085. Chapter 26 - Closing Days in Galilee
Chapter 26 - Closing Days in Galilee Matthew 17:22-27;Matthew 18:1-5;Mark 9:30-41;Luke 9:43-50 Prediction of Death As they journeyed south toward the Sea of Galilee, Jesus gave them a third prediction of His death. If the previous predictions had seemed incredible, it was now no longer possible to avoid the inevitable gloom. These were no obscure parables This was stark tragedy. Matthew says simply, “And they were exceeding sorry.” They could no longer hope against hope; they could only despair.
Mark says, “But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.” This seems to refer to the final phase of His prediction, “After three days he shall rise again.” The predictions of death were now too clear to be misunderstood or brushed aside. Luke shows that Jesus began this prediction with a profoundly impressive command: “Let these words sink into your ears.” They had been loath to receive the predictions of death into their minds. They had tried hard to avoid them and to forget them. The excited praise of the crowd would have been an obstruction to their hearing. Both Mark and Luke record that the disciples were afraid to ask Jesus what he meant by this prediction. The stern rebuke Peter had received when he was called Satan would have made them hesitate to ask for further explanation. The manner of Jesus was probably very severe and did not encourage them to ask questions. Perhaps the appalling conviction that He would actually permit His enemies to torture and kill Him caused them to fear to question Him lest they should learn the worst. They could delay the evil day of knowing about it by refraining from asking questions.
Betrayed
If their failure to understand included His prediction of death as well as the resurrection, then the verb delivered probably gave them the most difficulty. Who could “deliver” Jesus with His miraculous power? Who would want to deliver Him to His enemies? While they understood the words of Jesus, they found it hard to comprehend the realities. Delivered up seems quite definitely to refer to Judas. It might be considered to be a general reference to the will of God being carried out by Jesus’ allowing the plots against him to succeed. But in the light of later plain predictions that one of the apostles would betray Him into the hands of His foes, this is the natural interpretation here. McGarvey remarks that they were not willing to accept the obvious meaning of His words and could not discover any other meaning. If He really was the Christ they believed Him to be, how could He permit anyone to deliver Him up or permit His enemies to kill Him?
Failure to Understand
Luke says, “It was concealed from them, that they should not understand.” Plummer interprets this to mean they were miraculously and by divine purpose kept from understanding so that they would not be anticipating the resurrection. But this is an impossible view in light of the fact that Jesus repeatedly condemned them for being so slow to understand the predictions of His death and resurrection (Luke 24:25). Their material conception of the Messiah must have helped to becloud their understanding. They had been horrified and indignant at Caesarea Philippi. Now they were brokenhearted. Even though they could not understand how it was possible for Him to die, His repeated predictions filled them with dread and grief. The transfiguration must have given the three a deeper conviction and a new understanding that the death of Jesus was now close at hand, but even they were perplexed and dismayed; and the others were still more in the dark. The Journey South This was a leisurely journey south from Mount Hermon. Matthew says of it, “while they abode in Galilee.” Mark speaks of His passing “through Galilee; and he would not that any should know it” (Mark 9:30). The scribes had pursued Jesus from Capernaum into the territory of Philip. Their altercation with the nine apostles, their ultimate discomfiture as Jesus confronted them and then healed the boy, together with the excitement caused by the miracle and the great admiration of the multitude, would have made further quiet instruction of the apostles impossible here. The praise of the multitudes would have stirred again the false hopes of the apostles. Mark says that He wanted no one to know His whereabouts so that He could instruct and get them to understand more clearly about His death (Mark 9:31). Luke indicates that the empty praise of the crowd caused Him to give a further prediction at this time (Luke 9:43). They probably left secretly in the night while the crowd was still filled with excitement over the miracle. Following paths instead of highways, they could find leisure for instruction as they came south.
Temple Tax
Upon their arrival in Capernaum they returned to “the house” of Peter, which was their headquarters (Matthew 17:25). Had Peter gone to the market place to buy supplies, when the tax collector encountered him? Was this a routine collection of taxes? or was it a deep-laid plot to entangle Jesus in a charge that He did not keep the Old Testament law? The last two times Jesus had returned to Capernaum the Pharisees had immediately begun attacks. The first of these had been the charge that He was not keeping their hand-washing tradition. The next time there had been the demand to show a sign from heaven. It seems significant that the moment they appeared again, a tax collector should have been on hand to raise this issue, “Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel?”
Haste
Peter, who was always on edge to defend his Master from any imputation of guilt, answered on the spur of the moment, “Yes.” Then he began to wonder whether he had spoken again in too great haste, without waiting to ask Jesus for a ruling in the matter. He did not attempt to translate his words into immediate action by paying the collector for the thirteen men. Perhaps he did not have the money. The treasury was supplied by devoted friends and provided food for the group (Luke 8:2, Luke 8:3). Peter may have felt it would be misappropriation of funds to take this money to pay the tax. He answered without asking Jesus, but he did not act without asking Him. This tax is definitely the temple tax commanded in the Old Testament (Exodus 30:13; Exodus 38:26). The amount of the tax is precisely the same — a half-shekel. Every Jew from the age of twenty was commanded to pay a half-shekel for an offering to the Lord once a year. Not only is the amount identical, but there would be no choice in paying taxes to the Romans; they had their own means of seeing to it that the taxes were paid. Theirs was compulsory; this was voluntary.
Reflections
Obviously Jesus and the apostles had not paid the temple tax during the three preceding years of His ministry. Peter’s anxiety and haste to get a ruling from Christ concerning the matter would not have been necessary if a precedent had been set. As he hurried back to the house, his reflections must have been tumultuous and varied. Had he made a mistake in his quick reply? Since Jesus had not been paying the temple tax, why should He pay now? If He did not pay, would this not give ground for more attacks upon Him? But why should Jesus give to support the corrupt politicians who controlled the temple? Instead of paying taxes for support of the infidel Sadducees, had He not driven the entire motley crowd out of the temple? This certainly was a very sticky question.
