples that two sparrows cost but one assarion (16 of such coins being the equivalent of a daily wage). Although considered as a low-cost food item, these birds did not fall to the ground as undeserving of his Father’s notice. They had value in his sight. Indicative of his Father’s care and concern for the disciples, Jesus told them that the hairs of their head were all numbered, suggesting that everything about them was precious to his Father. They were worth more than many sparrows, and so should not give in to fear regardless of what they might yet face. (Matthew 10:29-31)
Everyone who would confess or acknowledge having a relationship with him before men, Jesus would acknowledge before his Father as being at one with him. As for the person who would disown him before men, Jesus would disown that one before his Father. (Matthew 10:32, 33)
Jesus did not want his disciples to think that he had come to bring peace upon the earth. Instead of peace, he had brought a sword. This was because of the manner in which individuals would respond to him and his message, with the opposite reactions of belief and unbelief creating serious rifts. The hostility of unbelievers would end what may formerly have been a peaceful relationship and replace it with the hostility a sword represented. Jesus, in terms similar to those found in Micah 7:6, spoke about the serious divisions that would develop on his account. A man would be against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies would be members of his own household.
Anyone who deemed family loyalty to be of greater importance than love for Christ would lose out on everything that would result from being at one with him. Jesus said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his beam [staurós] and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:37-39)
To accord parents or children greater affection than to Christ would lead to pleasing them when their wishes and aims conflicted with loyalty to him. This failure to love God’s Son by heeding his words would make one unworthy of belonging to him as his approved disciple.
In lands under the dominion of Rome, crucifixion was the worst form of punishment. The condemned man would carry the beam (to which he would later be tied or nailed) to the place of execution, where he would be exposed to mockery and die a slow, excruciating death. Therefore, to take up one’s beam suggests to commence a course of reproach and suffering in order to follow Christ. An unwillingness to endure affliction and possibly even death for the sake of God’s Son would make one unworthy of having his recognition.
To “find” one’s soul would denote to secure one’s life through disloyalty to Christ. Losing one’s soul for the sake of God’s Son would signify losing one’s life because of being his disciple. The preservation of one’s present life through any means that dishonored Christ would lead to losing out on the real life in eternity. To lose one’s soul or life for his sake would assure one’s having the eternal life of a never-ending relationship with him and his Father.
Jesus would consider whoever “received” or welcomed his disciples as welcoming him and, to accept him, meant to receive his Father who had sent him. To receive a prophet “in the name of a prophet” would signify to welcome him because of recognizing him to be a prophet. Whoever did so would receive a prophet’s reward or a repayment like that of one who faithfully carried out his commission as a proclaimer of God’s word or message. The individual who received a righteous man “in the name of a righteous man” or because of recognizing the man to be godly or upright would receive a righteous man’s reward or come to be a recipient of the repayment the upright one deserved. (Matthew 10:40, 41)
Even what might appear to be a small gesture of hospitality extended toward a lowly disciple (“one of these little ones” or, according to other manuscripts, “least ones”) would be rewarded. The person who gave just a “cup of cold water” (a welcome refreshment on a hot day to one who is thirsty) “in the name of a disciple” or because of recognizing the person to be Christ’s disciple would in no way lose his reward or the repayment for having done so. Jesus introduced this assurance with a solemn “amen” (“truly”). (Matthew 10:42)
After receiving Jesus’ instructions, the apostles began their activity, traveling from place to place, proclaiming the glad tidings about God’s kingdom, admonishing people to repent, freeing the afflicted from demon possession, and curing the sick. (Mark 6:12, 13; Luke 9:6) According to Mark 6:13, the apostles anointed the ailing ones “with [olive] oil.” Doubtless they did this in the name of Jesus, and the use of the oil may have served to show that the healing was accomplished through them. (Compare Acts 3:6; James 5:14.)
Notes:
In Matthew 9:36, the earliest extant manuscripts contain forms of the Greek words skyllo and rhípto when describing the people as being like sheep. The term skyllo originally meant to “skin,” but, in other contexts (as here) denotes to “harass,” “weary,” or “trouble.” According to another manuscript reading, the word (instead of skyllo) is a form of eklyo, meaning to be “exhausted,” “wearied,” “faint,” “deprived of strength,” “dispirited,” or “discouraged.” The expression rhípto conveys the sense of being thrown or tossed with a forceful motion. As applying to the state of the people, this suggests a helpless or dejected state.
According to Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, Jesus told the apostles not to take a staff along, but Mark 6:8 indicates that they could do so. This difference may be understood to mean that they were not to procure a staff but could use one if that was their customary practice. In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, the reference to “two tunics” (chitón, the Greek term designating a garment worn next to the skin) probably means one tunic in addition to the one that would usually be worn. Mark 6:9 is more specific when mentioning that they were not to wear two tunics, implying that one would be enough. Similarly, the point about wearing sandals (Mark 6:9) and not obtaining sandals (Matthew 10:10) would relate to wearing their sandals but not taking along an extra pair for the trip.
During the time the apostles carried out their commission, Jesus continued teaching and preaching in various towns. (Matthew 11:1) The biblical record does not disclose just when, in relation to the commissioning of the twelve disciples, Herod Antipas the tetrarch first heard about Jesus’ miracles. (Regarding the designation “tetrarch,” see the Notes section.)
This ruler had earlier arrested John the Baptist for repeatedly censuring him regarding his marriage to Herodias and about other wrongs. (Luke 3:19, 20) To marry Herod Antipas, she had divorced her husband (Herod Philip), and he also divorced his first wife (the daughter of Aretas, an Arabian king whose dominion included Damascus) to marry her. This union was an incestuous relationship according to Jewish law, to which he was subject as a nominal Jew (whose Edomite ancestors John Hyrcanus I forced to be circumcised in the second century BCE). His fear of incurring the hostility of his subjects, who considered John to be a prophet, contributed to restraining Herod Antipas from executing him. Moreover, he knew John to be upright and holy, and this also made him apprehensive about imposing the death sentence. Herod Antipas even found a measure of delight in hearing what John said about other matters, and so he found himself in a quandary as to what he should do. (Matthew 14:3-5; Mark 6:17-20)
Herodias, however, harbored great resentment and wanted John killed. She was determined that her remaining married to Herod Antipas would never be in jeopardy. (See the Notes section for other evidence about the closeness of the attachment of Herodias to Herod Antipas.) Her opportunity to achieve her objective came when Herod Antipas celebrated the anniversary of his birth. For the occasion, he arranged a banquet to which he invited his prominent men, chiliarchs (commanders of 1,000 soldiers), and influential men of Galilee. Probably while he and his invitees were under the influence of wine, Herodias urged her daughter Salome (probably her only child by Philip) to perform a sensuous dance in their presence. Herodias must have known how her husband was likely to respond to her daughter’s dancing. (Mark 6:19, 21, 22)
Herod Antipas and his guests were delighted with the spectacle. Completely captivated by her performance, he made an oath-bound promise to give her anything she might request, “up to half of [his] kingdom.” (Matthew 14:6, 7; Mark 6:22, 23) Upon consulting with her mother, Salome asked that she immediately be given the head of John the Baptist on a platter. It would seem that Herodias wanted to be sure not to risk the possibility that her husband would change his mind and so had her daughter request immediate action. (Matthew 14:8; Mark 6:24, 25)
Although it greatly troubled him, Herod Antipas, on account of his oaths and in order not to lose face before his guests, gave the order for John to be beheaded. Upon being presented with his head, Salome took it to her mother. (Matthew 14:9-11; Mark 6:26-28)
When news about this development reached the disciples of John, they arranged to get the body and placed it in a tomb. Thereafter they informed Jesus about what had happened. (Matthew 14:12; Mark 6:29)
It seems that his having ordered the execution of John left Herod Antipas with a troubled conscience. Reports about Jesus’ miracles caused him superstitiously to reason that John had been raised from the dead and had come into possession of extraordinary powers. (Matthew 14:1, 2; Mark 6:16) Also among the people, certain ones expressed themselves to the effect that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead and, therefore, was performing miracles. Others, though, concluded that Jesus was Elijah or a prophet like one of the prophets of old. All this talk added to Herod’s perplexity. (Mark 6:14, 15; Luke 9:7-9; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Notes:
The term “tetrarch” denotes a ruler over a fourth part of a province. This designation applied to rulers of lesser rank than kings. Among the general populace, though, Herod Antipas may have been spoken of as a king, and this may explain why the terms “king” and “kingdom” are linked to him in the Scriptures. His tetrarchy embraced Galilee and Perea, a region on the east side of the Jordan River.
A later development reveals just how strongly attached Herodias was to Herod Antipas. At the time Emperor Caligula (Gaius Caesar) exiled Herod Antipas on the suspicion of treachery (based on letters from Agrippa I, the brother of Herodias), she could have enjoyed better circumstances without him. According to Josephus, she turned down Caligula’s offer to spare her, saying, “The kindness which I have for my husband hinders me from partaking of the favor of your gift, for it is not right that I, who have been made a partner in his prosperity, should forsake him in his misfortunes.” (Antiquities, XVIII, vii, 1, 2 [Whiston’s translation with minor edits])
If he had known about Jesus’ activity and miracles prior to his having John executed, Herod Antipas could not have drawn his erroneous conclusion. The existence of ignorance about the overlapping of the activity of Jesus and John in the very land where they carried out their respective ministries indicates that one should not expect to find specifics about Jesus’ work and miracles in the writings of first-century Roman historians. Not until there were believers in principal cities throughout the Roman empire would information about Jesus have become more widely known.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus commented on Herod’s political concerns as the reason for John’s imprisonment and execution. With crowds coming to John, Herod Antipas “feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion.” “Out of Herod’s suspicious temper,” John was sent as a prisoner “to Macherus” (Machaerus in Perea, situated east of the Dead Sea) and “was there put to death.” (Antiquities, XVIII, v, 2)
There is no reason to doubt that political considerations were involved. The messianic expectations aroused through the preaching of John the Baptist would have been troubling to Herod Antipas, just as his father Herod the Great regarded news about Jesus’ birth as a threat to the continuance of rule in his line and thereafter responded with violent action in an attempt to eliminate this threat. What appears to have finally prompted Herod to have John arrested and imprisoned was his being repeatedly reproved by him for his unlawful marriage to Herodias.
When commenting on the view of some Jews about the defeat of Herod’s army by the army of Aretas, whose daughter Herod Antipas had divorced to marry Herodias, Josephus wrote, “Now, some of he Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism.” (Antiquities, XVIII, v, 2)
Jesus probably had made arrangements to meet the apostles in Capernaum after they had completed the mission on which he had sent them. (See the Notes section for additional comments.) Upon their return, they related to Jesus what they had done and taught. Possibly at this time, they first heard about the death of John. This would have greatly saddened them and appears to have been part of the reason for Jesus’ recommendation to depart for an isolated area to get some rest. Once it had become known that they had returned to the area, Jesus and his apostles had little privacy. They were unable even to eat a meal without interruption, because of the many people who were coming and going. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:30, 31)
The number of people probably was greater than at other times, as the Passover was near. (John 6:4) Many families in Galilee would have started to travel to the major routes leading to Jerusalem and been staying in towns and villages along the way. This would have contributed to increased talk about Jesus activity, and more people would have witnessed his curing of the sick. (John 6:2)
Jesus’ departure with his apostles did not go unnoticed. Those who saw them leave by boat quickly spread the news. A large crowd of men, women, and children from different towns then hurried to the other side of the Sea of Galilee to meet them. The walking distance may have been less than five miles, as the isolated area was near Bethsaida. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32, 33; Luke 9:10; John 6:1, 2) A distance of a little over three miles separates what are believed to have been the locations of ancient Capernaum and Bethsaida. From the shore, the people would have been able to see the progress of the boat in the northern part of the Sea of Galilee.
Notes:
Capernaum would have been the logical place for Jesus and the apostles to meet. Peter and Andrew had their home there, and most of the other apostles appear to have lived in the general vicinity. The availability of a boat also points to Capernaum as the probable location. An indication that Jesus and his apostles left from there by boat is their coming to the plain of Gennesaret (south of Capernaum) upon their return to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53)
The time for the return of the apostles from their mission was also appropriate. With the Passover being near, Jesus and his apostles needed to make the journey to Jerusalem. Like Peter, most, if not all, of the other apostles would have been married and likely had children. Families customarily made the trip together, and there is no reason to conclude that the apostles would not have done so. (Compare Mark 1:29, 30; Luke 2:41, 42; John 2:12, 13; 7:3, 8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:5)
When Jesus and his apostles went ashore on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, a large crowd was already waiting for them. Although their presence interfered with his plan for the apostles to get some rest in an isolated area, Jesus was moved with compassion for the people. He considered them to be like helpless sheep without the concern and guidance of a caring shepherd. He then began to teach them about the kingdom of God and healed the sick among them. (Matthew 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11)
The biblical accounts do not contain specifics about what Jesus taught on this occasion and whether he spoke to the multitude or taught groups of people as they came to him and raised questions. According to John 6:3, Jesus and his disciples ascended a mountainside and there seated themselves in a grassy area. (John 6:10) Just as he and his disciples found a suitable location, the thousands who had come to the area would have done likewise. Men would have started talking with other men, and women with other women. Children would have engaged in play. Likely, at various times, groups of people would have approached Jesus and then left as others came. His teaching must have prompted many conversations.
Although considerable time passed, the crowd continued to remain in the isolated location. This prompted the disciples to suggest that Jesus dismiss the people so that they could buy food for themselves in the nearby villages. (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:35, 36; Luke 9:12)
Perhaps at this point, Jesus saw a large crowd coming to where he and his disciples had seated themselves. Knowing what he purposed to do, he tested Philip with the question, “Where are we going to buy bread for them to eat?” Being from Bethsaida (probably the closest town), Philip would have known where bread could be purchased. (John 1:44) His response reveals that he knew about how much money the disciples had in their common fund and thought that the amount would be insufficient. He replied that 200 denarii (a denarius being a day’s wage) would not buy enough bread to provide even a small amount for everyone. (See the Notes section for additional information.) Commenting on how little food he knew to be available, Peter’s brother Andrew remarked, “Here is a boy with five barley loaves and two fishes. But what do these [amount to] among so many?” (John 6:5-9; see the Notes section for additional comments.) In response to Jesus’ telling them to provide food for the multitude, the apostles questioned whether they should leave to purchase what they could for 200 denarii. (Matthew 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13)
The abundant grass in the location made it convenient for the people to recline in order to eat. Jesus told the apostles to have the people do so in groups of a hundred and of fifty. He then took the five loaves and the two fishes, which had been brought to him, looked up to heaven, and said a blessing. After breaking the loaves, Jesus gave the bread to the disciples for distribution to the people. He did the same with the two fishes. The miraculous provision of bread and fish was sufficient for about 5,000 men, besides women and children. To prevent any waste, Jesus instructed the apostles to gather the leftovers in baskets. They filled twelve baskets, which seems to indicate that each of the apostles had taken a travel basket along. The Greek term for one of these baskets is kóphinos and appears to have been the designation for a basket smaller than the sphyrís. (Matthew 14:17-21; Mark 6:38-44; Luke 9:14-17; John 6:10-13)
When the people saw the signs Jesus performed, especially the providing of food for the multitude, they concluded that he must surely be the prophet who was destined to come into the world. This prompted them to want to forcibly make Jesus their king. Becoming aware of their intent, he took steps to be alone, recognizing that their objective was contrary to his Father’s purpose and did not reflect genuine faith in him as the promised Messiah. (John 6:14, 15) Jesus directed his disciples to board the boat, then dismissed the crowd, and headed up the mountainside. Alone on the height, he had the needed privacy to pray to his Father. (Matthew 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45, 46; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 6:45.)
Notes
The question directed to Philip seems to have served to test his faith in Jesus’ ability to provide for the people. Although perceiving that the available resources were insufficient, Philip did not appear to make the connection that Jesus would be able to provide enough for everyone, just as centuries earlier the prophet Elisha had fed 100 men to satisfaction with a limited amount of bread. (2 Kings 4:42-44)
In John 6:9, the Greek term for “boy” is paidárion. Being a diminutive form of pais, paidárion (“boy”) is often translated “little boy.” This, however, is not necessarily the significance of the designation. In the Septuagint, the term is applied to 17-year-old Joseph (Genesis 37:30) and to his younger brother Benjamin when he was already a young man. (Genesis 43:8)
Andrew’s knowledge about the youth may be an indication that he was the son of one of the disciples. With their focus being on Jesus, the biblical accounts reveal very little about the apostles and their families. That family members accompanied them on various occasions is likely. Their not being mentioned does not preclude this possibility, especially since only Matthew’s account mentions women and children in connection with this incident.
If the youth was the son of one of the apostles, he may have been entrusted with their food supply. The fish probably were dried and salted.
According to Matthew 14:17 and Luke 9:13, the apostles referred to the five loaves and the two fishes as being all they had to give to the people, with no mention being made of the youth. This would seem to lend support to the conclusion that the youngster was a son of one of the apostles. Moreover, John’s account portrays him as already being with Jesus and the apostles when the crowd approached. (John 6:5, 9)
In Matthew 14:22 and Mark 6:45, Jesus’ directing his disciples to board the boat is expressed with a form of the Greek word anankázo, meaning “force,” “compel,” or “strongly urge.” This suggests that there may have been reluctance on their part to leave. Jesus may have insisted on their leaving because of knowing how easily they could have been drawn into supporting the aim to make him king.
Mark 6:45 includes Jesus instructions for “his disciples to go on ahead to the other side, toward Bethsaida.” This may be understood to mean that the disciples were to go north toward Bethsaida and then navigate along the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee to the western shore.
According to John 6:17, Jesus had not yet come to the disciples even though it had already become dark. This could mean that he had prearranged to meet them before they would start crossing the Sea of Galilee for Capernaum. Perhaps the reference in Mark 6:45 to Bethsaida provides a possible clue about the place where Jesus planned to rejoin them. If this was the case, the disciples would have waited for a long time. When, however, it appeared that he was not coming, they decided to head for Capernaum according to the instructions he had given them.
Late at night Jesus finished praying and looked down on the Sea of Galilee. A considerable distance from the shore, he saw the boat in which the disciples were. With a strong, unfavorable wind creating a rough sea, the boat made little progress. (Matthew 14:23, 24; Mark 6:46-48; John 6:18) Jesus descended from the mountainside and began to walk on the water.
During the fourth night watch (between three and six in the morning), the boat was about three or three and a half miles from the shore, and the disciples were struggling to row it against the wind. Fright seized them when they saw someone walking on the water in their direction and about to pass them by. Thinking that they were beholding a phantom, they cried out in fear. Then they heard Jesus’ reassuring words, “Take courage. [It is] I. Fear not.” (Matthew 14:25-27; Mark 6:48-50; John 6:19, 20; see the Notes section for comments on John 6:19.)
“Lord, if it is you,” Peter spoke up, “tell me to come to you upon the waters.” “Come!” said Jesus, and Peter stepped out upon the sea. When, however, his attention shifted from Jesus to the wind and its effect on the water, he became fearful, began to sink, and then shouted, “Lord, save me!” Jesus at once reached out with his hand, took hold of him, and said, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:28-31; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
After Jesus and Peter entered the boat, the storm ended. Amazed and deeply moved by what they had witnessed, the disciples fell to their knees, prostrated themselves before Jesus, and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.” From then onward, they no longer struggled with the oars while making little progress. (Matthew 16:32, 33; Mark 6:51) In no time, they reached the western shore. (John 6:21; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Mark 6:52 indicates that the disciples had not comprehended the significance of the miracle involving the loaves. Their “heart” or mental perception remained dull. It appears that the apostles saw each miracle as a separate event and did not draw conclusions about other areas in which Jesus would be able to manifest divine power. Although they had witnessed the miraculous feeding of thousands with just five loaves and two fishes, it did not occur to them that the sea could not prevent Jesus from joining them. Therefore, for them to see Jesus walking on water should not have been something completely unimaginable.
Notes:
According to John 6:19, the boat was about “twenty-five or thirty stadia” from the shore. A stadium is a linear measure of about 607 feet, and so the distance would have been between approximately three and three and a half miles.
Peter’s experience reveals that faith is maintained by keeping focused on Jesus, fully trusting him. Whenever troubling external factors begin to divert one’s attention, fear can take over and displace faith. Still, as in Peter’s case, the Son of God will not abandon us when we cry out in our distress.
A weak faith can easily be supplanted by fear and superstition. Whenever Jesus passes by (as when the truth about him comes to one’s attention) and there is no positive response to his voice, something that could strengthen faith may be perceived as unpleasant, troubling, or even terrifying. If, however, individuals hear his voice and then recognize and welcome him, they are freed from fear, superstition, and misapprehension. Like the apostles, they are moved to acknowledge, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
According to John 6:21, the boat “immediately” arrived at the land or the western shore. Because of viewing the term “immediately” in a very literal sense, numerous commentators have concluded that this was yet another miracle. It is more likely, however, that the term describes the progress of the trip in relation to the situation before Jesus joined the apostles.
When Jesus and his apostles disembarked on the plain of Gennesaret not far from Capernaum, those who recognized them spread the word about his arrival. The news quickly reached beyond the immediate area, and people came from surrounding towns and villages, bringing the sick on mats. The afflicted pleaded just to be able to touch the fringe of his garment and, upon doing so, were cured. (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-55)
Later, in whatever town or village Jesus entered, people would put the sick in the marketplaces for him to heal them. The ailing would then beg him for permission to touch the fringe of his garment. All who did this became well. (Mark 6:56)
The people who had stayed for the night on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee looked for Jesus in the morning. They knew that only one boat had been at the location and that he had not left with his disciples. Unable to find Jesus or any of his disciples, they decided to head back to Capernaum. To make the trip, the people boarded some boats that had come from Tiberias (a city on the western shore of the sea). Upon later finding Jesus, they asked, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” (John 6:22-25)
He did not answer their question but pointed to the real reason for their effort to find him. Introducing his words with the repetition of a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus said, “You are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” His words revealed that the miracle did not engender genuine faith in them. Their earlier attempt to make him king was based on a carnal view and not spiritual perception. Therefore, Jesus urged them to work for the food that endures for eternal life, ceasing to make their prime concern the food that perishes upon being consumed and that cannot sustain life indefinitely. Speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he revealed that he could give them the essential food for eternal life (the real life of a permanent relationship with him and his Father). There should have been no question about Jesus’ ability to do so, for his Father had “sealed” him. The miracles the Father had empowered him to perform by means of his spirit, like an authenticating seal, undeniably established his identity as the unique Son of God. (John 6:26, 27)
In response to the people’s question about what they needed to do to carry out the “works of God,” Jesus told them to believe or have faith in the one whom God had sent. Although they had personally benefited from the miraculous provision of food, they were not satisfied with this sign, which should have led them to put faith in Jesus. They did not see in him the Messiah they wanted, for he had not cooperated with them in their attempt to forcibly make him their king. This appears to have been a factor in their seeking a heavenly sign that would have been more in line with their messianic expectations. The people challenged Jesus. “What sign are you performing, so that we might see [it] and believe you? What are you doing? In the wilderness, our ancestors ate the manna, as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (John 6:28-31)
“Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus replied, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” This “bread of God,” as Jesus explained, “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The people, however, did not understand that Jesus himself was the bread that had come down from heaven and that through him members of the world of mankind would be granted life (the eternal life of an enduring relationship with his Father and with him). Concluding that the bread to which he had referred was comparable to manna, they replied, “Lord, always give us this bread.” (John 6:32-34)
Possibly at this point or either earlier or later, Jesus finished speaking to the people. He later resumed his discussion about “bread” while in the synagogue at Capernaum. (John 6:59)
Knowing that the people had not identified him as being the “bread of God,” Jesus expressed the point in a more direct manner, saying, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never hunger, and the one who believes in me will never thirst.” (John 6:35) Whereas food and drink are needed to sustain physical life, the real life or the eternal life depends upon coming to Jesus and putting faith in him as the Son of God. From him and him alone does the spiritual life derive the essential sustenance, never leaving the believer in a hungry or thirsty state.
Those who heard Jesus’ words had seen him and witnessed deeds revealing extraordinary divine power. Yet, as he said, they did not believe. The visible evidence did not move them to put faith or unqualified trust in him. They were not among those whom the Father had given to his Son. (John 6:36, 37)
What distinguished those who had been given to Jesus was their coming to him in faith. They recognized him as God’s Son and their Lord, and he acknowledged them as belonging to him. To his Father, they were precious and beloved, for he had given them to his Son. Jesus likewise valued and loved them and so would never reject them or drive them away. He would treat them in harmony with his Father’s will, for he had come from heaven to do, not his own will, but the will of his Father, who had sent him. (John 6:37, 38)
God’s will respecting those whom he had given to his Son was that none of them would be lost but would enjoy a permanent relationship with him. This would necessitate their being raised from the dead “on the last day.” All of them would be persons who put faith in the Son. As Jesus said, “For this is the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life.” This life is more than never-ending existence. It is life associated with all the joys and blessings of an eternal relationship with the Father and his Son. (Compare John 17:3.) The “last day” designates the future time when Jesus would raise believers from the dead, to begin enjoying the real life in the sinless state. (John 6:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments about the “last day.”)
Jesus’ words left no question in the minds of the hearers about the identity of the “bread from heaven,” and they objected. As far as they were concerned, he had no basis for claiming that he was the bread that had come down from heaven. They knew him to be the son of Joseph, and they knew his mother. In their view, he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and so could not possibly be the “bread from heaven.” Becoming aware of their faultfinding talk among themselves, Jesus told them to quit murmuring and then added, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And all will be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned [from him] comes to me.” (John 6:41-45)
Through the life and activity of Jesus, the Father revealed himself. All who longed to have his favor were drawn to the Father’s self-disclosure and came to Jesus, recognizing him as the one whom the Father had sent. In the writings of the Hebrew prophets the proof could be found that the Father would draw individuals through his teaching. In Isaiah 54:13, it is written, “And all your sons [will be] taught by God.” (LXX, but “YHWH” in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah and the Masoretic Text) The prophetic word and the miracles the Father had empowered his Son to perform served as teaching, revealing Jesus’ true identity as being more than a member of the family of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, all who heard this teaching with understanding and learned it, making it their own, came to Jesus.
Calling attention to the fact that the Father’s teaching had been made available through him, Jesus added that he alone, as the one from God, had seen the Father. “Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus continued in a solemn manner, “I say to you, Whoever believes has eternal life.” The response in faith resulted in an approved relationship with the Father and his Son, and the enduring nature of this relationship constitutes eternal life. Therefore, Jesus could speak of this life as coming into the possession of believers, although they would not enjoy it to the full until being granted their glorified sinless state. (John 6:46, 47)
Emphasizing that eternal life could only be attained through him, Jesus repeated, “I am the bread of life.” Although it came from a heavenly source, the manna did not indefinitely sustain the life of the Israelites in the wilderness. As Jesus said, “They died.” The individual eating of the bread that had come down from heaven in the person of the Son, however, would not die. By putting faith in the Son and all that his life and ministry embraced, believers would become sharers in Christ and come to have eternal life. The relationship inherent in this life would not end at death but would continue upon the believer’s being resurrected in glory. Because death does not bring an end to eternal life, all who through faith share in Christ (the way persons can share a meal) do not die. (John 6:48-50)
Again Jesus made the unmistakable identification, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” He then expanded on this vital truth. “If anyone eats from this bread, he will live eternally, and my flesh is the bread that I give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Jesus thereby indicated that he would die sacrificially for the world of mankind and that all who would accept his sacrifice for them would be granted eternal life.
Jesus’ words gave rise to controversy among his Jewish hearers. They objected, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” He then replied in terms that were even more graphic. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who consumes my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever consumes my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, I also live because of the Father, and whoever consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like [the manna your] ancestors ate and died. The one who consumes this bread will live eternally.” (John 6:52-58; the bracketed words are found in numerous later manuscripts but are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts.)
Eternal life is only attainable by partaking of the benefits made possible through Jesus’ sacrificial death (the surrender of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood). Apart from Jesus’ flesh and blood, individuals may exist but they do not have the real life as divinely approved persons. The eternal life that believers come to possess through their faith in the Son guarantees their resurrection. Jesus’ flesh and blood are true food and drink in that they have a direct bearing on eternal life, just as food and drink do on one’s physical life.
In the quotation of Jesus’ words, the Greek term for “consume” is trógo and appears in ancient writings as a term used when speaking of animals as biting or chewing their food. Perhaps the thought conveyed is that of the kind of eating characteristic of hungry animals and, therefore, could suggest the eager response to Jesus as the one who surrendered his flesh for the life of the world.
To abide in Jesus would signify to be at one with him, and Jesus would be united to the individual in continued fellowship. The Father lives and is the possessor of life-giving power. Therefore, Jesus described himself as living because of his Father, to whom he was united in an eternal relationship. Likewise, the one who would share in communion with Jesus through faith (as one would participate in fellowship when partaking of a meal) would live on account of him. Unlike the manna that could not keep the ancestors of the Israelites alive indefinitely, all who become sharers in Christ, “the bread that came down from heaven,” will live eternally.
Even among those who had followed Jesus as his “disciples” or learners, many found this “word” or teaching “hard,” troublesome, or intolerable. They responded, “Who can listen to it?” The teaching proved to be unacceptable and offensive to them. (John 6:60)
Sensing that these disciples were murmuring about his teaching, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What, then, if you were to behold the Son of Man ascending to where he had been formerly?” (John 6:61, 62) Jesus’ question about the ascension served to show that they had no valid reason for being offended. If they were to see him ascending to the location he had been previously, this would prove that he had indeed come down from heaven.
Clarifying that he had not been speaking in literal terms, Jesus continued, “The spirit is what makes alive; the flesh is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63) In the case of the fleshly organism, the “spirit” gives life to the body of flesh, animating it. Without the life force, the flesh is useless. Jesus’ words were of a spiritual nature. Responding to them in faith by accepting him as the “bread of life” would have led to coming into possession of the real life. His words had animating and life-giving power.
Fully aware of the lack of faith among certain ones who had followed him, Jesus said, “Among you are some who do not believe.” The account then continues with an explanatory comment. From the “beginning,” Jesus knew those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. This indicates that Jesus discerned from the start when outward expressions did not reflect genuine faith in him. Real faith is an inward response to the Father — to his drawing of individuals through his self-disclosure. This is why Jesus said, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father has granted it to him.” (John 6:64, 65)
At this point, many who had followed Jesus stopped doing so and returned to their former routine of life. This prompted Jesus to ask the twelve apostles, “Do you also want to go away?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom are we to go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and known that you are the Holy One of God.” Even among the apostles, however, not all shared this unqualified trust in and attachment to God’s beloved Son. Although he had chosen the twelve, Jesus identified one of them as a “devil” or “slanderer.” This was Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who would later betray him. (John 6:66-71; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Notes:
The expression “eternal life” primarily relates to its quality or nature rather than to its duration. According to John 17:3, eternal life is “knowing” the true God and the one whom he sent. This “knowing” means having a relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. It is a family relationship, with those having faith in Jesus being recognized by the heavenly Father as his approved children. Once that relationship comes into being, children of God have “eternal life,” but its full enjoyment is yet future. Death does not sever the permanent family relationship and, therefore, does not mean the loss of the real life that came into the possession of believers. For all children of God who have died, resurrection is a certainty and will mean their continuing to enjoy the real life in the glorified state of their sinless resurrection bodies. The heavenly Father is eternal, and the life of all with whom he has a relationship is therefore also eternal.
Jesus referred to the resurrection as taking place on the “last day.” This is the climactic point in history, which the Scriptures associate with Jesus’ return in glory to render judgment upon the world of mankind. At that time, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the dead in Christ will rise. It is likely that Jesus’ hearers associated the resurrection on the “last day” with the promise to Daniel (12:12, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “You shall rest, and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”
Peter’s confession reveals that being a disciple of God’s Son means being devoted to him and a willingness to follow his example and teaching even when that may appear to be difficult. Christian discipleship is not a matter of membership in a “church” or movement that claims to be in possession of the “truth.” This discipleship is not linked to a particular place, and Christian fellowship is based on the family relationship that Jesus Christ has made possible. It is a fellowship among those who recognize others as fellow children of God by reason of their faith in his Son.
The later betrayal of Judas did not come as a surprise to Jesus. As God’s unique Son, he knew what none of the disciples could have known. The other apostles had no idea that Judas would betray their Lord, but Jesus discerned from the outset when Judas’ devotion to him was not what it should have been. Therefore, on this occasion, Jesus referred to him as a “devil” or “slanderer.” The other apostles, however, did not know whom he meant.
For the time of the Passover and the seven-day festival of unleavened bread, the biblical accounts provide no information about Jesus’ activity. The next narrated event involved a confrontation with scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. They appear to have come to Galilee to spy on him.
Having observed that some of his disciples ate without first ceremonially washing their hands, they objected, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” The scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem considered it offensive for him to allow his disciples to eat bread with defiled or ceremonially unclean hands. (Matthew 15:1, 2; Mark 7:1, 2, 5; regarding Mark 7:3, 4, see the Notes section.) Jesus countered with his own question, “Why do you transgress the command of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)
God’s law required children to honor their parents, and that included the duty of grown children to help them in time of need. Gross disrespect for parents constituted a serious sin. A son or daughter who cursed or reviled either father or mother committed a capital offense. (Exodus 20:12; 21:17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10)
A traditional regulation about property devoted to God, however, came to take precedence over the obligation to aid needy parents. According to the “tradition of the elders,” whatever a person might declare to be “corban” or an offering for God could not be given to parents to relieve their plight. Even if grown children had rashly set apart all their property to God, they (according to ancient Jewish sources) could not give any part of it to a needy father or mother. The children, though, retained control over the property throughout their life. Accordingly, as Jesus pointed out, the scribes and Pharisees, on the basis of tradition, had nullified the divine command for children to honor their parents. For the sake of their traditions, they did many other things like this. While they claimed to honor God, their adherence to traditions dishonored him. This made them hypocrites, for they represented themselves as honoring God when, in fact, they failed to do so by disregarding his commands. Their course proved to be described in the words of the prophet Isaiah, “This people honors me with [their] lips, but their heart is far away from me. And they revere me in vain, teaching the commands of men as doctrines.” (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:5-9; Mark 7:11-13; for comments on the Isaiah passage, see the Notes section.)
In the case of the scribes and Pharisees, they attached greater weight to the “tradition of the elders” than to the commands of God. With their lips, they honored the Most High. On account of their traditions, however, this honor did not involve their “heart” or inmost self. Their concern for scrupulous observance of tradition distanced them from God, negating his commands and interfering with their showing proper love and regard for him. Love for the Most High is demonstrated by loyal obedience to his commands. As a consequence, the professed reverence of God was vain, empty, or hollow. The teachings of the Pharisees were derived, not from divine revelation, but from men, and set aside the clearly expressed word and will of God.
Jesus next directed his attention to the crowd that had earlier gathered about him and had heard his response to the scribes and Pharisees. Admonishing all of the people to listen to him and to get the sense of his words, he told them that defilement has its source in what comes out of the mouth and not from what enters the mouth. (Matthew 15:10, 11; Mark 7:14, 15 [which passage refers to the defilement as not originating from “outside of the man”])
After leaving the crowd, Jesus entered a house with his disciples. In the privacy of the home, they expressed their concern about the reaction of the Pharisees, saying to Jesus, “Do you know that the Pharisees who heard [your] words took offense?” His reply indicated that this should not trouble them, for his Father had not “planted” these unbelieving Pharisees. “Every plant” that his heavenly Father had not planted would be uprooted. “Let them go [their way],” Jesus continued. “They are blind guides [of the blind, according to numerous manuscripts]. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Accordingly, the disciples had no reason to be disturbed by what the unbelieving Pharisees thought, for their guidance would prove to be ruinous to those who followed it. (Matthew 15:12-14; Mark 7:17 [which text speaks of Jesus having entered the house after leaving the crowd])
Peter then asked Jesus to explain what he had meant by his parable about the source of defilement. (Matthew 15:15; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Indicating that the disciples should have understood his words, he replied, “Are you also still lacking in comprehension? Do you not understand that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him, for it does not enter into the heart but into the belly and goes out into the sewer.” Food does not affect the individual’s inmost self, altering his moral character. (Matthew 15:16; Mark 7:18, 19; compare Matthew 15:17, where “mouth” appears instead of “man.”)
The language Jesus used about what a person might eat allowed for a broad application. Commenting on his words, Mark added that Jesus had pronounced all foods clean, as the bodily processes subsequent to eating are the same for all foods. (Mark 7:19; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
The expressions of the mouth come from the heart or the inmost self of the individual, and can reveal internal corruption or defilement. As Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false testimony, and blasphemy. These are the things that defile a man, but eating with [ceremonially] unwashed hands does not defile a man.” The impulses to act in a corrupt manner originate with the individual and reveal his moral condition. A failure to comply with a humanly devised precept about ceremonial cleanness, however, did not make the food unclean and the eater a corrupt person. (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-23 [which passage also mentions greed, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, a wicked eye (one that looks with evil or corrupt intent), arrogance, and folly]; both in Matthew and Mark the wrongs mentioned are plural in the Greek text.)
Notes:
Ancient Jewish sources set forth various requirements for the ceremonial washing of hands. The water had to be poured from a utensil not consisting of prohibited material. A quarter of a log was the stipulated amount of water to be used. This would have been roughly one-third of a cup, the log measure being about two-thirds of a pint. If poured water ran back over any part of the hand over which it had flowed, the hand was regarded as unclean. The poured water had to reach up to but not beyond the wrist. (Tosefta, Yadayim, 1:1, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 2:2, 2:4, 2:5) Failure to observe the ceremonial washing of hands came to be regarded as a serious offense, comparable to having relations with a prostitute. (Babylonian Talmud, Sota 4b)
According to a literal reading of the majority of extant Greek manuscripts of Mark 7:3, the hands were washed “to the fist” (pygmé). Perhaps, based on the background Jewish sources provide, “fist” (if this is the original reading) means to the limits of the fist or up to the wrist.
Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century Freer Gospels read pykná (“often”), and the Vulgate says crebro (“repeatedly”). The passage is not preserved in any of the earlier extant papyrus manuscripts, and the limited manuscript support for the reading pykná makes it questionable that it is the original one.
Modern translations commonly paraphrase the words of Mark 7:3 and do not include the word “fist.” “The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing.” (NIV) “They always wash their hands in the proper way before eating.” (CEV) “For Pharisees and Jews in general never eat without washing their hands.” (REB) “The Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, will never eat unless they have washed their hands in a particular way.” (Phillips) “The Pharisees and all the Jews never eat before washing their hands in a special way according to their unwritten laws.” (NCV)
Mark 7:4 sets forth additional clarifying information for the benefit of non-Jewish believers. When returning from the market, the Pharisees and other Jews would sprinkle themselves with water, thereby cleansing themselves ceremonially from any uncleanness with which they may inadvertently have come in contact. They also observed many other traditions. These included procedures for immersing cups, pots, and bronze vessels to cleanse them ceremonially.
In the time Isaiah prophesied, the Israelites worshiped at the temple in Jerusalem. Their worship, however, was but an outward expression and not a reflection of the heart or the deep inner self. With their mouth, they had approached YHWH. At the temple, they made expressions of praise and thanksgiving and thus glorified him with their lips. Lacking genuine affection for YHWH, the people approached him without their heart or inmost self being involved. They had a kind of fear, awe, or reverence for God, but it did not spring from a proper appreciation of him and his ways. The source of their fear was the commandment of men.
King Hezekiah, for example, undertook an extensive campaign against idolatry and instituted sweeping reforms respecting worship. The reforms, though, did not appear to have brought about lasting changes in the spiritual state of the majority. After the death of Hezekiah, a period of rampant idolatry followed. This suggests that what the people did during Hezekiah’s reign did not stem from internal conviction respecting the rightness of honoring YHWH but was the result of complying with royal decree. (2 Kings 18:1-6; 21:1-9)
In Matthew 15:15, Peter is represented as requesting Jesus to explain the parable, but the parallel account (Mark 7:17) says that the disciples were the ones who asked for an explanation. It appears that Peter spoke representatively for the other disciples, as his words “explain to us” indicate. Jesus response was directed to all of them. The pronoun “you” in the next verse is plural, not singular.
At the time the disciples heard Jesus’ words about food, they would not have understood them to mean that the dietary requirements contained in the law no longer applied. Even after Jesus’ resurrection, Jewish believers did not eat food that the law designated as unclean. In response to a vision directing him to slaughter unclean animals and to eat the meat, Peter protested, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean.” (Acts 10:14; 21:20, 21) Consequently, the comment (in Mark 7:19) that Jesus indicated all foods to be clean reflected the circumstance of a community of believers composed of Jews and non-Jews. His words reveal that he did not authorize imposing dietary restrictions on those who would become his disciples.
Although Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 relate to the same incident, there are differences in the wording and in the order in which the conversations are narrated. The basic thoughts, however, are the same. As in other cases, the quoted conversations convey the meaning but do not preserve the exact words, which were not spoken in the Greek language. With the exception of minor differences, the quotations from Exodus 20:12; 21:17[16], and Isaiah 29:13 follow the wording of the extant Septuagint text.
The oldest extant manuscripts do not include, “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” These words of Mark 7:16, however, do appear in many later manuscripts.
With his disciples, Jesus left Galilee and came to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Although he did not want it to become known that he was in the area, the news spread about his arrival and the house where he was staying. A woman who believed her daughter to be suffering because of an “unclean spirit” heard about Jesus and immediately came to him. Seeing Jesus and his disciples, she began crying out, “Take pity on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” (Matthew 15:21, 22; Mark 7:24, 25)
This woman was not Jewish but Greek (either meaning of Greek or of Gentile descent). The reference to her Syrophoenician or Canaanite origin may be understood to denote that she was born in Phoenicia of Syria (the Roman province) or in the land also known as Canaan. (Matthew 15:22; Mark 7:26)
When Jesus did not respond to her pleas, the disciples asked him to send her away, as she persisted in calling out after them. He, however, did not dismiss her but said, “I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” She fell to her knees before him and prostrated herself at his feet, pleading for him to cast out the demon from her daughter. “Lord, help me,” she begged. (Matthew 15:23-25; Mark 7:25)
Jesus then told her that the children would have to be fed first and that it would not be right to take bread away from them and to toss it to little dogs. Whereas the Jews regarded non-Jewish peoples like unclean dogs, Jesus, in the biblical accounts, is not represented as using such harsh language. In this case, the Greek word for “dog” is kynárion (a little dog or one kept in the house) and not kyon (a fierce scavenger dog roaming the streets). Still, the words would have tested the genuineness of the woman’s faith — whether she really believed Jesus to be the “Son of David” or the Messiah who could bring relief to her daughter. With full trust that Jesus could cure her daughter, she used the opening his words provided as a basis for having her request granted. The woman replied, “Yes, Lord, but the little dogs also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.” (Matthew 15:26, 27; Mark 7:27) Or, according to Mark 7:28, these little dogs would be under the table of their owner and eat of the crumbs the children would drop.
Her reply gave evidence of an unqualified trust in Jesus’ ability to heal her daughter. Therefore, he acknowledged her great faith and added, “Let it happen to you as you desire.” He assured her that, because of having expressed herself as she did, her daughter had been freed from the demon that plagued her. When the woman returned to her home, she found her child lying on the bed and liberated from the demon. (Matthew 15:28; Mark 7:29, 30)
Note:
This non-Jewish woman’s faith contrasted sharply with the unbelief of many Jews. She persisted in appealing to Jesus for help, whereas many Jews, especially in Nazareth and the immediate vicinity, did not even come to him to be healed. (Compare Mark 6:1-6.)
Jesus left the area of Tyre and Sidon and, with his disciples, headed eastward for the Decapolis region. (Matthew 15:29; Mark 7:31) As soon as they were seen near the Sea of Galilee, the word must have spread that Jesus was back in the area. The later mention of a boat (Matthew 15:39) suggests that he and his disciples first came to Capernaum, the home of Peter and Andrew. Then they probably obtained provisions for a short stay in the Decapolis region and used Peter’s boat to cross the sea. (Compare Matthew 15:34; Mark 8:5.)
Upon learning about Jesus’ whereabouts, many people went to the location. While he was seated on a mountainside, they arrived, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, and the mute. The people placed the afflicted at Jesus’ feet, and he cured all of them. (Matthew 15:29, 30)
Those who saw the lame walking, the blind seeing, the crippled being made whole, and the mute speaking were filled with amazement and “glorified the God of Israel.” (Matthew 15:31) Convinced of the operation of divine power, they praised the Most High.
Among the afflicted who were brought to Jesus was a deaf man with a speech impediment. Those concerned about the plight of this man begged Jesus to lay his hands on him. (Mark 7:32)
Jesus led him away from the crowd, put his fingers in the man’s ears, spat, and, with the spittle on his hand, touched the man’s tongue. He looked up to heaven, indicative of his making an appeal to his Father, sighed, and said, “Ephphatha” (“Be opened”). The man’s hearing was restored immediately, and he was also able to speak clearly. (Mark 7:33-35)
After having lived in a world of complete silence, the man could have been overwhelmed by the noise from the crowd. So it was truly an act of kindness and consideration for Jesus to perform the miracle away from the multitude. By means of physical touch, he made it clear to the man that the restoration of hearing and the ability to speak clearly came through him. Jesus’ looking up to heaven would have enabled the man to discern that the miracle had a divine source. The sigh, although not audible to the man, may have been accompanied by facial expressions that reflected deep compassion. It would appear that the sigh revealed the depth of Jesus’ feeling for human suffering and the sadness it caused.
Although Jesus instructed that his miracles should not be made known, people would, to an even greater extent, talk about them. All who witnessed Jesus’ miracles were greatly astonished and acknowledged that he had done everything well, enabling the deaf to hear and the mute to speak. (Mark 7:36, 37)
With the passage of time, Jesus became concerned about the physical needs of the thousands who had remained in the area to be near him. After a period of three days, he voiced his compassion for the people to his disciples. He did not want to send the crowds away without having eaten anything, as they might become faint on the way home. Jesus knew that some of the people would have to travel a considerable distance. (Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:1-3)
Being in an isolated area, the disciples could not imagine how they would be able to supply food for the multitude. In response to Jesus’ question about how many loaves they had, the disciples said, “Seven, and a few fishes,” which were probably dried and salted. (Matthew 15:33, 34; Mark 8:4, 5)
He directed the people to recline on the ground. Taking the seven loaves and the fishes, he gave thanks and broke them into portions, which he then had his disciples distribute to about 4,000 men and many women and children. All had enough to eat, and the leftovers filled seven baskets. (Matthew 15:35-38; Mark 8:6-9) Based on the Greek term (sphyrís) for these baskets, they appear to have been large (big enough to hold a man [Acts 9:25]).
After dismissing the people, Jesus and his disciples boarded the boat and went to the region of Magadan (Magdala or Magedan, according to other ancient manuscripts). This region along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee probably embraced the town of Magdala and its vicinity and lay some six miles southwest of Capernaum. (Matthew 15:39) According to Mark 8:10, Jesus and his disciples came into the region of Dalmanutha. Possibly Dalmanutha was another name for Magadan. A few ancient manuscripts read Magdala, Mageda, Magedan, or Melegada, but these readings may have arisen from an attempt to make Mark 8:10 agree with Matthew 15:39.
To test Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees asked for a sign from him. This was a faithless demand for Jesus to provide a heavenly sign in keeping with their view of how the Messiah should identify himself. It may have been their intent to discredit him because of his inability to do so. (Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11; see the Notes section for additional comments on Mark 8:11.)
Jesus, however, did not yield to their insincere request. According to the reading of numerous manuscripts, he exposed their unwillingness to accept the evidence that was available to them. Based on seeing a red evening sky, they concluded that it would be fair weather. If, though, the sky was red and overcast in the morning, they expected a stormy or wintery day. Their ability to draw conclusions about the weather based on the appearance of the sky indicated that they possessed evaluation powers. In the case of Jesus and his activity, including his many miracles, they refused to draw the right conclusion from the undeniable evidence and to respond in faith. They manifested themselves as unable to interpret the “signs of the times” as they related to the Messiah. (Matthew 16:2, 3; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
In his response, Jesus referred to these unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees as being part of a “wicked and adulterous generation.” They were wicked in rejecting the evidence of God’s power operating through Christ and attributing it to a demonic source. When persisting in unbelief, they proved themselves to be unfaithful to God, to whom the law covenant bound them like a wife to a husband. Their unfaithfulness constituted adultery. (Matthew 16:4)
The refusal of the unbelieving generation to accept the abundant evidence that could have led to their being divinely approved greatly grieved Jesus. In his “spirit” or within himself, he sighed deeply and then said, “Why does this generation seek a sign?” As on an earlier occasion, Jesus solemnly declared that they would not be given the sign they were seeking. The only sign to be given them was that of Jonah. Just as Jonah came out of the belly of the great sea creature after three days and three nights, so Jesus would come forth from the tomb after parts of three days. With his disciples, he then left. (Matthew 12:38-40;16:4; Mark 8:12, 13)
Notes:
Mark 8:11 does not mention the Sadducees, as does Matthew 16:1. This may be because the Pharisees were primarily responsible for demanding a sign, with the Sadducees joining them in challenging Jesus. Although the Pharisees and Sadducees differed greatly in their beliefs, they were united in their opposition to him.
According to the reading of the oldest extant manuscripts, Matthew 16:2 ends with the words, “but he said to them,” and the text of verse 3 is missing. For this reason, the Revised English Bible rendering follows the abbreviated text. “He answered: ‘It is a wicked, godless generation that asks for a sign; and the only sign that will be given it is the sign of Jonah.’ With that he left them and went away.”
Jesus and his disciples boarded the boat to cross the Sea of Galilee and headed for Bethsaida on the northeastern shore of the lake. During the crossing, he admonished them to be alert and watch out for the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (“leaven of Herod” [instead of Sadducees], according to numerous manuscripts of Mark 8:15). The disciples mistakenly took his words to be a subtle reminder about food. They had forgotten to take bread for the trip and had only one loaf in the boat. Among themselves, therefore, they talked about not having brought a supply of loaves, perhaps even trying to fix blame for the neglect. (Matthew 16:5-7; Mark 8:14-16)
Becoming aware of their wrong reasoning, Jesus spoke of them as having little faith and a “heart” or mind that was dull, hard, or impervious to proper understanding. After asking them whether they could not see with their eyes and hear with their ears, he reminded them about the provision he had made with five loaves for five thousand men and with seven loaves for four thousand men. Jesus also had them answer how many baskets of leftovers they had collected afterward. In view of all they had witnessed, “How,” as he continued, could they not have understood that he had not spoken to them about loaves? The disciples then comprehended that he had not referred to the “leaven of the loaves” but to the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:8-12; Mark 8:17-21)
Based on the miracles they had seen, the disciples should have been able to conclude that Jesus’ ability to look after their needs was not dependent on external factors. Seemingly, they had not reached the point where they drew conclusions solidly grounded on their faith in him as the Son of God. They often viewed matters according to what the external circumstances suggested, and the influence of the prevailing thinking of the time interfered with their comprehension of Jesus’ words.
The “leaven” or teaching to which Jesus referred affected the people generally. Its permeating influence was harmful, as it hindered many from accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. In the case of the disciples, this “leaven” would have been detrimental to their spiritual well-being, and they needed to guard against it.
Although claiming to uphold God’s law, the Pharisees misrepresented its requirements, giving precedence to the tradition of the elders. Because Jesus did not share their exalted view of the ancient traditions and did not provide the “sign” they expected from the Messiah, the unbelieving Pharisees opposed and misrepresented him. The teaching of the Pharisees minimized the importance of love, justice, and mercy, which conflicted with Jesus’ teaching. (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42) To grow in being more like him as loving, just, and compassionate persons, the disciples needed to be on guard against the teaching of the Pharisees.
The Sadducees rejected much of what had been conveyed through the ancient prophets. (Acts 23:8) Therefore, their teaching likewise interfered with accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah and continuing to develop ever-greater faith in him.
Herod, specifically Herod Antipas of the Herodian dynasty and his supporters, had political objectives. With the emphasis on position and power, this “leaven” needed to be avoided. Repeatedly, Jesus had to make clear to his disciples that greatness in the realm where he was king did not mean occupying a prominent position for wielding authority over others but required laboring as a lowly servant. (Matthew 18:1-6; 23:11, 12; Mark 10:35-37; Luke 9:46-48; 22:24-27; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Notes:
Both Matthew and Mark mentioned the “leaven of the Pharisees” first. This may indicate that their teaching posed the greatest danger for the disciples. The influence of the Sadducees does not appear to have been as great on the people generally. According to first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, XIII, x, 5), so great was the influence of the Pharisees “over the multitude” that, “when they say anything against the king or against the high priest, they are presently believed.”
There is a possibility that the reference to the “leaven of Herod” or the “leaven of the Herodians” (according to other manuscript readings of Mark 8:15, including third-century P45) may be a parallel designation for the “leaven of the Sadducees” mentioned in Matthew 16:6. If so, the “leaven of the Sadducees” would apply to the teaching or beliefs of Sadducees who supported the Herodian dynasty.
Jesus and his disciples disembarked from the boat at the village of Bethsaida. Their arrival did not go unnoticed. Soon some of he villagers brought a blind man, entreating Jesus to touch him to restore his sight. He, however, chose not to do so in their presence. Taking the blind man by the hand, he led him outside the village. (Mark 8:22, 23)
After spitting on the man’s eyes and placing his hands “on him,” Jesus asked whether he saw anything. Unable to see clearly when he looked up, the man answered that he saw men who looked like trees walking about. His mention of trees suggests that he had not been blind from birth and, therefore, could speak of people having the appearance of trees. After Jesus again put his hands on the man’s eyes, he could see clearly. Jesus then sent him to his home, telling him not to go into Bethsaida. (Mark 8:23-26)
Notes:
Mark 8:25 says that Jesus “again” placed his hands on the man’s eyes. This suggests that Jesus’ initial laying of his hands upon the man (verse 23) referred to his doing so on his eyes.
The blind man did not live in Bethsaida. Possibly he had gone to the village to beg, and people who took pity on him decided to take him to Jesus and entreat him to restore his sight.
At the time, the man may not even have had faith in Jesus, as there is no reference in the account indicating that he spoke or acted on his own initiative. Perhaps the manner in which Jesus chose to restore his sight helped him to come to have faith and to grow in faith (comparable to the progressive recovery of his sight). The interaction with him would have revealed to the man that the miracle had been effected through Jesus.
The directive that the man not return to the village did not differ from Jesus’ usual instructions to those who were cured of their afflictions. To the extent possible, Jesus wanted to avoid the kind of publicity that caused large crowds to form but did not lead individuals to genuine faith in him.
About 25 miles north of Bethsaida lies the site of ancient Caesarea Philippi at an elevation of some 1,150 feet above sea level. The water flowing from a nearby cavern is one of the main sources of the Jordan River and passes through a beautiful green plain. To the northeast, Mount Hermon rises to an elevation in excess of 9,200 feet above sea level.
Notes:
See http://bibleplaces.com/banias.htm for pictures and comments regarding Caesarea Philippi.
See http://bibleplaces.com/mthermon.htm for pictures and comments about Mount Hermon.
On the way to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus appears to have walked a short distance away from his disciples, seeking privacy for prayer. When they thereafter approached him, he asked them who people thought the Son of Man was. Based on their interaction with others, they responded that some believed him to be John the Baptist raised from the dead, others that he was Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the other ancient prophets who had been resurrected. He then asked, “But who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-15; Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:18.)
With full conviction, Peter spoke up, “You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God.” Jesus pronounced him happy or fortunate, referring to him as Simon son of Jonah (Simon bar-Jonah). On account of his faith, Peter was fortunate, finding himself in a truly desirable or enviable state. Pointing to the reason for his faith, Jesus continued, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in the heavens [did].” The faith in Jesus to which he had come did not have a human source (“flesh and blood”). He had not been won over by means of someone’s impressive argumentation. It was through Jesus that he had seen the works of his Father, and Simon responded in faith to the divine revelation. (Matthew 16:16, 17; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20)
As Simon had identified Jesus as the “Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus identified Simon by the name he had given him, “You are Peter [or Cephas].” (Matthew 16:18; John 1:42) The name “Peter” or “Cephas” means “rock.” Simon, when expressing his unqualified conviction respecting Jesus, revealed that he had been rightly given the name Peter. Although many had abandoned Jesus, Peter had continued to prove himself to be firm as a rock in his faith or trust.
After saying, “You are Peter,” Jesus added, “And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in the heavens.” (Matthew 16:18, 19)
The “church” is the congregation or the community of believers. According to the book of Acts (2:14-41; 3:11-26, 4:4; 5:14-16, 42; 6:2, 7), Peter’s testimony led thousands to put faith in Jesus. Then, in association with the other apostles, he devoted himself to teaching fellow believers. Therefore, one could conclude that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, for it was his witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, that set the new community of believers on a solid foundation.
The testimony of the Scriptures as a whole, however, indicates that Jesus is the primary foundation on which the community of believers is built. (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8) Therefore, Jesus’ words may be understood as meaning, “And on this rock [the one whom you acknowledged to be the Christ, the Son of the living God], I will build my church.” In that case, the language would somewhat parallel an earlier statement of Jesus, “Pull down this temple, and in three days I will raise it.” The unbelieving Jews misinterpreted these words to mean that Jesus was referring to the literal sanctuary, whereas he meant “the temple of his body.” (John 2:19-21) Accordingly, just as Jesus could refer to himself when saying “this temple,” he could also have done so when using the expression “this rock.”
At death, believers come to be in Hades or the realm of the dead. From a human standpoint, they then find themselves in a place comparable to one that is locked by gates and from which they cannot escape. Because their resurrection is certain, however, the “gates of Hades” cannot prevail against them (as members of the community of believers) or keep them permanently sealed off from life.
The “keys of the kingdom of the heavens” would be “keys” that unlocked the opportunity to become part of the heavenly kingdom, the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his appointed king, Jesus Christ. (Compare Isaiah 22:22, where Eliakim is spoken of as receiving the “key of the house of David”; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Entrusted with the testimony about the Son of God, Peter came into possession of the “keys of the kingdom” and on the day of Pentecost (after Christ’s resurrection) used them as he bore witness to Jews and proselytes. (Acts 2:14-40) Later, he was divinely commissioned to use them again in being first to testify about Jesus to Gentiles. (Acts 10:9-43)
The context does not specifically identify the nature of the binding and loosing. One might conclude on the basis of Peter’s having the keys that this would involve opening or closing the opportunity to enter the realm where God reigns through Christ and that the spirit-directed action of Peter would be confirmed in heaven.
In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, for example, Peter’s judgment of them (based on what God’s spirit enabled him to discern about their lying) was confirmed in heaven. The use of his “binding” authority led to their death and kept them out of the kingdom of the heavens. Moreover, it served to frighten many who were not genuine in their faith from associating with the community of believers. (Acts 5:1-11, 13) So, while the testimony about Christ, accompanied by validating miracles, unlocked the opportunity for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens, the disciplinary measures served to lock out persons who would have corrupted the community of believers.
In Matthew 18:15-19, the context regarding binding and loosing relates to sin committed within the community of believers. The “loosing” refers to forgiving an individual’s sin, whereas the “binding” denotes letting the record of sin stand against the person. Anyone who was “loosed” remained in the community of believers, but those who were “bound” ceased to be a part thereof and so had no share in the kingdom or the realm where God reigns by means of his Son.
Notes:
Only Luke 9:18 mentions that Jesus was alone while praying. Most manuscripts of Luke use a form of the word syneimi, meaning “be with” when commenting about the disciples. This suggests that, although Jesus was alone, the disciples were with or near him. Some manuscripts, however, have a form of synantáo, meaning “meet,” “come upon,” or “happen,” indicating that the disciples approached him after he had finished praying.
In the case of Eliakim, his being entrusted with the “key of the house of David” seems to indicate that he had oversight of the king’s chambers. He must have possessed the authority to determine who might or might not be accepted into royal service or who might be granted or denied access to the palace complex. Similarly, in Peter’s case, the “keys” Christ gave him related to his being entrusted with full knowledge of the requirements for entering the kingdom of the heavens.
The community of believers, though solidly built on Christ, benefited from the authority with which Peter had been entrusted. In its infancy, the congregation needed to be protected from corrupt elements that could have impeded its being firmly established within and beyond the borders of Israel and that could have brought about its ruin. Once the kind of authority Peter exercised under the guidance of holy spirit (as did the other apostles, including Paul) no longer existed, sham believers, although continuing to increase in numbers, could not destroy the true congregation. Throughout the centuries, persons with genuine faith in Christ have continued to point others to the apostolic testimony (first conveyed through Peter) that has been preserved in the Scriptures.
The Greek passive participles for “bound” and “loosed” are in the perfect tense. Therefore, some have concluded that Peter would be carrying out what had already been determined in heaven. In his expanded translation, Kenneth S. Wuest conveyed this significance with his rendering, “shall have been already bound in heaven” and “shall have already been loosed in heaven.”
Under the guidance of God’s spirit, the “binding” and “loosing” always would have harmonized with God’s will. This “binding” and “loosing” would not have meant that acts stemming merely from the exercise of human authority would afterward have been divinely confirmed or sanctioned.
Jesus firmly charged the disciples not to tell others that he was the “Christ of God.” He then spoke openly about what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem. He would be subjected to much suffering. The elders of the nation, chief priests, and scribes would reject him. He would be killed but would rise from the dead on the third day. (Matthew 16:20, 21; Mark 8:30-32; Luke 9:20-22)
The disciples could not imagine that this could possibly take place. Peter took Jesus aside, intending to correct his thinking. “Gracious to you, Lord [May God be favorably disposed to you; may God mercifully spare you; or, God forbid],” said Peter. “Never will this happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22; Mark 8:32)
His well-meaning rebuke conflicted with God’s will respecting his Son, and Jesus responded with a strong rejection. He turned and, with his eyes focused on the disciples, rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me, for you are not thinking the things of God, but those of men.” (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33) Unwittingly, Peter had made himself like Satan, a resister or opposer. His messianic expectations were much like that of other fellow Israelites, and so he could not envision a rejected and suffering Messiah. Not as yet having come to fully grasp the things of God, he acted like an obstacle that stood in Jesus’ way. The Son of God determined to let nothing sway him from doing his Father’s will, which included laying down his life.
According to Mark 8:34, the disciples were not the only ones who had been following Jesus, and he called both the disciples and many others to him to speak to them about the requirements of discipleship.
To follow Jesus meant to disown or deny oneself, accepting him as Lord or Owner and living in harmony with his example and teaching. That could include suffering for his sake. Jesus said that the individual would have to “lift up his beam [staurós daily, Luke 9:23] and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34)
Those who heard his words knew that crucifixion was a dreadful punishment. The condemned man would be forced to carry the beam (to which he would later be nailed or tied) to the place of execution, where he would be subjected to mockery and die an agonizing death. Accordingly, to lift up the beam meant to start a course that would lead to reproach and suffering as a follower of Christ.
To save one’s soul would signify to preserve one’s life in a manner that would dishonor Christ and, therefore, would lead to the loss of life as one whom he approved. It would denote the forfeiture of the real life that is associated with the enjoyment of an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father. (Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24)
Whoever lost his soul or life for the sake of Christ and the “glad tidings” (the message that focused on the Son of God) would find it, as the individual would have secured his hold on eternal life, maintaining a never-ending relationship with God and his Son. His resurrection would be a certainty. (Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24)
Emphasizing how great the loss would be if one lost his soul, Jesus continued, “What benefit would it be for a man to gain the whole world but to forfeit his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Nothing in the mundane system would be worth the forfeiture of the soul or the real life. All the valuables of the world would be insufficient to redeem it. There is no price that could be offered in exchange for one’s soul. (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36, 37; Luke 9:25)
For Jesus’ hearers, this was a matter for sober consideration. He, the “Son of Man,” would “come in the glory of his Father.” Accompanied by angels, he would act in judicial capacity, recompensing each person according to his conduct. He would then be ashamed of the people of that generation who had been ashamed of him and his words or teaching, having revealed themselves to be adulterous (unfaithful to God) and sinful by persisting in unbelief despite the evidence that he was indeed the Son of God. (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26)
On becoming a man, Jesus had given up the glory or splendor associated with his existence in the very form of his Father. (Philippians 2:6, 7; Hebrews 1:3) Upon his return, however, he would again be in possession of that splendor or the glory that his Father has. As the exalted Lord and Judge by his Father’s appointment, he would recompense his faithful disciples and pass condemnatory judgment on those who sought to preserve their soul by denying him.
Among those who heard his words, some would not “taste” or experience death before they had seen the “Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” the “kingdom of God coming in power,” or (according to one fifth-century manuscript reading of Luke 9:27) the “Son of Man coming in his glory.” (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:27)
Jesus’ words have been variously interpreted, with some concluding that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 CE proved to be the manifestation of the judgment of the glorified Christ. It should be noted, however, that believers then living did not experience relief from all distress but continued to suffer for the sake of Christ. The horrible suffering the Jews in besieged Jerusalem experienced did not prove to be a recompense according to individual behavior. The horrors of famine and war indiscriminately affected everyone, with no distinction being made between the vilest of men and those who had tried to live uprightly based on their knowledge of God’s law and who had come to Jerusalem to observe the Passover.
Based on the narrative that follows, it appears preferable to view the fulfillment to have been the transfiguration that Peter, James, and John witnessed. Linking Jesus’ words to the transfiguration would also fit the comment in 2 Peter 1:16-18 (NRSV). “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain” Then, specifically indicating that the transfiguration constituted a confirmation or preliminary fulfillment of Jesus’ coming in glory, 2 Peter 1:19 (NRSV) says, “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” In his translation, J. B. Phillips paraphrased Peter’s words, “The word of prophecy was fulfilled in our hearing!”
About a week after having spoken the previously recorded words, Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain. (Regarding the difference in the number of days, see the Notes section.) As there is no mention of travel away from the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, this mountain likely was one of the lower elevations of Mount Hermon and not its snowcapped top. At the location where they halted their ascent, Jesus prayed, and Peter, James and John rested and fell asleep. On waking up during the night, they saw Jesus transfigured before them. His face shown more brightly than the sun, and his garments appeared whiter than any laundryman could have made them. In the darkness, the brilliance of Jesus’ face and the dazzling whiteness of his garments must have been exceptionally impressive. With Jesus, Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke about the “exodus” he would experience at Jerusalem. (Matthew 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-32)
The “exodus” probably referred to Jesus’ death at Jerusalem, which led to his subsequent departure from the earth after his resurrection. Moses, through whom the law was given to Israel, could fittingly represent the law, and Elijah could represent the prophets. Both the law and the prophets pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah and provided the needed information to identify him.
When Moses and Elijah were about to part from Jesus, Peter spoke up, “Lord [Rabbi, Mark 9:5; Master, Luke 9:33], it is good for us to be here.” He then suggested erecting “three tents,” one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Considering the location, these “tents” could only have been shelters made from branches and foliage, possibly resembling the kind of booths made for the festival of tabernacles. (Matthew 17:4; Luke 9:33)
According to the account, Peter, in his overwhelmed state of awe, did not know what to say. Possibly the idea of “tents” suggested itself to him because he wanted the experience to continue. (Mark 9:6; Luke 9:33)
The sight made Peter, James, and John fearful. It must have resulted in a sense of great wonderment and awe. While Peter was still speaking, a luminous cloud appeared above them and began to descend. As the disciples entered the cloud, fear gripped them. From the cloud, they heard the words, “This is my Son, the beloved [the chosen one, Luke 9:35), with whom I am pleased. Listen to him.” (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34, 35; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:35.)
