Matthew 18:21–35

Matthew 18:21–35 (ESV): The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

Synopsis

In the last passage Jesus talked about how to handle the situation when a fellow believer sins against you. In this passage, and I assume in response to Jesus’ words, Peter asks him: “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” (verse 21 (ESV)). Jesus’ response? Not seven times, but seventy times seven. (The footnote indicates that this could also be translated “seventy seven times,” but the actual number isn’t important, since it’s clear that Jesus is not being literal; he’s essentially saying that when we’re forgiving someone who is sinning against us we shouldn’t be counting the number of times we forgive them.)

He then tells a parable to make the point. He says that “the kingdom of heaven may be compared to” a king who is settling his accounts, and comes across a servant who owes him “ten thousand talents,” which, according to the footnote, would equate to about 200,000 days’ wages for a labourer. (For those who aren’t good at math, assuming that a labourer were working every single day of his life, that would equate to over 500 years’ worth of wages—not including leap years and that type of thing.) The person is not able to pay, so the king orders him to be sold—along with his wife, children, and possessions—to repay the debt. But the servant falls on his knees and begs the king for patience, saying that he’ll repay the debt. The king has pity on him, releases him, and even cancels the debt altogether.

Then, when the servant leaves the king’s presence, he comes across a fellow servant, who owes him a hundred denarii (which is about a hundred days’ wages). The first servant seizes the second servant by the throat and demands payment, and the second servant begs for patience so that he can repay the debt, but the first servant refuses and has the second servant thrown into jail until he is able to pay the debt.

This makes it back to the king:

“Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt.” (verses 32–34 (ESV), Jesus speaking)

Jesus sums up by saying:

“So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (verse 35 (ESV))

Thoughts

As usual I’m relying on the ESV Study Bible for background material, and they mention that according to Jewish traditions at the time forgiving someone three times was sufficient to show a forgiving spirit. They further mention that these traditions would have been based on passages such as these from the Old Testament:

“Behold, God does all these things,
  twice, three times, with a man,
to bring back his soul from the pit,
  that he may be lighted with the light of life.”

(Job 33:29–30 (ESV), Elihu speaking)

and

Thus says the LORD:

  “For three transgressions of Damascus,
    and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,
  because they have threshed Gilead
    with threshing sledges of iron. …”

Amos 1:3 (ESV)

and

Thus says the LORD:

  “For three transgressions of Israel,
    and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,
  because they sell the righteous for silver,
    and the needy for a pair of sandals …”

Amos 2:6 (ESV)

Therefore, the ESV Study Bible points out, when Peter suggested forgiving his brother seven times, he probably thought this was very forgiving indeed—more than double what would have been considered at the time to be very Godly and forgiving!

However, what Jesus wants us to see in this passage is how much we ourselves have been forgiven by God, and use that as the basis for how forgiving we should be to others. Notice the types of numbers that are being used here; the first servant had a debt to the king that could never possibly be repaid. Over 500 years’ worth of wages required to pay it back? The number is astronomical; there’s no way that a servant would ever be able to pay it back. So the king, out of the goodness of his own heart, forgives the debt. The second servant still owes a large amount, it’s not negligible, but it’s nothing compared to the number that was forgiven of the first servant.

The parallel to the gospel is obvious. We are sinners and God is holy—it would be impossible to ever pay for our sins to His satisfaction, to allow us into His presence. So He “forgave” that “debt”—except that He isn’t just holy, He is also just, so that sin had to be paid for somehow. So His Son, Jesus, takes the punishment that we deserve, our “debt” is paid, and we are allowed into his presence. Something we could never have accomplished on our own, just like the first servant would never have been able to pay back his debt of ten thousand talents to the king.

The application is equally obvious. When we consider all that God has forgiven from us, through no deservedness of our own, forgiving others shouldn’t seem like a big deal. Considering the amounts of money involved, it seems so over-the-top petty for the first servant to be forgiven over 500 years’ worth of wages and not forgive 100 days’ worth of wages, and similarly it should seem petty to us to have been forgiven an entire lifetime’s worth of sin by God, and then not forgive a fellow Christian who sins against us. In fact, verse 35 says that the Heavenly Father will not forgive us if we don’t forgive others from the heart—forgiveness is such an essential aspect of a changed heart that if we are not forgiving it is a sign that we’re not saved at all. If someone claims to be a Christian, yet refuses to forgive, then that person needs to examine their heart and determine if they really are saved or just fooling themselves. Serious stuff!

Does this mean that any time a Christian fails to forgive another Christian it’s proof that they’re going to Hell? No, I don’t think so. We’re still fallen sinners, and we still fail to live up to our calling on a regular basis. But if someone consistently fails to forgive others, it’s not a good sign. It may be that the person hasn’t actually come to grips with how much has been forgiven of them by God—and it may be that the person hasn’t come to grips with that because they haven’t been forgiven at all.

