Matthew 9

CHAPTER IX

Matthew 9:1

1 And having entered into a boat, he crossed over and came into his own city. This must have taken place on the same day, in the morning of which he healed the two demoniacs on the lake shore of Gadaritis (see 8:28) and then was asked by the inhabitants to leave their region. He left promptly. “A boat” is indefinite, yet we take it to be the one in which he had arrived, not one of the others that had accompanied him (Mark 4:36). Jesus returned to Capernaum which is here called “his own city” in contrast with the place he was leaving, where the people refused him the right to stay. Mark 2:1 bridges a gap, and Luke 5:17 offers only a loose connection as to time and place.

Matthew 9:2

2 And lo, they bring to him a paralytic lying on a bed. And having seen their faith, he said to the paralytic, Cheer up, child, dismissed are thy sins! Matthew is acquainted with all the details recorded by Mark and by Luke but concentrates on the vital points of the story. The exclamation “lo” hints at the fact that this was not an ordinary case of bringing a sick man to Jesus. He was lowered through the roof by four of his friends because the throng in and around the home of Jesus was too dense to admit penetration. On the disease of paralysis compare 8:6.

The faith that Jesus saw manifested itself plainly enough. It was more than the ordinary faith which sought help of Jesus; it was a faith strong, persistent, inventive enough to discover the most unusual way of placing the sick man before Jesus. Why “their faith” should exclude the faith of the paralytic, as some assert, is hard to see. Surely, his friends did not bring him against his will, and surely, he must have consented to be lowered through the roof. It is true that Jesus healed some who had no faith at the moment and waited for faith to follow the healing; but no man’s sins are forgiven without faith being present in his heart. Instead of ruling out the faith of the paralytic, we must credit him with stronger faith than that of his friends.

They may have had faith only in the power of Jesus to heal miraculously. This paralytic felt that he suffered from a greater ailment than paralysis, and thus he came to Jesus with his burden.

Not a word is uttered by either the paralytic or his friends. More eloquent than words is the prostrate form lowered through the ceiling to the feet of Jesus, interrupting his teaching in the packed house. As a true καρδιογνώστης Jesus sees all that is involved in this sufferer’s case and also all that it will mean for the present assembly and for all future time. First the soul, then the body. With the greatest tenderness Jesus absolves this sufferer’s soul. Men saw only his bodily affliction, Jesus saw the guilt and the contrition in the man’s heart. “Cheer up,” the present imperative θάρσει, takes away the gloom and the discouragement from the man’s heart and puts courage and happiness in its place.

The address τέκνον, “child,” is far more tender and gentle than “son”; it is like a mother’s loving embrace. Jesus actually enters into this man’s heart and condition with the master-touch of his love.

Now the mighty word of release, “dismissed are thy sins.” The readings vary between the passive present ἀφίενται (or ἀφίονται) and the Doric yet common passive perfect ἀφέωνται (R. 315), the latter having its strong present implication. For both forms imply that the sins are dismissed the instant Jesus speaks this word. This is the great ἄφεσις, “dismissal” or “remission,” of which the Scriptures speak so constantly. The sins are sent away from the sinner so completely that they shall never be found again, to the depth of the sea, and so far that no one “can possibly bring them back, as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103). Only God is able to send our sins away in this manner. The claim that the agent back of this passive verb is God and not Jesus is untenable.

The entire narrative that follows rests on the contrary. This case of healing furnishes the clearest evidence for the deity of Jesus: as God he forgives sins and proves it by healing the paralytic.

It is not necessary to conclude that this man’s ailment was the direct product of his sinful life. In John 5:14 we have a case of this kind; but in John 9:3 an entirely different case. As regards the paralytic, it is sufficient to assume that his paralysis brought all his sinfulness to mind just as every sickness and misfortune tells us that we are, indeed, nothing but sinners. To assume more in this case would require a plain intimation in the text. The Christian rule of charity holds good also in the case of exegesis, namely, that we should not make any man worse than he may be. To this day hundreds of people suffer from paralysis without having lived a vicious life.

Matthew 9:3

3 And lo, certain of the scribes said within themselves, He is blaspheming. Luke adds that also Pharisees were present. These men had come from Jerusalem and Judea as well as from Galilee to keep track of Jesus and to gather such evidence as they could against him. Now they thought that they had a clear case against him. Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21 indicate wherein they found the blasphemy. God alone, they thought (and rightly), can forgive sins; in their estimation Jesus was not God but a mere man, hence when he arrogated to himself the right to forgive sins he was pretending to be God—the very worst type of blasphemy.

Matthew 9:4

4 All was silence—the only word uttered was the absolution pronounced by Jesus. And when Jesus saw their thoughts he said, Why are you thinking wicked things in your hearts? For which is easier? to say, Dismissed are thy sins? or to say, Rise and be walking? We retain the reading ἰδών as in v. 2, this being more unusual than εἰδώς, “knowing”; Jesus “saw” what these his enemies were thinking and he did this not merely by observing the look on their faces but by direct vision into their hearts, John 2:24, 25. This power he exercised whenever it was necessary for his ministry and to the extent to which it might be necessary. With stunning directness Jesus confronts these scribes with their own thoughts.

He does not ask on what ground (διὰτί) but for what purpose (ἱνατί, or ἵνατί), they are thinking as they do; R. 739. That is why Jesus says “wicked things” and not faulty, incorrect things. Their hatred and their hostility to Jesus produced in their hearts corresponding reflections on what Jesus was doing and saying. These were “wicked” because they were prompted by the motive to injure and to destroy Jesus. Look well to the purpose of your reasonings for the secret motive is the vicious factor not the simple facts themselves.

Matthew 9:5

5 That was the case here. We must regard γάρ as being merely explanatory, R. 1190. Jesus sets the right thoughts over against the vicious ones of the scribes. This is what they should ask: “Which is easier,” requiring less exertion, “to say (εἰπεῖν, aorist: say effectively), Dismissed are thy sins! or to say (again the effective aorist), Rise and be walking!” Evidently, both require the identical power of God. As he alone can dismiss sins, so he alone can restore a paralytic on the instant. Note the aorist imperative ἔγειρε to denote the momentary act of rising up and the present imperative to indicate the continuous act of walking away.