The disciples fell to their knees and prostrated themselves, with their faces touching the ground. They were very fearful or filled with extraordinary awe. Jesus approached them and touched them, reassuring them with the words, “Get up and fear not.” When they looked around, they only saw Jesus. (Matthew 17:6-8; Mark 9:8)
During the descent from the mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus instructed them to say nothing to anyone about the vision they had seen until he would rise from the dead. They heeded his directive, but among themselves talked about what this rising from the dead could mean. The three disciples had not as yet grasped the clear message that Jesus would be put to death but would thereafter rise on the third day. (Matthew 17:9; Mark 9:9, 10; Luke 9:36)
Having seen Elijah, the disciples asked why the scribes said that he must come first (that is, before the Messiah). In reply, Jesus acknowledged the reality of Elijah’s coming and his restoration of all things (as had been written regarding him [in Malachi 4:5, 6]). Pointing out that Elijah had already come but had not been recognized, Jesus added that the people did to him all they wanted and paralleled his own future suffering with what had befallen the foretold Elijah. Peter, James, and John correctly concluded that Jesus had spoken to them about John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13)
John’s message of repentance served to “restore all things,” leading responsive ones to mend relationships with fellow Israelites, family members, and, most importantly, with God. (Compare Malachi 4:6; Luke 1:76-79.) The majority, however, did not respond with genuine faith to the message John proclaimed, began to find fault with him, and misrepresented him. (Matthew 11:16-18) Herod Antipas had John arrested and, later, ordered to have him executed in keeping with his oath-bound promise to the daughter of Herodias. (Matthew 14:3-11)
Notes:
Most manuscripts of Luke 9:27 read, “see the kingdom of God,” which is an abbreviated version of Mark 9:1.
Both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 indicate that the transfiguration took place “six days” after Jesus’ previously recorded words, but Luke 9:28 says that it was “about eight days” later. Possibly, the period of “about eight days” includes the day on which Jesus spoke and the day of the transfiguration, whereas “six days” only refers to the time intervening between the two occurrences.
The oldest extant manuscripts of Luke 9:35 say “chosen one,” but later manuscripts read “beloved.”
Likely, when it became day, Jesus and his disciples descended from the location where he had been transfigured. Arriving where his other disciples were, he saw a large crowd around them. Certain scribes were disputing with his disciples. Possibly these scribes tried to discredit Jesus on the basis of the inability of his disciples to cure a boy in his name. Jesus’ unexpected arrival appears to have startled the crowd. Seeing Jesus, the people began to run toward him to greet him. In response to his inquiry about their disputing, a man in the crowd spoke up, “Teacher, I brought my son to you; he has a spirit of muteness.” After telling about the boy’s afflictions, the man added, “I brought him to your disciples, but they were unable to cure him.” (Matthew 17:16; Mark 9:14-18; Luke 9:37-40)
Possibly, after first speaking out from the midst of the crowd, the man knelt before Jesus, pleading, “Lord, pity my son, for he is an epileptic [literally, “moonstruck].” (Matthew 17:14, 15; Luke 9:38; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
The boy was his only son. He would scream, fall to the ground, and be violently convulsed. Foam would flow from his mouth, and he would grind his teeth and lose his strength. The falls and convulsions would leave him bruised. His seizures, when occurring near an open fire or a body of water, endangered his life, causing him to fall into the fire or the water. Besides suffering from severe epileptic seizures, the boy was deaf and mute. (Matthew 17:15; Mark 9:17, 18, 25; Luke 9:38, 39)
Jesus’ response, which was directed to the people (including the scribes), suggests that the inability of his disciples to bring about a cure appears to have been taken as a validation for their unbelief. He addressed them as a faithless or unbelieving and crooked (not upright) generation, asking how much longer he would have to remain with them and to put up with them. Jesus then requested that the boy be brought to him. (Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41)
As the father had been speaking to Jesus, some from among the people must have brought his son. Then, in front of Jesus, the boy experienced a severe seizure. He fell to the ground, continued to roll around, and foamed at the mouth. (Mark 9:20; Luke 9:42)
In answer to Jesus’ question about how long this had been happening to the boy, the father replied, “From childhood,” adding that he had been repeatedly thrown into fire or water. The father pleaded, “If you can do anything, pity us and help us.” (Mark 9:21, 22)
The father’s expression “if you can” revealed a measure of doubt. Therefore, Jesus, in his reply, stressed the need for faith, saying, “If you can? All things are possible to one who believes.” (Mark 9:23)
Aware of a weakness in his faith and sincerely desiring more faith, coupled with the desperation of wanting his son to be freed from his terrible suffering, the man replied, “I believe; help me with my unbelief.” (Mark 9:24)
Observing people gathering in greater numbers, Jesus acted quickly, doubtless to avoid even more attention. He commanded the “demon” or the agent responsible for the boy’s suffering to leave and never to afflict him again. Then followed screams from the boy and violent seizures. When the convulsions stopped, he lay motionless, causing observers to conclude that he was dead. Jesus took hold of his hand, raised him, and the boy stood up. Thereafter Jesus presented the healed son to his father. (Matthew 17:18; Mark 9:25-27; Luke 9:42) The impressive manifestation of God’s power overwhelmingly amazed all the observers. (Luke 9:43)
Later, his disciples asked Jesus privately why they had been unable to drive out the demon. He told them that it was on account of their little faith and that only prayer would have accomplished the cure. This suggests that when the disciples did not see immediate results from their efforts to free the boy from his affliction, they gave way to doubt and did not persevere in prayer. They failed to continue to look to their heavenly Father to effect the cure by means of his spirit and so failed to maintain a strong faith. (Matthew 17:19, 20; Mark 9:28, 29; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 9:29.)
Jesus then said to them that even a little faith, the size of a mustard seed (the smallest seed of the plants the Israelites commonly cultivated), could have moved a mountain or what appeared to be an insurmountable obstacle. With faith, his disciples would find that nothing would be impossible for them to carry out their commission. (Matthew 17:20; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 17:20, 21.)
Notes:
According to Matthew 17:14, the father of the epileptic boy approached Jesus and knelt before him. This is not mentioned in the accounts of Mark and Luke, which refer to the man as speaking after Jesus asked the crowd about the disputing. Unless Matthew 17:14 relates to the same interchange with Jesus, the man first spoke out from the crowd and then approached Jesus.
Jesus comment about nothing being impossible for the disciples (Matthew 17:20) should be understood in a relative sense. They had been commissioned to proclaim the message about God’s kingdom and empowered to perform miracles. Consequently, when it came to accomplishing all that their commission required of them, nothing would prevent them from doing so if they maintained their faith.
Matthew 17:21, which refers to prayer and fasting, is missing from the original text of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and other ancient manuscripts. Therefore, it is also missing from the main text of many modern translations.
In Mark 9:29, many manuscripts add “and fasting” after “through prayer.” Modern textual scholarship, however, favors the shorter reading of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and this is reflected in the omission of “and fasting” in many translations.
The father attributed his son’s suffering to demon possession, and this is also how the disciples and the people regarded the boy’s affliction. Whether this was the actual cause of the epilepsy, the deafness, and muteness cannot be determined. Jesus never spoke about the physical causes of the various ailments and diseases he cured. His expressions accommodated the existing understanding of his contemporaries. There would have been no value in his providing explanations that they could not have comprehended. Therefore, the narratives accurately reflect the prevailing views and do not necessarily identify the actual causes for various ailments and diseases.
All who had observed what Jesus did in the area of Caesarea Philippi were filled with amazement. (Luke 9:43) None of the accounts, however, provide any specifics about any miracles other than the one involving the epileptic boy. Moreover, no direct mention is made of Jesus’ departure with his disciples.
After having returned to Galilee, he again told his disciples what lay ahead for him. He would be arrested (literally, “delivered into the hands of men”) and killed but would rise on the third day. Although there was nothing ambiguous about Jesus’ words, the disciples could not bring themselves to accept their plain meaning. They found it impossible to believe that he would suffer and die, for this did not agree with their messianic expectations. (Matthew 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:44) As Luke 9:45 indicates, the meaning of Jesus’ words was hidden from the disciples, preventing them from perceiving their full significance.
Still, they were apprehensive about asking him about his comments, perhaps feeling that they should have understood what he meant. (Mark 9:32) At the same time, the disturbing nature of his remarks did grieve them greatly. (Matthew 17:23)
Jesus wanted them to understand. According to Luke 9:44, he requested that his disciples “put” his words into their ears or listen attentively.
After Jesus returned to Capernaum with his disciples, Peter was approached about the payment of the temple tax. Possibly while they had been in Caesarea Philippi, this annual tax of two drachmas (one didrachma; approximately two days’ wages) began to be collected. (Matthew 17:24)
Asked if his “teacher” (Jesus) paid the tax, Peter replied, “Yes.” Upon entering “the house,” likely his own home, he did not have an opportunity to mention the incident. Aware of what had taken place, Jesus brought up the subject, asking Peter whether earthly kings receive tax or tribute from their own sons or from strangers. “From strangers,” Peter replied, and Jesus added that the sons, therefore, are free of this obligation. Thereby Jesus implied that he, as the Son of God, was not required to pay the temple tax, for the temple was his Father’s house. To avoid giving offense respecting this matter by asserting his right not to pay the tax, Jesus arranged for his and Peter’s share to be obtained in a manner that harmonized with his being God’s unique Son. He instructed Peter to go to the Sea of Galilee and cast a fishhook into the lake. In the mouth of the first fish he would catch, he would find a stater coin (valued at four drachmas), with which he would then pay the tax. (Matthew 17:24-27) Likely the fish would have been Chromis simonis. This mouth-breeding variety of fish has a mouth large enough to accommodate a coin. The male of Chromis simonis takes some 200 eggs into its mouth, and the hatched fish continue to be sheltered there for a number of weeks.
While on the way to “the house” in Capernaum (likely the home of Peter and Andrew), the disciples argued about who among them was the greatest. After Jesus and the disciples entered the house, he brought up the subject of greatness. Although he was fully aware of their discussion among themselves, he asked them what they had argued about on the road. They appear to have been embarrassed about the incident and did not respond. (Mark 9:33, 34; Luke 9:46; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:1.)
Jesus then used the opportunity to teach them about the meaning of greatness in the “kingdom of the heavens,” the realm where his Father is Sovereign. He seated himself and invited the twelve apostles to come to him. In the “kingdom of the heavens,” greatness differed markedly from the kingdoms of the world, where those in positions of prominence and power issued commands and had inferiors serve them. On account of the environment in which they had grown up, the apostles shared this view of greatness. According to Luke 9:47, Jesus knew the “reasoning of their heart,” suggesting that their understanding of greatness reflected their inmost thoughts. Therefore, it must have been very startling for them to hear Jesus’ explanation of greatness. Anyone who wanted to be first or occupy the foremost position would have to conduct himself as being “last of all” or the most insignificant and make himself the “servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)
To provide the apostles with an object lesson about true greatness, Jesus asked a child in the home to come to him. This may have been Peter’s son and, therefore, a youngster whom the apostles knew. The boy would have been an example of the essential attributes Jesus wanted his disciples to associate with greatness in God’s kingdom. In expression of his affection for the boy, Jesus had him stand beside him and put his arms around him. (Matthew 18:2; Mark 9:36; Luke 9:47)
After focusing attention on the youngster, Jesus solemnly declared with an introductory “amen” (truly) that, if the disciples did not “turn” or change and become like children, they would not enter the kingdom of the heavens. They needed to rid themselves of all feelings of superiority and reflect the lowly spirit of a child that recognizes and is responsive to parental and other adult authority. (Matthew 18:3) The person who would humble himself, proving himself to be like a responsive, unassuming child would be truly great in the kingdom of God. Moreover, whoever, in Christ’s “name,” received or welcomed such a child or a person manifesting the disposition of an unassuming youngster would be regarded as having welcomed God’s Son and, therefore, also his Father who had sent him. This welcoming in Christ’s name would denote doing so because of recognizing the individual as one who belonged to the Son of God. Jesus’ teaching revealed that the one who made himself the most serviceable or the least one through unassuming laboring for others would prove himself to be great. (Matthew 18:4, 5; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:6.)
Notes:
According to Matthew 18:1, the disciples approached Jesus with the question about who would be the greatest in the “kingdom of the heavens.” In Luke 9:47, this question is represented as a “reasoning of their heart,” and Mark 9:34 indicates that they remained silent about their argument regarding greatness. Thus both Luke 9:47 and Mark 9:34 suggest that the disciples would have wanted to ask Jesus about greatness but were apprehensive about doing so. Therefore, in view of Jesus’ awareness of their unspoken question, Matthew 18:1 could appropriately refer to the disciples as having raised it.
Based on Matthew 18:6 alone, one could conclude that Jesus’ point about stumbling others or giving occasion for offense was part of the discussion relating to greatness. This is, however, not the case. While preserving the content of Jesus’ teaching, Matthew’s condensed account does not include John’s remark, which, according to Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49, preceded the comments about stumbling.
John told Jesus about a man whom he and other disciples had observed using Jesus’ name to expel demons. Not being in their immediate company, they tried to prevent him from doing so. Possibly John thought that this effort to stop the man was commendable and, in view of the corrective admonition about greatness, may have felt the need for a reassuring favorable response from Jesus. In reply, the Son of God said that the man should not be prevented from doing good work in his name, for no one who did a work of power in his name would quickly change and begin to speak evil of him. “Whoever is not against us,” Jesus continued, “is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40; Luke 9:49, 50)
As a fellow Israelite, the man was one of God’s people and recognized the divine authority inherent in Jesus’ name. Therefore, when expelling demons on the basis of the authority the name represented, the man revealed himself to be for Christ and working in concert with other believers.
Any action that proved to be supportive of Christ and his disciples would not go unnoticed and would be recompensed. Even a small gesture of hospitality, such as offering a cup of water to Jesus’ disciples, based on a recognition of their belonging to him, would be rewarded. This would be because the Son of God would regard a kind act as being done to him. With a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), he declared, “I say to you, he positively will not lose his reward.” (Mark 9:41)
Jesus considered all of his disciples, including the most insignificant from the human standpoint, as very precious. Therefore, to stumble one of the little or insignificant ones who believed in Jesus, injuring them in a manner that could cause them to stumble into sin or to erode their faith in him would be very serious. (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42) When the disciples tried to stop a fellow Israelite from doing good in Jesus’ name, they could have harmed him spiritually. This appears to have been a factor in Jesus’ use of strong words when speaking to the disciples.
The Son of God indicated that it would be better for one who made himself responsible for causing stumbling to have a heavy millstone (one requiring a donkey to turn) tied around his neck and to be cast into the sea than to have to face the resultant severe judgment. (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42) Certain death by drowning would be preferable to the dreadful punishment awaiting those who lead others into sin or wreck their faith.
Jesus mentioned that there would be “woe,” distress, or grief for the world of mankind on account of those who would cause stumbling or give offense. It would be inevitable that such persons would exist and exercise their baneful influence. “Woe,” as Jesus continued, would come upon any man who proved himself to be the cause for stumbling or offense. (Matthew 18:7)
In his teaching about avoiding personal stumbling or the committing of serious sin, Jesus emphasized the need for one to get control over one’s body members. It would be better to cut off one’s hand, deadening it respecting wrong use, than to have two hands and end up being tossed into the flames of Gehenna. Likewise, if one’s foot were to be the cause of stumbling, being turned to follow a sinful course, it would be better to cut it off, deadening it with reference to wrong desire, than to retain two feet and be found deserving of the fiery Gehenna. Whenever the eye focuses on impure desires, leading to stumbling into sin, it would be better to pluck it out, ridding oneself of the sinful inclination, than to keep two eyes and then to be thrown into the fire of Gehenna, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished.” (Matthew 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43-48; see the Notes section regarding Mark 9:44, 46.)
The desirable course is to gain the mastery over the members of the body. This requires diligent effort and sacrifice, comparable to cutting off a body member, to avoid having a seriously misused hand, foot, or eye. How much better it would be for the person to have been willing to sacrifice the wrong desires and, as one without an offending body member and so appearing as crippled and lame or with one eye, to enjoy the real life, entering into God’s kingdom or the realm where the Most High rules by means of his Son! (Matthew 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43-48)
Jesus’ words about Gehenna parallel those of Isaiah 66:24. There the reference is to the dreadful judgment to befall those who defiantly transgressed God’s commands. That judgment is comparable to being thrown into a refuse dump, where fire burns continually and maggots consume whatever the flames do not reach. Like the fire that burned continually, maggots would always have been visible on the carcasses that were not in direct contact with the fire, and this may be the reason behind the expression that “their worm does not die.” A person’s being committed to the fiery Gehenna appears to be the same judgment as the one the book of Revelation refers to as being cast into the “lake of fire.” This is the final judgment that takes place after the resurrection. (Revelation 20:11-15)
After the sobering comments about stumbling, Mark 9:49 quotes Jesus as saying, “For everyone will be salted with fire.” If these words relate to the fire of Gehenna, all who lead others into sin or who themselves live a life of sin would be subject to that fire, as if applied to them like salt. (See the Notes section for additional comments about Mark 9:49.)
There is a possibility, however, that the expression “salted with fire” has another significance. Salt can be used as a purifying agent, a preservative, and a seasoning, and fire often relates to condemnation or refining. In the Scriptures, trials and hardships are mentioned as serving to test or refine. (Compare James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6, 7; 4:12, 13.) If the expression about being “salted with fire” is to be linked to purifying and refining, this could denote that everyone will be submitted to difficulties in life. These distressing circumstances can have a wholesome effect (as when salt is used as a purifying agent, a preservative, or a seasoning) and, like fire, serve to refine individuals, leading to their becoming more compassionate and caring persons who rely on God for strength to endure. In other cases, the salting with fire would have the opposite effect, hardening and embittering the individuals and revealing them to be valueless dross and devoid of all faith in God.
Salt is a good substance because of the beneficial purposes for which it can be used. The impure salt known to Jesus’ disciples could lose its saltiness in a humid environment. Once the sodium chloride had been leached out, it could not be restored and the remaining substance would be useless. (Mark 9:50)
For the disciples to have salt in themselves would have meant for them to serve as a force or influence for good. Their praiseworthy disposition, words, and deeds would counteract the tendency toward moral decay in others and contribute to making life more pleasant for those with whom they had personal dealings. In this way, their life, like salt, would serve as a valuable preservative and a desirable seasoning. (Mark 9:50)
The disciples’ argument about who among them was the greatest would not have served to preserve peace. It would have been divisive and given rise to resentment. Therefore, they needed to have within themselves the beneficial properties of salt and maintain peace or good relationships among themselves. (Mark 9:50)
Notes:
Modern translations commonly omit verses 44 and 46. These words are missing in the most ancient manuscripts and repeat verse 48 (“where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished”).
In Mark 9:49, fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and many later manuscripts add, “and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.”
Jesus commanded his disciples not to disdain the “little ones.” Emphasizing the preciousness of those whom others may regard as insignificant, he revealed that “their angels in heaven” always beheld his Father’s face. This indicates that angels in the presence of the Most High are personally concerned about the welfare of believers and take note of any injury that may be inflicted upon them and are willing to aid them in their time of need. The closeness of these angels to the heavenly Father also shows that any kind of mistreatment would be known to him and would merit condemnatory judgment. (Matthew 18:10)
With a parable, Jesus then illustrated his Father’s loving concern and care for believers. A man owning 100 sheep would leave the 99 to pasture on the heights and search for the one that had wandered off. “Amen” (truly), said Jesus, on finding the one lost sheep, he would rejoice more over it than over the 99 that had not strayed. Applying the point of the parable, the Son of God said that it was not his Father’s will that one of the insignificant ones be lost. (Matthew 18:12-14; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:11.)
In harmony with God’s will, every effort should be made to restore a “brother” or a believer who may have stumbled into sin. When sinned against, the injured believer should go to the offender and, to him alone, expose the wrong, reproving him. If the transgressor listens and acknowledges his sin, he would be “gained” as a brother or helped to remain a brother or beloved fellow believer. If, however, he refuses to listen, the injured believer should take one or two fellow believers along to speak to the transgressor. This action would be in keeping with the legal principle that every matter be established “by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” If the offender still refuses to acknowledge his guilt and to seek forgiveness, the wrong should come before the community of believers. If even then the erring one cannot be persuaded to acknowledge his sin and be motivated to change, he would be regarded like a tax collector or a man of the nations. This would signify that the community of believers would not choose to have close fellowship with him, as he did not want to be forgiven of his sin and, therefore, had no desire to be, or remain, a “brother.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
The “binding” and “loosing” about which Jesus next spoke is one in which believers share as a community. (Matthew 18:18) If the transgressor persisted in his sinful course despite all efforts to help him to come to repentance, the “binding” would indicate that his conduct could not be tolerated and he would be shut out from close fellowship with the community of believers. The “loosing,” on the other hand, would indicate that he had been forgiven and remained a part of that community. (For comments on Matthew 16:19, see the section “Peter’s Confession and Christ’s Response” and the accompanying “Notes”; for additional information on Matthew 18:18, see the Notes section.)
According to numerous manuscripts, Jesus’ next words include the solemn “amen” (truly) before “I say to you.” The subject is prayer. If two believers “agree on earth” to unite in a specific petition respecting any matter, the heavenly Father would respond. (Matthew 18:19) As believers, their request would be in harmony with God’s will, and this assured that they would be granted a favorable hearing. In view of the context, prayer concerning an erring brother would have been an appropriate matter. (Compare 1 John 5:14-16.)
Even when two or three believers are assembled in his “name,” the Son of God promised to be in their midst. (Matthew 18:20) Their being gathered in his name would indicate that their fellowship with one another is based on a recognition of Christ as their mutual Lord. Therefore, in spirit, he would be with them, assuring that their prayers would be heard.
This also points to the fact that any “binding” and “loosing” would be in harmony with God’s will, as Jesus would be with the community of believers in all actions guided by holy spirit. Decisions that are merely the product of the exercise of human authority would not be confirmed in heaven, as any gathering where such decisions are reached could not be considered as having taken place in Jesus’ name. In such a case, his authority would not have been recognized and his guidance would not have been followed. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.)
Notes:
The words of Matthew 18:11 (“the Son of Man came to save the lost”) are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts but are found in many later manuscripts.
As in Matthew 16:19 (also here at Matthew 18:18), the Greek passive participles for “bound” and “loosed” are in the perfect tense. For this reason, some regard the binding and loosing as already having taken place in heaven. Kenneth S. Wuest, in his expanded translation expressed this meaning with his rendering, “Whatever you forbid [bind] on earth, shall have already been forbidden [bound] in heaven. And whatever you permit [loose] on earth, shall have already been permitted [loosed] in heaven.”
Probably Jesus’ words about gaining an erring brother prompted Peter to wonder concerning how often forgiveness should be extended. He asked whether up to seven times might be the limit. Jesus answered, “Not up to seven times, I say to you, but up to seventy times seven [or, seventy-seven] times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This reply indicated that harboring grudges or resorting to any kind of reckoning in relation to forgiveness would be wrong.
To stress the importance of maintaining a forgiving spirit, Jesus related a parable. He likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to a “man,” a “king,” who determined to settle accounts with his slaves. (Matthew 18:23)
One slave owed him the astronomical sum of 10,000 talents. With a Tyrian talent being 6,000 denarii (the wages a laborer would earn in 6,000 days), this huge sum could not be earned in the course of many lifetimes. To pay off what would have been only a small portion of the debt, the king decreed that the slave, his wife and children, and everything he possessed be sold. At that, the slave prostrated himself before his master, pleading to be shown patience in order to have time to repay his debt. Compassionately, the king canceled the entire debt, one that would have been impossible for the slave to repay. (Matthew 18:24-27)
After having been the recipient of extraordinary mercy, this slave found a fellow slave who owed him 100 denarii (a minuscule fraction of the debt the king had canceled), grabbed him, and started to choke him, demanding that he pay back all that he owed. This slave then prostrated himself, pleading to be shown patience until such time as he could pay off the debt. The creditor slave, however, refused to respond compassionately to his fellow slave but had him imprisoned until such time as the debt would be paid off. (Matthew 18:28-30) As a prisoner, the slave would have been unable to earn any money. Only relatives or friends could have freed him from prison by paying off the debt.
Having observed this merciless treatment, other fellow slaves were greatly distressed. This prompted them to report to the king what had happened. (Matthew 18:31)
He called for the harsh slave to appear before him, condemned him as wicked, and asked whether he should not have had compassion for a fellow slave in view of the compassion that had been shown him. Greatly angered, the master handed him over to the “tormentors” (the jailers who often inflicted torment on prisoners), until such time as he would pay back his debt. (Matthew 18:32-34) Repayment would, of course, have been an impossibility, as no friends or relatives would have had such great wealth at their disposal.
Revealing the serious consequences for being unforgiving, Jesus said that his heavenly Father would deal like the king of the parable with his disciples if they did not forgive a brother’s transgressions from their hearts or in all sincerity from their deep inner selves. (Matthew 18:35) The tremendous debt of sin that God is willing to forgive everyone who repents and asks for mercy makes any sin a brother or fellow believer might commit against one appear minuscule (a debt of just 100 denarii alongside a forgiven debt of 60,000,000 denarii). Accordingly, all who would have a share in the “kingdom of the heavens” or in the realm where the heavenly Father rules by means of his Son must be forgiving as he is.
In Judea, Jesus’ life was seriously endangered. For this reason, he centered his activity mainly in Galilee. (John 7:1)
His brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3), did not appear to have been aware of the threat to his life. They did not have faith in him as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God. In their estimation, he was a worker of miracles who wanted to be more extensively known but had avoided the very region where he would have received greater public attention. Therefore, with the approach of the Festival of Tabernacles in the month of Tishri or Ethanim (mid-September to mid-October), they recommended that he go to Judea and there let his disciples see the work that he was doing. As far as they were concerned, no man acts in secret if his aim is to be widely known. Their advice to Jesus was, “Show yourself to the world.” (John 7:2-5)
Rejecting their recommendation, he pointed out that it was not yet his time to act but that, for them, the time was always opportune. This was because the “world” or the unbelieving populace could not hate them, implying that his brothers had not done or said anything that would incur hostility. He, however, had become the object of the world’s hatred, for he had presented the testimony that exposed the works of the unbelieving people as bad. (John 7:6, 7)
Jesus then told his brothers to be on their way to the festival without him. His time for going had not yet arrived. After his brothers had left, Jesus remained in Galilee for a time and then, with some of his close disciples, headed for Jerusalem. He chose to do so at a time when most of the people had already left Galilee to attend the festival, which would have made it possible to avoid having the news about his departure spread. Thus he left Galilee in secret, not openly. (John 7:9, 10)
In his going to Jerusalem, Jesus was aware that the time was drawing near for his being “taken up.” This being “taken up” likely refers to his return to his Father, which would be preceded by his being rejected, abused, and mocked, suffering an agonizing death, being resurrected, and then ascending to heaven. Although he knew what lay ahead for him in the comparatively near future, he was determined (literally, “set his face”) to go to Jerusalem. He chose to travel the more direct and less commonly used route through Samaria and sent messengers ahead of him to find a place where he could stay for the night. When the inhabitants of the Samaritan village learned that Jesus intended to go to Jerusalem, which city they regarded as a competing center of worship to their sacred mountain (John 4:20), they refused to extend hospitality. (Luke 9:51-53)
The response of the people in this Samaritan village infuriated James and John. They asked Jesus whether they should call down fire from heaven upon them and destroy them. (Luke 9:54) James and John knew what Elijah had done when he was addressed disrespectfully by two captains and their 50 men, demanding that he come with them to King Ahaziah. On each of these captains and their subordinates, Elijah called down fire from heaven, and they perished. (2 Kings 1:9-12; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:54.)
Based on this example from past history, James and John felt justified in seeking the destruction of the Samaritan village. Jesus’ teaching about loving and praying for enemies had not as yet taken firm root within them. (Matthew 5:44-48) Jesus turned and then rebuked them for suggesting the fiery destruction of the inhospitable Samaritans. With the disciples, he headed for another village. (Luke 9:55, 56; see the Notes section for the expanded reading found in later manuscripts.)
On the way, a certain scribe expressed his willingness to follow Jesus wherever he might go. In reply, Jesus indicated that this decision would not lead to apparent gain. Unlike foxes that had dens and birds that had roosts, the Son of Man did not have a place where he could lay his head. He had no permanent residence. (Matthew 8:19, 20; Luke 9:57, 58)
Jesus’ reply suggests that this scribe’s words were not the product of serious reflection but stemmed from surface emotion. Possibly knowledge about Jesus’ miracles had led the scribe to think that much was yet to be gained from close association with Jesus, including the benefit of being in the presence of a remarkable teacher.
To another man, Jesus extended a direct invitation to follow him. While not declining it, the man asked for permission to first bury his father. As it was customary to bury the deceased on the day of their death, it does not appear that the father had actually died. Otherwise, the son would have been in mourning and attending to the burial. Possibly the father was advanced in age or ailing. Whatever the circumstances, the man basically revealed that he was not yet ready to follow Jesus. (Matthew 8:21; Luke 9:59)
In response, the Son of God told him, “Let the dead bury their dead,” and urged him to proclaim the “kingdom of God.” He was not to postpone accepting the call to follow Jesus as an active disciple, stalling for time to look after his father in the declining part of his life until he actually died. The spiritually dead, those dead in sin on account of their unbelief in Jesus, could attend to the burial of their own dead, removing any valid basis for delaying acceptance of the invitation to fulfill the requirements of discipleship. This involved proclaiming the message that centered on Christ and the need for repentance to become part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. (Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60)
Still another man acknowledged Jesus as Lord and agreed to follow him but first wanted the opportunity to say farewell to those of his household. Jesus admonished him not to delay, telling him that one who had put his “hand to the plow” was unfit for the kingdom of God if he looked back to the things behind. Putting the “hand to the plow” indicated setting out on a particular pursuit. The person who accepted the call to be a disciple should not look back, giving in to second thoughts. For the man to have talked about his decision with relatives and friends could easily have led to their seeking to dissuade him from following through on the commitment he had made. (Luke 9:61, 62)
Notes:
In Luke 9:54, many later manuscripts add “even as Elijah did” when referring to the calling down of fire from heaven.
In Luke 9:55, 56, a number of later manuscripts add words of rebuke. “You do not know of what spirit you are, for the Son of Man came not to destroy [the] souls of men but to save [them].”
The chronological placement of the events narrated in Matthew 8:19-22 and Luke 9:57-62 is based on Luke’s account, which seems to follow the chronological order more closely than does Matthew’s account.
In Jerusalem, many who knew about Jesus tried to find him and wondered where he was. Among their trusted acquaintances, they engaged in considerable subdued talk about him. Some said that he was a good man, whereas others disagreed, maintaining that he deceived the multitude. Out of fear of fellow Jews, no one spoke concerning him openly. People must have been aware that the Pharisees generally and the prominent members of the nation were hostile toward Jesus. They doubtless feared incurring the displeasure of influential countrymen and being ostracized in the community for suspected sympathizing with Jesus and his teaching. (John 7:11-13)
In the middle of the festival, Jesus made his public appearance and began to teach in the temple precincts. His teaching astonished those who heard him, and they began to wonder how it could be that he spoke authoritatively as a lettered man when he was not among the recognized learned ones of the nation. In response, Jesus gave all the credit to his Father, saying that his teaching was not his own but that of the one who had sent him. Anyone who desired to do God’s will would recognize whether he was the source of Jesus’ teaching or whether Jesus was expressing his own thoughts. Any man who spoke of his own would be desirous of glorifying or bringing honor to himself. Then, referring to himself, Jesus indicated that the one who sought to glorify or honor the one who sent him is “true” (completely trustworthy and truthful) and free of any evil. There would be nothing deceitful or underhanded in him. His motivation would be pure. (John 7:14-18)
Those who heard Jesus’ teaching should have responded to him in faith, especially since they claimed to believe in Moses. From Moses they had received the law; yet, as Jesus pointed out, they did not heed it. According to the words of the law they considered to have been received from Moses, the Jews who heard Jesus knew that they were to listen to the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15) The miracles Jesus performed as the representative of his Father confirmed that he was a prophet “like” Moses and, in fact, the prophet greater than Moses and the foretold Messiah or Christ. Those who wanted to kill Jesus, instead of heeding his words, proved undeniably that they did not do what the law said. Those in the crowd who were unaware of the earlier attempt to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath and blasphemy regarded his comments as preposterous and accused him of having a demon. “Who is trying to kill you?” they asked incredulously. (John 7:19, 20)
In response, Jesus called attention to the one work he had done on the Sabbath, which had been the curing of a man who had been afflicted for 38 years and was lying on a mat at the pool near the Sheep Gate. (John 5:2-9) That work had prompted amazement among those who came to know about it. (John 7:21)
The Son of God then referred to the law to show that no one should have objected to what he did on the Sabbath. Moses had given the command about circumcision (Leviticus 12:3), which command had actually come from an earlier time. It had been given to the “fathers” or ancestors of the Israelites, specifically to their forefather Abraham. (Genesis 17:11-14) If the eighth day falls on a Sabbath, a baby boy is circumcised to avoid breaking the law of Moses. Why, then, asked Jesus, should the people be infuriated at him for having made a man’s body completely whole on the Sabbath? He called upon them to desist from judging according to mere appearances but to judge rightly. (John 7:23, 24)
Certain inhabitants of Jerusalem among the multitude who heard Jesus’ words recalled that he was indeed the one whom fellow countrymen wanted to kill. It puzzled them that he spoke openly and that no one said anything, causing them to wonder whether the rulers had come to know that he was indeed the Messiah. Believing that they knew from where Jesus was (from Galilee, if not also from Nazareth), they, however, dismissed the possibility of his being the Messiah. They reasoned that no one would know from where the Messiah had come. (John 7:25-27)
Refuting their claim about knowing him and from where he came, Jesus cried out that he had not come of his own and that the one who sent him is true and was unknown to them. Thus he identified himself as the one whom his Father had sent. When speaking of him as “true,” Jesus probably meant “trustworthy” or “dependable.” He thereby appears to have implied that the people should have believed in him, for he did the works of his Father and conveyed his teaching. If they had known his Father, they would have recognized him, for as the Son he reflected his Father flawlessly in word and deed. Unlike the unbelieving Jews, he knew his Father and could truthfully say, “I am from him, and he sent me.” (John 7:28, 29)
Those who opposed Jesus wanted to seize him, doubtless to take him to the ruling authorities. No one, however, laid a hand on him, for “his hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly life. (John 7:30)
Despite the prevailing unbelief, many among those who listened to his teaching believed in him. They reasoned that when the Christ or the Messiah came he would not perform more signs than Jesus had. (John 7:31)
The unbelieving Pharisees heard the subdued talk about him and appear to have found it very disturbing. Therefore, they and the chief priests decided to send temple guards to arrest him. (John 7:32)
Knowing what lay ahead for him, Jesus told the multitude that he would be with them for only a short while and then would return to the one who had sent him. Though they would look for him, they would not find him, for they would be unable to go where he would be. Not understanding that Jesus would return to his Father, the people were puzzled about the meaning of his words. Some thought that he might leave the land of Israel and go to the “Dispersion of the Greeks” (Jews living among the Gentiles) and teach the Greeks (or non-Jews). (John 7:33-36)
On the Last Day of the Festival of Tabernacles
The festival of tabernacles ended the agricultural year and was marked by great rejoicing. The law required only the males to be present for the observance, but they often attended with their whole family. For seven days, they were to dwell in temporary shelters or booths made from palm fronds and leafy branches from various trees. These shelters were to remind them of the tents in which the Israelites lived during their journeying in the wilderness after they left Egypt. (Leviticus 23:34-43; Deuteronomy 16:13-15; Nehemiah 8:14, 15)
The law outlined the specific sacrifices to be offered on each day of the festival. Other ceremonial features came to be added later in connection with the temple services. One of these involved the pouring out of water brought from the Pool of Siloam. Ancient rabbinical views are divided as to whether the water was poured out only on the first seven days or also on the eighth day. According to ancient rabbinical sources, two silver bowls were positioned above the altar. Wine would be poured into the one to the east, and water into the one to the west. These bowls were perforated with holes through which the liquids could flow into a channel that led to the base of the altar. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:14, 15) The act of pouring out accompanied “the offering up of the limbs of the daily whole-offering.” (Tosefta, Sukkah 3:16, Jacob Neusner’s translation)
Ancient Jewish sources associate the water with Ezekiel 47:2-10 and Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:3[4]-10) In Ezekiel, the reference is to life-giving water flowing from the temple and continuing to deepen until it formed a river. (Compare Joel 3:18[4:18].) Zechariah’s prophecy (14:8) speaks of living water flowing from Jerusalem, with half of it going to the “former sea” (the “eastern sea” or the Dead Sea) and the other half going to the “hinder sea” (the “western sea” or the Mediterranean Sea). Zechariah 13:1 pointed forward to the time when a fountain would be opened for the house of David and the people of Jerusalem, a fountain that would serve for cleansing from sin.
On the last day of the festival, Jesus revealed that the foretold life-giving water was available through him. As he stood, he cried out for all thirsty ones to come to him and drink. Paraphrasing the words of the prophets, he added regarding anyone who believed in him, “Rivers of living water will flow from his inmost part.” (John 7:37, 38; for additional comments about John 7:38, see the Notes section.)
The account explains Jesus’ words as applying to those who would receive God’s spirit because of believing in him. As Jesus had not yet been glorified or in possession of the splendor he formerly had when with his Father in heaven, there was as yet “no spirit.” (John 7:39) Whereas God’s spirit did powerfully operate through the Son of God and also when the apostles performed miracles in his name, none of the disciples enjoyed the fullness of the spirit’s operation. With holy spirit operating fully within them, they would be abundantly blessed spiritually, empowered to conduct themselves in harmony with God’s will, enlightened to grasp Jesus’ teaching, strengthened and sustained in times of trial and distress, and filled with courage to make expressions about their faith. Moreover, they would be able to impart to others everything that was essential for coming into possession of eternal life. Thus it proved to be that streams of living water flowed out from them, and those who responded in faith came to enjoy the real life, ceasing to be dead in sin.
Based on what they had heard, the people came to different conclusions about Jesus. Some regarded him to be “the prophet,” probably meaning the prophet like Moses but distinct from the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Others believed him to be the Messiah or Christ. Not knowing that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, certain ones reasoned that he could not be the Messiah, for he had come from Galilee, which did not agree with the scripture that foretold his being of the “seed [offspring] of David” and David’s village Bethlehem. As a result, the multitude proved to be divided in their view of him. (John 7:40-43)
“Some,” likely meaning the temple guards whom the unbelieving Pharisees and chief priests had sent to arrest Jesus, wanted to seize him. No one, however, laid a hand on Jesus. (John 7:44)
When the temple guards returned empty-handed, the unbelieving Pharisees demanded why they had failed to bring Jesus in. “Never has a man thus spoken,” they replied. The indignant Pharisees chided them for having been deceived and added that none of the rulers or Pharisees believed in him. The only ones who did were those of the ignorant multitude, persons who did not know the law and whom they pronounced as accursed. (John 7:45-49)
Nicodemus, a Pharisee who had much earlier spoken to Jesus, tried to appeal to his fellow Pharisees on the basis of their sense of justice. He reminded them that the law did not condemn a man until he is first heard and known for what he is doing. Nicodemus was then ridiculed, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and see that no prophet is to be raised up from Galilee.” (John 7:50-52) The prominent unbelieving members of the nation failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a great light to be seen in the territory of Galilee and disregarded the very law they were obligated to uphold. (See the Notes section for comments about John 7:53-8:12.)
Notes:
No specific passage in the Scriptures matches the quotation in John 7:38, but the thought can be gleaned from the prophetic writings. A linkage of water and spirit (John 7:39) is found in Isaiah 44:3. There God’s pouring out of water on the ground (in the form of rain) parallels the pouring out of his spirit on his people. Then, in Isaiah 58:11, those who would repent and change their ways are promised to become like a watered garden and an unfailing spring of water.
It appears that knowledge about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem may only have existed among the few who were familiar with his early history, likely only members of the family and close acquaintances. The majority only knew him as being from Galilee, where he had lived nearly all of his life.
The narrative about the woman accused of having committed adultery (John 7:53-8:11) follows the account that focuses on Jesus’ words spoken at the Festival of Tabernacles. This narrative is missing in all of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, raising doubt about whether it relates to an actual occurrence. Later manuscripts do include it here, but in others it appears after John 7:36, John 21:25, or Luke 21:38.
John 7:53 through 8:2 does provide an introduction for the account about the woman. This introduction relates that each one went to his home and that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, returning to the temple precincts early in the morning of the next day and seating himself to the teach the people.
Later, the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman and asked Jesus about his view of the law that set forth stoning as the penalty for her sin, their aim being to trap him so as to have something to use to accuse him. He ignored them, bent down, and began writing on the ground with his finger. When, however, they continued questioning him, he straightened up and said that the one without sin should cast the first stone and then bent down again and resumed writing on the ground. Thereafter the accusers began to depart, leaving the woman by herself. When Jesus asked whether anyone had condemned her, she replied, “No one.” After telling her that he also did not do so, he admonished her not to continue sinning. (John 8:3-11)
That Jesus would be writing on the ground seems unusual and, therefore, raises a question about whether the account preserves a historical event. If it does pertain to an actual happening, a possible explanation could be that Jesus, by his action, chose to indicate that he was not going to involve himself in the matter. According to the law, both the man and the woman were guilty and yet the scribes and Pharisees made no mention of the adulterer, which would suggest that their seeming concern about the law was insincere.
Although the question about the historicity of the account may need to be left open because of its existence in many later manuscripts, the narrative does not seem to fit with the rest of the eighth chapter of John. After Jesus’ admonition directed to the woman in verse 11, the next verse tells of his addressing the multitude and starts with the words, “Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them.” These introductory words suggest a continuation of his teaching at the Festival of Tabernacles. Moreover, what he said thereafter harmonizes with that conclusion. Accordingly, it appears preferable to regard John 7:53 through 8:11 as an insertion that interrupts the logical flow of the narrative about what Jesus said at the Festival of Tabernacles.
Another later custom associated with the Festival of Tabernacles involved illumination for most of the nights. According to ancient Jewish sources, four large golden lampstands occupied the Court of the Women. Each of these lampstands had a ladder and four golden bowls that held the oil. Four youths of priestly descent would ascend the ladders, each carrying a jar holding a large quantity of oil. They would pour the oil into the bowls and light them. The worn drawers and girdles of priests served as wicks. Light from the illuminated courtyard could be seen at a great distance. With torches in their hands, men known for godliness and good works danced before the lampstands. They would raise their voices in song and praise. Many Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and other instruments as they stood on the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women. (Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2-4)
When Jesus identified himself as the “light of the world,” those who heard him may well have thought about the impressive illumination during the Festival of Tabernacles. His statement also answered the objection that no prophet would arise from Galilee, as his words alluded to the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a “great light” to be seen there. (John 8:12)
As the “light of the world,” Jesus provided spiritual illumination and dependable guidance. No one who followed him would walk in darkness or be unable to discern the right course of action. Instead, the individual would have the “light of life.” (John 8:12) This could be the light needed for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. Another possibility is that this would be the essential light for living a divinely approved life.
The Pharisees objected, contending that Jesus’ testimony rested solely on his own word and, therefore, could not be “true,” being unacceptable on the basis of the law that required at least two witnesses for verification. He countered with a statement revealing the superior nature of his testimony. Even if he did testify about himself, his witness proved to be true or deserving of full acceptance, for he knew from where he had come and where he was going. His testimony was not like that of humans generally, for he had come from the realm above and would return to this heavenly realm. The Pharisees did not know from where Jesus had come and where he was going, for they refused to believe his words. They judged “according to the flesh” or by human standards. He, however, did not judge or condemn anyone in this manner. If he did judge, his judgment would be “true,” right, or just, for he would not be acting alone or exclusively on his own authority. The one who had sent him, the Father, would be with him. (John 8:13-16)
According to the law, “the testimony of two men is true.” Jesus testified about himself through his words and works, and the one who had sent him, the Father, testified, enabling his Son to perform miracles of a nature and on a scale that no one else did. (John 8:17, 18)
In response to Jesus’ words about his Father, the Pharisees asked, “Where is your father?” “You know neither me nor my Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew me, you would also know my Father.” By his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly reflected his Father. In him, therefore, the Pharisees should have recognized the image of the Father and acknowledged him as his Son. Their failure to recognize the Son revealed that they did not know his Father. (John 8:19)
This interchange took place in the treasury of the temple precincts. (John 8:20) According to ancient Jewish sources, this was located in the Court of the Women, where 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall. Into these chests, the people deposited their monetary offerings and contributions. Six of these receptacles were designated for freewill offerings. Each of the other seven served for a distinct purpose — new shekels, old shekels, bird offerings, young birds for burnt offerings, wood, frankincense, and gold for the propitiatory. (Mishnah, Sheqalim 2:1; 6:1, 5; Tosefta, Sheqalim 3:1)
During the time Jesus taught there, no one laid hold of him or arrested him. His “hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly course. (John 8:20)
Previously, Jesus had said to the people that he was going away. He again repeated this point, telling them that they would seek him (probably meaning that they would continue to look in vain for the coming of the Messiah), would die in their sins, and would be unable to come to the place where he was going. Completely misunderstanding that Jesus would be returning to his Father in heaven, certain ones wondered whether he might kill himself, as they could not come to the place where he would be going. He then made it clear that he had come from a different realm, saying that they were from “below,” whereas he was from “above.” They were from the world of sinful mankind, but he was no part of that world. If, as Jesus said, they did not “believe that I am,” they would “die in [their] sins.” To refuse to acknowledge his true identity as the one who had come from above (God’s unique Son) would signify to reject the provision of forgiveness of sins through him. With their record of sin remaining unforgiven, they would die in their sins. Obstinately refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the one he had revealed himself to be, the unbelieving Jews asked him challengingly, “Who are you?” (John 8:21-25)
The Greek text conveying Jesus’ reply is obscure, and this accounts for the variations in the renderings of modern translations. (John 8:25) Preserving the basic meaning of arché (“beginning”), a number of translations read, “I am exactly who I told you at the beginning.” (CEV) “What I told you from the beginning.” (NAB) “I am what I have told you from the beginning.” (NCV) “I am what I have told you I was from the beginning.” (Phillips) Other translations do not render the word arché as “beginning” and translate the statement as a question. “Why do I speak to you at all?” (NRSV) “Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?” “Why should I speak to you at all?” (NJB, footnote)
There is a strong possibility that arché (“beginning”) could be understood to denote that which is fundamental, essential, or basic. Jesus’ reply may be rendered, “Basically, what I am also telling you,” indicating that all along his words revealed his true identity. (See the Notes section for additional information.)
Jesus had much to say about the unbelieving people and to express judgment respecting them. Both his words and his judgment would relate to their failure to put faith in him despite the abundant evidence, including his many miracles. They had ample proof that the Father had sent him. This should have given them sound reason for faith, for the Father is “true,” ultimately trustworthy. In the world or among the people, Jesus spoke what he had heard from his Father, the one who had sent him. Therefore, the Son of God should have been believed. Although Jesus had spoken about coming from “above” and his words about the one who had sent him clearly did not pertain to an earthly father, the unbelieving people did not recognize that he was talking about his heavenly Father. (John 8:26, 27)
Once, however, they had “raised the Son of Man up high,” they would come to know who he truly is (“that I am”), doing nothing of his own accord but speaking what his Father had taught him. The “raising up high” refers to his being lifted up on the implement on which he would die. His agonizing death through crucifixion led to his glorification, for he was raised from the dead and returned to heaven as the exalted Son of God. When the people would again see him as the one whom they had lifted up or in whose death they shared by rejecting him, they would see him as the one entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. Their former unbelief would merit adverse judgment, and they would come to know who Jesus truly is and that he, while in their midst, had spoken the truth that his Father had taught him. At all times, the Father who had sent him proved to be with him, never leaving him. This was because he always pleased his Father. (John 8:28, 29)
Although many persisted in their unbelief, others began to believe in Jesus. To the believing Jews, he said, “If you remain in my word [continuing to act on his message in faith], you truly are my disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will free you.” (John 8:30-32)
This truth relates to him — his identity as the Son of God. Through him alone, full knowledge about the Father is disclosed and forgiveness of sin is made possible, liberating all who put faith in him from the sin that stood as a record of debt against them.
Whereas Jesus’ words were directed to those who believed, the others who did not put faith in him also heard his words. These unbelievers seem to have been the ones who strongly objected and later tried to stone him. They proudly maintained that they were the “seed” or offspring of Abraham and never had been slaves to anyone. They then asked, “How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” Although they were then living under Roman authority, their reply focused on their status as free children on the basis of their descent from Abraham. They were not born in slavery. (John 8:33)
In response, Jesus repeated “amen” (truly) when solemnly calling attention to their being enslaved to sin, saying that “everyone who engages in sin is a slave of sin.” Alluding to the dismissal of the slave woman Hagar and her son Ishmael from the household of Abraham, Jesus reminded them that a slave does not remain permanently in the household, but a son does. A son, however, could set a slave free. Therefore, Jesus, as the Son of God, could liberate individuals from enslavement to sin, making them completely free. While Jesus acknowledged that those who had objected to his words were of the “seed” of Abraham or his descendants, he implied that their attitude did not reflect that. They were seeking to kill him, as his “word” or the message he proclaimed encountered obstinate resistance, finding no room among them. (John 8:34-37)
Whereas Jesus spoke what he had seen while he had been with his Father, they did what they had heard from their father. In this way, the Son of God revealed that their desire to kill him proved that they had a different father, an evil father with a murderous disposition. (John 8:38; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Again, they claimed to have Abraham as their father. Jesus, though, indicated that this would mean that they should have been doing the works of Abraham, which would have included manifesting the kind of faith Abraham did. This, however, was not the case. Instead of putting faith in Jesus, they tried to kill him, the very one who had told them the truth he had heard from God. “Abraham did not do this.” They did the works of their father. Insisting that they were not illegitimate children, they maintained that their only Father was God. (John 8:39-41)
Countering their claim, Jesus said that they would love him if God were their Father, for he had come from God. He had not come on his own accord but had been sent by him. “Why,” asked Jesus, “do you not comprehend what I am saying?” He then answered the rhetorical question, “Because you cannot [stand to] listen to my word.” They did not want to accept what Jesus said. (John 8:42, 43)
He then outspokenly declared the devil to be their father. It was the devil’s desires that they wished to carry out. He was a murderer (by implication the one responsible for the death of the first humans) from the “beginning” or from the time he commenced his life as the devil or slanderer. He did not “stand” in truth, not proving himself to be its upholder, for truth is not in him. As a malicious slanderer, he is a depository of lies and so there is no “truth in him.” By reason of who he is, he speaks the lie. The falsehood has its source in him, for he is a liar and the father or originator of it (probably alluding to the first lie on record, the one conveyed to Eve). (John 8:44)
Jesus, though, told the people the truth, but they refused to accept it. Addressing their unbelief, he asked who among them could level a charge of sin against him and why they did not believe him when he told them the truth. Explaining the reason for their unbelief, Jesus said, “Everyone who is from God [belonging to him] listens to the words of God. Therefore, you do not listen, for you are not from God [not belonging to him].” (John 8:45-47)
Angered, they accused Jesus of being a Samaritan (not a recognized member of God’s chosen people) and having a demon. “I do not have a demon,” said Jesus. “I honor my Father, but you dishonor me.” As he was the Son, their dishonoring him indicated that they also dishonored the Father who had sent him. Jesus did not seek glory for himself, diligently striving to win the plaudits of others. He looked to his Father to bestow glory on him, manifesting his approval. The Father also did judging. Unlike the baseless judgment of the unbelieving Jews that slandered him as being a demonized Samaritan, Jesus’ reference to his Father as judging implied that his judgment was right or just. The Son of God followed this up with the startling statement (preceded by a repeated “amen” [truly]) that those who observed his word or heeded his teaching would never “see” or experience death. (John 8:48-51)
The unbelieving Jews did not understand that he spoke about coming into possession of the real life as persons forgiven of sin and, therefore, liberated from the condemnation of death. Believers would not die as condemned sinners.
Refusing to recognize that Jesus had come from the realm above, the unbelieving Jews replied that they were certain he had a demon, saying, “Abraham died; also the prophets. And you say, ‘Whoever observes my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Also the prophets died. Who do you make yourself [out to be]?” (John 8:52, 53)
Jesus acknowledged that glorifying himself or making claims on his own authority would not mean anything. The Father, however, had glorified him, the very one whom the unbelieving Jews professed to be their God. (John 8:54) The miracles Jesus performed proved that his Father had empowered him, thus glorifying him as his beloved Son.
The murderous hatred of the unbelieving Jews proved that they did not know God, that they had no relationship with him. Otherwise, they would have recognized his Son and loved him. Therefore, about his Father, Jesus could say to them, “You do not know him, but I know him [his relationship being that of an intimate, the beloved Son of his Father].” If Jesus had said that he did not know the Father, he would have been a liar, as they had demonstrated themselves to be liars. They claimed to know God, but their slanderous words and hateful actions directed against the Son proved that this was not the case. (John 8:55)
Jesus, though, knew his Father and observed his word, always acting in harmony with his Father’s will. Abraham, the “father” or ancestor of the Jews, rejoiced to see, or eagerly anticipated with joy, the time Jesus called “my day.” In faith, Abraham saw it and was glad. His thus seeing it was based on the promise that through his “seed” (or offspring) all the families of the earth would be blessed. (John 8:55, 56)
Knowing that Jesus could not possibly be even 50 years old, the unbelieving Jews challenging said, “And you have seen Abraham?” “I am [from] before Abraham existed,” Jesus replied, preceding his words with the solemn “amen, amen” (truly, truly). Thus he confirmed that he, the one whom the people then saw, was the very same person prior to Abraham’s birth. (See the Notes section on John 8:58.) Furious that Jesus claimed to predate Abraham and, by implication, to be from the infinite past, the unbelieving Jews picked up stones to hurl at him. He, however, went into hiding and left the temple precincts. (John 8:57-59)
Notes:
Based on different meanings for some of the Greek terms, the obscure statement in John 8:25 has been variously rendered.
The Greek word arché usually means “beginning.” When understood adverbially, the expression tén archén, has been defined to mean “essentially,” “at all,” and “all the time.”
The Greek term hóti means “that” or “because,” whereas hó ti denotes “whatever” and “whoever” but can also signify “what.”
In Greek, the word for “and” (kaí) may additionally mean “even” or “also.”
When Jesus’ words are translated “that I am even speaking to you at all,” they are commonly construed as a question, “[How is it] that I am even speaking to you at all?” To preserve the meaning “beginning” for arché requires adding the preposition “from” or “at” and changing the present tense Greek word for “I speak” or “I say” (laló) to the past tense (“whatever [or what] I said to you from the beginning”). Taking the words tén archén as being used adverbially and meaning “essentially,” “fundamentally,” or “basically” does not require supplying additional words or changing the verb from the present tense to the past tense. Therefore, the preferable sense appears to be, “Basically, what I am also saying to you.”
In the left margin of an early papyrus manuscript (P66, probably from the second century), the words eipon hymin (“I told you”) appear and are meant for insertion before tén archén. By supplying “from,” the text (with the insertion) would read, “I told you [from] the beginning what I am also saying to you.”
There are manuscript readings of John 8:38 that do not qualify the second mention of “father” with the adjective “your.” This is the reason for the following renderings: “You should do what you have heard from the Father.” (NRSV) “Then do what you have heard from the Father.” (NAB) Contextually, these renderings, however, do not fit the subsequent objection, “Our father is Abraham.”
For many centuries, the expression “I am” (egó eimi [in John 8:58]) repeatedly has been linked to Exodus 3:14, where the same words appear in the Septuagint. The Exodus passage relates to the time God revealed his unique name (YHWH) to Moses. The words egó eimi, however, do not constitute the complete thought in the Septuagint, but the Almighty is quoted as saying, egó eimi ho ón (“I am the One Who Is” or “I am the Being”). Then, what Moses is to say to the Israelites is not a repetition of egó eimi but of ho ón (ho ón apéstalkén me prós hymás; “the One Who Is has sent me to you”).
Like “I am” or “it is I,” the Greek egó eimi often is the expression individuals used to identify themselves. At the time confusion existed about his identity, the former blind man who had received sight through Jesus is quoted as telling others, egó eimi (“I am,” meaning that he was indeed the same person as the man who had previously been blind). (John 9:9) Similarly, when the disciples were frightened upon seeing what they imagined to be a phantom or a ghost walking on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is represented as identifying himself with the words, egó eimi mé phobeísthe (“I am [It is I]; fear not”). (Mark 6:50)
In keeping with common use, John 8:58 may be understood to mean that Jesus identified himself as being the very same person (the unique Son of God) before Abraham’s birth as he then was among the existing generation. Therefore, an appropriate rendering that preserves the meaning of “I am” for egó eimi would be, “I am [from] before Abraham existed.” This would harmonize with Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today, and into the ages [to come].” Other places in John 8, where “I am” appears, also point to the true identity of Jesus.
Upon seeing a man blind from birth, the disciples asked Jesus whether the reason for his condition was his own sin or that of his parents. Their question reflected the common (but erroneous) view about the afflicted and suggests that it interfered with their looking upon him with compassion, wanting him to have sight. It appears that they had not grasped the lesson contained in the book of Job that the illnesses or other afflictions individuals may experience are not a valid reason for concluding that they are guilty of serious sin. Correcting their wrong view, Jesus indicated that the man’s blindness was not to be attributed to his sin or that of his parents, adding that it was that the “works of God” would be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) The condition in which the man found himself provided the occasion for a marvelous work of God to be seen. This would be the work of granting him sight, which work could not have been accomplished through human power or ability.
Indicating that it was then the time for carrying out this work of God, Jesus continued, “We must [I must, according to many extant manuscripts] work the works of him who sent me [sent us, according to the earliest extant manuscripts (P66 and P75)] as long as it is day. The night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the world’s light.” (John 9:4, 5) The night that lay ahead was the period of darkness that would see Jesus being arrested, abused, and killed, causing the disciples to scatter out of fear. Before the arrival of that dark day, opportunities continued to exist for doing God’s work. As the light of the world or among the people, Jesus brought enlightenment, opening the eyes of the blind both in a literal and a spiritual sense.
He then proceeded to do the work of his Father. After spitting on the ground, Jesus took the moistened soil, placed the clay he had made on the man’s eyes, and instructed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. The account provides the meaning of the name “Siloam” (“Sent forth”), suggesting that the miracle had been accomplished through the one who had been sent forth. (John 9:6, 7; see http://bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm for pictures of and comments about Pool of Siloam.)
When neighbors or acquaintances and others who were aware of the former blind man’s begging saw him, they thought that he might be the same person. Certain ones, however, concluded that he was just a man who resembled him in appearance. The former blind man is quoted as identifying himself with the words, “I am” (egó eimi) or “It is I.” In response to the question about how he came to have sight, he told them what Jesus had done and how his having washed in the Pool of Siloam as Jesus had instructed him led to his being able to see. Instead of rejoicing with the man about his enjoyment of sight, the questioners reflected a negative attitude toward his benefactor, not even mentioning his name when asking, “Where is he?” “I do not know,” the former blind man answered. (John 9:8-12)
The man’s blindness had been cured on the Sabbath. Therefore, the questioners led him to the Pharisees, with the apparent intent of determining whether a wrong had been committed. When the Pharisees questioned him how he had gained his sight, the man explained that Jesus had made clay and put it on his eyes and that, upon washing it off, he could see. Certain ones of the Pharisees concluded that Jesus could not be from God, for he did not observe the Sabbath. Others, however, found it hard to accept how a sinner could effect such a miracle, resulting in a division among them. (John 9:13-16)
They asked the man about his view of the one who had opened his eyes. He replied, “He is a prophet.” Not wanting to accept the evidence, the unbelieving Jews summoned the man’s parents, asking them whether he was their son who was blind at birth and how it happened that he could see. They acknowledged him to be their son who was born blind but disclaimed any knowledge about how he had been cured and who had brought it about. The parents added that their son was of age and would be able to answer for himself. Out of fear that they could otherwise be treated as outcasts, they limited their comments to the condition of their son at birth. Among the Jews generally, it had become known that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue. (John 9:17-23)
For a second time, the Pharisees summoned the man. “Give glory to God,” they demanded. “We know that this man is a sinner.” The expression “Give glory to God” constituted a solemn charge for him to tell the truth. Although the Pharisees had asserted that they knew Jesus to be a sinner, the man courageously declared that this is something he did not know. What he did know was that he had been blind, but (as he said) “I can now see.” (John 9:24, 25)
Again the Pharisees asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” Boldly, the man replied, “I told you already, and you did not hear [responsively]. Why do you want to hear [everything] again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” (John 9:26, 27)
Irritated, they responded abusively to him, saying, “You are a disciple of that one [disparagingly refusing to call Jesus by name], but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know from where this one is.” (John 9:28, 29)
Not allowing himself to be intimidated, the man replied courageously, “This is something amazing, You do not know from where he is, and he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he listens to one who is godly and does his will. From the [past] age[s], never has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If he were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.” (John 9:30-33)
Unable to give an answer to the man’s sound reasoning and greatly provoked, they reviled him, saying, “You were fully born in sins, and you are teaching us?” Their angry reply indicated that they considered his having been blind at birth as a reason to despise him as a sinner who had no right to express himself in the manner he did. The Pharisees then expelled him, declaring him to be an outcast. (John 9:34)
Upon hearing that they had expelled him, Jesus looked for the man and found him, providing him with the spiritual help and comfort that he needed. He asked him whether he believed in the Son of Man (Son of God, according to many later manuscripts). Although the man had declared his faith in Jesus as a prophet who had come from God, he did not then know him as the Son of Man or the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Therefore, he asked, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?” “You have seen him,” said Jesus, “and he who is speaking with you is that one.” “I believe, Lord,” replied the man and prostrated himself, thereby acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son and his Lord. (John 9:35-38)
Jesus had come into the world of mankind for judgment, that the blind would see and that the sighted might become blind. This judgment, based on how individuals responded to Jesus, revealed whether they wanted to do God’s will. Those who did see were persons who imagined themselves to be sighted and to whom others looked for guidance. The blind, though including the physically blind, primarily were persons who longed for a clearer vision of God and a closer relationship with him. (John 9:39) These formerly blind ones put faith in Jesus and gained clear spiritual vision, whereas those who thought of themselves as sighted rejected him, resulting in even greater spiritual blindness in their case.
Jesus’ words prompted certain Pharisees who had been listening to ask incredulously, “We, too, are not blind, [are we]?” “If you were blind [unable to perceive],” said Jesus, “you would have no sin. Now, however, you say, ‘We see,’ [so] your sin remains.” (John 9:40, 41) Had they sensed a lack within themselves respecting their relationship to God, they could have come to see their error, ceasing to be unbelievers. Their previous unbelief would have been due to ignorance and could have been forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:12, 13.) When, however, they insisted that they did see, they could not be freed from their sin, for they had deliberately chosen to continue in unbelief.
The opening verse of chapter 10 does not introduce a change in location. Accordingly, it must have been in the presence of his disciples, the former blind man, the unbelieving Pharisees, and others that Jesus illustrated his personal concern for his followers.
He likened himself to a caring shepherd and his fellow Jews as sheep in an enclosure. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” he solemnly declared. “He who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber. He, however, who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens. And the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought all of his own out [of the enclosure], he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him, for they recognize his voice. A stranger, however, they will not follow but will flee from him, for they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” (John 10:1-5)
The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders in the Jewish community had seized a position in relation to their fellow Jews (the “sheep”) that was not divinely approved. The manner in which certain Pharisees had treated the cured blind man was comparable to the actions of a thief and a robber. When expelling him, they deprived him of any acceptable standing in the Jewish community. Like a robber who has no regard for his victim when resorting to violence to seize what he wants, the religious leaders abused the former blind man with hateful words and stole his reputation from him.
It was common for several shepherds to shelter their flocks for the night in an enclosure, where a doorkeeper would guard the sheep. In the morning, the shepherds would arrive, calling each one of their own sheep by name. The sheep would then follow their shepherd as he led them out to pasture. A stranger could not get them to follow him, but they would run away from him, especially upon hearing their own shepherd calling. The sheep did not recognize anyone else’s voice.
Whereas all the Jews professed to be God’s people, not all recognized the voice of Jesus as being that of their divinely appointed shepherd. Only those who listened to him proved to be his sheep, and they followed him, letting his example and teaching guide their course. Those with genuine faith in him paid no attention to the voice of others who presumed to speak for God.
John 10:6 indicates that Jesus’ words were primarily directed to the unbelieving Pharisees, with the reference to “them” applying to the group of Pharisees mentioned in John 9:40. They, however, did not understand what he had said to them.
After a solemn introductory “Amen, amen, I say to you,” Jesus next compared himself to the “door of the sheep.” (John 10:7) Whether this is an allusion to a different enclosure out in the field where the flock is pastured cannot be determined. In the case of such an enclosure, the shepherd would lie down in the opening at night and, like a door or gate, keep intruders out.
The ones to whom Jesus referred as thieves and robbers would have been those who falsely claimed to represent God. (John 10:8; see the Notes section for additional comments.) These men could have included false prophets and false messiahs, who deceived many and led them to their ruin. The genuine sheep, as Jesus added, did not listen to them.
The Son of God is the “door,” making it possible for those with faith in him to come into a relationship with him and his Father and to continue to have access to him. The “sheep” who enter this door by believing in Jesus would be “saved” or delivered from sin. Liberated from sin, they would enjoy true freedom, their condition being comparable to that of sheep which are not confined but can enter and exit through a gate. Like sheep whom a shepherd leads to pasture and water, Jesus would provide spiritual abundance for believers and look out for their welfare. (John 10:9)
The thief, whose actions the abusive religious leaders had imitated, would come only to “steal and slaughter and destroy.” Ruin would come to anyone who blindly followed the unbelieving Pharisees. This was the very opposite respecting Jesus’ coming. He came so that believers might have life and have it to the full, enjoying the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. (John 10:10)
Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd, the shepherd who demonstrates his ultimate concern for the welfare of the sheep by sacrificing his “soul” or life for them. He is not like a hireling who is primarily concerned about receiving his pay for services. A hireling does not own the sheep and does not have the kind of personal interest in their welfare that a shepherd has. When the hireling sees the wolf coming, he looks to his own welfare first and runs away, abandoning the sheep and leaving them for the wolf to seize and scatter. He does not care about what happens to the sheep, because he, as a hireling who works only for pay, has no personal attachment to or genuine interest in them. (John 10:11-13)
The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders proved themselves to be like hirelings, being primarily concerned about their position and maintaining it. They despised the common people, looking down upon them as persons ignorant of the law and burdening them with many regulations that had no basis in the law. (Compare Matthew 23:4; John 7:49; 11:45-48; 12:10, 11.)
In his role as a good shepherd, Jesus knows his sheep, and they know him. The relationship is an intimate one, being like the one Jesus enjoys with his Father. His Father knows him as his beloved Son, and he knows his Father like no one else does, because he is the unique Son. For the “sheep” that are dear to him, Jesus said that he would lay down his “soul” or life. (John 10:14, 15)
At the time Jesus spoke about giving up his life, all of the “sheep” who recognized him as their shepherd were believing Jews. They, however, were not to be his only sheep. He had other sheep who were not in the same enclosure or not members of the “house of Israel.” (Compare Matthew 15:24.) These future sheep he would also lead. They would listen to or respond to his voice and, with the Jewish believers, come to be one flock, following him as their one shepherd. (John 10:16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Jesus enjoyed his Father’s love because he delighted to do his will and that included sacrificing his “soul” or life for the sheep. Although he would give up his life, he would receive it again. The surrender of his life would not come about based on any human determination to have him killed, but he would lay it down of his own accord. His Father had granted him the power or right to lay down his life and to receive it again. Jesus referred to this “power” as having been given him on the basis of his Father’s commandment or authoritative decree. Therefore, his resurrection was certain. (John 10:17, 18)
Jesus’ words resulted in a division among those who heard them. Many concluded that he was a demonized madman, and they could not understand why anyone would listen to him. Others, however, did not believe Jesus’ words to be the expressions of a demonized man. They found it impossible to conclude that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. (John 10:19-21)
Notes:
For John 10:8, the manuscript reading commonly found in printed texts is, “All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them.” The words “before me” are missing in a number of early manuscripts, and “all” is not found in one fifth-century manuscript.