Matthew 18:15–20

Matthew 18:15–20 (ESV): If Your Brother Sins Against You

Synopsis

This passage continues on with Jesus talking about sin, but he changes the focus now: What if your “brother” (meaning another believer not just your actual biological brother—and not necessarily even male) sins against you? What should you do? Yes, of course, you should forgive him—we all know that—but that’s not Jesus’ focus in this passage, he actually has some very practical advice. (Not that forgiveness is somehow impractical, but modern-day Christians, myself included, have a habit of putting the word “practical” in front of things that we can do, and somehow implying that things we don’t physically do—like when we are to pray and wait for God to act—are somehow not “practical.” Anyway…)

1. We should go to the person, privately, and tell them their “fault.” If s/he listens, then great! Or, as Jesus says,
   
   

   “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” (verse 15b (ESV))

2. If they don’t listen—i.e. if they refuse to repent, or maybe they are continuing in the sin, whatever it is—then take one or two others with you and talk to the person again. Jesus adds, “… that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses” (verse 16 (ESV)), which is an allusion to Deuteronomy 19:15 (ESV)—which shows that even though we’re not under Old Testament laws (especially the civil laws handed down to the nation of Israel), many of the principles still apply. If we get to the next step of the process—if the brother or sister being corrected still refuses to listen—this should not become a simple personal disagreement between two people.
3. If they still don’t listen, then take it to the church. Jesus doesn’t specifically outline how one is to do this, but by the context it seems that the entire church should somehow be involved in telling this person that what they are doing (or what they have done) is wrong, and needs to be repented of.
4. And finally, if the person still doesn’t listen, they are to be to the church “as a Gentile and a tax collector”—that is, they are to be like an unbeliever, which is to say that it is not to be assumed that they really are a Christian.

Jesus then finishes the passage by telling us why the church has this kind of authority:

“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (verses 18–20 (ESV))

Thoughts

The actual text of the passage keeps using the masculine; if your brother sins go talk to him and if he doesn’t repent bring others to talk to him, etc. etc. I’m using gender-neutral wording, not because I’m trying to be politically correct but because I don’t want people getting the impression that this passage only applies to men. (Let’s be honest, there are a lot of strange ideas about gender in the 21^st Century Church.) But it really reads so much easier if we just use the masculine and be done with it…

Let’s go through Jesus’ advice, piece by piece.

First of all, our first action should be to talk to the person directly, one-on-one, and try to sort the matter out privately. Remember, Jesus started out the passage saying “If your brother sins against you,” (verse 15 (ESV), emphasis added)—if at all possible, we should try to fix things privately. This isn’t about getting holier-than-thou, it’s not about making yourself look good in front of others (or making your brother or sister look bad), it’s not about our seemingly endless hunger for gossip. It’s about “winning your brother.” It’s about genuinely caring about the spiritual well being of this brother or sister in Christ, and wanting to help. If we always approached things this way, I’m sure people wouldn’t mind being corrected as much as they do. (They still wouldn’t like it, but it wouldn’t be as bad.)

The next stage in the progression, if the person doesn’t listen, is to bring one or two others with you and try again. Again, we’re trying to keep this as private as possible—we’re not bringing in the whole church (yet)—we’re just trying to get this person to see the error of his or her ways. The ESV Study Bible points out (and it makes sense to me) that the “witnesses” mentioned here are not witnesses to the sin that was (or is being) committed, but witnesses to this confrontation; if things still progress, and the next phase has to occur, it is better to go to the church with these two or three people who can all say together, “we talked to the person, and s/he wouldn’t listen, and refused to repent” or whatever the situation is. Deuteronomy is talking about witnesses in a legal case; according to Old Testament law, the testimony of one witness is not enough evidence to convict someone of a crime, and similarly, if we need to bring things before the church, the testimony of one person is not to be enough for the church to kick that person out. Jesus doesn’t want us to get into situations where one person can decide to get another person kicked out of the church; there has to be evidence. It is, of course, still possible for two or three people to concoct a story to get someone kicked out of a church—we’re fallen people, and even Christians are not above this—but this isn’t meant to be foolproof; it’s a simple guard against one person arbitrarily trying to start calling the shots. In any case, if we are to get to the next step in the progression, the church has to show care, compassion, and fairness, but also take God’s Word seriously; we have to try and ensure that innocent people are not punished, and that guilty people are—or, to put it another way, we are to value justice. (“Justice” in the proper sense of the word, not meaning “vengeance”—we are to be just, as God is just.)

The next stage is to bring the matter before the church. (I keep saying “church,” not “Church” with a capital C, because this is a matter for the local church to handle—it’s not like all believers everywhere are going to weigh in when your brother or sister sins against you.) As mentioned above, Jesus doesn’t say how this is to happen, but somehow the church is to try and get across to this person that sin is being committed, and needs to be repented of. (By the time it gets to this level it seems like an ongoing sin that’s happening, not a one time thing that happened and needs to be repented of.)