Matthew 9:6

6 In the same breath Jesus continues: But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority to dismiss sins on the earth (then says he to the paralytic), Having risen, take up thy bed and leave for thy house. Jesus has performed the one act, forgiven the paralytic’s sins. The effect of this act is invisible: no one saw the sins piled up on the man’s soul, and no man saw that mass of sin vanish from his soul. Now Jesus follows this with the second act, he heals the paralytic. The effect is visible to all: they see the man rise, pick up his couch, and walk away not only freed of paralysis but restored to perfect health and strength, all this having been done in an instant. The act which the eyes are able to see verifies the other act which no eyes can see.

As the one is wrought by the ἐξουσία, “the right and might” of him who is God, so is the other. For both are done by Jesus, not in and by the name of another, but in his own person, by the ἐξουσία that resides in himself. On “the Son of man” see 8:20. The fact that the title signifies one who, while he is truly man, is at the same time God, is evident from the demonstration which Jesus here gives. The title is especially in place over against the scribes who regarded Jesus as being only a man. Remitting sins “on the earth” is in harmony with the title “the Son of man” which Jesus gave himself during his stay on earth.

He still forgives sins, but now he does so in his glorious heavenly state.

The ἵνα clause is not construed with a main clause, for dramatically Jesus turns to the paralytic and completes what he intends to say by the command which heals him. All that the insertion introduced with τότε intends is to tell the reader that in the middle of his words Jesus turns to the paralytic. This makes the insertion a parenthesis (R. 434) rather than an anacoluthon (R. 463). The Greek marks the man’s rising up as being secondary to the main action and thus uses only a participle. The momentary acts of rising up and of taking up the couch are naturally expressed by means of aorists, while the longer act of walking home is expressed by means of a present imperative. Four men brought him on his pallet, he himself walks away carrying that pallet. The command to the paralytic (identical in all three records) is quite full, telling the man all he is to do, so that these hostile scribes may hear and then see it all.

Matthew 9:7

7 And having risen, he went to his house. Mark adds “before them all; Luke, “before them,” but appends, “glorifying God.” Whereas the scribes charged Jesus with blasphemy, this man utters nothing but praise.

Matthew 9:8

8 But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid and glorified God who gave such authority to men. The effect upon the crowds inside and outside of the house was that “they were afraid,” which implies more than astonishment or holy reverence. They felt themselves in the very presence of God as this was made manifest by this double act of Jesus. Peter had the same feeling in Luke 5:8. Matthew tells about the crowds only here at the end of his account, but we see that, while he abbreviates his account, he is acquainted with the story exactly as it happened. We cannot agree that some of the people were afraid while others praised God.

We do not agree that the fear and the praise could not be attributed to the same people as Matthew records. The fear was the reaction of hearts that felt their sinfulness in this almost tangible presence of God; and the words of glorifying praise were uttered because of the wondrous benefactions this mighty presence had bestowed.

The aorist participle τὸνδόντα refers to one act of giving, and τοῖςἀνθρώποις is an ordinary plural. R. 409 is right when he calls our attention to the double sense of the participle, the giving to the man Jesus being quite different from the giving to men. By sending Jesus with the divine ἐξουσία men in general had it in and through Jesus who was one of them, had it in the actual wondrous gifts it bestowed. Note how the multitude borrows the word ἐξουσία from the lips of Jesus, v. 6. Here the uneducated people saw more clearly than the educated scribes. They saw God back of Jesus, the divine right and might exercised by Jesus, and this as a divine gift to men as a mass or whole.

In their praise to God the people generalize from what they saw in the case of the paralytic, but this was easy for them, for they had seen many other miracles and now through this latest one understood all of them more correctly. What the hateful scribes said and did is passed by in significant silence.

Matthew 9:9

9 And as Jesus was passing by from thence he saw a man sitting at his tax office, called Matthew, and says to him, Be following me. And having risen, he did follow him. Jesus had left his own house (ἐκεῖθεν) where he had healed the paralytic; he was returning from the shore of the lake (Mark 2:13, 14) and so came by Matthew’s τελώνιον or tax office, where he sat, busy with his work of collecting taxes. It seems that the office had been located at the entrance to Capernaum, most likely on the great caravan route that came in from Damascus and the East.

The Roman taxes were bought up by the publicani, men of wealth and credit, in later times by Roman knights, who paid a fixed sum into the state treasury (in publicum). Under them were “chiefs of publicans” who were in charge of an entire taxing district (like Zacchæus), and under these again common collectors who took in the taxes. “A man called Matthew” most probably belonged to the latter class, and he collected the duty on goods that moved into and through Capernaum. He was a custom officer, and in order to hold that position had to know Greek and to be well educated. These collectors were hated and despised by the Jews, both because they served the Roman oppressors and thus lacked all patriotism, and because of their greedy exactions, for they usually demanded all they could get in order to enrich themselves. Naturally, only men of lower types of character took positions of this kind. We must note the humility with which Matthew designates himself, omitting his Jewish name Levi and that of his father Alphæus. All he does is to identify himself as the one chosen in 10:3 as one of the Twelve.

Although his call meant everything to him personally, he records only the simple facts. Jesus saw him and said only the one word, “Be following me!” He responded immediately; Luke 5:27 adds, “he forsook all.” He got right up (ἀναστάς) and “did follow him,” the aorist indicating that he did this permanently. It is plain that he must have had decisive personal contact with Jesus prior to this call, but nothing is said about it either in his own record or in that of the other evangelists. The call to attach himself to Jesus permanently involved financial loss, yet it replaced that loss with infinite spiritual gain. Perhaps Matthew was the last of the Twelve to be called. The fact that one of them should come from the despised class of the publicans is highly significant. How he came to have the name “Matthew” or Theodore is nowhere stated.