Peter’s Dilemma
Peter’s haste in getting back to the house to ask Jesus was not quick enough. The a.v. says, “Jesus prevented him.” This is an obsolete use of this word prevent. It comes from two Latin words meaning to come before. Before Peter could possibly speak a word, Jesus spoke first; “he came first” ; “he prevented him.” The a.s.v. translates quite understandably, “Jesus spake first to him.” Jesus posed a problem for Peter to solve. If he could answer Jesus’ question correctly, then he would be able to answer his own question. Jesus spoke first in order to give troubled Peter the help of further miraculous evidence.
Miraculous Foresight
Jesus had seen and heard everything which had transpired between the tax collector and Peter, even though they were far distant. The miraculous foresight of Jesus leaped out in startling fashion as He calmly asked Peter, “What thinkest thou Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers?” This reversion to the original name of Peter seems to carry a barb. Was this hurried answer he had given the tax collector in harmony with his grand confession at Caesarea Philippi? The plural sons seems to be a gracious avenue of relief for the conscience of Peter concerning his own payment of the tax. And the rest of the twelve, what of them? Jesus spoke with the majesty and the certainty of the King’s Son. Everything hung upon His divine Person. Peter had left all and followed Jesus to do His will each day. This covered the entire ground of his responsibility. He had no need to worry because he had not been paying his own temple tax. The Solution
Peter had no difficulty answering the question: “From strangers.” Jesus gave the inevitable conclusion: “Therefore the sons are free.” It would be absurd for the king to collect taxes from his own son. This would be like a transfer of money from one pocket to another. The citizens of the country are the ones who pay taxes to support their king. So it is with the temple. “A greater than the temple is here.” He is God’s Son. He is not obligated to pay. Thus Christ towers above both the Old Testament law and the temple in His whole attitude. Here is another of His grand affirmations of deity.
Redeeming the Promise
Since Peter had made his rash promise, then the tax collectors and those who stood behind them must not be caused to stumble or be able to say that these followers of Christ did not keep their promises. The tax would not be paid for the rest of the thirteen, for they had not been involved by Peter’s promise. There was no obligation upon Jesus to pay; He was merely keeping the rash promise Peter had made. The tax collectors did not understand the deity of Jesus. If they had been sent to entrap, it was an issue which would be prevented. Although Jesus proceeded to pay the tax humbly, He secured the money in such towering fashion as to give startling proof of His deity. The Coin The shekel is a Jewish coin. The Greek word used for the coin found in the mouth of the fish Peter caught is didrachma; it was a stater. This coin was about equal in value to the Jewish shekel and to the American half dollar. Since each Jew was to pay a half-shekel, the stater would pay for both Jesus and Peter. The a.s.v. obscures the meaning by translating the word shekel. The stater was a rare Greek coin made of silver. The fact that such a coin was found in the fish’s mouth makes the miracle all the more remarkable. The gold stater was worth $5.32 (Athens) or $5.33 (Asia Minor), but the stater found in the mouth of the fish was evidently a silver stater since this was exactly the amount needed. The Miracle This seems to have been a miracle of foreknowledge rather than creation. It is not stated that Jesus created the coin, or placed it in the mouth of the fish. But He knew the fish was there with the coin in its mouth, and that Peter would catch it. Jesus did not even direct Peter where to fish. This is always a most important factor if one expects to catch fish. Did Peter use his boat and go out into the deep? or did he find a point on the shore where the land shelved off immediately into deep water so that a large fish might be caught? Did the other apostles follow him in intense excitement to witness what would happen? We cannot answer these questions. The majesty of the King’s Son is seen in there being no necessity to instruct Peter where to fish. Jesus knew.
Attacks This miracle has been the center of concentrated fire from unbelievers. It is just too bad that it is not in John’s Gospel only, instead of being in Matthew’s only. Then they would have been able to concentrate their attack further on John without having to repudiate all four narratives. Here are the arguments they adduce: (1) It seems to violate the principle that miracles are not wrought where ordinary means are available. They could have taken money out of their treasury to pay the taxes. But ordinary means would not have achieved the desired purpose of proving the claim of Jesus that He was not obligated to pay the tax. He did not create the money; He used a coin that was in the mouth of a fish; He secured it by a miracle for the definite purpose of proving His claim to deity.
Some argue that it was such a small sum that it makes the action absurd. It was a small sum, but it was a great miracle. The amount of money was not the significant thing, but the significance lay in the manner by which it was obtained. It was exactly sufficient to pay for both Jesus and Peter. At Cana Jesus had all the jars that happened to be standing at the threshold filled with water and turned it into wine, although it made such a large amount. Likewise here He meets the occasion by securing just the amount necessary, even though it was a small sum. In the one case the critics complain that the amount of wine was too great to be justified; here they say the amount of money was too small. But in either case Jesus met the circumstances that arose.
Some argue that this miracle brought no healing or comfort to sufferers. But it is the modernists and not the New Testament who declare that this is the sole purpose of Jesus’ mighty works. Faith was brought to the heart of Peter and the others in the home by this miracle. He needed it as He saw Jesus turning towards Jerusalem to die. Would Jesus heal the bodies of men and neglect their souls? Moreover, who can say how much “comfort” Peter received from the embarrassing situation in which he found himself?
It is urged that Jesus Himself shared the advantage of this miracle, which is contrary to His spirit and entire conduct. The purpose was not for His advantage, but was a lesson of faith for the apostles. Jesus was not obligated to pay. He was not performing this miracle as a favor to Himself. Peter had become entangled with the tax collectors and was troubled. God enabled Jesus to pay the tax without either violating His own freedom or the conscience of others.