It is of note that, in John 10:16, Jesus did not refer to the “other sheep” as being in a particular fold or enclosure. Whereas he had been sent to none but the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” many others outside the “house of Israel” later responded to his voice (conveyed through his disciples), with all of them coming to enjoy the same status as his “sheep” or beloved followers. (Matthew 15:24; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)
In view of the fact that the former blind man had been declared an outcast, he must have been greatly strengthened and uplifted upon hearing that Jesus deeply cared for him, even being willing to give up his life for him.
John 10:22 starts a new narrative about another confrontation Jesus faced, which occurred at the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), about two months after the Festival of Tabernacles. During the intervening period, Jesus’ activity appears to have continued in and near Jerusalem and in other areas of Judea.
Luke 10:1-13:21 seems to relate events taking place during this intervening period. According to Luke 9:51-53, Jesus and his disciples passed through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem. The next location mentioned in the account is the home of Martha and Mary, which was located in Bethany. This village was about two miles from Jerusalem. (Luke 10:38, 39; John 11:18) Then, in Luke 13:22, it is stated that Jesus was again on his way to Jerusalem, which seems to have been for the Festival of Dedication mentioned in John 10:22. If the narrative in Luke follows a chronological order, this would place the events related in Luke 10:1-13:21 between the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Dedication, provided that the two trips to Jerusalem mentioned are correctly identified as having taken place for the two festivals mentioned in John 7:2 and 10:22.
As he had earlier sent out the 12 apostles by twos, Jesus did so with the 70 (or, according to other manuscripts, 72). Included among them likely were Matthias and Joseph (Barsabbas, also called Justus). (Compare Acts 1:21-23.) The 70 or 72 disciples were to do a preparatory work in the villages and towns which Jesus planned to visit personally. Considerable potential existed for an ingathering of many disciples. Because there were then only a few available workers, Jesus urged those whom he sent forth to petition his Father, the master of the harvest, to send out more workers into his harvest. Not everyone, however, would welcome his disciples. On account of those who would oppose, the disciples would be like sheep that Jesus had sent out among wolves. (Luke 10:1-3)
When going from town to town and village to village, the disciples were not to carry a money bag, a pouch for supplies, or an extra pair of sandals. As they traveled, they were not to greet anyone whom they met on the way. In that culture, a greeting was not limited to a few words said while passing but involved a prolonged interchange. Therefore, their not engaging in this kind of greeting was indicative of the urgency and importance of the work Jesus had commissioned them to do. (Luke 10:4)
Upon entering a home where hospitality had been extended, they were first to wish for peace (shalom) to come upon it. This would be an expression for all in the house to enjoy a state of well-being. A “son of peace” would be a man who was favorably disposed to the message the disciples proclaimed and desired the security and well-being that resulted from an approved relationship with the Most High. About a householder who proved to be such, Jesus said to his disciples, “Your peace shall rest upon him.” The responsive individual would come to enjoy the same kind of peace or spiritual well-being as they did. If the owner of the house did not manifest himself to be a “son of peace,” the disciples were not to allow themselves to become troubled, but the peace they had wished for the household would return to them. (Luke 10:5, 6)
In whatever home they were welcomed, they were to eat and drink the things provided and not go to another home, where the accommodations might be preferable. Their staying in the home where hospitality was originally extended would show proper appreciation and also make it easier for others to find them to hear their message. It was appropriate for the disciples to receive food, drink, and lodging, for a worker is worthy of his wage. (Luke 10:7)
Wherever they were welcomed, the disciples were to eat what was set before them. While there, they were to heal the sick and tell the people that the “kingdom of God” had come near. Jesus, the one through whom the Most High purposed to reign, was then in the midst of the Jewish people, and they had the opportunity to be part of the realm where he is Sovereign. Accordingly, God’s kingdom had come near to them. (Luke 10:8, 9)
In the event they were not welcomed in a particular town, the disciples were to go into its wide or principal streets and declare that even the dust clinging to their feet they would wipe off against its inhabitants. It was customary for Jews, upon coming into the land of Israel, to shake from their feet the dust that had come from outside the land. According to ancient Jewish sources, that dust was considered to be defiling. In the case of the disciples, the act would show that the people had revealed themselves as having no relationship with God and not desiring such. The disciples thus left the place to experience the consequences from the rejection of Christ by its inhabitants, as it had been made known to them that the kingdom of God had drawn near. The very dust the disciples had wiped off against the unresponsive inhabitants would testify that they had chosen to reject the message that had been proclaimed to them. (Luke 10:10, 11)
In the future time of judgment, it would prove to be more bearable for the inhabitants of Sodom in the time of Lot than for the city that had rejected the message about the kingdom of God. (Luke 10:12) The people of Sodom did not have the opportunity to hear what the unresponsive Israelite city did and so were less accountable for their actions. Therefore, they would not face as severe a judgment. (Compare Luke 12:47, 48.)
Jesus then pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for the Galilean cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida, where he had performed many miracles. If the non-Israelite inhabitants of the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed the same works of power, they, in the distant past, would have repented, making visible expression thereof by putting on sackcloth and seating themselves in ashes. Therefore, it would be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for Chorazin and Bethsaida. The judgment would be commensurate with their lesser accountability. (Luke 10:13, 14)
Capernaum, the Galilean city where Peter and Andrew had their home, would not be exalted to heaven, being granted unparalleled honor. It would be debased to the lowest point—Hades or the realm of the dead. This is because the inhabitants of Capernaum witnessed more miracles than many other places and yet the majority of the inhabitants persisted in unbelief. (Luke 10:15)
The disciples represented Jesus. For this reason, when others listened to them, they paid attention to him. Whoever disregarded them, also rejected Jesus and his Father, who had sent him. (Luke 10:16)
When the 70 (or 72) disciples returned, they were overjoyed, telling Jesus that the demons had submitted to them on the basis of his name (the authority that his name represented). He knew that, through his death, the powers of darkness would be defeated. (Compare Colossians 2:15.) No longer could people be kept in a state of involuntary enslavement through fear of what malevolent powers in a superterrestrial realm could do to them. (Compare Hebrews 2:14, 15.) Therefore, he could speak of seeing Satan as having fallen from heaven like lightning. (Luke 10:17, 18)
The disciples had nothing to fear from the powers of darkness. Jesus had granted them authority to trample upon malevolent powers comparable to poisonous serpents and scorpions and, in fact, over all the power of the satanic enemy. No harm could come to them from that source. The disciples, however, had greater reason for rejoicing than the fact that malign spirits had been made subject to them. Their names had been written in heaven. This meant that they would continue to enjoy God’s favor, aid, and blessing. (Luke 10:19, 20)
In that “hour” or at that time, Jesus, under the impulse of holy spirit, was moved to thank his Father that he had hidden the precious spiritual treasures of knowledge from the “wise and the learned” and had revealed them to “babes,” persons who enjoyed no particular prominence or distinction. Among those who were regarded as insignificant, Jesus’ words found hearing ears. In disposition, they were receptive to the Son of God and the message he proclaimed. It pleased his Father to favor them with responsive hearing, allowing those who regarded themselves as wise and learned to continue in their blind state of unbelief. (Luke 10:21, 22)
The Father had committed “all things” relating to having his approval to his Son. Jesus truly knew his Father as no one else did. This is because he is the unique Son, the intimate one whom his Father alone fully knows. Accordingly, in a way that no one else could, the Son revealed the Father to whomever he chose to do so. All to whom Jesus revealed his Father came to know him as persons having an approved relationship with him as his beloved children. It was to those who repented of their sins and came to acknowledge him as the Christ, the Son of God, that Jesus chose to reveal his Father. (Luke 10:22)
Turning to his disciples, Jesus spoke privately to them, telling them that their eyes were fortunate because they could see. Their vision was not obstructed like that of the “wise and learned” who persisted in unbelief. Indicating how favored his disciples were, he told them that many prophets and kings (including David, Hezekiah, Josiah, and other faithful ones) wanted to see what they beheld and to hear what they heard. This is because the devoted prophets and faithful kings looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, whereas the disciples enjoyed close association with him, heard his teaching, and experienced his compassion and love. The disciples actually saw what the prophets and kings wanted to see but did not. (Luke 10:23, 24)
Notes:
In Matthew 9:37, 38, Jesus expressed the thought about petitioning the “master of the harvest” (Luke 10:2) upon seeing the helpless condition of the crowds, who were like sheep without a shepherd.
When sending out the 12 apostles and the 70 (or 72) disciples, Jesus told them that he was sending them out as sheep among wolves. In Matthew 10:16, the term for “sheep” is the plural form of próbaton. Most manuscript readings of Luke 10:3 have the plural form of arníon, which designation can refer to a lamb, a ram, or a sheep of any age.
Jesus’ instructions to the 12 apostles and the 70 (or 72) disciples about entering a home or a town and leaving an unresponsive place are similar. (Matthew 10:12-15; Luke 10:6, 11, 12)
Jesus’ pronouncement of “woe” and comments about Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom appear in Matthew 11:20-24 and Luke 10:12-15. In Matthew, the remarks relate to a different occasion and are more detailed about Sodom.
Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16, and John 13:20 convey the same thought about those who would receive or welcome Jesus’ disciples, but the words appear in different settings.
Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-24 contain Jesus’ expression of thanksgiving involving the “wise and learned” and the “babes,” but the setting is different.
Luke 10:23, 24 and Matthew 13:16, 17 relate the same thoughts about seeing and the desire of the prophets. In Luke 10:24, there is also a reference to kings, but Matthew 13:17 mentions “righteous ones.”
To test Jesus, a man who knew the Mosaic law exceptionally well asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (or life in the age to come). Instead of giving him a direct answer, the Son of God questioned him about the law and how he read what was contained therein. The legal expert focused on two commandments—loving God with one’s whole heart, whole soul, whole strength, and whole mind, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. (Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:5) Jesus acknowledged the correctness of the answer and then added, “Do this, and you will live.” Wanting to justify himself, the man responded, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25-29; for comments about the possible nature of the justification, see the Notes section.)
In reply, Jesus related a parable or likeness. While on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man became the victim of robbers. They stripped and beat him, leaving him half dead. Coincidentally, traveling the same road, a priest noticed the battered victim but passed by on the opposite side. Later, a Levite likewise did nothing to help the man. On his way, a Samaritan saw him and was moved with compassion. He approached the helpless man, poured oil and wine on his wounds, and then bandaged them. The Samaritan lifted him onto his mount (which would commonly have been a donkey), took him to an inn, and cared for him there. The next day, he gave two denarii (the equivalent of two days’ wages) to the innkeeper, telling him to care for the man and obligating himself to reimburse him for any other costs the care might require. The Samaritan promised to make any additional payment upon his return. (Luke 10:30-35; see the Notes section for other comments.)
Jesus then asked the questioner about who of the three had proved himself to be the neighbor of the one who had fallen among the robbers. Seemingly, he could not bring himself to say, “the Samaritan” (one whom he would not have regarded as belonging to God’s people), but replied that it was the one who had dealt mercifully. Applying the point of the parable, Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36) In this manner, he transformed the question, “Who is my neighbor?” into one stressing personal accountability, Am I proving myself to be a neighbor to others, particularly those in need?
Notes:
The next event narrated in the account took place in Bethany, a short distance from Jerusalem. This could suggest that Jesus was questioned in the general vicinity.
There are a number of possibilities about how the legal expert wanted to justify himself. (Luke 10:29) Perhaps he did not believe that Jesus’ response had settled the question but merely called attention to what he already knew. In that case, he would have been justifying the reason for asking the question. Another possibility is that he wanted to justify that he was truly doing what the law required, with the precise identification of the neighbor serving to confirm this. So it may be that he wanted Jesus to define the term “neighbor” in a very specific or limited sense.
In the first century, travelers had to reckon with dangers from highwaymen. (2 Corinthians 11:26) The narrow road between Jerusalem and Jericho passed ravines, cliffs, and caves, and provided numerous locations for robbers to conceal themselves and then quickly to descend upon their victims.
Jesus did not identify the man who fell among robbers as a Jew, a Samaritan, or a Gentile, but simply represented him as a man who was traveling from the elevated city of Jerusalem down to Jericho. (Luke 10:30) Likely the legal expert thought of him as being a fellow Jew.
Whether the priest and the Levite were coming or going to Jerusalem is not specified in the parable.
In view of their being in God’s service in a special way, priests and Levites would have been expected to be more responsive to the needs of others than would the general populace. Jesus provided no reason for the failure of the priest and the Levite. This left it up to the questioner to come up with any justification (fear of possible attack if they lingered in the area, avoidance of ceremonial defilement if the man was dead, or the belief that the victim had rightly experienced divine judgment for his sin).
In the case of the Levite, the expression “having come and having seen” may mean that Jesus represented him as arriving at the location, approaching to take a closer look, but afterward doing nothing to relieve the half-dead man and passing by on the other side. (Luke 10:32)
The enmity existing between the Jews and the Samaritans would have been an excuse for inaction. This feature of the parable makes the point about what constitutes a neighbor even more forceful. The book of Sirach, translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second century BCE, reflects the kind of animosity that existed. “My whole being loathes two nations, the third is not even a people: Those who live in Seir and Philistia, and the degenerate folk in Shechem [the Samaritans].” (Sirach 50:25, 26, NAB)
Olive oil served to soften and soothe bruises and welts. Wine, with its antiseptic qualities, proved useful for cleansing open wounds.
The village to which Jesus next went with his disciples was Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem. Here Martha extended hospitality in her home. (Luke 10:38; John 11:1, 18)
Focused on preparations for her guests, Martha attended to her many tasks, while her sister Mary seated herself at Jesus’ feet and listened to his teaching. This greatly disturbed Martha, as she felt that her sister should be helping her to accomplish what needed to be done. When she felt overwhelmed and anxious about everything that had been left for her to do, Martha expressed her feelings to Jesus, saying to him: “Lord, does it not concern you that my sister has left me alone to serve? So tell her to help me.” (Luke 10:39, 40)
In response, Jesus said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but of one thing [there] is need. Mary, then, chose the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41, 42) This reply may be understood to mean that the essential was the more valuable spiritual provision. The material ministering had so worried and distracted Martha that she had lost out on the truly good portion, which Mary had chosen. Unlike a meal that only satisfies a need for a short time, the sustaining power of a spiritual provision is not temporary.
According to another manuscript reading, Jesus said that “of a few things [there] is need, or of one.” This may mean that a few things were essential for a meal, but the one thing of greater value was the spiritual provision, the part that Mary had chosen.
This was not a criticism of Martha’s hospitality but a loving reminder that worries and concerns about material provisions should not be allowed to become so distracting as to forfeit spiritual benefits. They were the words of one who deeply cared about Martha. According to John 11:5, “Jesus loved Martha and her sister.”
The intimacy Jesus expressed in his relationship with his Father must have deeply impressed his disciples and would have been especially noticeable in his prayers. This may have prompted a number of the disciples to want to know how to draw closer to the heavenly Father and to express themselves in their own prayers. On one occasion, after he had finished praying, one of his disciples (probably a newer disciple who had not heard his earlier teaching) approached him and, also speaking for others, asked that he teach them to pray, just as John the Baptist had taught his disciples. (Luke 11:1) In response, Jesus repeated what he had said earlier (in what has come to be commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount).
According to the oldest extant manuscripts, prayer is addressed to the Father. Many later manuscripts read, “Our Father who [is] in the heavens,” as does Matthew 6:9. When directing their petitions to the Father, those praying would be expressing themselves as members of the family of his beloved children. (Luke 11:2)
The petition that God’s name be hallowed or sanctified could be a plea for him to make himself known as the holy God through a direct intervention in the affairs of humankind or an appeal that the number of people who honor him (the bearer of the name) would continue to increase. It is likely that the petition is directly related to the next one, “Your kingdom come.” (Luke 11:2) This suggests that the hallowing of God’s name relates to the sanctifying of his own name, making himself manifest as Sovereign by revealing his power. (Compare Ezekiel 38:23.)
Asking for God’s kingdom to come would mean praying for his sovereign will to be expressed. The ultimate result would be that competing demands from other rulerships would cease to exist. (Compare Daniel 2:44) In the world of mankind, believers have an alien status, for they are in the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. Their loyal submission to God’s will can result in suffering for them. To persons who are part of the world that is in a state of rebellion against God, believers may come to be objects of intense hostility. Therefore, the appeal for the kingdom to come expresses the believer’s desire for all the problems associated with disregard for God’s will to end.
The petition about being given our bread “according to the day [each day or day by day]” probably is to be understood as being for the needed or the essential sustenance for the day. (Luke 11:3) There is uncertainty about the Greek expression epioúsios that is linked to “bread.” Even Origen (185? to 254? CE) had not heard this word used in common speech or seen it in other writings. Therefore, he concluded that it was a coined expression. In association with bread, the words including epioúsios have been rendered, “the food we need” (CEV), “the bread we need” (Phillips) “our bread for the coming day” (Wuest), and “our daily bread” (NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB).
Sin is a failure to reflect the image of God in thought, word, or deed. It is an offense against him and frequently also a transgression against a fellow human. The petition to be forgiven of sin is coupled with an acknowledgment of a forgiving spirit. The heavenly Father is willing to forgive in a large way all who repentantly turn to him. Therefore, in imitating his compassionate example, the petition includes, “for also we forgive everyone who is in debt to us” (on account of having sinned against us).
For one not to be brought into temptation would include being strengthened to resist temptation and to be shielded from circumstances beyond one’s strength to endure. Many manuscripts add, “but deliver us from the evil [or the evil one].” To be delivered from “evil” would mean to be safeguarded from anything that could plunge one into sin, interfering with maintaining an approved relationship with the heavenly Father. If the meaning is the “evil one” or the devil, this would be a petition to be protected from becoming his victim as one induced to follow a God-dishonoring course. (Luke 11:4)
By means of a likeness or parable, Jesus next stressed the importance of persevering in prayer. A man woke up his friend at midnight, requesting that he lend him three loaves of bread. Unexpectedly, one of his friends had arrived from a journey, and he had nothing to offer him to eat. The one whom he had disturbed told him not to trouble him, for the door had already been locked, he and his children were in bed, and he was in no position to get up and give him anything. Although he would not respond to the request on the basis of friendship, Jesus did say that he would do so because of his friend’s persistence. (Luke 11:5-8)
On account of the slow means of travel available in ancient times and unfavorable conditions along the way, guests from distant parts often arrived late at night. Not to give them something to eat would have been considered a serious breach of customary hospitality. In small homes, the whole family would sleep in one room. Therefore, someone’s getting up in the middle of the night to respond to a request for bread would have disturbed everyone.
Applying the parable, Jesus gave the admonition to persist in asking, seeking, and knocking. The one asking would receive, the one seeking would find, and the one knocking would get a response. (Luke 11:9, 10) This is a general principle. A request cannot be granted without first being made. Lost items cannot be found if no effort is made to look for them. The door is not opened to a person who does not knock.
No father among those to whom Jesus spoke would have handed a serpent to a son who asked for a fish or given him a scorpion if he requested an egg. So if flawed (literally, “bad” or “evil”) fathers know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so will the heavenly Father “give holy spirit to those asking him!” (Luke 11:11-13) It is inconceivable that a father who had concern for his children would give them something harmful instead of needed food. Therefore, the heavenly Father would give only what is good, and his answers to prayers would always be in the best interests of those who persevere in prayer.
All appropriate prayer is offered with the understanding that God’s will be done. While not in every case corresponding to the petitioner’s request, the answer always will be in harmony with God’s love. The heavenly Father is not a reluctant giver who must be persuaded to respond, but those who pray rightly demonstrate earnestness, sincerity, and faith through persistence in their supplications. God’s giving holy spirit would include strengthening and sustaining those in distress by means of his spirit and providing them with his spirit’s guidance and motivating power to resist temptation and maintain upright conduct.
According to the belief of the multitude, demon possession caused a certain man to be mute. Whether Jesus effected the cure and expressed himself in a manner that accommodated the common view or whether this involved an actual case of demon possession cannot be determined with certainty. When Jesus expelled the demon or freed the man from the agent responsible for his muteness, he could speak, and the many people who witnessed this were amazed. Certain ones, however, blasphemed Jesus, maintaining that he expelled demons by Beelzebul (Beelzebub), the ruler of the demons or the devil. Others, wanting to test Jesus, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. They wanted to see some spectacular sign from heaven that they felt was needed to establish whether he was the promised Messiah. (Luke 11:14-16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Aware of the thinking of those who persisted in unbelief, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself becomes desolated, and house falls upon house. If, then, Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” This should have caused those who misrepresented Jesus as being in league with the demons to think seriously. Divisions or rifts cause ruin, as when one house collapses on another house. It was inconceivable that Satan would be working against himself, destroying his own realm. (Luke 11:17, 18)
If the casting out of demons could be used as evidence that one was in league with Beelzebul (Beelzebub), this would raise a serious question, By whom did the “sons” of Jesus’ opposers exorcise demons? It is likely that these “sons” would have been disciples of the unbelieving Pharisees. Their own followers thus condemned them, exposing the inconsistency of the judgment they had made about Jesus’ works of power. (Luke 11:19)
The Son of God then continued, “But if I cast out the demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Luke 11:20) An act accomplished by the “finger of God” denotes one that is effected by God’s power. Through the working of divine power, Jesus revealed himself to be the promised Messiah. Therefore, in him as the king to whom his Father had granted authority and power, the reign of God had come. Jesus’ powerful works confirmed that he was in possession of God-given royal authority.
Whenever a well-armed strong man guards his own courtyard, intruders could not enter his house. Therefore, his possessions would be safe. If, however, someone with greater strength came and overpowered him, he would be stripped of his protective armor and deprived of his possessions. (Luke 11:21, 22) Accordingly, Jesus’ powerful works demonstrated that he had far greater authority than existed in the realm of darkness, for all injurious elements had to yield to his command.
In view of Jesus’ great God-given authority, the wise course would have been for individuals to take a firm stand on his side. There was no middle ground. As Jesus said, “The one not with me is against me, and the one not gathering with me is scattering.” (Luke 11:23)
Jesus made use of a common view about unclean spirits to illustrate the sad spiritual condition that existed among the people. Upon leaving a man, an unclean spirit passes through waterless areas in search of a resting place, but does not find one. Therefore, this spirit decides to return to its original home, which it then finds swept clean and well-arranged. (According to numerous manuscripts, the house is also described as “unoccupied.”) Leaving again, the unclean spirit finds seven (a complete number) of other spirits more evil than it is. All these wicked spirits then enter the man and take up permanent residence, and his final condition comes to be worse than the first. (Luke 11:24-26)
In Matthew 12:43-45, the same parable appears and concludes with an application to the “evil generation.” The Israelites had ceased to be enslaved to the kind of idolatry that existed before the Babylonian exile. From that standpoint, their house had been cleaned up and put in order. This, however, did not protect them from being victimized by worse “demons” and coming into an even graver spiritual plight.
Among the influential members of the nation, legalistic views began to crowd out the importance of growth in love, justice, and compassion. The men who exercised teaching authority formulated regulations and commands that went far beyond the requirements of the Mosaic law. This legalism spread like leaven among the people and brought spiritual ruin to them. The scrupulous observance of humanly devised commands interfered with the proper display of love, justice, and mercy. It obscured spiritual vision, making it impossible for the majority to recognize Jesus as God’s Son on the basis of his powerful works, exemplary life, and sound teaching. The hostility that developed among those poisoned to the greatest extent by legalism led to their wanting to kill Jesus.
Besides the few who became Jesus’ disciples, many others were impressed by his works and words. One woman, emotionally moved by what she heard expressed how fortunate the mother was who had given birth to and nursed a son such as he was. Jesus, though, stressed that fortunate or in an enviable state of well-being or happiness are those who hear and heed God’s word. (Luke 11:27, 28)
As the crowds increased in number, Jesus focused on those who wanted to see some spectacular sign to convince them about who he was. He referred to them as an “evil generation,” for they persisted in unbelief despite all the powerful works they had seen. They would not be granted the kind of sign they were seeking. The only sign they would be given would be the “sign of Jonah,” which sign pointed forward to Jesus’ resurrection on the third day after his death. (Luke 11:29)
Just as Jonah had been a sign to the Ninevites, so the Son of Man would be a sign to the evil generation then living (the generation that persisted in unbelief). Jesus contrasted the course of non-Israelites living in the past with that of his fellow Jews. In the judgment to come, “the queen of the south,” by her course of action, would condemn the then-existing generation for their unbelief. She came from a distant land to hear Solomon’s wisdom, but someone greater than Solomon was in their midst, but they paid no attention to him. The people of Nineveh likewise would condemn the unbelief of Jesus’ contemporaries. This is because they believed Jonah and repented, but the majority who saw and heard one greater than Jonah refused to believe him and act accordingly. (Luke 11:30-32)
Jesus’ next words illustrated the seriousness of continuing in spiritual darkness, choosing to act in a manner that is contrary to the purpose for which light or enlightenment is made available. A person does not place a lit lamp in a storage space or under a container but on a lampstand, to provide light for those who enter the house. For the body, the eye serves as a lamp. By means of the eye, the body or the individual perceives everything that light makes visible. Without sight, a person’s world comes to be a world of darkness. Whenever the eye does not function properly, images are distorted or obscured, and the visual perceptions cannot be trusted. (Luke 11:33, 34; regarding Luke 11:33, see the Notes section.)
The Greek word for “simple” is haploús and can denote what is sound or properly focused and, in a moral sense, can mean “straightforward,” “sincere,” “guileless,” and “generous.” When the eye is properly focused and provides clear images, the whole body is filled with light. The manner in which one views matters is a reflection of the inner moral or spiritual condition. Therefore, a distorted or corrupt view, plunges the whole person into a realm of darkness. (Luke 11:34) That was true of those who persisted in unbelief. Their distorted view of Jesus gave evidence of a deep moral and spiritual darkness. He, therefore, called upon those hearing his words to examine themselves, to consider whether the “light” in them was not “darkness.” (Luke 11:35) When the people refused to benefit from the light that Jesus offered, comparable to his putting a lamp on a lampstand, they continued to walk in a realm of darkness.
Only if the whole body or the whole being is filled with light, with no part being in obscuring or distorting darkness, can the individual correctly evaluate the evidence and make wise decisions. The entire being would have the light comparable to what a lamp provides, enabling the individual to see what is needed to follow the right course. (Luke 11:36)
Notes:
It should be noted that Jesus’ mission did not include correcting popularly held views regarding sickness and other afflictions. The people then living could not have comprehended what humans have learned over the centuries since then and will continue to learn. To make himself understood, Jesus had to express himself in terms familiar to the then-existing generation. That required accommodating his parables and responses to their belief system or their limited knowledge. Therefore, it is not always possible to determine whether the accounts in the Scriptures reflect this accommodation or express what the actual situation was.
Clear evidence of accommodation is the parabolic saying about the demon that leaves a man and searches for a resting place as it passes through dry areas devoid of human habitation. It was a common belief that demons had their haunt in desolate places, including towns and cities lying in ruins. To convey an important truth, Jesus made use of this belief when formulating his parable.
In Luke 11:33, the Greek word that designates a storage place or hidden place is krypte, and the related verb krypto means to “hide” or “conceal.” The oldest extant papyrus manuscripts (P45 and P75) do not include the words about the container (módios, meaning “bushel,” “bushel basket,” or “vessel”).
After Jesus finished speaking to the crowds, a Pharisee invited him for a meal. The account does not reveal the Pharisee’s objective, but Jesus’ later words suggest that the motive may have been questionable. Jesus, though, did enter the home and reclined to partake of food. (Luke 11:37)
It surprised the Pharisee that Jesus did not first “immerse” (a form of baptízo, meaning “baptize” or “immerse”) before eating. (Luke 11:38) The Pharisee must have been disturbed to see what he would have considered to be a serious violation of the tradition of the elders. According to ancient Jewish sources, immersion was one way to cleanse the hands ceremonially. (Tosefta, Yadayim, 2:3)
Jesus must have noted the Pharisee’s reaction and then spoke about the more important purity. “You Pharisees,” he said, “clean the exterior of the cup and the dish, but your interior is full of greed [or plunder] and badness.” In view of their failure to be primarily concerned about their inner moral condition or their deep inner selves, Jesus spoke of them as “senseless,” and asked them, “Did not the one who made the exterior also make the interior?” The Pharisees would have agreed that God is the Creator of the whole person, including the inmost self. Jesus then exhorted them to give “for alms” the things of the interior, with the result that all things would be clean to them. (Luke 11:39-41) The rightly motivated generous giving in response to needs made the whole person clean. It revealed the purity of the deep inner self, which could not be produced by means of ceremonial cleansing with water.
Jesus then pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for the Pharisees, as he continued emphasizing where their attention should be directed. They scrupulously tithed mint (an aromatic plant), rue (an herb with bitter gray-green leaves), and a variety of other herbs. (Luke 11:42) Instead of “rue” (péganon, a third-century papyrus manuscript (P45) reads “dill” (ánethon).
With their emphasis on external minutiae, the Pharisees made themselves guilty of failing to manifest the more important justice and “love of God.” As Jesus called to their attention, they were under obligation to practice justice and love. Compassionate care and concern for others should have been the discernible evidence of their love for God. At the same time, they were not to be neglectful about tithing. The Mosaic law did include commands about tithing, and Jesus upheld the law when he added that those things should not be neglected or carelessly overlooked. (Luke 11:42)
Through the tradition of the elders, an extensive body of commands came into existence. These commands went far beyond the requirements of the Mosaic law, and often made it appear to be harsh and unreasonable. There were times when the commands of men interfered with doing just, compassionate, and loving deeds. On an earlier occasion, Jesus used the example of corban to illustrate this. According to the tradition of the elders, a son could not help his needy parents with any part of what he had declared to be “corban” or an offering for God, even though he continued to retain control over the property. (Mark 7:11-13) Similarly, the many traditional stipulations about what constituted work caused the Pharisees to consider the loving and compassionate relief that Jesus brought to the sick and afflicted on the Sabbath as something evil.
“Woe to you Pharisees,” Jesus continued, reproving them for loving the “front seats” in the synagogues and having others greet them in the marketplaces. The front seats faced the audience. They were the seats of honor reserved for synagogue officials and notable guests. Wanting to be known for their godliness, the Pharisees desired to be seen occupying these seats of honor. When passing through the marketplaces, they wanted to be greeted or respectfully acknowledged as pious men. While craving to appear holy in the sight of others, they did not reflect the loving and compassionate disposition and inner purity associated with true godliness. (Luke 11:43)
When again pronouncing woe for them, Jesus likened the Pharisees to unidentifiable burial places over which people walked inadvertently. According to the law, anyone who touched a grave would be ceremonially defiled for seven days. (Numbers 19:16) When likening the Pharisees to unseen graves, Jesus exposed them as being seemingly clean on the outside but internally impure. What they appeared to be in the eyes of others concealed their inner defilement. (Luke 11:44)
One of the legal experts or scribes who heard Jesus’ words objected, “Teacher, the things you say also insult us.” In response, Jesus did not spare exposing those who knew the law well and also declared woe for them. (Luke 11:45, 46)
He accused them of loading the people down with heavy burdens but being unwilling to lift a finger to lighten their load. As persons learned in the law, the scribes should have been concerned about conveying its true meaning and spirit to the people. Instead, they burdened them with many additional regulations that went far beyond what the law required. Although they must have been aware of the oppressive effect the many rules and regulations had on the people, they were unwilling to look at matters reasonably and humanely. As Jesus said, they refused to lift a finger to ease the burden, doing nothing to eliminate unreasonable regulations. (Luke 11:46)
After voicing another expression of woe for them, Jesus called attention to their building of the tombs of the prophets whom their “fathers” or ancestors had killed. It appears that the legal experts felt that they were distancing themselves from the wrongs their forefathers had committed, making amends by giving attention to the tombs of the prophets who had been unjustly killed. They did not, however, give serious consideration to the factors that had given rise to the murderous hatred their ancestors manifested. The building of the tombs was merely an outward act. In disposition, the legal experts did not differ from their forefathers. Their building of the tombs constituted a testimony or an acknowledgment of their link to murderous ancestors. In spirit, the legal experts, despite their building of the tombs, approved of what their forefathers did. (Luke 11:47, 48)
The “wisdom of God” may be understood to mean what God, in his wisdom, expressed through his Son. To the unbelieving generation, he would send prophets and apostles. When killing and persecuting those sent, the people would add to the record of bloodguilt that began with the murder of Abel and continued to be made for centuries thereafter. When the priest and prophet Zechariah spoke out against the people for transgressing God’s law, he was stoned at the order of King Joash and died “between the altar and the sanctuary.” (2 Chronicles 24:20-22) Jesus reference to “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” thus represented all the blood that had been unjustly spilled “from the founding of the world” or from the beginning. The unbelieving generation would be charged with all this blood. This pointed forward to the dreadful calamity associated with the Roman military campaign that totally desolated Jerusalem. (Luke 11:49-51; see the Notes section for additional comments on Luke 11:49)
Another reason the legal experts were to experience woe involved their having taken away the “key of knowledge.” They knew full well what the law said and should have been able to identify the promised Messiah. Among the people, they should have been the first to respond in faith and used their knowledge to promote faith among the people. Instead, they refused to impart the vital knowledge that was available to them, depriving the people of what they needed to know to become part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. The experts of the law did not want to enter that realm, and their attitude and actions served to prevent those wanting to enter from actually doing so. (Luke 11:52)
Jesus’ words greatly angered the Pharisees and scribes. In a spirit of hostility, they questioned him about many things, with the intent of trapping him into saying something they could use against him. (Luke 11:53, 54)
Notes:
Ancient Jewish sources contain numerous rules about tithing. The following are examples: A man who wanted to lighten his load by trimming away the leaves of vegetables should not throw them away until he tithed them. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:2) If a man gave his female neighbor a container of food for her to cook for him and he had not added the spices, he should scruple about the tithing of the spices. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:31) If fruits found in the road are not then eaten but are stored for later use, they should be tithed. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:3)
In Luke 11:49, the “wisdom of God” is personified as speaking. The words about sending prophets and apostles parallel those in Matthew 23:34, where Jesus referred to himself as sending “prophets and wise ones and scribes.” As the representative of his Father, Jesus expressed his Father’s wisdom or his Father’s wise purpose.
At a time when a crowd of thousands thronged around him to such an extent that they were stepping on one another, Jesus cautioned his disciples to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees. He then identified this leaven as hypocrisy. (Luke 12:1)
The Greek word for “hypocrite” (hypokrités) came to be the designation for an actor. In ancient Greek theater, the actors wore large masks by means of which they could also amplify their voices. Therefore, in a negative sense, the term hypokrités came to be applied to persons who played a part, dissembled, or represented themselves outwardly in a manner that concealed their real selves.
Hypocrisy is like leaven, for it will spread in an environment where group acceptance or recognition takes on undue importance or where fear prevails. An ever-increasing number of people will resort to pretense and conceal their real feelings and motives. In the case of the Pharisees, what they represented themselves as being and the esteem in which others came to hold them differed markedly from their real identity.
It appears that Jesus’ next words about things becoming known are linked to hypocrisy. For a time, individuals may be able to conceal their true selves, but exposure does come eventually. (Luke 12:2) According to Matthew 10:26, Jesus expressed the same thought at the time he sent out the twelve apostles. They were not to give in to fear but courageously proclaim the glad tidings about Christ. What they had learned from Jesus when he taught them privately, they would declare publicly. In this way, what had been covered would be uncovered. If the disciples failed to make known the truth to those who deserved to hear it, they would be concealing their identity as Christ’s disciples and thus prove themselves to be hypocrites.
Jesus made the disciples aware of the fact that what they shared with others privately would become known. The teaching may have been conveyed in the dark as if hidden from others under the cover of darkness, but it would become known in the light publicly (as in broad daylight). Though whispered behind closed doors and out of the hearing of others, the message would come to be proclaimed publicly like announcements made from roofs so that all could hear. (Luke 12:3) This would develop because those who heard privately would not keep it to themselves but would talk about it to others, and eventually the word would spread.
Referring to his disciples as “friends,” Jesus implied that they would be exposed to serious danger because of their testimony about him. He did so when admonishing them not to fear those who can merely kill the body but can do nothing more. (Luke 12:4)
God is the one whom the disciples were to fear or for whom they were to have the highest reverential regard. After rendering the body lifeless, he can assign it to Gehenna. (Luke 12:5) For one to be tossed into Gehenna would signify experiencing the dreadful judgment of complete loss of any relationship with the Most High and all the blessings associated therewith. This judgment is final, with no possibility of any change, and is comparable to being thrown into a garbage dump where fires burn continually and maggots consume whatever the flames do not reach. (Compare Isaiah 66:24.)
Jesus next called attention to the certainty of his Father’s remembrance of his disciples, which remembrance assured them of an eternal relationship with him. Five sparrows, which birds people with limited means would eat, could be obtained for two assarii (the equivalent of what a common laborer would have earned after working for one and a half hours). Two sparrows cost one assarion, indicating that the fifth one was free. (Matthew 10:29) Even though these small birds had little commercial value, Jesus added that not one of them is “forgotten before God.” This assured the disciples that his Father would not forget them, for the hairs of their heads were all numbered. To the Most High, everything about them was precious. Making an application, Jesus continued, “Fear not. You are more valuable than many sparrows.” As persons the Almighty highly valued, the disciples had no reason to fear what they might yet have to face from hateful unbelievers. Their eternal future would prove to be secure. (Luke 12:6, 7)
All who confessed being at one with him, acknowledging belonging to him even when faced with grave danger, Jesus (the “Son of Man”) would acknowledge as being united to him as his disciples and friends before the angels of God. This acknowledgment before his Father’s angels would also constitute an acknowledgment before his Father whom these angels serve. (Luke 12:8) If, however, the individual disowned him before men, claiming to have no relationship with him, Jesus would likewise identify that one before God’s angels as not belonging to him. He would completely disown the person. (Luke 12:9)
Whereas the possibility exists of being forgiven for speaking against the Son of Man, blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable. (Luke 12:10) This blasphemy includes denouncing the good that is accomplished through the operation of the holy spirit as originating from an evil source, which is what certain Pharisees did when maintaining that Jesus did powerful works as an agent of Satan. One who blasphemes the holy spirit deliberately and defiantly chooses to pursue a course in opposition to God’s will.
Jesus admonished the disciples to remain fearless, as fear could lead them to be disloyal to him. If taken to synagogues, rulers, or other authorities for questioning, the disciples were not to worry about how they would make their defense. Jesus assured them that the holy spirit would in that “very hour” or at that time teach them what they would need to say. (Luke 12:11, 12) The spirit’s teaching would be in the form of recalling thoughts that would be appropriate for the occasion and expressing them in a manner that would honor the Son of God. The account in the book of Acts reveals that, with God’s spirit operating upon them, the disciples testified about Jesus, recalling and making proper application of passages from the Scriptures. (Acts 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:2-56)
Notes:
Jesus did repeat teaching that he had provided on other occasions. The setting, however, may point to a different aspect for a particular principle to which he referred. This appears to be the case about uncovering what had previously been concealed. (Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2)
Often Jesus repeated the same thoughts, and the wording of the narratives may be similar. The words of Luke 12:3-9 regarding fearlessness in confessing Christ parallel those of Matthew 10:27-33. Matthew 12:31, 32 and Mark 3:28-30 are more detailed about blaspheming the spirit than is Luke 12:10, but the sense is the same. Comments about the aid the holy spirit would provide are found in Matthew 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:14, 15, and John 14:26.
From the crowd, a man spoke up, requesting that Jesus tell his brother to divide the family inheritance with him. The Son of God refused to take sides with the man in the inheritance controversy, saying, “Who set me as judge or arbitrator over you?” According to the Mosaic law, the firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:17) The account does not specify whether this was a factor in the man’s desire for Jesus to intervene nor does it give any indication why the man felt that his brother should divide the inheritance with him. In his response, Jesus stressed guarding against all kinds of covetousness, for the man did desire a considerable portion of what his brother had. De-emphasizing the value of material property, Jesus added that one’s life is not a matter of abundant possessions. (Luke 12:13-15) Great riches cannot be used to preserve one’s life indefinitely and have no bearing on one’s eternal future.
To reinforce his admonition, Jesus related a parable. A certain rich man enjoyed exceptionally abundant yields from his land, but his storage capacity proved to be too limited for his crops. He decided to tear down his storehouses, replacing them with larger ones for his grain and other goods. He would then address his “soul” or himself with the words, “You have many good things stored up for many years [to come]; rest, eat, drink, and rejoice.” (Luke 12:16-19)
The manner in which Jesus formulated the expressions reflected the rich man’s ignoring the uncertainties of life and leaving no room for God in his plans. On this basis, Jesus then referred to God as calling this rich man “senseless” and telling him that the very night in which he had congratulated himself on his plans his soul or life was demanded from him. This left him with the question as to who would come to have the goods he had accumulated. Applying the lesson of the parable, Jesus said that this is what happens to the person who “stores up treasures for himself but is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:20, 21) With the attention focused solely on possessions to secure personal comfort and pleasure, such an individual gives no thought to those in need and so fails to please God as one who uses his abundance to benefit others.
Jesus did not specify how the rich man’s life was threatened. He thus let those who heard his words draw their own conclusions about the various ways in which this could have happened.
Notes:
It is noteworthy that Jesus refused to be made a party in the inheritance dispute but stressed the need for being rich toward God. His example serves as a reproof to those who consider themselves authorized to pass judgments respecting similar matters by virtue of the position they may occupy within a movement professing to be Christian.
The enlargement of underground storage places would have required removing their confining sides. This may explain why Jesus had the rich man plan to tear down his storehouses and then to build larger ones (instead of erecting additional structures).
Just as one’s making the acquisition of riches the all-consuming desire can lead to spiritual ruin, so can undue anxiety about one’s obtaining the essentials for sustaining life. Therefore, Jesus admonished his disciples not to worry about food and clothing, “for the soul is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” One’s soul or life as a person involves more than just having food to eat, and the body is more than an object to be clothed. There is more to life as humans than merely existing to eat and to wear garments. (Luke 12:22, 23; compare Matthew 6:25, where the same thoughts are recorded.)
Jesus exhorted the disciples to consider the ravens. These birds do not sow seed, harvest crops, or own structures for storing food. Nevertheless, they do not suffer want, for “God feeds them.” Through God’s providential care, the birds are able to find food. The disciples would have been able to answer Jesus’ rhetorical question about their worth, acknowledging that they were of far greater value than birds. This should have given them the confidence that the heavenly Father’s concern for them was such that they would be able to procure life’s necessities. “By worrying, who among you,” asked Jesus, “can add a cubit [about 18 inches] to his life span?” The disciples were fully aware that anxiety could not increase the length of their life for the briefest period. If, therefore, they could not do something as insignificant as adding a minuscule fraction to their life span, why, then, should they worry about the rest? (Luke 12:24-26; compare Matthew 6:26, 27, where the same thoughts are expressed.)
As for clothing, the disciples should take note of how the lilies (common flowers) grow. They do not labor nor spin (spin nor weave, according to another manuscript reading). Nevertheless, Jesus, who had seen the splendor of King Solomon’s garments, could say that this wealthy monarch was not as impressively attired as the lilies. These common flowers of the field quickly fade and may on the next day, when dry, be tossed into an oven to start a fire. As God has so beautifully arrayed the short-lived blooms of common flowers, would he not much more so clothe Jesus’ disciples, especially since they are very precious to him? God’s Son referred to the disciples as those of little faith, suggesting that they tended to worry despite the abundant evidence of his Father’s providential care for the creation. (Luke 12:27, 28, which verses repeat the thoughts found in Matthew 6:28-30)
Jesus instructed the disciples not to make what they are to eat and drink the prime object of their seeking or obtaining nor were they to worry. Life’s essentials were the very things the “nations of the world” (the people without knowledge of God) did seek. Their efforts to obtain life’s necessities completely consumed them. The disciples, though, were to remember that their heavenly Father knew what they needed. This should have encouraged them to seek God’s kingdom, confident that all that they truly needed would be given to them. (Luke 12:29-31; note that this is a repetition of Jesus’ earlier teaching [Matthew 6:31-33].)
For the disciples to seek God’s kingdom would mean for them to have an earnest desire to have him as their Sovereign, submitting themselves to do his will, looking to him to bless their efforts to obtain life’s necessities, and maintaining faith in him as the one who would aid them in their time of need. Just as the birds do what they can to find the provisions available to them, Christ’s disciples demonstrate themselves to be willing and exemplary workers, conscientiously using their God-given abilities to make a living. At the same time, they avoid giving in to unproductive worry, as that would call into question their faith in God’s ability to care for them.
In an unbelieving world, disciples of Christ may face difficulties and hardships. At the time Jesus taught his disciples, they were very few in number. The majority of their fellow Israelites had not responded in faith. Being greatly outnumbered, they may well have been apprehensive about what the future might hold for them, especially as they became more aware of the kind of hostility that was directed against Jesus. He, therefore, admonished them not to be afraid. While they appeared to be just a “little flock” of sheep surrounded by many unbelievers, the heavenly Father, in his good pleasure, wanted to give them the kingdom, making them part of the realm where he is Sovereign and granting them all the associated blessings. (Luke 12:32)
In keeping with what God had in store for them, they should focus on giving to those in need. Instead of acquiring extra possessions, they would be selling possessions and, with the funds obtained therefrom, relieve the plight of the afflicted. In this way, they would be making purses for themselves that did not wear out with use, for the heavenly Father would look favorably upon their generous and rightly motivated giving. The record of giving would come to be like a treasure deposited in heaven, which the Most High would richly recompense. This treasure is secure, for no thief can steal it and no moth (in its destructive caterpillar stage) can ruin it. The hearts of the devoted disciples or their affections and desires would be where their treasure is, centered on their heavenly Father and pleasing him. (Luke 12:33, 34, which passage parallels Matthew 6:19-21) For those whose treasure is on earth, their thoughts and actions are not ennobling. They merely exist to eat, drink, and engage in some temporary form of merriment.
Jesus exhorted his disciples to be like watchful servants, with their loins girded and their oil lamps lit. To have greater freedom of movement for working, servants would pull their robes between their legs and then tuck the garments under their girdles. After the daylight hours had passed, they relied on their lamps for illumination. God’s Son wanted his disciples to be like servants waiting for their master to return from marriage festivities and to be ready immediately to open the door in response to his knocking. (Luke 12:35, 36)
Jesus pronounced the servants fortunate, happy, or in an enviable state of joy for being prepared to welcome their master. Continuing with a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), Jesus said that the master would honor his watchful servants, having them recline at a table and girding himself to serve them. (Luke 12:37) This would be the manner in which a master would treat his friends and honored guests.
Marriage celebrations could end at various times of the night. Therefore, waiting for the return of the master required that the servants remain awake for many hours, busying themselves with various tasks. If the master arrived in the second watch (between 9:00 p.m. and midnight) or the third watch of the night (between midnight and 3:00 a.m.) and found them awake and watchful, they would indeed be happy. (Luke 12:38)
Reemphasizing the aspect of preparedness, Jesus referred to a householder who would have remained watchful and prevented his house from being broken into if he had known when the thief would arrive. With a direct application to his disciples, Jesus said to them, “You also, be prepared, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Luke 12:39, 40) Thus Jesus indicated that there would be no way for anyone to determine just when he would return in glory, requiring that his disciples always be in an acceptable condition regardless of when this might prove to be.
Peter then raised the question, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us or also to all?” Jesus responded with a question, “Who really is the faithful and wise steward whom his master will put in charge over his servants, to give them their [daily] ration at the [appropriate] time?” If that steward, who was also a slave, faithfully discharged the responsibility which he had been given, he would be happy at his master’s arrival. (Luke 12:41-43)
Jesus had entrusted Peter and the other apostles with the responsibility to be teachers of fellow believers and to look out for their spiritual well-being. In subsequent centuries, others in the community of believers have rendered such service. At the time of his return in glory, Jesus will identify all who have ministered faithfully according to his instructions, proving themselves to be loving and caring slaves of their fellow servants. Like the slave of the parable, they would then have abundant reason to be happy. Continuing with the parable, Jesus added that the reward was certain and likened it to the master’s putting the faithful steward in charge of all of his possessions.
In the community of believers, a danger exists that those who are looked to as teachers and for loving and compassionate care and concern will misuse their position. Instead of continuing to minister as slaves, they may take on the role of abusive masters, forgetting their accountability to the Lord Jesus Christ. While they may speak of his coming, their bearing, words, or actions would deny that they really believed that he would return to judge them personally.
In the parable, Jesus spoke of the possibility that the slave or steward would prove to be unfaithful. In his heart or inmost self, he would reason that his master was delaying. Assuming the position of a cruel master, he would deal harshly with fellow servants (both male and female), beating them for not complying with his demands. He would indulge his fleshly desires, eating and drinking to the point of intoxication. (Luke 12:45)
The master would arrive on a day that the abusive steward did not expect and at an hour unknown to him. That worthless slave would then be severely punished (literally, “cut in two” or hacked in pieces), and his portion would be with the unbelievers (those who defiantly persisted in unbelief or unfaithfulness). This is indeed a powerful warning to all who represent themselves as stewards in the service of Christ but who in attitude, word, or deed assume a position of lordship, equating obedience to the unique rules and teachings of their particular movements as constituting loyalty to God and Christ. (Luke 12:46)
In his parable, Jesus referred to other failures on the part of those in his service. He spoke of the slave that understood his master’s will but failed to be in a prepared state and acted contrary to his will. Upon the master’s arrival, that slave would be severely beaten. On the other hand, the slave that did not understand the master’s will but made himself guilty of wrongs deserving punishment would be beaten far less severely. The judgment would be according to the responsibility with which the individual had been entrusted. Much would be required from the one to whom much had been given, and far more would be asked of the one having weighty responsibility. (Luke 12:47, 48)
Jesus’ parables call for sober self-examination. All of us who profess to be his disciples need to think seriously about whether we are prepared to welcome him as his servants who have faithfully labored in his interests, responding with love and compassion to those in need. Ignorance of his will would not shield one from an unfavorable judgment. It is vital that, individually, believers assume personal responsibility for their spiritual lives, making sure that Jesus’ example and teaching serve as a guide in daily living. Whether one’s role may be comparable to that of a steward entrusted with much or a servant with lesser responsibility, all believers need to remain prepared to welcome Christ at his return.
When Jesus spoke of his coming to start (literally, “cast”) fire on the earth, he may have meant the fire of a refiner. (Luke 12:49) A Messianic prophecy (Malachi 3:2, 3) pointed to his role as a refiner’s fire. His works, his matchless example in the display of love, compassion, and justice, and his teaching functioned like a refiner’s fire. This fire tested the deep inner selves of the people and revealed their attitude and motives. By his words and actions, Jesus exposed who among the people were like the worthless dross of the refining process or the precious metal that could be purified and rendered suitable for the realm where his Father is Sovereign and he is the appointed king.
The fire that Jesus started through his miracles, teaching and example proved to be only the initial phase. His desire was that this fire would burst into full flame. (Luke 12:49) This would happen after his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, as his disciples would proclaim the news about him and the message would reach far beyond the borders of Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and nearby regions.
The Son of God knew the suffering that lay ahead for him, which included an agonizing death. He referred to the agony that would culminate in his sacrificial death as a baptism with which he had to be baptized or immersed and added, “And how distressed I am until it is finished!” (Luke 12:50) That baptism had to be completed before the “fire” became an unstoppable blaze, spreading quickly to the distant parts of the Roman Empire.
The result would be serious rifts even among close family members, with some putting faith in Christ and others persisting in unbelief and becoming hostile. Therefore, Jesus indicated that those listening to him should not think that he had come to bring peace to the earth, but rather to cause division. His coming forced individuals to take a stand for or against him. Among five family members, three unbelievers might choose to oppose two believers, or two unbelievers might take their stand against three believers. Families would be divided, with a father against his son, or a son against his father, a mother against her daughter, or a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, or a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Luke 12:51-53) Earlier, when sending out the twelve apostles, Jesus had also spoken about the divisions that would come about (Matthew 10:34-36), and the language he used parallels the words of Micah 7:6.
Directing his words to the crowds, Jesus illustrated that they had the capacity to draw sound conclusions on the basis of evidence. Upon seeing a cloud rising in the west, they immediately thought that a rainstorm would come, and it did. This was because the Mediterranean Sea bordered the western coast, and from there the rain-bearing clouds rolled in. Whenever a south wind blew, the people would say that it would get oppressively hot. It would happen, for the hot, dry regions lay to the south. (Luke 12:54, 55; compare the similar thoughts Jesus expressed to the unbelieving Pharisees [Matthew 16:2, 3, according to many extant Greek manuscripts].)
Although the people drew correct conclusions on the basis of appearances relating to the earth and the sky, they did not discern the meaning of the time that had arrived. The Messiah ministered in their midst, teaching and performing works of power. His activity uniquely marked the time. For this reason, Jesus called the people “hypocrites,” for they failed to act according to the evidence and their capacity to evaluate it properly. (Luke 12:56)
He then raised the question, “But why do you not also for yourselves judge [what is] right?” If they could make judgments about other matters, they should have been able to judge rightly concerning him and put their faith in him. (Luke 12:57)
The Son of God then provided an example of sound judgment. While with an accuser on the way to a ruler for judgment, the individual would wisely strive to extricate himself from the dispute. The objective would be to avoid being brought before the judge and then turned over by him to an officer who would enforce imprisonment. Once jailed, the person would have no hope of being released until he had paid the “last lepton” (a coin with the lowest value). In this setting, Jesus’ point about settling a dispute quickly seems to illustrate the importance of making peace with God before the opportunity would no longer be available. (Luke 12:58, 59; the same basic thoughts are also expressed in Matthew 5:25, 26.)
When certain ones told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, Jesus used the opportunity to stress the urgent need for the people to repent. (Luke 13:1-3)
No reference in the works of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus specifically refers to a slaughter of Galileans in the temple precincts, resulting in their blood being intermingled with that of the sacrificial victims. He does, however, mention an incident in Jerusalem when Pilate’s efforts to quell an uprising led to the loss of many lives. Pilate had sent soldiers in nonmilitary dress among the Jews who had gathered to protest the use of money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct to bring water to the city from a distant stream. When his efforts to dismiss the crowd failed and the people began to reproach him, he gave a predetermined signal to the disguised soldiers. Many Jews perished from the severe blows the soldiers inflicted, and others were wounded. (Antiquities, XVIII, iii, 2; War, II, ix, 4)
The account in Luke 13 does not report why the incident about the Galileans was mentioned to Jesus. His response suggests that those who knew about this occurrence believed the Galileans to have perished on account of their great sin. He raised the rhetorical question as to whether they thought the Galileans who thus suffered were greater sinners than all the other Galileans. His own answer was, “No.” Jesus then stressed what the people should do. “Unless you repent, you likewise will all be destroyed.” This reply implied that the time for repentance would prove to be limited. (Luke 13:1-3)
Jesus then called attention to another incident, asking whether the 18 who were killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them were greater “debtors” (sinners) than all the other inhabitants of Jerusalem. Again, Jesus answered this rhetorical question with his own “No,” and added the same words about repentance. (Luke 13:4, 5)
By means of a parable, he emphasized the need for urgent positive action. A man planted a fig tree in his vineyard, but found no fruit on the tree when the time for harvesting figs came. This prompted him to tell the vinedresser that the barren tree should be cut down, as it had not produced any fruit for three years. The owner felt that it was senseless for the barren tree to waste the ground. (Luke 13:6, 7)
The vinedresser suggested that the tree be left standing for another year and to be fertilized with manure. If it then bore fruit, the tree would remain. “But if not,” the vinedresser said to the owner, “you can cut it down.” (Luke 13:8, 9)
It appears that Jesus here alluded to his activity among the people, with the nation being like the barren fig tree. Fruit associated with repentance was woefully lacking, for the majority persisted in unbelief. The time for Jesus to continue laboring among them would soon end. Only a brief period remained for them to make positive changes and to be recognized as God’s people. If they failed to repent, a severe judgment would follow.
Notes:
For fig trees to be planted in vineyards provided the advantage of having two crops. A good grape harvest could at times offset a poor yield of figs, whereas an abundant crop of figs in other years might compensate for a poor grape harvest.
Fruit trees were subject to taxation. Therefore, unproductive trees were a financial liability.
While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus noticed a woman with a “spirit of feebleness.” The expression “spirit of feebleness” appears to point to the perception that an evil spirit was responsible for her condition. For 18 years, she had been bent over and unable to straighten up. Seeing her, Jesus called her to come to him and said, “Woman, you are released from your feebleness.” When he placed his hands on her, she straightened up and glorified or praised God. (Luke 13:10-13)
Jesus effected this cure on the Sabbath. This aroused the synagogue leader’s indignation, prompting him to voice his objection. He told those assembled that work should only be done on six days and that they should come to be cured on those days and not on the Sabbath. (Luke 13:14)
In his reply to him, Jesus also included anyone else who shared his sentiments and addressed them as “hypocrites.” He then showed them up as such with two questions. “Does not each one of you release [or untie] his bull or [his] donkey from the stall [or the manger] on the Sabbath and lead it away to drink? Was it not necessary for this [woman], being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound (behold! for 18 years) to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:16)
They were hypocrites, for they had no objection to acting to satisfy the need of an animal but were indignant about responding to the need of a daughter of Abraham, one of God’s people. They insisted on the letter of the law respecting a fellow Israelite but violated the very purpose of the law, which was to provide a day for rest and refreshment and for appreciative reflection on God’s blessing. Jesus’ words made his opponents ashamed, but the rest of the assembled crowd rejoiced at all the splendid things he had done. (Luke 13:17)
His reference to “Satan” may have served to accommodate the common belief of those assembled in the synagogue. The various causes for diseases were then unknown, and Jesus’ listeners would not have benefited from hearing explanations to which they could not relate.
The account in Luke 13 appears to indicate that Jesus continued teaching the people, using parables to illustrate features about the kingdom of God. He likened the kingdom to a mustard seed that a man planted in his garden. That seed grew and became a tree. On its branches, birds nested. (Luke 13:18, 19; the same parable is found in Matthew 13:31, 32, and Mark 4:30-32.)
Though a mustard seed is very small, its potential for growth is much greater than that of many larger seeds. The black mustard (Brassica nigra) may grow to a height of 15 feet. In the fall, the hardened branches of the plant can support small birds such as finches. These birds perch on the branches and feed on the seeds. The “nesting” (literally, “tenting”) of the birds is probably to be understood as meaning their perching on the branches (as if having made their home there).
The main point of the parable seems to be that a small beginning would lead to astonishing growth. This proved to be the case as the apostles and other early disciples began their proclamation about Jesus after his resurrection and ascension to heaven. In less than 30 years, the message about God’s kingdom, with its focus on Jesus Christ as the king by God’s appointment, spread far and wide. (Compare Colossians 1:23.) As a result, many thousands ceased to be part of the world alienated from the Most High and identified themselves as subjects of Christ as their king and, therefore, as belonging to God’s realm.
Then Jesus likened the “kingdom of God” to leaven a woman hid in three seahs of flour, which then fermented the whole lump. Three seahs amounted to about 20 dry quarts and so would have been a large batch of dough. Women commonly used leaven, and so nothing of a sinister nature is suggested when Jesus referred to the “hiding” of the leaven. Once the small amount of leaven is in the dough, only the fermentation process reveals its presence. (Luke 13:20, 21; this parable is also set forth in Matthew 13:33.)
The parable suggests a quiet and imperceptible activity of something that appears to be small but produces significant observable results. This agrees with the way in which the message about God’s kingdom spread extensively and led to amazing changes in the lives of persons who responded in faith and became part of God’s realm.
During the course of his traveling to Jerusalem, Jesus used the opportunity to teach in the towns and villages through which he passed with his disciples. (Luke 13:22) The account in Luke 13 does not provide any information about the reason for Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem. Based on John 10:22, he appears to have been on the way to attend the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah).
The Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), for which Jesus and his disciples had come to Jerusalem, lasted eight days, starting on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev (mid-November to mid-December). It commemorated the rededication of the temple after the Levite Judas Maccabeus and his forces had recaptured Jerusalem and cleansed the temple of defilement. According to 1 Maccabees 4:52-54, this rededication occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Chislev), in the year 148. (The year 148 in 1 Maccabees is reckoned according to the Greek or Seleucid era and corresponds to 164 BCE.) This was three years after Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid dynasty had defiled the temple, and the very day on which swine began to be offered on the altar that had been erected on top of the altar of burnt offering. (1 Maccabees 1:59; Josephus, Antiquities, XII, v, 4)
Probably because of the winter weather, Jesus walked in the Portico of Solomon, a sheltered area of the temple precincts. (John 10:22, 23) The writings of Josephus indicate that Solomon had a portico built on the east side of the temple. (War, V, v, 1) Although this portico was destroyed by the Babylonians, the one that Herod the Great rebuilt centuries later continued to be known as the Portico of Solomon.
Unbelieving Jews surrounded Jesus and challengingly said to him, “How long are you going to keep our soul [us] in suspense? If you are the Christ [the Messiah], tell us outright.” “I did tell you,” he replied, “and you do not believe. The works which I am doing in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe, for you are not of my sheep.” When performing miracles and other works of power, Jesus acted in his Father’s name or as the one whom his Father had empowered and whom he represented. These works revealed that the Father had sent him, providing the needed testimony to verify Jesus’ words and serving to identify him as the Christ, the Son of God. The unbelieving Jews, however, refused to accept this testimony. They demonstrated thereby that they were not Jesus’ sheep, for they did not acknowledge him as their caring shepherd. (John 10:24-26; see the Notes section regarding John 10:26.)
Those who were his sheep listened to his voice, and he knew them, recognizing them as belonging to him. As sheep follow their shepherd, those who put faith in Jesus followed him. From Jesus, they received eternal life, coming to enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Never would they be destroyed. Their security was firmly assured, for no one could rip them out of Jesus’ hand. (John 10:27, 28)
Manuscripts vary in the reading of Jesus’ words about his Father. According to one reading, what the Father had given to the Son is greater than everything else, and no one would be able to snatch it (or them [there is no pronoun in the Greek text]) out of the Father’s hands. This could mean that the full authority of Jesus is greater than everything else, and, as the ultimate source of that authority, the Father would not permit it to be seized from his hand. A more likely meaning would be that “what” was given refers to the “sheep” collectively and no one would be able to snatch them (or anything) out of his Father’s hand. Their being greater than everything else would then indicate that they are very precious to the Father and under his protective care. This would make them greater than those who would seek their injury. Another reading indicates that the Father, who gave the sheep to Jesus, is greater than all and that no one would be able to snatch the sheep (or anything) out of his Father’s hand. (John 10:29; see the Notes section.) The fact that the Father is greater than all assured the absolute safety of the sheep.
In the care and protection of the sheep, Jesus and his Father are united in purpose. As Jesus expressed it, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30; compare the similar expression pointing to oneness of purpose in 1 Corinthians 3:8, where the apostle Paul refers to the one planting and the one watering as being one.)
Upon hearing words that reflected the intimate relationship Jesus enjoyed with his Father and his confidence about being fully at one with him, the unbelieving Jews became enraged. They picked up stones to hurl at him. In response to Jesus’ question for which one of the many good works he had shown them from his Father they intended to stone him, they replied, “We are not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, [although] being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:31-33)
Jesus then referred to the Scriptures or the holy writings as their “law” and quoted from Psalm 82:6, “I said, You are gods.” In this passage, the psalmist portrayed God as addressing corrupt judges. Since, as Jesus pointed out, it was against these unjust judges that God’s word of judgment was directed (and which word could not be set aside by those to whom Jesus spoke), what basis did they have for accusing him (the one whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world) of blasphemy for saying, “I am God’s Son”? (John 10:34-36)
If he did not do his Father’s works, they should not believe him. If, however, he did them, and they still did not believe in him, they should at least believe or recognize the good works as being from the Father. Belief in the Father as the source of the good works would have provided them with the basis for believing that the Father was “in” or at one with Jesus and that he was “in” the Father or at one with him. The unbelieving Jews then again tried to get hold of the Son of God, but he slipped out of their hands. (John 10:37-39)
Notes:
In John 10:26, numerous manuscripts, after Jesus’ words “you are not of my sheep,” add “as I told you.”
Depending upon which manuscript reading of John 10:29 is being followed, translations convey various meanings. “What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.” (NRSV) “My Father gave them to me, and he is greater than all others. No one can snatch them from his hands.” (CEV) “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. And no one can tear anything out of the Father’s hand.” (Phillips) “The Father, for what he has given me, is greater than anyone, and no one can steal anything from the Father’s hand.” (NJB)
With his disciples, Jesus left Jerusalem and crossed to the east side of the Jordan, heading for the location where John the Baptist first started his activity. (John 10:40) During the time Jesus was there, many people came to him. They acknowledged that, although John the Baptist did not perform a single sign, everything he had said about Jesus was true. Therefore, many of the people there believed in Jesus. (John 10:41, 42)
Seemingly, Luke 13:23-17:10 relates to the time intervening between his leaving Jerusalem and his return to Bethany after the news about the death of Lazarus was brought to him. (John 11:1-3) According to Luke 13:22, Jesus was heading for Jerusalem. Then, in Luke 17:11, mention is made of his again going to Jerusalem. In the narration that follows Luke 13:22, no comments are included about what happened in Jerusalem, suggesting that the account does not relate anything concerning Jesus’ activity in the city. Only John 10 tells about Jesus’ being in Jerusalem for the Festival of Dedication, and this appears to have been the reason for his going to the city, as mentioned in Luke 13:22.
On one occasion, someone asked Jesus, “Are those being saved few?” He did not answer this question directly, providing neither an affirmative nor a negative reply. Instead, he emphasized the importance of individual action, struggling to enter through the narrow door. Jesus then added, “Many, I tell you, will seek to enter but will not be able.” (Luke 13:23, 24; for additional comments, see the Notes section.)
To illustrate the need for immediate action in putting forth diligent effort to be among those who would gain divine approval, he related a parable. Once the owner of the house has gotten up and locked the door, he will not respond to a knock and the request, “Sir, open to us.” His reply will be, “I do not know from where you are.” They will then protest, “We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our streets.” He, however, will not acknowledge them as having any relationship with him, saying, “I do not know from where you are. Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity.” (Luke 13:25-27)
As rejected ones, they would weep and gnash their teeth. In vain, they would try to suppress their bitter tears on account of their great loss, for they would then see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets in God’s kingdom but would find themselves cast outside. Yet, from distant eastern, western, northern and southern regions, people who were not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would come to be part of the kingdom or enjoy the blessings associated with being in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. The privilege extended to them would be comparable to being able to recline as at a meal or banquet with the king and other honored guests. Those who seemed to be first, the descendants of the Hebrew patriarchs, would prove to be last or lose out, whereas the non-Jewish peoples who appeared to be last, as persons without hope or God, would seize the opportunity to become part of God’s realm upon hearing the message about Jesus, the king by his Father’s appointment. In this way, the last would become first. (Luke 13:28-30; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Notes:
Chapters 3 through 14 of 4 Esdras (in the Appendix of the Vulgate and 3 Esdras in Slavonic Bibles) are commonly considered to be a Jewish work composed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In this section, the belief that few will be saved is expressed. God is quoted as saying to Ezra, “I will rejoice over the few who shall be saved, because it is they who have made my glory to prevail now, and through them my name has now been honored. I will not grieve over the great number of those who perish; for it is they who are now like a mist, and are similar to a flame and smoke—they are set on fire and burn hotly, and are extinguished.” (2 Esdras 7:60, 61, NRSV [Common Bible]; 4 Esdras 7:60, 61, Vulgate Appendix) This may reflect the commonly held belief in the first century that few would be saved.
Jesus, however, did not say that few would be saved, as that could easily have led some to conclude that there was no opportunity for them. In his not suggesting that many would be saved, Jesus avoided intimating that one’s being part of God’s realm required only limited effort. Instead, his answer served to emphasize both the need for a struggle and the urgency of commencing that struggle before it would prove to be too late. For one to believe in Jesus, to follow him, and thus to become part of God’s realm would not be an easy course, as one could face opposition from and rejection by close family members, friends, and acquaintances. Therefore, to believe in Jesus and to act in harmony with faith called for a struggle or real effort. It meant pursuing a life of compassionate concern for others and of uprightness in attitude, word, and action. At the same time, this exemplary life of faith could lead to persecution, much suffering, and even death.