Matthew 9:10

10 And it came to pass while he was reclining at table in the house that, lo, many publicans and sinners, having come, were reclining at table together with Jesus and his disciples. Luke 5:29 records that Levi made a great feast in his house for Jesus. The exact time is not indicated; compare v. 18. This feast has the appearance of being a celebration in honor of Jesus who had deigned to call Matthew, a publican, to be a permanent follower of his. The Hebraistic turn καὶἐγένετοκαί followed by a finite verb is common in the Gospels. We translate the second καὶ “that,” since it introduces the thing that came to pass.

The whole expression is circumstantial and introduces an occurrence of importance. On the grammar see R. 1042. Some are inclined to think that the first αὐτοῦ refers to Jesus, and that ἐντῇοἰκία with its article refers to the house of Jesus to which Matthew and these publicans and sinners were invited (ἐλθόντες) by Jesus. But why should Matthew and Luke differ on a little point such as this? If the first αὐτοῦ has the force; “he (Jesus) reclining at table in the house (that of Jesus),” Matthew could not withhold the name “Jesus” until toward the end of the sentence; he would have to write: “And it came to pass while Jesus was reclining … reclined with him (αὐτῷ) and his disciples.” It is because αὐτοῦ refers to Matthew that toward the end we have no pronoun but the name τῷἸησοῦ.

The present participle in the genitive absolute and then the imperfect tense of the main verb are beautifully descriptive. As the host Matthew takes his place on the couch, and it is understood that Jesus and his disciples do the same. The invited publicans and sinners who had come (ἐλθόντες) do likewise, and we thus see them as they “were reclining” in this intimate association with (σύν in the verb) no less a person than Jesus himself. The sentence is perfect in construction.

The fact that the publicans were “sinners” in the popular estimation, i.e., disreputable persons, does not need to be stated. The ἁμαρτωλοί are other men (no women would be present) of this general type who were classed as being outside of the Jewish pale (John 9:24, etc.), who, indeed, were living lives contrary to the divine law. But we dare not stop at this point and conclude that Christians in general and Christian pastors in particular may thus freely associate with men of the type here indicated. These publicans and sinners knew why they were invited, namely in order that Jesus might free them from their sins. It was he who had control of the entire situation and kept control of it, doing his necessary and blessed work upon them. This is an entirely different thing from being drawn into questionable company where we stoop to the low level of those present and allow them to use us for their purposes.

Matthew 9:11

11 And when the Pharisees had seen it they said to his disciples, On what ground is your teacher eating in company with the publicans and sinners? We need not ask how the Pharisees saw what took place. They were always on the track of Jesus and thus noted the company that assembled at the house of this publican Matthew. They themselves would not enter and contaminate themselves by entering. They hovered about on the outside until the guests departed and then assailed the disciples; for despite their hostility to Jesus they never show any real courage in facing him on the issues they feel constrained to raise. With διατί they ask for the ground or reason of this practice on the part of Jesus (ἐσθίε, durative present), his eating with this class of people (one article combining publicans and sinners); compare the different ἱνατί in v. 4, which inquires after the purpose.

The Pharisees shunned such people as outcasts and expected that Jesus would do no less. When he acted quite otherwise, they held this against him, Luke 15:1, 2. How could the disciples follow a διδάσκαλος whose practice was of this kind?

Matthew 9:12

12 But when Jesus heard it he said, The healthy have no need of a physician, but they that are ill. But go and learn what this means, Mercy I want and not sacrifice; for I did not come to call righteous men but sinners. Perhaps Jesus saw the Pharisees questioning his disciples and thus heard about their objection to his conduct. Promptly he himself answers these men. His reply is an argumentum ad hominem which answers them on the basis of their own premises. They imagined that they were οἱἰσχύοντες, “those that are strong,” sound, and healthy; and certainly they looked upon the publicans and sinners as “those that are ill,” οἱκακῶςἔχοντες, the verb ἔχω with an adverb always meaning “to be.” According to their own finding Jesus’ course is justified.

A physician is for the sick not for the healthy. It would be ridiculous and wrong for a doctor to remain away from his patients. It is his very business to deal with the sick in order to cure them, though without contaminating himself. Jesus does not associate with men of questionable lives in the ordinary way as “birds of a feather flock together.” His great mission is to seek and to save the lost. He is the divine ἰατρός or Physician: “I am the Lord that healeth thee,” Exod. 15:26. We know his power and his remedies.

These Pharisees, however, refuse his healing ministrations and delude themselves that all is well with them. Yet in their heartlessness they would let those whom they themselves call sick perish. Their guilt is double, their disease twofold.

Matthew 9:13

13 Jesus can do nothing but dismiss these self-deluded Pharisees. Yet in doing so, physician that he is, he gives them the remedy that they need, hoping that they may take it and return to him for complete healing. Jesus tells them to go and learn what the Lord said in Hos. 6:6: “Mercy I want and not sacrifice,” i.e., merely sacrifice. “Mercy,” ἔλεος, is pity and sympathy with the suffering. God’s great mercy embraces us, and so he wants to fill us, too, with the quality of mercy. “Be ye therefore merciful as your Father is also merciful,” Luke 6:36. “Sacrifice,” θυσία, the offering itself as well as the act of bringing it, is here placed in opposition to “mercy,” hence the latter must mean human mercy. Here it is the merciful feeling that would bring the true Physician and his help to those that are sick. This the Pharisees not only lacked but even failed to understand.

To their blind eyes the Scriptures were dark on this vital point as on so many others. They made their boast and their reliance the outward act of sacrifice and omitted what alone could make this act acceptable unto God, divinely-wrought mercy and love in their hearts, the reflection of God’s mercy in themselves. They simply scorned and expelled publicans and sinners and made no effort to reach and to help them. Hence the command to go and learn what this is, μάθετε, the aorist imperative to indicate actual learning.

“For” indicates that, when the Pharisees have learned the sense of this divine word, they will understand the purpose and the work of Jesus, that he did not come in his great mission “to call righteous men but sinners.” For the figurative language of v. 12 Jesus now substitutes the literal. He thus still continues the argumentum ad hominem. He takes these Pharisees’ own estimate that they are, indeed, “righteous men.” Then, of course, they do not need him. His business has to do only with “sinners,” the unrighteous, to give them the true righteousness. But the very way in which the argument is stated shatters the supposition of these Pharisees that they are really δίκαιοι, able to stand before God’s judgment bar. They had to feel that their claim to be righteous shut their own mouths when they complained about the help Jesus was offering to unrighteous sinners whom they only despised.