Finally, if the person won’t listen to the church, they are to be treated like a non-Christian, which would usually involve removing them from church membership, having them no longer have any kind of leadership role they might have had, and whatever other disciplinary action might be in the local church’s constitution (assuming it has one). In our post-modern society, this might seem harsh—not the part about removing them from church membership, but the part about assuming that they’re not Christians. “Surely people make mistakes,” we think. “Who are we to judge?” But Jesus’ answer would be that yes, people do make mistakes, but if you are truly saved, you will repent of your mistakes. Again, that’s the whole point of this progression: not to put on our executioner’s hats and look down our noses at someone, but to lovingly bring someone to repentance. After all, if sin is being committed, it is damaging that person’s relationship with God, and that needs to be fixed. But if that person doesn’t repent—not after confronted about it, still not after being confronted again by a few people, still not even after having the entire local church tell them that what they’re doing is wrong—then this is no longer a case of “people make mistakes;” this is serious grounds for assuming that this person is not saved at all, because they’re showing evidence to the contrary. Of course the hope is always that the person will repent, and come back.

The last part of the passage, quoted above, takes care of the second part of the hypothetical question I just asked, the “who are we to judge?” part. In short, the answer is that we are the Church of Christ. We are believers, endowed with the Holy Spirit. What we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Jesus takes the words he’d said to Peter in Chapter 16 and expands it to include the entire Church—God has extended His authority to us. We have His Holy Spirit, and are to be attentive to His justice here on earth. To ask “who are we to judge?” is not to be wise, seemingly leaving it up to God to decide—it is, instead, simply being cowardly and shirking our duties as Christians. It may be that we’re sometimes reluctant to get involved in a situation like this because we don’t know our Bibles well enough, and don’t feel competent to judge a matter such as this—but there’s an obvious fix for that problem, too.

Matthew 18:10–14

Matthew 18:10–14 (ESV): The Parable of the Lost Sheep

Synopsis

This passage continues on with the point Jesus began in the last two passages, and gets back to the point about children (or “little ones”) again: we should not “despise” one of the little ones, because “in heaven their angels always see the face” of God the Father.

Jesus then expands on this thought by telling the parable of the lost sheep: If a man had a hundred sheep and lost one, he’d leave the 99 sheep behind and go searching for the one that was lost, and upon finding it would rejoice over that lost and re-found sheep more than over the 99 who were never lost in the first place. He then concludes:

“So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” (verse 14 (ESV))

Thoughts

Frankly, I miss part of the point of this passage simply because I don’t know enough about angels. (Perhaps nobody does; it’s not like the Bible says a lot about them.) Jesus starts off the passage in verse 10 (ESV) by saying:

“"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

What, exactly, does this mean? If we were to take it very literally, it would mean that when we “despise” children we should be worried about the fact that those children’s angels are able to tell God on us—although I’m wondering why that matters so much, when God Himself knows all that is happening; it’s not like our “despising” of His children happens without His notice, and then when the angels tell Him He gets mad. Not that I’m fully discounting this idea either, however; prayer is a mystery to us—why do we need to pray when God already knows what we need and what we want?—but it’s also quite clear in the Scriptures that it’s something that we can and should do; perhaps there is an importance to the fact that these angels are going to God on the children’s behalf.

Of course, I skipped over an even deeper point: These children have angels. I have no idea how this works. Does each person get assigned an angel? Does an angel have multiple people to look after, sort of like a case worker? What do the angels do for these children? Is it safe to assume that an angel continues to help a person throughout that person’s life? Does this apply only to children of God, or to all children? Jesus doesn’t give any details on this. The ESV Study Bible notes say this on verse 10:

The heavenly Father uses angels to care for his childlike disciples (cf. Heb. 1:14 (ESV)), but their angels does not imply that each disciple has one assigned “guardian angel.” always see the face of my Father. These angels do, however, have continuous and open communication with God.

It’s an interesting verse, to say the least.

Worse than not understanding the parts about angels, I confess to not even understanding how the parable of the lost sheep fits in with Jesus’ point about God loving the “little ones.” And in fact am starting to wonder if Jesus is using the phrase “little one” as a metaphor for someone who doesn’t yet know God, or is on the beginning path to knowing Him. To quote the ESV Study Bible again, they seem to be thinking something along these lines:

little ones should perish. A dangerous yet real possibility is that apparent followers of Jesus may not be true disciples at all but only professing believers (e.g., Judas Iscariot).

If this is the case—if “little ones” is referring to some level of believer who is in danger of losing his or her faith—then the parable makes a lot more sense.