Rewriting the Account The customary line of attack of modernists is to rewrite the narrative changing the miraculous over into an ordinary happening, even as they would degrade Jesus to the level of an ordinary man. A typical example was the recent declaration of a teacher in a radical school: “What actually happened was that Peter caught a fish and sold it for a stater.” A bright student in the class spoke up and asked: “Professor, would it not have to be a very large fish to sell for a stater?” This was a good question. One can buy a large basket of fish on the shores of the lake for 35¢. The professor thought over the question and then answered: “Well, perhaps Peter caught a string of fish and sold them for a stater.” If a person is determined to charge Matthew with falsification and to write the account over for himself, it might just as well be made to read a string or a boat-load of fish.
Charles Fiske, in his book The Real Jesus, claims that Jesus was just joking with Peter when He gave this command. A wink of the eye, a comical gesture of the hand, or lilt of the voice would have made Peter understand it was all a joke:
Jesus’ words may have been a mere bantering bit of pleasantry. It is not said that Peter went fishing to find the coin; only perhaps, that he was smilingly bidden to do so. Or it may be that Jesus directed Peter to pay the tax by a catch of fish which would provide the necessary money. Or there may be still other explanations. Each individual story of a miracle constitutes, therefore, a separate problem, whose investigation must be left to professional historians; and even they, time after time, can only conclude with the verdict, “We do not know exactly what happened” (p 105).
“The Professional Historians”
Now who are the “professional historians”? What are their qualifications? What bases of judgment do they use? Fiske talks as if the great commission reads: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the professional historians. Whatsoever they may decide to be in harmony with the theory of evolution and the latest skeptical fantasies shall be declared true; and whatsoever they shall deny to be in accord with their theories shall be declared false. No one else is to listen or judge for himself; all are to await the dictum of those who have elected themselves to do the thinking for their fellow men.” Who were the professional historians of Jesus’ time? What was their attitude toward Jesus? What was His judgment of them? A Joke?
Supposing that it was a joke Jesus was having at the expense of Peter and the tax collector leaves the dilemma of the tax collector entirely unsolved. The Scripture certainly presents the matter as solved. The following questions arise: (1) Was Jesus accustomed to joking with His apostles about such matters? If so, what is there that is funny about the suggested conduct? Even in a book of jokes, the author would have to attach an explanation to show some humor connected with such a strange statement. Fiske fails to show any point of humor connected with his imagined joke.
(2) In a book of miracles, a definite promise that a miracle is about to be performed would be a deliberate falsehood if the declaration were only a joke or if the event did not actually come to pass.(3) Fiske’s point that Matthew does not actually state Peter obeyed, caught the fish, and paid the tax, is a charge of deliberate deceit on Matthew’s part if it did not happen. Fiske himself admits that this is the natural conclusion to draw from the narrative. (4) Fiske’s citation of “other explanations” is a confession of the failure of his original attack.
Jesus and the Old Testament Law This passage gives the clearest of statements from Jesus on His relationship to the Old Testament law. He states categorically that He is not bound by the law of Moses. He rises above the law. There is not a single passage in which Jesus ever said, “I always have kept the law of Moses perfectly.” His declarations are numerous, “I do always the will of my Father.” He did not have to go through Moses to know the will of God. His immediate contact as the Son of God gave Him this knowledge. In His moral perfection Jesus obeyed the will of God in regard to the moral law. But the Old Testament had established a system of religion which was temporary and even now was passing away. Alexander Campbell called this “the intercalary dispensation,” the dispensation in between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Continually we find Jesus disregarding the stipulations of the law or setting them aside in His teaching. The old was in process of passing away, even as the new was being revealed. The New Testament The law was nailed to the cross and went out of force at that time, so far as God was concerned. He reached down from heaven and tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom at the time Jesus died and thus made this evident. But what of them who died between the time of the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost, when the church was established? A man is responsible only for what is possible for him to know. Until the new and final will was probated on the day of Pentecost, man remained under the Old Testament law. The law was nailed to the cross as far as God was concerned, but as far as man was concerned it remained in force until the new will was opened and its nature and conditions made known.
John the Baptist The gospel was in preparation during the ministry of Jesus. He gave continual assertions that the law was in process of being set aside. He declared, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). Even with the coming of John the Baptist, the old was beginning to pass just as the new was beginning to be revealed. John did not keep the law, which required him by birth to assume the obligations of the priest in the temple. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb and was in the deserts until the day of his showing unto Israel. He was charged by the Jerusalem hierarchy as being in revolt against the law; the law required animal sacrifice at the temple for the forgiveness of sins, but John had instituted this new ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins (John 1:25). The Feasts The sixth chapter of John makes it plain that Jesus did not keep the law which required every able-bodied Jew to go up to the temple for the Passover feast. The Passover was near (John 6:4); after the feeding of the five thousand, John declares Jesus did not go up to the capital (John 7:1). Furthermore, the law required every Jew to go up to the temple for a week at the Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus deliberately delayed His departure from Galilee so that He did not arrive until in the midst of the feast. He plainly told His protesting half brothers that He was not going up to the feast. He would arrive in the midst of the feast in accordance with God’s explicit instructions as to how and when He should reveal Himself. He was not subject to the law of Moses, but was being directed by God in every step of His conduct.
Central Place of Worship When the Samaritan woman questioned Jesus whether Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim was the correct place for worship, Jesus’ reply swept aside one of the central propositions of the Old Testament law: there must be one central place of worship — the tabernacle, later on, the temple. As between Jew and Samaritan, Jesus bluntly declared, “Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). But Jesus set aside the law of one central place of worship with His grand principle, “neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem [but in any place in all the world if]...in spirit and in truth” (John 4:21-24).