And thus the hollowness of their own claim became apparent. Could they really be righteous when they knew no mercy for the sinners, were blind to the prophet’s word demanding that they have mercy, and railed at the merciful Physician who labored among those who, according to these Pharisees themselves, so sorely needed his help? We thus see how the reply of Jesus to these Pharisees was a masterful effort to reach their hearts; for they were even worse sinners than those whom they despised.

In the Gospels the verb καλεῖν has the sense of “to invite,” namely with the power of grace which kindles faith and attaches to Jesus. As thus used, many are called, yet not all are won. In the epistles καλεῖν and the cognate terms have a narrower sense, “to invite effectively” so that acceptance is included.

Matthew 9:14

14 Then there come to him the disciples of John, saying, What is the reason that we and the Pharisees fast many times while thy disciples do not fast? Jesus and his disciples had just come from the feast in Matthew’s house; and this seems to have occurred on a day when the disciples of John and the Pharisees likewise thought they had to fast (Mark 2:18). Here they were fasting, and the disciples of Jesus were feasting! The Baptist himself was in prison, 4:12; 11:2. Such of his disciples as were still attached to him were left to themselves. We here see them in touch with Jesus, and again two of them in 11:2.

With διατί (compare v. 11) they ask the reason for this difference, in other words, who is right in this matter of fasting? Their question is not prompted by hostility but by perplexity. They want to know the reason for this great difference in regard to fasting.

The only fasting demanded by the law was that on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27, etc.) The Pharisees voluntarily fasted twice in the week in their pretense to holiness; see 6:16; Luke 18:12. They are mentioned here only in a general way as people being given to regular fasting. The Baptist’s stern call to repentance would naturally go together with fasting although none of the evangelists has preserved to us the exact teaching of the Baptist on this point. All that we can gather is that he had allowed his disciples to continue the practice of fasting. By not asking his disciples to fast Jesus in no way contradicted the law. We see in 6:17 that he was by no means opposed to fasting as such when it was done for the proper purpose and in the proper way.

Note that these disciples of John come to Jesus himself with their perplexity and do not, as the Pharisees, take their accusation to the disciples of Jesus, v. 11. They want enlightenment, the Pharisees want to discredit Jesus.

Matthew 9:15

15 And Jesus said to them, Certainly, the sons of the bridal hall cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is in their company? But there will come days when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then they shall fast. The interrogative particle μή assumes that a negative answer will be given. In a very simple way Jesus describes the present condition of his disciples to the followers of John. They are like men at a wedding, even “the sons of the bridal hall,” die Hochzeitsgesellen, the bridegroom’s friends who have charge of all the wedding arrangements; see Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, I, 354, etc.; 663, etc. How could they possibly be in sorrow and mourning when the bridegroom is in their midst?

We must stop with the relation here sketched and not bring in the bride or other essentials of a wedding. But πενθεῖν, “to be mourning,” should be noted. Fasting accompanies mourning and is not to be a mechanical arrangement that is followed merely on fixed days. When the heart is bowed down, fasting is a proper expression of its feelings. Who cares to eat at all, or more than a little, when he is greatly depressed?

Jesus predicts the coming of very sad days for the disciples who are now so happy with him, “when the bridegroom shall be taken from them,” the days when Jesus shall lie dead in the tomb. Then, indeed, they shall fast, and no one will need to tell them to do so.

Matthew 9:16

16 More must be said. The question in regard to fasting is only a small part of a far greater subject. Hence to understand fully why the disciples of Jesus are not fasting at present, also how they will come to fast in a way that is totally different from that of the Jews, Jesus explains that what he brings cannot be fastened to an outworn garment as a mere patch, nor be confined in old, dried wineskins, like new wine. Moreover, no one fastens a patch of new goods on an old garment; for its filling tears something away from the garment, and the rent becomes worse. The new consideration is indicated by δέ. Jesus is not like a foolish woman who patches an old outer robe that begins to give way with a patch (ἐπίβλημα) taken from a piece of goods (ῥάκος) that is fresh from the loom (ἄγναφος).

The reason is that the piece used to fill in (τὸπλήρωμααὐτοῦ) tears or carries away something from the old garment (ἀπὸτοῦἱματίου, partitive: a portion from the robe) and leaves the rent worse than it was before. To preserve the old by attaching a little of the new is worse than useless. Discard the old entirely and accept the new completely. Not a new patch but a new robe.

Jesus is uttering a principle, one on which he acts and is training his disciples to act. John’s disciples were perplexed when they saw him and his disciples acting on this principle, for they did not understand either what that principle was, or how true and genuine it was. The old robe is the Judaism of that period, namely, what the scribes and the Pharisees had made of it with their doctrine and their practice, all the old formalism, outward observance, and false righteousness (5:20). It was useless to try to patch this with a bit of the teaching or the practice of Jesus. The new would only tear the old more than ever. The doctrine of grace and faith and the life that springs from it cannot possibly be combined, even in small part, with Pharisaic Judaism either in its ancient or its modernistic forms. Discard the old, rotten robe, take in its place the robe of Christ’s righteousness!

Matthew 9:17

17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed. But they put new wine into fresh skins, and both are preserved. This illustration advances the thought. The old cannot be kept by adding a little of the new, nor by combining all of the new with it. In this respect there is a parallelism of thought. But again both illustrations speak of conserving: the first, the old robe; the second, the new wine.

The old robe cannot be conserved by adding the new patch; the new wine cannot be conserved by pouring it into old wineskins. In this respect the illustrations are opposites. The second, however, ends in a climax: both the new wine and the old wineskins are lost. A wineskin was a goatskin that was removed from the animal without slitting it; the openings at the feet and the tail were bound up, leaving the neck as the mouth of the wineskin. In Palestine we saw these skins still being used by watercarriers. When it is new, the skin stretches to a certain degree; but when it is old, it becomes stiff and splits under pressure.