It is at this point that I feel I should probably delete much of what I have written, and rewrite my “thoughts” with this as my base premise. However, I’ll leave the thought process intact…

Matthew 18:7–9

Matthew 18:7–9 (ESV): Temptations to Sin

Synopsis

It turns out I probably should have included this passage along with the previous passage, since it continues on with the same thought. Funnily enough, it starts with this verse:

“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” (verse 7 (ESV); Jesus speaking)

The reason that’s funny is that I was looking for this verse when I posted the last passage. In trying to find it I was looking for the alternate versions of the last passage in the other Gospels, assuming that this line was in one of them. I didn’t even think to look at the very next verse in Matthew…

Since I’ve already quoted a third of the passage, I’ll quote the rest as my “synopsis:”

“And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.” (verses 8–9 (ESV))

Thoughts

As mentioned, the first verse in this passage continues the thought with the previous passage: Yes, it’s true, there are going to be temptations in life—but you don’t want to be the one that caused those temptations!

The second part that I quoted is a very famous passage. (At least to Christians; I don’t know if non-Christians are familiar with this one or not.) Jesus now turns things around: Rather than warning us from causing others to sin, he now warns us to eliminate the things that cause us to sin.

The only “debate” I’ve ever heard about this passage is whether Jesus is being literal or not: does he really mean to gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, or to cut off your hand or your foot? Or is this hyperbole? It’s probably hyperbole, although I have to admit, the logic holds even in a literal sense: It really would be better to “enter life” and not have a hand or a foot or an eye than to be thrown into hell—however, that depends on a temptation to sin that you could actually get rid of by getting rid of your hand or your foot or your eye. I don’t think that’s likely; I don’t think there’s a sin that you could encounter that you could pluck your eye(s) out, and suddenly you wouldn’t be tempted by it anymore. If there was… well, what would you value more? Your eye(s), or your righteousness? (I’ve never been tempted to cut off any body part in order to eliminate sin, so don’t read this and think that I’m walking around with a cleaver just in case I need to start doing some trimming. As I say, the theoretical situation in which this might actually eliminate a sin is pretty unlikely, in my mind.)

Whether it’s taken literally or not, however, there is an extension to this verse: if Jesus is saying that you’d be better off cutting off a part of your body than letting that part tempt you to sin then we have to ask ourselves: what else do we have in our lives that it might be better to “cut off” rather than be tempted to sin? Are there friends in your life that are always leading you to sin? Is there a place you go regularly, or a show you watch, or a website you go to that tends to lead you to sin? Wouldn’t it be better to cut those activities out of your life, rather than constantly deal with those temptations? Whether you think Jesus is being literal or not in this passage—and I’m sure most people don’t, and I wouldn’t argue with them—he is saying something. We can’t assume that Jesus was simply talking for the sake of talking; there are definitely “things” in our lives that will cause us to sin that we should eliminate. Ask yourself: If Jesus isn’t literally talking about cutting off hands or feet or plucking out eyes, then what is he talking about? Then examine your life and see if any cutting needs to be done. If you’re a human, and haven’t died and gone into His presence yet, then the answer is probably yes…

Matthew 18:1–6

Matthew 18:1–6 (ESV): Who is the Greatest?

Synopsis

This passage begins with the disciples coming to Jesus to ask him who the greatest in the kingdom of heaven is. As usual, Jesus’ answer probably surprises them: he calls over a child and has him stand in the midst of the disciples, and tells them that they can’t even enter the kingdom of heaven unless they become as humble as a child.

Jesus then takes a bit of a tangent, and tells the disciples that anyone who receives “one such child” in his name receives him (verse 5 (ESV)). More than this, but we should be careful never to cause any child who believes in Jesus to sin—if we do, it would be better to have a millstone fastened around our necks and be drowned in the sea. (A “millstone” is a large stone which was used for grinding grain; the point is that it’s very big and heavy. This would be comparable to us talking about giving someone “cement shoes” and throwing them into water.) Jesus doesn’t say better than what; the implication is that it would be better than dealing with his wrath.

Thoughts

The first thing to notice about this passage is that Jesus doesn’t actually answer the disciples’ question. They ask who is the greatest, and instead he tells them that they can’t even get into heaven unless they humble themselves like a child. He doesn’t proceed to tell them that the more like a child they are the greater they will be, or talk at all about being “more” or “less” great—he simply tells them that they have to be humble in order to get into heaven at all.

Why is humility so important? Why do we have to be humble in order to get into heaven? Because we can’t do it on our own! There is nothing I can do to earn my way into heaven; there is nothing I can do for God that will make entrance into the kingdom of heaven my “right”. I have to rely on the work He has done, on my behalf. I have to admit (to myself and to Him) that I don’t deserve what He has done for me—and ask Him for it anyway. That takes humility. Not to mention the fact that I also have to compare myself with my God; to measure myself up against Him. If anything will make me humble, that will!