Clean and Unclean Meats In His controversy with the scribes over their traditions of hand washing, Jesus not only set aside their traditions, He revoked the central proposition of the Old Testament on clean and unclean meats: “Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man” (Matthew 15:11). The entire distinction between clean and unclean meats was revoked by this ruling. There had been no moral basis for this distinction; it was a part of the system of religion which made the Jewish people a separate nation. The reason for the chosen nation was that through this nation the Messiah might come to save all people. With the coming of Christ, the Old Covenant began to be set aside as the New was given. Mark shows that by the time his Gospel was written, the revolutionary significance of this declaration of Jesus was understood,….making all meats clean” (Mark 7:19). To Fulfill the Law The idea that Christ kept the Old Testament law perfectly rises from a misunderstanding of His declaration in the Sermon on the Mount: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). It is significant that Jesus should have been charged with destroying the law and the prophets. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus not only deepened the moral content of the law in His sweeping criticism, “Ye have heard it said...but I say unto you,” but He set aside a definite provision of the law in His ruling on divorce.
Jesus fulfilled the law in the same sense that He fulfilled the prophets. They both were predictive and looked forward to the final consummation of the Messianic era. He fulfilled the grand purpose for which both the law and prophets had been given. This fits perfectly with His declaration, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). In what sense did the law prophesy? It was predictive not merely in rites and symbolism (such as the Passover lamb without blemish, looking back to Egypt, but forward to Calvary), but also in its grand purpose. In what sense did the prophets prophesy until John? The Old Testament line of prophets had ceased four hundred years before the time of John. But the great purpose of the Old Testament prophets was to lead to the Savior of all mankind. When the forerunner actually came, the Messianic era was being ushered in, and the end of both law and prophets was in sight. The Jerusalem scholars sensed this and made violent protest against John’s setting up the new ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins in contrast to the law of animal sacrifice in the temple for the remission of sins.
Sacrifice
Jesus’ statement in regard to the temple tax is decisive. The King’s Son was not obligated, but would pay rather than cause those to stumble who had received Peter’s rash promise. Jesus kept the law except where it would have contravened His deity and the direct guidance He had from God. We never find Jesus offering the annual, animal sacrifice in the temple for any personal sin. If He had done so, He would have denied His own sinlessness. The law was given for sinful man. It did not fit the Son of God. Jesus kept the final Passover, but it was with His disciples. Any participation in a ritual implying the sinfulness of those sharing it, would be limited in the same way that His baptism was clearly declared to be not “for the forgiveness of sins,” but “to fulfill all righteousness” (to do the righteous will of God, who was directing His Son to submit to baptism — Matthew 3:13-15).
Fulfillment
Jesus criticized the law as inadequate even in the presentation of moral principles. At times He deepened the moral concepts; at other times He set aside provisions of the law. He not only kept the great moral principles in the law perfectly, but He died to make up for our failure to keep them. He towered above the law. He was the fulfillment of the law. He filled full both the law and the prophets. He brought the law to an end as it was nailed to the cross. He brought in God’s final revelation — the gospel, which offered light and immortality to all men. The Quarrel
Immediately after the temple tax incident (Matthew says, “in that hour came the disciples”), the climax occurred in a quarrel among the disciples which had been going on during the trip south from Mount Hermon. Luke tells that the disciples had been having this discussion as to who should be greatest, and Mark informs us that it had been in progress as they were on this journey. There are various things which had recently occurred that explain why this quarrel over pre-eminence arose. The confirmation of their faith that Jesus was the Messiah and the prediction that Peter should act as gatekeeper in the establishment of the kingdom, had stirred anew their dreams of the glorious reign of the Messiah. Their part in this grand kingdom had become the cause of jealousy and the subject of discussion. Similar results had been produced by the sermon in which Jesus demanded their willingness to die for Him and predicted the glories of the kingdom and its near approach.
Causes of the Quarrel The choice of the three to go into the mountain with Jesus and the extreme frustration of the nine in their failure to cast out the demon from the boy would have added to the friction among the twelve. To cap the climax, the three would not tell the others what strange, mysterious experience had evidently been theirs on the mountain. No amount of questioning could bring the secret forth. We wonder why Jesus kept the transfiguration secret even from the other nine. Was it the general principle that the more people who know, the harder it is to keep a secret? Did the presence of Judas in the group cause Him to limit information given to all? In the journey south there had evidently been times when they were able to indulge in their quarrel. Covert hostile looks and gestures may have kept the fires burning even when they were not alone. Jesus bided His time to handle the insurrection. The Principle of Greatness
Now that they were in Peter’s home at Capernaum, the matter could be handled. Matthew shows that the apostles brought the matter to a head by asking from Jesus a statement of fundamental principle, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” This question sounded sufficiently general and intelligent to offer a proper subject for discussion. But Jesus instantly responded with a probing question which brought into the open the private argument. He would not have them imagine they had kept it from Him. “What were ye reasoning on the way?” The disciples “held their peace” when He asked this question. They were ashamed. Jesus sat down solemnly for a period of rebuke and instruction and called the disciples about Him (Mark 9:35). In the midst of the teaching Jesus took a little child “and set him in the midst of them” (Mark and Matthew), “taking him in his arms” (Mark), “set him by his side” (Luke). Not only did the child make a marvelous illustration, but the gentleness and tender love of Jesus for little children is one of the delightful features of His character and conduct and a most appropriate and effective argument in this discussion.
“If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.” The principle is as revolutionary as the entire spiritual character of the kingdom Jesus was revealing. Jesus’ masterful way of showing He knew of their dispute and the motive back of their question fitted with the principle He enunciated. Their conscience-stricken silence arose partly from the fact that on this very journey while Jesus had been predicting His death, they had been quarreling about future greatness. Verily Jesus was last in thinking of Himself and truly the servant of all in giving His life for the world. Instead of denouncing in hot wrath their self-seeking jealousy, Jesus exemplified by His patient instruction the spirit of humility which He urged upon them. Jesus thus turned their world upside down and allowed them to figure out how foolish and wicked they had been. Not only do humility and service “lead to greatness, but they are greatness itself.” The one first in thinking of himself shall be last in God’s estimation; and the last in self-seeking shall be greatest because he makes Christ first. The Ideal Little Child This unfolds the same fundamental truth taught at Caesarea Philippi as Jesus kept trying to replace their secular ideas and aims with spiritual ones. Matthew adds the information that Jesus gently called upon them to repent: “Except ye turn,” from sinful ambitions to the true greatness which God desires and which is typified in the beautiful qualities of the young, unspoiled child. The qualities of humility, trust, teachableness, devotion, and desire to serve are pure and unstained in the ideal little child. Few objects are more trying to the patience and disgusting to witness than a spoiled child, wilful, disobedient, selfish, and heedless. But Jesus evidently selected a child of age and character that set forth the beautiful simplicity of the model child. No greater perversion of Jesus’ principle could be imagined than for a person deliberately to take the last place as a means of climbing to the highest. He must be willing to make himself last for Jesus’ sake and to serve in whatever way possible, regardless of the personal humiliation and outcome. This is made obvious by the phrase in my name. The type of humble service which Jesus commanded was set forth in the task of receiving and carefully protecting and rearing little children. In the name of humanity this is being done today in a remarkable degree. But Jesus gave something higher than humanity as the supreme motive. He offered Himself and His march to the cross.