It should be noted that those who heard Jesus’ words would have recognized Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their forefathers, and would have understood all the prophets to have been the faithful Hebrew prophets of past centuries. Jesus portrayed the reward of those who responded in faith to him under the figure of being honored guests at a meal or banquet in the kingdom of God. (See Matthew 8:11, 12, where Jesus expressed the same thought.)
As tetrarch, Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea. While Jesus was on the east side of the Jordan River (in Perea), certain Pharisees told him to leave the area, saying that Herod wanted to kill him. Their warning, whether based on rumor or fact, appears to have been designed to intimidate Jesus. With apparent reference to Herod’s cunning or craftiness, Jesus called him “that fox” and told the Pharisees to say to him, “Behold! I am expelling demons and completing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third [day] I am finished.” (Luke 13:31, 32; see the Notes section for additional comments on verse 31.) His reply to the Pharisees suggested that only a short time remained for him to complete his work and that no threat to his life would interfere with his doing so.
To indicate that his mission would be completed at Jerusalem and that he would die there, Jesus told the Pharisees, “I must travel today and tomorrow and the next day, for it is not allowable for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.” Over the centuries, the inhabitants of Jerusalem had made themselves bloodguilty. Therefore, Jesus referred to the city as having killed the prophets and stoned those whom God had sent. Although he knew full well what lay ahead for him, Jesus still felt great compassion for the people of Jerusalem and, in fact, for all of the Jews. He had often wanted to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, providing care and protection. The people, however, did not want this, rejecting his love and concern for them. (Luke 13:33, 34)
Their failure to put faith in him would lead to serious consequences. The “house” that would be left to them probably meant the temple, suggesting that no longer would the Most High regard it as his house. Without a sacred status, the temple would eventually come to ruin. (Luke 13:35; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
As for the people, they would not see Jesus again until they acknowledged him as “blessed” and as coming in his Father’s name or as representing him. It appears that God’s Son here referred to his future return in glory that would occur at a time known exclusively to his Father. Only believers would then welcome Jesus, pronouncing him blessed, whereas those persisting in unbelief would give way to lamentation. Although their “house” would be left to them and so neither it nor they would have any special standing with God, the people would not be debarred from accepting Jesus in faith and being among those who would acknowledge him as the one coming in his Father’s name.
Notes:
In Luke 13:31, the words “in that hour” are to be understood as meaning “at that time.” This would have been after Jesus had been questioned about whether those being saved would be few.
It is most unlikely that the Pharisees would have told Jesus to leave Galilee, as it had been his area of residence since early childhood and where he primarily carried out his activity. This serves to confirm the location to have been Perea, the only other region under the control of Herod Antipas.
In their renderings of Luke 13:35, a number of translations make the reference to the temple specific. “Now your temple will be deserted.” (CEV) “Look! There is your temple, forsaken by God.” (REB)
When Jesus accepted an invitation from a leader of the Pharisees to share a meal on the Sabbath, he came under careful scrutiny. The invited Pharisees and legal experts appear to have been intent on watching Jesus in an effort to find fault with him. Also among those at the house, perhaps in the courtyard, was a man with dropsy. This man must have been seriously afflicted, with very noticeable swelling of his legs, feet, hands, and arms. He does not appear to have been a guest or a resident of the home, for he left before those invited started to eat. Possibly he had heard that Jesus would be eating at the Pharisee’s house and decided to go there, hoping that Jesus would cure him. (Luke 14:1, 2, 4, 7)
Jesus asked the Pharisees and legal experts whether it was allowable to heal on the Sabbath or not, but they said nothing. He then took hold of the man, cured him, and sent him on his way. Aware that the Pharisees and the legal experts did not consider it lawful to perform a cure on the Sabbath, Jesus endeavored to correct their wrong view with a question, asking them who among them would not immediately rescue a son (donkey, according to other manuscripts) or a bull that had fallen into a well on the Sabbath. His question left them with nothing to say in rebuttal. (Luke 14:3-6)
Observing that the invited guests were choosing the most prominent places on the couches arranged around the table, Jesus used the occasion to teach, seemingly drawing on the admonition set forth in Proverbs 25:6, 7. (See the Notes section.) When, for example, one is invited to a wedding banquet, Jesus recommended that one not occupy the most prominent place. The person choosing the foremost position risked having the host request that he move for a more distinguished guest and being embarrassed and disgraced upon having to recline in the lowest place. The individual selecting the lowest place, however, would more likely be honored in front of all the other guests, with the host asking that he move to a higher place. Jesus then made the application that persons who exalted themselves would be humbled, whereas those who humbled themselves would be exalted. (Luke 14:7-11)
The Son of God also used the opportunity to convey an important lesson to his host. Instead of just inviting friends, brothers, relatives, or wealthy neighbors for a meal or banquet, with the probability that they would reciprocate in kind, Jesus exhorted his host to invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind who were in no position to arrange a feast for others. This would result in his experiencing the superior happiness that comes from giving and the assurance of repayment when the upright are raised from the dead. (Luke 14:12-14)
Jesus’ mention of the “resurrection of the righteous” prompted one of the invited guests to say, “Fortunate [is] anyone who will be eating bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15)
In response, Jesus related a parable. A man prepared a banquet for many guests. He sent out his slave to tell the invitees to come, for all preparations had been completed. They, however, declined the invitation, offering excuses for not being able to come. One invitee did not want to come because he had just bought a field and needed to leave to look at it. Another one begged off so that he could try out the five yoke of cattle he had just bought. Still another one said that he could not come because he had just married. Upon hearing his slave’s report about the invited ones, the master became angry and instructed his slave to go out quickly into the squares and the streets of the city and invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame. After following through on his master’s instructions, the slave told him that there still was room for more guests. The master then directed him to go out into the roads and the walled or fenced lanes or paths, compelling people to come to the banquet. He wanted his house to be filled with guests. The master then expressed his determination that none of those originally invited would have a taste of his banquet. (Luke 14:16-24)
By means of this parable, Jesus revealed that those first offered the opportunity to be part of the kingdom of God would fail to seize it. As God’s people, the Jews were fully aware of the promise extended to them that, if obedient to the law, they would come to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:5, 6) As evident from the Pharisee’s expression about the kingdom of God, they knew about the prospect of becoming sharers in future blessings and privileges. Yet, when Jesus made his appearance as the promised Messiah and the people had the opportunity to become part of the realm where the Almighty is Sovereign and Jesus is the one whom he appointed as king, they acted like those who excused themselves from acting on the invitation.
They generally believed that afflicted persons suffered on account of their sins. Therefore, the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame could well represent those among the people who were not regarded as the usual recipients of divine favor. It was, however, the tax collectors and others with an unsavory reputation as sinners who repented and acknowledged Jesus as their king.
In time, the invitation to become part of God’s realm went to non-Jewish peoples in widely scattered regions They proved to be like persons on the roads and the walled or fenced lanes and who had to be compelled to come to the banquet. They would have considered themselves undeserving of the inestimable privilege being opened up to them, requiring that they be persuaded that their sins would be forgiven and that they would be welcomed as approved into the realm where the heavenly Father reigns through his Son.
The parable also indicated that failure to respond would lead to loss. None of those originally invited but who rejected the opportunity would be among those to partake of the food.
Notes:
At meals or banquets, couches were arranged around three sides of a table. The side left open provided access for the servants, who would bring the food and serve those eating. The foremost place on a couch was the first position, with no one else being in front. Furthermore, each couch had its own ranking of importance.
When partaking of food, the host and his guests would recline and support themselves on their left side. They would then eat food with their right hand.
Proverbs 25:6, 7 (NRSV) reads, “Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great; for it is better to be told, ‘Come up here,’ than to be put lower in the presence of a noble.”
Large crowds often accompanied Jesus as he traveled from place to place. One of these times, he used the opportunity to tell the people that choosing to be his disciples required greater love for him than for family members. (Luke 14:25, 26)
“If anyone comes to me,” said Jesus, “and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own soul [himself], he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) In this context, “hate” basically means to love to a lesser degree, with this strong term serving to contrast the greater love for Jesus that a disciple would be called upon to have. When the wishes and objectives of close family members ran counter to the example and teaching of God’s Son, his disciples would not go along with them, thereby demonstrating their superior love for him. To remain loyal to him, Jesus’ disciples would even be willing to face death. The individual’s love for him would therefore prove to be greater than that for his own soul or for himself.
Stressing that discipleship would not be an easy course, God’s Son said that a person could not be his disciple unless he carried his own beam (staurós) and followed him. (Luke 14:27) In the Roman world, crucifixion was regarded as the worst form of punishment. The condemned man would carry the beam (to which he would later be tied or nailed) to the place of execution. There he would be mocked and die a slow, excruciating death. For one to carry the beam as a disciple of God’s Son would mean pursuing a course that entailed reproach and suffering for his sake.
Choosing to become a disciple of God’s Son demanded serious consideration. Jesus illustrated this in terms his listeners could readily understand.
A man who planned to build a tower would first have to calculate the expense to determine whether he could afford to do so. If he failed to evaluate the cost and then laid a foundation for the tower and was unable to complete the project for lack of funds, he would be subjected to ridicule. Observers would say that he “began to build but was unable to finish.” (Luke 14:28-30)
Similarly, a king who was about to march out to battle with another king would have to consider carefully whether he could gain the victory with 10,000 men when having to face an opposing force of 20,000. If he recognized that this would not be possible, he would send a delegation of ambassadors to the other king to sue for peace, doing so while the superior force was still far away. (Luke 14:31, 32)
Jesus did not minimize the great cost that being his disciple involved. It could mean the loss of close family members, possessions, and even one’s own life. As Jesus expressed it, a person could not be his disciple unless he was willing to give up all his belongings. (Luke 14:33)
When next referring to salt, the Son of God appears to have been illustrating that his disciples needed to have the desirable attributes of this substance. Salt is good, for it can be used for seasoning and as a preservative. Those who heard Jesus used an impure salt that could become tasteless. Under humid conditions, the sodium chloride could progressively leach out, rendering the substance useless for flavoring and as a preservative. People would then discard it as a worthless substance, for it would not add anything beneficial to the soil and could not serve as fertilizer. (Luke 14:34, 35)
Thereby Jesus implied that his disciples needed to be a force for good, counteracting the tendency toward moral decay among their contemporaries and contributing to making life more pleasant for others. This would require that they continue to live exemplary lives and prove themselves to be kind, compassionate, and impartial in their dealings with fellow humans. If any of his disciples would cease to exercise a wholesome influence on others, they would reveal themselves to be like salt that had become worthless. That Jesus wanted those who heard him to think seriously about how his words applied to them is evident from his concluding words, “Let the one having ears for hearing, hear.” (Luke 14:35)
Notes:
At the time Jesus sent out the twelve apostles, he included comments about the necessity of having greater love for him than for family members and concerning the requirement of carrying the “beam.” (Matthew 10:34-39)
On earlier occasions, Jesus also referred to salt when teaching about the qualities his disciples needed to have. (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50)
Numerous tax collectors and others with a bad reputation approached Jesus to listen to him. Observing this, certain Pharisees and scribes grumbled, referring to him disparagingly as one who welcomed sinners and ate with them. Thereby these faultfinders implied that Jesus enjoyed associating with persons of ill repute. In response, he related three parables, revealing his noble objective and exposing the error of the Pharisees and scribes. (Luke 15:1-3)
Who among them with 100 sheep would not leave the 99 in the wilderness, or a pasture away from human habitation, and search for the one lost sheep until he found it? Those to whom this question was directed would have known that several shepherds commonly pastured their respective flocks in a particular area, and that the one who searched for a lost sheep would have made arrangements for his flock to be watched. For the man to have completely abandoned his flock while searching for a lost sheep would have meant exposing the whole flock to danger. A caring shepherd, however, would do everything possible to find his lost sheep. (Luke 15:4; see the Notes section about Jesus’ use of the same parable on an earlier occasion.)
Upon finding it, he would put it on his shoulders and be filled with joy. Jesus’ reference to the man’s putting the lost sheep on his shoulders would have been understood as an act of tender care for a helpless lamb. (Luke 15:5)
After returning home, the shepherd would tell his friends and neighbors to rejoice with him for having found his lost sheep. Applying the lesson of the parable, Jesus said that there would be “more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons in no need of repentance.” (Luke 15:6, 7) The Pharisees and scribes would have regarded themselves as righteous, believing that, unlike the tax collectors and others who were known as sinners, they had no reason to repent. They, however, also needed to make changes. Their grumbling about the attention Jesus gave to tax collectors and sinners revealed that they lacked love and compassion. In “heaven,” though, where God and his angels are, there would be rejoicing over just one repentant sinner.
A woman with ten drachma coins lost one of them. Would she not light a lamp and sweep her house, carefully searching for the coin until she found it? (Luke 15:8)
This kind of effort would have been understandable, as a drachma equaled the daily wage of a common laborer. Moreover, if Jesus intended to represent the coin as part of a set, it would have been understood as serving for ornamentation.
Most homes in the first century were small, and the windows allowed very limited light to enter. Therefore, even during the day, a lighted oil lamp would facilitate the search. A coin could easily blend in with the clay floor, and it would usually be necessary to sweep the entire house to locate it.
Upon finding the coin, the woman would inform her friends and neighbors, inviting them to rejoice with her. Likewise, there would come to be great joy among the angels of God “over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:8-10)
Having come from the realm above, Jesus could authoritatively speak about the angels. Their rejoicing is truly remarkable. Unlike the Pharisees and scribes, they are indeed righteous and holy or pure in all respects. Yet, they do not look down upon humans or make unfavorable comparisons with their own record of unwavering faithfulness to God. They do not begrudge repentant men and women the great honor of coming to be part of the realm where the Most High is Sovereign and to have an intimate relationship with him and his Son. The angels have real love for humans who are constituted children of God and brothers of Christ through their faith in him. Their magnanimous spirit contrasts sharply with that of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes.
Finally, Jesus related a parable about two sons. The younger one asked his father for his share of the inheritance. His father then divided the property between the two sons. Shortly thereafter the younger son took everything he had and traveled to a distant country, where he began leading a debauched life and eventually exhausted all his resources. When a severe famine occurred, he was forced to become a hired laborer for a citizen of that land, who sent him into his fields to tend the pigs. The younger son craved to be “filled with” the pods (or, according to other manuscripts, he “filled his belly” with the pods) on which the pigs were feeding, and no one would give him anything. (Luke 15:11-16)
In his desperate state, the son came to his senses. He began to think about his father and how his hired men were better off than he was. They had plenty of bread to eat, whereas he wasted away on account of the famine. He, therefore, decided to return to his father and acknowledge his guilt, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer deserving of being called your son. Let me be like one of your hirelings.” He then made the long journey to his father’s home. (Luke 15:17-20)
While still some distance from his father’s house, his father recognized him and felt pity for him. He ran toward his son, embraced him, and kissed him. As he had previously resolved, the son acknowledged having sinned against heaven and his father, asking only to be treated like a hireling because of his unworthiness to be called his son. (Luke 15:20, 21)
The father welcomed him with compassion, love, and joy. He quickly directed his slaves to bring out the best robe and clothe his son with it, and to put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. They were to slaughter a calf and prepare a meal so that all could enjoy themselves. The father expressed his reason for rejoicing, “This son of mine was dead but has come to life again; he was lost but has been found.” A joyous celebration followed. (Luke 15:22-24)
When the older son returned from having worked in the field, he heard music and the rhythmic movement of dancing feet coming from the house. He summoned a nearby servant to come to him and asked about the reason for the celebration. “Your brother has come,” said the slave, “and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf, for he got him back well.” (Luke 15:25-27)
This angered the older brother, and he chose not to enter the house. His father then came outside, pleading with him to share in the joy of the occasion. The older son protested, telling his father that he had slaved for him many years and had not disobeyed him. “Yet,” the son continued, “you never gave me even a young goat to enjoy with my friends. When, however, this son of yours who consumed your means with harlots came back, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.” (Luke 15:28-30)
Reasoning with his son, the father responded, “Child, you always are with me, and all I own is yours, but we must enjoy ourselves and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead but has come to life, and he was lost but was found.” (Luke 15:31, 32)
Tax collectors and others among the Jews who were leading a sinful life found themselves in a situation much like that of the younger son. By charging more than the required rate, many tax collectors enriched themselves. Among them were men who had become very wealthy. From a spiritual standpoint, however, they were impoverished. Through their dishonesty, they had distanced themselves from God, as if living in a faraway land. As agents of Rome, they did work comparable to caring for pigs, animals that were unclean according to the Mosaic law. Fellow Jews generally despised tax collectors.
When John the Baptist and later Jesus appeared on the scene, many who had led a sinful life came to their senses. They came to see the depth of their spiritual poverty and longed for a better relationship with the heavenly Father. Their acknowledgment of sin reflected an understanding of how undeserving they had become of God’s love and mercy. In his compassionate treatment of those who did repent, Jesus reflected his Father’s welcoming love and joy. They were honored as with the best attire and spiritually enriched as with an abundant banquet, for they had put themselves in a position to enter the realm where God is Sovereign and his Son is king by his appointment.
The Pharisees and scribes acted like the older son. They refused to recognize repentant tax collectors and sinners as their brothers. In the parable, Jesus indicated this rejection by having the older son say, “This son of yours” (not “my brother”). Then to show that the relationship should have continued to exist, Jesus had the father say, “This brother of yours.” The manner in which Jesus portrayed the thoughts of the older son revealed a lack of appreciation for what he had. He spoke of having slaved for his father and never transgressed his commands, suggestive of action performed merely out of a sense of duty and without joy. Nothing in the words gave evidence of valuing all that he had while being with his father. He deeply resented that his brother had been welcomed with open arms and did not want to share in the joy of seeing him as one who had changed for the better.
The parable also indicates that repentance has its start in the inner self. Once the younger son is depicted as recognizing his guilt and his unworthiness on account of his bad conduct, he ceased to be the young man who had left his father’s home. With no proud assumptions, he then made the long journey home. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of Jesus’ parable, such repentant ones should be welcomed with compassion, love, and joy.
Jesus did not say anything about how the older son finally responded. The door remained open for him to share in the joyous celebration. Likewise, the Pharisees and scribes could have changed and put themselves in line to enter the kingdom of God and share in all the associated blessings.
Notes:
In his teaching, Jesus at times used the same parables. The application of a particular parable could, however, be different.
In Matthew 18:10-14, Jesus warned his disciples about the seriousness of harming insignificant believers. He related the parable about the one lost sheep to illustrate the preciousness of such “little ones,” for his Father did not want any one of these to be lost.
Jesus directed his next parable to his disciples. These disciples would have included all those who believed in him and were following him at the time. (Luke 16:1)
A wealthy man received word about his steward’s mismanagement of the property. He then summoned his steward, questioned him about the accusation, requested that he render an account about his management, and informed him that he would no longer continue to be his steward. In view of the impending loss of his position, the untrustworthy steward thought about what he would be able to do. He did not feel that he had the strength to perform hard manual labor (“digging”), and he was ashamed to support himself by begging. So he decided on a scheme to ingratiate himself with the debtors of his master, causing them to feel indebted to him and prompting them to welcome him into their homes after he would no longer be his master’s steward. (Luke 16:1-4)
He summoned the debtors of his master individually, asking them how much they owed and then had them write out an agreement with a much lower amount. The position of steward allowed for such a change to be made, as the individual had the authority to act as the representative of the master. In one case, the dishonest steward reduced the debt of 100 bath measures (about 580 gallons [U.S.]) of olive oil to 50 (about 290 gallons [U.S.]). For another debtor, he reduced 100 cor measures (about 624 bushels [U.S.]) of wheat to 80 (about 500 bushels [U.S.]). (Luke 16:5-7)
The steward’s maneuvering came to the master’s attention and, according to the literal Greek of the parable, he “commended” the steward. The wording of the parable strictly limits the master’s commendation to one reason, “because [the steward] had acted wisely,” cleverly, or shrewdly. Accordingly, the master’s commendation is portrayed as nothing more than an acknowledgment of the steward’s shrewdness or cleverness in working out a scheme to assure his future welfare. (Luke 16:8)
Based on the parable, Jesus pointed out that, in their dealings with the people of their own generation, the “sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light.” (Luke 16:8) The “sons of this age” designate unbelievers, whereas the “sons of light” are persons who believed in Jesus and had started to benefit from the enlightenment they had received through him. When it comes to planning for the future and securing their own interests, individuals who have no higher aims than to get all they can from their present life often are intensely focused and very shrewd or clever when maneuvering to attain their objectives. By contrast, believers frequently manifest far less intensity and diligence in the pursuit of the real life or the eternal life of a never-ending relationship with God and Christ. They are often distracted by daily cares, concerns, or desires of a mundane nature.
Jesus urged his disciples to make friends for themselves with “mammon of unrighteousness” or unrighteous riches. He may have referred to wealth or money as “unrighteous” because an ardent desire to acquire riches often leads people to engage in dishonest or sharp practices. Those who accumulate great wealth may do so through clever maneuvering at the expense of others. (Luke 16:9)
For believers to make friends with their mundane assets would mean to use them in a manner that God would approve, generously coming to the aid of those in need. Then, whenever money or material assets might “fail,” be lost, or cease to have any real value on account of changed circumstances, the Most High would look favorably upon the past record of generous and compassionate giving. The greatest friends anyone can have are the heavenly Father and his Son. They are the ones in possession of the “eternal tents,” into which they can welcome all who have rightly used whatever assets they may have had. (Luke 16:9)
Compared with the riches associated with eternity, material assets have very limited value. Therefore, the noble use of material assets is a reflection of the faithfulness or trustworthiness of the individual. As Jesus said, “The one faithful in what is least is also faithful in much, and the one unrighteousness in what is least is also unrighteous [unjust or dishonest] in much.” Unfaithfulness, untrustworthiness, or dishonesty respecting unrighteous riches would reflect a serious moral defect. It would demonstrate that the individual could not be entrusted with true riches, the eternally valuable treasure associated with an approved relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. (Luke 16:10, 11)
If, as Jesus continued, a person did not prove to be faithful, trustworthy, or honest respecting something belonging to someone else, who would give the individual something for himself, with the implied understanding that the asset given would be used aright? (Luke 16:12) In the final analysis, everything of a material nature is obtained from the earth, and the Most High is its owner and hence of everything associated with it. Therefore, assets that individuals may have are not really their own but available to them only for temporary use, which, at best, is limited to a lifetime. A failure to use these assets aright would rightly disqualify one from receiving the enduring riches of those with an eternal inheritance in the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns through his Son, the king whom he has appointed.
Those who would prove themselves to be Jesus’ disciples, therefore, need to keep their focus on that which is eternal and not on transitory riches. It is impossible for a slave to serve two masters, with each one demanding the same time and attention from him. A slave would have to choose which master he would obey and which one he would ignore, loving and being devoted to the one he served and hating and despising the one he refused to serve. Jesus concluded with the words, “You cannot slave for God and for mammon” or riches. (Luke 16:13) There is no room for divided loyalties, as faithfulness to God is involved in every aspect of life.
The unbelieving Pharisees heard Jesus parable and responded with ridicule. According to the account, their ridicule stemmed from their being “lovers of silver” or money. (Luke 16:14) They highly esteemed wealth. In their view, the rich who lived up to the traditional interpretations of the law had God’s special favor. The unbelieving Pharisees despised the poor, considering them as accursed people who were ignorant of the law. (Compare John 7:49.)
Responding to the sneering of this particular group of Pharisees, Jesus identified them as persons who justified themselves before men or tried to make themselves appear as upright or godly before others through outward acts. “But God,” Jesus continued, “knows your hearts” (the deep inner selves or the real motivations). Humans, however, are limited largely to what they can perceive by means of their senses and cannot penetrate the deep inner selves of others. Therefore, what humans may regard as lofty according to their flawed estimation can be the very thing that is abominable in God’s sight. (Luke 16:14, 15)
With the coming of the Messiah, the time had come for all the Israelites to repent and avail themselves of the privileges and blessings associated with this grand development. Jesus indicated that a new era had dawned, saying that “the law and the prophets were until John.” Both the law and the prophets pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah, and John the Baptist identified Jesus as that promised one. Therefore, as Jesus said, from then on the evangel or good news about the kingdom of God was being declared. (Luke 16:16)
Respecting entrance into the kingdom, the last Greek word in Luke 16:16 is a form of biázo, meaning “to be violent” or “to use force.” In this context, the term biázo appears to denote the strenuous effort all would be putting forth to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign. A number of translations make this significance explicit. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the good news of the kingdom of God is being proclaimed, and everyone with the utmost earnestness and effort is pressing into it for his share in it.” (Wuest) “But since God’s kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.” (CEV)
The coming of the Messiah also meant that the time had arrived for revealing the true significance of the law. Regarding it, Jesus said it would be “easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a letter fragment [karaía; literally, horn] of the law to drop out.” (Luke 16:17) The Greek term keraía here means a small part or stroke of a letter. In the Hebrew alphabet, the letters daleth (D) and resh (R), for example, are very similar and can easily be confused. Therefore, a seemingly insignificant change in the appearance of one letter can change the meaning of a word, especially when the reader had to supply the vowel sounds.
In his teaching and the life he lived, Jesus upheld the spirit of the law and did not in any way act contrary to its purpose. He revealed that it ultimately served to identify him as the promised Messiah. For not even a small part of a letter to drop out of the law assured that it would remain unaltered, with no possibility existing of any failure to attain its divinely designated objective. It would thus prove to be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for even a minor change in the law to take place.
While considering themselves to be upholders of the law and insisting on the letter of the law, the unbelieving Pharisees repeatedly violated the spirit of the law. The law, for example, allowed divorce but also revealed the binding nature of marriage. In the beginning of Genesis (which the Pharisees recognized as part of the Torah or law), marriage is represented as a permanent union of a man and his wife. (Genesis 2:24)
Jesus called attention to the binding nature of marriage and thereby showed that the Pharisees were wrong when they regarded divorce as a husband’s authorized right. He said, “Everyone divorcing his wife and marrying another commits adultery, and the man marrying a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
It should be noted that the legal provision for divorce, to which Jesus on another occasion referred as a concession made out of regard for the hardheartedness of the men, served to protect a woman from hateful abuse and a charge of adultery upon entering into a relationship with another man. Without a certificate of divorce from the husband who had dismissed her, a woman would have been punished as an adulteress. Jesus, therefore, expressed the reality of the situation when a divorced woman married another man. Both the man and the woman would then have committed adultery, but the certificate of divorce protected them from being thus legally charged and punished. At the same time, Jesus revealed that the man who divorced his wife to marry another woman also committed adultery. This would be because he acted contrary to the precedent of the first union mentioned in Genesis, which was for the man and his wife to be married for life. (Matthew 19:4-8)
Jesus’ teaching about divorce also indicated that a profound change in one’s personal life would be needed to be part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign. Based on their reaction to Jesus’ comments about divorce, his disciples recognized that marriage was far more binding than they had previously thought. (Matthew 19:9, 10)
One fifth-century Greek manuscript introduces Jesus’ portrayal of the rich man and Lazarus with the words, “But he also told them another parable” (Eipen de kai heteran parabolen). The destitute man of the parable is called Lazarus, but the majority of extant manuscripts do not identify the rich man by name. One papyrus manuscript (P75) from the second or early third century calls the rich man “Neues,” which name looks like an abbreviated form of the Greek designation for “Nineveh” (Nineue). No later manuscripts, though, preserve this name for the rich man. The idea that his name was “Dives” is based on a misunderstanding of the Vulgate rendering dives, which Latin term means “rich” or “rich man.”
Dressed in garments made from fine linen and purple fabric, the rich man lived each day in showy splendor. The Greek term byssos designates linen of the best quality. It was a finely woven and nearly translucent fabric. The inner garments of the wealthy were customarily made from fine linen, and the purple fabric was used for the outer garments. (Luke 16:19)
Considerable effort was required to obtain the purple dye. It was extracted from the murex and the purple mollusks, with each mollusk yielding only one drop. This made the dye very costly, and only the wealthy could afford purple garments. The first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (Book IX, chapter 60), refers to pearls as being almost “a possession of everlasting duration,” one that is passed on to heirs, and then adds, “But the colours that are extracted from the murex and the purple fade from hour to hour; and yet luxury ... has set upon them prices almost equal to those of pearls.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)
Whereas the rich man was magnificently attired with garments made from the costliest fabrics, ulcers covered the skin of poor Lazarus, whom unnamed individuals laid at the rich man’s gate. This suggests that Jesus depicted Lazarus as emaciated, diseased, and too feeble to walk to the estate of the rich man. (Luke 16:20)
There, at the gate, poor Lazarus desired to be filled with the scraps that had fallen from the rich man’s table and would afterward be tossed outside. Meanwhile, scavenger dogs would approach him and lick his ulcers, intensifying his pathetic plight as one too weak to fend them off. (Luke 16:21)
Then, one day, Lazarus died. Jesus included no reference to a burial, leaving it to his listeners to conclude that the life of Lazarus ended without being mourned and given a customary burial. Yet, the one whose life and death Jesus had represented as having been without honor he then portrayed as being carried by angels to the “bosom of Abraham.” (Luke 16:22)
Those who heard this would have understood this to mean that Lazarus attained the reward of being in the highly favored position with Abraham, comparable to reclining with him while partaking of a meal. (For additional comments about the “bosom of Abraham,” see the Notes section.)
The wealthy man also died and was buried, suggesting that the mourning and entombment typical of the rich followed his death. Upon finding himself in Hades, he became aware that a decisive reversal had taken place. He, while existing in torments, looked up and, in the distance, saw Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. In the Greek text the word for “bosom” (kólpos) is plural. Possibly this is to be understood as meaning that Lazarus enjoyed the highly favored position of one in the arms of Abraham. (Luke 16:22, 23; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
In his anguish, the rich man called out, “Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus that he might dip his finger tip in water and cool my tongue, for I am in pain in this fire.” Abraham then addressed the rich man as “child” (with a kindly expression that acknowledged him as his natural descendant and not with harsh, denunciatory language). He reminded him of having received the good things in his life, whereas Lazarus had been the recipient of distressing things. Now, though, Lazarus was being comforted, but he found himself tormented. Moreover, a great chasm existed between them, making it impossible for those on either side to cross over to the other side even if they wanted to do so. (Luke 16:24-26)
With no relief possible for himself, the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to the house of his father or his nearest relatives. He had five brothers and desired that they hear the testimony of Lazarus, for he did not want them to end up in the same place of torment. Abraham rejected this request, telling him that they had “Moses and the prophets.” He added, “Let them listen to them.” The rich man protested, “No, father Abraham; but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.” “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,” Abraham responded, “neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:27-31)
In the previous parable, Jesus had admonished his disciples to use unrighteous riches to make friends, and the Pharisees had ridiculed his teaching. He then exposed the unbelieving Pharisees as not being the righteous persons they imagined themselves to be, telling them that God’s view is different. What humans may regard as highly prized based on their flawed judgment is the very thing that God considers to be abominable. (Luke 16:14, 15) The parable about the rich man and Lazarus reiterated this truth and warned the ridiculers about the severe judgment they would face.
The unbelieving Pharisees regarded themselves as certain of being rewarded in the age to come. In their view, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would welcome them. They despised those whom they considered ignorant of the law (particularly with reference to the manner in which the “tradition of the elders” interpreted it). They thought of the wealthy who lived according to their standard of uprightness as heaven’s favorites, and believed the suffering of the poor and afflicted to be punishment for their sins. In their treatment of the lowly and oppressed and through the burdens their traditional interpretations imposed on them, they repeatedly failed in living up to the law respecting love, mercy, and justice. Therefore, what they imagined to be the adverse judgment for others Jesus, in language familiar to them, portrayed as facing them. As he had taught on various occasions, those who refused to repent and heed the words of Moses and the prophets by believing in him would lose out. They would not be in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but would be thrown into the outer darkness. Pained by their great loss, they would weep and gnash their teeth. (Matthew 8:11, 12) Comparable to a large, impassable chasm, the final judgment would be irreversible.
Like the rich man in the parable when requesting Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers to persuade them to change their course, the unbelieving Pharisees and scribes wanted a heavenly sign from Jesus, one that met their expectation about the Messiah. The parable reveals that persons who do not believe the evidence available to them would not accept the testimony of someone who is raised from the dead. This likely served to indicate that Jesus’ resurrection would not persuade those who had hardened themselves in unbelief to repent.
“Moses and the prophets” do not refer to Sheol or Hades as a place of torment, but do repeatedly admonish treating the poor and afflicted with love and compassion, responding to their needs. Moreover, the testimony in “Moses and the prophets” identified Jesus as the promised Messiah, for the works his Father enabled him to do revealed him to be the foretold prophet like Moses and greater than all the prophets that had preceded him.
Notes:
Ancient Jewish sources do link future rewards to being with Abraham. When relating the determination of the seven brothers to remain obedient to the commandment of God when faced with torture and death, 4 Maccabees 13:17 (NRSV, Common Bible) quotes them as saying, “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us.” According to one version of the account about the martyrdom of these seven sons, the mother encourages her youngest son with the words, “You will be taken to the bosom of Abraham our father.”
Luke 16:23 and the verses that follow reveal that Jesus used the language of parable. The rich man had never seen Abraham, and from afar would not have recognized the man in the favorable position as the ulcer-covered poor man that had once lain at his gate. In the parable, however, the rich man immediately recognized both Abraham and Lazarus. Although a considerable distance separated them, Abraham and the rich man carried on a conversation. A mere drop of water on a finger tip would have done nothing to relieve torment in a literally hot place and, in fact, would have evaporated even before touching the rich man’s tongue. Moreover, for Lazarus to reach the rich man would have required him to enter the flames and to experience temporary torment.
When relating the conversation in Hades, Jesus adopted a manner of expression similar to that of the prophet Isaiah concerning the “king of Babylon” or the Babylonian dynasty. “Sheol [Hades, LXX] beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will speak and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ Your pomp is brought down to Sheol [Hades, LXX], and the sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.” (Isaiah 14:9-11, NRSV) In Isaiah, this portrayal heightens the dramatic effect of the reversal for the Babylonian dynasty. This dynasty had tyrannized other nations, wielding the ultimate power in the region as it carried out campaigns of conquest. Upon its sudden and surprising downfall, however, it would sink to the lowest level, proving to be just as weak as all the other rulerships that had ended. Isaiah’s depiction of Hades does not apply to a literal place where former kings sit on thrones and carry on conversations with later arrivals in the realm of the dead. Instead, the vivid imagery serves to convey the message about the astonishing fall of the Babylonian dynasty from its lofty position.
Likewise, Jesus’ words are the language of parable and do not provide a revelatory vision of Hades that is foreign to “Moses and the prophets.” The parable dramatically illustrates the contrast Jesus expressed when he told the chief priests and elders of the nation, “The tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God, for John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. The tax collectors and the harlots, however, did believe him, and you saw this but did not afterward repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:23, 31, 32) Later, many miracles of Jesus did not motivate the hardened unbelievers to change. Finally, the sign of Jonah—Jesus’ rising from the dead on the third day—did not persuade them to repent.
Jesus’ teaching, particularly suited to parable, pointed to a major reversal. Lazarus who lived a life in torment and desired to be filled with whatever fell from the rich man’s table came to be looked upon as a possible benefactor. As Lazarus yearned for the crumbs, the rich man longed for just a drop of water on the finger tip of the hand to which he had failed to extend compassionate aid.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus contains teaching that calls for sober reflection. There are very serious consequences for failing to respond compassionately to the genuine needs of others as a loyal disciple of God’s Son. This vital aspect is obscured when, like the unbelieving Pharisees, individuals envision a place of torment for others but imagine themselves to be God’s favored ones and, in word and attitude (if not also in action or inaction), reveal themselves to be lacking in love and compassion.
Comments regarding “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades”
In his translation of the writings of first-century Jewish historian Josephus, William Whiston included an extract that he identified as “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades.” It is generally agreed, however, that this extract is the work of Hippolytus (c. 170 to c. 235), titled “Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe.” To what extent the material incorporates Jewish views existing in the first century cannot be established with any degree of certainty. A comparison of Whiston’s English translation with J. H. MacMahon’s English rendering of the work of Hippolytus (in Volume V of the Ante-Nicene Fathers) indicates that they are basically the same. In the final paragraph of the preserved portion attributed to Hippolytus, there are two concluding sentences that are not found in Whiston’s translation. The following quotations (taken from the first section that, in a few places, somewhat parallels the words of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) are provided for comparison purposes (with “J” representing Whiston’s translation and “H” representing MacMahon’s translation of the work of Hippolytus):
J: Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; from which circumstance, that in this region the light does not shine, it cannot be but there must be in it perpetual darkness. This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners.
H:But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one’s deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters.
J: In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day aforedetermined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust and those that have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men, as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punishment, as having been the causes of defilement; while the just shall obtain an incorruptible and never-fading kingdom. These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined.
H: And in this locality there is a certain place set apart by itself, a lake of unquenchable fire, into which we suppose no one has ever yet been cast; for it is prepared against the day determined by God, in which one sentence of righteous judgment shall be justly applied to all. And the unrighteous, and those who believed not God, who have honoured as God the vain works of the hands of men, idols fashioned (by themselves), shall be sentenced to this endless punishment. But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and unfading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous.
J: For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments, which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the fathers and of the just, which they see, always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.
H: For to this locality there is one descent, at the gate whereof we believe an archangel is stationed with a host. And when those who are conducted by the angels appointed unto the souls have passed through this gate, they do not proceed on one and the same way; but the righteous, being conducted in the light toward the right, and being hymned by the angels stationed at the place, are brought to a locality full of light. And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham’s bosom.
J: But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good-will, but as prisoners driven by violence; to whom are sent the angels appointed over them to reproach them and threaten them with their terrible looks, and to thrust them still downwards. Now those angels that are set over these souls drag them into the neighborhood of hell [Gehenna] itself; who, when they are hard by it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapor itself; but when they have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrible and exceeding great prospect of fire, they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only so, but where they see the place [or choir] of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it.
H: But the unrighteous are dragged toward the left by angels who are ministers of punishment, and they go of their own accord no longer, but are dragged by force as prisoners. And the angels appointed over them send them along, reproaching them and threatening them with an eye of terror, forcing them down into the lower parts. And when they are brought there, those appointed to that service drag them on to the confines of hell [Gehenna]. And those who are so near hear incessantly the agitation, and feel the hot smoke. And when that vision is so near, as they see the terrible and excessively glowing spectacle of the fire, they shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment. And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it.
Jesus spoke to his disciples about the inevitability that causes for stumbling or offense would come. Despite all the blessings associated with being his disciples and his trustworthy teaching and flawless example in showing love and compassion, there would come to be professing believers whose attitudes, words, or actions would deviate from the path of uprightness, wrecking the faith of others and leading them into sin. Jesus pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for anyone through whom such stumbling would occur. (Luke 17:1)
The Son of God then stressed the serious consequences for stumbling others. It would be preferable for a person to have a millstone (a heavy one turned by a donkey, according to other manuscripts) hung around his neck and to be tossed into the sea than for him to cause one of the “little” or insignificant believers to stumble. Jesus’ words, “Watch yourselves,” likely mean to exercise care not to cause offense or spiritual injury to others. (Luke 17:2, 3) Another possibility is that the admonition, if linked to what follows, applies to being watchful about maintaining a forgiving spirit toward an erring brother.
The brother or fellow believer who sins against one should be reproved, with the objective being to aid him to see the error of his ways. If he repents, he should be forgiven. Even if he were to sin “seven times” (representative of a significant number of times) in a day and then each time came to the one against whom he had transgressed, asking to be forgiven, he should be forgiven all seven times. (Luke 17:3, 4)
When others repeatedly wrong us, we flawed humans find it hard to forgive. One is more likely to become distrustful and resentful. The apostles appear to have perceived that it would not be easy to heed Jesus’ admonition. This appears to have prompted them to request being granted more faith. Jesus then told them that, if they had faith comparable to a mustard seed (one of the smallest seeds with which they were familiar), they could command a mulberry tree to be uprooted and to be planted in the sea, and it would obey them. Thereby he illustrated that faith would enable them to surmount great obstacles, accomplishing the seemingly impossible. This would have included their being compassionate and forgiving when the usual response would have been one of anger and resentment. (Luke 17:5, 6)
Jesus then related a parable to illustrate the proper view toward the performance of godly service. Would anyone among them who had a servant that came to the house after having finished plowing or tending the flock say to him, “Come here immediately and recline” (to eat)? Instead, he would tell the servant to prepare a meal for him and to gird himself to serve, after which the servant could eat and drink. The owner would not feel obliged to his servant for having done what he was ordered to do. (Luke 17:7-9)
Applying the point of the parable, Jesus said, “Thus also you, when you have done all things you were ordered to do, say, ‘Useless slaves we are, [only] having done what we were obligated to do.’” (Luke 17:10) This strong language served to show the apostles that the performance of the labors entrusted to them was not to be the basis for pride or boasting. The carrying out of an assigned task is not in itself meritorious, and so it would not have been proper for the apostles to consider themselves as special. Instead, they were to regard themselves as would ordinary slaves who did nothing more than duty required and, from the standpoint of any special merit attaching to their deeds, could be called “useless.”
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)
According to the law, ceremonial defilement could result from touching a dead body, being present when someone dies, entering the home where there is a dead person, walking over a grave, or experiencing certain bodily afflictions or conditions. (Leviticus 14:1-20; 15:1-33; Numbers 19:11-18) To observe the Passover, one had to be ceremonially clean. (Numbers 9:6-14) Therefore, many Jews went to Jerusalem before the Passover in order to fulfill the legal requirements for purification from ceremonial defilement. (John 11:55)
In the temple precincts, these early arrivals began looking for Jesus and talking about him with one another. Among them were those who wondered whether he would even come to the Passover festival. The chief priests and the influential Pharisees in Jerusalem had given the order that anyone knowing Jesus’ whereabouts should inform them, as they wanted to arrest him. (John 11:56, 57)
Six days before the Passover, Jesus and the apostles arrived in Bethany. This village, situated about two miles from Jerusalem, was the home of Lazarus (whom he had raised from the dead), Martha, and Mary. (John 12:1)
Sometime during their stay, Jesus and his disciples were guests in the home of “Simon the leper.” Simon doubtless was a believer whom Jesus had cured of his leprosy, but the designation “Simon the leper” served to distinguish him from the other disciples with the same name. Lazarus was among those partaking of the meal, and his sister Martha served the guests. Their sister Mary had brought with her an alabaster container of costly ointment, one pound of genuine nard. While Jesus and the other guests were reclining at the table to eat, Mary approached Jesus and began pouring the perfumed ointment on his head. After applying it to his feet, she wiped them with her hair. The entire house became permeated with the aroma of the fragrant ointment. (Matthew 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3; John 12:2, 3; see the Notes section for additional information.)
Judas, who would later betray Jesus, appears to have been first to object to what Mary had done, raising the question as to why the ointment had not been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor. (John 12:4, 5) In indignation, other disciples then similarly expressed themselves. They could not understand why the nard had been wasted instead of sold and the money given to the poor. (Matthew 26:8, 9; Mark 14:4, 5)
While the others doubtless were sincere in their expressions about giving to the poor, Judas had ulterior motives. He had been entrusted with the bag or box for keeping the common fund and had been stealing from it. (John 12:6)
Jesus immediately came to Mary’s defense, telling those who objected to leave her alone and not to make trouble for her. He went on to say that she had done a good deed, one that had been undertaken prior to his burial. While there would always be the poor whom they would be able to assist, the disciples would not always have Jesus personally with them. (Matthew 26:10-12; Mark 14:6-8; John 12:7, 8)
According to Mark 14:8, Mary had done “what she could.” This suggests that she perceived Jesus’ life would end and did what she could in view of his future death and burial. He had been very open in telling the apostles what lay ahead for him, and it is unlikely that he would have concealed this information from his close friends. Unlike the apostles who found it very difficult to believe that Jesus would indeed suffer and die, Mary appears to have comprehended his words and acted accordingly.
With a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), Jesus gave the assurance that wherever the glad tidings, or the message about him would be proclaimed, there also Mary’s deed would be related in remembrance of her. (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9) The inclusion of this incident in the written accounts has kept the memory of Mary’s anointing of Jesus alive throughout the centuries.
When the news spread that he was in Bethany, many came to see, not only him but also Lazarus whom he had resurrected. Quite a number became believers because of what had happened to Lazarus. Therefore, in an effort to prevent more Jews from believing in Jesus, the chief priests determined to kill Lazarus. (John 12:9-11)
Notes:
There is uncertainty about when Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home of Simon the leper. The mention of Jesus’ anointing with costly ointment, the objections raised regarding it, and his response provide the basis for concluding that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:2-8 relate to the same event. The account in John 12:2-8 (though unique in identifying Mary as the woman and Judas as the one who raised the objection) does not refer to the house of Simon the leper nor specifically say when in relation to the six days after his arrival in Bethany Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, the incident is narrated after the mention of “two days” until the Passover. (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1)
According to John 12:12-15, the “next day” Jesus, seated on a donkey’s colt, headed for Jerusalem. This could be the day after Mary used the costly ointment. In Matthew and Mark, however, the narrative about the entry into Jerusalem precedes the account concerning the meal in Simon’s home. (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:-1-11)
In view of the mention of “six days” and then the “next day” in John 12, it would appear that a chronological sequence is being followed, which would mean that the words in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 are not in chronological order. On the other hand, there is a possibility that (in John 12:12), the “next day” refers only to the day after the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus (John 12:10, 11) and that the incident involving the meal (John 12:2-8) is not in chronological sequence. In that case, the meal in Simon’s home should be regarded as having taken place after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.
Mary’s act was an expression of deep love and appreciation for Jesus and what he had done for her and her sister and brother. No words, acts, or gifts could have fully expressed the depth of gratitude Mary must have felt in having her brother brought back to life. The costly ointment, with a value of about a year’s wages (300 denarii, with a denarius being the daily pay for a common laborer), likely was the most precious item that Mary possessed. Whether she had obtained it to anoint Jesus with it or initially bought it for another purpose is not revealed in the account. Jesus’ words indicate that Mary’s use of the ointment was an expression of the full limit of what she was able to do for him in view of his imminent death and burial.
It is generally believed that the source of the nard or spikenard is Nardostachys jatamansi, a plant that grows in the Himalayas. If the nard did come from distant India, this would explain why the ointment had a very high value.
In his Natural History, first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote concerning nard: “Of the leaf, which is that of the nard, it is only right to speak somewhat more at length, as it holds the principal place among our unguents. The nard is a shrub with a heavy, thick root, but short, black, brittle, and yet unctuous as well; it has a musty smell, too, very much like that of the cyperus, with a sharp, acrid taste, the leaves being small, and growing in tufts. The heads of the nard spread out into ears; hence it is that nard is so famous for its two-fold production, the spike or ear, and the leaf. There is another kind, again, that grows on the banks of the Ganges, but is altogether condemned, as being good for nothing; it bears the name of ozænitis, and emits a fetid odour. Nard is adulterated with a sort of plant called pseudo-nard, which is found growing everywhere, and is known by its thick, broad leaf, and its sickly colour, which inclines to white. It is sophisticated, also, by being mixed with the root of the genuine nard, which adds very considerably to its weight. Gum is also used for the same purpose, antimony, and cyperus; or, at least, the outer coat of the cyperus. Its genuineness is tested by its lightness, the redness of its colour, its sweet smell, and the taste more particularly, which parches the mouth, and leaves a pleasant flavour behind it; the price of spikenard is one hundred denarii per pound.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)
As an ingredient, spikenard was very expensive. Understandably, the ointment containing it would be even costlier.
Bethphage appears to have been located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, close to Bethany. Both in Mark 11:1 and Luke 19:29, Bethphage and Bethany are linked with the conjunction “and” when referring to Jesus as coming to or near “Bethphage and Bethany” at the time of his going to nearby Jerusalem. (Luke 19:28; see the Notes section regarding Luke 19:28.) Matthew 21:1, however, refers only to Bethphage, and it likely was the unnamed village to which Jesus sent two disciples to get a donkey’s colt. The two disciples may have been Peter and John, for they were the ones whom Jesus later instructed to make the needed preparations for the Passover observance. (Compare Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13.)
Jesus told the two disciples that, in the village, they would find a donkey and her colt, which they were to untie and then bring to him. (Matthew 21:2) The accounts in Mark (11:2) and Luke (19:30) only mention the colt on which no one had ever ridden. This may be because the colt was the animal on which Jesus afterward rode into Jerusalem. With the donkey being led or guided, her colt would have followed calmly.
Jesus anticipated that an objection would be raised when the disciples began to loosen the animals. They were then to reply with the words, “The Lord needs them,” and add the assurance that the donkey and her colt would soon be returned. (Matthew 21:3; Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 21:3.) Possibly the owners of the animals were disciples and would have understood that Jesus needed them. Understandably, with their exclusive focus on the colt, the narratives in Mark and Luke give no indication that two animals were involved.
By arranging to have a colt for riding into Jerusalem, Jesus publicly revealed himself as the promised Messiah. This fulfilled the prophetic words of Zechariah (9:9; Matthew 21:4), which referred to the king coming to Zion, “gentle” (praús) and riding on a colt. Jesus did not ride to Jerusalem seated on a horse or a war mount but on an animal used for carrying burdens and performing agricultural labors. This pointed to the peaceful nature of his coming as king, which opened up the opportunity for reconciliation with his Father for all those who believed in him.
In Matthew 21:5, the quotation from Zechariah 9:9 is a condensed version of the extant Septuagint text and, though differing in other respects, preserves the basic thought. The term praús, found in both Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:5, means to be “gentle,” “mild,” “meek,” or “humble.” It is descriptive of an unassuming disposition, the very opposite of the manner in which those who are unduly impressed by a sense of their own importance conduct and carry themselves.
When the two disciples arrived in the village, everything proved to be as Jesus had said. On one of the streets in the village, they found the colt tied near a door. When they untied the colt, bystanders (the “owners,” according to Luke 19:33) asked why they were loosing it. As Jesus had instructed them, the disciples replied, “The Lord needs it.” No objection was then raised, and the two disciples brought the donkey and her colt to Jesus. The disciples placed their garments on the colt and Jesus seated himself on the animal. (Matthew 21:6, 7; Mark 11:4-7; Luke 19:32-35; for additional comments on Matthew 21:7; Mark 11:7, and Luke 19:35, see the Notes section.)
As Jesus headed for Jerusalem, an increasing number of people began to accompany him. Many placed their outer garments on the road ahead of him, and others laid down leafy branches they had cut from nearby trees. (Matthew 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36) When word reached Jerusalem that Jesus was coming, a large crowd, with palm branches in their hands, went out to meet him. One of the reasons for doing so was their having heard about his having resurrected Lazarus. (John 12:12, 13, 18)
When Jesus reached the location where the road began to descend over the western slope of the Mount of Olives, his disciples and many others joyfully shouted, “Hosanna,” and acknowledged Jesus as one who came in God’s name (or as representing the Most High) and as being the king of Israel. Among the expressions the extant accounts represent as coming from the lips of those who walked ahead of him and those who followed were, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s name,” “Blessed [be] the coming kingdom of our father David,” “Blessed [be] the king coming in the Lord’s name,” “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” and “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38; John 12:13; see the Notes section regarding “hosanna.”)
These expressions greatly disturbed the unbelieving Pharisees in the crowd. They told Jesus to stop his disciples from acknowledging him as king. He responded that the stones would cry out if they remained silent. (Luke 19:39, 40)
At the time, the disciples did not understand that the prophecy of Zechariah was then being fulfilled. After Jesus was “glorified,” or after his death and resurrection as the one who had conquered the world and had been granted all authority in heaven and on earth, they recalled what had been written in the Scriptures and what had been done when Jesus rode to Jerusalem. (John 12:16)
From the Mount of Olives, Jesus looked at Jerusalem, thought about the future suffering the people would face, and began to weep over the city. If the people had only recognized the things that would have led to “peace” or secured their well-being, they could have escaped the calamities that were certain to befall Jerusalem. As Jesus said regarding the things pertaining to peace, “they have been hidden from your eyes.” Most of the people refused to accept him as the promised Messiah, losing out on the reconciliation with his Father and all the blessings associated therewith. In view of the course the unbelievers would pursue, Jerusalem would be destroyed. Enemy forces would lay siege to the city, surrounding it with a palisade. The people inside the city would experience great distress and be crushed. After capturing Jerusalem, the enemy would raze it to the ground, not leaving a stone upon a stone. All this would happen because the people failed to recognize the time of “visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44; see the Notes section regarding what Josephus wrote about the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.) The Son of God was then in their midst, and the time had come for seizing the opportunity to gain an approved standing with his Father, the one whom he represented.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the inhabitants of the city were stirred up, and they asked, “Who is this?” “The prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee,” came back the reply from the crowd that had accompanied him. (Matthew 21:10, 11) Among them were persons who had been present when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, and they added their testimony about what they had witnessed. (John 12:17) Seeing the multitude around Jesus, the unbelieving Pharisees were at a loss as to what they could do, saying to one another that the “world has gone after him.” (John 12:19)
After entering Jerusalem, Jesus headed for the temple and there looked around the entire precincts. It was then late in the day, and Jesus returned to Bethany with the twelve apostles and probably stayed for the night at the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary. (Mark 11:11)
Notes:
In the condensed narrative, Luke 19:28 mentions only Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem. The events that took place between the time Jesus related the parable about the minas (Luke 19:11-27) and his entering Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt (Luke 19:29-44) are not included.
Matthew 21:3 could be translated to mean that the one who raised the objection would then send the animals immediately. A number of translations make this explicit. “If anyone asks why you are doing that, just say, ‘The Lord needs them.’ Right away he will let you have the donkeys.” (CEV) “If anyone says anything to you, answer, ‘The Master needs them’; and he will let you have them at once.” (REB) “And if anyone says anything, tell him, ‘The Master needs them’; and then he will let them go at once.” (GNT, Second Edition) Mark 11:3, though, specifically indicates that the Lord would return the colt. So, in Matthew 21:3, it appears preferable to regard the Lord as doing the sending or sending back. “The Master needs them and will send them back at once.” (NJB) “The Lord needs them and will send them back immediately.” (NRSV, footnote)
Mark 11:5 indicates that bystanders asked the disciples about their loosing the colt, whereas Luke 19:33 says that the owners did so. Possibly the owners were among the bystanders, or the bystanders and the owners may be understood as designating the same persons.
According to the oldest extant manuscripts of Matthew 21:7, the disciples placed their garments on the donkey and her colt, and Jesus seated himself on “them.” It is inconceivable that he sat on two animals as he rode into Jerusalem. So it would appear that “them” refers to the garments. In his expanded translation, Kenneth Wuest, for example, added “the garments” in brackets. Perhaps because the disciples did not know which animal Jesus would ride, they placed their garments on both of them.
A number of later manuscripts use the singular pronoun, indicating that Jesus sat on the colt on which the disciples had placed their garments. This reading would harmonize with Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35, but there is insufficient manuscript evidence to establish that this is representative of the original text of Matthew 21:7.
The expression “hosanna” means “help, I pray,” “save, I pray,” or “save, please.” If regarded as an exclamation of praise, the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” may denote “praise be to the Most High.” Luke 19:38, when introducing the expressions of the disciples, does refer to their joyfully praising God concerning all the works of power they had seen. Another possibility is that the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” serve as an appeal for the angelic hosts to share in joyfully crying out, “Hosanna!” In that case, “hosanna” (linked, as it is, to Jesus) could convey a meaning comparable to “God save the Son of David.”
Luke’s account does not include the term “hosanna” but concludes with an expression of praise that would have been more understandable to non-Jews, “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (Luke 19:38) It appears that the exclamation, “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights,” parallels the words, “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” which words appear as the concluding expression in Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:10.
The crowd that acknowledged Jesus as the “Son of David,” or the rightful heir to the kingship in the royal line of Judah, used the words of Psalm 118:26, “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s [YHWH’s, Hebrew text] name.” (Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; John 12:13) Psalm 118 is one of the Hallel psalms with which the waving of the lulab (lulav) is associated during the Festival of Tabernacles. According to the ancient Jewish sources, the palm branch or frond used for the lulab had to be in its unopened state. The Tosefta (Sukkah 2:7; Neusner’s translation) says that it could not be “shaped like a fan.” So it appears likely that the spontaneous response of the multitude was influenced by the joy linked to the Festival of Tabernacles, with the recitation of the words of Psalm 118 being accompanied by the waving of unopened palm fronds.
According to Josephus, Titus, in an effort to bring the protracted siege of Jerusalem to an end, proposed building a wall around the whole city, thereby either forcing a surrender or weakening the defenders by extreme famine. A spirit of competition, coupled with a desire to please their superiors, energized the soldiers, making it possible for them to complete the project in “three days.” Josephus added how incredible it was for something that would normally have required months to finish to have been “done in so short an interval.” (Wars, V, xii, 1, 2)
Commenting on the results of the siege on the people inside the city, Josephus wrote: “Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the citizens of Jerusalem], but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the first, occasioned so great a straitness among them that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine, as destroyed them more suddenly.” (War, VI, ix, 3)
As for the city, Jesus had said that no stone would be left upon a stone. Describing what happened, Josephus reported: “Caesar [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency.” The objective of Titus, when preserving a part of the fortification, was to show how well fortified Jerusalem was and thus demonstrate what “Roman valor had subdued.” “For all the rest of the wall,” Josephus continued, “it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe [the city] had ever been inhabited.” (War, VII, i, 1)
With his apostles, Jesus left Bethany early the next morning, and he was hungry. On the way, he noticed a fig tree that already had leaves, which would have been early for that time of the year. In the spring, the tree produces the first figs on the previous season’s growth and before it is in full leaf. Therefore, though it was not the season for figs, the leaves on the tree suggested that there would be fruit on it. Therefore, Jesus approached the tree but found no fruit, indicating that it was a barren tree. In the hearing of the disciples, he then said, “May no one ever again eat fruit from you.” (Matthew 21:18, 19; Mark 11:12-14; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Upon arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the temple with his apostles. He then put a stop to the commercial activity being carried out in the temple precincts. This would have been in the Court of the Gentiles. Jesus drove out all who were buying and selling, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. He also did not permit anyone to carry a vessel through the area, thereby preventing people from using the temple courtyard as a shortcut when engaged in common daily activities. To all those who disregarded the sanctity of the temple area, he said, “It is written [in Isaiah 56:7, LXX], ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘cave of bandits’ [Jeremiah 7:11, LXX].” (Matthew 21:12, 13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
When the chief priests and scribes heard what Jesus had done, they were highly displeased and wanted to kill him. (Mark 11:18) This suggests that they may have profited from the exchanging of money and the buying and selling.
According to ancient Jewish sources, there were times when those who sold sacrificial animals charged exorbitant prices. One example of this was when pairs of doves were sold for 25 times above the regular price. (Mishnah, Keritot 1:7) Money changers profited from exchanging coins that could not be used for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and perhaps also for the purchase of sacrificial animals.
While Jesus was in the temple precincts, the blind and the lame came to him, and he healed them. Youths in the temple area cried out, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” either meaning “Praise to the Son of David” (NCV) or “Save, please, the Son of David.” The designation “Son of David” identified Jesus as the promised Messiah. It is likely that the children imitated their parents and other adults who had earlier thus expressed themselves. (Matthew 21:14, 15)
When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things Jesus did, restoring sight to the blind and curing the lame, and heard him being acknowledged as the “Son of David,” they became indignant. They challengingly asked Jesus whether he did not hear what the youths were saying, indicating thereby that they wanted him to stop them. He replied, “Yes,” and then asked them whether they had never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have prepared praise [Psalm 8:3, LXX].” (Matthew 21:15, 16; see Psalm 8, in the Commentary section, for additional information.)
The unbelieving leaders of the nation regarded Jesus as a threat, fearing a potential conflict with Rome. They wanted him dead but were afraid to act, for he astounded the multitude with his teaching. With the crowds being eager to hear Jesus, the influential members of the nation could not find a way to destroy him without precipitating an uprising among the people. (Mark 11:18; 14:2; Luke 19:47, 48; John 11:48)
Among those who had come to the festival to worship were some Greeks. Their not being referred to as proselytes may indicate that they were not such but had come to believe in the one true God. Either on this or another day, these God-fearing non-Jews approached Philip, the apostle from Bethsaida in Galilee, and expressed their desire to see Jesus. Possibly they chose to speak to Philip because of his Greek name, meaning “fond of horses.” It appears that Philip was unsure about what he should do and so first spoke to Andrew about the desire of the Greeks. Then both of them went to Jesus and informed him about this. (John 12:20-22)
Against the backdrop of the desire of the Greeks to see him, Jesus foretold that there would be even greater response to him after his death and subsequent glorification, which would have included his resurrection and ascension to heaven as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been entrusted. He then said that the “hour” or time had come for the “Son of Man to be glorified.” Illustrating that his death would result in an increase in disciples, he referred to a grain of wheat as dying (or ceasing to exist as just one grain) and thereafter bearing much fruit. If it did not fall on the ground (being sown), it would remain just a single grain. Indicating that he was conveying an important truth, Jesus prefaced his statement with a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly). (John 12:23, 24)
Suggesting that the resulting increase after his death would be through the activity of his disciples, Jesus called attention to the need for courage. Intense opposition to their activity could even lead to their death. Therefore, the one who loved his “soul” (life), failing to remain loyal to Jesus out of fear, would lose it. The unfaithful one would forfeit his relationship with the Son of God and his Father and thus lose out on the real or eternal life. On the other hand, the person who “hates his soul in this world” or does not make the preservation of his present life more important than loyalty to Christ would be safeguarding it “for eternal life.” Even though the faithful individual may be put to death, he would retain his eternal relationship with the Son of God and his Father. For the loyal disciple, life in the age to come would be certain. (John 12:25)
Those who would serve the Lord Jesus Christ would follow him, heeding his teaching and imitating his example. With reference to the blessing awaiting the faithful servant, Jesus said, “My servant will also be there where I am. If anyone serves me, [my] Father will honor him.” As Jesus returned to the realm above, his faithful disciples would come to be there with him and be honored by the Father as his approved children. (John 12:26)
Seemingly, as Jesus considered what lay ahead for his disciples, he began to think about the suffering and excruciating death he would shortly face. Within himself he sensed a disturbing upheaval, prompting him to say, “My soul is troubled,” and causing him to wonder just what expression he should make. Greatly distressed in spirit, he prayed, “Father, save me from this hour.” If the possibility of being delivered from a dreadful end had been an option, Jesus would have wanted to be rescued. He realized, however, that submission to his Father’s will mattered most. So he immediately added, “But therefore I have come to this hour.” The culminating purpose for his coming to the earth had been to make possible the rescue of the world of mankind from sin and death through his own sacrificial death. As the obedient Son who delighted to do his Father’s will, Jesus turned his attention away from himself and prayed, “Father, glorify your name.” (John 12:27, 28) It was his Father’s will for him to lay down his life, and Jesus’ prayer was that doing it would glorify his Father’s name (or his Father, the bearer of the name). The glorification consisted of the ultimate revelation of his Father’s love and compassion for humankind. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8-11; 1 John 4:9, 10)
In response to his prayer, a voice resounded from heaven, “And I have glorified [my name] and will again glorify [my name].” (John 12:28) Through the miracles and works of power he enabled his Son to perform, the Father had glorified himself, with many expressing praise to him for the marvelous deeds that brought relief to the afflicted. Then, through his Son’s death and subsequent resurrection, he would once again glorify his name or bring glory to himself. In increasing numbers, believers would thank and praise him.
A crowd of people heard the voice from heaven but they appear not to have understood the words. Some concluded that it had thundered, whereas others thought that an angel had spoken to Jesus. He, however, told them that the voice had resounded for them or their benefit and not for him. (John 12:29, 30)
Through his death in faithfulness, Jesus would triumph over the powers of darkness, ending the tyranny of the ruler of the world who would be unable to restrain anyone from transferring to the realm where God rules through his Son. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the judging or condemning of the world (exposing the world of mankind to be alienated from his Father) and the ejection of Satan, the ruler of this world. (John 12:31)
The effect of Jesus’ being “lifted up” from the earth would be his drawing “all” to him, indicating that people from everywhere would respond to him in faith and accept his having died for them. The expression “lifted up” indicated that he would be lifted up on the implement on which he would be crucified. Understanding Jesus as having referred to his experiencing the kind of death associated with being “lifted up,” certain ones in the crowd expressed the view that the “law” or their holy writings indicated that the Christ would remain forever. So they asked Jesus why he said the Son of Man would be lifted up and who this one is. (John 12:32-34)
No specific part of the Hebrew Scriptures says that the Messiah would remain forever. Possibly based on what they had heard about the coming Messiah, they came to this conclusion. Psalm 89:36(37) did point to the permanence of rule in the line of David, and Daniel 7:13, 14 portrays someone “like a son of man” being granted eternal dominion, and it may be that such passages provided a basis for the belief that the Messiah or Christ would remain forever.
The Son of God did not answer their question directly. His words, however, should have made it possible for them to recognize that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom true enlightenment was available. It would only be a little while longer that the “light” (he as the one through whom the light was available) would be among them. Jesus admonished the people to “walk” while they had the light, conforming their ways to what the light revealed, and avoiding the hazards of walking in darkness or without the dependable guidance he provided. Persons who walked in darkness would not know where they were going, placing themselves in danger. At this point, the Son of God clarified that faith in him was essential. “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” (John 12:35, 36)
All who put faith in Jesus came into possession of true light, for acting in harmony with his example and teaching made it possible for them to have his Father’s approval and to conduct themselves aright. As persons fully enlightened and conducting themselves accordingly, they would be able to testify concerning God’s Son, imparting light or enlightenment to others. Thus, through their conduct and testimony, they would prove to be “sons of light.”
At this point, Jesus left and concealed himself from the unbelieving people. This suggests that he recognized that his life was in danger, but it was then not the time for him to give up his life. (John 12:36)
Although Jesus had performed many “signs” or miracles, the people did not believe in him. In their case, the words of prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, for they manifested the same unresponsiveness to Jesus as did their forefathers to Isaiah and the message he proclaimed. “Lord [LXX, but not in the extant Hebrew text], who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1, LXX; John 12:36-38)
The implied answer is that the message (or the word of which the Most High was the source and, therefore, of what Isaiah and Jesus had heard from him) was not believed. Although God had revealed his “arm” or his activity and power, the contemporaries of Isaiah and of Jesus generally remained blind to it. The reason for their unbelief is set forth in Isaiah 6:10, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart [mind], that they may not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart [mind], and they change [literally, turn], and I would heal them.” (John 12:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
According to John 12:41, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke about it.” The prophet did have a vision of the glory of God after which he said, “My eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:1-5) Being the perfect reflection of the Father or his very image, the Son possessed the glory that Isaiah saw in vision. (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) Isaiah also spoke prophetically concerning him. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 53:1-12) Accordingly, the words of Isaiah could be represented as spoken by one who saw Christ’s glory and whose experience with unbelief to the message from the Most High found its exact parallel or fulfillment in the case of Jesus. The Father did not prevent the people from choosing to remain blind and refusing to believe and change. Consequently, he is represented as blinding their eyes and hardening their heart.
Nevertheless, not all of the people remained unresponsive. Even among the prominent ones (“rulers”) of the nation, there were those who believed. But, at the time, because of the unbelieving Pharisees, they did not openly acknowledge him as the Christ, not wanting to be cast out of the synagogue. They were more concerned about maintaining their honorable standing in the Jewish community (“the glory of men”) than about glorifying God by honoring his Son. Thus they revealed themselves to be persons who loved “the glory of men more than the glory of God.” (John 12:42, 43; see the Notes section for additional comments.) The expression “glory of God” could (as commonly rendered) mean the glory he bestows on those who put faith in his Son, accepting them as his beloved children.