People, therefore, never put new wine into old and dried-out skins. The result would be disastrous, for the skins would burst, and both skins and wine would be lost. In εἰδὲμήγε we have a protasis that has been condensed to a mere formula; νέος is “new” as not having existed before, while καινός is “new” over against “old” or παλαιός. Jesus is not a foolish person who tries to combine the old Pharisaic ways with the glorious new doctrine of grace and faith, by this folly ruining both, with a result that is even worse than if he combined the old ways with a scrap of the new doctrine. Nor does Jesus want others to attempt this folly. Cast aside all the old Pharisaism with all its ways; take only the new ways of life that fit the new doctrine.

The illustrations here used have often been misapplied. Because Christ’s teaching is now old, modernistic thinkers have compared it to old, dried-out wineskins and state that it is no longer to be combined with the new religious ideas now current. They call for new moral codes and standards, new “categories of thought,” new conceptions of sin and righteousness, new visions of God, etc. But their new ideas are ancient and the teaching of Christ is still as new, true, and glorious as it was in the days when he walked on earth. The ancient Pharisaism has changed only its name and its applications; the verities which Jesus taught are still verities and will be nothing less until the end of time. Away completely with the former; let us keep only the latter, even as Jesus still tells us to do!

Matthew 9:18

18 While he was saying these things to them, lo, a certain ruler, having come, worships him, saying, My daughter just died; but, after coming, place thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Compare Mark 5:21 and Luke 8:40. Matthew furnishes the exact sequence of events. In the morning Jesus returned to Capernaum from the country of the Gadarenes and went to his own house. There a crowd gathered, and he healed the paralytic. Then Jesus dined at Matthew’s house, probably in the late afternoon, and following the meal he answered the Pharisees and the disciples of John.

Matthew’s office and house, we assume, was located at the landing place on the road beside the lake. Thus “he was now by the sea,” Mark 5:21. As he was still speaking to John’s disciples, Jairus appeared, one of the rulers of the synagogue whom Matthew designates only as ἄρχωνεἶς (the latter word being used like the indefinite τὶς), “a certain ruler.” On this indefinite use of the numeral compare 12:11; 18:5; 21:19. The ruler prostrates himself before Jesus in the Oriental fashion of utmost humility and utters his petition. Mark writes ἐσχάτωςἔχει, “she is at the last,” i.e., at the point of death; Luke, αὕτηἀπέθνησκεν, “she was dying,” i.e., when the father left. Matthew, however, writes ἄρτιἐτελεύτησεν, “she just died.” Matthew narrates the entire story in a single paragraph while Mark and Luke devote much more space to it.

So Matthew omits mention of the coming of the messengers who tell Jairus that death had just set in. Instead of adding these details, Matthew at once lets us learn the essential fact from Jairus, namely, that his daughter was actually dead. The explanation that in his perturbation Jairus overstated the case and called the girl dead when she was only at the point of death affords no solution but merely inverts the matter.

When Jairus asks that Jesus shall come and lay his hand upon his daughter he is thinking of other cases in which Jesus touched the person when working the miracle and assumes that Jesus will do so in this case. To be sure, this is less faith than that of the centurion (8:8), yet when Jairus says, ζήσεται, “she shall live,” he shows that his faith is by no means insignificant.

Matthew 9:19

19 And having started, Jesus followed him, also his disciples. The participle ἐγερθείς, like ἀναστάς, by no means compels us to assume that Jesus was sitting and thus arose, or that he was still reclining at table in Matthew’s house and arose to go with Jairus. This participle is used to mark the beginning of an action in the sense of “having started”; we may translate, “And Jesus up and followed him.” Matthew indicates that he is acquainted with all the details of the story although he omits them from his record; for he mentions the fact that also the disciples went along. From Mark’s and from Luke’s accounts we know that Jesus took three of them, Peter, John, and James, into the room where he brought the child back to life.

Matthew 9:20

20 And lo, a woman, suffering hemorrhage for twelve years, having come up behind, touched the tassel of his robe; for she was saying within herself, If only I may touch his robe I will be restored. Eusebius calls her Veronica, a heathen from Paneas; the Acts of Pilate call her Bernice. We credit neither story, least of all that she was a heathen. The nature of her ailment is not determined by the mere participle, and guesses are gratuitous. From Mark’s and from Luke’s accounts we gather that the drain on her strength was constant, for it ceased the moment the woman touched the tassel. She was ashamed to expose her case; moreover, her ailment rendered her Levitically unclean.

Matthew omits mention of the fact that for twelve years (accusative of extent of time) she had vainly spent her money in seeking a cure, and that thus at this time her case was beyond human help. Matthew says nothing about the crowds that accompanied Jairus and Jesus. He states only that, working her way up behind him, she reached out and touched the tassel of his robe. Like all true Jews, Jesus wore the shimla, a square cloth that was used as an outer robe and had tassels (tsitsith, κράσπεδον) at the four corners according to the requirement laid down in Deut. 22:12. The tassels were attached to blue cords. The Pharisees loved to make the tassels large and prominent in order to display their compliance with the law.

Two of the corners of the shimla were thrown back over the shoulders so that two of the tassels hung down the back. One of these the woman managed to touch.

Matthew 9:21

21 This she did with the inner conviction that the touch would bring her healing; σωθήσομαι, “I shall be saved,” i.e., from my ailment.

Matthew 9:22

22 But Jesus, having turned and seen her, said, Cheer up, daughter, thy faith has restored thee! And the woman was restored from that very hour. Matthew is again very brief as compared with Mark and with Luke; he notes only the mere essentials. Jesus does not let the woman slip away as she desired to do. And does this first because of his concern for her and secondly because of the others present. They, too, are to know what has been done for her.

She is to know just how she has come to be healed. According to Mark and to Luke, Jesus makes her declare herself, which she does with fear and trembling, thinking that Jesus may be angry with her. But his purpose is to impress upon her the fact that she was healed by his knowledge and his will. Many in that throng touched Jesus and nothing resulted. Only to this woman’s touch of faith did Jesus respond with his power. With the bidding, θάρσει, θύγατερ!

Jesus dispels all her fear and reveals his tender concern and love.