Unknown Miracle Worker A further expression of selfishness and rivalry entered in to mar this hectic period of their training, when nerves were taut because of the dire predictions of tragedy ahead. Mark and Luke relate that John brought up a problem of leadership at this juncture. Some or all of the apostles had seen a man, unknown to them, who was casting out demons in the name of Christ. They were offended because he was not of their number and seemed to challenge their right to priority. This unknown wonder worker was not unknown to Jesus, but only to the apostles. Jesus expressed no surprise at their report. He rather corrected their attitude of exclusive prerogative. This man had evidently become a disciple of Jesus at some time unknown to them. We know that Jesus had a larger group of seventy disciples whom He later sent forth on an evangelistic campaign. Miraculous power was conferred on the seventy as upon the twelve. This man, however, must have been entirely outside the group of the seventy also, for Luke, who records the mission of the seventy, does not associate him with them.
Jealousy The apostles’ growing dreams of the glory of the kingdom were not only causing them to have selfish ambitions, but they were beginning to feel the desire of officialism. Because they had now been ordained as apostles, and their future great work in the kingdom had been predicted, and because they had received the power to perform miracles, they began to feel that they had a monopoly on this power; no one else had the right to work miracles, especially one who did not follow in their company. They had forgotten that Jesus was Lord and that He could commission whom He would.
It is evident that the man was actually casting out demons and not pretending to do so, as the sons of the Pharisees did. He was doing these miracles in the name of Jesus; and, since Jesus was not surprised or angry when He heard it, the man must have received the power from Jesus. The fact that we do not know when or how confirms the fragmentary accounts of the narratives. The writers deliberately avoided endless details.
Jesus’ Reply The reply of Jesus sets forth that: (1) They were not to interfere with such a man Jesus, not they, was in charge. One of the interesting unknowns about this incident is the man’s reaction to their rebuke and demand that he cease his work for Christ. (2) The actual working of miracles in the name of Christ showed the fitness of the man for the work. It was seemingly against the man that he did not follow in Jesus’ immediate company, but there might have been something in the man or in Christ’s purpose and program that caused this. The Gadarene demoniac wanted to follow in Jesus’ immediate company, but the Master did not permit him. He was sent back to his own home and people to testify for Christ. He did not have the power to work miracles, but he did not need this miraculous confirmation. He himself was a living miraculous demonstration. All he needed to do was to present himself and his testimony. He did a great work for Christ. This unknown wonder-worker was evidently doing a good work also. Our Lord pointed out that this man was doing his miracles in the name of Jesus. He could not use the name of Jesus to work miracles and then revile it quickly. He might, after the passage of sufficient time. It is not once in grace, always in grace. Look at Judas. He worked miracles when the apostles were sent out two by two; and then betrayed Christ. But this change did not take place “quickly.” It took much time and deterioration. The two extremes of devotion and treason do not exist together.
False Claims
Jesus had said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22, Matthew 7:23). It would seem that these men were making a false claim to having worked miracles, for Jesus said He had never known them. If this is only a blunt denunciation of them, then it is at least certain that their apostasy was not simultaneous with their exercise of miraculous power, else God would be granting His miraculous power to confirm falsehood. A person might work miracles and later turn against Christ, but this change would not take place “quickly”; the change would be too great and would require some time. When the declarations of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40 are placed alongside each other, they seem completely contradictory. But if the context of each statement is studied, they are seen to be completely harmonious.
“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” (Matthew 12:30).
“For he that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). In Matthew 12:30 the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the subject of discussion. When Jesus was being charged by His enemies that He was in league with the devil, He declared that the person who attempted to be “neutral” and refused to take a stand for Him was really against Him. “The New Neutralism” should take notice. When similar blasphemous attacks are made against Christ today, “the New Neutralism” undertakes to stay out of the life and death struggle which envelops Christianity. It palavers with the enemies of Christ. It holds joint evangelistic campaigns with those who make all sorts of vicious attacks upon Christ. Some even welcome as their Christian brethren the new atheists, with their cynical slogan “God is dead.” “The New Neutralism” would conquer the “Ecumenical” world by bowing the knee to Satan in compromise. “He that is not with me is against me. The context of Mark 9:40 is entirely different. It is not a question of attacks upon Jesus, but of methods of serving Him. The two apostles did not charge that the unknown wonder-worker was attacking Christ or was united with His enemies in a joint campaign. They did not accuse him of not preaching the good news about Christ. They complained because he was working miracles in the name of Christ and did not belong to the select circle of the twelve apostles. Christ warned them that He was in charge of the entire campaign, and not they. If He chose to instruct, empower, and send forth a messenger not of the twelve apostles, “what is that to thee?” Since the question was merely one of method and the man was in no way associated with enemies of Christ, “he that is not against us is for us.”