I don’t think Jesus’ tangent is specifically about causing children to sin; since he’s just said that we all have to be humble like children in order to get into the kingdom of heaven, I think he’s talking about causing any believer to sin. It would be better to be drowned in the sea than to cause a Christian to sin. Not that we can cause anyone—adult or child—to sin, they choose to sin on their own; but if the temptation to do so comes from us, woe be to us, because God will not be happy with us.

Matthew 17:24–27

Matthew 17:24–27 (ESV): The Temple Tax

Synopsis

In this passage some tax collectors—the collectors of the “two drachma tax”—come up to Peter and ask him, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” (verse 24 (ESV)). Peter tells them that yes Jesus does pay the tax, and then comes into the house where Jesus is, but before Peter can even say anything, Jesus broaches the subject himself: “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” (verse 25 (ESV)). Peter answers that it’s from others, and Jesus responds that therefore the sons are free from it. But then Jesus says that Peter should pay the tax, so as “not to give offense to them,” and tells him to go and cast a fishing hook into the sea and take the first fish he catches which will have a shekel in its mouth. Peter is then to give that shekel to the tax collectors, to pay for both Jesus’ tax and his own.

Thoughts

I’m not sure why the tax collectors approach Peter in the way that they do; “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” Are they trying to trap Peter (and by extension Jesus) by getting him to say that Jesus won’t pay the tax, and try to get him arrested on tax evasion? Or was there some reason they were assuming he wouldn’t pay? The way the question is worded, it sounds like more than just “we’re here for the money, can we have it?”

I’ve never really been sure whether this passage says anything about Peter. When he answers the tax collectors that yes, Jesus does pay the tax, was it because he was afraid of them, or was he simply answering the question with the obvious truth about the situation? Because Jesus was definitely not against paying taxes, as this passage and 22:15–22 (ESV) indicate. (I wonder if my American readers will get annoyed with that statement…) It may be that I’m overthinking things because of other situations involving Peter, but at the same time, there is something strange (to my eyes) having to do with Peter in this passage. This is one instance where I wish the ESV Study Bible had some insight, but they’re silent on the issue. (Which is always the way with study Bibles, I find; any time there’s a topic I want information about, it’s something they don’t happen to mention. I must be atypical in terms of the type of information I look for…)

Actually, speaking of Americans (or any other people who don’t like taxes), I guess I should say something about the comment that “sons are free” from paying taxes; we can’t take this as a statement by Jesus that taxes are bad, or that people (or Christians, if that’s how you want to interpret “sons”) are free from paying taxes. One main reason we can’t take that stance is the aforementioned text at Matthew 22:15–22 (ESV) (the “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” passage). Jesus isn’t against taxes. What he is saying is that he—Jesus Christ—is God, the ruler of all the universe; it all belongs to him. What applies to us doesn’t really apply to him.

In this case, Matthew’s account doesn’t even bother to tell us the ending of the story, with Peter catching the fish and paying the tax. Not even a simple “… and it happened just as he said,” or something similar. It’s just assumed that things happened the way Jesus said they would.

Matthew 17:22–23

Matthew 17:22–23 (ESV): Jesus Again Foretells Death, Resurrection

Synopsis

This passage is very short and to the point: Jesus once again tells his disciples that he is going to be delivered into the “hands of men,” who will kill him, and he will then raise on the third day. When the disciples hear this, they are greatly distressed.

Thoughts

The disciples often didn’t understand Jesus when he started to talk about his death and resurrection, so it’s no surprise that he had to sometimes get very blunt with them. I’m guessing that at this point—in fact, probably right up until the “end,” until they saw him resurrected—they were still expecting a political saviour, who would smite the Romans and become the new Jewish king. The idea of him dying didn’t fit in with that at all. But the passage doesn’t tell us anything about what the disciples thought, other than that they were distressed.

Part of my thinking, in assuming that they didn’t “get” what Jesus was saying to them, is based on their reaction when he gets arrested later on. If they’d truly understood this message from Jesus, blunt as it is, then they should not have been surprised at all at his arrest or even his crucifixion. And they especially shouldn’t have been surprised when he rose on the third day. It was all exactly as he had predicted, but it still seemed to take them by surprise.

Passages like this make me wonder: what passages of the Bible are we missing? What teachings of Jesus—whether in the Gospels, the rest of the New Testament, or the Old Testament—are we not seeing, even though they’re clearly expressed? Is this something that doesn’t happen to modern-day Christians, since we have the Holy Spirit, or are there still parts of Scripture that are clearly there for us to see, but we miss them anyway? In this passage Jesus clearly told the disciples:

1. I’m going to be captured
2. The people who capture me are going to kill me
3. After three days I’ll rise again

He couldn’t have been more clear, and yet when each of those three things happened the disciples were so surprised it was as if Jesus had never said anything to them at all. So again I wonder: are there things that God has said to us in the Scriptures—things He has said to me—that we simply miss, or don’t understand? (If I had examples I’d give them, but this is the type of thing where if I had examples, it would no longer be the case…) When we get to heaven, what teachings will we suddenly understand, and then wonder, “How did I not understand this before?!? It’s so clear!”