It appears that before Jesus went into hiding he raised his voice, telling the people of the need to put faith in him. Anyone who believed in him would also be believing in the one who had sent him. Likewise, whoever saw him, recognizing him as the unique Son of God, would see the one who had sent him, for Jesus perfectly reflected his Father. No one who believed in him would remain in darkness, for Jesus had come as “light into the world,” making it possible for individuals to have his Father’s approval and to have the essential guidance for conducting themselves aright as his children. (John 12:44-46)
Jesus did not come to judge or condemn those who heard his words but did not heed them. His mission was to save the world of mankind, not to condemn it, opening up the opportunity for all to change their ways, become his disciples and his Father’s beloved children, and be liberated from sin and thus saved from condemnation. There would, however, be a basis for judgment or condemnation in case of individuals who disregarded Jesus and refused to accept what he said. “On the last day” or at the time of judgment, the “word” he had spoken would serve as judge, condemning those who deliberately rejected it. This would be because the Father was the source of Jesus’ teaching. The Son did not speak of his own but spoke only what his Father had commanded him to speak. Regarding his Father’s commandment, Jesus said, “I know that his commandment is eternal life.” (John 12:47-50) Obedience to that “commandment,” which included putting faith in the Son, would result in having an approved relationship with him and his Father, and that enduring relationship constitutes the real or eternal life. (John 17:3)
Because of what he knew about his Father’s commandment, Jesus did not in any way depart from it in his teaching. He expressed only what his Father had told him. (John 12:50)
In the evening, Jesus left Jerusalem. He and the apostles then stayed in Bethany for the night. (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:19)
Notes:
In Matthew 21:19, Jesus is represented as saying that the fig tree should never again bear fruit. Mark 11:14 conveys the same basic thought but focuses on no one’s ever again eating from its fruit. While the wording is different (being expressed in a language other than the one Jesus spoke), both passages are in agreement that the fig tree should never again bear fruit.
According to Matthew 21:19, the fig tree withered instantly. Mark 11:20, however, indicates that it was early the next morning that the apostles saw that the fig tree had already withered. So it appears that Matthew 21:19 either means that the fig tree immediately started to wither but that the process could not initially be seen or that the withering occurred in such a short time that it could be spoken of as having taken place at once.
In Mark 11:17, the quotation from Isaiah 56:7 is longer, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”
The words in John 12:40 are not an exact quotation from the extant Septuagint text of Isaiah 6:10 nor from the extant Hebrew text. The Septuagint reading represents the unresponsiveness of the people as being their choice (“they have shut their eyes”). In the Masoretic Text and also the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, the words are a directive to Isaiah (“shut their eyes”). In the Scriptures, whatever takes place by God’s permission is commonly attributed to him. Therefore, the way in which Isaiah 6:10 is quoted in John 12:40 and applied preserves the basic meaning.
Possibly the “rulers” mentioned in John 12:42 included Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who later did identify themselves as disciples.
On the way to Jerusalem the next morning, the fig tree that Jesus had cursed the day before was dried up from the roots. As they passed by on the road, the apostles were surprised to see this and wondered how this could have happened so soon. Peter appears to have been the first one to speak up, “Lord, look, the fig tree you cursed has dried up.” (Matthew 21:20; Mark 11:20, 21)
In his reply, Jesus stressed the need for faith in God. Prefacing his comments with a solemn “amen” (truly), he directed attention to the power of faith. If they had faith and did not doubt, the apostles would be able to do what Jesus had done to the fig tree and, in fact, even more. He continued, “If you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and tossed into the sea,’ it will occur.” (Matthew 21:21) In Mark 11:23, Jesus is represented as using a more detailed qualifying statement, “If [the person] does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be [so] for him.” In their hearts or their inmost selves, the apostles should have the firm conviction that God would answer their prayers. They would come to have whatever they prayed for in faith. Their appeal should be with the kind of certainty reflective of their already having received whatever they requested. (Matthew 21:22; Mark 12:24) Prayers, expressed in faith, would of necessity have to be in harmony with God’s will, as nothing that is opposed to his will is compatible with faith in him.
Besides having faith in God as the hearer of prayer, all who appeal to him should also maintain a forgiving spirit. Jesus told the apostles that when they stood to pray, they should forgive what they might have against anyone. The heavenly Father would then also forgive them their trespasses. (Mark 11:25) Numerous later manuscripts add, “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who [is] in the heavens forgive your trespasses.” (Mark 11:26; these words [which parallel Matthew 6:15] are missing in numerous modern translations because they are not found in the oldest extant manuscripts as well as many others.)
It may be noted that letting go of resentment and anger when being transgressed against may appear as difficult as moving a mountain out of one’s way. With faith in God, however, it can be done. For the apostles, the drying up of the fig tree provided an object lesson regarding the power of faith.
By implication, the withering of the fig tree also revealed that there are serious consequences for not believing. In the case of the nation of Israel, faith in God should have led to accepting his Son. When the “time of visitation” arrived for Jerusalem and so also for the people for whom the city with its temple was the place of worship, Jesus did not find the fruit of faith among the prominent ones and those who followed their lead. Like the barren fig tree, the people had showy leaves, observing the traditions and the ritualistic aspects of worship at the temple. But the fruit that counted—the faith that would have moved them to accept Jesus as the Son of God and to become his loyal disciples—was lacking. Accordingly, just as the fig tree had dried up, they would face serious adverse judgment. (Compare Luke 19:41-44.)
If not then, the apostles later must have recalled Jesus’ earlier parable about the barren fig tree and the effort to save it from being cut down as useless. (Luke 13:6-9) That parable had specific application to the nation of Israel and the opportunities extended to it to be found divinely approved and to escape adverse judgment for failing to bear fruit to God’s praise.
Arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus and the apostles went to the temple, where he began to teach and proclaim the good news (which likely included the message about how to become part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign). The chief priests, scribes, and elders of the nation approached him, demanding to know by what authority he acted (likely referring to his driving out those who conducted commercial activities in the Court of the Gentiles) and who had granted him this authority. (Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:27, 28; Luke 20:1, 2; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 21:23.)
Jesus told them that, if they answered one question for him, he would let them know about his authority. “The baptism from John—from where was [it], from heaven or from men?” They realized that, if they said, “From heaven,” he would ask them why they did not believe John. If, however, they said, “From men,” they feared this would lead to trouble from the multitude. The unbelieving leaders knew that the people considered John to have been a prophet. So, if their answer discredited him, the people could have become so enraged as to resort to stoning them. Realizing that they could not give either answer without creating a problem for themselves, the prominent ones said, “We do not know.” Therefore, the Son of God said that he would not tell them by what authority he acted. (Matthew 21:24-27; Mark 11:29-33; Luke 20:3-8)
The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32)
By means of a parable, Jesus then had those who did not believe in him condemn themselves. He started with a question, “What do you think?” A man asked one of his two sons to go to work in the vineyard that day. The son refused to do so, but later regretted his decision and actually did labor in the vineyard. When approached with the same request, the other son agreed to labor in the vineyard but then did not do so. “Which of the two,” Jesus asked, “did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” (Matthew 21:28-31; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Applying the point of the parable, Jesus told the unbelieving leaders of the nation that the tax collectors and the prostitutes were going ahead of them into God’s kingdom. John the Baptist had come to them in the “way of righteousness” or had called to their attention the divinely approved way of life. But, as Jesus said to the prominent ones, “You did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did believe him.” Even though the leaders witnessed this development, they did not have a change of mind and believe John. (Matthew 21:32)
Tax collectors and prostitutes were among those who responded to John’s proclamation, repenting of their sins and submitting to water baptism. By abandoning their wrong course, they demonstrated themselves to be like the son who initially refused to work in the vineyard but afterward had a change of heart and complied with his father’s request. They did what was required to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign.
The ones whom Jesus addressed represented themselves as agreeing to do God’s will but then failed to do so. They disregarded John as God’s prophet and rejected Jesus, the one who had come from God and imparted his teaching. Thus they kept themselves out of the kingdom of God, the realm where his loyal subjects acknowledge his Son as the king whom he has appointed.
The Parable of the Evil Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)
The Son of God then asked the people to listen to another parable. A man planted a vineyard, encircled it with a fence (a stone wall or a thorny hedge), dug out a wine press, built a tower (where a watchman would be stationed to guard against loss from thieves or wild animals), contracted it out to vinedressers, and left the country for some time. At harvesttime, he sent his slaves to obtain his share of the grapes. The vinedressers beat up one of the slaves, another one they killed, and still another slave they stoned. The vineyard owner sent a larger group of slaves, and the vinedressers likewise mistreated and killed them. Finally, the man sent his own son, believing that they would respect him. When the vinedressers saw him, they determined to kill him and thereby come into possession of the vineyard. They seized the son, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Jesus then asked what the owner, upon his arrival, would do to these vinedressers. They replied that the evil men would be destroyed and the vineyard would be contracted out to others who would give him his due share of the grapes at harvesttime. (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
In the parable, the owner of the vineyard represents the Most High; the vineyard, the nation of Israel; the tenant vinedressers, the leaders of the people; the slaves, the prophets who were mistreated and killed; and the son, Jesus. The people, including the chief priests, scribes, and elders, doubtless were familiar with the words of Isaiah (5:1-7), which identified the “house of Israel” and the “people of Judah” as YHWH’s vineyard and revealed the severe punishment for failing to produce fruit in the form of justice and uprightness. According to Luke 20:16, the listeners appear to have discerned the implication of ruin for the nation, prompting them to say, “May it not occur” (basically meaning “God forbid!”).
Applying the parable, Jesus asked the hearers whether they had never read in the Scriptures, “The stone that the builders rejected has come to be the head of the corner; this has come to be from the Lord, and it is amazing in our eyes.” The leaders of the nation, like the builders of the parable, had rejected Jesus like a stone unfit for their purposes. His Father, however, decreed for him to be highly exalted like the most important stone, the “head of the corner.” In the eyes of God’s servants, the reversal from being rejected to being granted unparalleled honor is something truly marvelous. (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10, 11; Luke 20:17)
Continuing, Jesus told those listening to him that the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a nation producing its fruit. The one who fell on the rejected stone would be shattered and the one upon whom this stone fell would be crushed. For those who persisted in unbelief, Jesus would prove to be like a large stone in their way, over which they would stumble, leading to their ruin. He would also be like a large boulder that could come crashing down upon them, crushing them completely. As a nation, the Israelites would lose their divinely favored status, and the non-Jewish peoples would be granted the opportunity to become part of the kingdom. Thus another nation or people, by responding in faith, would be given the kingdom that the unbelieving Israelites and their leaders chose to reject. (Matthew 21:43, 44 [the words of verse 44 not being included in all ancient manuscripts]; Luke 20:18)
The chief priests and Pharisees (“scribes,” Luke 20:19) discerned that Jesus had spoken the parable with them in mind. They wanted to seize him, but they feared the multitude who considered him to be a prophet. (Matthew 21:45, 46; Mark 12:12)
Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14)
Jesus related yet another parable, likening the kingdom of the heavens to a wedding banquet that a king arranged for his son. (Matthew 22:1, 2) This parable revealed that there are conditions for being part of the realm where God is Sovereign and where his Son is his appointed king. It also highlights the serious consequences for failing to respond properly or not acting in harmony with divine requirements.
The king sent out his servants to call the invitees, but they did not want to come. He then sent out other servants to tell the invitees that the preparations for the wedding banquet had been completed. Those who had been invited, however, had no interest in being present for the event. They continued pursuing personal affairs, going to their own field or handling business transactions. Others seized the servants, treated them contemptuously, and killed them. (Matthew 22:3-6)
Infuriated, the king sent out his forces to execute vengeance. The armies slaughtered the murderers and burned their city. (Matthew 22:7)
After telling them that the wedding banquet was ready but that the invitees were undeserving, the king instructed his servants to go into the main roads and to invite anyone whom they might find. His servants did so, inviting all whom they found, “both bad and good.” The banquet hall came to be filled with those who reclined on couches to partake of the food. (Matthew 22:8-10)
When entering the banquet hall to see the guests, the king noticed a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. Asked how he had gained entrance without the appropriate attire, the man was speechless, unable to offer any valid reason for his unsuitable clothing. The king ordered him to be bound hand and foot, and thrown out of the illuminated banquet hall into the darkness outside. There in the darkness, he would become aware of his loss and shed bitter tears and gnash his teeth as he vainly tried to control his sobbing. As Jesus said, “There will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” He concluded the parable with the words, “For many are the called, but few [are] the chosen.” (Matthew 22:11-14)
In this parable, the original invited ones represent the people of Israel. To them, the promise had been made that, if obedient, they would come to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5, 6) With the arrival of the Son of God, they had the opportunity to be part of the realm where he is king by his Father’s appointment. In the parable, this is represented by acting on the invitation to attend the wedding banquet. Through the servants or Christ’s disciples, the invitation continued to be extended, but it was largely ignored, and the disciples were mistreated and even killed. Punitive judgment came through the withdrawal of divine favor and protection. In 70 CE, the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem.
The disciples of God’s Son continued to extend the invitation, going into the roads or telling the non-Jewish peoples how they could become part of the realm where God is Sovereign. The invitation was extended to “both bad and good,” the “good” being like the godly centurion Cornelius who responded compassionately to persons in need and the “bad” being those whose way of life was by no means commendable. (Acts 10:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Titus 3:3)
At inspection time, all those who are properly identified as being in the realm where God rules by means of his Son will come to enjoy the blessings associated therewith, comparable to being partakers of the wedding banquet. Mere claimants, however, who prefer their own attire rather than complying with the divine requirements for entering the kingdom will lose out. For royal wedding banquets, the invited guests were provided with a garment to wear. Therefore, the man in the parable could be represented as being without excuse for his failure. To be approved, it is not a matter of merely professing Jesus as Lord but it requires a life that harmonizes with that acknowledgment. As Jesus said on another occasion, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)
In the case of the Israelites, all of them were invited, but few responded. Therefore, in their case, few were chosen. Similarly, when the invitation went out to the non-Jewish peoples, many did not act on it and so did not come to be among the chosen. Still others, like the man without the wedding garment, have not submitted to God’s requirements but have chosen to follow ways that seemed appropriate to them. As indicated by the parable, this would result in severe judgment.
The leading individuals in or the “founders” of a multitude of movements have been responsible for creating their own “garments” of unique doctrines and practices that distinguish them from other denominational and nondenominational bodies professing to be Christian. Within the various religious communities, these doctrines and practices are perpetuated, and the leadership and the loyal membership are pleased with the distinctive “garments,” which in numerous ways do not represent or seriously misrepresent the teaching and example of God’s Son. Thus, many reject the garment offered them, which requires unqualified acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior and living accordingly, and prefer their own attire, with its distinctive sectarian label.
Notes:
Matthew 21:23 makes no mention of the scribes, as do Mark 11:27 and Luke 20:1. In Matthew 21:45, however, the Pharisees are included, and Luke 20:19 refers to the scribes. This suggests that these scribes were Pharisees.
For Matthew 21:28-31, the readings of ancient Greek manuscripts vary, and this accounts for different renderings in translations. One commonly followed Greek text has been translated as follows: “‘A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, “Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” He answered, “I will not”; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, “I go, sir”; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?’ They said, ‘The first.’” (NRSV)
A different Greek text of Matthew 21:28-31 reverses the responses of the two sons and provides a corresponding answer to Jesus’ question. This is the basis for the rendering of The Revised English Bible: “‘There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first, and said, “My son, go and work today in the vineyard.” “I will, sir,” the boy replied; but he did not go. The father came to the second and said the same. “I will not,” he replied; but afterwards he changed his mind and went. Which of the two did what his father wanted?’ ‘The second,’ they replied.’”
A comparison of Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-9, and Luke 20:9-16 reveals variations in the parable about the evil vinedressers. Matthew 21 mentions two groups of slaves and how they were treated, whereas both Mark 12 and Luke 20 are more specific when focusing on the treatment of individual slaves. The vinedressers beat up the first slave and sent him away without anything. (Mark 12:3; Luke 20:10) They beat the second slave over the head, insulted him, and gave him nothing. (Mark 12:4; Luke 20:11) Another slave they killed (Mark 12:5) or, according to Luke 20:12, they wounded the third slave and then threw him out of the vineyard. Mark 12:5 adds that the owner sent out many more slaves, some of whom were either beaten up or killed.
Mark 12:9 and Luke 20:16 do not mention that Jesus requested an answer to his question about what would happen to the evil vinedressers. The answer was obvious from what he had said. Therefore, in Mark 12:9 and Luke 20:16, the substance of this answer is rightly presented as part of the parable.
After hearing Jesus’ words, the unbelieving Pharisees departed and plotted how they could trap him in his speech. (Matthew 22:15) Although strongly disagreeing with the Herodians in their active support of the Herodian dynasty, they allied themselves with them, for they were of the same mind in opposing the Son of God. The Pharisees selected certain disciples (probably younger men whom Jesus would not have recognized) to send to him, and the Herodians must have chosen their own adherents to be included in this group. According to Luke 20:19, the chief priests were also involved in devising the scheme to ensnare Jesus, and the scribes mentioned in that text appear to have been unbelieving Pharisees. The objective was to have Jesus make statements that could be used against him, making it possible to hand him over to the Roman governor for punishment as a seditionist. Those sent pretended to be upright men and sincere questioners. In an effort to throw Jesus off guard, they resorted to flattery. After addressing him as “teacher,” they claimed to know him to be “true,” sincere, or honest, teaching the way of God in harmony with truth, and not being influenced by position or status. (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13, 14; Luke 20:20, 21)
Then they raised the question that was designed to trap Jesus. “Is it lawful to pay tax to Caesar or not?” (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22) They knew how unpopular the payment of taxes was (especially because a foreign power had imposed it), and an affirmative answer would not have gone over well with the people. While a negative answer would have appealed to the masses who hated the Roman system of taxation, it would have made Jesus guilty of promoting sedition.
Fully aware of the questioners’ sinister intent and cunning, Jesus identified them as hypocrites, men who only pretended to want an answer, and asked them, “Why do you test me?” He requested that they show him a denarius (a Roman coin with which tax would be paid and which amounted to a day’s wage for a laborer). After being approached with the coin, Jesus asked them to identify the image and the inscription. They replied, “Caesar’s.” He then told them, “Give Caesar’s things to Caesar, and God’s things to God.” This was not an answer the questioners could use against Jesus, for it required their determining what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God and following through accordingly. The answer took them by surprise and silenced them, and they left. (Matthew 22:18-22; Mark 12:15-17; Luke 20:23-26)
The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in a resurrection from the dead. (Acts 23:8) Knowing that Jesus taught that there would be a resurrection, the Sadducees determined to try to make this teaching appear unreasonable. They referred to what Moses had written concerning levirate marriage, which required that the brother of a man who died childless take the widow of the deceased as his wife and father offspring for his brother. They cited the example of a woman who, through the provision of levirate marriage, came to have seven husbands, all of whom died childless. (Matthew 22:23-27; Mark 12:18-22; Luke 20:27-32) Whether this involved an actual case or a hypothetical one cannot be determined from the narrative.
The Sadducees asked whose wife she would be in the resurrection. (Matthew 22:28; Mark 12:23; Luke 20:33) Seemingly, in their view, it would have been unthinkable for a woman to be the wife of seven husbands upon being raised from the dead and, therefore, the idea about a resurrection was problematic and unreasonable.
Jesus reproved them for knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. “The sons of this age,” or humans in the present state of earthly existence, “marry and are given in marriage.” In the age to come, Jesus indicated that there would be a different kind of life, one that existed among the angels, heavenly beings who neither marry nor are given in marriage and who do not die. As persons raised to unending life or “sons of the resurrection,” the resurrected ones would be “sons of God.” Thus Jesus showed that the Sadducees did not know the power of God. They had rejected belief in a resurrection on the basis of only one kind of existence and allowed their narrow view to limit what divine power could accomplish. (Matthew 22:29, 30; Mark 12:24, 25; Luke 20:34-36)
Next Jesus made it clear that they did not know the Scriptures, failing to see indications about future life in words that they professed to accept. He called attention to the incident involving Moses at the burning bush. (Exodus 3:1-6) Moses heard the words, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus added, “He is God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all alive to him.” (Matthew 22:31, 32; Mark 12:26, 27; Luke 20:37, 38)
His being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob confirms an existing and continuing relationship with them as persons. The Most High does not have a relationship with the lifeless elements of the ground to which the three patriarchs had returned long before the revelation to Moses at the burning bush. This enduring relationship confirmed the certainty of the resurrection hope. So sure was it that, to God, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living.
Mark 12:27 indicates that Jesus also told the Sadducees that, by denying belief in the resurrection, they were very much in error. Many who had been listening to Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection were astounded, likely because of its clarity and simplicity. (Matthew 22:33) Even certain scribes acknowledged that Jesus had expressed himself well as a teacher. Thereafter the Sadducees did not dare to question him any more, doubtless because of having failed in their attempt to discredit him. (Luke 20:39, 40)
When certain Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection, they gathered around him. One of their number, a scribe (a legal expert, according to numerous manuscript readings of Matthew 22:35) approached him with the objective of testing him. This scribe had overheard the interchange with the Sadducees and recognized that Jesus had answered them well. He then asked which was the first or greatest commandment in the law. (Matthew 22:34-36; Mark 12:28; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 22:36 and Mark 12:28.)
In answer, Jesus identified the first commandment with a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:4, 5, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord [Hebrew, YHWH our God—YHWH (is) one], and you must love the Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” (Mark 12:29, 30; see the Notes regarding Matthew 22:37.) This commandment stressed the all-embracing nature of love for God, with not a single faculty being omitted.
According to Matthew 22:38, Jesus identified this commandment as “the greatest and first.” Referring to the second one as being like it, he then quoted from Leviticus 19:18, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” “No other commandment,” Jesus continued, “is greater than these.” (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31) The two greatest commandments express the complete intent of the law and the prophets, with love for God and for one’s neighbor or fellow guiding one’s attitude, thoughts, words, and actions. As Jesus said, “On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets hang.” (Matthew 22:40) The law and the teaching that the prophets conveyed are based on love. Therefore, it logically follows that the law and the prophets cannot be rightly understood or appreciated when one lacks love for God and for fellow humans.
The scribe who had raised the question was moved to acknowledge, “Excellent, Teacher, you have spoken in truth, ‘He is one, and there is no one other than he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love [one’s] neighbor as oneself surpasses [in importance] all the holocausts and sacrifices.” Recognizing that he had responded wisely, Jesus said to him, “You are not far from God’s kingdom.” (Mark 12:32-34)
To be in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign requires living a life of love, for love uniquely distinguishes him and expresses who he is. By acting in harmony with the words he had uttered, the scribe would have put faith in Jesus and imitated his love.
The question had not stumped the Son of God. Therefore, no one among the group dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:34)
Notes:
The scribe’s question is not worded the same in Matthew 22:36 (“Teacher, which commandment [is the] greatest in the law?”) as in Mark 12:28 (“Which commandment is [the] first of all?”). The difference is understandable when one considers that the question was not originally expressed in Greek. Both passages, however, convey the identical thought.
In Matthew 22:37, the quotation is limited to the words in Deuteronomy 6:5. Both Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30 include the phrase “with all your mind.” This phrase is not found in extant manuscripts of the Septuagint nor is there any corresponding wording in the Masoretic Text. With the exception of the missing phrase and a different word for “strength” or “might,” the extant text of the Septuagint and the text of Mark 12:29, 30 are the same. Matthew 22:37, in the abbreviated quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5, omits “with all your strength.” The differences in the Greek of Mark 12:29, 30 and Matthew 22:37 are minor and have no bearing on the meaning of Jesus’ words.
While the Pharisees were still in his presence, Jesus asked, “What do you think about the Christ [or Messiah]? Whose son is he?” “David’s,” they replied. “How, then,” said Jesus, “[could] David, by [holy, Mark 12:36] spirit, call him lord, saying, ‘The Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies underneath your feet”’?” After having quoted from Psalm 110:1, Jesus asked, “If, then, David calls him lord, how is he his son?” No one among those there could give him an answer. From that “day” or time, no one among the unbelievers dared to ask Jesus any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; see the Notes section for additional comments.) According to Mark 12:37, the large crowd that heard the interchanges found delight in listening to Jesus.
Being the Son of God, Jesus was greater than David and would be the one who would raise him from the dead. All creation came into existence through the Son. So, even from the beginning, David owed his life to him. Not David, but Jesus is the appointed king in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. David, upon being raised from the dead, would therefore be among all who bend the knee to Jesus, acknowledging him as their Lord.
Notes:
In Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44, the point about David’s lord is presented in an abbreviated form. Jesus is represented as asking how they [the scribes, according to Mark 12:35] can say that the Christ is David’s son when David, by holy spirit, calls him lord. As in Matthew 22:44, the words of Psalm 110:1 are quoted in Mark (12:36) and Luke (20:42, 43). Luke 20:42 additionally identifies the quotation as being from the “book of Psalms.”
It should be kept in mind that Jesus’ sayings are expressed in a language other than the one in which they were spoken, and the writers’ words convey the substance of what occurred and of what was said. These factors account for the differences in the narratives.
Directing his words to his disciples in the hearing of the multitude, Jesus told them to watch out for the scribes, many of whom would have been Pharisees. In pronouncing “woe,” grief, or distress for the scribes and Pharisees, he called attention to their wrong attitude and practices. (Matthew 23:1, 13; Mark 12:38; Luke 20:45, 46)
It is noteworthy that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus did not hold back from making unfavorable comments about the Pharisees in the time of Herod the Great. He called them a “cunning sect,” and spoke of them as having caused mischief and greatly opposed kings. (Antiquities, XVII, ii, 4) Yet, he, at the age of 19 and after having made an examination of the sects among the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), “began to conduct [himself] according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees.” (Life, 2)
Therefore, the strong language Jesus used should not occasion surprise. Earlier, while a guest in the home of Simon (a Pharisee), he had made some of the same or similar expressions. (Luke 11:39-52)
The scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves on the “seat of Moses,” occupying the position of teachers of the law. When it came to the instruction that was based on the law, Jesus told those who were listening to observe it but not to follow the practices of the scribes and Pharisees. This is because, although teaching what the law said, they did not act in harmony with their words. (Matthew 23:2, 3)
The scribes and Pharisees imposed heavy burdens on the people, loading them down with harsh and unreasonable regulations and restrictions that went far beyond what the Mosaic law outlined. When they saw how difficult their added commands had made it for the people, they did nothing to rectify the situation. As Jesus said, they were unwilling to lift a finger to move the burdens. (Matthew 23:4)
The scribes and Pharisees were chiefly concerned about how they appeared in the eyes of others. The aim underlying all the “works” they performed was a desire to be seen, impressing others with their devotion to God. They used larger phylacteries than their fellow countrymen, and wore garments with longer fringes than the rest of the people. (Matthew 23:5)
In the Dead Sea area, phylacteries dating from either the first century BCE or the first century CE have been found. They are small leather cases measuring between a half inch to one inch and a quarter in length and less than a half inch to one inch in width. Usually, strips of parchment with neatly written minute characters from Exodus (13:1-10; 13:11-16) and Deuteronomy (6:4-9; 11:13-21) were folded to fit into tiny compartments in the small leather cases. If the ancient phylacteries are representative of those commonly used when Jesus was on earth, the ones the Pharisees had were noticeably larger. They also wore garments with larger fringes. According to the Tosefta (Berakhot, 6:25), the phylacteries on a man’s head and on his arm, as well as the mezuzah on his doorpost and the “four fringes” on his garment meant that he was surrounded by the commandments, and these would protect him.
The scribes and Pharisees dressed in fine robes, not in the common attire of workers. They wanted to be greeted respectfully in the marketplaces, to be acknowledged as godly men and called “Rabbi” (literally, “my great one” or “Teacher”), and to be honored with the front seats in the synagogues. These front seats faced the audience and were reserved for synagogue officials and notable guests. At meals and banquets, the scribes and Pharisees desired to recline in the foremost positions on the couches that were arranged on three sides of the table. (Matthew 23:6, 7; Mark 12:38, 39; Luke 20:46)
Jesus told his disciples that no one among them should be called “Rabbi,” for they had only one teacher (Jesus himself). All of them were brothers, indicating that no one was to lift himself up as being of superior rank. As brothers, they were not to call any man among them “father.” They had only one Father, the heavenly one. The disciples were not to call any individual their “instructor,” for they had only one instructor, the Christ. To him alone, they were to look for direction and guidance. The greatest among them would be identified by his being a servant, laboring among them in a loving and unassuming manner. To impress upon the disciples the importance of conducting themselves like lowly servants, Jesus said, “The one who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:8-12)
When pronouncing “woe” for the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus called them “hypocrites.” They were like actors on a stage who played a role but whose face was hidden by a mask. Their true identity was concealed by an outward appearance of piety. Instead of helping fellow Jews to be in a state of preparedness to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign, they shut them out of the “kingdom of the heavens.” This they did by maligning and opposing Jesus, the one whom his Father had appointed as king. They created a climate of fear and intimidation, making it difficult for others to put faith in Jesus. The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees refused to go into the kingdom. By their attitude, words, and actions, they cowed others into fearfully holding back from becoming Jesus’ disciples. (Matthew 23:13)
Many later manuscripts include another pronouncement of woe (Matthew 23:14) that is found in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for devouring the houses of widows and making a pretense with long prayers. Writing regarding certain Pharisees during the reign of Herod the Great, Josephus referred to them as men “who valued themselves highly” for being skilled “in the law of their fathers” and made others believe that God had “highly favored” them. (Antiquities, XVII, ii, 4) The strong language Jesus used suggests that they influenced widows to give of their resources to a degree that jeopardized their livelihood. The long prayers would have served to impress these widows, prompting them to respond to the scribes and Pharisees as men whom God highly favored.
The scribes and Pharisees insisted on observing the tradition of the elders, which led to undue stress on appearances. In the Tosefta (Berakhot, 3:20), mention is made of Haninah the son of Dosa who, though bitten by a poisonous lizard, continued to pray. His students reportedly later found the lizard dead at its hole.
For what they did to widows, influencing them in ways that meant loss instead of compassionately looking out for their welfare, the scribes and Pharisees would face a more severe divine judgment than would others for their wrongs. (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47)
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” Jesus continued. They crossed land and sea, doing everything possible, to make one proselyte or convert. That convert would then be worse off than before, coming to be twice as much a “son of Gehenna” than they were. (Matthew 23:15) As a convert, he would be even more rabid than they in his attachment to the traditions that nullified God’s law and be even less inclined to put faith in Jesus. For the proselyte, there would be an even greater likelihood of grave loss. As a person whom God rejects, he would be thrown into Gehenna or tossed like a carcass unfit for burial into a dump where fires burn continually and maggots feed on whatever the flames do not consume. (Isaiah 66:24)
Again pronouncing “woe” or grief for the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus called them “blind guides.” They provided others with the wrong direction that, when followed, contributed to spiritual ruin. An example of this involved their teaching about oaths. They maintained that a person who swore by the sanctuary was not bound by the oath, nor was one who swore by the altar. If, however, he swore by the gold of the sanctuary or the offering on the altar, the oath was binding. With questions, Jesus exposed them as being senseless and blind. “Which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that sanctifies the gold?” “Which is greater, the gift [offering] or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” Summing up the right view of oaths, Jesus continued, “He who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it, and he who swears by the sanctuary swears by it and by him who dwells in it [by God whose temple it was], and he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.” (Matthew 23:16-22)
Ancient Jewish sources indicate that not all formulas used in swearing had the same binding force. According to the Tosefta (Shebuot, 2:16), he who referred to himself as being subject to an oath “by the Torah” was liable, whereas one who said “by heaven” was exempt.
Verses 23, 25, 27, and 29 of Matthew 23 start Jesus’ denouncement with the words, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” His exposure is not focused on their beliefs or doctrines but on the serious flaws of their inner life.
They tithed mint (an aromatic plant), dill (a plant of the carrot family, the aromatic seeds of which are used for seasoning), and cummin (also a plant of the carrot family having aromatic seeds that are used for seasoning), but they “neglected the weightier matters of the law,” justice, mercy, and faith. (Matthew 23:23)
Ancient Jewish sources set forth many rules about tithing. According to the Tosefta (Maaserot, 3:7), the seeds and leaves of coriander and mustard plants were subject to the law of tithes. There were sages, however, who did not consider that tithing applied to the leaves of the mustard plant. These examples illustrate that seeds used for seasoning were tithed.
The scribes and Pharisees did not treat others with impartiality but looked down on those who did not conduct themselves according to the tradition of the elders, thereby failing to uphold justice. (John 7:47-52) Their abundant rules and regulations imposed a burden on the people. In their failure to respond reasonably and humanely to fellow Israelites whose lot was very difficult as subjects of a foreign power, they demonstrated themselves to be lacking in mercy or compassion. Although they knew what was contained in the Scriptures, they did not respond in faith to Jesus, the very one to whom the Scriptures pointed as the promised Messiah and the prophet greater than Moses. By failing to conduct themselves in harmony with the spirit of the law, with its emphasis on justice, mercy, and obedience, the scribes and Pharisees proved themselves to be unfaithful (faithfulness or fidelity also being a meaning that the Greek word for “faith” [pístis] can convey).
Jesus upheld the law that required tithing, referring to tithing as being among the things not to be neglected. Foremost, though, he placed acting with justice, mercy, and faith. (Matthew 23:23) When scrupulously tithing but disregarding the weightier matters of the law, the scribes and Pharisees manifested themselves as blind guides, persons whose example could not be trusted. As Jesus said, “Blind guides, you strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.” (Matthew 23:24)
Both the gnat and the camel were unclean for food according to the Mosaic law. By attending to minutiae while neglecting the truly important things, the scribes and Pharisees acted like persons who filtered out the tiny gnat but then swallowed something unclean as large as a camel.
They were very concerned about outward appearances and ceremonial cleanness. According to ancient Jewish sources, merely intending to do something that would make a utensil unclean did, in fact, do so. (Tosefta, Kelim Baba Batra, 3:13)
Jesus decried the emphasis the scribes and Pharisees placed on externals while overlooking the more important matters involving the deep inner self. He spoke of them as cleaning the exterior of the cup and the dish, being scrupulous about ceremonial cleanness. The inner self, though, was defiled, filled with plunder or greed and self-indulgence or intemperance. (Matthew 23:25)
Instead of compassionately responding to those in need, the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of causing widows to give what they actually needed to live, thereby robbing them. Though wanting to appear as pious and to be highly honored, the scribes and Pharisees were willing to rob others of dignity, calling them accursed and ignorant of the law. In their inordinate desire for honor and praise from others, they showed themselves to be intemperate. Their focus on themselves and appearances made them self-indulgent, which led to their serious failure to be loving, compassionate, just, and impartial.
Jesus called upon the “blind Pharisee” to change, first cleaning the interior of the cup and the dish so that the exterior might become clean. With moral purity existing in the deep inner self, the whole person would be clean. (Matthew 23:26)
The scribes and Pharisees resembled whitewashed burial places, which on the outside appeared attractively clean but contained the bones of the dead and everything else that was unclean. (Matthew 23:27) According to the law, anyone who touched a grave would be ceremonially defiled for seven days. (Numbers 19:16)
The whitewashing of graves or tombs identified them as places of uncleanness, making it possible for people to avoid inadvertently walking over them or getting too close to them and becoming ceremonially unclean. Ancient Jewish writings indicate that defilement could even result from an implement that one carried and which passed over a grave. According to the Tosefta (Ahilot, 15:12), a man was pronounced unclean because part of the goad he carried on his shoulder overshadowed a grave.
Like whitewashed tombs, the Pharisees appeared to be righteous or upright to others but in their inmost selves they were filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28) In attitude, word, and action, they were not the pious ones they seemed to be, for they were woefully lacking in love and compassion for the needy and afflicted fellow Israelites in their midst. They were guilty of lawlessness, for they did not live up to the law’s requirements to act justly, compassionately, and faithfully.
The scribes and Pharisees built the burial places of the prophets and beautified the tombs of righteous ones. (Matthew 23:29) This suggests that they endeavored to locate where prophets and others known for their uprightness were buried. They then may have built tombs they considered more suitable to honor the prophets and, with decorative motifs, beautified the burial places or monuments of those known for their godliness.
The scribes and Pharisees maintained that they would not have participated with their “fathers” in shedding the blood of the prophets. Jesus pointed out that, by making this claim, they testified against themselves, admitting that their “fathers” killed the prophets. He then told them, as persons who were the children of murderers and so just like them, to fill up the measure of their fathers. This filling up would refer to their completing the record of bloodshed for which they would face the culminating judgment. (Matthew 23:30-32)
The scribes and Pharisees may have felt that they were distancing themselves from the sin of their ancestors, making amends by building the burial places of the prophets who had been unjustly killed. They, however, failed to consider the reason for their forefathers’ murderous hatred of the prophets and did not recognize that, in their desire to kill Jesus, they revealed themselves as having the same murderous disposition.
Rightly, he referred to them as “serpents,” vipers’ offspring. Their murderous fathers or ancestors could be compared to poisonous snakes, and they were just like them as part of their brood. He provided a serious warning with the question, “How can you flee from the condemnation of Gehenna?” (Matthew 23:33) How could they, with their murderous disposition, possibly escape the most severe judgment, being tossed like worthless carcasses on a garbage heap to be consumed by fire or maggots? (Isaiah 66:24)
To reveal the kind of persons they were in reality, Jesus would send them prophets, sages and scribes (knowledgeable men). The response of the scribes and Pharisees to those sent would expose them as deserving of punitive judgment. Some of those sent they would kill and crucify; others they would scourge in the synagogues and persecute in one city after another. (Matthew 23:34)
In this manner, they would add to the record of bloodguilt that began with the murder of Abel and continued to grow for centuries thereafter. A notable case from later centuries was the murder of Zechariah who reproved the people for transgressing God’s law. By the command of King Joash, Zechariah was then stoned and died “between the sanctuary and the altar.” (2 Chronicles 24:20-22; see the Notes section for additional comments about Matthew 23:35.) The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees would be held to account for the entire record of bloodshed (all the blood unjustly spilled from that of Abel to that of Zechariah). They and the rest of the unbelieving generation would experience this, which is what happened during the Roman military campaign that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem. (Matthew 23:35, 36)
As on a previous occasion (Luke 13:34, 35), Jesus called Jerusalem “the killer of the prophets and stoner” of those whom God had sent. Despite what the inhabitants of Jerusalem had done over the centuries and what the prominent ones of the nation were about to do to him, Jesus felt great compassion for the people. Often he had wanted to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, providing care and protection. The majority, however, did not want this, rejecting him and persisting in unbelief. (Matthew 23:37)
Therefore, their “house” would be left or abandoned to them. (Matthew 23:38) Likely the “house” refers to the temple, and a number of translations make this specific in their renderings. “Look! There is your temple, forsaken by God and laid waste.” (REB) “And now your temple will be deserted.” (CEV) Without a sacred status, the temple would eventually come to ruin, and so would the city.
As for the people, they would not see Jesus again until they acknowledged him as “blessed” and as coming in God’s name or as his representative. (Matthew 23:39) Seemingly, Jesus referred to his future return in glory. At that time, believers would welcome him, acknowledging him as the blessed representative of his Father, but all who persisted in unbelief would lament. With their “house” having been left to the unbelieving Jews, neither it nor they would have any special standing with God. Nevertheless, the people would not be debarred from accepting Jesus in faith and coming to be among those who would recognize him as coming in his Father’s name.
In the Court of the Women, where (according to ancient Jewish sources) 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall and where people put their monetary offerings and contributions, Jesus had seated himself and observed the wealthy putting many coins into the chests. Among those contributing, he saw a widow. Her attire must have revealed that she was very needy. Yet she contributed two lepta. These two coins had very little value, not even being enough to buy one sparrow for a meager meal. (Matthew 10:29, where the price of two sparrows is mentioned as being one assarion or eight lepta [four quadrantes]) Jesus, however, recognized the great worth of her contribution, telling his disciples that she had given more than all the others. The rich had contributed just a little from their great abundance, but the destitute widow had given everything she had to live on. (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4) Her contribution was a bountiful expression of the her love for God, whose house the temple then still was.
On his way out of the temple precincts, the disciples approached Jesus and, impressed with the grandeur of the entire complex, directed his attention to the buildings—the beautiful stones and the costly gifts that served as ornamentation. One of them exclaimed, “What stones and what buildings!” (Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5)
The Jewish historian Josephus personally saw the temple before its destruction and provided details about its magnificence. In his Antiquities (XV, xi, 3), he wrote that “the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits [37.5 feet, based on a cubit of 18 inches], their height was eight [12 feet], and their breadth about twelve [18 feet].” In another account, he referred to some of the stones as being “forty-five cubits [67.5 feet] in length, five [7.5 feet] in height, and six [9 feet] in breadth.” According to him, the front of the temple was covered with heavy gold plates, which, “at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor.” The brilliance was so intense that those who looked at the temple had to “turn their eyes away.” From a distance, the structure looked like a “mountain covered with snow,” for the parts that were not overlaid with gold were exceptionally white. “Spikes with sharp points” protruded from the top of the temple. These spikes served to prevent pollution from birds sitting on the top. (War, V, v, 6)
Tacitus (c. 55 to c.117 CE), a Roman historian, also indicated that the temple was an impressive structure, one of “immense wealth.” It “resembled a citadel, and had its own walls, which were more laboriously constructed than the others. Even the colonnades with which it was surrounded formed an admirable outwork. It contained an inexhaustible spring; there were subterranean excavations in the hill, and tanks and cisterns for holding rain water.” (Histories, Book V, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, and edited by Moses Hadas)
Jesus told his disciples that not a stone would be left remaining upon a stone. Everything would be cast down. (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6)
Jesus’ words were fulfilled when the Roman armies under the command of Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Although Titus did not want the temple to be destroyed, a Roman soldier, according to Josephus, snatched burning materials and, being lifted by another soldier, “set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house.” When a messenger informed Titus about the fire, he hurried to the temple area and ordered the soldiers to put out the flames, but his words could not be heard above the din. (War, VI, iv, 3-7)
In his comments about Vespasian, the ancient Roman historian C. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 71 to c. 135 CE) wrote: “After an obstinate defence by the Jews, that city [Jerusalem], so much celebrated in the sacred writings, was finally demolished, and the glorious temple itself, the admiration of the world, reduced to ashes; contrary, however, to the will of Titus, who exerted his utmost efforts to extinguish the flames.” (English translation by Alexander Thomson; revised and corrected by T. Forester)
Notes:
It is probable that the “Zechariah son of Barachiah” referred to in Matthew 23:35 is the Zechariah who was killed during the reign of King Joash. If this identification is correct, “Barachiah” may have been another name for Jehoiada. The original reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few later manuscripts do not include the words “son of Barachiah.” Whether this is a reflection of the original reading or an attempt to correct a seeming error cannot be established with certainty.
The postexilic prophet Zechariah was the “son of Barachiah” (Zechariah 1:1, LXX), leading some to conclude that he is the one referred to in Matthew 23:35. This does not appear to be likely, for there is no indication that he was murdered “between the sanctuary and the altar.” Furthermore, the remnant that had returned from exile responded favorably to his message and that of his contemporary Haggai.
Among those who deny that Jesus said these words, the view has been advanced that Zechariah is the eminent citizen whom two zealots killed in the temple precincts after he was acquitted of false charges. (Josephus, War, IV, v, 4) This occurred many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and so does not harmonize with the setting in which the words of Matthew 23:35 were spoken.
With his disciples, Jesus left Jerusalem, crossed the Kidron Valley, and ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. At a location on the eminence from which the temple could be seen, Jesus seated himself. (Mark 13:3) Being well over 100 feet higher than the temple site, the Mount of Olives provided a panoramic view of the area. (See http://bibleplaces.com/mtolives.htm for pictures of and comments about the Mount of Olives.)
Jesus’ words about the future destruction of the temple prompted wonderment among the disciples. Peter, James, John, and Andrew approached him privately to ask when this would occur. Peter’s being mentioned first in Mark 13:3 may indicate that he, as on other occasions, took the initiative to question Jesus.
Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4, and Luke 21:7 represent the disciples as wanting to know, “When will these things be?” For the disciples, the temple would have been the most important building in existence. As the center of worship for Jews everywhere, it was inseparably linked to their identity as a nation or people. (See http://holylandphotos.org for a model of the temple [type “second temple model” in the search box]. Also, for additional information, see http://bibleplaces.com/templemount.htm [where you will find pictures of the Temple Mount and accompanying comments].)
Understandably, the disciples would have wondered whether an event as significant as the future destruction of the temple might not be preceded by a specific sign. This is, in fact, the way the question is continued in Mark 13:4 (“and what [will be] the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”) and Luke 21:7 (“and what [will be] the sign when these things are about to happen?”).
In Matthew 24:3, the continuation of the question is more directly linked to Jesus (“and what [will be] the sign of your [royal] presence [parousía] and of the termination of the age?”) In the basic sense, the wording of the question does not significantly differ from that in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. To the disciples, the destruction of the temple and the end of the age would have been parallel expressions. Because of the temple’s importance in their life as Jews, its destruction would have been considered the end of an age or a world as they knew it. Moreover, they expected Jesus, the one whom they had acknowledged as their Lord and King, to restore the kingdom to Israel. (Acts 1:6) Therefore, in view of their expectations, it would not have been unusual for them to think in terms of a sign preceding Jesus’ royal presence and the end of the age.
In his response, Jesus directed attention away from the “when” of the question. Instead, he primarily emphasized matters that should be of concern to his disciples in the future. His answer, though given to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, applied to all of his disciples who would be affected by the events he was then about to relate.
Jesus warned them not to be deceived. (Matthew 24:4; Mark 13:5) Many would come in his name or lead others to believe that they were the longed-for Messiah who would liberate them from the Roman yoke. According to Matthew 24:5, they would say “I am the Christ [the Messiah].” In Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, the abbreviated version of their words is, “I am,” meaning “I am he” or “I am the one.” As a consequence, many would be deceived. The deceivers would foster false hopes about imminent deliverance from foreign oppression, saying, “The time is near.” Jesus admonished his disciples to give no heed to their words, “Do not go after them.” (Luke 21:8)
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that many men deluded the people before the destruction of Jerusalem and during the time the city was under siege. (War, VI, v, 3) While Felix was procurator of Judea, numerous deceivers acquired a following. These men “deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration” but had revolution as their aim. They persuaded “the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.” Perceiving the start of a revolt, Felix sent an armed force against them, and many of the deluded people were slaughtered. (War, II, xiii, 4)
A certain Egyptian came to be viewed as a prophet. This man gained a considerable following and later led thousands of men from the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. From there, he purposed to force his way into Jerusalem, overpower the Roman garrison, and, with the aid of those with him, establish himself as ruler over the people. His attempt failed, for Felix met him with his Roman soldiers. The deceiver and a few others escaped, but many of those who followed him were killed or captured. (War, II, xiii, 5)
Jesus told the disciples that they would hear about “wars and rumors of wars” (“wars and uprisings” or revolts [Luke 21:9]), but that they should not become alarmed or fearful. This probably means that they were not to give in to the troubling uneasiness or the kind of terror people experience when they, without any option for escape, anticipate a horrific outcome or end. Distressing developments were certain to come, but the end about which the disciples had asked would be still future. As Jesus said, “The end is not yet” or would not follow “immediately.” The wars and insurrections would not serve as a “sign” for ascertaining the imminent destruction of the temple or for determining that Jesus’ parousía or royal presence was at hand. One nation would rise up against another nation, and one kingdom against another kingdom. Earthquakes would occur in one place after another. There would be famines and plagues. People would see fear-inspiring portents and “great signs.” (Matthew 24:6, 7; Mark 13:7, 8; Luke 21:9-11; see the Notes section for what ancient histories indicate regarding developments before Jerusalem’s destruction.)
The wars, famines, earthquakes, and pestilences would be only the start of distress. “All these things,” said Jesus, “are the beginning of birth pangs [the plural of odín].” (Matthew 24:8; Mark 13:8) The Greek term odín can designate “birth pain” or any intense pain, woe, or distress (as experienced when giving birth). Ancient Jewish sources provide a basis for concluding that the expression “woe of the Messiah” was used in the first century and was understood to mean the distress immediately preceding the Messianic age. Therefore, the words “the beginning of birth pangs,” woes, or distress appear to have expressed the opposite of the prevailing view. Greater suffering, not the Messianic age, lay ahead.
During the turbulent time marked by wars, uprisings, food shortages, earthquakes, and pestilences, the disciples would face intense hostility from unbelievers. Jesus told them to watch out for themselves, suggesting that they needed to be on guard to avoid needlessly placing themselves in a position of danger. (Mark 13:9) He himself had set the example by taking steps to get away from those who were determined to harm him. (John 8:59; 11:53, 54; John 12:36)
The disciples would be arrested and imprisoned, handed over to Jewish councils for trial, beaten in the synagogues, tortured, and brought before governors and kings because of being Jesus’ disciples. This would serve as a testimony to those before whom they made their defense and to all who heard them speak. (Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12, 13)
When they were being taken before authorities, they were not to give in to anxiety, struggling to formulate their defense in advance and worrying about what they might say. Jesus assured them that they would be “given” what they were to speak, for the holy spirit would be guiding their defense. (Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14) According to Luke 21:15, Jesus told them, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all who oppose you will be unable to withstand or contradict.” As they would be receiving the holy spirit through him, Jesus would be the one who would grant them the capacity and wisdom to make their defense. (Acts 2:33)
Within families serious divisions would arise, with some proving themselves to be loyal disciples of God’s Son, whereas others would persist in unbelief and become openly hateful. As a result, a brother would hand over his brother to be put to death, and a father his children. Children would betray their own parents and have them killed. Friends and other relatives would turn against Jesus’ disciples, and betray them. (Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16)
Faced with bitter persecution, many professing disciples would “stumble,” denying their faith in Jesus and becoming traitors and hateful enemies of those who would remain loyal to him. In the community of believers, false prophets would arise and mislead many. On account of increasing lawlessness, fear would replace love. For many, the love for God and for others would “cool off” or be squelched. The distressing circumstances would call for endurance, and those who remained loyal to Christ would be saved. (Matthew 24:10-13; Mark 13:13)
Although remaining true to him could cost them their lives, Jesus assured his disciples that their eternal life would be secure. Not a “hair from [their] head” would perish; not even a fragment of their real identity as persons dearly loved by God would be lost. Through faithful endurance, they would gain their “souls,” which would mean preserving the real life of an enduring relationship with Jesus and his Father. (Luke 21:18, 19)
The book of Acts and the letters Paul and others wrote to fellow believers preserve the record of what the apostles and other disciples faced in the time after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Persecution initially came from unbelieving Jews. Then, just as Jesus said, his disciples did come to be hated by all nations because of his name or on account of being identified as attached to him as disciples. (Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17)
An example of this hatred and associated suffering is preserved in the Annals ( XV, 44) of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55 to c. 117 CE): “Nero fastened the guilt [for the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
“Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” (Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb; edited by Moses Hadas)
Besides the hatred of unbelievers, Christ’s disciples had to contend with false brothers, teachers of error, and false prophets. (2 Corinthians 11:24-27; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-18; 3:8-13; 4:14, 15) The treachery of former friends would have been especially painful and disheartening. Nevertheless, despite the hardships, the glad tidings about Jesus and how to become part of the realm where he is king by his Father’s appointment continued to be proclaimed. As Jesus said, this message would be declared in the whole world and then the end would come. (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10) Prior to the end that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the magnificent temple, the glad tidings about God’s kingdom had spread throughout the then-known world, reaching people throughout the Roman Empire. (Compare Colossians 1:23.)
The time for a speedy flight out of Jerusalem to the mountains to escape the disaster that would befall the city would be when the “abomination of desolation” stood in the place where it should not be. It was the prophet Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11, LXX) who referred to this abomination. The parenthetical expression (“let the reader understand”) likely refers to the reader of the book of Daniel, where the “abomination of desolation” is mentioned. (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 [but this passage in Mark does not include the reference to the prophet Daniel])
In Luke 21:20, there is no mention of the “abomination of desolation,” but the time for flight is identified as being when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. If these armies are the “abomination,” this would fit a development the Jewish historian Josephus related. At the time Cestius Gallus with his entire Roman army came against Jerusalem, he led a force of soldiers with archers to begin an assault on the north side of the temple. For a time, the Jews succeeded in resisting the attack, but the many missiles from the archers finally caused them to give way. Protected by their shields, the Roman soldiers began to undermine the wall and prepared to set the gate of the temple on fire. (War, II, xix, 5) As the Roman soldiers were then on ground the Jews considered to be holy and close to the most sacred precincts with their idolatrous ensigns, one could conclude that they were the “abomination of desolation” in a position where they should not have been standing.
Unexpectedly, Cestius Gallus did not continue with the siege. Although he had experienced no reverses, he recalled his troops and withdrew from the city. His retreat emboldened the Jews who opposed Rome, and they left the city to pursue his army, succeeding in slaying about 5,300 of the infantry and about 380 [480, according to another extant text of Josephus] of the cavalry. The Jews lost only a few of their number. (War, II, xix, 6-9)
After this disastrous retreat of the Romans, many of the distinguished Jews fled from Jerusalem as from a ship about to sink. (War, II, xx, 1) In his Ecclesiastical History (III, v, 3), Eusebius relates that those who believed in Christ left Jerusalem before the war began and settled in Pella. He did not, however, say that they did so in obedience to Jesus’ words but attributed their departure to “an oracle given by revelation to acceptable persons,” ordering them to leave the city. (Translated by G. A. Williamson)
In the book of Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11, LXX), the expression “abomination of desolation” or “desolations” is linked directly to a defilement of the temple and the discontinuance of the sacrifices. Moreover, 1 Maccabees 1:54 (LXX) appears to refer to a pagan altar erected over the altar of burnt offering at the direction of Antiochus Epiphanes as the “abomination of desolation.”
If the “abomination of desolation” specifically involves the temple, the time when the “armies” surrounded Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) would relate to another development in the war with Rome. The “abomination of desolation” may then apply to a defilement of the temple, which occurrence would have signaled the last opportunity for escape from Jerusalem. This could have been when the Zealots seized control of the temple precincts and made it the base of operations for violent actions. According to Josephus, the high priest Ananus, when appealing to the populace to rise up against the Zealots, said that it would have been better for him to have died than to see “the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains.” (War, IV, iii, 10)
The effort to dislodge the Zealots failed. With the aid secretly obtained from a force of about 20,000 Idumeans, the Zealots secured their position, and Ananus and his supporters were killed in the ensuing slaughter. (War, IV, iii, 11-14; iv, 1-7; v, 1, 2) Thereafter the situation continued to deteriorate in Jerusalem, and escape became extremely difficult. The Zealots guarded every passage out of the city, killing those whom they caught fleeing. Only the wealthy were able to purchase the opportunity for flight, whereas the poor were slain. (War, IV, vi, 3)
Regardless with what specific development the “abomination of desolation” may be identified, history confirms that postponement of flight after Cestius Gallus withdrew would have meant exposure to graver dangers and the possibility of not being able to get out of the city. This agrees with the kind of urgency that Jesus’ words conveyed. Those in Judea were to flee to the mountains, not seeking security from the Roman armies within the walls of Jerusalem. Persons inside the city were to make their speedy departure, and those outside the city were not to enter it. (Luke 21:21) To emphasize the importance of not delaying, Jesus said, “The one on the roof should not go down to take things out of his house, and the one in the field should not go back to get his garment.” (Matthew 24:16-18; Mark 13:14-16)
In warm climates, the flat roofs of houses were often places were people found a more comfortable location on hot days. Access to the roof was either by means of a ladder or outside stairs. Even when people left the housetop, they did not need to enter the home. Therefore, the point of not going into the house to get things may indicate that flight should be undertaken without delay. It is also possible that the quick escape is like that of a person who jumped from the flat roof of one house to that of another and thus made his way out of the city. The same portrayal of urgency is conveyed with the person finding himself working in the field. Time was not to be lost in going back to the house to get a garment.
It would then be a time for executing judgment (literally, “days of vengeance”). “All the things written” would be fulfilled. (Luke 21:22) This likely relates to the things previously written in the Scriptures, including Daniel 9:26 regarding the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. In his Antiquities (X, xi, 7), Josephus specifically commented about this, saying, “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”
Speedy escape would be especially difficult for pregnant women or those nursing an infant that had to be carried. With travel restrictions imposed on the Sabbath and the extra hazards of flight in winter, the disciples would have every reason to pray that they not then have to make their escape. (Matthew 24:19, 20; Mark 13:17, 18; Luke 21:23)
The suffering to befall Jerusalem would be greater than had taken place “from the beginning of the world” or “creation” until that time and would not happen again. (Matthew 24:21; Mark 13:19) It would be a time when great distress would come upon the “land” (Judea) and the wrath of the besieging army would be directed against the people. Those not perishing “by the edge of the sword” would be taken away as captives and scattered among the nations. Jerusalem would be “trampled on” by the non-Jewish nations until the times of these nations would be “fulfilled” or until they would face their day of reckoning. (Luke 21:22-24)
Josephus, a former resident of Jerusalem who witnessed the suffering of the inhabitants while with the Roman army, confirmed the fulfillment of the prophetic words. “Our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. Accordingly it appears to me, that the misfortunes of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews, are not so considerable as they were.” (War, Preface, 4)
Jesus had said that, unless the time of the distress upon Jerusalem would be cut short, no flesh would be saved. (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) Once the Romans entered the city, they indiscriminately slew anyone whom they encountered and set fire to the houses in which they knew people had taken refuge. If the siege had been protracted, the rage of the Roman military could have intensified to the point where they would have been determined to kill every Jew in the Roman Empire. Indicative of this are the words of Josephus, “As soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done), [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple.” (War, VII, i, 1)
For the sake of the “chosen,” the believing remnant of the nation, those horrifying days of suffering were cut short, the siege of Jerusalem being ended within a comparatively brief time. (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) Therefore, through God’s providential care of his own, the Jews as a people survived in other parts of the Roman Empire.
During the war itself and before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, many inside the city looked for divine deliverance. Jesus, though, had made it clear that no Messiah would stop the impending calamity. Any claim about the Messiah or Christ (according to the reading of the Greek text) being at one location or another should not be believed. No credence should be given any report about his being in the wilderness and ready to come with a liberating army or about his hiding in an inner room, planning for a surprise attack against the enemy. (Matthew 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)
The return of Christ, the true Messiah, would not be an event about which only a few would know and through whom the news would originally spread. The return of Christ, the royal presence of the “Son of Man,” would prove to be as observable as lightning illuminating the sky from the east to the west. It would be as noticeable as the circling of vultures in the sky, indicating that a carcass is lying on the ground. Still, as Jesus warned, there would be false messiahs and false prophets who, with signs and wonders, would lead many astray and, if possible, “even the chosen” or those who believe in him. Therefore, having been forewarned, the disciples needed to remain alert, not allowing themselves to be deluded. (Matthew 24:24-28; Mark 13:22, 23; see the Notes section on Matthew 24:28 about the Greek term aetós.)
Josephus confirms that many deceivers and false prophets did appear in Jerusalem. One of them persuaded many to go to the temple and there wait for God to deliver them. A crowd of about 6,000, including women and children, then took refuge on a portico of the outer court. In their rage, the Roman soldiers set the portico on fire from below, and the entire multitude perished. (War, VI, v, 2, 3)
“Immediately after the distress of those days,” Jesus continued, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not shed its light, and the stars will fall from heaven [probably wording based on meteor showers], and the powers of the heavens will be shaken [celestial phenomena characterized by a markedly different appearance of the sky].” (Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24, 25)
Parallel expressions are found in the words of the prophets. In the proclamation against Babylon, the fall of that world power is portrayed as YHWH’s coming to desolate the “earth” or land. Next the prophecy refers to the darkening of stars, sun, and moon, and YHWH is represented as making the heavens tremble and as shaking the earth or land out of its place. (Isaiah 13:1, 9, 10, 13) Similarly, in the lamentation over Egypt’s Pharaoh, Ezekiel 32:8 (NRSV) represents YHWH as saying, “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens, and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the shining lights of the heavens I will darken above you, and put darkness on your land.” As to the effect this would have on other peoples and nations, Ezekiel 32:9 (NRSV) continues, “I will trouble the hearts of many peoples, as I carry you captive among the nations, into countries you have not known.” In the book of Joel (3:14, 15), the “day of YHWH” for executing judgment on the nations is likewise associated with the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars. (See also Jeremiah 4:23, 24; Joel 2:10, 30, 31.)
In these prophecies, the world or realm in which the people of a particular nation or nations carried on their activity is portrayed as a unit consisting of land and the celestial dome. When calamity strikes, the changed condition of the people is represented as a darkening of the heavens, with no light to mitigate the gloom of the day or the night, and the land is depicted as becoming unstable as when shaken by an earthquake. In its desolated state, the earth or land is spoken of as mourning, and the heavens above it are portrayed as growing black. (Jeremiah 4:23-28) The parallel language found in the writings of the prophets provides a basis for understanding the references (in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24, 25; Luke 21:25, 26) to the darkening of the sun and the moon, the falling of the stars, the shaking of the earth and the powers of the heavens, and the raging of the sea to be figurative.
If the term “immediately” (euthéos) in Matthew 24:29 has the literal sense, this would mean that the darkening of the heavens and the other troubling developments are descriptive of the gloom that set in immediately after the suffering or tribulation associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. For the some 97,000 survivors of that horrific end, there was nothing to brighten either their days or their nights. The tallest and most handsome of the young men were reserved to be exhibited as humiliated captives in the triumphal march. Many of those above the age of 17 were sent to work as slaves in the mines of Egypt. Others were sent to the various provinces of the Roman Empire to put on a spectacle in the arenas and there to perish by the sword or to be killed and devoured by beasts. Those under the age of 17 were sold into slavery. (War, VI, ix, 2, 3)
In the case of Jews living in other parts of the Roman Empire, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would have meant the end of their world. The triumphal Arch of Titus in Rome and the Western or Wailing Wall of Jerusalem remain as ancient reminders of a development comparable to the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, and an upheaval in the celestial dome (with what appear to be stars dropping from the sky) and a violent shaking of the land.
In Luke’s account, the falling of the stars and the darkening of the sun and moon are referred to as “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars. Regarding the earth, the narration of Jesus’ words continues, “Upon the earth [there will be] panic among nations, [being] in confusion from the roar and raging of the sea. Men will faint from fear and foreboding of the things coming upon [their] habitation, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Luke 21:25, 26) If applying to first-century developments, this description could relate to the effect the utter destruction of a prominent city would have on the nations. (See the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24, and Luke 21:25.) Among people generally, any hint of revolt would likely have given rise to dread and alarm. Josephus wrote that his description of the disciplined and formidable Roman army had as one of its objectives to deter others from revolting as had the Jews. (War, III, v, 8)
People would have reacted much like those on a ship during a storm, tossed about by the wind and the waves. With fear and foreboding, they would envision what would lie ahead for them in case of revolt or insurrection, making them faint or causing them to be overwhelmed with a sense of weakness and helplessness. Their world would have taken on an appearance of darkness, as if the “powers of the heavens” were being shaken, eclipsing all illumination during the day and the night.
While darkness or a time of gloom marked by serious troubles would exist, the sign of the Son of Man would appear. The nature of this sign is not disclosed, but reasonably it would be something that would leave no doubt about his arrival. He would be seen “coming on the clouds [in clouds (Mark 13:26); in a cloud (Luke 21:27)] with power and great glory.” Upon the appearance of the “sign” followed by the arrival of the Son of Man (the glorified Jesus Christ), unbelievers would be overwhelmed with fear. In expression of their grief, they would beat their breasts. Right from the start of the developments Jesus described, believers, however, could stand confidently, lifting their heads, knowing that their deliverance from distress was near. (Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27, 28)
As Christ’s chosen or elect, they would have his favorable attention. At a given signal, comparable to a loud trumpet sound, the Son of God would have his angels gather them from every part of the earth. (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27) The apparent reason for the gathering the angels would undertake, as indicated elsewhere in the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17), would be to unite the chosen with Jesus so that they could be forever with him.
The Son of God next called attention to the fig tree (and all the other trees [Luke 21:29]) as teaching a parable or likeness. One would know that summer was near when the twigs of the tree became soft and began to sprout leaves. Likewise, when all the things Jesus mentioned would be taking place, “it,” “he” or “the kingdom of God” would be near, “at the doors.” (Matthew 24:32, 33; Mark 13:28, 29; Luke 21:29-31)
In the Greek text of Matthew 24:33 and Mark 13:29, the verb estín can be translated either as “it is” or “he is.” If the meaning is “it is,” the reference could be to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which event was the focus of the disciples’ question. “All the things” that would occur would include wars, famines, earthquakes, the proclamation of the glad tidings, persecution of the disciples, and the appearance of the “abomination of desolation.”
For the meaning of estín as “he is,” the application would be to the approach of Jesus’ return in glory, which would also signify that the kingdom of God would be near. Possibly the reason for the nonspecific language is that most of the developments were not unique to a specific time and so did not serve as a “sign” by which to ascertain the precise time for the destruction of the temple or for the return of Christ in glory.
In the centuries that have passed since Jesus answered the disciples’ question, earth’s inhabitants have never experienced a time free from natural disasters, wars and their frightful consequences, and the persecution and the betrayal of Christians for their faith. Not until the Roman armies were actually on the scene around Jerusalem would it have been clear that the destruction of the temple was at hand. Likewise, not until the appearance of the “sign” of the “Son of Man” would there be no question about his return in glory. Therefore, all the things would take place both before the destruction of the temple and before his return.
Continuing the application of the lesson that could be learned from the fig tree, Jesus said, “Amen [Truly] I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:34, 35; Mark 13:30, 31; Luke 21:32, 33) He had told his disciples that the temple would be destroyed, with not a stone being left upon a stone, and answered the question that his prophecy about the temple had prompted. Jesus’ solemn declaration confirmed that his words would be fulfilled and that this fulfillment would prove to be more certain than the continued existence of heaven and earth.
When Peter, James, John, and Andrew heard the words “this generation,” they would most likely have understood this to mean the generation of which they were a part and which included all their contemporaries. Within the lifetime of that contemporary generation, Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed, and the events that Jesus said would occur prior thereto would have taken place.
It appears that Jesus, to clarify that his return in glory was not to be equated with the destruction of the temple, added, “But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36 [The words “nor the Son” are missing in numerous manuscripts but have ancient manuscript support]; Mark 13:32)
Jesus knew that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed within the lifetime of the then-existing generation and that the people would experience horrific suffering. (Luke 19:41-44; 23:27-31) Based on that knowledge, he could tell the disciples what to look for in order not to be among those who would suffer inside besieged Jerusalem. In view of his not knowing just when his Father had determined for him to return with great power and glory, he framed his admonition to the disciples accordingly. Jesus told them to be watchful, remain awake, and (according to many manuscripts) pray, for they would not know the time. (Mark 13:33)
He likened the situation to a man who, before undertaking a long journey, assigned his servants their respective tasks and instructed the doorkeeper to remain awake or alert, with the implication that the doorkeeper would be ready to welcome him upon his return. Applying the parable or likeness, Jesus continued, “Stay awake [remain alert and watchful], for you do not know when the master of the house is coming.” It could be “late,” “midnight,” “cockcrowing” (the third watch of the night or from about midnight to about 3:00 a.m.) or early in the morning. Therefore, the disciples needed to remain watchful, which would mean being prepared to welcome the Son of God whenever he might arrive and not to be found asleep as would be persons who had failed to discharge their responsibilities as his disciples. Jesus then added the command for everyone, “But what I say, I say to all, Stay awake.” (Mark 13:34-37)
For Christ’s disciples to remain awake would necessitate guarding against everything that could adversely affect faithfulness to him. They needed to watch that they did not dull their senses, giving in to excesses with food and drink and thereby “burdening” their “hearts.” Besides making their “hearts” (either meaning their minds or their inmost selves, which would include their consciences) callous, the “burdening” could include adding the weight of guilt. Their hearts could also become burdened or dulled with the worries or cares of life, resulting in their no longer being alert respecting their responsibilities as Jesus’ disciples. They needed to be on guard that undue concerns and useless worries about procuring life’s necessities would not begin to weaken or wreck their faith. (Luke 21:34)
If they failed to pay attention to themselves, the “day” of Christ’s return would find them in an unprepared state. That “day” would catch them suddenly just like an animal that is caught by a snare or in a trap. There would be no escape from the consequences of that day for anyone in an unprepared state, for it would come upon all of earth’s inhabitants. “But remain awake at all times,” Jesus urged, “praying that you may be strong [enough] to escape all these things that will happen and to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:34-36)
For the disciples to escape the adverse judgment that would take place upon Jesus’ return in glory would require that they remain strong in faith and devotion, always relying on the strength the heavenly Father provides in answer to prayer. As persons who faithfully lived as devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, they would then “stand” before him as approved.