Officialism This passage hits hard at officialism, which has been one of the curses of Christianity. Someone secures a place of power by politics or violence; an organization is formed and worshiped as the center of their entire religious life. Everyone is outlawed who does not bow to the human authority or work through the human organization. But Christ pointed out that no one person has a monopoly on Christian service. We should all seek to serve humbly and rejoice in the success of all who are true to Christ and His Word. The Little Ones
One more scene closed the Galilean ministry. It is strange how so many untoward and disagreeable things came up here at the last as His great effort in Galilee had lost its popularity and the revelations of His coming death had caused a pall of doom to come over the apostles. It is important to see that the discussion of stumbling blocks, mistreatment and forgiveness, and the parable of the unforgiving servant all follow the unseemly squabble which the disciples had carried on during their trip south. With the little child in the midst to demonstrate His grand principle of the greatness of humble service, Jesus used him still further to show the great responsibility which we have toward those whose lives are influenced by ours. Matthew 18:5 shows clearly that Jesus was speaking not merely of little children, but of little ones in the kingdom, Christians who are new in the faith. Jesus pointed out that this is a world full of temptation and sin; it is a testing ground for character. Occasions of stumbling inevitably arise, but the strong responsibility of guilt is not removed.
Stumbling Blocks
Jesus spoke first of the people who cause others to stumble by giving them an evil example. The introduction of “these little ones” in Matthew 18:10 naturally reflects the presence of the little child in the place of honor by His side and causes us to think in Matthew 18:7 of parents who lead their children to doom by their own wicked conduct or by their neglect of the children in the all-important formative years of life. From the people who cause the stumbling Jesus turns in Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 18:9 to the things in an individual’s life which lure him to destruction — the world, the flesh, and the devil. The greed for worldly treasure and the concentrated interest on mundane affairs may shut out God. Thus the inherent wickedness of a deed or its comparative natural or spiritual value may cause a man to turn away from God. The most precious earthly things, such as a hand, a foot, or an eye though they seem indispensible, are nothing when compared to eternal life.
Warnings of Hell
Gehenna with its unquenchable fire yawns for those who despise their heavenly birthright. Worm dieth not is a figure drawn from Gehenna or the Valley of Hinnom — a deep crevice in the mountain just south of Jerusalem where the pagan inhabitants of the country had originally burned their own children alive in sacrifice to Moloch, or Baal. It thus was an abomination to the Jews, who cast here the offal from the city. The fires were continually burning in the Valley of Hinnom to consume the trash and waste material. Worms continually infested the garbage and refuse. The phrase their worm dieth not appears to be a quotation from Isaiah 66:24, where the figure is the same — worms feeding on the dead carcasses of men. Such a fate is so terrible that Jesus said, “It were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” than that he should “cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble” (Mark 9:42). This is “a great millstone”; the Greek is literally “a millstone turned by an ass.” There were small handmills turned by two women, but this is a very large millstone turned by an animal. The lower millstone was immovable. The upper millstone is the one to which Jesus refers. This picture of a person’s being thrown into the sea with such a great millstone fastened about his neck is one of the dramatic extremes which Jesus frequently used. Welded into these discussions where Jesus showed such infinite patience and tender concern there are these fearful warnings of hell.
Salted with Fire
“For every one shall be salted with fire” (Mark 9:49). This is the most difficult statement in this section. The interpretations of the statement vary according to whether “fire” is held to be a symbol of punishment or purification. Salt is for preservation and is so used in the following sentences. Fire, however, is repeatedly used in the preceding context to mean punishment. It is hard to tell whether the preceding or the succeeding context furnishes the key. McGarvey holds that it meant that everyone who refuses to repent and cut off the hand or foot and pluck out the eye by surrendering worldly things, shall he punished in hell-fire, where they will be preserved “salted” in the midst of the punishment so that it is unending. The following interpretation is offered:
I. Fire = eternal punishment for the wicked; Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, Mark 9:48.
A. Salt for everyone; Mark 9:49 B. Fire for everyone; Mark 9:49 II. Salt = preserving qualities for the good; Mark 9:50. The saying is enclosed in a context which uses fire unmistakably of punishment and salt of preservation. Mark 9:49 uses both words with a twofold meaning. “Every one shall be salted with fire” either (A) here or (B) hereafter. (A) Here everyone is preserved from destruction (salted) by the suffering (fire) which sin entails and which leads a man to repent and cut off his hand, etc, (B) Hereafter, if he refuses to repent and yield to the salting by fire in this world, he will be in eternity salted (preserved) in the midst of hell (fire) that his punishment may be forever.
McGarvey holds that every one must be limited in meaning and applied only to those indicated in the preceding context as refusing to sacrifice worldliness. But the above interpretation accepts every one in the complete sense. Everyone shall be salted with fire; some, here; and some hereafter. Punishment necessarily follows sin in everyone’s life. But if a person takes the right attitude toward his suffering, he will come to repentance and preserve his soul; if not, punishment will he eternal. Salt is good to season and preserve. There are certain virtues which make our lives palatable and a preserving force in the world. But if the Christian virtues are distorted and despised by us, then we have no other source than Christ from whom to draw virtue, and we become insipid and worthless. Gould says, “In other words, who can perfume the rose? what can salt salt? Spice spice? or restore grace where it is lost? So, if loss loses its power to chasten, what will chasten loss?” (p. 181).
Fidelity The disciples were admonished to have salt in themselves (Mark 9:50). This can be done: (1) by adopting and maintaining a Christian attitude toward suffering; i.e., keeping a humble, contrite heart, ready to examine one’s own self and admit the faults of one’s own character; (2) by avoiding the things that cause others to fall and which make one a stumbling block to others; (3) by maintaining a loving, forgiving spirit toward one another (“be at peace with one another”). This harks back to their recent quarrel for the chief places. The warning to have salt in themselves sums up the urgent need for the Christian to keep his heart turned toward God. “Taste in the man himself is necessary to the savor of salt; feeling, to the heat of fire; faith, to the grace of God.” These elements are actual and real; but, to appreciate them or be influenced by them, man must have the ability to respond. The command recorded in Matthew 18:10, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones,” should be given the wider application which Mark 9:42 affords: “...these little ones that believe on me.” Those young in the faith and subject to powerful temptation to drift back into the world are included with little children. The word despise does not mean to regard with hatred, but with contempt, to overlook their importance, scorn their possibilities and our responsibilities, to be unwilling to sacrifice from our lives what might cause them to stumble.