All I can suggest is that we pray for understanding when reading the Word, and pray that the Holy Spirit would open our eyes when they need to be opened.

Matthew 17:14–20 (and 21?)

Matthew 17:14–20 (ESV): Jesus Heals a Boy with a Demon

Synopsis

In this passage a man comes to Jesus because he has an epileptic son, and he wants Jesus to heal the boy. The problem is that the man brought the boy to Jesus’ disciples, and they weren’t able to heal him. Jesus’ answer surprised me, when I first read it:

And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” (verse 17 (ESV))

He then rebukes the demon which immediately comes out of the boy, who is healed instantly. When the disciples ask Jesus why they weren’t able to cast out the demon, he makes clear the reason for his earlier outburst:

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” (verse 20 (ESV))

The ESV footnote says that in some manuscripts this is followed by a verse 21, which says:

But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting.

Although you’ll notice that if you search Bible Gateway for Matthew 17:21 (ESV) you won’t get any results, so obviously the ESV editors didn’t consider the manuscripts which include verse 21 to be reliable enough for inclusion.

Thoughts

The first thing I find interesting about this passage is that the man comes to Jesus with a complaint that his son is an epileptic (verse 15 (ESV)), but then the passage goes on to talk about Jesus casting out a demon, and the fact that his disciples were unable to cast the demon out. So which is it? Demon possession, or epilepsy? Or was it epilepsy that was blamed on demon possession—and, if so, how many other “demon possessions” in the Gospels were really epilepsy? Some were obviously demons, since they talked to Jesus, but were there others, perhaps, that weren’t demons?

It gets even more interesting when you compare this verse to other translations, for example the NIV:

“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water.” (verse 15 (NIV))

Comparing it to other versions I see that the most common translation is to use the word “epileptic” (e.g. ESV, GNT, NKJV), some use seizures (e.g. NIV, GW), some say that the boy is “a lunatic” (e.g. NASB, KJV).

I consider this a purely theoretical question, since either way the result is the same: Jesus healed the boy, whether he was healing him of demon possession, epilepsy (or lunacy!), or all of the above.

All of that for what is not even the point of the passage: Why couldn’t the disciples heal the boy? Jesus lambastes them in this passage; “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?” These are his disciples he’s talking about. And let’s be clear: Jesus isn’t telling his disciples that they have lots of faith but just not quite enough for this particular case; later in the passage he goes on to say that if the disciples have faith as small as a mustard seed they could tell a mountain to move itself and it would—in other words, they have no faith. Or rather, when they tried to heal the boy, they had no faith that the healing would work.

But maybe we should stop to talk about the word “faith.” Reading this passage in isolation might make “faith” sound like something you have to muster up; like the force in the Star Wars movies. People read this passage as if Jesus is saying to the disciples, “if you can build up enough ‘faith’ you can do anything you set your mind to do.” But what is “faith”? I’ll give a definition here that will probably not go nearly far enough for some people, but I’ll give it anyway: Faith is believing that God can and will do what He said he would do. It’s believing that He is who He said He is. It’s trusting Him to do what is right. The word “faith” has no meaning on its own, in isolation—you have to have faith in something. It combines the concepts of believing (but what do you believe?) and trust (but who or what are you trusting?).

When Jesus said that the disciples that they couldn’t heal the boy because of their “little faith,” he means that they didn’t actually, truly, trust God to heal the boy. They might have had some faith; they probably approached the boy with confidence that he’d soon be healed. I don’t know how the situation went down from there; maybe God didn’t heal the boy as quickly as they’d expected, or maybe they simply tried to do it on their own, instead of trusting in God. In any event, when the boy didn’t get healed they obviously gave up. “Oh well,” they thought, “I guess this one can’t be healed!” This isn’t a case of God choosing not to heal the boy—which does sometimes happen; it’s not always in His will to heal everyone who asks for healing—this is a case of the disciples not having faith that it could be done.

We should also not get too carried away by the part about telling a mountain to go and move itself if we have enough faith; again, we’re tempted to think of “faith” in this instance as if it’s magic. If you screw yourself up hard enough to believe that it will happen, then you can make it happen. But faith, in the Bible, is always in the context of faith in God. Do you truly believe that God wants to move that mountain? Is it consistent with who He reveals Himself to be in the Scriptures? Has He said that He would do it? We’re talking about faith here; the disciples couldn’t have healed that boy, but God could have. I can’t move that mountain, but God can—if it’s in His will. (To me, however, it doesn’t seem like it’s in line with His character, as revealed in the Bible; I, for one, will never ask Him to do it. I’m too busy asking Him to help me with every other aspect of my life…)

Matthew 17:1–13

Matthew 17:1–13 (ESV): The Transfiguration

Synopsis

In this passage Jesus takes three of his disciples—Peter, James, and John—up onto a high mountain, where he is “transfigured” before them. That is, they were able to see him in his glory, not just as a human man, as they’d been used to seeing him. Then, while he was transfigured, Moses and Elijah appeared with him, and talked to him.