The arrival of the Son of God or the start of his royal presence would be as unexpected as the flood in the days of Noah. At that time, people were preoccupied with the common affairs of life (eating, drinking, and marrying), but this ended when Noah entered the ark. They had chosen to know nothing about what lay ahead. So the deluge unexpectedly and suddenly engulfed them and swept them all away. The Son of Man would arrive just as unexpectedly. (Matthew 24:37-39)
Those whom he found approved would be preserved and united with him, and the disapproved ones would be left behind to suffer adverse judgment. Even close associates would be affected, as Jesus’ arrival would not necessarily have the same outcome for them individually. Two men might be working in the same field, with one being found approved and the other left behind as disapproved. Two women might be grinding grain together, with one being taken to be with her Lord but the other one being abandoned. Jesus continued with the admonition, “Remain awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day [at what hour, according to other manuscripts] your Lord is coming.” (Matthew 24:40-42)
He then illustrated the importance of watchfulness. If the owner of a home had known when in the night a thief would come, he would have remained awake. The owner would not have permitted the thief to break into his house. Similarly, the disciples needed to be ready or prepared at all times, for the Son of Man would come at an unexpected “hour.” (Matthew 24:43, 44)
With the passage of time, there would be disciples who would cease to use what had been committed to them for the benefit of fellow servants. To warn about this danger and the serious consequences, Jesus related a parable. He introduced it with the question, “Who then is the faithful and wise slave whom his master put in charge of his body of servants, to give them their [due portion of] food at the appropriate time?” In this question, the slave is represented as a steward in charge of the food supplies. He had been entrusted with the duty of seeing to it that all the other slaves who labored for the master received their allowance of food at the appropriate time. If, upon his return, the master found that this slave had proved to be faithful or trustworthy, he would grant him far greater responsibility, putting him in charge of all of his possessions. As one whom his master approved, the slave would be happy, having faithfully discharged his duty. (Matthew 24:45-47 [Many of the details of this parable parallel the one in Luke 12:41-48, which includes additional features.])
On the other hand, the slave would be unmasked as evil if he misused his position, ignoring his accountability to his master and acting as one who thought he was delaying his coming. His having been entrusted with the food supplies required that he faithfully work for the good of his fellow slaves. When starting to abuse them, beating them for not complying with his tyrannical demands and indulging his selfish desires like one who chose to eat and drink with lowlifes, the evil slave also acted against the interests of his master. This evil slave was himself but a slave and had not been granted the authority of an owner, let alone an abusive and corrupt owner. (Matthew 24:48, 49)
On a “day” and in an “hour” or at a time the evil slave did not expect, the master would arrive and severely punish him (literally “cut him asunder”), treating him like the hypocrites who conceal their base ways and actions with a false front. Cast out as disapproved from the master’s household, the slave would weep bitterly and gnash his teeth (in anger over his loss, because of the pain of losing out, or in a vain effort to suppress his uncontrollable sobbing). (Matthew 24:50, 51) What a strong warning this is to all who begin to act the part of masters and fail to conduct themselves as lowly and unassuming slaves! The coming of the Son of God will definitively answer the question as to who has proved to be faithful and wise in the community of believers, selflessly laboring for them.
Notes:
During the time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, much warring occurred. Besides conflicts between Jews and Samaritans and insurrections in Galilee and Judea, battles were being waged in various parts of the Roman Empire.
News about the wars in more distant places must have reached Galilee and Judea. Commenting on reverses for the Romans during Nero’s reign, C. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 71 to c. 135 CE; Lives of the Caesars, VI, xxxix) wrote that two major towns in Britain were sacked and many citizens and allies were slaughtered. A humiliating defeat was experienced in the “East, where, in Armenia, the legions were obliged to pass under the yoke, and it was with great difficulty that Syria was retained.” (Translation of Alexander Thomson; revised and corrected by T. Forester)
The Roman historian Tacitus described the period that included events not long before the destruction of Jerusalem as follows: “I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West. There were disturbances in Illyricum; Gaul wavered in its allegiance, tribes of the Suevi and the Sarmatae rose on concert against us; the Damacians had the glory of inflicting as well as suffering defeat; the armies of Parthia were all but set in motion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero.” (Histories, I, 2)
With the exception of Festus who succeeded Felix as procurator of Judea, the other Roman procurators administered affairs in a corrupt and oppressive manner, which gave rise to uprisings and finally to war with Rome. Tacitus described Felix as “indulging every kind of barbarity and lust” and exercising “the power of a king in the spirit of a slave.” (Histories, V, 9) Josephus referred to Albinus, the successor of Festus, as one who stole and plundered everyone’s substance, burdened the nation with taxes, and allowed the relatives of criminals to ransom them. (War, II, xiv, 1) The successor of Albinus, Gessius Florus, who assumed his office in 64 CE, was even worse. Regarding him, Josephus said, “This Florus was so wicked, and so violent in the use of his authority, that the Jews took Albinus to have been [comparatively] their benefactor; so excessive were the mischiefs that he brought upon them.” (Antiquities, XX, xi, 1)
It was during the time that Florus exercised authority, that revolt against Rome erupted. Josephus continues, “It was this Florus who necessitated us to take up arms against the Romans, while we thought it better to be destroyed at once, than by little and little. Now this war began in the second year of the government of Florus, and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.” (Antiquities, XX, xi, 1) Tacitus (Histories, V, 10) summarizes what followed: “Yet the endurance of the Jews lasted till Gessius Florus was procurator. In his time the war broke out. Cestius Gallus, legate of Syria, who attempted to crush it, had to fight several battles, generally with ill-success. Cestius dying, either in the course of nature, or from vexation, Vespasian was sent by Nero, and by help of his good fortune, his high reputation, and his excellent subordinates, succeeded within the space of two summers in occupying with his victorious army the whole of the level country and all the cities, except Jerusalem. The following year [69 CE] had been wholly taken up with civil strife, and had passed, as far as the Jews were concerned, in inaction. Peace having been established in Italy [when Vespasian became emperor], foreign affairs were once more remembered. Our indignation was heightened by the circumstance that the Jews alone had not submitted. At the same time it was held to be more expedient, in reference to the possible results and contingencies of the new reign, that Titus should remain with the army.”
As Jesus had indicated to his disciples, there would be famines or food shortage. One severe famine affected Judea in the time of Claudius (41 to 54 CE). (Acts 11:28; Josephus, Antiquities, XX, ii, 5; v, 2) Scarcity of food was also experienced in Rome. Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, V, xviii) referred to a shortage of grain because of bad crops for several successive years. As a result, a mob once stopped Claudius in the middle of the Forum, heaped abuse on him, and threw pieces of bread at him. With difficulty, he escaped to the palace by a back door. Later, during the period of civil strife, the stored grain in Rome had dwindled to a ten day’s supply when a shipment Vespasian had sent arrived, relieving the critical shortage. (Tacitus, Histories, IV, 53) Whenever towns and cities came under siege, extreme shortages of food were experienced by the inhabitants. So desperate did the situation become that there were instances of cannibalism. (Josephus, War VI, iii, 3, 4)
While Claudius was emperor, houses collapsed in Rome from frequent earthquake shocks, and a major earthquake occurred in Apamea, a city in Syria. (Tacitus, Annals, XII, 43, 58) During Nero’s rule (54 to 68 CE), an earthquake destroyed much of Pompeii. (Tacitus, Annals, XII, 43, 58); XV, 22) There were earthquakes in various cities of what is today Turkey, including Laodicea. (Tacitus, Annals, XIV, xxvii) Josephus (War, IV, iv, 5) referred to a frightful storm and an earthquake being experienced in Jerusalem, which he spoke of as portending a future destruction.
According to Suetonius, one of the frightful developments during Nero’s rule proved to be a plague that left about 30,000 dead in a single autumn.(Lives of the Caesars, VI, xxxix) This would fit what Luke 21:8 represents Jesus as saying about pestilences.
In the ancient world, people looked for portents and assigned meanings to various happenings. Both Josephus (War, VI, v, 3) and Tacitus mentioned signs as occurring prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, which may reflect the fulfillment of Luke 21:11 regarding fear-inspiring portents and “great signs.” The account of Tacitus, though much shorter and including fewer signs than that of Josephus, is similar: “There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure.” (Tacitus, Histories, V, 13)
The words of Matthew 24:28 (“Wherever the carcass may be, there the vultures [plural of aetós] will gather”) probably constitute a proverbial saying. Although the Greek word aetós is the usual designation for the eagle, the vulture seems to fit the context better. Eagles are primarily solitary hunters that catch living prey, whereas vultures gather in large numbers to feed on carcasses.
Luke 21:25 refers to “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars but makes no mention of the “distress” or “tribulation” of “those days” (as do Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24). Verse 24 in Luke 21 tells about the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, with the people either perishing or being taken captive and the city being trampled upon by the non-Jewish nations until their “times” are fulfilled. This would allow for the possibility that the signs in the sun, moon and stars, the panic and fear among the people, the roaring of the sea, and the shaking of the powers of the heavens (mentioned in Luke 21:25, 26) relate to a more distant future time. Accordingly, the words in Luke 21 could be used to support the view that euthéos (“immediately”) does not necessarily have a strict temporal sense in Matthew 24:29.
Both the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory are associated with adverse judgment on unbelievers. In Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel, the imagery (including the darkening of the heavenly bodies) associated with such judgments is the same as Jesus is represented as having used. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars designate extraordinary celestial phenomena. The imagery, if applying to the situation just prior to Christ’s return in glory, would simply serve to convey a very distressing time.
Another possibility is that Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24 may refer to the dark or gloomy period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, whereas verses 25 and 26 of Luke 21 may be descriptive of the distressing time immediately preceding Jesus’ coming in glory. Verse 31 of Luke 21 may support this conclusion. There the reference is to the nearness of the kingdom of God, which event is directly associated with Jesus’ coming in power and glory. Upon his return, he would manifest his full kingly authority, removing all opposition to his rule. Regardless of how one may understand the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all three accounts do place the period of darkness after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
To illustrate what he looked for in those whom he would acknowledge as belonging to him when he returned, Jesus related three parables or likenesses. The first one dealt with ten virgins who were waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom. In the second parable, Jesus referred to slaves whom their master had entrusted with talents prior to his undertaking a long trip. Then, in the third parable, Jesus represented himself as separating people like a shepherd separates sheep from goats.
Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)
Jesus likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to ten virgins who, with lamps in their hands, went to meet the bridegroom and also, according to a number of manuscripts, the bride. (Matthew 25:1) In the case of actual wedding festivities, this would have been in the evening, at the time the bridegroom would be conducting his bride from the home of her parents and taking her to his home or that of his father. Friends, musicians, and singers would accompany the bridegroom and the bride. Along the way, others would join the procession. The ten virgins of the parable are represented as intending to do this.
Five of the virgins were foolish or failed to use good judgment, and the other five were wise or sensible. Whereas all ten virgins took their lamps, the thoughtless ones did not prepare themselves with a supply of olive oil for their lamps in case they would need to wait a long time for the bridegroom to arrive. The sensible virgins, however, did take containers filled with oil. (Matthew 25:2-4)
After waiting for a long time alongside the road where the bridegroom would be passing with his entourage, the ten virgins fell asleep. Then, in the middle of the night, they were awakened by a joyous shout coming from a distance, “Look! The bridegroom. Go out to meet him.” The ten virgins then got up and “trimmed” their lamps, probably meaning that they adjusted the wicks. (Matthew 25:5-7)
Noticing that their lamps were about to go out from lack of oil, the senseless virgins asked the others to share their supply with them. This the sensible virgins refused to do, as it could have meant that the reduced amount of oil would have been insufficient to keep their own lamps lit. They advised them to leave and buy oil. (Matthew 25:8, 9)
While the foolish virgins were on the way to make their purchases, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who had properly prepared themselves joined the procession and entered the house with him to share in the wedding banquet. After all those who had joined the procession were inside, the door was shut, preventing anyone else from joining the festivities. (Matthew 25:10)
When the other five virgins arrived, they stood before the closed door, calling out, “Lord, lord, open to us!” He turned them away, saying that he did not know them. They had not been a part of the joyous procession, using their lamps to shed light along the way. So he accorded them no recognition as welcome guests. (Matthew 25:11, 12)
Applying the point of the parable, Jesus concluded, “Stay awake, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour [in which the Son of Man is coming, according to numerous later manuscripts].” (Matthew 25:13) The parable illustrates that there would be those who appeared to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his Son, the king whom he has appointed. Yet, when the Son of God would arrive in glory, they would be found in an unprepared state.
Being ready at that time would not mean remaining in what might be regarded as a state of eschatological frenzy or of the heightened alertness and intensified activity associated with extreme emergencies. In the parable, all the virgins are portrayed as falling asleep, suggesting that the normal routine of life is maintained.
On another occasion, Jesus stressed the need for his disciples to let their light shine, which would be by making expressions about their faith in him, maintaining exemplary conduct, and responding compassionately to the needs of others (Matthew 5:14-16) For a time, the senseless virgins of the parable did have lit lamps. When, however, the bridegroom arrived, their lamps were about to go out. Accordingly, upon his return in glory, Jesus will find professing believers whose love for him and his Father has been extinguished and whose disposition, words, and actions have ceased to be praiseworthy. In their case, it will be too late for rekindling that love and letting their light shine brightly in word and deed, and a participatory sharing with those whose light is brilliant will then not be possible.
The Talents (Matthew 25:14-31)
With apparent reference to another feature associated with the kingdom of the heavens, Jesus likened it to a man who, when about to travel out of the country, called his slaves and entrusted them with his belongings. Based on his evaluation of their individual ability, the master gave five talents to one slave, two to another, and one to a third slave, and then left on his journey. (Matthew 25:14, 15) A talent was the largest monetary unit in the first century CE and equaled 6,000 drachmas or a sum a common laborer would earn in approximately 15 years. So even the slave entrusted with one talent would have been responsible for a large amount of money, reflecting his master’s confidence in his ability and trustworthiness.
The slave with five talents immediately went to work to increase his master’s assets and eventually doubled the amount. With his two talents, the other slave likewise engaged in business activities and, in time, acquired two additional talents. The slave to whom one talent had been given did nothing to increase the asset. He merely dug a hole in the ground and then hid the money. (Matthew 25:16-18)
After a long time had passed, the master returned and had his slaves render an account respecting the talents entrusted to them. The one to whom the five talents had been committed told him that he had gained an additional five talents. “Excellent, good and trustworthy slave,” said the master. “You were trustworthy over a few things. I will put you in charge over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.” His trustworthiness brought pleasure to his master, and he would be sharing in his master’s joy upon being highly honored with a position of even greater trust and responsibility. (Matthew 25:19, 20)
When the slave with the two talents reported that he had gained two more, his master commended him with the identical words. “Excellent, good and trustworthy slave. You were trustworthy over a few things. I will put you in charge over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matthew 25:22, 23) The master is thus represented as highly valuing trustworthiness in keeping with individual ability and as having the same appreciation for both slaves.
With a demeaning view of his master, the slave with the one talent said, “I knew that you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not disperse. And being fearful, I went and hid your talent in the ground. Look! [Here] you have yours.” (Matthew 25:24, 25) This response represents the slave as implying that he had fulfilled his duty, keeping the talent safe for his master, and so had no additional responsibility upon returning it.
After condemning him as evil and lazy, the master continued, “You knew, [did you], that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not disperse? So, then, you should have given my money [literally silver] to the bankers, and, upon my return, I would have received my [money] with interest.” (Matthew 25:26, 27)
The master then commanded that the talent be taken away from the useless slave and given to the one who had ten talents. This action was in harmony with the principle that more would be given to the one who has, and he would come to have an abundance; but the one who does not have much because of his untrustworthiness and sluggishness would have the little he does have taken away from him. (Matthew 25:28, 29) In having been represented as one who proved himself trustworthy with what had been entrusted to him and commendably capable of greatly increasing his master’s assets, the slave with the ten talents is the one who received the additional talent.
The master ordered the useless slave to be thrown out of the estate. Without a place in a lighted residence, the slave would then find himself in the darkness outside. There, in expression of his loss, grief, and possibly also anger, he would weep bitterly and gnash his teeth. (Matthew 25:30)
Jesus’ parable suggested that a long time would pass before he would return in glory and that among those professing to be in the realm where he reigns by his Father’s appointment would be individuals who would fail to advance his interests. In expressing his judgment, Jesus would take into consideration individual circumstances and abilities. He would richly reward all who have proved themselves to be faithful or trustworthy in using what has been given them to advance his cause.
Inaction, on the other hand, constitutes working against Jesus and would lead to serious loss. In the parable, the useless slave is represented as having a wrong view of his master and working against his master’s interests by not even letting others help him to increase the asset committed to him. This suggests that a failure to appreciate the Son of God for who he is and what he has done contributes to serious neglect and eventual loss of everything.
Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46; 26:1, 2)
Upon his arrival in glory, the Son of Man, accompanied by angels, would seat himself on his glorious or splendid throne as king. In this portrayal, Jesus revealed that he would come as one vested with royal authority, which included his role as judge. In this capacity, he would separate people (all the nations assembled before him) in the manner that a shepherd separates sheep from goats, placing the one group on his right and the other one on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33) The right side would denote approval and a favorable judgment, whereas the left side would signify disapproval and condemnation.
As animals, goats are hardier than sheep, less dependent on the care of a herder, and can be destructive to the environment on account of their feeding habits. The negative light in which persons placed on the left are represented, however, does not reflect on the value of goats as domestic animals. In the parable, the use of sheep and goats serves primarily to illustrate the separation of a collective whole into two distinct groups. The differences in sheep and goats are not the focus of the parable, for both animals are incapable of the kind of human actions that provide the basis for judgment.
Jesus speaks of himself as king and identifies those on his right as blessed by his Father, inviting them to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the world’s foundation. (Matthew 25:34) This reveals that from the very beginning, his Father’s purpose was for humans to be in his realm and to conduct themselves as his loyal subjects. The invitation to those who are judged as approved is for them to share in all the benefits and blessings associated with the realm where Jesus rules by his Father’s appointment and where his Father is recognized as Sovereign.
Jesus represented himself as explaining the reason for the favorable judgment. Those on his right had given him food when he was hungry, supplied him with drink when he was thirsty, welcomed him when he was a stranger, clothed him when he lacked needed apparel, cared for him in times of sickness, and came to him in prison, the implication being for the purpose of providing aid and comfort.
The upright, compassionate individuals would be surprised by his words. They would wonder when they had seen him in the state he had described and cared for his needs. The answer would be, “Amen [Truly], I say to you, Insofar as you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:37-40)
The least, most insignificant, or lowly ones are commonly persons who are overlooked in their time of desperate need. In the parable, those who responded compassionately did so when they became aware of the plight of the lowly ones.
The parable of the merciful Samaritan reveals that any human in dire straits is rightly the object of a compassionate aid. As Jesus did not restrict the meaning of “neighbor,” there is no reason to conclude that this parable is to be construed to mean that the least of Christ’s brothers refers to a very limited number of people who adhere to a certain set of beliefs and practices. Jesus himself surrendered his life for all. Therefore, when regarded in the widest sense, he is a brother to the whole human family and looks favorably upon those who reveal themselves to be caring persons. The Roman centurion Cornelius proved to be such a compassionate man. Both his prayers and the kindly aid he had rendered to others ascended as a “memorial before God.” (Acts 10:4)
While loyal disciples of God’s Son recognize the prior claim of family members and those related to them in the faith as taking precedence, they help needy fellow humans whenever they are in position to do so. They recognize their obligation to do good to all. (Galatians 6:10)
Turning to those on his left, Jesus represented himself as saying, “Go away from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41) This dreadful judgment of loss would not be temporary but permanent and irreversible. The “fire” would be like the “eternal fire” that reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to perpetual ruin. (Jude 7) The judgment is the same as that reserved for the devil and his minions.
The reason for the dreadful judgment is that the disapproved ones had proved to be without compassion. In the person of needy ones, they had seen Jesus hungry and thirsty, as a lone stranger, naked, sick, and in prison, but they did nothing. These disapproved ones, like the approved ones, are quoted as addressing Jesus as Lord and asking when they saw him “hungry or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not attend to [him].” The answer is that they failed to care for the least of Christ’s brothers in their time of need. Therefore, they would experience an eternal punishment, losing the opportunity for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father. This is the life, the eternal life, to be enjoyed in the sinless state, which those whom Jesus approves will receive as their inheritance. (Matthew 25:42-46)
When individuals can render aid to those in dire need but refuse to do so, they reveal themselves to be callous, seriously lacking in love and compassion. Without essential food, drink, clothing and shelter, humans cannot survive. Those who are seriously ill need care; otherwise they will die. In the first century CE, many people were unjustly imprisoned and their circumstances were so deplorable that their survival depended on the provisions visitors would bring to them. These loving and caring visitors proved to be courageous persons who were not ashamed to identify themselves as friends of those who were imprisoned. (Compare 2 Timothy 1:16, 17; Hebrews 10:34.)
Accordingly, persons who refuse to render aid when they could have done so make themselves guilty of a neglect tantamount to murder. As hateful murderers like the devil, they would deserve the same punishment in store for him and his angels. (Compare John 8:44; James 2:15, 16; 1 John 3:15-17.)
After relating the parables, Jesus told his disciples that he would be crucified. It was then just two days before the Passover. (Matthew 26:1, 2)
During the time Jesus was in the vicinity of Jerusalem, he spent the day teaching in the temple precincts. At night, he would leave, heading for the Mount of Olives and usually, if not always, stay in Bethany at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Early in the day, people would arrive at the temple to listen to Jesus’ teaching. (Luke 21:37, 38)
Viewing him as a threat to their security as a nation, the chief priests, scribes, and other prominent men of the nation resolved to have him killed. They met at the home of Caiaphas, the high priest, and plotted how they might stealthily attain their objective. In view of the approach of Passover, the influential unbelieving Jews considered it inadvisable for them to seize Jesus during the festival. They feared this would lead to a tumult among the crowds who were eager to listen to his teaching. (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:1, 2; Luke 22:1, 2)
According to Luke 22:3, “Satan entered into Judas,” one of the twelve apostles. This probably means that Judas yielded to desires that stood in opposition to the Son of God, making him a tool of the great opposer or resister, Satan. Earlier, Judas had been entrusted with the common fund, which was used to purchase food and other necessities and to assist the poor. (John 13:29) He, however, ceased to be trustworthy and stole money from the fund on a regular basis. (John 12:6) Thus he demonstrated himself to be lacking in love for Jesus, his fellow apostles, and the poor.
The Scriptures do not reveal how and why Judas became corrupt, leading to the ultimate sin of betrayal. He went to the chief priests, asking them what they would give him for having Jesus handed over to them. They were highly pleased with his offer and agreed to pay him 30 silver pieces. During the time Judas conferred with the chief priests, temple guards were also present. (Matthew 26:14, 15; Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:4, 5) With the cooperation of Judas, the unbelieving Jewish leaders no longer needed to wait until after the festival to arrest Jesus. What Judas had offered to do made it possible for them to carry out their plot in secret, avoiding any possible uprising among the people.
The sum of 30 silver pieces was the price of a slave. (Exodus 21:32) This sum reflected the low esteem in which the unbelieving leaders of the nation held Jesus. At the same time, the payment of 30 silver pieces paralleled what was given to Zechariah for his having served as a shepherd for the people of Israel. (Zechariah 11:12) Therefore, in the case of the greatest shepherd, Jesus Christ, the payment of thirty silver pieces fulfilled what had been recorded in Zechariah regarding one who served as a shepherd but was not appreciated nor valued.
After his agreeing to betray Jesus, Judas watched for an opportune time to hand him over to the unbelieving influential Jews. (Matthew 26:16; Mark 14:11) For the plot to succeed, Judas needed to look for a time without the presence of a crowd and a circumstance that would allow for a secretive arrest. (Luke 22:6)
With the approach of the Festival of Unleavened Bread preceded by the observance of Passover, Jesus knew that his “hour” or time had come to leave the world in which he had lived and to return to his Father. He was fully aware that it was the time for him willingly to surrender his life, not resisting or seeking to avoid being executed like a criminal seditionist. By laying down his life, he would express his great love for his disciples and for the world of mankind, as his sacrificial death would provide the basis for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father. (John 13:1)
Jesus’ death would also serve to reveal his Father’s boundless love for mankind. By not sparing his dearly beloved Son from sacrificing his life, the Father reached out to the human family in a manner that should have left no doubt about his love. He thereby extended to all the opportunity to respond in faith or trust in him, appreciatively accepting his arrangement to be forgiven of their sins and to become his dear children.
As for his disciples, Jesus had always loved them and he “loved them to the end.” This could mean that his love continued to the very end or that he loved them to the limit, completely or utterly. The ultimate expression of his love proved to be the surrender of his life for them. (John 13:1)
When the disciples asked Jesus about arrangements for eating the Passover meal, they had no idea that this would be the very last time they would be sharing with him in the observance. It was then the “first [day] of the unleavened [bread]” (when the Passover animals were sacrificially slaughtered in the temple courtyard) and would be followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread. (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7)
According to ancient Jewish sources, the people burned all leaven at the beginning of the sixth hour (noon) prior to the night on which the Passover lamb or goat was eaten. Either one or two hours earlier, they ceased to eat anything that had been leavened. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) Their not eating any leavened bread during the entire festival served as a reminder that their ancestors had departed in haste from Egypt, taking with them their dough before it was leavened. (Exodus 12:34; Deuteronomy 16:3) This feature is the basis for the name “Festival of Unleavened Bread.”
In response to the question about Passover observance, Jesus sent Peter and John to make preparations. The instructions he gave them did not reveal the location. Thus Judas Iscariot would not have been able to provide advance notice about Jesus’ whereabouts before the Passover meal.
Peter and John were to go to Jerusalem. Upon seeing a man carrying a vessel containing water, they were to follow him. Peter and John should then tell the owner of the house where the man entered, “The Teacher says, ‘Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’” (Mark 14:13, 14; Luke 22:8-11; see the Notes section for comments regarding Matthew 26:17, 18; and Luke 22:8, 9.)
The owner would then show Peter and John a large upper room that was furnished and ready for use. This probably means that the room contained a table and couches for reclining on three of its sides. In that large room, Peter and John were to make the necessary preparations. (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12)
The accounts do not reveal whether Jesus had made any prior arrangements with the owner of the house or whether everything that happened exactly as he had said to Peter and John involved his foreknowledge. Women usually carried water jars, and so the man with the vessel would have been readily identifiable. The home itself must have belonged to a family of disciples, for the owner responded as would a person who knew the “Teacher” who made the request for a place to observe the Passover.
In subsequent years, the home in Jerusalem where Mark lived with his mother Mary served as a meeting place for the disciples. Therefore, it may have been the house with the large upper room. (Acts 12:12)
After finding everything as Jesus had said, Peter and John followed through on making preparations for the Passover meal. (Matthew 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13) No details are provided regarding whether they had to obtain everything needed for the meal or whether the bitter greens, the unleavened bread, and the dip (haroset) primarily consisting of fruit and nuts were available for them at the home.
Ancient Jewish sources provide considerable detail about preparations for the Passover and the meal. The unleavened bread could be made from wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oat flour. (Mishnah, Pesahim,Pesahim, 2:6)
In the afternoon before the Passover meal, the second daily whole burnt offering was slaughtered at about 1:30 p.m. (unless the day was also the Sabbath) and offered up on the altar about 2:30 p.m. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:1) Around this time, the first of three groups of Israelite men would enter the courtyard of the temple to slaughter their one-year-old unblemished male lambs (or goats). While the blood drained from the slaughtered animal, a priest would let it fill the basin he was holding. He would then pass it to a priest standing next to him in the row of priests and receive an empty basin. Thus full and empty basins would pass from hand to hand. The priest nearest the altar would, in a single act, toss the blood toward the base of the altar. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:5, 6)
To flay the carcasses, the men would suspend them from the iron hooks in the walls and pillars of the courtyard. In case an Israelite found no place for hanging the carcass, he used one of the available smooth poles. With the end of one pole on his shoulder and the other end on the shoulder of his companion, he would flay the suspended carcass. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:9) After skinning the animals, the men would slit the carcasses open, remove the sacrificial portions, and place them on trays. Thereafter a priest would burn the sacrificial portions on the altar. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:10)
If Peter and John cared for this part of the preparation of the Passover, they would have left the temple courtyard with the skinned animal and headed back to the house in the city. Before placing the slaughtered animal in the oven for roasting, they would have rinsed the entrails and scorched the hair of its legs and head in fire. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 6:1; Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:10) According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 7:1, 2), a stick of pomegranate wood would be passed through the mouth of the carcass to the buttocks. Suspended on this spit, the slaughtered animal would be roasted whole. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 7:1, 2)
Notes:
In Matthew 26:17, the disciples raise the question about preparing for the Passover. According to the next verse, Jesus answered, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; at your [home] I will observe the Passover with my disciples.’” While not expressed in question form (as in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11), the words in Matthew 26:18 do convey the basic thought about the observance of the Passover meal in the owner’s house. Moreover, all of the accounts are highly condensed. At least in part, the differences may be attributed to paraphrasing in Greek what was said in another language.
Only Matthew 26:18 includes the statement, “My time is near.” These words reflected Jesus’ awareness that the time had come for him to lay down his life for the world of mankind.
According to Luke (22:8, 9), Peter and John, after Jesus told them to make preparations for the Passover meal, asked him where they should do so. The narration in Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 represents the disciples as asking the question. It is possible that the question was raised before Jesus designated Peter and John to make preparations and then a second time by the two disciples (with Peter [as on other occasions] acting as the spokesman). The other possibility is that Luke 22:8-11 provides the chronological sequence, with Jesus first telling Peter and John to make the needed preparations for the Passover meal.
Many have attempted to explain why Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to Jesus as observing the Passover with his disciples, whereas John 18:28 indicates that those who led Jesus to Pilate had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. The Scriptures and other extant ancient sources, however, do not provide sufficient details to account for this in a definitive way.
In the evening, Jesus and the apostles arrived at the house in Jerusalem where they would be partaking of the Passover meal. The reference in Mark 14:17 to the “twelve” may indicate that, after having completed the preparations, Peter and John returned and that thereafter Jesus and all twelve apostles departed. Another possibility is that “twelve” functions as a collective designation for the apostles, meaning that Jesus arrived with the company of apostles numbering ten at the time. This included Judas Iscariot (the son of Simon) who had already, in his “heart” or deep inner self, yielded to the devil in the determination to betray him. (John 13:2)
Ancient Jewish sources provide background for understanding developments in connection with the Passover meal. The eating did not begin until after dark and all had reclined at the table. Four cups of wine were to be available. (Mishnah Pesahim, 10:1) The meal itself was to end by midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:13) The head of the household or the one officiating pronounced a blessing over the first cup of wine. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:2; Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:2, 3) In conjunction with the second cup of wine (if the celebrants were part of a household), the son would ask his father about the significance of the event. If the boy was too young to ask questions, the father would teach him as much as he could comprehend. The head of the household would then begin a recitation of the Hallel, either all of Psalm 113 or both Psalm 113 and 114. The mixing of the third cup of wine was followed by a blessing for the food. When it came time for the fourth cup, the Hallel was completed. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:4, 6, 7) After the meal, the entire night would be spent in consideration of the laws of the Passover. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:11, 12)
After all were reclining at the table, Jesus, in view of the suffering that would soon befall him, mentioned that he had very much desired to share the Passover meal with the apostles. (Matthew 26:20; Luke 22:14, 15) He indicated that this would be his last Passover meal with them, for he would not be eating it until it would be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:16) He thus appears to have alluded to his role as the “Lamb of God,” or the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, and the joy he would be sharing with his disciples when he returned in glory, revealing himself to be the king by his Father’s appointment. For his devoted disciples, this joy would be comparable to sharing in a royal banquet when united with him either upon being resurrected in an incorruptible state or upon experiencing a change from mortality to immortality. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 15:51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17)
Probably early during the course of the meal and likely before the introduction of the third cup of wine, Jesus, fully aware that his Father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from him and would be returning to him, undertook the task of a lowly servant. (John 13:3) Not one of the apostles had thought to serve his fellow apostles by washing their feet, which would have become dusty during the course of their walk.
Jesus, however, stood up, laid his outer garment down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and commenced washing the feet of the disciples. To Peter it seemed inconceivable that his Lord, the Son of God, would wash the feet of a disciple, prompting him to say by way of objection, “Lord, are you washing my feet?” Jesus told Peter that, though he did not then comprehend this action, he would later come to understand it. Still, Peter protested, “You will never wash my feet.” He simply could not understand that Jesus, whose greatness he recognized, would perform the task of a lowly servant; it did not seem right to him. “If I do not wash [your feet],” said Jesus to Peter, “you have no share with me.” Immediately Peter stopped objecting. Highly valuing his relationship with Jesus and not wanting to jeopardize it in any way, he declared himself ready to submit to more extensive washing. “Lord, not my feet only,” Peter said, “but also my hands and head.” (John 13:4-9)
Jesus pointed out that one who had bathed only needed to have his feet washed. Whereas the hands and the head were not in contact with the ground as one walked about, the sandals did not keep the feet clean. Therefore, as Jesus said, the bathed person who had his feet washed would be completely clean. Making an application to more than physical cleanness, he continued, “And you [apostles] are clean, but not all.” Jesus said this because he knew the one who would betray him and, therefore, the one who was not morally clean. (John 13:10, 11) He had treated Judas just like the other apostles, washing his feet and in no way acting in an unloving or resentful manner toward him. Nothing in Jesus’ words and actions gave a hint to the other apostles as to who the betrayer could possibly be.
Viewed from a moral standpoint, Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples seemingly revealed the necessity of completely relying on him for cleansing from sin. Whereas believers have been forgiven of their sins on the basis of their faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for them, they still commit sins. Accordingly, they continue to need Jesus’ washing or cleansing from the transgressions committed in their daily walk. (1 John 1:8-2:2)
Jesus’ washing the feet of the apostles served as a vital object lesson for them about the way in which they should conduct themselves as unassuming servants. After having finished washing the feet of all twelve men, Jesus put on his robe and then reclined at the table. His question (“Do you know what I have done for you?”) served to draw to their attention the important lesson they should learn from his example. They rightly called him “Teacher” and “Lord,” for he indeed was such. Since he as their Teacher and Lord had washed their feet, they should have been willing to perform lowly tasks for others in imitation of his example. With a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus continued, “I say to you, a slave is not greater than his lord [master] nor is the one being sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.” (John 13:12-17)
It would have been contrary to the sense of propriety for underlings to refuse to render the kind of service a master or one with authority to commission was willing to perform and to consider the service as beneath their dignity. With a proper understanding of their position as fellow servants, the disciples would be happy to act in that capacity. They would find joy in serving others in ways that could be considered as lowly.
Jesus’ words about experiencing happiness from doing what he had taught were not directed to everyone. He fully knew the ones whom he had chosen, not being blinded by any outward appearances. Among them was one whose actions were portrayed in the treachery described in Psalm 41:9(10), “The one who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” (John 13:18) The expression “lifting up of the heel” evidently signifies base treachery, the figure apparently being of a raised foot that is ready to kick. (See the Notes section for additional comments regarding John 13:18.)
Jesus explained why he had revealed that he would become the object of base treachery, saying, “When it happens, you may believe that I am [the one].” Amen, amen, [Truly, truly] I say to you, Whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:19, 20) The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic words would provide additional confirmation that he was indeed the Son of God. This would serve to strengthen the faith of the loyal apostles, for this development would be part of the cumulative evidence for their belief in him. All who would accept those whom Jesus had sent would recognize them as trustworthy witnesses about him. Therefore, the acceptance of those sent would constitute acceptance of Jesus as the sender, the one to whom the testimony of the messengers would have led all who embraced it. Acceptance of Jesus also signified acceptance of his Father, as he was his Father’s representative.
After Jesus referred to the words of the psalmist, he became greatly disturbed in spirit, or inwardly, and solemnly declared, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, One of you will betray me.” (John 13:21) In great perplexity, the apostles looked at one another, with none of Jesus’ loyal apostles having any idea about who the future betrayer could possibly be. Among themselves they discussed regarding whom Jesus might have been speaking. His words distressed them. Not being able to imagine that they would make themselves guilty of betrayal, they asked, “Not I, [is it]?” (Matthew 26:21, 22; Mark 14:18, 19; Luke 22:21-23; John 13:22)
Leaving no doubt that the future betrayer was then in their midst, Jesus said, “One who, with me, dips his hand in the bowl will betray me. As it is written about him, the Son of Man is going away [according to what had been determined (Luke 22:22)], but woe to the man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Better would it have been for him had he not been born.” Seemingly, to divert attention away from himself, Judas asked, “Not I [is it], Rabbi?” Jesus responded, “You said [so],” which implied that Judas’ words did not conceal the truth concerning what he was about to do. (Matthew 26:23-25; Mark 14:19-21; Luke 22:21-23; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Based on what his Father had determined respecting him, Jesus knew that he would be going away, finishing his earthly course in death and returning to his Father after being resurrected. Whereas the Son of God had to lay down his life to serve as his Father’s means for liberating from sin those who put faith in him, this did not mean that the treachery of Judas was excusable. Judas chose to follow a course in opposition to Jesus. Like the other apostles, he could have remained loyal but, instead, allowed satanic influence to corrupt him. That is why Jesus pronounced woe on the future betrayer. The nature of the treachery was such that it would have been better for Judas not to have be born.
Peter must have wanted to ask Jesus personally who the betrayer would be, but he appears not to have been close enough to do so without being overheard. He then got the attention of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved (John), requesting him to raise the question. John seems to have been reclining on Jesus’ right side, with his head being in close proximity to Jesus’ breast. This would have made it possible for him to lean back to speak to Jesus (doubtless in a subdued manner or whisper) without any of the other apostles being aware of it. (John 13:23-25)
In response to the question about who the betrayer would be, Jesus said, “It is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and [to whom] I shall give it.” He then took the morsel, dipped it, and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. It would appear that Judas was within easy reach of Jesus, probably reclining on his immediate left. Thus, to the very end, Jesus treated him with kindness and even favored him with being in his close proximity. The account says that, as soon as Judas took the morsel, “Satan entered into him.” This suggests that, despite the love Jesus has shown him, Judas completely yielded to the satanic inclination that made him a traitor. Jesus then told him, “Quickly do what you are doing.” (John 13:26, 27)
As Judas handled the common fund, some among the apostles thought that he was being instructed to buy something needed for the festival or to give something to the poor. Immediately after he accepted the morsel, Judas left. The account adds, “And it was night.” (John 13:28-30) This reference to “night” seems to have had more than a literal significance. It proved to be a night of darkness, for Jesus was betrayed and arrested. If judged from outward appearances, the powers of darkness had seemingly triumphed. (Luke 22:53)
It would not have been unusual for someone to leave during the Passover meal or for several private conversations to be carried on among those eating. The meal itself was not a hurried affair. According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 10:8), some might even fall asleep. If not all of the group fell asleep, they could resume eating upon waking up. One rabbinical view was that if all merely drowsed and did not fall into deep sleep, they could eat again. The Tosefta (Pesahim, 10:8) refers to those who had no one to recite the Hallel for them. They would then go to the synagogue for the reading of the first part, return home to eat and drink, and then return to the synagogue to complete the Hallel. If the distance was too great for them to return to the synagogue, the entire Hallel was completed the first time. This interruption of the meal with the Hallel may provide a basis for concluding that Judas left before the introduction of the third cup of wine.
Notes:
The quotation in John 13:18 from verse 9(10) of Psalm 41(40) conveys the basic thought of the Septuagint rendering (“the one eating my bread has magnified [his] treachery against me”), but the words are not identical. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for “treachery” is pternismós, a term incorporating the word ptérna, meaning “heel.” The related verb pternízo basically denotes “to bite someone’s heel,” to go behind someone’s back, to deceive, or to outwit. The quotation in John 13:18, however, says “heel,” contains a different Greek word for “eat,” and uses a term for “lifted up,” not “magnified.”
Earlier, Jesus had expressed the teaching found in John 13:20. When sending out the twelve apostles, he had also told them that those who would receive or accept them would be accepting him and the one who had sent him. (Matthew 10:40)
In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, Jesus’ words about the one who would betray him precede the institution of what is commonly known as the “Lord’s Supper.” Luke 22:21-23, however, narrates the discussion about betrayal after this event. It appears that Luke’s account is not chronological but presents the progression of the Passover meal in a condensed manner from the start through to the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” In view of the other accounts, the reference to the betrayal in Luke 22 can be understood as having taken place during the course of the Passover meal. Lending weight to this conclusion are Jesus’ words that the hand of his betrayer was with him at the table, indicating that he was then eating the meal with him. (Luke 22:21)
While the Passover meal was in progress, Jesus took a cup of wine, gave thanks, and then said to the apostles, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, From now on I will not drink from the produce of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Based on the events (narrated in the biblical accounts) that intervened between the beginning of the Passover meal and the reference to the cup, this particular cup of wine may have been the third one used during the course of the meal. (Luke 22:17, 18; see, however, the Notes section for additional comments.)
According to the Mishnah, a blessing was said for the food after the third cup of wine. This would appear to fit what Jesus did after the apostles passed the cup of wine among themselves. He took bread from the table, pronounced a blessing or gave thanks, broke the bread, and handed it out, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; see the Notes section regarding Luke 22:19.)
Next Jesus took the cup (probably the fourth cup of wine), said a blessing, and told his disciples, “Drink from it, all [of you]; for this is my blood of the covenant poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27, 28; Mark 14:23, 24; Luke 22:20)
Many have taken the “is” in the Greek text to mean that the bread is to be identified with the actual body of Christ and the wine with his actual blood. In ancient Hebrew and Aramaic versions of these words, however, no “is” appears in the text. In keeping with the idiom of the language in which Jesus would have addressed the apostles, he would not have used any form of a “to be” verb. With Jesus personally being present, the apostles could not have imagined that he was literally identifying the bread with his actual fleshly body and the wine with his actual blood. Moreover, the manner in which he expressed himself in their native tongue would not have suggested such identity.
Even with the “is” included in the Greek text, identity is not inherent in the language. In the expression “this is my body,” all of the accounts are in agreement in using the word “this” (toutó). Although the Greek term for bread or loaf (ártos) is masculine, toutó is neuter, raising a question about whether the “bread” or “loaf” is being identified with Christ’s body of flesh. One explanation for the neuter is that “this” reflects the neuter gender of the word for “body” (somá). From a strict grammatical standpoint, however, the Greek word for “this” should be masculine to establish the kind of relationship of the bread to the fleshly body of God’s Son that many believe it to have.
The Greek word for “cup” (potérion) is neuter and so there is grammatical agreement with the word for “this” (toutó). It should be noted, though, that the direct reference is to the cup and not to the wine. Clearly, the cup itself cannot be understood as being identified with the blood of Christ. The link to the blood can only be made with the wine inside the cup.
In connection with the loaf, the neuter “this” (toutó) could refer to everything Jesus did as it related to his body. This would include his body consisting of all believers. Regarding the cup of wine, the “this” (toutó) could apply to everything Jesus did with the cup and could refer to what his shed blood would effect—forgiveness of sins and the validation of a new covenant.
While the accounts in Matthew and Mark and numerous manuscripts of Luke (22:19) do not include the words “given for you” after “my body,” the oldest extant manuscript (P75 from the late second century or early third century) and many other manuscripts of Luke include them, and 1 Corinthians 11:24 contains the shorter phrase, “for you.” Jesus surrendered his own body and thereby made it possible for a body of believers to come into existence and to be united to him. Individually, all believers benefit from what Jesus did in delivering up his body for them and also for making it possible for them to become part of the body of which he is the head. Thus, both from the standpoint of his own body and that of the composite body of believers, Jesus could be spoken of as having given his body for the individual believers. The resulting fellowship with Jesus and the community of believers that constitutes his body promotes the spiritual growth and the strengthening of the individual members in faith and love. (Compare Ephesians 4:11-16.)
The apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians indicates how believers in the first century regarded partaking of the bread and the wine. They did so in remembrance of Christ, focusing on what he did by sacrificing his body and pouring out his blood. Whenever they ate of the loaf and drank from the cup, they proclaimed the death of the Lord until he would return in glory, which would result in their being united with him. In the presence of all partakers, they thus tangibly announced their faith in what Jesus’ death had done for them. (1 Corinthians 11:25, 26)
Believers also recognized that, through Christ’s sacrificial death, they had become members of his body. Their partaking of the one loaf proved to be concrete evidence of this reality. The apostle Paul wrote, “Because one loaf [there is], we, the many, one body are, for all [of us] partake from the one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17) When partaking of the wine, they were sharers in the “blood of the Christ,” which indicates that they were beneficiaries of the new covenant that had been put into effect through Christ’s blood and which made forgiveness of sins possible. (1 Corinthians 10:15)
The linkage to the corporate body of the community of believers is also reflected in the prayer contained in the Didache (thought to date from the late first or early second century), “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you [be] the glory for eternity. As this broken bread was dispersed on the mountains and gathered to become one, thus may your congregation be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” (9:3, 4) The scattering or dispersing “on the mountains” appears to refer to the sowing of seed in hilly or mountainous regions, with the harvested grain from many ears being ground into flour and coming to be just one loaf of bread.
According to Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25, Jesus, after passing the cup to the apostles, told them that he would not again drink of the fruit of the vine with them until his doing so in his Father’s kingdom. He thereby indicated that the intimacy they then enjoyed would not occur again until his return in glory as the king of the kingdom of God. That event would be the beginning of a time when he as king by his Father’s appointment would exercise full authority without the existence of any competing sovereignties. The apostles would then be united with him, sharing in the kind of honor associated with eating and drinking at the royal table. (Regarding Luke 22:18, see the Notes section.)
Notes:
The possibility that Luke 22:17 refers to the third cup would not agree with manuscripts that omit the words of verse 20 (with its reference to the cup linked to the new covenant). In the case of texts that do not include verse 20, the cup mentioned in Luke 22:17 could be understood to designate the one used for the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” This would mean that, in Luke’s account, the narration follows a reverse order (cup of wine and then bread, not bread and then cup).
One reason for favoring the abbreviated text of Luke is that, after Jesus had referred to “my blood of the covenant,” Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 set forth his words about not drinking of the produce of the vine. The expanded text of Luke (found in most extant Greek manuscripts), on the other hand, introduces these words before mentioning the cup used at the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” (Luke 22:18)
In Luke 22:19, many manuscripts read, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” There are manuscripts, however, that do not contain this expanded text but end with “my body” (as do Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22). In the Westcott and Hort Greek text, words after “my body” and all of verse 20 are printed within double brackets, indicating that B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort doubted that the words were included in the original.
The longer text in the most ancient extant Greek manuscripts, however, requires that they be retained in modern translations, especially since they can be regarded as complementing the other accounts. According to Luke 22:20, Jesus introduced the cup after the meal and linked its contents with the “new covenant in [his] blood,” which would be poured out for the disciples. In connection with the new covenant, the words “in my blood” (based on other biblical passages) indicate that the new covenant would be put into effect by means of Jesus’ shed blood. (Hebrews 10:29; 13:12, 21, 22)
After Judas had left, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man when speaking of his glorification and that of his Father “in him.” In the Greek text, the verb for “glorified” is in the aorist tense, which is commonly used to denote something that happened in the past. By willingly submitting to his Father’s purpose for him and what this would ultimately accomplish, Jesus was glorified as the unique and beloved Son of God. “In him,” or by means of everything Jesus had done and would do as one fully submissive to his Father’s will for him, the Father was glorified or honored. Jesus’ willing surrender of his life would climax an earthly ministry devoted to glorifying his Father. At the same time, his Father had glorified him through the works he had empowered him to perform. Seemingly, because his ultimate glorification (his resurrection and ascension to heaven) was an imminent reality that would complete the glorification process, Jesus introduced his reference to the past glorification with the word “now” (nyn), “Now the Son of Man has been [or, was] glorified, and God has been [or, was] glorified in him.” (John 13:31)
Numerous Greek manuscripts represent Jesus as saying, “If God has been glorified in him [the Son of Man], also God will glorify him in himself, and he will immediately glorify him.” (John 13:32) The omission in many other manuscripts of the introductory phrase (“If God has been glorified in him”) does not materially affect the meaning of the words that follow. The action of God’s Son in glorifying his Father, especially in the surrender of his life in full submission to his will, would lead to his Father’s glorifying him and doing so immediately. On the third day after Jesus’ death, his Father did glorify him, raising him from the dead and granting him unparalleled authority in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18) When Jesus returned to his Father, he did so as the exalted Son who had the right to be universally acknowledged as Lord. (Philippians 2:9-11)
As the night passed, Jesus did not do all the talking. There appear to have been interchanges among the apostles. During the course of conversations in which Jesus was not personally involved, they got into an argument about who among them seemed to be the greatest. In response to their dispute, Jesus admonished them that they should not be like rulers of the nations who are called benefactors but dominate over their subjects. The greatest among the disciples should be as the youngest, not one who sought to exercise control over others but assumed the role of the least among them. As for a disciple who took the lead, he should be the one serving among them. Focusing on the example he had set for them, Jesus raised the questions, “Who is greater, the one reclining [at the table] or the one serving? [Is it] not the one reclining?” These questions were designed to cause the disciples to reflect on their role in relation to him, and he then told them, “In your midst, however, I am as one who is serving.” (Luke 22:24-27)
That very night Jesus had washed the feet of the apostles, acting as one who served in their midst. They, however, had not yet learned to conduct themselves in harmony with this object lesson and Jesus’ earlier teaching and personal example that true greatness requires a willingness to serve others. (Matthew 20:25-28; 23:11; Mark 9:33-37; 10:41-45; John 13:3-10)
Although the apostles needed to be corrected about their attitude, Jesus commended them for their faithfulness. They had stayed by him in his trials, not fearfully abandoning him when he faced intense hostility and murderous intent. As the one to whom his Father had entrusted kingly authority, Jesus conferred a kingdom on his loyal disciples. Portraying their future close association with him as persons honored to be eating at the king’s table, he told them that they would eat and drink at his table and “sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:28-30)
Jesus chose expressions that were adapted to their understanding of the kingdom, enabling them to discern how intimate their association would be with him as king. Because they viewed the kingdom as one that would be restored to Israel, Jesus spoke of their role as including the judging of the twelve tribes of Israel. His accommodating his words to their understanding made it possible for him to convey the message he wanted them to grasp about their future role. (Acts 1:6) After Jesus’ death and resurrection, they would come to recognize that the realm where he rules by his Father’s appointment is universal and not limited to Israel. Accordingly, the judging of Israel would be representative of a far greater role toward all nations.
Jesus made known to the apostles that, in their relationship to him, they would all be “stumbled” in that very night. This indicated that they would fearfully abandon him, fulfilling the prophetic word (Zechariah 13:7), “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.” This scattering would be temporary, for Jesus added, “After I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” (Matthew 26:31, 32; Mark 14:26-28 [In Zechariah 13:7, the striking of the shepherd is portrayed as taking place by God’s permission, and the words, “I will strike,” are evidently to be understood in this sense. The extant text of the Septuagint reads “shepherds.”]) It seems that Jesus’ meeting with the disciples in Galilee after his resurrection occurred when he appeared to upward of 500 believers. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
Affectionately referring to his disciples as “children,” Jesus told them that he would be with them only a little while longer. “You will seek me,” he continued. As he had said on an earlier occasion to the unbelieving Jews (John 7:33, 34), he now told his disciples, “Where I am going you cannot come.” (John 13:33) In the case of the disciples, their “seeking” would be indicative of a strong inner desire to be with Jesus. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:1-6; Philippians 1:23.) He, however, would be absent from them, and they, in their earthly state of existence, would not be able to join him.
While Jesus had been with his disciples, he had shown them the kind of love that surpassed everything they had formerly experienced. Now when he was about to make the superlative expression of his love by surrendering his life for them, he gave them a new commandment, one that required their loving one another as he had loved them. All observers would be able to recognize them as his disciples by the love they had for one another. (John 13:34, 35) What made this commandment new is that it went beyond the law’s requirement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. In imitation of God’s Son, the new commandment called for a love that put the interests and well-being of others ahead of one’s own. This love was a self-sacrificing love that found its fulfillment in selfless giving and serving.
It may have been after Peter insisted that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be that Jesus said to him, “Simon, Simon, see! Satan has demanded to sift you [plural, meaning all of the apostles] as wheat. I, however, have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” Then, once he had “returned” or recovered from his temporary “stumbling,” Peter was to strengthen his “brothers” or his fellow disciples. (Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 22:31, 32)
Possibly on account of the weakness (instead of rocklike strength) Peter would shortly manifest, Jesus may have chosen not to call him by the name he had personally given him (Peter, meaning “rock”) but addressed him as “Simon, Simon.” With reference to Satan, the verb meaning “demand” (exaitéo) seems to express his aim or desire. He wanted to submit the disciples to a severe test. The intensity of that test would be comparable to the sifting process that separates wheat from chaff, the implication being that Satan would have wanted to expose the disciples as worthless chaff, persons with a wrecked faith. Jesus’ prayer for Peter and the assurance that he would be in a position afterward to strengthen his fellow disciples, infusing them with courage, indicated that the satanic assault would not succeed.
In response to Jesus’ words that the disciples would not be able to come to the place where he would be heading, Peter asked, “Lord, where are you going?” “Where I am going,” Jesus replied, “you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” (John 13:36) Jesus would surrender his life, be resurrected, and return to his Father. Later, Peter would also die and, upon being raised from the dead, would again be with Jesus.
As one who deeply loved God’s Son, Peter felt that he was prepared to go anywhere with him regardless of what the circumstances might be. Even if it were to mean imprisonment or death for him, he would not hesitate to go. (Luke 22:33) Though all the other disciples might stumble, he would not. Firmly convinced about his loyalty to Jesus, Peter said, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will give up my soul [life] for you.” (Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29; John 13:37)
“Will you give up your soul for me?” Jesus replied. Then, with a solemn introductory “amen, amen” (truly, truly), he declared that Peter would disown him three times that night before a cock crowed, probably just before dawn. (Matthew 26:34; Luke 22:34; John 13:38) According to Mark 14:30, Jesus said “before a cock crows twice,” indicating that Peter’s denial of association with him would take place before a cock crowed the second time.
Peter could not imagine that he would deny his Lord and protested, “Even if I must die with you, I will never disown you.” The other disciples also expressed their loyalty to Jesus in the same manner. (Matthew 26:35; Mark 13:31) He, though, knew what effect his arrest would have on them, but they overestimated their strength to remain resolute.
Alerting them to the changed circumstances in which they would find themselves, Jesus drew a sharp contrast. He had earlier sent them out without their having to take a pouch containing money for making purchases, a bag with supplies, or an extra pair of sandals. When Jesus asked them whether they had lacked anything at that time, the apostles acknowledged that they had not. Now, however, he told them to equip themselves differently. If they had a pouch for money and a bag for supplies, they should take such with them. He even advised them that the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. His words indicated that they would find themselves in a perilous situation and would have to rely on their own resources. This was because what would happen to him in fulfillment of the prophetic word (Isaiah 53:12) about his being “counted with lawless ones.” (Luke 22:35-37) He would be treated and condemned as a vile criminal.
In response to Jesus’ words about obtaining a sword, the disciples told him that they had two swords. (Luke 22:38) These weapons may primarily have been used for utilitarian purposes. Additionally, the disciples may have had these swords for defense, particularly in view of the life-threatening dangers travelers could face from encounters with wild animals or robbers along the way.
From Jesus’ standpoint, the availability of two swords was enough. He said to the disciples, “It is sufficient.” (Luke 22:38)
Concerning his leaving them (if not also his words about their abandoning him and Peter’s denial), Jesus said to the apostles, “Do not let your hearts be troubled.” Within themselves, they were not to give way to feelings of alarm and uneasiness. Instead, Jesus admonished them to believe in God and also in him. Their faith would then enable them to come through the difficult time that lay ahead. (John 14:1)
Jesus’ leaving them would not be an event they were to dread. There was ample room for them in his Father’s house, with its “many dwelling places.” If that had not been the case, Jesus would have told the disciples. His departure and return to the Father meant that he would be preparing a place for them. This assured them that he would come again and take them to be with him. Where he had his home, they also would be. Jesus then added, “You know the way [to the place] where I am going.” (John 14:2-4) His earlier comments should have helped them to discern that “the way” involved faith in God and in him.
Thomas may not have been alone in failing to make this connection. Thinking that Jesus had spoken about a literal way or path, he raised the question, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (John 14:5)
In his response, Jesus made it clear that he was not referring to a literal road or path. “I am the way,” said Jesus, “and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known [know, P66 (second century) and other manuscripts] me, you would have known [will know, P66 and other manuscripts] my Father also. From now [on] you know him and have seen [him].” (John 14:6, 7)
Jesus is “the way,” for through him alone can one come to the Father. The Son’s example and teaching provide the dependable guidance. As the unique Son of God, the one who has fully revealed the Father in a manner that he alone could, Jesus is “the truth” or the embodiment of the truth. He is “the life,” for through him and faith in him one comes into possession of the real life, the life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with his Father.
If P66, the earliest extant manuscript, preserves the original reading, then Jesus said that, by knowing him, the disciples would come to know his Father. This would suggest that, in the future, they would come to know the Father fully. The meaning conveyed in many other manuscripts appears to be that the disciples had not yet come to know Jesus from the standpoint of coming to know the Father fully through him. In that case, Jesus’ words would have constituted a reproof. The phrase, “from now [on] you know,” then appears to suggest that, based on what he had revealed to them, the disciples did know the Father. They also had seen him. Jesus could say this, for he, the unique Son, was the express image of his Father. On the other hand, if P66 contains the original text, Jesus’ words could be understood to mean that their knowing the Father would not come about at some future time but was possible from then on. Based on what Jesus had revealed in his own person, the disciples did know the Father and had seen him.
Seemingly, Philip understood Jesus’ reference to seeing in a literal sense. This prompted him to say, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” (John 14:8) Philip felt that, if Jesus would let the disciples actually see the Father just once, they would be completely satisfied.
Jesus appears to have directed his reply to Philip in a way that included all of the apostles. This is suggested by the plural “you,” seemingly indicating that Philip may not have been the only one wanting to be shown the Father in a perceivable manner. “Have I been with you [plural],” Jesus said, “[for] so much time, and [still], Philip, you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you [plural] I am not speaking [as originating] from myself, but the Father who remains in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and [that] the Father [is] in me. But if not, believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (John 14:9-11)
Philip was among Jesus’ first disciples and so, along with the other early disciples, had been with him from the start of his ministry. Therefore, Jesus could refer to Philip and the other apostles as having been with him for considerable time. Nevertheless, Philip still had not fully recognized in Jesus the complete reflection of his Father. Philip’s request to be shown the Father revealed that he had not as yet understood that, in the face of the Son, he had seen the Father. (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:6.) Jesus perfectly reflected everything about him. As Hebrews 1:3 indicates, the Son is the exact imprint of his Father’s very being. Therefore, when seeing Jesus, being closely associated with him, and witnessing the works his Father had empowered him to perform, the disciples were being given an all-encompassing and clear vision of the Father. Accordingly, they had seen the Father in the Son. On account of what Philip had experienced during a course of many months, Jesus rightly asked him, “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
In every way, the Son enjoyed a oneness with his Father. Because of being completely at one with him, Jesus could say that he was “in” the Father, and the Father was “in” him. Jesus did not speak of his own but expressed what his Father had committed to him to speak. So, through Jesus, the disciples heard the words of his Father. Although his Father was in heaven, this had no bearing on the intimate relationship he enjoyed with him. In all that Jesus said and did, the Father remained “in” him, was with him, or resided in him. Therefore, the marvelous deeds that Jesus performed (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, soundness of body to the lame and the crippled, and raising the dead) were his Father’s works.
When Jesus told his disciples, “I am in the Father and the Father [is] in me,” he could rightly say to them, “Believe me.” They had ample evidence for believing him. Yet, if they did not believe him, not accepting his word, they could not deny the fact that they had witnessed marvelous deeds. As Jesus said, “Believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (John 14:11)
For the disciples, their belief, faith, or trust in Jesus would result in their doing works they could not then have imagined. After his solemn introductory words (“Amen, amen” [Truly, truly], I say to you”), Jesus continued, “He who believes in me will do the works I am doing, and greater [works] than these he will do, for I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12) Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would no longer be physically present and bringing relief to the afflicted as he had while with the disciples. They would then be doing the very deeds that he had done. Collectively, their activity would be more extensive, reach far beyond the areas where Jesus had ministered to the people, and continue for much more time. Therefore, he could say that he who believes in him would do greater works.
His being away from the disciples did not mean that his care and concern for them would diminish. Moreover, they could look to him for aid and guidance. “Whatever you ask in my name,” Jesus said, “I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you [plural] ask [me, found in numerous manuscripts] anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13, 14)
After Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the disciples commonly directed their prayers to the Father, doing so in Jesus’ name or as persons who recognized him as their Lord. Colossians 3:17 specifically refers to “thanking God the Father through him [the Lord Jesus].”
At certain times, the disciples directly appealed to Jesus. The apostle Paul mentioned having three times pleaded with the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Paul did not say how he received the Lord’s answer, “Sufficient is my grace [unmerited favor] for you, because my power is made complete in weakness.” He humbly accepted it as Christ’s answer, telling the Corinthians that he would prefer to take pride “in [his] weaknesses, that the power of the Christ might dwell with [him].” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)
This illustrates that Jesus’ words about doing what his disciples requested does depend upon its being in harmony with the divine will or prerogative. In Paul’s case, the power of Christ proved to be more fully manifest through his continuing to bear his “thorn,” with the grace or favor extended to him being sufficient for him to endure it. From a personal standpoint, Paul would benefit from seeing Christ’s interests advanced despite his “thorn” and those who responded in faith would be able to see that the advancement of Christ’s cause did not depend on human strength.
Jesus’ unique oneness with his Father is of such a nature that his will and that of his Father are identical. Accordingly, appeals that are made in Jesus’ name, or in recognition of him as Lord, will be answered. His words to the disciples indicate that he would act in keeping with their petitions and that his doing so would serve to glorify the Father. The Father would be honored “in the Son,” for the Son’s response would perfectly reflect the Father’s will.
The disciples would manifest their love for Jesus by observing his commandments, following his example and adhering to his teaching. (John 14:15) The implication is that they should do so even after his departure.
While with them, Jesus had proved to be their “paraclete” (parákletos), helper, comforter, advocate, supporter, or intercessor. Although he would be going away, he would not leave them without needed aid. He assured them that he would request his Father to give them another paraclete to be with them permanently (literally, “into the age”; forever). (John 14:16)
Jesus referred to the paraclete as the “spirit of the truth.” (John 14:17) When functioning in the capacity of teaching or guiding the disciples or of recalling to their minds Jesus’ teaching, the spirit’s aid would be solidly based on truth and could always be trusted. Regardless of the circumstances, the disciples could rely on the spirit for spiritual strength and for help in their loyally upholding and advancing the interests of God’s Son. Based on the context, the paraclete may primarily be regarded as a helper.
In a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father, the world of mankind cannot receive the spirit. Not wanting a relationship with the Father and his Son, those of the world in their state of alienation can neither know nor see the spirit’s function in a personal way. With their minds focused solely on what pleases the senses, they are unresponsive and unreceptive to the spirit.
Regarding the spirit, Jesus said to his disciples, “You know it, for it remains with you and is [will be, according to other manuscripts] in you.” (John 14:17; see the Notes section.) In the life and activity of Jesus, the disciples had repeatedly seen the operation of God’s spirit. Empowered by the spirit, they, too, had performed miraculous works. From personal experience, they knew or had acquaintance with the spirit. As they followed through on the commission Jesus had given them to proclaim the glad tidings and to cure the sick and infirm, the spirit had not left them and was at work “in” and through them.
At the same time, however, their acquaintance with the spirit was never independent of Jesus’ personal presence with them. The future reception of the spirit would result in a continuing possession thereof while the Son of God would not be personally among them.
He promised not to leave them as orphans or in a helpless and needy state, adding, “I am coming to you.”` (John 14:18) After his resurrection, Jesus did reveal himself alive to his disciples. The context, though, suggests that this particular coming to his disciples relates more to his turning his attention to them through the provision of another paraclete and, by means of this helper, making his home with them.
His death, resurrection, and return to his Father being imminent, Jesus could say that the world would shortly no longer see him. The disciples, though, would see him, for, as he told them, “I live and you will live.” (John 14:19) As one raised from the dead, Jesus did live, and the disciples were infused with new life upon seeing him and his giving them many proofs that he was indeed alive. (Acts 1:3) Moreover, with the pouring out of God’s spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost, the disciples truly could be spoken of as living. With boldness they began to witness concerning the Son of God. Jesus’ words spoken just before his last post-resurrection appearance were fulfilled, “You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all of Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)
Jesus’ request to his Father for the disciples to be given another paraclete was answered on the day of Pentecost. Particularly in connection with that day Jesus’ words to them applied, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you [are] in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Jesus received the holy spirit from the Father and then, through Jesus, the disciples received the spirit. (Acts 2:33) This provided undeniable evidence that he was indeed “in” or at one with his Father. As for the disciples, the reception of the spirit from Jesus established that they were “in” or at one with him and that he was “in” or at one with them.
For one to “have” Christ’s commandments would mean to have received or accepted them. Acceptance and observance of these commandments would demonstrate love for him. The one who thus loved Jesus would be loved by his Father, and Jesus would love the individual and would reveal himself to him. In view of Jesus’ return to his Father, this revealing of himself would be through the spirit. (John 14:21)
Judas (not Iscariot, but the son of James), also called Thaddaeus, asked how it would be that Jesus would be revealing himself to the disciples but not to the world. (John 14:22) His answer indicated that this disclosure depended on a relationship that the world did not have. “If anyone loves me,” said Jesus, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you [plural] are hearing is not mine, but [is that] of the Father who sent me.” (John 14:23, 24)
Only those who love Jesus, loyally adhering to his word or teaching, would have the clear vision of him that would follow the reception of the spirit. The Father would love the person who loved his Son. By means of the spirit, both the Father and the Son would make their home with the individual who faithfully followed the Son’s teaching. That word or teaching did not originate with Jesus but had been received by him from his Father. Therefore, the individual who did not observe Jesus’ words also disregarded his Father who had sent him, and demonstrated himself to be a person having no love for Jesus. Being unreceptive to the spirit by reason of a state of alienation and enmity, such a person could not come to have a clear vision of the Son nor of the Father. Therefore, just as Jesus had said, the world would not see him.
Regarding the teaching he had then imparted to them, Jesus said, “These things I have told you while remaining with you.” (John 14:25) This kind of personal teaching would end after his going away to his Father. From then onward, the paraclete, the holy spirit, to be sent by his Father in his name (or on the basis of his request as God’s unique Son), would teach them everything they would need and recall to their minds everything he had said to them. (John 14:26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Jesus’ mention about his departure troubled the disciples. Reassuringly, he told them, “Peace I leave you.” His going away from them was not to occasion disquietude or alarm. Spiritually, the disciples would not experience any lack, and they would have the dependable help and guidance of the paraclete. Continuing, Jesus said, “My peace I give you.” (John 14:27)
This peace was his gift. As recipients thereof, the disciples would enjoy an inner sense of well-being and calm from knowing that he deeply loved them. Jesus’ giving was not like that of the world. (John 14:27; see the Notes section for additional comments.) His giving was an expression of genuine concern and love. Those who are part of the world alienated from the Father often do their giving with impure motives, endeavoring to secure future gain or favors for themselves.