Guardian Angels
“In heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:10). Hebrews 1:14 declares that the angels are “ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.” Jesus here declares that “these little ones” have angels which are especially commissioned to aid them. These angels have access to the presence of God Himself. If God has such tender care for these little ones, how dare we despise them and consider them of no importance? This passage, together with Acts 12:15, is the basis for the proposition that each Christian has “a guardian angel.” The Lost Sheep The parable of the shepherd seeking his lone, lost sheep, while the others are left safe in the fold, is a favorite illustration in the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 15:1-32 and John 10:1-42, we find Jesus returning to this comparison. The case of the little ones betrayed and then saved, suggests this touching illustration here. The shepherd seeks, saves, rejoices over an insignificant sheep that has been lost. How much more an immortal soul? The possibility of failure is suggested, “And if so be that he find it.” The stubborn will of perverse man may thwart God by man’s refusal to give heed to God.
Reconciliation A discussion of mistreatment and forgiveness follows naturally upon this warning against being a stumbling block to others; a good shepherd is to go out in search of even one lost sheep. From admonition to watch over the little ones and to avoid giving offense, Jesus now turns to discuss how one should act when a brother mistreats him. In Matthew 5:23, Matthew 5:24 the person who has sinned against his brother is commanded to go, make reparation, and seek reconciliation. Here the person who has been wronged is also commanded to go and seek reconciliation. His purpose is to save his brother from the sin into which he has fallen. He is to go alone and seek the most favorable time, place, and manner to achieve reconciliation. It may take time for such an occasion to be found. It may he that for a time all the person who has been wronged can do is to pray for the one who has mistreated him.
Critical Issues The most important thing to see is that the matters which are handled thus are things of critical importance, where the reputation and life of the church are at stake. For petty things there is not urged the process of turning a molehill into a mountain by making a great discussion out of a little matter. A person should always reflect carefully whether a subject is of sufficient importance to justify unfortunate by-products which always come forth from controversy. Small offenses are better brushed aside, overlooked, forgiven, and forgotten, without forcing a showdown.
Withdrawing Fellowship The disciple is commanded to go in private to his fellow disciple who has wronged him, because it is always best to settle difficulties in private, if possible. There is also a better chance of success where humiliation is reduced by kindness. But if the person denies having done the wrong, and if there are no witnesses, and it is just one person’s word against another’s, then an impasse is reached which may offer superlative difficulty. The second effort is to try again for reconciliation — this time, with witnesses present. These seem to be witnesses of the wrongdoing who can prove the person is guilty as charged. But some hold that these witnesses are merely present to hear the conversation and to aid in the reconciliation. Perhaps Jesus left the statement general to suit the varied circumstances which would arise. In the last resort the whole church is assembled to hear the charge, the proof, and the history of negotiations. In the case of a defiant and godless sinner, the church is to withdraw fellowship. “As the Gentile and the publican” would mean that no mistreatment would he given, but the fellowship of the church would no longer be granted. The Gentiles and publicans are constant objects of evangelization. Even as this entire procedure has as its objective the winning of the man to repentance and the saving of his soul, so even after he has flaunted the church, they should still pray for him and seek his salvation.
John suggests that there is a limit in this obligation to pray, and in certain extreme cases he does not urge prayer: “There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request” (1 John 5:16). John does not forbid such prayer, for this would require us to have power of discernment between a sin unto death and one not unto death. He merely does not urge it as a Christian duty toward those set for the destruction of the gospel. In this procedure which Jesus outlines there is the necessary implication that the sin is so flagrant and deadly it threatens the life of the church. The Church
Twice in this discussion Jesus used the word church. Yet it was not established until later. It is important to see that the Greek here has a series of vivid future conditions looking forward to the time when the church would be established. Thus in Matthew 16:18, Matthew 16:19 He had referred to the future establishment of the church. Plummer insists that it refers to the synagogue in these instructions of reconciliation. But the Greek words for church and synagogue are absolutely different. Jesus never tried to lay down any regulations for the synagogue. It was a Jewish institution which had arisen in the period between the Old and New Testament. Jesus established the church. The future conditions in the Greek here show it looks forward to the time when the church would be established. The disciples only understood vaguely what the church would be like, but they would treasure these instructions and would be guided by the Holy Spirit in their application.
Binding and Loosing To all the apostles the promise is now repeated which Jesus had given to Peter at Caesarea Philippi, concerning binding and loosing sins upon those who heard him proclaim God’s plan for man’s redemption, according as they accepted or rejected God’s offer. Binding refers to the sins of the man who defiantly refuses to repent and give up his wicked conduct which threatens the life of the church. He is excluded from the church fellowship with his sins bound on him. But the door is still open for him to repent and seek forgiveness. Loosing refers to the forgiveness of the wrong as the two are reconciled.
Prayer
God in heaven heeds the offender’s penitence and plea for forgiveness from his fellow Christians; God seals the reconciliation and forgives the man for his sin. The decision of the church will be upheld in heaven if it is carried out in accordance with the instructions of Christ and the will of God. This same limitation of “being in harmony with the will of God” applies to the prayers offered by two or three gathered together in the name of Christ (Matthew 18:19). The repeated promise that God will grant our prayers always has the limitation of their being in harmony with His will, both by reason of the example of Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and the repeated instruction on the subject of prayer. All that the Scripture says on a subject must be taken together in order to get a complete understanding. We must pray in the right way (Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:15; James 1:6, James 1:7; James 4:3) and in accordance with the will of God (Matthew 26:30; 1 John 5:14).