The disciples don’t even know what to say; Peter offers to set up three tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. (It doesn’t say so in Matthew, but in the parallel passage in Mark 9:2–8 (ESV) it’s made clear that Peter was terrified.) But even while Peter is still speaking a voice comes from above, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (verse 5 (ESV)).

This is too much for the disciples who fall down on their faces in terror, but Jesus comes and touches them and tells them to have no fear and to get up. When they do, he’s alone, and looking like a human again.

They go back down the mountain, and Jesus commands them not to tell anyone what they’ve seen until he is raised from the dead. The disciples then ask Jesus a religious question: why do the scribes say that Elijah has to come first? Jesus answers that Elijah did come, but they didn’t recognize him and “did to him whatever they pleased”—and that he will also certainly suffer (verse 12 (ESV)). The disciples understand that when Jesus said Elijah already came he was talking about John the Baptist.

Thoughts

This is an interesting passage partially because of how extraordinary it is. Jesus is transfigured into his Godly appearance, Moses and Elijah appear (the ESV Study Bible points out that Moses and Elijah would have represented the law and the prophets, respectively), and once again Jesus commands his disciples not to tell anyone what they’ve seen.

When Peter offers to set up three tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, he wasn’t just saying any random thing that came to his mind (as I’d always thought he was), he was offering to make some kind of a memorial for the occasion. At least that’s what the good ol’ ESV Study Bible says; I assume there’s some Jewish tradition behind this.

In this passage Jesus again mentions his resurrection from the dead, but this time the disciples don’t question him on it. They do, however, go off on a tangent, asking about Elijah; I wonder if they’re trying to change the subject. They prove by their actions later on that they still don’t understand that Jesus has to die and be raised from the dead, but Peter was rebuked pretty harshly when he tried to argue against Jesus on this, so I wonder if the disciples still doubt the idea of Jesus dying (let alone being raised from the dead), and are instead just trying to avoid the topic.

Matthew 16:24–28

Matthew 16:24–28 (ESV): Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus

Synopsis

In the last passage Jesus rebuked Peter because Peter didn’t believe Jesus’ claim that he was going to die. In this passage he takes it further; not only was Jesus going to die, but all of his followers have to die, too.

He says the following:

• Verse 24 (ESV): Anyone who wants to follow him must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow him. In other words, follow him to the cross.
• Verse 25 (ESV): Paradoxically, he says that anyone who would save his life will actually lose it, whereas anyone who loses his life for Jesus’ sake will find it. (At least, it seems paradoxical.)
• Verse 26 (ESV): All of this is because a person’s soul is more important than anything else; what good would it do a person to “gain the whole world” and lose their soul, or what could you possibly give in return for it?
• Verse 27 (ESV): And that’s important because Jesus is going to come back (with the angels, in the glory of the Father), and repay each person according to what they have done.

After this—and maybe a bit unconnected from the progression above, although it highlights the urgency of what he is saying—Jesus says that some who are standing with him will not taste death until they see him coming in his kingdom.

Thoughts

This passage builds logically verse by verse; if you go back and read the passage again in its entirety, notice the word “for” in front of most verses. It might be easier to understand if you substitute the word “because”:

• Anyone who would follow Jesus has to take up his cross and follow him …
• … because anyone who would save his life would lose it, and anyone who would lose his life will gain it …
• … because the soul is more important than anything else …
• … because the Son of Man is coming back to judge us for what we’ve done, and all we’ll have at that point is our soul

I’m sure this has been said many times before, and it’s somewhat obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: the cross was an implementation of execution in Jesus’ day. When Jesus says “take up your cross and follow me” it’s analogous to someone saying “take up your electric chair and follow me,” or “take up your hanging noose and follow me.” In Jesus’ time the person being executed was made to carry their own cross to the place where they’d be nailed to it, thus the “take up” part; we lose this part of the metaphor a little bit, in modern times, because we don’t do the same—a person being electrocuted doesn’t carry the electric chair anywhere, or a person being hung wouldn’t carry the noose to the gallows. But we get the essential point: Jesus was on his way to be executed, and his followers—all of them—are to follow in his footsteps and go be executed as well.

I’m sure many people tend to think of this in terms of martyrdom; you have to be willing to die for Jesus. In my day I’ve heard many people phrase it that you have to be “willing to take up your cross and follow Jesus”—but Jesus doesn’t say to be “willing” to take up your cross, he says that anyone who would come after him must take up their cross and follow him. I see this playing out in a few ways:

1. The most obvious way is in a general way: when we become Christians we kill the old, human nature in us, and are resurrected into new life with Him. We have to be willing to let that old nature die—and, since that sinful nature is inextricable from the rest of our soul, we have to be willing to die. This is what we celebrate/signify when we are baptised; our sinful nature dying and being buried (under the water), and the new creation in Christ being raised up (out of the water).
   • Not that this is an argument that baptism has to be full submersion to be a valid Christian baptism; that’s not an argument I want to get into. However you do it, it’s a symbol—we aren’t saved through baptism, baptism signifies a salvation that has already happened.
2. In a more specific way, there is the day-to-day death of sin that must occur in us. Even after we have been saved, unfortunately that old sinful nature is still there, tempting us with the allure of sin. It’s as good as dead, once we are saved—we know that it will one day be gone (although not this side of Paradise)—which is why we can celebrate its death with our baptisms, but unfortunately it still hangs on and causes us problems. (Paul gives an eloquent description of this in Romans 7:7–25 (ESV).) This is what I think of when Jesus says that we have to “deny” ourselves, although I guess this could also apply to the larger sense of letting ourselves die.
3. Finally, I don’t want to fully discount the notion of martyrdom being part of this. Some people will be called to die for their faith, and because they count their lives as nothing compared to what God has given them they are willing to do so. This is the most extreme case of the first point, and although not all Christians will be called to martyrdom—in fact most won’t—it’s not invalid to say that we have to be “willing” to literally die for God in this way. We just can’t claim that this is the only meaning behind Jesus’ words, because the text won’t allow that—it says that we all have to take up our cross and follow him. People who are martyred will die twice for Jesus: their sinful natures will die, and then they will literally give their life.

For verse 25 (ESV) (“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it”), this sounds paradoxical (and I even called it such above), but in fact Jesus is using the word “life” in two different ways, with two different meanings: there is our human, earthly, sinful lives, and there is true Life that comes from the Holy Spirit. (I’m just capitalizing “Life” in this instance to make a point, it’s not usually capitalized like that.) If we are willing to give up our human, earthly, sinful life for Jesus’ sake, then we’ll be granted true Life with God; if we are not willing to give up our human, earthly, sinful life, than we will not be granted Life—we will “lose” out on the opportunity to have life, and have it abundantly (John 10:10 (ESV)).

I don’t know that I even need to say anything about our soul being more important than anything else. I think the point is an obvious one, although we sometimes might forget it in the moment, when we’re in the mode of building our acquisitions. Even if we were to gain “the whole world” (an obvious exaggeration), it still wouldn’t be worth giving up our souls for. Of course, most of us who give up our souls do it for much, much less. If we think of it in terms of eternity, even assuming we live to be 200, and have all the riches and wealth and power that we can possibly get, we still have to die eventually, and then we have eternity ahead of us. The fact that we used to be rich and powerful when we were alive won’t mean so much then.

None of this might seem important if we don’t believe in an afterlife, or in the judgement of God. However, Jesus tells us explicitly that he’s going to come back and “repay” us for our actions. This should fill us with fear; the only reason it doesn’t fill the Christian with fear is that Jesus has already been repaid for our actions. When he “repays” me, he’ll actually be repaying me for his own actions, because I will be judged as if Christ’s righteousness was my own. Doesn’t that blow your mind? He’s coming back to repay us for our actions, but will end up repaying me for his own actions. God is good!

The last verse, in which Jesus states that some who are with him will not taste death before they see him come back in his kingdom, has a few interpretations. According to the ESV Study Bible notes, some of those possible interpretations are:

• Jesus is referring to his transfiguration (coming up in the next passage, which might lend some weight to this interpretation)
• Jesus is referring to his resurrection
• Jesus is referring to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost
• Jesus is referring to the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the word in the early church
• Jesus is referring to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 (to me this seems like a stretch—the ESV Study Bible notes for Matthew seem obsessed with the destruction of the temple, as they keep referring to it over and over—but I’m not a biblical scholar)
• Jesus is referring to the actual second coming and final establishment of the kingdom

The note goes on to say that the last option probably isn’t the right one, because it would imply that Jesus was mistaken about the time of his return. (i.e. that he actually thought he was coming back within the next decade or two.) However, I think they’re missing an option, which to my mind actually points to the last interpretation: Perhaps Jesus was referring to the vision(s) that John would see when he wrote the book of Revelation, and was actually given a glimpse of Jesus’ second coming. Again I’m not a biblical scholar, so maybe there’s some reason this couldn’t be it, but… it’s how I’ve interpreted this passage for a long time. (It wasn’t until reading the note that it even occurred to me that Jesus might have been talking about the transfiguration, which comes next; when he talks about his second coming, I just naturally think of Revelation.)