In view of his gift of peace, Jesus admonished the disciples not to allow their hearts to be troubled nor to become fearful. (John 14:27) He thereby implied that his leaving them should not occasion inner alarm, apprehension, uncertainty, or confusion.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what he had said to them, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” Although the disciples did see Jesus on numerous occasions after his resurrection, his appearances primarily served to show them that he was alive. Often he appeared for just a short time and then vanished. Therefore, the coming to which Jesus referred appears to be the coming by means of the paraclete. This appears to be indicated by the words that follow, which words focus on his again being with his Father and not personally with them. “If you loved me,” Jesus said, “you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I [am].” (John 14:28)
The love of the disciples for Jesus should rightly have moved them to rejoice with him, for he would again be with his Father. As the Son sent by and given the words of the Father to speak, Jesus could say about him, “The Father is greater than I [am].” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would be the exalted Son to whom his Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth. He would then enjoy the closest relationship possible with his Father, the possessor of unsurpassed greatness. For Jesus’ disciples, his friends, this should have occasioned rejoicing.
By telling them about what would soon be taking place, Jesus provided the disciples with an additional evidence for faith. (John 14:29) Whereas they believed in him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, his death and resurrection would so overwhelmingly confirm his identity that it would be as if the disciples believed anew, with the strongest conviction possible.
Only a short time remained for Jesus to be with his disciples. Therefore, he told them that he would not be speaking much more to them. The ruler of the world, Satan, was coming, suggesting that Jesus knew that he would shortly face intense assault from the powers of darkness. Confidently, Jesus expressed himself regarding this impending threat, saying that the ruler of the world had “nothing” in him. (John 14:30) Satan had no power over Jesus, for there would be nothing he could get hold of in an effort to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will.
With apparent reference to the surrender of his life in loyal submission to his Father, Jesus spoke of this as the way in which he would show the world that he loved him. For Jesus, his Father’s will constituted his Father’s command. As the loving and obedient Son, he would act on the commandment, which included sacrificing his life. (John 14:31)
The words, “Rise, let us go from here,” do not necessarily indicate an immediate departure from the location where the Passover meal had been eaten. Thereafter Jesus is represented as continuing to speak. Not until a while later did he actually leave with the disciples and head for the Mount of Olives. (John 18:1) Therefore, Jesus’ words about going may have been his way of saying that the time had come for him to surrender his life and of expressing his determination to set out on the course his Father had willed for him.
Notes:
The holy writings or sacred scriptures with which Jesus’ disciples were familiar included numerous references to the spirit (Hebrew, rúach; Greek, pneúma), God’s spirit, or holy spirit. Like the corresponding Greek word pneúma, the Hebrew term rúach can also mean “wind.” Whereas pneúma is neuter gender, rúach is feminine gender. In the holy writings, the spirit is often mentioned in contexts identifying it as a divine agent or the power emanating from God. (Judges 3:10; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 11:6; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3; 11:1; 37:14) For the disciples to have come to a changed understanding about the spirit would have required explicit teaching from God’s Son. In expressing his promise about the paraclete or the spirit of the truth, Jesus’ use of some masculine pronouns would have been far too subtle for the disciples to have come to understand the nature of the spirit differently.
The Hebrew, Syriac, and Aramaic forms of the word “paraclete” came into use through Greek influence and, like the Greek, are masculine gender. According to the idiom of the language in which Jesus spoke to his disciples, he would have used feminine pronouns when referring to the spirit and masculine pronouns when speaking of the paraclete.
Therefore, what has been regarded as a fluctuation of masculine and neuter pronouns in the Greek text of John 14 is best understood as being of a grammatical nature. Where the apparent or intended antecedent is pneúma, the corresponding pronouns are neuter. If, on the other hand, the apparent or intended antecedent is parákletos, the corresponding pronouns are masculine.
In John 14:26, the paraclete (parákletos) is identified as “the holy spirit.” The phrase that follows, in keeping with the neuter gender of “spirit” (pneúma), starts with the neuter pronoun hó (“which [hó] the Father will send in my name”). Then, in agreement with the masculine parákletos, the masculine pronoun ekeínos (“that one” or “he”) begins the concluding part of the sentence (“that one will teach you everything and recall to you everything I said to you”).
The reference to the giving that is not like that of the world does not have a designated object in the Greek text of John 14:27. A number of translations have added “it,” making “peace” the antecedent, and other translations have added the word “peace” as the object of the giving. “I am leaving you with a gift — peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give isn’t like the peace the world gives.” (NLT) “I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give. It isn’t like the peace that this world can give.” (CEV) “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give peace to you as the world gives.” (NLB) According to this meaning, the peace the world gives could be understood to be the kind of seeming well-being and security that is based on attaining positions or possessions and would be temporary.
The world, however, cannot give real peace, the enduring well-being, security, and tranquility that comes from having a relationship with the Son of God and his Father. Some translations render the verse in a way that conveys the inability of the world to give peace. “Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give.” (REB) “Peace I bequeath to you, my own peace I give you, a peace which the world cannot give, this is my gift to you.” (NJB)
Without an object for “give,” this verb could be understood in a generic sense, indicating that Christ’s giving differs from that of the world. This may be the preferable meaning, considering that it requires no additions to the actual reading of the Greek text.
Illustrating the need for his disciples to be inseparably united to him, Jesus referred to himself as the true vine, his Father as the vine grower, and his disciples as the branches in the vine. (John 15:1, 5) His Father would lop off all unproductive branches and prune (literally, “clean”) fruit-bearing branches so that they might yield more fruit. (John 15:2; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
The word, message, or teaching Jesus imparted to his disciples had already “pruned” or “cleaned” them. They had accepted his word, acting on it by imitating his example and testifying to their faith in him. By their conduct, which reflected favorably on him, and their witness about him, the disciples proved themselves to be productive branches that had been made fruitful through the cleansing power of his word. (John 15:3)
As Jesus remained “in” his disciples, being attached to them, he admonished them to remain “in” him, continuing to be at one with him. Only by remaining part of the vine do branches bear fruit. Likewise, the disciples would only be able to bear good fruit as persons attached to Jesus or at one with him. (John 15:4)
After identifying himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches, Jesus again stressed that the one who remained “in” him (attached like a branch to the vine) and he “in” the individual (attached like the vine to a branch) would bear much fruit. Therefore, apart from him, the disciples could not produce anything, that is, anything which his Father, the vine grower, would consider acceptable fruit. (John 15:5)
The person who failed to remain “in” Jesus or to be attached to him would prove to be like an unproductive branch that is thrown away and the leaves of which wither. Useless branches would be gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (John 15:6) This indicates that a severe judgment awaits those who forsake Jesus and, in disposition, word, and deed, cease to bear fruit, no longer conducting themselves as persons who recognize him as their Lord.
If the disciples remained “in” or attached to him, and his word or teaching remained in them (being like a deposit in their inmost selves and motivating their thoughts, words, and deeds), whatever they might wish to request would be granted. (John 15:7) In view of their being at one with Jesus and their having made his teaching their own, their asking would have been in harmony with God’s will, and this would have assured their receiving a favorable response to their petitions.
Ultimately, when Jesus’ disciples bore much fruit in word and deed, and proved themselves to be his faithful disciples by advancing his interests, his Father would be glorified or honored. (John 15:8)
Just as the Father loved him, the Son loved the disciples. His appeal to them was, “Remain in my love.” For them to continue in his love would require that they keep his commandments, adhering to his teaching in their life as his disciples. Jesus had set the example for them. He had kept his Father’s commandments and thus had remained in his love. (John 15:9, 10)
The reason Jesus spoke about their remaining in his love by keeping his commandments was so that he might find joy in them. On seeing their faithfulness in bearing much fruit and proving themselves to be his disciples, he would rejoice. Their responsiveness to his word would occasion joy. At the same time, their joy would be made complete. (John 15:11) They would experience the inner contentment from knowing that they were pleasing to him as their Lord and, therefore, also to his Father. Upon attaining their reward, the disciples would attain the ultimate fullness of joy.
Jesus’ principal command for them was, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This called for a self-sacrificing and selfless love, a love that expressed itself in finding delight in serving others. Jesus’ love for them surpassed anything they had ever experienced. As he told them, “No one has greater love than this, that someone give up his soul [life] for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you [to do].” By acting on his command to love one another, they would prove themselves to be his friends, loving as he loved. (John 15:12-14)
Although Jesus was their Lord, he did not treat them in a manner that resembled a master-slave relationship. As he said, “I am not still calling you slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father.” (John 15:15) In a master-slave relationship, the master primarily issued commands to the slave. He did not treat him as a confidential friend to whom he would have entrusted precious intimate thoughts. The slave primarily obeyed his master out of a sense of duty and fear. Jesus, however, disclosed the teaching of his Father, teaching that he had received as his Father’s dearly beloved and unique Son. Being acknowledged friends of Jesus, the disciples would be motivated to heed his commands because they loved him.
The disciples had not chosen Jesus, granting him the authority to be their Lord and Teacher. He had chosen them to be his disciples and his apostles. His purpose for choosing them was that they might go and bear fruit and that this fruit would remain. They would be going out among the people, and their fruit in the form of words and deeds would move others to accept their testimony about Jesus and put their faith in him. Accordingly, these believers would prove to be the enduring or remaining produce of the apostles’ faithful service. The labors of the apostles yielded fruit that has remained to the present time, for throughout the centuries many have put faith in their testimony and have acted on it. When fulfilling the purpose for their being chosen, the disciples would also have an approved relationship with his Father. So, as Jesus indicated, their fruit bearing would assure that the requests they directed to the Father in Jesus’ name (in recognition of who the Son truly is) would be granted. (John 15:16) In carrying out their commission, the disciples would need the courage to speak with boldness, the strength to endure hostility, and the wisdom to express themselves appropriately and effectively. They could be confident that their petitions respecting the accomplishment of their assigned service would be answered.
Indicative of the prime importance of love, Jesus is quoted as again saying, “These things I am commanding you, that you love one another.” (John 15:17)
In the world of mankind alienated from the Father, they would not find the love they were to enjoy among themselves. They would be hated. If or when this happened, they should be able to understand it, for they knew that the world hated Jesus before expressing its hatred against them. If they were part of the world, living as persons without faith in the Son and, therefore, also without faith in the Father, the unbelievers of the world would love them as their own. Although living in the world of mankind, the disciples were not from that world. Their thoughts, words, and deeds were focused on proving themselves to be Jesus’ disciples. He had chosen them out of the world, no longer to be a part of it in its unbelief and its ways that did not honor his Father. As persons who had ceased to be part of the world, the disciples were objects of its hatred. (John 15:18, 19)
In relation to their encountering the world’s hatred, Jesus wanted them to remember what he had told them previously, “A slave is not greater than his master.” (Compare Matthew 10:24, Luke 6:40, and John 13:16.) Therefore, they should expect the same kind of response and treatment as Jesus had experienced. As he said, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word [accepting his teaching and observing it], they will also keep yours.” (John 15:20)
Whatever hostility or mistreatment the disciples were to experience would be on account of Jesus’ name or because of their being identified as belonging to him as his disciples. The hateful reaction and treatment would result because those who persisted in unbelief did not “know” the Father who had sent his Son. They did not recognize the Father in the Son, revealing that they had no relationship with him. (John 15:21)
If Jesus had not come and labored among them and spoken to them, “they,” according to his words, “would have no sin.” But he did labor and teach among them, leaving them without any excuse for their sin—their persistence in unbelief and hatred of him. His example in love, compassionately bringing relief to the sick and afflicted, and his teaching gave them no basis for their hateful response. The clear evidence of God’s spirit working through the Son in the accomplishment of good served to condemn their unbelief and hostility. Without this overwhelming evidence, they would have been acting out of ignorance and so would not have had the sin of deliberate unbelief charged against them. (John 15:22, 24)
When hating Jesus, the unbelievers also hated the Father who deeply loved his Son. No one else had done the works that Jesus did among them. If he had not done these marvelous works that resulted in relief for many suffering fellow Jews, the unbelievers would not have had sin. They could not have taken a hostile stand despite evidence of good deeds, for they would not have witnessed these works. Having, however, seen Jesus and the works he did, they nevertheless hated him and his Father (the very one whose works Jesus was performing and whose teaching he was conveying). This fulfilled the “word” of the “law” (in this case seemingly meaning words in the holy writings that had the authority or validity of law), “They hated me without cause.” (John 15:23-25) These words of Psalm 69:4 (68:5, LXX) found their full meaning in the hatred Jesus experienced.
With the aid of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, the apostles would be able to discharge their commission to testify concerning Jesus. He would send the paraclete from the Father, the one from whom this helper or “the spirit of the truth” proceeded. Upon arriving, the paraclete or helper would testify about Jesus. This testimony would have included opening up to the minds of the apostles how the words of the holy writings and everything Jesus had said to them beforehand had been fulfilled in him. With the spirit operating within them, the apostles would then be in a position to testify concerning Jesus, for they had been with him from the time he began his ministry among the people. The spirit would recall to their minds the things he had said, and they would be able to convey his teaching to others. (John 15:26, 27; see the Notes section for additional comments on verse 26.)
Notes:
In John 15:2, the Greek term used for the removal of an unproductive branch is aíro, literally meaning “to raise” or “to lift up” but here signifying “to remove” or “to take away.” The Greek word for “clean” or “prune” is kathaíro. The use of the two Greek words suggests a play on words (aíro — kathaíro).
The designation “paraclete” (parákletos) at the start of John 15:26, as in John chapter 14, is best understood to mean “helper.” In agreement with its masculine gender, the apparent or intended antecedent parákletos is followed by pronouns in the masculine gender. This is so even though the parenthetical expression that includes the neuter noun pneúma with its corresponding neuter pronoun hó (“the spirit (pneúma) of the truth, which [hó] proceeds from the Father”) separates parákletos and the accompanying phrase (“whom [hón, the masculine pronoun] I will send you from the Father”) from the conclusion of the sentence. Without the parenthetical words about the spirit, the sentence would read, “When the helper arrives, whom I will send you from the Father, that one [or he; the masculine pronoun ekeínos] will testify about me.”
Initially, Jesus did not tell his disciples about the hatred that would be directed against them because of being his disciples. He did not want to stumble them, frightening them to the point that their fragile faith could have given out. (John 16:1)
With the passage of time, their faith had grown and become stronger. Moreover, in view of his imminent departure, Jesus recognized that it was essential for them to know what they would be experiencing. They would be expelled from the synagogues. The hour or time would come when unbelievers would imagine that they were serving God by killing the disciples. (John 16:2) Unbelieving fellow Jews would come to view them as apostates, as persons who were followers of a false Messiah and who posed a threat to the traditional Jewish ways. As the book of Acts reveals, murderous hatred flared up because of regarding the disciples as speaking against Moses, the temple, and the law. (Acts 6:13, 14; 21:27-31) Based on the penalty the law set forth for apostasy, they would have regarded themselves as doing God’s will by killing the disciples. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
The hateful action of unbelievers would stem from their knowing neither the Father nor Jesus. Their traditional views blinded them so that they could not perceive the things of God. Unable to see in Jesus the perfect reflection of his Father, they could not recognize him as the Son of God and so could not possibly know the Father whom they had never seen. (John 16:3)
The “hour” or time was bound to come when the disciples would face persecution and even death. Having been prepared in advance for this, they would then recall what Jesus had told them. While he was with them, the hatred was primarily directed at him, and he came to their defense when others raised an issue about them. (Compare Matthew 12:1-8; 15:1-9.) Therefore, it was not vital for them to know at the start just what might happen to them because of being his disciples. As Jesus said, “I did not tell you these things from the beginning, for I was with you.” (John 16:4)
The situation would soon be different. Jesus would be going back to the one who had sent him, his Father. Earlier, Peter had asked, “Lord, where are you going?” (John 13:36) Thomas, in response to Jesus’ telling the apostles that they knew the way to the place where he was going, said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going.” (John 14:5) In neither case, however, were the words focused on what this would mean for Jesus. Peter’s question related to why he would not be able to follow, and the words of Thomas indicated that the disciples did not know the way to the place where Jesus was going. With apparent reference in relation to himself, Jesus said, “Not one of you asks me, Where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.” (John 16:5, 6) Within themselves, they were pained upon hearing that Jesus would no longer be with them. Overwhelmed by their sadness, they did not reflect on what it would mean for him to return to his Father. Therefore, they did not make any inquiry about where Jesus would be going or concerning anything else that specifically related to him in connection with this departure.
In view of their sadness, Jesus reassured them, “I am telling you the truth, It is better for you that I am going away; for if I do not go away, the paraclete will not come to you.” Upon going away, Jesus would send them the paraclete. As a man on earth, he dealt with the limitations human existence imposed. His activity was confined to a comparatively small geographic area, and he could only be with them in one specific location at a time. The paraclete, however, would be with them at all times and in every location where they would be spreading the message about the Son of God. Accordingly, from the standpoint of what would be accomplished, it was really in the best interests of the apostles for him to depart and for them to benefit from the paraclete or from another helper. (John 16:7)
As to what would be accomplished through the powerful working of the paraclete, Jesus said, “That one [ekeínos, masculine gender to agree with the masculine gender of paraclete (parákletos)] will reprove the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment.” (John 16:8) Jesus then explained the way in which the paraclete would reprove the world, exposing the wrong of those who persisted in unbelief.
They were guilty of sin, rejecting the clear evidence that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. This evidence included his miraculous works (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and soundness of body to the crippled and the lame, and raising the dead). With God’s spirit operating through them, the apostles would perform like miraculous works, further confirming the sin of the world’s refusal to believe in Jesus to be inexcusable. (John 16:9)
Unbelievers misrepresented the Son of God, slandering him as being a man in league with the demons, a lawbreaker, and a deceiver. (Compare Matthew 12:24; 27:63; Luke 23:2.) His return to his Father and, therefore, his disciples’ no longer seeing him proved that he was righteous in every way. At the same time, this revealed that a right standing with his Father could only be obtained through faith in him and the forgiveness made possible through his sacrificial death. The imparting of the spirit to the disciples established that he had returned to his Father and received the spirit from him. Empowered by the spirit, the disciples boldly testified that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God and that, through him alone, forgiveness of sins was possible. (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 3:14-21; 5:29-32; 13:27-39) Thus their testimony, backed by miracles, proved to be the spirit’s witness about righteousness. (John 16:10)
Through his death in faithfulness to his Father, Jesus defeated the powers of darkness. This, too, would be a feature of the spirit’s testimony. It would be a witness about judgment, for the ruler of the world had been condemned and exposed as unable to turn Jesus away from doing his Father’s will. (John 16:11) No longer could Satan hold people in slavery by means of the fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) The visible manifestation of the spirit’s operation through the disciples bore witness to the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, exaltation, and triumph over the power of the enemy, proving that Satan had been judged. This also confirmed that Jesus would be the judge of all, both the upright and the unjust. (Acts 17:31) All who defiantly persisted in unbelief would, like Satan, be condemned. (Compare Matthew 25:41.)
Jesus wanted to tell the apostles much more, but he knew that they were then not prepared to “bear” it. (John 16:12) This suggests that they would have been troubled or overwhelmed, unable to comprehend his words.
With the arrival of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, they would come to understand, being guided into all the truth. Everything that would be conveyed to them would be completely trustworthy and would meet their needs. The paraclete would not be functioning independently (speaking “of his own”) but would be reliably making known what had been heard from Jesus and ultimately from the Father and would declare or reveal things to come. In the context of Jesus’ words, the “things coming” appear to relate to what lay ahead for him, and the spirit would enable the apostles to see how the Scriptures and his words were fulfilled. (Compare John 2:22.) Through the spirit, the Son would be glorified or honored, for the spirit would be announcing or revealing what had been received from him. (John 16:13, 14)
As the unique Son, Jesus shared everything with his Father. “Everything the Father has,” Jesus said, “is mine.” Therefore, although the Father is the ultimate source of the spirit, Jesus could say that the paraclete received from what is his and then would make announcement to the apostles. (John 16:15)
Again indicating why the apostles would need another paraclete or helper, Jesus reminded them about a change to come. In a little while, they would no longer see him, and then in a little while they would see him. (John 16:16)
This puzzled the disciples, and some of them talked among themselves as to what he meant about not being seen and then being seen, and regarding the words “because I am going to the Father.” They found it impossible to comprehend what he meant respecting “a little while” and concluded that they did not know what he was talking about. (John 16:17, 18)
Discerning that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had said, Jesus illustrated the developments that lay ahead. After expressing his solemn introductory words, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” Jesus told the apostles that they would weep and mourn, but the world of unbelievers would rejoice. Whereas they were pained, their pain or sadness would be changed to joy. When the hour or time has come, a woman, during the birthing process, experiences pain. After the birth of the baby, however, she does not remember the distress but is happy that a boy has been brought into the world. (John 16:19-21)
Applying the illustration about the woman, Jesus said that while the disciples were then experiencing pain or sadness (with apparent reference to his departure), they would see him again. Their “heart” or they, in their inmost selves, would rejoice upon seeing him, and no one would be able to take their joy away. After his resurrection, the disciples did see Jesus again, and this filled them with boundless joy. Having been given the evidence that he was alive, their joy continued, with no one able to rob them of it by wrecking their faith in him and his word. Moreover, as their resurrected Lord, with all power in heaven and on earth having been granted to him, he would be able to respond to their appeals even after his return to his Father. (John 16:22)
“In that day,” seemingly referring to the time when he would again be with his Father, Jesus said that the disciples would not ask him anything. This may mean that all things would become clear to them, as they would have another helper, the spirit. Moreover, Jesus would continue to be concerned about them. Up to this particular point, they had not made any appeals in his name or in recognition of his being their Lord. Jesus now, with a solemn assurance (“Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you”) told the disciples to ask in his name or on the basis of his authority, and they would receive the things for which they made their requests. This would result in their joy being made complete. All such requests would of necessity harmonize with the divine will and be directed to the Father in recognition of the Son. (John 16:23, 24; for another possible meaning of John 16:23 about not asking anything, see the Notes section.)
Jesus had used figures of speech when talking to the disciples, but he told them that the “hour” or time would be coming when he would no longer do so. He would use clear or plain speech when telling them about the Father. (John 16:25)
“In that day” or at that future time, the disciples would make their appeals in Jesus’ name or in full recognition of his authority. This, however, did not mean that Jesus would have to ask his Father to respond to the prayers of his disciples. As Jesus said, “I am not saying that I shall ask the Father about you.” (John 16:26) This would not be required, for the Father himself loved the disciples because they loved his Son and believed that he had come from him. (John 16:27)
When coming into the world of mankind, Jesus came from the Father. His departure meant that he would be leaving the world and returning to him. (John 16:28) In view of Jesus’ clear statement that he would be going back to his Father, the disciples appear to have understood his words. This prompted them to acknowledge that he had spoken to them plainly and not in figures of speech. (John 16:29)
Jesus had known that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had meant when telling them that, in a little while, they would not see him and then, in a little while, they would see him again. He answered the question they had wanted to ask. His having done so appears to be the reason they said, “Now we know that you know everything, and you do not need to have anyone question you. On this account, we believe that you came from God.” The disciples realized that, even without a question being asked directly, Jesus would be able to anticipate it and provide the answer. They saw in what he had done for them clear evidence that he had come from God. (John 16:30)
Jesus, though, also knew the great test that lay ahead for the disciples and so raised the question, “Do you now believe?” While they had expressed their belief or faith in him, the “hour” or time would be coming and had, in fact, come when each of them would be scattered to his own place (not remaining together for mutual strengthening) and would leave him alone. Jesus, however, would not be alone, for his Father would still be with him. (John 16:31, 32)
The Son of God had prepared his disciples in advance for what would take place. “In” him or by being united to him, they would have peace, an inner calm and sense of well-being from knowing that they were loved by him and his Father and were objects of their concern and care. In the world of unbelievers, they would experience distress, persecution and intense hostility. Still, they could be courageous, for Jesus, their Lord, proved himself greater than the world. The world of mankind that was in a state of alienation from his Father had no power over him. Despite all the assaults directed against him, Jesus had not yielded. In loyal submission to his Father’s will, he would be surrendering his life. Thus, ultimately through his death, he would defeat the world and be triumphant as the unconquered one. With complete confidence, therefore, Jesus could say, “I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33)
Notes:
As in John chapters 14 and 15, so also in chapter 16, masculine pronouns are used when the apparent or intended antecedent is “paraclete” (parákletos). The Greek word for “spirit” (pneúma) is neuter gender, and this explains why both masculine and neuter pronouns appear in the narration that includes Jesus’ words about the paraclete, the “spirit of the truth.”
In John 16:23, the “asking” could either refer to asking questions or to making requests. If requests, petitions, or appeals are meant, this would indicate that it would not be necessary to direct these to Jesus in order to receive a favorable hearing, for the Father would respond to all requests made in the name of his Son. This significance is explicit in the New Century Version, “In that day you will not ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you anything you ask for in my name.”
After having finished speaking to the apostles, Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and began to pray. Only a shift in his visual focus ended his speaking to the apostles and started his praying, indicative of how natural it was for Jesus to address his Father and of the intimate relationship existing between them. His mentioning the hour that had come referred to the imminent completion of his ministry on earth and the sacrificial surrender of his life in submission to his Father’s will. (John 17:1)
Jesus’ petition, “Glorify your Son, that the Son [your Son, according to numerous manuscripts] may glorify you,” constituted a request to be honored subsequent to the humiliation of a shameful execution. This glorification would have included everything that revealed him to be the Son of God. Awesome signs accompanied his death. After his resurrection from the dead on the third day, he returned to his Father. Thus honored in keeping with his petition, Jesus glorified his Father through what he had accomplished in carrying out the commission entrusted to him. (John 17:1)
The Father had granted his Son authority over all flesh or the entire human family. This authority was bound up with his sacrificial death, which provided the basis for liberating humans from sin and the consequences from sin, namely, death. Through his death, Jesus would purchase or redeem the human race. By his Father’s giving him those whom he redeemed, Jesus would be able to give them eternal life. (John 17:2)
He referred to eternal life as being a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father. It is a knowing of the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one whom he had sent. This “knowing” is an intimate relationship of oneness with the Father and his Son. A life that harmonizes with Jesus’ example and teaching and so also with his Father’s will confirms the existence of this relationship. Recognizing that Jesus had been sent by the Father would require acknowledging the reason for his being sent, putting faith in him, and accepting the atoning benefits of his sacrificial death. Being a relationship that does not end, the life that is distinguished by a relationship with the Father and his Son is eternal and will be enjoyed in the complete sense in the sinless state. In that state, the most intimate knowing of the Father and the Son will be possible. (John 17:3)
Jesus could speak of his having glorified or honored his Father, for he had completed the work he had been given to do. The surrender of his life being at hand, he could rightly refer to the full accomplishment of the work. Upon faithfully carrying out everything that his coming to the earth required, Jesus made it possible for humans to become reconciled to his Father. Moreover, through his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly revealed him. (John 17:4)
He prayed that his Father would glorify him, granting him the “glory,” splendor, honor, or dignity he had before coming to the earth and which he had alongside him before the world existed. (John 17:5) The glory he previously had was one of being in the very form of his Father, a magnificence that transcended that of all the angels or the other sons of God. (Philippians 2:6)
When acknowledging his Father as the one who had given him the apostles out of the world of mankind, Jesus spoke of having made known his Father’s name (the person of the Father, the one whom the name represented). As his Father’s unique Son, he revealed him in a manner that no one else could have done. Jesus spoke his Father’s words and did his Father’s works. In his activity and interactions, he flawlessly reflected his Father’s zeal for what is right, fair, or just, and manifested his Father’s mighty and beneficent power, concern and care, compassion, and love. Again referring to the apostles as belonging to and having been given to him by his Father, Jesus added, “They have kept your word.” (John 17:6; see the Notes section for additional comments.) He imparted the “word” or teaching that he had received from his Father to the apostles, and they responded to it in faith. They recognized Jesus as their Lord and heeded his word, which in the ultimate sense was his Father’s word.
The apostles came to know that everything that had been given to Jesus had been received from his Father. This was so because of what Jesus had taught them and his identifying his Father as the source of his teaching. (Compare John 7:16-18.) They accepted Jesus’ words, observing them as having come from his Father. Through the words or teaching Jesus imparted to them, the apostles recognized that he had come from his Father and came to believe that his Father had sent him. (John 17:7, 8)
At this time, Jesus did not pray regarding the world that persisted in unbelief but for the apostles, whom the Father had given him and to whom they belonged. Indicating that his Father had the same care and concern he did, Jesus acknowledged, “Everything of mine is yours, and yours [is] mine; and I have been glorified in them.” (John 17:9, 10) Although the apostles belonged to Jesus, they also belonged to his Father, and so would be objects of his Father’s love and concern. By believing in Jesus, they had glorified or honored him as God’s beloved Son. In view of his imminent departure, he deeply cared about them and prayed for them.
Though Jesus would no longer be in the world and would be returning to his Father, the disciples would continue to live in the world, facing the pressures and trials associated with a world in a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, Jesus made his appeal, “Holy Father, look after them in your name which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” (John 17:11)
Being pure in the absolute sense, the Father is holy, and his name identifies him as the God of love, one who deeply cares for his own. The name represents or stands for him. Therefore, if the reference to giving his name to his Son preserves the original reading of the Greek text, this could relate to the Father’s intimate relationship with him, a relationship of oneness stemming from the Father’s having given himself to his Son. (See the Notes section regarding John 17:11.) It would then be the inseparable oneness Jesus enjoyed with his Father that he desired the apostles to share.
While he had been with the apostles, Jesus looked out for them. He did so in his Father’s name. This could mean that he did so on the basis of the authority that his Father had granted him. Jesus’ watchful care meant that all except the “son of destruction” had been safeguarded. To fulfill the scripture that a close associate would betray Jesus (Psalm 41:9[10]; John 13:18), Judas Iscariot alone was lost. By choosing a course that led to his ruin, Judas proved himself to be a “son of destruction.” (John 17:12; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Although he would be returning to his Father, Jesus wanted the apostles to share in his joy. So, while he was still in the world, he expressed himself in prayer as he did. The things he had said centered on his having revealed the Father to them and their relationship to him and to his Father. Jesus’ prayerful words would also have assured the apostles of his Father’s watching over them. Their knowing that they belonged to the Father and were recipients of his loving care would have contributed to their ceasing to be troubled about Jesus’ no longer being with them. This would have enabled them to share in his joy to the full. They could then rejoice in the victory he attained through his death, a triumph that brought liberation from sin to those who put faith in him and spelled defeat for the powers of darkness. Moreover, his again being with his Father as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been granted would fill them with joy. (John 17:13)
Jesus had given the word of his Father to the apostles, imparting to them the Father’s teaching. That teaching revealed Jesus to be the unique Son of God. In his own person, Jesus revealed the Father to the fullest extent possible. The apostles had embraced the “word” or teaching in faith, ceasing to be part of the world of unbelievers who were alienated from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, the world hated the apostles, for, like Jesus their Lord, they were no part of it. (John 17:14)
As objects of the world’s hatred, the apostles needed divine aid. Jesus did not pray for them to be taken out of the world and thereby to escape the trials and pressures from a world in opposition to him. Instead, he appealed to his Father to watch over them on account of the evil one. Though no part of the world, just as Jesus was no a part thereof, they would be advancing his interests in the world of mankind. As a result, they would be subject to the attacks of the evil one or the devil. (John 17:15, 16)
In view of their commission, Jesus prayed that his Father would sanctify the apostles “in the truth.” For them to be sanctified meant that they would be set apart for a holy or sacred service. The expression “in the truth” could be understood to mean in the sphere of the truth, suggestive of a life set apart for the advancement of this truth and a life that harmonized therewith. Jesus referred to his Father’s word as being truth and earlier that night spoke of himself as the truth. (John 14:6) So the truth is the teaching which Jesus had received from his Father and which he then imparted to his disciples by his words and deeds. As the perfect reflection of his Father, the Son was the embodiment of the truth about him. For the furtherance of this truth, the revelation of the Father in the Son, the apostles would be set apart to serve. (John 17:17)
The Father had sent Jesus to minister in the world of mankind. Jesus likewise sent his disciples to labor in the world. (John 17:18) He had sanctified himself or set himself apart for them. In submission to his Father’s will, he faithfully imparted his Father’s teaching and was about to surrender his life. Accordingly, as one set apart to do his Father’s will, Jesus acted for the benefit of the disciples. They received his teaching and, on the basis of his sacrificial death and their faith in him, came to be the Father’s sons and Christ’s brothers. So, by what Jesus did in sanctifying himself for them, they were sanctified “in [the] truth” or set apart to serve in advancing the truth (the truth from the Father and revealed through the Son). (John 17:19)
Jesus did not limit his prayerful request to the apostles, but included all who would come to believe in him on the basis of the “word” or message they would proclaim. (John 17:20) The objective for all those putting their faith in him would be that they would form a united whole, enjoying the same oneness that Jesus had with his Father. With all believers being at one with Jesus and his Father, testimony would be given to the world that the Father had sent the Son. Thus the basis would be provided for the world of mankind or for the people to believe in Jesus as the one whom God had sent. (John 17:21)
The glory the Father had given him, Jesus gave to the apostles. This glory, splendor, or dignity appears to relate specifically to Jesus’ being the Son of God. In John 1:14, this glory is described as that of a father’s only or unique son, and Jesus granted those who believed in him the authority or right to be God’s children. (John 1:12) This bestowal of sonship is an honor or dignity of unparalleled greatness. In coming to be part of the family of the Father’s beloved children, a marvelous unity comes into being. Jesus expressed this objective regarding the apostles to his Father, “that they be one as we are one; I in [at one with them] them and you in [at one with] me, that they may be fully one.” (John 17:22) This perfect oneness or unity would provide the basis for the world of mankind to know that the Father had sent the Son and loved the disciples (those who had been granted the honor of being his children on the basis of their faith in his Son) just as he loved him. (John 17:23)
It appears that particularly regarding “what” the Father had given him as the unique Son (provided the oldest extant manuscripts preserve the original reading of the text), Jesus wanted the apostles to be where he was. This would make it possible for them to see the glory or the greatness of the dignity that his Father had given him as the exalted Son with all authority in heaven and on earth. The glory that he would have upon his return to his Father would be an evidence of his Father’s love. This love existed “before the founding of the world” or from the very start and continued throughout the ages. (John 17:24; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
The world had not come to know the Father, the one who is righteous, just, or impartial in all his dealings. Humans who were part of the unbelieving world were in a state of alienation from and at enmity with him. They had no relationship with the Father and so could not possibly know him. Jesus, however, knew his Father as his beloved Son, and the apostles came to know that the Father had sent him. (John 17:25)
During the time he was with the apostles, Jesus made known his Father’s name (that is, the person of the Father, the bearer of the name) to them. As the perfect reflection of his Father, Jesus revealed him through his words and actions. His prayer expressed the resolve to continue making his Father’s name known or revealing him to the apostles. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and opened up their minds to a fuller understanding respecting himself and so also regarding his Father. (Compare Luke 24:26, 27, 32.) Upon returning to him, Jesus continued to reveal his Father by means of the paraclete, “the spirit of the truth.” His making him known was for the purpose that the apostles might have within them the love with which his Father loved him. Through Jesus’ love for them, they would come to experience his Father’s love and, therefore, the love with which he loved his Son. This would also serve to have Jesus “in them” or inseparably attached to them in love. With the Father’s love dwelling in them, the apostles would respond in love for him and for his Son. (John 17:26)
Notes:
The name of God expresses everything he is. Therefore, in making known the name, Jesus revealed his Father’s personality and attributes—his matchless and beneficent power (as, for example, when Jesus raised the dead), compassion and love (exemplified in Jesus’ response to the afflicted and to repentant sinners), and justice (through Jesus’ exposure of harshness, oppressiveness, and mistreatment). To his apostles and other disciples, Jesus disclosed how they could become his Father’s children and thus revealed him as the loving Father with whom they could have an intimate family relationship as persons forgiven of their sins. In what the Father had made possible through him, Jesus revealed the Father in a way that far transcended what had been set forth in the existing holy writings with which the apostles were familiar. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, the paraclete or the holy spirit aided the apostles to understand everything he had said and done. In this way, he (as expressed in his prayer) continued to make known his Father’s name, and the apostles came to have a fuller understanding of the Father, their relationship to him, and his boundless love in sending his Son to the earth. (John 17:6, 26)
For John 17:11, manuscript readings vary. There are ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts that do not include the words, “which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” Certain other manuscripts read, “whom [referring to the apostles] you have given me.” This would mean that Jesus prayed that his Father safeguard the apostles in his own name or in keeping with everything his name represented, the God who he is.
Ancient manuscript readings of John 17:12 introduce the phrase “you have given me” with either “which” (applying to God’s name) or “whom” (referring to the apostles).
In John 17:24, the oldest extant manuscripts read, “which you have given me.” Many later manuscripts, however, indicate the reference to be to the apostles (“whom you have given me”).
According to ancient Jewish sources, the Passover meal could only be eaten until midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim 5:13) So it may have been around midnight that Jesus and the apostles sang the concluding portion of the Hallel (possibly Psalms 115 through 118) and then headed for the Mount of Olives. Leaving Jerusalem, they descended to the Kidron valley, crossed it, and then ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:30, 36; Mark 14:26; John 18:1) Although knowing that he would be betrayed, Jesus did not alter his customary routine. (Luke 22:39)
Arriving at a place called Gethsemane, he and the apostles entered a garden. After telling the others to seat themselves, probably near the area where they entered, Jesus had Peter, James, and John accompany him to a more distant location in the garden where he intended to pray. It may have been before leaving the other apostles behind that he told them to pray in order not succumb to temptation. In view of his earlier comments that all of them would be stumbled on his account, they may have understood that the temptation pertained to circumstances that might induce them to disown him. (Matthew 26:36, 37; Mark 14:32, 33; Luke 22:40; see the Notes section for other comments.)
It may have been close to one o’clock in the morning when Jesus left for a place to pray, and the apostles would have been very tired. Upon becoming distressed and experiencing an inner upheaval, Jesus said to Peter, James, and John, “My soul is [I myself am] greatly distressed, [even] to death. Stay here and remain awake with me.” He then walked on a little farther (“a stone’s throw” or the distance one might customarily toss a stone), dropped to his knees, and prostrated himself, with his face touching the ground. He then began to pray. (Matthew 26:38, 39; Mark 14:34, 35; Luke 22:41)
Earlier that night, Jesus had told the apostles that the ruler of the world would be coming. (John 14:30) The great distress that Jesus experienced in the garden and the intensity of his repeated prayer suggest that he was then subjected to a severe mental assault from the powers of darkness. This was the culminating hour for the devil to try to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will respecting the “cup” or the portion meant for him. For Jesus to partake from that “cup” would mean that he would be viciously abused, humiliated, tortured, and die an excruciating death that would portray him as a vile criminal.
He knew that this was his Father’s arrangement for reconciling humans to himself. It would reveal the depth of his Father’s love for humankind. The Father thereby demonstrated that he so much wanted them to be his children that he did not even spare his own Son to reach their deepest emotions, appealing to them to respond in faith or unqualified trust to his way for having their sins forgiven. For those who would put faith in Jesus’ sacrificial death for them, the recognition of the greatness of the Father’s love would be beyond compare. They would deeply feel that the Father and his Son did this for them personally in expression of their love.
At the same time, the suffering that Jesus experienced would serve to reveal the seriousness of sin. Flawed humans tend to have a dulled sense for what is wrong or hurtful and are prone to justify attitudes, words, or actions that are morally corrupt.
Nothing less than the greatest sacrifice could accomplish what was essential to bring sinful humans into a proper family relationship with the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Upon coming to recognize sin in all its hideousness and the greatness of divine love, sinful humans would be able to respond with the kind of faith or trust that our heavenly Father desires his approved children to have.
The reconciliation of humans with the Father was diametrically opposed to the devil’s aim. If there had been another way in which Jesus would have been able to accomplish his Father’s purpose, he would have preferred that. If it had been possible, he would have wanted the horrific “hour” or time to pass from him. His prayer, though, indicated that he did not yield to any assault from the powers of darkness. “Abba, Father,” he prayed, “all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me, but not what I want but what you [want].” (Mark 14:35, 36; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 26:39 and Luke 22:42.) Jesus’ words reflected complete submission to his Father’s will for him.
He then rose and went to the place where the disciples were. Finding them asleep, he directed his words to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Were you not able to stay awake one hour [probably meaning a short time]?” Addressing all three apostles, Jesus continued, “Stay awake and pray, that you do not come into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mark 14:37, 38) In “spirit,” or in their desired inclination under the circumstances, the apostles would have wanted to remain awake, but the limitations their human frailty imposed on them made this impossible. (Matthew 26:40, 41)
After going away from them, Jesus prayed a second time, “My Father, if this cannot pass [from me] unless I drink it [partake of the portion that had been determined for him], your will take place.” (Matthew 26:42; Mark 14:39) When returning to the three apostles, he again found them asleep. They could not keep their eyes open (literally, “their eyes were weighed down” or “heavy”). (Matthew 26:43) In their sleepy state, they were in no position to answer or to respond to Jesus. (Mark 14:40) After going away from them, he prayed a third time that his Father’s will to be done. (Matthew 26:44)
According to numerous manuscripts, Luke 22:43 relates that an angel or messenger from heaven (not a human messenger) came to strengthen Jesus. Regarding his praying, Luke 22:44 says, “And having come to be in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling upon the ground.” If preserving an original account (despite being missing in the oldest extant manuscripts [late second-century or early third-century P75, probably also third-century P69, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and a corrector’s reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus]), the incident about the angel is probably to be associated with Jesus’ third prayer. The reference to the sweat may mean that the perspiration flowed from his forehead like drops of blood from a cut. Another possibility is that the extreme emotional stress to which Jesus had been subjected caused blood to seep through his skin and come to be mingled with his sweat. This, however, seems less likely, as it happens rarely and, in the dark, discolored sweat could not have been distinguished from the usual perspiration.
When Jesus approached the apostles for the third time, they were still asleep. His words to them about sleeping and resting indicated that, at this critical juncture, they needed to be awake. The “hour” or time had arrived for the Son of Man to be delivered into the hands of sinners. (Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:41) According to Luke 22:45, sorrow or distress contributed to the sleepy state of the apostles. (See the Notes section regarding Luke 22:46.) This sadness appears to have been because Jesus told them earlier about his leaving them. (John 16:6, 7)
As the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, was about to arrive with an armed crowd who had come to seize him, Jesus said to Peter, James, and John, “Rise, let us go. See! The one betraying me is approaching.” (Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42) Based on the narrative in John chapter 18, this did not mean that Jesus planned to escape, leaving and, as on earlier occasions when his life was in danger, concealing himself. His prayer had been answered. Through loyal submission to his Father’s will, he had defeated the powers of darkness. So he would “go,” willingly and courageously facing those who had come to arrest him.
Notes:
Luke chapter 22 does not mention that Jesus took only Peter, James, and John with him when setting out for a place to pray. Therefore, it is not certain whether the words of Luke 22:40 about praying so as to not enter into temptation were directed to the apostles whom he told to seat themselves or to Peter, James, and John. In Luke 22:46, the thought regarding praying to avoid succumbing to temptation is repeated, “Rise, pray, that you do not enter into temptation.” This appears to relate to the third time Jesus found Peter, James, and John asleep. The condensed nature of Luke’s account, however, does not make it possible to be certain about which time it was and to whom the words were directed (either to Peter, James, and John, to all the apostles, or to the apostles who were situated closer to the garden entrance).
Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 express the thoughts of Jesus’ prayer, but the wording is not identical. This is understandable, for the actual words would not have been spoken in Greek. For Matthew 26:39, manuscripts either start the prayer with “My Father” or “Father” and then continue, “Take this cup from me; yet not as I want but as you want.” Luke 22:42 reads, “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but yours come to pass.”
The betrayer Judas knew the place where Jesus would be, for he had often been there with the disciples. (John 18:2) Initially, though, Judas and those planning to seize Jesus may have stopped at the house where he had been with the other apostles. Included in the group were Roman soldiers, Levite temple guards, and slaves. (Luke 22:50, 52; John 18:3, 26) They were equipped with torches, lamps, swords, and clubs. (Matthew 26:47; John 18:3) According to John 18:3, besides a contingent of Roman soldiers (probably drawn from among those stationed at the Tower of Antonia and who were responsible for watching for any disturbance or uprising in the temple area and bringing it under control), there were subordinates or deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees.
Matthew 26:47 refers to a large crowd from the chief priests and elders of the people, and Mark 14:43 additionally mentions men from the scribes. In view of the inclusion of Pharisees in John 18:3, they may have been the scribes who were involved in sending their subordinates. Only Luke 22:52 speaks of Jesus as directing words to the chief priests, temple captains, and elders. This may be understood to mean that what he said to those who acted for the chief priests and elders of the nation is being represented as addressed to those who had sent them.
While Jesus was speaking to the apostles, Judas and the armed men arrived. As it would have been hard for anyone without being personally acquainted with Jesus to recognize him in the dark, Judas had given the armed men an advance signal. “The one whom I kiss is he; seize him [and lead him away safely (Mark 14:44)].” (Matthew 26:47, 48; Mark 14:43, 44; Luke 22:47)
Approaching Jesus, Judas greeted him, addressing him as “rabbi,” and then kissed him. The preserved record does not indicate whether Judas responded to Jesus’ asking him why he had come and whether he was betraying the Son of Man with a kiss. (Matthew 26:49, 50; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:48; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 26:50.) At this point, Judas appears to have withdrawn, taking a position with the crowd. (John 18:5)
Jesus was fully aware of what would happen to him. His response to the crowd demonstrated that he, voluntarily and in submission to his Father’s will, chose to enter upon a course of suffering that would terminate in a painful death. Courageously, he walked toward the crowd, asking, “Whom do you seek?” When they said, “Jesus the Nazarene,” he identified himself, “I am,” that is, I am he. (John 18:4, 5) Their reference to him as “the Nazarene” may well have been a slur, for they considered him as no more than a man from Nazareth in Galilee, a city without any distinction.
Jesus’ fearlessness appears to have caught the armed men by surprise. Startled, those in front may suddenly have backed up, causing those behind them to lose their footing and fall. No man among them came toward Jesus. So he again asked them, “Whom are you seeking?” They again responded, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (John 18:6, 7)
“I told you,” he said to them, “I am.” Having left no doubt about his identity as the one whom they wanted to seize, Jesus, like a caring shepherd who looks out for the sheep, spoke up to protect his disciples. “If, then, you are seeking me, let these go.” (John 18:8) Earlier, in prayer, he had said that he had watched over those whom his Father had given him and that none except the “son of destruction” (Judas) had been “destroyed” or lost. (John 17:12) Jesus continued to conduct himself in keeping with his prayer, thereby fulfilling his words, “I have not lost one of those whom you have given me.” (John 18:9)
Becoming aware of what was about to happen to Jesus, the apostles closest to him asked, “Shall we strike with the sword?” With zeal for his Lord, Peter did not wait for an answer, reached for his sword, and struck one of the men. This one, the high priest’s slave Malchus, appears to have succeeded in quickly averting a fatal blow but still lost his right ear. Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to use the sword, telling him, “Put your sword into the sheath. Should I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (Matthew 26:51, 52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50; John 18:10, 11)
Jesus also told Peter that all who take the sword would perish by the sword. There was no need for fighting, for he could make his appeal for heavenly assistance, asking his Father to supply him immediately with twelve legions (72,000, based on the usual size of 6,000 in a Roman legion) of angels. But this would not have been in harmony with what the scriptures indicated to be his divinely appointed role as the one who would surrender his life. (Isaiah 53:1-8) Jesus added, “How, then, would the scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54) After indicating that matters had gone far enough with Peter’s use of the sword, Jesus healed the injured Malchus. (Luke 22:51)
The Son of God reproved the armed men, revealing that their action under the cover of darkness and as an armed mob had no valid basis. He asked them, “Have you come with swords and clubs as against a bandit to arrest me?” Jesus reminded them that there had been many opportunities for them to seize him. He had publicly taught at the temple and yet they had not arrested him. Now, however, their hour had come and the “power of darkness.” What the Hebrew prophets had foretold respecting him had to be fulfilled. So it was then the time to carry out the evil deed, one that stemmed from unbelief and a willing submission to satanic authority. (Matthew 26:55, 56; Mark 14:48, 49; Luke 22:52, 53)
It may be that the Roman chiliarch (a commander with 1,000 soldiers under him) gave the order to seize Jesus. Roman soldiers and members of the temple guard then took hold of him and bound him. (John 18:12) Fearfully, the apostles abandoned Jesus and fled. (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50)
Notes:
In Matthew 26:50, the last three words of the Greek text literally read, “Upon what are you present.” These words may be rendered as a question. “Why are you here? (CEV) “Why have you come?” (NIV, footnote) Many modern translations, however, represent the Greek text as meaning that Judas should do what he had come to do instead of feigning friendship. “Do what you are here for.” (NJB) “Do what you have come for.” (NAB) “Do what you are here to do.” (REB) “Do what you came to do.” (NCV)
Because different writers were involved, one should not expect to find identical details in their narratives of the same events. Moreover, when there are differences, the highly condensed nature of the accounts does not make it possible to be definitive about how certain specifics are to be understood.
Jesus was led away bound, down the western slope of the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron valley, and back to Jerusalem. It was in the city that a young man began to follow the armed crowd. This may have been Mark. Possibly he was awakened by the sound of talking and the tramping of many feet and then quickly put on a linen garment over his naked body, hurried out of the house, and began to follow the crowd. This may have been because he recognized that Jesus was being led away. Certain ones appear to have become aware that the young man was following them, and they attempted to grab hold of him. He, however, slipped out of his garment and ran away naked. (Mark 14:51, 52; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
After this incident, the crowd headed for the residence of the high priest, where Annas would first question Jesus. (John 18:13) According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had appointed Annas (Ananus) as high priest. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 1) He served in this capacity until the “procurator of Judea,” Valerius Gratus, removed him from office in 15 CE. Although no longer in the position of high priest, Annas continued to wield considerable power and influence. Five of his sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ arrest) became high priests. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1) While Caiaphas was then the official high priest, Annas appears to have had rooms in the same residence. This may be deduced from the fact that Peter’s denial occurred in the courtyard of the high priest, and there is no indication that anyone entered more than one courtyard during the course of the night. (John 18:15-18, 24, 25)
In response to Annas’ questioning regarding his disciples and his teaching, Jesus pointed out that he had always spoken openly to the “world” (or the people), doing so in the temple precincts and in the synagogues, where the Jews assembled. After saying that he had not expressed anything in secret, Jesus continued, “Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I spoke to them. See! They know what I said.” One of the subordinates (probably a temple guard) then approached Jesus and slapped him, saying, “Is that how you answer the chief priest?” “If I responded wrongly,” Jesus said, “testify about the wrong. But if appropriately, why do you strike me?” (John 18:19-23)
After the interrogation, Annas sent Jesus bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest. Earlier, Caiaphas had told the members of the Sanhedrin that it was better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed. (John 11:49, 50; 18:24)
At the time Jesus was led away, the apostles had scattered. Later, Peter decided to follow the armed crowd, but maintained a safe distance. (Matthew 26:57, 58; Mark 14:53, 54; Luke 22:54) According to John 18:15, another disciple also followed when Peter was on his way to the premises of the high priest. The female servant stationed at the gate there recognized this disciple, for the high priest knew him. She opened the gate, allowing him to follow “Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.” Peter, however, was not permitted to enter but remained standing at the gate. (John 18:16)
Many have assumed that John was the disciple whom the high priest knew. This does not seem very likely. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Peter and John were brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the other members of the Sanhedrin for questioning. At that time, both of them were perceived to be unlearned and ordinary men, and the members of the high court recognized that they had been associated with Jesus. (Acts 4:5-7, 13) So it seems improbable that an ordinary fisherman from Galilee had the kind of access to the high priest that would have made his word carry sufficient weight for the female servant to allow Peter to enter the courtyard. (John 18:16)
The details in John 18:15 are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions about this other disciple and how it happened that he and Peter were together after Jesus had been taken through the courtyard. One possibility is that the other disciple, as a member of the Sanhedrin, had been summoned by the high priest and, while on his way, had met Peter. Two members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph from Arimathea, were secret disciples, and there may have been others. (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50, 51; John 12:42; 19:38, 39) Members of the Sanhedrin were influential men whose request the female servant would not have hesitated to honor.
Peter had not been with the crowd that brought Jesus in but arrived later. Therefore, the female gatekeeper appears to have thought that Peter could only be one of his followers. So she asked him, “Are you not also one of the disciples of this man?” “I am not,” he replied. (John 18:17; see the Notes section for additional comments.) His answer did not allay her suspicion.
Slaves and subordinates (probably temple guards) who participated in the arrest of Jesus had started a charcoal fire in the courtyard, for it was cold that night. Peter joined those who were warming themselves around the fire. (Luke 22:55; John 18:18)
While he was seated by the bright fire, the female servant (the gatekeeper) looked him over and expressed herself even more definitely, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean [the Nazarene, Mark 14:67].” (Matthew 26:69) “This man also was with him,” she said to those warming themselves around the fire where Peter had seated himself and was waiting to see what would happen to Jesus. When making his denial, Peter claimed that he did not know him and did not understand what the woman was saying. (Matthew 26:69, 70; Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:56, 57)
At the time, Peter may not have thought that he had denied his Lord, but may have felt that the woman did not really know what she was talking about and that his response would end any further discussion. By his answer, however, he had committed himself to a lie and had failed to put an end to the suspicion about him.
Peter withdrew to the forecourt (an area closer to the gate) or to the gatehouse. According to the reading of Mark 14:68 in many manuscripts, a cock crowed at this time, but there is no mention of this in the oldest extant manuscripts. A little while later, the female servant again noticed Peter, telling those standing there, “This is one of them,” meaning that he was one of Christ’s disciples, but he denied it. Another female servant spoke up, “This one was with Jesus the Nazarene.” Adding an oath, Peter responded, “I do not know the man.” (Matthew 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70) A third person, a man, said, “You also are one of them,” that is, one of Jesus’ disciples. Then followed Peter’s denial, “Man, I am not.” (Luke 22:58)
John 18:25 could suggest that Peter returned to the courtyard, stood there to warm himself, and was again confronted with the question, “Are you not also one of his disciples?” He denied it.
While Peter was in the courtyard, the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin were trying to find witnesses who would confirm the false charges that would justify having Jesus put to death. Although many witnesses presented their testimony, the members of the Jewish high court could not use their words as a basis for sentencing him to death. This was because the witnesses presented conflicting false testimony, with no two being in agreement. Finally, two witnesses came forward, claiming that Jesus had said, “I can break down this temple of God and rebuild it in three days.” Again, however, their testimony disagreed. (Matthew 26:59-61; Mark 14:56-59; see the Notes section for additional information.)
After all the testimony had been presented, the high priest stood up and directed his questions to Jesus, “Are you not answering? What are these [men] testifying against you?” Jesus remained silent, making no reply whatsoever. Caiaphas then put him under oath by the living God (“the Blessed One” [Mark 14:61]), demanding that Jesus reply whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 26:62, 63; Mark 14:60) Jesus’ response (“You have said [it]”) appears to be repeated according to its intended meaning (“I am”) in Mark 14:62. He applied the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 7:13 to himself, saying, “From now on, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power [the Powerful One] and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62) Thereby Jesus indicated that they would not see him again as a human but that he would return from heaven as the exalted one on whom the Almighty’s favor rested (as represented by his being seated at his right hand, the most honorable position).
In an outward display of horror, Caiaphas ripped his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! What need do we still have of witnesses? See! You have now heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” The members of the high court who accepted this basis for rendering a verdict decided that Jesus was deserving of death. (Matthew 26:65, 66; Mark 14:63, 64)
While testimony was being presented against him, Jesus was at a location above the courtyard. After about an hour had passed after Peter had denied Jesus a second time, he was again accused of being his disciple. (Luke 22:59) From the position where Jesus was standing, he, upon turning his head, could see Peter. (Luke 22:61)
Those who had heard Peter speaking in the courtyard recognized his Galilean accent. Therefore, certain ones there confronted him, saying, “Surely you are also one of them [Jesus’ disciples], for even your speech [accent] makes it evident.” (Matthew 26:73) One of them said to the others, “Surely this [man] also was with him, for he is also a Galilean.” (Luke 22:59) According to Mark 14:70, certain ones said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are also a Galilean.” A relative of the high priest’s slave whose ear Peter had cut off, spoke up, “Did I not see you in the garden with him [Jesus]?” (John 18:26) Peter called down evil upon himself, declaring with an oath that he did not “know the man.” While he was still speaking, denying that he knew anything about things being said, a cock crowed the second time. Jesus turned to look at Peter. Their eyes met, and Peter recalled Jesus’ words that he would disown him three times before the crowing of a cock. Emotionally overcome by the recognition of his having failed his beloved Lord, he left the courtyard and gave way to bitter weeping. (Matthew 26:74, 75; Mark 14:71, 72; Luke 22:60-62; John 18:27)
After the members of the high court had decided that Jesus was deserving of death, he was hit, spit upon, and subjected to other abuse. Having blindfolded him, certain ones slapped his face or hit it with their fists and then mockingly said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ [Messiah]! Who is the one who struck you?” In many other ways they continued to blaspheme him. (Matthew 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65)
Early the next morning, the entire Jewish high court (the Sanhedrin composed of the chief priests, elders of the people, and scribes) met to establish Jesus’ guilt legally and to determine how to have the sentence against him carried out. (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66) Luke 22:67-71 briefly summarizes what then occurred. Jesus was asked whether he was the Messiah (the Christ). He replied, “Even if I told you, you would definitely not believe. And if I were to question you, you would definitely not answer.” This response suggests that they would not give an answer to any question that would point to his being the Messiah. (Luke 22:67, 68) The certainty of their refusal to believe and to answer him is emphasized in the Greek text by the use of two words (ou mé, meaning “not, not”).
Jesus again alluded to the words of Daniel 7:13, saying, “From now on, however, the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God.” Asked if he was the Son of God, Jesus said, “You are saying that I am.” This reply implied that they would not need to raise the question if they knew for a certainty that he could not possibly be this one. At the same time, Jesus, with respect to his identity, confirmed the truth inherent in the question. The members of the high court then decided that they had no need of any witnesses, as he had condemned himself by claiming to be the Son of God. (Luke 22:69-71)
Notes:
In Mark 14:51, 52, the Greek term for what the young man was wearing is sindón and designates linen of good quality. This could refer either to a linen cloth or a light linen garment. Numerous translations read, “linen cloth,” suggesting nothing more than a loin cloth.
In John 18:17, Peter’s first denial is mentioned before Annas questioned Jesus, and the other two denials are represented as occurring later. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to be complementary and provide different details. Based on all the recorded narrations, it seems that the female servant at the gate was not satisfied with Peter’s initial response and began to talk to others. Altogether, he was confronted by various ones at three different times, and on each of these occasions he responded with denials.
Mark 14:58 presents a more detailed version of the statement about the temple. “I will break down this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.” Both Mark 14:58 and Matthew 26:61 convey the substance of the testimony. Moreover, the men would have spoken individually and not in the Greek language preserved in the text. Therefore, differences in the narration should rightly be expected.
Ancient Jewish regulations prohibited conducting judicial proceedings during the night and on the Sabbath or on festival days. It appears that the members of the Jewish high court chose to set the usual regulations aside on the basis of the principle that extraordinary circumstances required extraordinary measures.
The high priest Caiaphas had earlier stated that it was better for one man to die than for the whole nation to be destroyed. (John 11:50) Because the majority of the members of the Sanhedrin regarded Jesus as a serious threat, they doubtless felt justified in acting according to what they thought the extraordinary situation demanded.
The kind of reasoning they could have followed might be similar to what is expressed in the Tosefta (Shabbat, 15:17) about action that is undertaken on the Sabbath to prevent the possible loss of life. Reference is made to Exodus 22:2, which passage states that a householder who killed a thief who had broken into his home at night would not be bloodguilty. After indicating that the safety of the householder would have been a matter of doubt (it being not absolutely certain that the thief would have killed the householder), the Tosefta continues, “Now if they kill one man to save the life of another which is subject only to doubt as to its safety, is it not logical that they should override the prohibitions of the Sabbath to save a life which is in doubt as to its safety?” (Neusner’s English translation) According to the reasoning of Caiaphas, the safety of the whole nation was at stake, providing a basis for overriding the usual legal requirements.
After the Sanhedrin had determined that Jesus was deserving of death, the chief priests, other members of the court, and subordinates (probably Levite temple guards) led Jesus as a bound criminal to Pilate, the governor. Roman officials started their work day early in the morning. Emperor Vespasian (69 to 79 CE), for example, began his day before dawn. So it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have been brought to Pilate at an early hour. (Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28; 19:6; for more information about Pilate, see the Notes section.)
The chief priests and the other Jews did not enter the praetorium, where Pilate had his official residence while in Jerusalem. They were concerned about not contracting ceremonial defilement, which would have prevented them from eating the Passover. (John 18:28; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Ironically, although they had been willing to override legal requirements in order to condemn Jesus to death, they scrupled about external purity.
The praetorium may have been the palace Herod the Great had built. According to Josephus, Gessius Florus (War, II, xiv, 8), who served as governor or procurator at a later time, did use the palace when he was in Jerusalem.
Probably in response to a message conveyed to him, Pilate came out to speak to the Jews, asking them what charge they were making against Jesus. (John 18:29) They implied that there was no reason for Pilate to inquire about an accusation, for they would not be turning over to him a man other than a criminal. (John 18:30) When Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own law, they responded that it was illegal for them to execute anyone. By seeking to have Pilate issue the death sentence, they served to fulfill Jesus’ words regarding the kind of death he would die, that is, as one elevated and crucified in an upright position. (John 18:31, 32; compare Jesus’ earlier words [John 3:14, 15; 12:32, 33].)
It appears that, at this point, they set forth charges that were designed to incite Pilate, as the representative of Rome, to take action. They claimed that Jesus had inflamed the nation, forbidden the payment of taxes to Caesar, and proclaimed himself to be the Messianic king or ruler. In this way, they portrayed him as a dangerous seditionist who posed a serious threat to Roman authority. (Luke 23:2)
Pilate had Jesus come into the praetorium for questioning, likely having Roman soldiers leading him. He asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (John 18:33)
Jesus countered with the question, “Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others told you about me?” Pilate’s response suggests that he had no firsthand knowledge. He was not a Jew, and it was members of the Jewish nation and the chief priests who had delivered Jesus into his hands. Pilate asked, “What did you do?” (John 18:34, 35)
In his reply, Jesus revealed that he posed no threat to the authority of the Romans, explaining that his kingdom was “no part of this world.” It was not a rule that originated with or depended upon any human authority. If this had been the case, Jesus continued, “My subordinates would have fought.” Their reason for engaging in armed conflict would have been to prevent his falling into the hands of the Jews who opposed him. “But,” as Jesus added, “my kingdom is not from here,” indicating that it had no link to any human action or source. Pilate asked, “Are you a king?” Jesus’ reply, “You are saying that I am a king,” may imply that Pilate’s question acknowledged the possibility that he was a king. The fact that Jesus did not deny it could have served as an affirmative answer to the question. (John 18:36, 37; see the Notes section for comments regarding Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, and Luke 23:3.)
Nevertheless, he made it clear that his purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom. He had been born and come into the world “to testify to the truth,” and persons who were “of the truth,” taking their stand for it, would listen to him. (John 18:37) Pilate would not have understood what he meant. Jesus had made known the truth about his Father and how to become a part of the realm where he would be ruling by his Father’s appointment. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus was the embodiment of the truth and in a position to reveal his Father in a manner than no one else could.
The context does not indicate how Pilate’s question (“What is truth?”) is to be understood. (John 18:38) Perhaps he intended it as a dismissive response, reflecting no further interest and no desire to be identified as a person who listened to the truth Jesus could have made known to him.
Pilate went out to the Jews who were waiting for his decision regarding Jesus and told them that he had found nothing against him. (John 18:38) The chief priests and Jewish elders objected, insisting that the teaching Jesus had begun in Galilee and carried on in Jerusalem had stirred up the people throughout Judea. Despite their continuing to level many charges against him, he remained silent. Pilate asked Jesus whether he did not hear the accusations being made against him. The fact that he said nothing in response filled Pilate with wonderment. After Jesus’ accusers mentioned Galilee, Pilate confirmed that Jesus was a Galilean and under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. At the time, Herod was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Probably in an effort to avoid having to render the judgment Jesus’ accusers were seeking, Pilate sent him to Herod. (Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-7)
Earlier, Herod had imprisoned John the Baptist and then, in fulfillment of an oath-bound promise to the daughter of Herodias, had him executed. When news about Jesus’ miracles reached Herod, he concluded that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead and was performing powerful deeds. (Matthew 14:1-10) Therefore, upon having Jesus sent to him, Herod was delighted. He had wanted to see him for some time and hoped to observe him perform some impressive sign. Herod questioned Jesus extensively, and the chief priests and scribes, who apparently were among those who had taken him to Herod, made strong accusations. Jesus, however, remained silent. (Luke 23:8-10)
Probably at Herod’s instigation, his guard mocked Jesus, dressing him in a splendid robe as if he were a king. Apparently disappointed at not having witnessed some spectacular sign and probably displeased with Jesus’ silence, Herod sent him back to Pilate. This development ended the hostility that had existed between Pilate and Herod, because Herod likely regarded being consulted regarding Jesus as an acknowledgment of his authority over Galilee. The enmity between them may have arisen when Pilate earlier had killed certain Galileans (Herod’s subjects) while they were sacrificing at the temple in Jerusalem. (Luke 13:1; 23:11, 12)
After Jesus had been sent back to him, Pilate addressed the chief priests and the other prominent Jews who were with them. He told them that, although they had charged Jesus with inciting the people to revolt, neither he nor Herod had found any evidence to support accusations that he was deserving of death. Seemingly, in an effort to satisfy their desire for Jesus to be punished, Pilate said that he would chastise him (probably by submitting him to a flogging) and then release him. (Luke 23:13-16)
His effort to placate Jesus’ accusers was unjust. Pilate had not found him guilty of any crime and neither had Herod. Still, he continued his political maneuvering, likely with the intent of avoiding an uproar. Based on his examination of Jesus, Pilate discerned that the chief priests had handed him over out of envy and not because of any crime. He may have seen that the prominent Jews resented the influence he had among the people and, for this reason, considered him a threat to their position and authority. (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10)
At the time, a notorious seditionist and bandit named Barabbas was being held in confinement and apparently was to be executed. Barabbas was guilty of murder. (Matthew 27:15, 16; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19) Probably believing that if they had a choice between the release of Barabbas and Jesus, the Jews would ask for Jesus to be released. Based on a custom that had developed at the time of the Passover, Pilate presented this choice to those who had meanwhile arrived to petition for the release of a prisoner. (See the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6-8; Luke 23:17, and John 18:39.) The chief priests succeeded in inciting the petitioners against Jesus and to request the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17, 20, 21; Mark 15:6-11; Luke 23:18; John 18:39, 40; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:16, 17.) In the case of the petitioners, they may well have been inclined toward wanting an end to Roman rule. If so, their sympathies would have been with Barabbas who had acted violently in keeping with his fanatical opposition to Roman authority.
Desiring to release Jesus, Pilate addressed the crowd a second time, calling out to them, “So what shall I do with Jesus, the one called Christ [king of the Jews (Mark 15:12)]?” They shouted, “Crucify, crucify him.” (Matthew 27:22; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:20, 21)
For a third time, Pilate called out to them, “Why, what evil did he commit? No guilt [meriting] death did I find in him. So I will chastise him [probably by flogging] and release him.” They refused to yield, demanding with loud shouting that Jesus be crucified. (Matthew 27:23; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22, 23)
All of Pilate’s efforts failed to gain the crowd’s consent to release Jesus. Those who had brought him and the others who had come to request the release of a prisoner became more adamant in their cry for crucifixion and were on the verge of rioting. Instead of upholding justice, Pilate, for political reasons, gave in to their demands. With an outward gesture, he tried to absolve himself of guilt when handing down an unjust verdict. He washed his hands in the presence of the crowd and said, “I am innocent of this [man’s] blood. You must see [to it].” They responded with the words, “His blood come upon us and upon our children.” Thereafter he released Barabbas and handed Jesus over to Roman soldiers to be flogged. (Matthew 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24, 25)
This flogging was an extreme form of torture. The whip consisted of a handle with several leather cords to which pieces of bone or metal were attached. A severe flogging could result in death, as the bone or metal ripped into the flesh and caused serious bleeding.