Church Discipline
While this teaching on church discipline arose out of discussion of intimate, personal responsibility to set a good example to all about us, to be filled with loving concern, and to show a spirit of forgiveness to others, it contains some deeply set and far-reaching principles concerning the nature and purpose of the church. Because it requires staunch faith and high moral courage, and because it is hard to decide where to begin and where to end in carrying out its provisions, this teaching on church discipline is extremely difficult. Most churches do not even make an attempt to carry out the instructions of Jesus. As in many homes, so in many congregations there is no discipline. Following the course of least resistance to seek ease and comfort proves to be the broad highway of decline of religion and morals.
Unity This teaching on church discipline seems to be negative, since it ends with detailed instructions of procedure in withdrawing fellowship from a member who has departed from the faith and rebelled against the church. Actually the teaching is positive because it ends with unity between Christ and the church steadfastly maintained. This is the issue of supreme import. For Christians to be living in peace and good fellowship with one another is devoutly to be desired and sought. But if the unity between the church and Christ is lost, then all is lost. The church is no longer a church; it is merely a political organization or a social club.
World Evangelization The primary purpose of the church is not the edification of the members. It is not primarily a refuge into which the Christian retreats from the world to maintain his faith and noble moral ideals. Extremely hostile circumstances may at times force the church into such a defensive stance, but such is not the primary purpose of this divine organism. The church is a powerful fortress from which the Christian goes forth to conquer the world for Christ. For the church to allow itself to he forced into a defensive position is to expend all its energies in supplying the fuel and oil to keep the wheels running. This is the sort of idea which breeds institutionalism and erects vast, luxurious church buildings that are empty shells because the flaming zeal of world evangelization has departed. It is true that Acts 2:42 can be cited with its four powerful elements, all of them directed toward building up and sustaining the Christians in their faith and noble living: “Continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.” But over these opening chapters of Acts, and in fact all the rest of the New Testament, there towers the great commission: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). The unity of Christians with one another is essential to world evangelism, but this unity must not be secured by betraying and abandoning Christ. Unity in Christ is the elemental feature of this teaching on church discipline. The Smallest Church
There is something deeply touching about the close of this teaching concerning church discipline, as Jesus pictures two or three gathered together in His name. It is as if Jesus were repeating His searching question to the apostles, “Would ye also go away?” (John 6:67). Straining for partial conversion of great numbers, the church is brought back to the scene where two or three faithful Christians meeting in the name of Jesus have the assurance of His presence. What a rebuke this is to false emphasis on numbers! Fidelity to Christ is succinctly stated — “in my name.” It is folly for many or few to gather together and expect help from Christ when they are dishonoring and disobeying Him. Unity among men is always second to loyalty to Christ.
Forgiveness
Peter’s question as to how many times he was obligated to forgive his brother shows the close connection of these scenes which appear to follow in quick succession. The quarrel had just been settled, but it left troublesome questions in Peter’s mind. Jesus had spoken in glowing terms at Caesarea Philippi of the part Peter would have as gatekeeper in the setting up of the church or kingdom. Why should Peter have to endure such arguments among the group as to who is greatest in the kingdom? The answer with its powerful emphasis upon humility had not completely erased from Peter’s mind his aggravation at the ambitious attitude of others about him. How many times is this to be repeated and he be required to forgive? Jewish tradition taught the duty of forgiving three times. Peter was being generous when he suggested seven times. The limitless stretch of seventy times seven was breath-taking. Plummer suggests that the seventy times seven may hark back to Lamech’s song in Genesis 4:24; the natural man’s craving sevenfold revenge versus the divine command of seventy times seven or unlimited forgiveness.
Sums of money mentioned in the Bible are difficult to render properly because of the change in the purchasing power of money, which was vastly greater then. Those who have seen the dollar shrink beyond recognition in the half century since the beginning of the First World War should have a keen understanding of this.
Moreover, a talent differed as to whether it was gold or silver. Some figure the two sums as $10,000,000 and $17. Others figure the amount as larger, but in the same ratio. McGarvey says $16,000,000 and $16; Allen figures $12,000,000 and $20. The parable presents the sort of dramatic extremes which Jesus used so frequently in His teaching. The parable pictures the customs of the time when the man was ordered sold into slavery, together with all the members of his family, and the confiscation of his property was made to secure as much payment of the debt as possible. Imprisonment for bad debts was a custom until the last century. Henry Clay was the author of the bankrupt law in the United States. The Contrast The elemental contrast of the parable is between the enormous sum which the servant owed his lord and the insignificant amount which was owed to this servant by his fellow servant. Such is the contrast between our debt of sins against God and the debt of sins against us from our fellows. The one debt is beyond calculation and hopeless of payment. Yet God in His mercy through Christ forgives us freely. When we turn in jealous rage against those who sin against us and refuse to forgive them, we close the door of heaven against ourselves. The detail of the fellow servants coming to tell the lord what had been done by the unforgiving servant is simply part of the scenery of the parable. It is not to be taken to represent a spiritual reality. God does not need to be informed thus by man. In Matthew 18:26 the Greek verb proskuneo is used. This is the only time in the Gospel narratives that it can be shown to refer to obeisance offered to man rather than worship to God. But this may be the very point of its use here — either the emphasis that the king represents God in the parable or the suggestion that the hypocritical servant is offering to the king the divine worship he should keep for God.
It is noteworthy that when the king gives the final judgment against the unforgiving servant who had been forgiven an impossible debt, he alone is sentenced. The wife and children are not included. Of course, if the money was obtained from the king fraudulently, the wife and the children might have been the very inciting factors which had urged him on to fraud and luxury. All this part of the scene is stripped from the parable at the close, and the man alone is sentenced. The final admonition of Jesus, “ye forgive every one his brother from your hearts,” underscores the fact that forgiveness must include an earnest effort to forget and to seek restoration of former friendly relations. The contrast between the desire for revenge which the world perpetuates and this humble forgiving from the heart is as great as the difference between the ideal of greatness which the world begets and the way of humble service which Jesus taught and lived.