Those who refer to superstition on the woman’s part which manifested itself in her merely touching the tassel, or to magnetism on Jesus’ part as producing the healing, misunderstand this miracle; for superstition obtains no instantaneous or any other cures, and magnetism, electric current, etc., bestow no instantaneous, miraculous cures. Why not accept the word of the Savior who tells this women, “Thy faith has restored thee”? Certainly, her faith not as the causa efficiens which was the will and the power of Jesus, but as the ὄργανονληπτικόν, the hand that received the gift. The idea that this woman’s faith rested only on touching his garment and not on Jesus’ Word, is also untenable. Luther has a better idea: she believes that divine, omnipotent power resides in Jesus; that he can answer the secret, unspoken trust of her heart; that all she needs is the Word and the preaching by which he has made himself known, and she uses the touch of his garment only in some way to come into contact with him. Who has seen such wonderful people: this Jairus who trusts that the hand of Jesus touching his dead child can bring back her life, and this woman who trusts that her touch of his garment will bring her restoration?

No wonder that Jesus rewarded such faith. The perfect σέσωκε reaches back to the instant in which Jesus restored her and includes her continued restoration; the same effect is produced by the aorist ἐσώθη followed by ἀπό.

Matthew 9:23

23 And when Jesus had come to the house of the ruler and had seen the flute players and the crowd making a din, he was saying: Be leaving, for the girl did not die but is sleeping. And they were laughing him to scorn. Matthew at once takes us to the house where the Jewish mourning is in full blast. Judging from the indications of time in this chapter, it must have been toward dusk, and the child would be buried the next morning. Matthew alone mentions the hired “flute players”; beside them would be found the hired wailing women with hair streaming, beating their breasts and filling the air with loud moans and bursts of sobs. The prominence of the family would call for a goodly number of these hired mourners.

Besides there would be present many friends of this important family. The whole house was thus full of noise. Paid mourners were professionals at the business, and the custom of having them in houses of mourning and at funerals dates far back, even beyond the times of Jeremiah (9:17), and is found among Jews and pagans alike. Naturally, Jesus would order these people out and hush them; a deed such as he was about to do called for the decency and the dignity of silence.

Matthew 9:24

24 The word with which Jesus put out the noisy crowd has sometimes been misunderstood as though it implied that the girl had merely lapsed into a coma and appeared to be dead while still holding to life. “Did not die” is taken to deny the death, and “sleepeth” is understood to refer to sleep. But the people who were ordered out of the room knew better; from their loud wailing they turned to scornful laughter at this word of Jesus, sie lachten ihn aus. According to Mark 5:35 Jairus is informed: ἀπέθανεν, “she did die”; Luke 8:49 has τέθνηκεν, “she has died” and thus is dead, and adds the statement that the people “knew that she died.” The explanation that Jesus spoke as he did because he wanted to veil his miracle, is unacceptable; he does not equivocate or deceive. “Did not die but is sleeping” is spoken in view of the omnipotent power and will of him who can bring life back with a word. The word is true because of him who makes it true. What is gained by the rationalistic assumption of a coma? Can human power abolish a coma with a grasp and a word? Note the two imperfect tenses ἔλεγεν and κατεγέλων; they picture the scene in its progress and hold us in suspense as to the outcome.

Matthew 9:25

25 Now when the crowd was put out, having gone in, he grasped her hand, and the girl rose up. Here we again have marked abbreviation. Nothing is said about the five witnesses who were admitted to the death chamber, the word spoken to the girl, the resulting amazement, and other details found in Mark and in Luke. The latter adds: ἐπέστρεψεντὸπνεῦμααὐτῆς, “her spirit did return,” leaving not even the shadow of a doubt that the girl had been dead and was brought back to life. With a record of this restoration of the dead unto life Matthew is content—all the details are entirely minor. Note that after the two imperfects in v. 24 two aorists report the outcome and thus conclude the action.

Matthew 9:26

26 And this report went out into that entire land. The parents may have followed the command to tell no one what had been done (Luke 8:56), but the miracle itself could not be kept quiet: it stood out above the other miracles, forming a climax to all of them.

Matthew 9:27

27 And as Jesus was passing along from there, two blind men followed him, yelling and saying, Show us mercy, Son of David! It was the evening of this memorable day. Jesus is on his way home after having performed the miracle at the house of Jairus. Here two blind men, led by somebody, follow Jesus with the loud yell that he have mercy on them, ἐλεέω is transitive. The exceptional feature is that they address him as “Son of David,” a Jewish designation for the Messiah, bearing with it the conception of kingship and royal dominion. Jesus walks along the street and pays no attention to these petitioners. “Son of David,” like “Messiah,” bore a political significance to the Jews, one that Jesus did not want to foster in the minds of the people who would thus be moved to the attempt to make him a political king. That seems to be the real reason why Jesus disregards these blind men on the public street.

Matthew 9:28

28 Now when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him. And Jesus says to them, Do you believe that I am able to do this? They say to him, Yes, Lord. Already the aorist ἠκολούθησαν indicates that the blind men were successful in their following Jesus. The article with οἰκίαν points to the particular house in which Jesus made his home in Capernaum. We see that the blind men persist in their request for help.

The question of Jesus in regard to their faith in his power to heal them does not imply, as has been supposed, that their calling him “Son of David” is insufficient evidence of faith in his power; for their cry for mercy proves that very faith. Nor does this question imply that it is always necessary to have faith before Jesus can work a miracle of healing or of help. This generalization is voided by the cases in which the miracles precede faith and in which faith is expected to follow, compare the healing of the two demoniacs in 8:28, etc. The purpose of Jesus’ question is to turn the thoughts of these blind men way from any political Messianic ideas regarding Jesus and to direct them to the divine power and grace found in him. The emphasis is not merely on “do you believe” but equally on the object clause, “that I am able to do this.” One who is able to restore sight by means of a touch and a word is far greater than any national king, however grand his reign may be.