Besides flogging Jesus, Roman soldiers also mocked him. They stripped off his garments and clothed him with a “scarlet” or “purple” cloak (purple being the color of garments commonly worn by royalty and other officials). On his head, they placed a crown made from thorns. In imitation of his having a royal scepter, they had him hold a reed in his right hand. With another reed, soldiers may have taken turns hitting him over the head, likely causing the thorns to penetrate his forehead. Besides slapping him in the face and spitting at it, the soldiers kneeled before him, addressing him as “king of the Jews.” (Matthew 27:27-30; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:1-3; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:28; Mark 15:17; Luke 23:11, and John 19:2.)
It appears that the Jews who wanted Jesus executed chose to remain outside the praetorium until they were certain that he would not be released. After the soldiers had ended the flogging and mockery, Pilate again came out of the praetorium to address the Jews, telling them that he would bring Jesus out to them so that they would know that he found no guilt in him. It seems likely that soldiers then brought Jesus outside. He still wore the reddish garment and the crown of thorns. Pilate then said, “See! The man.” (John 19:4, 5)
The context does not reveal how these words should be understood. In view of the abuse to which Jesus had been submitted, his appearance must have been such as would have evoked sympathy in persons who had retained their humanity. So the expression “the man” could have meant the pitiable fellow or a mere man who posed no threat. There is also a possibility that Pilate was impressed by the control Jesus had exercised in not responding to false charges and by the dignity which he had maintained while being abused and mocked. If these aspects prompted Pilate’s words, the expression “the man” would signify a man in the noblest sense.
Unmoved by any feelings of sympathy, the chief priests and subordinates (probably temple guards) shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” Having found no guilt in Jesus, Pilate responded, “Take him and crucify him yourselves.” In their reply, those who wanted Jesus crucified now revealed that their previous accusations were false. They now said that, according to their law, he should be put to death because he claimed to be the Son of God. (John 19:6, 7)
On hearing the words “Son of God,” Pilate gave way to superstitious fear. (John 19:8) A contributory factor may have been his wife’s dream. While he was sitting on the judgment seat deliberating, she had sent a message to him, telling him to have nothing to do with the innocent man. This was on account of having suffered much in a dream because of him. (Matthew 27:19)
After entering the praetorium with Jesus, Pilate asked him, “From where are you?” When he did not answer, Pilate continued, “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you and the power to crucify you?” “You would have no power over me,” said Jesus, “unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered me over to you has greater sin.” (John 19:9-11)
If it had not been his Father’s will for Jesus to surrender his life, Pilate would have been powerless to do anything to him. What was about to take place would occur according to God’s will, and so, by divine permission, Pilate would be exercising the power to hand Jesus over to be crucified. This would not free him from guilt, for he would be acting unjustly toward one whom he knew to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Pilate’s sin would not be as great as that of the one who had been responsible for handing Jesus over to him. The context does not identify this one. Jesus may have meant the betrayer Judas, the high priest Caiaphas, or the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin as a corporate body.
After the interchange with Jesus, Pilate still wanted to release him and again addressed the Jews who were waiting outside the praetorium. They then forced him into a position where he had to consider the preservation of his own office and even his own life. “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” Thus they insisted that releasing Jesus would be an act of disloyalty to Caesar — an offense meriting severe punishment. (John 19:12; see the Notes section regarding how seriously Tiberius took any slight to his imperial dignity.)
Pilate brought Jesus outside. He sat down on the judgment seat located at the place known as the “Stone Pavement” or, “in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” It was about the sixth hour. (See the Notes section regarding the “sixth hour” mentioned in John 19:14.) Possibly based on the reckoning the chief priests used in that particular year, it was the day designated for the preparation of the Passover (Nisan 14). In response to Pilate’s words (“See! Your king!”), the Jews who were there shouted, “Away! Away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate called out. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests replied. It was then that Pilate turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. (John 19:13-16) They clothed Jesus with his own garments and led him away. (Matthew 27:31; Mark 15:20)
After word reached Judas that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and, taking with him the 30 silver pieces, went to the chief priests and elders who were then in the temple precincts. When he acknowledged that he had sinned by betraying “righteous blood,” they responded dismissively. “What is that to us? You must see [to it].” Thus they revealed that Judas had only been their convenient tool. What he had done was his concern, not theirs. (Matthew 27:3, 4)
Judas then threw down the silver pieces somewhere in the temple precincts, left, and hanged himself. As for the chief priests, they scrupled about what they should do with the money. Because blood money was involved, they considered themselves legally bound not to put the silver pieces into the temple treasury. After conferring, they decided to use the money to buy a potter’s field (a property having little value) for use as a place to bury foreigners. (Matthew 27:5-7)
This particular burial place came to be known as “Field of Blood.” The reason for the name appears to have been its association with blood money and the suicide of Judas. (Matthew 27:8; see the Notes section regarding Acts 1:18, 19.)
The developments in connection with Judas paralleled expressions recorded in the prophets. Verses 9 and 10 of Matthew 27 conflate words from the prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah, attributing the whole to Jeremiah (possibly because he was the earlier prophet). “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price for the one whom the sons of Israel had priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord had commanded me.’”
Jeremiah had been directed to buy a field from Hanamel, and he did, on one occasion, go to a potter’s house to observe him at work. (Jeremiah 18:1-4; 32:6-9) Specific mention of 30 silver pieces is made in Zechariah 11:12, 13, where the prophet’s wages are stipulated as being that amount.
Notes
In John 18:28, the nature of the defilement is not revealed. It could not have been a defilement that would have ended at sundown after the legal requirements for purification had been followed.
The night on which Jesus observed the Passover with his disciples was followed by the Sabbath at sundown of the next day. There is a possibility that, in years when this was the case, the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, reckoned Nisan 14 as Nisan 13. This could explain why those who brought Jesus to Pilate (or at least a significant number among them) had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. A definitive conclusion, however, is not possible on the basis of the available information in ancient sources.
Based on John 18:33-37, Matthew (27:11) Mark (15:2), and Luke (23:3) present a condensed version of the interchange between Pilate and Jesus. Therefore, Jesus’ answer, “You are saying [it],” may be regarded as being the response to Pilate’s asking him the second time about being a king.
The account in Mark 15:6-8 adds the detail that Jewish petitioners came to ask for the release of a prisoner, whereas Matthew 27:15 only refers to the governor’s custom (at the time of the festival) to release the prisoner whom the crowd wanted. John 18:39 represents Pilate as saying, “You have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover.” The difference between Matthew 27:15 and John 18:39 is a one of perspective. It was customary for the Jews to have a prisoner released to them at the time of the festival, and Pilate’s custom was to grant the release. The oldest extant manuscripts of Luke 23 do not include verse 17, where the reference is to Pilate’s having to release someone to the Jews at the time of the festival.
In Matthew 27:16, 17, a number of manuscripts refer to Barabbas as “Jesus Barabbas.”
A partially preserved inscription found at Caesarea in 1961 refers to Pilate as “prefect of Judea.” The first-century Roman historian Tacitus (Annals, XV, 44), however, referred to Pilate as procurator. This may be because “procurator” was the title by which later Roman governors of Judea were known.
It was in the year 26 CE that Pilate assumed his official duties as governor of Judea. It was in the same year that Tiberius transferred his residence to the island of Capri. Until his execution in 31 CE, Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, functioned as de facto ruler. The ancient historian Dio Cassius (Book LVIII, v, 1; translated by Earnest Cary) wrote regarding him, “Sejanus was so great a person by reason both of his excessive haughtiness and of his vast power, that, to put it briefly, he himself seemed to be the emperor and Tiberius a kind of island potentate.” Therefore, although an appointee of Tiberius, Pilate may have owed his elevation to Sejanus.
If so, the execution of Sejanus would have made Pilate’s position more vulnerable whenever any accusation might be made against him. Without any support from Sejanus, Pilate’s situation would have been precarious. While Sejanus exercised power, anyone close to him could practically be assured of the emperor’s friendship. (Tacitus, Annals, VI, 8)
Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.)
Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation.
Although the Scriptures refer to a crowd as crying out for Jesus to be crucified, the number of men involved would have been a small minority of those who were then in Jerusalem. The only ones the chief priests needed to persuade to call for the release of Barabbas were men who had come to petition Pilate for the release of a Jewish prisoner. As men with this kind of personal interest in the cause of imprisoned Jews whom the Romans regarded as criminals, they would have been more readily inclined to believe the chief priests that Jesus posed a threat to the nation and would in no way further its welfare.
The Roman soldiers, when making sport of Jesus, probably used a worn-out item of dress that mockingly resembled a purple garment. (Mark 15:17; John 19:2) They themselves wore red cloaks. An old, faded one could have served their purpose. This would fit the words of Matthew 27:28, where the reference is to a scarlet or red cloak. The Greek term for “cloak” chlamys can, in fact, designate the kind of cloaks Roman soldiers wore. In the case of the mockery staged at Herod’s instigation, Jesus wore a “bright” or splendid garment. This would have been an elegant robe Herod made available. (Luke 23:11)
In John 19:14, the word hos (about) qualifies the “sixth hour,” identifying it as an approximate time before noon. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) The context does not make it possible to determine just how long before noon Pilate said to the Jews outside the praetorium, “See! Your king.” Based on specifics included in the other accounts (including the mention of a darkness lasting from the sixth hour until the ninth hour after Jesus had been crucified), the late morning hour could have been between an hour or two before noon. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44)
In conjunction with the “preparation of the Passover,” all leaven was burned at the start of the sixth hour. This may be why the sixth hour is mentioned in John 19:14, with a possible implied link to Jesus as the sinless king who would die for the people as the “Lamb of God.” (John 1:29)
According to Acts 1:19, the residents of Jerusalem came to know about the field and its association with the death of Judas Iscariot. In their language, they called it Hakeldamách (Akeldama), meaning “Field of Blood.” In Acts 1:18, the 30 silver pieces are referred to as “wages of unrighteousness,” for Judas’ betrayal was an evil act. What he had done in betraying Jesus and then throwing the silver pieces down in the temple precincts provided the occasion for the purchase of the field. This may be why the Acts account attributes the buying of the field to him. Regarding his death, Acts 1:18 indicates that he burst open in the his midsection and that his intestines spilled out. Possibly he hanged himself from a tree limb and either the rope or the limb broke, causing him to fall on jagged rocks below.
Although having been an intimate associate of Jesus, Judas could not in any way justify what he had done but was forced to acknowledge that he had made himself guilty of betraying “righteous blood.” (Matthew 27:4)
After having been sentenced, Jesus was led away to the location where Roman soldiers would crucify him. Initially, he carried the beam (staurós). (John 19:16, 17) Eventually, however, his strength seems to have given out totally. Likely the extreme abuse and torture to which he had been submitted, coupled with much blood loss, had left him in a very weak state. At the time he could no longer carry the beam, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus) happened to be coming from the direction of a field outside the city. Seemingly, upon noticing him, the Roman soldiers impressed him into service, forcing him to carry the beam behind Jesus. (Matthew 27:31, 32; Mark 15:20, 21; Luke 23:26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
As Jesus walked to the place where he would die, many people followed, including women. Overcome with emotion, the women beat themselves on their breasts and wailed for him. Turning around, Jesus spoke to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me. Instead, weep for yourselves and your children, for, see! days are coming when they will say, ‘Fortunate [are] the barren women and the wombs that did not bear and the breasts that did not nurse!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall over us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For, if they do this when the wood is green, what will occur when it is dry?” (Luke 23:27-31)
Jesus’ words anticipated the horrific suffering that would befall everyone in Jerusalem during the time of the Roman siege. So intense would be the distress from famine and war that people would wish that they could be so completely removed and concealed from the calamity as if mountains and hills were to cover them.
The proverbial reference to the green wood (or a living tree through which the sap continued to circulate) may be understood to apply to the Jewish nation. Within it, many godly persons grieved on account of the injustices they witnessed, and numerous influential men reflected a moderate disposition. Yet, despite the good existing in the nation, a grave injustice had been committed. The situation would prove to be far worse, however, when the nation, particularly as represented by Jerusalem (its center for worship) would come to be like dry wood or a dead tree. At that time, the absence of the wholesome influence of a devout remnant and of influential members of the nation who resisted the kind of fanaticism displayed by those who had requested the release of a murderous seditionist (Barabbas, an enemy of Rome), and who had shouted for Jesus to be crucified, would inevitably lead to civil strife and conflict with Rome, and the people would suffer.
Besides Jesus, two other condemned men were taken to the place where they would be crucified. (Luke 23:32) The location was called “Golgotha,” meaning “Skull Place.” (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22) There Jesus was offered wine to drink. According to Matthew 27:34, this wine was mixed with “gall” (cholé, a very bitter or unpleasant-tasting substance), and Mark 15:23 indicates that the wine contained myrrh. Possibly the gall was myrrh, or the wine was mixed with both gall and myrrh. As a drugged wine, the drink would have had a stupefying effect, serving to somewhat dull the pain inflicted during the crucifixion. Upon tasting the wine, Jesus refused to drink it, likely because of wanting to maintain full control of his senses as the sinless “Lamb of God.” The Scriptures do not mention who offered the drink to Jesus. It may have been one of the compassionate Jewish women, for the Romans did permit them to give drugged wine to the condemned.
After the Roman soldiers stripped Jesus of his clothing, they nailed him to the beam and, as he had foretold, lifted him up. Two bandits were also crucified, one on his right and the other one on his left. (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18; see the Notes section regarding crucifixion and Mark 15:25.) According to many manuscript readings of Mark 15:28 (but not the oldest extant ones), this development fulfilled the words of scripture (Isaiah 53:12), “And with [among the, LXX] lawless ones he was counted.”
In Luke 23:34, many manuscripts include Jesus’ prayer, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” The oldest extant manuscript (P75 of the late second century or the early third century), fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and other manuscripts do not include these words. If not original, the prayer would still reflect the loving and forgiving spirit of God’s Son, for the disciple Stephen expressed himself to this effect before his death from stoning. (Acts 7:60)
The charge against Jesus (identifying his crime as being that of “King of the Jews”) had been posted above his head. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Pilate had written it in three languages (Latin [the official language of Rome], Greek [the commonly used language in the Greco-Roman world], and Hebrew [the language of the native Jews]). The writing was large enough to be readable from a distance. Many Jews did read the words, for the location was near Jerusalem. After Pilate had written the charge, the chief priests objected, saying, “Do not write ‘the King of the Jews,’ but that “he said, I am King of the Jews.” Pilate, though, had made a legal decision, which he refused to alter. “What I have written,” he said, “I have written.” (John 19:19-22)
After the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his robe (himátion, an outer garment) into four parts, with each soldier taking a part. This reveals that four soldiers were in charge of the crucifixion. They did not want to divide the tunic (chitón, a garment worn next to the skin), for it was a seamless garment, having been woven in one piece. For this reason, they decided to cast lots to determine which of them would get it. Their action corresponded to the words of Psalm 22:18(19) (21:19, LXX), “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothes they cast lots.” Because this was indeed what the soldiers did, the words of the psalmist were fulfilled, finding their fullest significance in what happened in the case of God’s Son. (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23, 24) Thereafter the soldiers seated themselves and kept watch. (Matthew 27:36)
At the crucifixion site, chief priests, prominent Jews, and passersby began to blaspheme Jesus. Among them were those who mockingly wagged their heads and said, “You who would break down the temple and in three days rebuild [it], save yourself. If you are [the] Son of God, come down from the staurós.” The chief priests, scribes, and certain elders of the nation participated in scoffing at him, saying, “Others he saved; himself he cannot save. He is King of Israel. Let him now descend from the staurós, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God. If [God] wants him, let him now rescue him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:39-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:35; compare Psalm 22:7[8], 8[9], 17(18) and see the Notes section for additional comments.)
It is noteworthy that, even in mockery, the chief priests and other prominent Jews acknowledged that Jesus had done good works. He had “saved” others or brought relief to them. Thus, unwittingly, they condemned themselves as persons who hated him without cause.
The Roman soldiers also shared in making fun of Jesus. They approached, offered him vinegar (sour wine), and said, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself.” (Luke 23:36, 37)
Initially, both of the malefactors appear to have been emotionally caught up in siding with those who hurled abuses at Jesus. (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32) One of them then had a change of heart when he heard the other one say, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us.” He responded to his fellow malefactor, “Do you not fear God, since you are now experiencing the same judgment? And we rightly so, for we deserve the retribution we are receiving for our acts, but he did nothing wrong.” Directing his words to Jesus, he asked him to remember him upon coming into his kingdom. On that dark day, the very day when he endured physical suffering and abusive mockery and outwardly possessed nothing suggestive of royal splendor, Jesus assured the repentant wrongdoer that he would be with him in paradise. Whereas the chief priests and other prominent Jews scoffed, the evildoer perceived in Jesus the purity and dignity of Israel’s foretold king and he responded with genuine faith. He believed, and died with the comforting assurance that he would be favorably remembered by his king. (Luke 23:39-43; see the Notes section regarding Luke 23:43.) What the repentant wrongdoer understood being in paradise with Jesus would mean for him is not revealed in the account. In view of his request to be remembered, it would appear that the fulfillment of the promise would relate to entrance into the paradisaical realm where Jesus is king by his Father’s appointment.
Not all who were standing at the site of Golgotha participated in the hateful mockery. They looked on with intense grief. The disciple whom Jesus deeply loved, the apostle John, was there and so was Mary. Her pain would have been indescribable. As Simeon had foretold years earlier, her experience proved to be comparable to being pierced with a sword. (Luke 2:35) Other women with Mary included Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the less [or younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the mother of James and John, the wife of Zebedee, and the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary). Additionally, present were many other women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had attended to his needs. (Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:49; John 19:25)
With her nephew John at her side, Mary approached close enough to Jesus to be able to hear him speak. When he saw his mother and John, the disciple whom he loved and implicitly trusted, he lovingly arranged to have him care for her. Directing his words to Mary, Jesus said, “Woman, see! Your son.” His words to John were, “See! Your mother.” From that “hour” or time onward, John assumed the role of a son to Mary and apparently had her live where he did. (John 19:26, 27)
About the sixth hour (or after the noon hour), an extraordinary darkness settled over the land and lasted until the ninth hour (or three o’clock in the afternoon). About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out loudly, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, meaning “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” With this outcry of the psalmist (Psalm 22:1[2]), Jesus revealed his complete innocence and the deep sense of pain from having been forsaken, for his Father had not intervened to spare him from experiencing an agonizing end to his life. The “why” implied that he had not committed any wrong that would have been deserving of the state in which he found himself. (Matthew 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Bystanders misunderstood Jesus’ words. In view of his intense pain and his extremely stressed bodily condition, he may not have been able to speak clearly. Moreover, his Galilean accent may have been a contributory factor. The bystanders concluded that he called for Elijah to come. (Matthew 27:47; Mark 15:35)
According to John 19:28, Jesus also cried out, “I thirst.” The reason for his saying this is prefaced with an explanation. He knew that everything had been accomplished and so said what he did to fulfill “the scripture.” His words, “I thirst,” led to the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21(22), “For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psalm 68:22, LXX)
One of those nearby, probably a Roman soldier, acted quickly. He ran to a vessel filled with vinegar (sour wine). After filling a sponge with the vinegar, he placed it on a reed, intending to provide Jesus with a little relief by offering him a drink. Others tried to delay him from doing this, saying, “Let [him] be. Let us see whether Elijah is coming to save him.” (Matthew 27:48, 49; Mark 15:36; John 19:29; see the Notes section for additional comments.)
Besides saying “it is finished” after receiving the vinegar, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” These words paralleled those of the psalmist (Psalm 31:5[6]; 30:6, LXX) and indicated that Jesus was entrusting his life breath to his Father, looking to him to restore him to life. Jesus then bowed his head, and yielded up his life breath. (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30)
At that time, the thick curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy of the temple ripped in two from top to bottom. A significant earthquake split rocks and opened up tombs. The shaking of the ground, coupled with the extraordinary darkness that had begun about three hours earlier, caused the Roman soldiers to be fearful. The centurion, the soldier with the highest rank of the four, was moved to glorify God, acknowledging that Jesus must have been a righteous man, the Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54; Mark 15:38, 39; Luke 23:47; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 27:52, 53.)
Other observers beat their breasts in grief and left the scene. At a distance stood acquaintances of Jesus and women who had followed him from Galilee. Among the women were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee’s sons). Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not mentioned as being among them. This suggests that John, though himself later returning, had kindly conducted her away from the scene so that she would not be pained to an extent that would have been difficult for her to bear. (Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:48, 49)
Not wanting to have the men remain crucified until after the start of the Sabbath at sundown, the prominent Jews requested Pilate to hasten their death. They asked him to direct that their legs be broken and that their dead bodies to be taken away. John 19:31 refers to that particular Sabbath as being “great,” possibly because the Sabbath, according to their reckoning that year, coincided with the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Bread (Nisan 15).
When the soldiers received the order to break the legs of the crucified men, Jesus was already dead. They only broke the legs of the two malefactors, but not those of Jesus. One of the soldiers did pierce his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. (John 19:32-34)
John was there to witness these developments. The account includes his solemn declaration, “He who saw [this] has testified, and his testimony is true. And he knows (or there is one who knows [God]) that he is telling the truth, so that you, too, may believe.” (John 19:35) The basis for believing is the fulfillment of the scriptures regarding him. (John 19:36, 37) “Not a bone of his will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20[21]) “They will look at whom they pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10; see the comments regarding Zechariah 12:10 in the Notes section.)
Notes:
Simon was from Cyrene, the ancient capital of Cyrenaica, in what is now part of present-day Libya in northern Africa. He may have traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover and then stayed at a location just outside the city. This could explain why he happened to be coming from the field or the country. The details provided regarding him and his family suggest that he was known to the community of believers and that he and his two sons, Rufus and Alexander, came to be disciples. Although specific identification is lacking, the Rufus whom the apostle Paul mentioned in his letter to the Romans may have been the son of Simon. If so, the apostle referred to the believing wife of Simon and the mother of Rufus as “his mother and mine.” (Romans 16:13)
The biblical accounts do not include the hideous details about the crucifixion. They to not even provide a limited description of the implement on which Jesus died nor of the manner in which he was nailed to it. The writers’ reticence is more in keeping with their main purpose, setting forth the reason for Jesus’ suffering and death.
In itself, the Greek word staurós, commonly translated “cross,” can refer to a stake or pole, and the staurós which Jesus and later Simon carried was a beam. A long stake with a transverse beam would have been too heavy for one man to carry or drag. The Latin term crux, from which the English word “cross” is derived, can designate a tree or a wooden instrument on which victims were either hanged or impaled.
In the allegorical Epistle of Barnabas (thought to date from the early second century and so from a time when the Romans continued to practice crucifixion), the staurós is linked to the letter tau (T). Moreover, very limited archaeological evidence does indicate that the Romans did make use of upright poles with a transverse beam.
Ancient abbreviated forms of the noun staurós and the verb stauróo (a number of preserved occurrences in P66 [second century] and P75 [though not consistently used in this late second-century or early third-century manuscript]) combine the letters tau (T) and rho (R) in a manner that is visually suggestive of a cross. This tau-rho ligature also appears in pre-Christian and non-Christian texts as an abbreviation for a number of terms, including the word trópos (meaning “way,” “manner,” or “habit”). Possibly Christian copyists adopted this ligature when abbreviating staurós because of associating the implement on which Jesus died with the letter tau (T). The existence of other abbreviated forms for the noun staurós and the verb stauróo in ancient biblical manuscripts which do not use the tau-rho ligature would seem to support the conjecture that early copyists chose this ligature for its visual effect.
The Greek word rendered “crucify” (stauróo) can denote hanging, binding, or nailing a victim on or to a stake, a tree, or an implement with a transverse beam. Doubtless the availability of wood and the number of individuals who were executed determined the shape of the implement used for crucifixion. In a Latin work attributed to Vulcatius Gallicanus, Emperor Avidius Cassius had criminals tied from the top to the bottom of a 180-foot high wooden stake. The manner in which these persons were attached to this stake is referred to as crucifixion (in crucem sustulit, according to the Latin text). Roman soldiers do not appear to have followed any specific method when carrying out crucifixions. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (War, V, xi, 1), the soldiers, out of wrath and hatred for the Jews, nailed those they caught, one in one way, and another in another way.
It is commonly believed that upright stakes were already at Golgotha or that the beams that had been carried to the site were attached to three adjacent trees (or possibly even the same tree) there. The minority view (expressed, for example, in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) is that Jesus was nailed in an upright position to the pole that Simon had carried and that it was not used as a transverse beam.
According to Mark 15:25, it was at the “third hour” (about nine o’clock in the morning) when Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. Possibly their flogging him is here regarded as the start of the crucifixion process, and the soldiers may have started beating him at that time. This, though, would mean that the time reference does not follow the chronological order of the narrative. The reading “sixth hour” (about noon) is found in a number of later manuscripts, but this is commonly viewed as a scribal correction.
In the accounts, the wording of the charge varies (“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” [Matthew 27:37], “The King of the Jews” [Mark 15:26], “The King of the Jews this one [is] [Luke 23:38], and “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” [John 19:19]). If the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are regarded as abbreviated versions that convey the substance of the charge, the fullest text may be the one found in John 19:19. Another possibility is that the inscription was not identical in the three languages, and so the writers could have chosen a form of one of the three versions. At any rate, all the accounts are in agreement in identifying Jesus as “the King of the Jews.”
The words of mockery (Matthew 27:39-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:35) reflect the substance of the expressions that were made. Understandably, therefore, they are not identical in the accounts. Matthew 27:39-43 contains the longest version.
In Luke 23:43, translators have commonly inserted a comma before the word “today” (sémeron). This, however, does not necessarily convey the correct meaning. In the Septuagint, there are numerous cases where the Greek term for “today” (sémeron) is unmistakably linked to the words “I command you” (ego entéllomai soi [or the plural “you” (hymín)] sémeron) or “I tell you” (anangéllo soi sémeron). (Deuteronomy 4:2; 6:2, 6, 8:1, 11; 10:13; 11:8, 13, 27, 28; 12:11, 14, 32; 13:1, 19, 15:5; 19:9; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 30:2, 8, 11, 16, 18)
This also appears to be the preferable way in which to understand Jesus’ words, “Amen, I tell you today, You will be with me in paradise.” The repentant malefactor asked to be remembered at the future time when Jesus would come to be in his kingdom. He then received the assurance on that very day that he would be remembered and, in fact, would come to be with Jesus in paradise. This meaning would seemingly agree with fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, which appears to include a rare punctuation mark after sémeron. It cannot be established with absolute certainty, however, that the dot served to punctuate the text.
In the French ecumenical translation of the Bible (TOB), commas separate the word “today” from the promise, “You will be with me in paradise” (je te le dis, aujourd’hui, tu seras avec mois dans le paradis). The placement of a comma before the adverb “today” (aujourd’hui) creates an ambiguity, requiring the reader to decide whether the adverb modifies either “say” or “will be.” A number of English translations punctuate the verse so as to include “today” in the introductory phrase, making the meaning explicit. J. B. Rotherham’s translation reads, “And he said unto him — Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise.” George Lamsa’s translation, based on the Peshitta, expresses the same thought with the punctuation, “Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”
The expression for “my God” (Eli) in Matthew 27:46 is transliterated Eloi in numerous manuscripts of Mark 15:34, and there are also manuscript variations in the transliteration of other terms that follow this expression. These differences do not have any bearing on the meaning. Similarly, the Greek renderings of the transliterated terms in Matthew and Mark, though consisting of different words, convey the same significance.
Whereas Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 indicate that the sponge was put on a reed, John 19:29 says it was placed on “hyssop.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the precise plant to which the Greek term hyssopos refers. Possibly, in this case, it designates a plant that would have grown to sufficient height to supply a firm reed. In John 19:29, the rendering “javelin” has the support of one late extant manuscript. This rendering, however, would not agree with the reference to a reed in Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36, making it an unacceptable option that has no ancient manuscript support.
The accounts (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36) do not say that it was a Roman soldier who gave Jesus a drink. It does not appear likely that a mere bystander would have undertaken to do so, for the vessel containing vinegar would have been at the location for the soldiers who carried out the crucifixions and who thereafter remained on guard duty. Possibly the one who extended the small gesture of kindness was the centurion who, based on the developments associated with Jesus’ death, later acknowledged that he must have been a righteous man, God’s Son. (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)
The limited particulars about the raising up of “many bodies of the saints” makes it difficult to determine exactly what occurred. With its being restricted to saints, holy ones, or God’s people who were sleeping in death, the raising up appears to be equated with a resurrection. This is the generally accepted meaning that is explicitly expressed in the renderings of numerous translations. “Many of God’s people who had died were raised from the dead.” (NCV) “Many of God’s people were raised to life.” (CEV) “A number of bodies of holy men who were asleep in death rose again.” (J. B. Phillips) “The bodies of many holy people rose from the dead.” (NJB) “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” (NIV) For the resurrected ones to have been able to come out of the tombs required that these be opened, which is what the earthquake accomplished. (Matthew 27:51-53) The reference to “many” (not “all”) and “bodies of the saints” (not just “saints”) may indicate that this resurrection involved godly ones who had died recently and whose bodies (not just bones) were in the tombs. Only persons familiar with the area and having living relatives, friends, or acquaintances would have known where and to whom to go in order to be recognized.
According to Matthew 27:53, those who had been raised did not enter the city until after Jesus was resurrected from the dead and were then seen by many. Therefore, the raising of the sleeping holy ones may not have been simultaneous with the earthquake and the opening of the tombs but could have taken place later. The brief reference to this event may serve to highlight that Jesus’ death opened up life for the dead.
His miraculous works were more numerous and performed on a far greater scale than those of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. An occurrence associated with Elisha provides a small-scale parallel with the event linked to Jesus’ death and resurrection. While in the process of burying a man, certain ones saw a band of Moabite marauders and so hastily tossed the corpse into the burial place of the prophet Elisha. Upon touching Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life. (2 Kings 13:20, 21) Against the backdrop of this recorded miracle, it should not seem unusual that a more noteworthy resurrection is mentioned as having taken place after Jesus’ death.
In the case of those who had not as yet eaten the Passover, the time that Jesus died as the “Lamb of God” would have been when Passover lambs or goats would have been slaughtered in the temple courtyard. The extraordinary darkness, the earthquake, and the ripping of the temple curtain would have been particularly disturbing signs for all who were there.
The extant Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 reads, “They shall look to me whom they have pierced.” If this represents the original text, it could mean that the Almighty regards the piercing of the one for whom there should be mourning as having been done to him.
According to Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42, it was “evening” (opsía) when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. This would have been late in the afternoon, for it was still the day before the Sabbath, which began at sundown. (Mark 15:42) Joseph, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, had kept his belief in Jesus secret. Although a good and just man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, Joseph appears to have been fearful about openly identifying himself as a believer. He did not, however, give his consent to the Sanhedrin’s decision to condemn Jesus. Fully aware of the grave injustice that had been committed, Joseph overcame his fear and boldly went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. (Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-52; John 19:38; see the Notes section for comments regarding Arimathea.)
The report about the death came as a surprise to Pilate, and he inquired of the centurion in charge of the crucifixion whether Jesus had indeed died. After making certain that Jesus was dead, Pilate granted Joseph permission to take the body for burial. (Mark 15:44, 45)
It appears that Joseph had discussed his plan with another member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (likewise a secret disciple). Both men, doubtless with the aid of servants, removed the body and prepared it for burial. Nicodemus had arranged to bring a mixture of myrrh and aloes (possibly the fragrant substance derived from the aloe tree [Aquilaria agallocha]), weighing about a hundred pounds. According to customary Jewish practice at that time, Jesus’ body was wrapped in linen bandages along with the fragrant mixture. In Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in a garden near Golgotha, the men placed the body and then rolled a large stone over the tomb entrance. (Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:39-41) An expanded reading of Luke 23:53 in fifth-century Codex Bezae indicates that it would have been difficult for 20 men to roll the stone. The time for preparing Jesus’ body for burial had been very limited, for it was the “day of Preparation” when activities needed to be completed before the Sabbath began at sundown and work restrictions would begin to apply. (Luke 23:54)
Mary Magdalene and Mary, the wife of Clopas and the mother of Joses (Joseph) and James the less (or the younger) observed what the men did and followed them to the tomb. (Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55, 56; compare Mark 15:40; John 19:25.) After Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus left, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary remained seated opposite the tomb. (Matthew 27:61) In view of the hurried manner in which the men had to prepare Jesus’ body for burial, the two women may have talked about what they might still be able to do. Upon returning to the place where they were staying, they quickly prepared spices and ointments. In faithful obedience to the law, they then observed the Sabbath. (Luke 23:56)
On that Sabbath day (the one following the “day of Preparation”), the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate, requesting that he station a guard at the tomb until the third day. Referring to Jesus as an “impostor” or “deceiver,” they recalled that he, while still alive, had talked about rising again in three days. For this reason, they wanted a guard at the tomb so that the disciples would not be able to steal the body and then proclaim to the people that he had been raised from the dead. In their view, this deception about a claimed resurrection would be worse than the initial deception they attributed to Jesus. Pilate’s response may be understood to mean that they were to use their own guard or that he was making a guard available to them. After leaving, they sealed the stone that was over the tomb entrance and stationed the guard. (Matthew 27:62-66; see the Notes section for additional comments about the guard.)
Early in the morning of the first day of the week (the day after the Sabbath), Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the less [or the younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John), with the spices they had prepared before the Sabbath, headed for the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. While on the way, they talked among themselves about who would assist them to roll the stone away from the tomb entrance. Wanting to be at the location as early as possible, the women had left the place or places where they were staying while it was still dark. (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10, and John 20:1.)
Before the women arrived at the tomb, a powerful earthquake had occurred. An angel, with an appearance comparable to the brightness of lightning and clothed in pure white (the whiteness of snow), had descended from heaven and rolled away the stone. Terrified, those guarding the tomb trembled and came to be like dead men, unable to move. Seemingly, after recovering from the frightening experience, they left. Some of the guard went to the chief priests to report what had happened. For a time, the angel sat on the stone he had rolled away from the tomb entrance. (Matthew 28:2-4, 11)
When the women approached the tomb, they saw that the stone had already been rolled away. Possibly, at this point, Mary Magdalene ran back to Jerusalem to let Peter and John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) know what she had seen. The empty tomb suggested to her that the Lord had been taken away. Including herself with the other women, she said, “We do not know where they have laid him.” (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1, 2) Thereafter Peter and John ran as quickly as they could to the site. (John 20:3) As for Mary Magdalene, she, too, made her way back to the tomb.
Perhaps immediately after Mary Magdalene started to run back to Jerusalem, the other Mary and Salome entered the tomb. They were startled to see a young man (an angel), dressed in a white robe and seated on the right side. (Mark 16:5) He reassured them, telling them not to be alarmed or frightened and informing them that he knew they were looking for Jesus who had been crucified. The angel continued, “He is not here, for he has been raised up, just as he said. Come, see the place where he lay [the Lord lay, according to other manuscripts; they laid him (Mark 16:6)].” (Matthew 28:5, 6; note the similar wording of Mark 16:6, suggesting that both Matthew 28:5, 6, and Mark 16:6 relate to the same incident.]) Additionally, the angel directed the women to tell Peter and the other disciples that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that he would be going ahead of them to Galilee, where they would see him. (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:7; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 28:7 and Mark 16:7.)
It seems likely that the women from Galilee would have been staying at various places in Jerusalem and so a number of them may well have arrived at the tomb later. Like Mary (the wife of Clopas) and Salome, the other women would have been perplexed upon seeing the stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb. Perhaps when all the women were outside, two angels appeared. The angels, wearing brilliant garments, looked like men. Frightened, the women bowed their heads to the ground. They then heard the words, “Why are you looking among the dead for the one who lives?” The women were then reminded that, while still in Galilee, Jesus had told them that he would be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and be raised on the third day. (Luke 24:2-7; see the Notes section for comments regarding Luke 24:6.) Upon hearing this, the women recalled what Jesus had said. (Luke 24:8)
They quickly left the tomb. Their great joy stemming from having learned about Jesus’ resurrection was coupled with “fear” and “trembling.” This “fear” and “trembling” probably relates to the overwhelming awe they experienced from having seen and heard angels who declared that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The women hurried (as in flight) back to Jerusalem to relate the news to the apostles and other disciples. Along the way, they said nothing to anyone, for they were in the grip of awe and amazement. (Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9)
Post-Resurrection Appearances
Then Jesus appeared to them. After he greeted them, they took hold of his feet and prostrated themselves before him. (Matthew 28:9; see the Notes section for additional comments.) He allayed their apprehension with the words, “Do not be afraid,” adding that they should tell his brothers (the disciples) that they should go to Galilee, where he would see them. (Matthew 28:10)
Meanwhile some of the guards that had been stationed at the tomb went to the chief priests, telling them what had taken place. After consulting with certain elders, they decided to bribe the soldiers with a significant amount of money so that they would tell others that Jesus’ disciples had stolen his body while they were sleeping. The chief priests assured the guards that they would see to it that there would be nothing for them to worry about in the event Pilate heard about this. The guards took the money and did as the chief priests had instructed, resulting in this version about the empty tomb being spread among the unbelieving Jews. (Matthew 28:11-15)
After the women had departed from the tomb, Peter and John came running toward it. Probably because of being the younger man and able to move faster, John arrived first, bent down to look into the tomb, and saw the linen with which Jesus’ body had been wrapped. Upon reaching the tomb, Peter immediately entered and saw the linen wrappings. He noticed that the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was rolled up and lying by itself. John, who had reached the tomb first, entered afterward. Based on his seeing the empty tomb, the wrappings, and the rolled-up cloth, “he believed.” This suggests that what he saw in the tomb convinced him that no one could have taken the body away and left the wrappings and the cloth behind, indicating that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (John 20:3-8; see the Notes section for comments on Luke 24:12.)
In view of John’s believing, the words of John 20:9 appear to be a comment about the disciples as a group. They had not as yet come to understand the scripture, which revealed that Jesus had to rise from the dead. According to John 20:10, they individually went to their respective places.
After Peter and John had left, Mary Magdalene came back to the tomb and began to weep. While tears were flowing from her eyes, she bent down to look into the tomb. Inside were two angels, one was sitting where Jesus’ head had been and the other one where his feet had lain. Asked why she was weeping, Mary replied, “They have removed my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:11-13)
Possibly becoming aware that someone was behind her, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. He asked her why she was weeping and for whom she was looking. Thinking he was the gardener, she wanted him, if he had taken the body, to tell her where he had placed it. In her distraught state, she added, “I will take him away.” (John 20:14, 15) It is inconceivable that she would have been strong enough to carry the body, revealing that her words were prompted by intense emotion.
Seemingly, Mary could not tear herself away from the place where the body had been. Probably, because Jesus did not immediately reply, she again looked in the direction of the tomb. Upon then hearing Jesus call her “Mary,” doubtless in the familiar tone she had often heard, she recognized him, turned around, and said, Rabbouni, meaning “Teacher.” (John 20:16)
The account does not say whether Mary then took hold of Jesus but relates his words to her, “Do not touch [or cling to] me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)
Many have understood the present tense of the Greek verbs to mean that Jesus was then about to ascend to his Father and did not want Mary to delay him from doing so. Mary’s action would then be comparable to what Jacob did when trying to secure a blessing for himself by trying to hold on to the angel who wanted to ascend. (Genesis 32:26) If the present tense is meant to be taken literally, this would mean that the post-resurrection appearances were like those of angels and that the ascension from the Mount of Olives revealed that the disciples should not expect to see him again until his return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11)
If, on the other hand, the present tense simply refers to the future ascension from the Mount of Olives that was certain to take place, Jesus’ words to Mary may mean that the time for close personal association had ended. His having been raised from the dead did not mean a return to the kind of interaction with him that had existed previously.
Mary Magdalene headed back to Jerusalem and then told the disciples there that she had seen the Lord and what he had said to her. (John 20:18) According to Luke 24:10, the apostles heard about the resurrection of Jesus from Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. In view of the more detailed account in John chapter 20 about Mary Magdalene, the words in Luke 24:10 appear to be a summary statement, with no distinction being made about when the various reports about the resurrection reached the apostles. Although the women told them what they had seen and heard, the apostles did not believe them. Whether the apostles dismissed the women’s testimony as empty talk because of a prejudicial view about the reliability of the word of women is not revealed in the account. (Luke 24:11) That such prejudice appears to have existed among Jewish men is evident from the words of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” (Antiquities, IV, viii, 15)
Later that day, Cleopas and another disciple were traveling to Emmaus, a village located about seven miles from Jerusalem. While they were talking about what had happened to Jesus, he approached them and started to walk with them. They, however, did not recognize him. (Luke 24:13-16) According to the longer text of Mark chapter 16 found in fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Bezae, and other manuscripts, Jesus appeared to them in a “different form.” (Mark 16:12; see the Notes section for comments regarding Mark 16:9-20.) When he asked them about what they were discussing, they stood still, their faces reflecting sadness. (Luke 24:17; numerous later manuscripts represent Jesus as asking them about what they were discussing while they walked and were sad.)
Cleopas replied, “Are you living as a lone stranger in Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?” Jesus responded, “What things?” They explained, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who proved to be a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. We, though, had hoped that he would be the one to deliver Israel. But besides all this, it is the third day from the time these things happened. Furthermore, some women from among us have astounded us, for they went early to the tomb and did not find his body. They came [to the disciples], saying they had seen a vision of angels who said he is alive. And some of those with us [Peter and John, according to John chapter 20] went to the tomb and found it just as the women said [namely, empty], but they did not see him.” (Luke 24:19-24)
Jesus reproved them for their failure to use discernment (being senseless or obtuse) and their slowness to comprehend (slowness in heart) respecting the things the prophets spoke. He asked them, “Was it not needful for the Christ to suffer these things and [afterward] to enter into his glory?” Starting with Moses and then referring to all the prophets, he explained to them things set forth in all the scriptures about himself. (Luke 24:25-27)
As they neared the village of Emmaus, Jesus seemed to indicate that he intended to travel on farther, opening an opportunity for the two disciples to initiate inviting him to remain with them. They were insistent that he stay with them, as it was already late in the day. He then accompanied them into the home. While he reclined with them at the table, he took a loaf, said a blessing, broke it, and then handed a piece of bread to each one. Observing what they appear to have seen Jesus do on other occasions, they recognized him, and he then disappeared. (Luke 24:28-31)
Cleopas and his companion remarked to one another about the effect Jesus’ words had on them, “Were not our hearts [in us, according to numerous manuscripts] burning when he spoke to us on the way, as he was explaining the scriptures to us?” This suggests that, in their hearts, or deep within themselves, they perceived a warm feeling of rekindled hope and comfort. They then decided to return to Jerusalem, letting the apostles know about their experience. When Cleopas and his companion arrived in Jerusalem, they found the apostles and others at the same place and sharing the news that Peter had actually seen the risen Lord. The two disciples then related what had happened on the way to Emmaus and how they came to recognize Jesus when he broke the loaf. (Luke 24:32-35; regarding Luke 24:33, see the Notes section.)
It was late on that day, the first day of the week when Jesus rose from the dead. Being fearful on account of the unbelieving Jews, the disciples had chosen to be assembled behind locked doors. Suddenly they saw Jesus standing in their midst. His first words to them were, “Peace [be] to you.” Jesus’ death had plunged them into a state of fear and uncertainty, robbing them of peace, an inner sense of calmness and well-being. Despite his reassuring words, the disciples were frightened. The manner in which he had suddenly appeared in their midst caused them to imagine that they were seeing a spirit, a phantom, an apparition, or a ghost. (Luke 24:36, 37; John 20:19; see the Notes section regarding Luke 24:36.) They reacted as on an earlier occasion when they saw Jesus walking toward them on water while they were in a boat. (Mark 6:49)
In response to their reaction, he asked why they were troubled and why doubts had arisen in their hearts. Jesus made it clear to them that he was indeed in their midst. They were not seeing an impalpable apparition. “See my hands and my feet,” he continued. “I am he. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.” (Luke 24:38-40) According to John 20:20, he showed them his hands and his side, and the reading of Luke 24:40 in the oldest extant manuscripts and in many others indicates that he showed them his hands and his feet. (See the Notes section regarding Luke 24:40.)
Although the disciples were filled with joy, they still appear to have found it hard to believe that Jesus was indeed alive and remained in a state of wonderment or amazement. To provide them with additional proof that they were not seeing a spirit or a phantom, he asked them whether they had something to eat. Upon being handed a piece of broiled fish, he took it and ate it as they looked on. (Luke 24:41-43)
Jesus reminded them regarding what he had said to them while he had been with them in the past, that everything written about him in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms had to be fulfilled. He explained to them the scriptures, aiding them to have a mental grasp of their significance, and then related what their commission as apostles would be, saying, “It is written, that the Christ [is] to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and [that] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, starting from Jerusalem. And, see! I am sending upon you the promise of my Father [that is, the holy spirit]. You, however, stay in the city until you come to be clothed with power from the height.” Jesus’ words to them indicated that they would not begin proclaiming the message about him outside Jerusalem until they had been empowered by holy spirit to do so. (Luke 24:44-49)
On this occasion, according to John 20:21, Jesus again expressed his desire for his disciples to have peace. Just as the Father had sent him, he was then sending them forth, the implied purpose being for them to make known the good news about him and his resurrection. Possibly to assure the disciples that they would be certain soon to receive the holy spirit to assist them in carrying out their commission, he blew upon them and said, “Receive holy spirit.” (John 20:21, 22)
As the disciples would be carrying out their commission as persons whom Jesus had sent forth, the community of believers would grow and certain ones in their midst would fail to conduct themselves according to his example and teaching. This would require the disciples to render judgments about such erring associates. Regarding those who committed serious sins, Jesus said to the disciples, “If you forgive [their] sins, they are forgiven them. If you retain [their sins, not forgiving them], they are retained [against them].” (John 20:23) In the case of individuals who unrepentantly persisted in a life of sin, the retaining of their sins would signify their no longer being part of the community of believers. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-7; 6:9, 10.)
Thomas (called Didymus or the “Twin”) was not with the other apostles when Jesus appeared to them. Later, they told him, “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas, though, did not believe them, saying, “Unless I see the impression of the nails in his hands and place my finger in the impression of the nails and put my hand in his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:24, 25; in the Greek text two words for “not” appear, indicating that Thomas would positively not believe unless he had concrete evidence.)
After “eight days” (counting the day on which the apostles saw Jesus as one of the eight), or a week later, Thomas and the others were together behind locked doors. Jesus, as on the previous occasion, appeared in their midst, saying to them, “Peace [be] to you.” Turning his attention to Thomas, he said, “Place your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and put it in my side, and cease being unbelieving but become believing.” Upon hearing an echo of the words he had used in his response to the other disciples when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas was overcome with emotion. He exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-28; see the Notes section or additional comments regarding John 20:28.)
Whether Thomas actually felt Jesus’ hands and his side is not revealed in the account. The words directed to him appear to have been enough to convince him. Jesus continued, “Do you believe because you have seen me? Fortunate are those who have not seen and [nevertheless] believe.” (John 20:29)
For the many millions who have put their faith in Jesus throughout the centuries, the kind of proof that Thomas wanted has not been granted. Yet, they believed and their lives were enriched. As Jesus said, all such believers are “fortunate,” “blessed,” or “happy,” enjoying the enviable state of well-being that comes from knowing the Son of God and his Father and being sharers in all the blessings associated therewith.
Not long thereafter the apostles and other disciples traveled back to Galilee, confident that they would meet Jesus there. Aside from seeing him again at the mountain he had designated (Matthew 28:16), the disciples did not know when or if they might see him on other occasions.
When back at his home in Galilee, Peter remarked to some of the other apostles about his intent to go fishing. They decided to go with him, pursuing their customary occupation on the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). With Peter, six others got into the boat. They were Thomas (Didymus [the “Twin”]), Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two others. Likely Peter’s brother Andrew was one of the two unnamed apostles, and the other one may have been Nathanael’s close companion Philip. (Compare John 1:43-45.) During the entire night spent in fishing, they caught nothing. (John 21:1-3)
Early in the morning, Jesus appeared on the shore, but the apostles did not recognize him. He called out to them, “Boys [literally, children], do you have anything to eat?” “No,” came back the reply. Jesus directed them to cast their net on the right side of the boat to make a catch. When they did so, the net filled with so many fish that they were unable to haul it up. At that, John (the disciple for whom Jesus had great affection) said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Hearing this, Peter, who had been naked (probably to be prepared to jump from the boat if it became necessary to attend to a net in the water), put on his garment, plunged into the lake, and swam a distance of about 200 cubits or approximately 300 feet. The other disciples followed in the boat, dragging the net filled with fish. (John 21:4-8)
Jesus had made preparations for them to eat. Already fish and bread were lying on a charcoal fire, and Jesus asked for some fish from the catch to be brought to him. Peter boarded the boat and hauled the net to the shore. Although it contained 153 large fish, the net did not tear. When the food was ready to eat, Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast and handed them bread and fish. (John 21:9-13)
They could not bring themselves to ask him, “Who are you?” (John 21:12) This was because they recognized him to be Jesus. It would seem, therefore, that the recognition was not based on his physical features but on the revelation of his miraculous knowledge. Just as the clothing he wore would not have been identical to the garments the Roman soldiers then possessed, his resurrection body was different. Like the angels, he could appear and then vanish from sight. All the recorded instances of his post-resurrection appearances proved to be comparatively brief. Their main purpose, during the course of 40 days, served to convince the disciples that he was indeed alive. If he could have been readily recognized at all times, his presenting them with “many proofs” would not have been necessary. (Acts 1:3) People do not need “many proofs” to recognize a close friend who may have been away for a short time but whom they, on the basis of unsubstantiated reports, had presumed to be dead.
Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee was the third of the ones where most of the apostles saw him. (John 21:14) The first time all the apostles, with the exception of Thomas, were present. (John 20:24) On the second occasion, all the apostles saw him. (John 20:26)
After the apostles had finished eating breakfast, Jesus directed his words to Peter, saying, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to the reading of other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me more than these?” Confident that Jesus knew the answer, Peter responded, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” (John 21:15; see the Notes section for additional comments regarding John 21:15-17.)
In the question that Jesus is represented as asking, the Greek pronoun for “these” can be either masculine (referring to the other disciples) or neuter (everything related to fish and fishing). A number of translations render the question with explicit application to the disciples. “Do you love me more than these others?” (Phillips, REB) “Do you love me more than the others do?” (CEV) This would appear to be the preferable understanding. It would be more in line with Peter’s eagerness in getting to the shore as quickly as possible and his previous affirmation during the observance of the Passover that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be and that he would be willing to die with Jesus. (Mark 14:29-31)
Indicating how Peter could express his love for him, Jesus said, “Feed my lambs [arníon].” (John 21:15) As an apostle, one whom Jesus had personally instructed, Peter was in position to care for the spiritual interests of fellow disciples. These disciples were the sheep who belonged to Jesus and for whom he had surrendered his life.
Again Jesus asked him, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me?” As he had expressed himself the first time, Peter reaffirmed his love, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated the admonition, “Tend my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (John 21:16)
When Jesus, for a third time, asked Peter, “Simon [son] of John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [philéo] me?” he felt hurt. Hearing the question for the third time may have led to his recalling with sadness that he had disowned Jesus three times. Nevertheless, Peter did not waver in expressing his love for him. “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated, “Feed my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (John 21:17) This assignment to serve as a caring shepherd for the sheep reflected Jesus’ confidence in Peter and may well have served to lift from him any lingering burdening effect his previous three denials may have had.
At this point, Jesus looked to the end of Peter’s faithful service. In his younger years, Peter had been a man of action. Girding himself to undertake his activity and walking where he chose to go. Upon getting old, he would stretch out his hands and someone else would gird him and take him to a place where he would not want to go. Jesus thus indicated that Peter, in his declining years, would be forcibly taken to the place of execution. Dying as a martyr on account of remaining faithful to God, he would “glorify” or bring honor to him. (John 21:18, 19) According to Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero.
Jesus concluded his words to Peter with the admonition, “Follow me.” It appears that the interchange between Jesus and Peter took place a short distance from where the other disciples were and while the two of them were walking. Seemingly, Peter became aware that another disciple was following them, and he turned around. It was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who had asked him during the Passover meal concerning who the betrayer would be. Seeing John, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, but what about him?” Jesus directed his attention away from John. If it were to be Jesus’ will for John to be alive at his return, this should have no bearing on Peter’s course. As Jesus said to him, “What [is] that to you? Follow me.” (John 21:19-22)
Jesus’ words about John gave rise to the view among the brothers or in the community of believers that he would not die but would still be living when Jesus returned. This misunderstanding is corrected in the account by reiterating what Jesus actually said. He did not say to Peter that John would not die. Jesus expressed the thought about John conditionally, “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, what [is] that to you?” (John 21:23)
John 20:24 reveals the source of the entire account. It is one of the apostles, the one about whom Peter asked. The internal evidence identifies this one as John (one of Zebedee’s sons [John 21:2]), the “disciple who testifies about these things and who wrote these things.” The change to the first person plural verb (“we know”)in the next sentence of verse 24 may be an indication that he did not write this particular affirmation. “We know that his testimony is true.”
Whereas Jesus loved all of the apostles (John 13:1), his relationship to John appears to have been remarkably close. Therefore, the expression the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is an appropriate identifier. (John 21:20) The close relationship seems to have come into existence because of John’s exceptional attentiveness and responsiveness to Jesus’ teaching. An outstanding example of John’s attentiveness and responsiveness was his believing that Jesus had been raised from the dead when he saw the empty tomb and the linen wrappings inside. (John 20:8)
According to 1 Corinthians 15:6, upward of 500 brothers saw Jesus at one time, suggesting that this must have been at a prearranged place. Reasonably, so many would have been together in response to Jesus’ words about seeing them in Galilee at a certain mountain, which mountain is not identified in the account. (Matthew 28:10, 16) The eleven apostles had already seen Jesus in Judea and been convinced that he had indeed been raised from the dead. Based on linking Jesus’ appearance at the mountain in Galilee to the reference in 1 Corinthians 15:6, upward of 500 disciples saw him and prostrated proskynéo themselves before him as their Lord. Among them were some who doubted. (Matthew 28:17)
In view of the difficulty that the apostles had in believing the testimony of the women regarding Jesus’ resurrection, it is understandable that there were some who saw him the first time and found it hard to believe that he had really been raised from the dead. Whether their doubts, like those of Thomas, ceased is not stated in the account, but they likely were persuaded to believe on the basis of what they saw and heard.
Jesus said to the disciples, “To me, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. Go then [now, according to fifth century Codex Bezae]; make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to heed everything I have commanded you. And, see! I am with you all the days until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
As their Lord in possession of all authority in heaven and on earth, Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim the message about him and to baptize all who became believers, teaching them to obey everything that he had commanded. As persons who had learned about the Father, his Son, and the holy spirit, the new believers would be baptized in full recognition of the role of each. (Regarding the expression “in the name of,” see the Notes section on Matthew 28:19.)
Jesus would continue to be with the disciples, looking out for their spiritual well-being. That would prove to be the case until the “end of the age,” or the time when he would return in glory and the present age would end and a new era under his beneficent rule would begin.
The final time the disciples saw Jesus was after their return to Jerusalem. On that occasion, he instructed them to stay in the city until they received the holy spirit, and they asked him whether he would be restoring the kingdom to Israel at that time. Jesus did not answer the question directly, but made it clear that it was not for them to know the times and seasons that were his Father’s exclusive domain. They would be empowered by the holy spirit to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, in all of Judea, Samaria, and in more distant regions elsewhere. After he had led them to the Mount of Olives as far as Bethany, he raised his hands and blessed them. It was then that they prostrated (proskynéo) themselves before him, acknowledging him as their Lord. (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-8)
With a cloud, he vanished from their sight. As the disciples looked skyward, two men (angels) in white garments appeared to them, telling them that Jesus would return in the way in which they had beheld him departing into heaven. Thus, on the basis of the testimony of two angels, they were assured that the Son of God would return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11) As his departure had been with a cloud, his return is associated with clouds. (Compare Matthew 24:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Revelation 1:7.)
Filled with joy, they descended from the Mount of Olives and returned to Jerusalem. There, in the temple precincts, they continued to bless God, doubtless because of having had their faith and hope strengthened by the many proofs that undeniably confirmed Jesus’ resurrection. (Luke 24:52, 53)
According to the long conclusion of Mark (16:19, 20), the Lord Jesus, after he was taken up to heaven, sat down at the right hand of God. The disciples thereafter went forth, declaring the glad tidings, while the Lord Jesus Christ continued to work with them, confirming the message they proclaimed with signs or miracles.
The editorial comments found in John chapters 20 (verses 30 and 31) and 21 (verse 25) could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus performed many more signs or miracles that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in his name.” Using hyperbole to stress the large amount of information that could have been committed to writing, John concluded, “There are also many other things Jesus did, which, if ever they were recorded, I imagine the world could not contain the scrolls [that would be] written.” (John 21:25)
Although the preserved records are comparatively brief, millions, throughout the centuries, have come to believe that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. On the basis of the written accounts about his exemplary life, deeds, and teaching, they have come to live rich and rewarding lives. Although later believers, unlike the apostles and many other first-century disciples, have never seen Jesus, they love him. Through him, they have come to know his Father, resulting in their enjoyment of the real life, a life of an enduring relationship with both the Father and the Son. Accordingly, because of their faith, they have come to have life “in [Christ’s] name” or on the basis of who he is, the only one through whom a relationship with his Father is possible.
At the same time, just as the personal presence of Jesus in the first century created division among the Jewish people, with some responding to him in faith and others becoming violently opposed, the preserved records about him have had the same effect. There are those who try to discredit them with the same passion as those who fanatically cried out for Jesus to be crucified. Others have a distorted view of God’s Son and, based on what they have been taught, do not allow themselves to be led to the Father through him. They are much like the Jews in the first century who failed to recognize him for who he was, the one who could fully reveal his Father to them. They did not think of Jesus as God’s unique Son but concluded that he was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets raised from the dead, or possibly even John the Baptist restored to life. Few were those who, like Peter, declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16) Today, too, many tend to express themselves more in line with derived views about Jesus acquired from their particular religious environment, and not with a personal conviction that reflects the language of the preserved accounts regarding him.
Notes:
If correctly identified, Arimathea lay near the northern border of Judea, about 16 miles east of Joppa and over 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Although originally from Arimathea, Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, must have had a residence in Jerusalem, as suggested by his owning an unused tomb just outside the city. (Matthew 27:60)
The words of Pilate, “You have a guard,” can be understood as meaning, “You have your own guard.” (Matthew 27:65) The other possible significance is, “The guard is yours.” Both meanings are found in translations or their footnotes. “You have a guard of soldiers.” (NRSV) “Take a guard.” (NRSV, footnote) “You may have your guard.” (NJB) “Use your own guard.” (NJB, footnote) “All right, take some of your soldiers and guard the tomb as well as you know how.” (CEV) “You may have a guard.” (REB)
The apocryphal account known as the “Gospel According to Peter” explicitly identifies the guard as consisting of Roman soldiers. It says that Pilate provided a centurion named Peironius (Petronius) and other soldiers to guard the tomb.
John 20:1 does not mention that other women accompanied Mary Magdalene. This is understandable, for the account specifically focuses on her testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection.
Only Mark 16:1 mentions Salome as being with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the ones also referred to in Matthew 28:1). Verses 1 and 10 of Luke 24 indicate that there were more than three women. In verse 10, Joanna is named. It is likely that one of the other women would have been Susanna. (Compare Luke 8:1-3.) The differences in the inclusion and omission of names reveal that the writers of the highly condensed accounts did not intend to provide all the details. The specifics they did include primarily served to establish the reality of Jesus’ resurrection.
The absence of details in the accounts does not make it possible to determine precisely what may have occurred at a particular time and who may or may not have been present. Included, however, are the essentials (the empty tomb, angelic testimony, and the post-resurrection appearances) for establishing that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead.
The words, “He is not here, for he has been raised,” are basically the same in Matthew 28:6, Mark 16:6, and in many manuscripts of Luke 24:6. In the Westcott and Hort text, the words in Luke are marked by double brackets. In the opinion of Westcott and Hort, the reading of fifth-century Codex Bezae, which omits the words, reflects the original text of Luke, with the inclusion of the additional statement being considered as an interpolation.
Westcott and Hort, however, did not have the benefit of manuscript evidence that came to light in more recent years. The oldest extant manuscript (P75 of the late second or early third century) does not omit the words. So there is little reason for rejecting the longer reading found in the largest number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The shorter text of fifth-century Codex Bezae, on the other hand, has very little manuscript support.
According to Matthew 28:7, the angel is represented as saying, “I have told you.” In Mark 16:7, Jesus is referred to as having said that he would be going ahead of the disciples to Galilee. This difference is immaterial, as both statements are true.
In Matthew 28:9, a form of the Greek word proskynéo appears. Although often translated “worship,” the Greek term is descriptive of the act of falling to one’s knees and bowing with one’s forehead touching the ground. The context determines whether the prostration is a gesture of respect or an act of veneration or worship.
In fifth-century Codex Bezae reading of Luke 24:3, the words, “of the Lord Jesus,” are omitted after “body.”
Fifth-century Codex Bezae does not include the words of Luke 24:12, but they are found in all the oldest extant Greek manuscripts and many others. The reference to Peter’s running to the tomb and bending down to see the wrappings is an abbreviated version of the narration found in John 20:3-7. That Peter was not the only one to go to the site after the report about the empty tomb is revealed in the words of Luke 24:24, which relate that the two disciples who were on the way to Emmaus mentioned that “some of those with us” had gone there.
In Luke 24:13, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus reads “one hundred sixty stadia.” This would be a distance of about 22 Roman miles and, therefore, too far for the disciples to have been able to travel back to Jerusalem and still to arrive there in the same evening. The superior manuscript support is for the reading “sixty stadia” or about seven Roman miles, which distance would reasonably harmonize with the narrative.
Luke 24:33 makes reference to the “eleven,” the designation applying to the apostles. According to John 20:24, Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to them and is referred to as “one of the twelve.” At the time, there were only eleven apostles, though the original number (with the inclusion of Judas Iscariot) was twelve. So it appears that “the twelve” came to denote all the apostles, whereas the reference to “eleven” indicated that one was missing (in this case, Thomas).
In Luke 24:36, the inclusion of the words, “and he said to them, ‘Peace [be] to you,’” has strong manuscript support, including that of the oldest extant manuscripts. Fifth-century Codex Bezae, however, omits the words. Other manuscripts contain an expanded reading, “And he said to them, ‘Peace [be] to you. I am [It is I]; do not be afraid.’”
Fifth-century Codex Bezae omits verse 40 in Luke chapter 24. This verse is found in all the oldest extant manuscripts and many others. So there is little reason not to regard the words as part of the text.
Jesus’ words directing the disciples to stay in Jerusalem related to their being in the city to receive the holy spirit and thus being empowered to carry out the commission he had given to them. (Luke 24:49) It did not preclude their going back to Galilee for a short time. In fact, they had to do so. Jesus, personally and through angels, instructed the women who had gone to the tomb to inform the disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. (Matthew 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7) Probably not long after the incident involving Thomas, the disciples traveled back to their homes there.
The words of Thomas (“My Lord and my God” [John 20:28]) somewhat parallel how Manoah expressed himself when he and his wife saw the angel who had appeared to them ascend in a flame. Overwhelmed by the emotional impact, Manoah said to his wife, “We will certainly die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:20-22)
For the Israelites in the first century and earlier, the term for “god” did not have the restrictive meaning that it has come to have among speakers of modern languages, particularly among professing Christians. In ancient Israel, judges, kings, or rulers could be called “gods.” (Psalm 82:1, 6, 7) In a first-century BCE nonbiblical fragment (11Q13), extensive reference is made to Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer and judge. The “gods of justice,” “sons of God,” or the angels are portrayed as assisting him to bring about the destruction of Belial (Satan). Other first-century BCE manuscript fragments (4Q400, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q404, 4Q405) refer to angels as “gods” and portray them as praising the “God of gods.”
In view of the way Israelites used the term for “god,” one needs to exercise care not to read into Thomas’ words theological concepts that would have been foreign to his Jewish background and mode of expression. Although the Hebrew and Greek terms for “god” had a wider application than is common in English and other languages, Jesus’ Jewish disciples would not have been confused about the identity of the one to whom he referred as his Father and the only true God. (John 17:3)
In John 21:15-17, Jesus is twice represented as using a form of the Greek term agapáo (love) and once philéo (love). Peter, in his response, is represented as saying philéo. Of the two terms, agapáo is often broader in scope, with philéo being a love that is frequently more closely associated with close friendship and affection. As in the case of the English word “love,” the context determines the nature of the kind of love or affection the verbs agapáo and philéo may be understood to convey. It appears preferable not to attempt to draw too sharp a distinction between the two terms, seeking instead to ascertain the significance from the context.
The expression “in the name of” can signify “in recognition of” or “by reason of being.” In the case of one acting in the name of someone else, it points to an existing relationship. Believers, upon being baptized, do enter a new family relationship. They, upon being immersed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy spirit, come to have God as their Father, his Son as their Lord, and the holy spirit as their helper. In this relationship, they enjoy a newness of life effected through the operation of the holy spirit within them. (Matthew 28:19)
A number of late manuscripts follow Mark 16:8 with a short conclusion, which refers to the women as telling those with Peter about what they had been commanded. Additionally, this short conclusion indicates that Jesus sent out the disciples so that, through them, the “holy and incorruptible preaching” about eternal salvation would be carried out from east to west.
Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Bezae and other later manuscripts contain a longer conclusion, which has been numbered verses 9 to 20. Mention is made of his post-resurrection appearances. Mary Magdalene told those who were mourning and weeping that she had seen Jesus, but they did not believe her. (Compare John 20:18.) While two disciples were walking on a road, he appeared to them in “another form,” and they reported this to the other disciples. (Compare Luke 24:13-35.) According to Mark 16:13, their words were not believed, and no mention is made of Jesus’ previous appearance to Peter. If the long conclusion preserves a dependable tradition, perhaps this is to be understood that some (not all) among the disciples did not believe them. While the disciples were reclining at the table, Jesus appeared and reproached them for not believing those who had seen him after his being raised from the dead. Whereas Luke 24:36 does not speak of the disciples as reclining at the time, the fact that they were able to hand him a piece of broiled fish does indicate that they had been eating. (Luke 24:42)
On that occasion, Jesus is portrayed as commissioning the disciples to go into the world and to preach the evangel (the good news about him) to all creation. Those who would believe and get baptized would be saved, coming to possess the real life, but those who refused to believe would be condemned. Believers would be empowered to perform signs or miracles. In the name of Jesus, they would expel demons and be able to speak in tongues other than their native language. (Compare Matthew 10:8; Acts 2:5-11.) The reference to being able to pick up serpents and not being hurt from drinking anything poisonous could signify that no enemy power would be able to harm them. Regardless of the efforts enemies would put forth, they would be unable to stop the proclamation of the glad tidings. (Compare Luke 10:19.) By laying their hands on the sick, the disciples would be able to cure them. (Compare Matthew 10:8.)
Another addition to Mark chapter 16 appears in a manuscript thought to date either from the fourth or the fifth century. The disciples are represented as telling Jesus that the “age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan,” who prevents the truth and power of God from squelching the “unclean things of the spirits.” Therefore, they asked Jesus to reveal his righteousness, which may be understood to mean his taking action against Satan. Jesus’ reply indicated that “the limit of the years for Satan’s power” had been fulfilled, but that other frightful things would be drawing near. With reference to himself, Jesus is represented as saying that he died for those who sinned, that they might return to the truth, cease sinning, and inherit, in heaven, “the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness,” probably meaning the absolute righteousness of the sinless state.