Matthew 9:29

29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you! Jesus now heals them at once. Since they were blind, the touch of Jesus had a special significance. This did not imply that he conveyed his power through the physical touch but that he let them feel that his power and his will were dealing with their blind eyes. “According to your faith” mentions faith, not as being the causa efficiens, in fact, not as being the cause in any sense (contra R. 609), but as being the norm. The measure of their expectant trust is matched by the measure of help extended by the word and the will of Jesus. Their trust in his divine power is justified by what this divine power works in them. Note the punctiliar force of the aorist γενηθήτω: “let it be on the instant!”

Matthew 9:30

30 And their eyes were opened, i.e., to perfect sight. The aorist states the astounding fact. So brief the record, so tremendous the fact it reports. And Jesus sternly charged them, See to it, let no one know! The verb ἐμβριάομαι is very strong, “to snort at one,” anherrschen, here to demand in the sternest way. The reason for this sternness lies in the manner in which these men called Jesus the Son of David.

The claim that Jesus did not wish to be known as a worker of miracles is not tenable, for he constantly worked miracles in the most public way before great multitudes, and the report of his miracles penetrated even to the countries round about. These commands to keep silent have each their specific purpose. In this instance the aim cannot be that no one is to find out that Jesus healed these blind men, for all their relatives and their friends would see their restored eyes and thus know what had happened. The object must be that Jesus is not to be proclaimed as the Son of David. Yet he could not specify this point and the reasons for not allowing himself to be broadcast as the great heir to David’s throne; for such explanations could not be made clear to these men, mere beginners in faith that they were.

Matthew 9:31

31 They, however, having gone out, advertised him in that entire land. Let us hope that they kept still about anything that suggested a political tinge to Jewish minds. It seems to be poor gratitude thus to do, in a way at least, what their great benefactor ordered them not to do. But they probably intended it as real gratitude to him.

Matthew 9:32

32 Jesus has not yet completed his labor for the day. Now while they were going out, lo, they brought to him a dumb demoniac. The connection of time is plainly marked: those coming in passed those going out. To the more remarkable miracles which have already been related in this chapter these last two which are less remarkable are added because they occurred on the same day. By giving us this list of miracles in chapters 8 and 9 Matthew takes us through a few days of the full tide of Jesus’ ministry. Friends or relatives brought in this poor sufferer.

The demon that possessed him inhibited his power of speech. Comparing this man with the two described in 8:28, we see how differently demoniacal possession affected its victims. The supposition that this man’s loss of speech was due to natural causes is not tenable. For the words and the deeds of Jesus regard him as one who was actually possessed.

Matthew 9:33

33 And when the demon was expelled, the dumb man spoke. Merely the two facts, the historical aorist participle indicating the one, and the historical principal verb the other, λαλεῖν meaning “to utter,” the opposite of being silent. And the multitudes were filled with wonder, saying, Never was it seen thus in Israel. But the Pharisees were saying, In conjunction with the ruler of the demons does he expel the demons. When closing his two chapters on the miracles of Jesus, Matthew summarizes the general effect produced upon the people. The statement about the wonder of “the multitudes” cannot be restricted to this last miracle, for no multitude was present when this was performed, this miracle, also, being less impressive than others recorded in this section.

The people are speaking of all that they have witnessed and heard from other witnesses. In the entire history of Israel nothing has ever appeared that is comparable to all that Jesus has just done. The second passive aorist ἐφάνη is impersonal: “it did appear,” hence, “it was seen.”

Matthew 9:34

34 The remark regarding the Pharisees and what they kept saying (ἔλεγον, imperfect) is questioned by some who say that it does not belong in this place since a similar remark occurs in 12:24. But the two remarks are not identical. There is no reason to think that the Pharisees did not repeat this vicious explanation and finally adopt it as a fixed reply to Jesus. The fact that they have an answer only to the miracles wrought upon demoniacs indicates that they had no reply for all the other miracles. Matthew thus informs us that in his miracles Jesus met this opposition and that it centered only on this one type of miracle. We take ἐν in its ordinary meaning: “in connection with,” “in union with.” The Pharisees charged that Jesus was in league with Satan whom they call “the ruler of the demons.” Satan obliges Jesus by withdrawing the demons from their victims when Jesus wants this done.

In due time Jesus exploded this charge. It is typical of all the “explanations” which unbelief has given regarding the miracles.

We may here glance at some of the efforts to explain the miracles of Christ. The miracles are divided into the following clases: exorcisms, cures of diseases, nature miracles. The last-named are the most difficult to explain, and the modernist sometimes finds that “it is necessary to question the literal accuracy of the narrative.” But we ask, if “the literal accuracy,” or as it is also stated, “the historicity of these narratives,” is “questioned,” which means denied, what have we left? Only what the questioner may offer us. What the inspired writer recorded is taken from us, what the “modern mind” thinks is substituted.

Why apply this process of reasoning only to the nature miracles? Scientific consistency ought to apply it to all the miracles, and not to the miracles alone but to Scripture in general. This would give us a Bible made by the “modern mind” according to its own ideas, subject also to any future changes this “mind” may find desirable. The following is a sample which removes the literalness and the historicity of the text: “The miracle of the stilling of the storm may have been a complete change in the minds of the disciples, rather than in the actual state of the weather.” To the “modern mind” exorcism “can easily be explained on psychological principles, which are gradually being understood.” The curing of diseases—advanced leprosy, paralysis, and we may add congenital blindness and deformity of limbs—is explained as being due to “the intense convictions” and “the unique personal force” of Jesus, and “thus need cause no serious difficulty.” But such hazy remarks are unsatisfactory and do not do justice to the facts in the case.

Matthew 9:35

35 And Jesus continued to go about all the cities and the villages, engaged in teaching in their synagogues and in proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and in healing every disease and every sickness. This repeats 4:23 with only minor verbal changes. The program outlined in 4:23 is thus completed, yet we now learn that Jesus continued it. What Matthew has in chapters 5–9 shown us of the preaching, teaching, and miracles is only a grand sample of Christ’s constant ministry. On the details of this verse compare 4:23.

Matthew 9:36

36 But when he saw the multitudes he was filled with compassion for them because they were distressed and prostrate like sheep not having a shepherd. From the work of Jesus, Matthew takes us to the motive that lay back of all this work, the Lord’s great compassion. The aorist tense is historical and refers to a specific time, when, standing, perhaps, on a height with the Twelve, he saw the multitudes coming toward him from various directions. The verb σπλαγχνίζομαι means to have the viscera moved, lungs, heart, and liver, which are considered to be the seat of the feelings, such as love, pity, etc. We may say, “his heart was stirred.” Of the three words translated “being compassionate” this is the strongest, for it indicates not only a pained feeling at sight of suffering, but in addition a strong desire to relieve and to remove the sufferings; συμπάσχειν stops with the sympathy which feels the other’s suffering, and ἐλεεῖν means to show mildness or kindness. On Christ’s compassion compare 14:14; 15:32; Mark 1:41; 6:34; Luke 7:13. “These instances in which the compassion of Jesus is expressly recorded are so much, evidence, proving that his heart was ever filled with merciful kindness and feelings of pity for the distressed of every description.

Whenever and wherever suffering and sorrow of body or soul met his eyes, his heart was moved with compassion. The compassion of Jesus is one of the deepest, richest, most comforting of all his Savior qualities.” The author’s His Footsteps, 245.

The casual observer of the multitudes would never have seen what Jesus saw. This required a heart such as the Savior’s. The two perfect participles are regarded as adjectives; their tense describes a present condition as resulting from a past act. Ἐσκυλμένοι means, “having been flayed,” or milder, “having the skin torn,” as this happens to sheep wandering among brambles and sharp rocks. Ἐρριμμένοι (variously spelled, from ῥήγνυμι) means, “thrown down prone and helpless” like exhausted, spent sheep; this verb is used with reference to corpses lying prostrate on the ground. Both participles are made vivid by the comparison: “like sheep not having a shepherd.” Soon they look abject, torn and exhausted, a sight to rend the heart.

What follows shows that Jesus is thinking of the spiritual condition of the people. Such shepherds as they had were no shepherds, were often worse than none. Their souls received no wholesome spiritual food and care, for, as far as that was concerned, they were left to shift for themselves. Material and physical destitution moves our humanitarian age deeply, but who cares for or even sees spiritual distress? Matthew’s description of the compassion of Jesus is so striking that in all probability he derived it from an expression uttered by Jesus himself.

Matthew 9:37

37 Then he says to his disciples, The harvest abundant, the workers few. Ask, therefore, of the Lord of the harvest that he throw out workers into his harvest. Here Matthew makes the transition to the new section, the commissioning of the apostles. We also see how the compassion of Jesus at once manifests itself in action. First, Jesus points to the two great facts: “the harvest abundant—the workers few.” The beautiful balance of μέν and δέ cannot be reproduced in English; the “truly” and “but” of our versions is too coarse. Jesus does not say, “the field is large,” i.e., to till and to sow. He views only the harvest. We must remain with the tertium comparationis and not speak of sowing, cultivating, and producing the harvest. The harvest has already been produced—Jesus sees it.

“The harvest” is sometimes misunderstood. Some think that it refers to the multitudes that Jesus saw coming to him; but some of these people would not be gathered into the heavenly garner. The great missionary authority G. Warneck looks at the harvest through synergistic eyes; he thinks of it as representing the seekers after God, supposing that even among the heathen there is a “better” class of men. Yet all are equally lost, and by nature none seek after God. He is found by them that sought him not, Isa. 65:1; Rom. 10:20; compare John 6:44.

Others think of the gathering of a new congregation from the scattered old congregation, namely its receptive members. The harvest are the sheep which the Lord knows, including also “the other sheep,” John 10:14, etc. “The Lord knoweth them that are his,” 2 Tim. 2:19. By “the harvest” Jesus means all those in whom the work of God’s grace succeeds. And this harvest is πολύς, “much” or “abundant.” The number of those that will be saved is large. Like a great, ripe field of grain they stand before the eyes of Jesus, needing only to be gathered in.

That is why he speaks of “the workers.” Up to this point Jesus alone was working at bringing in the harvest, training the Twelve at the same time, so that they were now ready to help him. How small this number, considering Palestine alone! The remarkable thing is that Jesus asks the disciples to be concerned about this paucity of workers, and that in a significant way: “they are to ask the Lord of the harvest to throw workers into the harvest.” According to 3:12 Jesus himself might be considered the owner of the harvest, but in 3:12 we have a different imagery. Here God is “the Lord of the harvest,” its Κύριος, not only the owner, but the one who controls the entire management of the harvest. God has put this harvest and its ingathering into Jesus’ hands. It is his great mission to bring in this harvest.

That explains all he has already done and all he will yet do, including his atoning death and resurrection. Without him the harvest could not at all be brought in. In the compassion of Jesus for the lost sheep and in his word to the Twelve we see his own deep, personal concern for the harvest. He has, however, now trained the Twelve sufficiently so that they can join him in this concern. And that to the extent that they not only themselves lay hands to the work of ingathering but also see the need of more workers and are moved to pray for them.

Matthew 9:38

38 Verbs of praying are construed with ὅπως, which ἵνα has not crowded out, B.-D. 392, 1; R. 995. We cannot argue that the Lord of the harvest, owning it as he does, will naturally see to it that it is brought in. We may be sure that he will do so even without our prayer (as Luther remarks in connection with the Second Petition of the Lord’s Prayer). Our prayers do not save the harvest or even a part of it. Our prayers unite in God’s concern for the harvest, make us of one mind, heart, and will with him, partners of Jesus himself. The matter goes much deeper than rationalizing thoughts are able to penetrate.

Jesus does not tell the disciples to go out and to get workers. This mistake has often been made, and workers are brought in that God has not called. The harvest is God’s, and he must provide the workers, ἐκβάλλεινεἰς, “throw them out into the harvest,” i.e., hurry them out. All that we are to do is “to ask” this of God, and we know that this is his will, and that he will hear our request. He is the one who in his own way will find and send out the workers. The wonder will always remain that God, the primal cause, uses us and our prayers, the secondary causes, and does not discard them.

The secret of this conjunction lies in the infinite grace of the divine will which unites him and us through Jesus. When one note is struck, the other responds, keyed as they are to the one tone. What a blessed relation between the workers in the harvest and the Lord of the harvest!

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner