MATTHEW 17 COMME�TARYWritten and edited by Glenn Pease

The Transfiguration

1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.

1. One wonders how the others felt when Jesus selected just three to go with him up the mountain. These three were very close to Jesus, and to each other, for they were all partners in the fishing business. John became very famous later as the author of the Gospel of John, his three letters, and the book of Revelation. But at this time he was just known as the brother of James. They were just three guys, and not big shots with any reputation among the people. �ow they are on their way to experience what no man has ever experienced, and none has ever done so since. They are going to see the glory of the supernatural Christ.

2. Barnes, “And after six days. That is, six days from the conversation recorded in the last chapter. Luke 9:28 says, about eight days after. Matthew mentions the six days that intervened between the day of the conversation and the transfiguration. Lukeincludes

both those days, and thus reckons eight. Besides, Luke does not pretend to fix the precise time. In the Greek it is "about eight days after." “These three disciples were with him also in the garden of Gethsemane, Mark 14:33. He designed to fit them, in an eminent degree, for the work of the gospel ministry, by the previous manifestations of his glory, and of his patience in suffering.”

3. Barnes adds, “It is right to have particular affection for some Christians more than others, at the same time that we should love them all. Christ loved all his disciples; but he admitted some to peculiar friendship and favors, Matthew 17:1. Some Christians may be more congenial to us in feeling, age, and education, than others; and it is proper, and may be greatly to our advantage, to admit them among our peculiar friends.”

4. Barclay, “There is a tradition which connects the Transfiguration with Mount Tabor, but that is unlikely. The top of Mount Tabor was an armed fortress and a great castle; it seems almost impossible that the Transfiguration could have happened on a mountain which was a fortress. Much more likely the scene of the Transfiguration was Mount Hermon. Hermon was fourteen miles from Caesarea

Philippi. Hermon is 9,400 feet high, 11,000 feet above the level of the Jordan valley, so high that it can actually be seen from the Dead Sea, at the other end of Palestine, more than one hundred miles away.

It cannot have been on the very summit of the mountain that this happened. The mountain is too high for that. Canon Tristram tells how he and his party ascended it. They were able to ride practically to the top, and the ride took five hours. Activity is not easy on so high a summit. Tristram says, "We spent a great part of the day on the summit, but were before long painfully affected by the rarity of the atmosphere."

It was somewhere on the slopes of the beautiful and stately Mount Hermon that the Transfiguration happened. It must have happened in the night. Luke tells us that the disciples were weighted down with sleep (Lk.9:32). It was the next day when Jesus and his disciples came back to the plain to find the father of the epileptic boy waiting for them (Lk.9:37). It was some time in the sunset, or the late evening, or the night, that this amazing vision took place.”

5. What was the purpose of Jesus in going there? Barclay gives this answer: “He had to make quite sure, sure beyond all doubt, that he was doing what God wished him to do. He had to make certain that it was indeed God's will that he should go to the Cross. Jesus went up Mount Hermon to ask God: "Am I doing your will in setting my face to go to Jerusalem?" Jesus went up Mount Hermon to listen for the voice of God. He would take no step without consulting God. How then could he take the biggest step of all without consulting him? Of everything Jesus asked one question and only one question: "Is it God's win for me?" And that is the question he was asking in the loneliness of the slopes of Hermon.

It is one of the supreme differences between Jesus and us, that Jesus always asked: "What does God wish me to do." we nearly always ask: "What do I wish to do?" We often say that the unique characteristic of Jesus was that he was sinless. What do we mean by that? We mean precisely this, that Jesus had no will but the will of God. The hymn of the Christian must always be:

"Thy way, not mine, O lord,However dark it be!Lead me by thine own hand;Choose out the path for me.I dare not choose my lot,I would not if I might:Choose thou for me, my God,So shall I walk aright.�ot mine, not mine the choiceIn things or great or small;Be thou my Guide, my Strength,My Wisdom and my All."

6. College Press Harold Fowler commentary, “ Why He chose only three Apostles, and only these three, becomes clearer only as the larger picture is seen. His reasons may have been some, or all, of the following:

1. To guarantee the necessary privacy, He chose three and no more.Any larger group would render silence more difficult to maintain.(17:9)

2. To guarantee that the Transfiguration would accomplish its purpose.Whereas it was desirable for all the Apostles to behold Hisglory, it was imperative that at least some have unquestionableproof of His triumphant glory. But such a vision could not be ofvalue unless enough of them could testify to having seen it. Thus,the choice of three men is to provide witnesses sufficient in numberto establish the reality of the fact in any court. (Cf. Dt. 19:15;Mt. 18:16; Jn. 8:17; Cf. Ac. 10:41)

3. To have men who could best interpret and make best use ofthe Transfiguration's impression on themselves. Jesus apparentlyjudged the rest of the group not to be qualified to witness it norto hear of it afterwards. The three chosen were not necessarilyelected because better loved by the Lord, but because qualified,in that they were more open, more ready to accept and obey Him.

4, These men, together with Andrew, Peter’s brother, had been theearliest disciples of Jesus, (Cf. Jn. 1:35-51) Only they were allowedinto the room with the parents to behold the raising of Jairus’daughter from the dead. (Mk. 5:37; Lk. 8:51) Only they wereinvited to share the Lord’s sufferings in Gethsemane. (Mt. 26:37;Mk. 14:33) They had been nearest longest and were most intimatelylinked to Jesus in heart and thought. In the Master’s plan eachwas to become a pillar supporting the truth:

a. Peter was to swing wide the gates of the Kingdom of Christ toJew (Ac. 2) and Gentile alike (Ac. 10) and record his eye-witnesstestimony to this pre-passion revelation of Jesus’ glory before hetoo suffered martyrdom. (2 Pet. 1:16-18)

b. James would be the first Apostle to lay down his life rather thandeny Jesus’ resurrection. (Ac. 12:2)

c. John, also a pillar of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 2:9), wouldprobably be the last Apostle to die, having bridged the gap fromthe personal ministry of Christ on earth until the Church waswell-established throughout the world. To him would be grantedthe privilege of relating the Messiah’s triumphant glory seen in

the visions of the Revelation. (Rev. 1:9)

5. Indirectly to bless the other Apostles who were not privileged tobe present. The others would feel the changed attitude of thesethree, and because of their positive influence, the others wouldhold firmer to Jesus in their turmoil, even if they could not identifythe source of what blessed them.Whether these are the reasons Jesus chose them or not, is not clear.To choose these and no others was Jesus’ right and was done inHis wisdom.

For the Hebrew reader of Matthew’s Gospel, the imagery of theevent itself would far outweigh any problems connected with Hischoice. In fact, the imagery would lead the thoughtful Jewish readerto see allusions to events in Hebrew history, beginning with the ascentupon the high mountain, symbol of Sinai (Horeb) on which Mosesand Elijah received revelations from God. (See on 17:3.)

7. Plummer, “The historical character of this mysterious event is guaranteed (i) by the improbability of invention^ for there had been nothing in Christ's previous life to make an appearance of Moses and Elijah probable, and there is nothing like it in the O.T., the glorification of Moses at Sinai being very different; (2) by its intrinsic suitability to the crisis in the Ministry which has just been reached ; (3) by the testimony of all three Synoptisis \ and (4) by the remarkable injunction to silence (see above on zvi. 20). Whatever date we assign to 2 Peter, the allusion to the Trans- ' figuration (2 Pet. i. 16-18) is evidence of what was believed at that date respecting the incident, and is so far a confirmation of it.”

8. John Macarthur, “After they arrived at their destination, the disciples were soon sleeping (Luke 9:32). While they were sleeping, Jesus was praying (Luke 9:28). We this same scenario when the Lord poured out His heart to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. The disciples were asleep on that occasion also. Jesus rebuked them and said, "Couldest not thou watch one hour?" (Mark 14:37). Luke 22:45 tells us they were "sleeping for sorrow." When people are depressed they often find they want to sleep. Unfortunately, some people become so depressed that they want to sleep for good, so they take their lives. Some people take sleeping pills so they can escape from their problems. Perhaps the disciples slept because it was the only way to deal with their sorrow. The same thing might have been true on the mount of transfiguration. Only a few days before, Jesus predicted He would be killed, and that they would follow Him by taking up their cross (Matt. 16:21, 24). They often viewed their circumstances in the worst light. On one occasion Thomas said, "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (John 11:16).When the three disciples came out of their sleep, an incredible thing happened--unlike anything that has ever

happened in the history of the world.”

9. CALVI�, "Matthew 17:1.And after six days. We must first inquire for what purpose Christ clothed himself with heavenly glory for a short time, and why he did not admit more than three of his disciples to be spectators. Some think that he did so, in order to fortify them against the trial which they were soon to meet with, arising from his death. That does not appear to me to be a probable reason; for why should he have deprived the rest of the same remedy, or rather, why does he expressly forbid them to make known what they had seen till after his resurrection, but because the result of the vision would be later than his death? I have no doubt whatever that Christ intended to show that he was not dragged unwillingly to death, but that he came forward of his own accord, to offer to the Father the sacrifice of obedience. The disciples were not made aware of this till Christ rose; nor was it even necessary that, at the very moment of his death, they should perceive the divine power of Christ, so as to acknowledge it to be victorious on the cross; but the instruction which they now received was intended to be useful at a future period both to themselves and to us, that no man might take offense at the weakness of Christ, as if it were by force and necessity that he had suffered. (477) It would manifestly have been quite as easy for Christ to protect his body from death as to clothe it with heavenly glory.

We are thus taught that he was subjected to death, because he wished it to be so; that he was crucified, because he offered himself. That same flesh, which was sacrificed on the cross and lay in the grave, might have been exempted from death and the grave; for it had already partaken of the heavenly glory. We are also taught that, so long as Christ remained in the world, bearing the form of a servant, and so long as his majesty was concealed under the weakness of the flesh, nothing had been taken from him, for it was of his own accord that he emptied himself, (Philippians 2:7;) but now his resurrection has drawn aside that veil by which his power had been concealed for a time.

Our Lord reckoned it enough to select three witnesses, because that is the number which the Law has laid down for proving any thing;

at the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses,

(Deuteronomy 17:6.)

The difference as to time ought not to give us uneasiness. Matthew and Mark reckon six entire days, which had elapsed between the events. Luke says that it happened about eight days afterwards, including both the day on which Christ spake these words, and the day on which he was transfigured. We see then that, under a diversity of expression, there is a perfect agreement as to the meaning.

10. BE�SO�, "Matthew 17:1-2. After six days — Reckoning exclusively from that

in which the discourse recorded in the preceding chapter was delivered, to that on which the transfiguration took place, or, including those two days, about eight days after, as Luke has it: Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother — The three disciples whom he honoured with a peculiar intimacy, (see Mark 5:37; and Matthew 26:37,) and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart — From the people and his other disciples. Jerome tells us, that there was a tradition in his days, handed down from the times of the apostles, that this was mount Tabor, famed in ancient history for the victory which Deborah and Barak gained over Sisera, 4:14. Dr. Macknight, however, thinks “the order of the history determines the transfiguration to some mountain not far from Cesarea Philippi, rather than to Tabor, which was situated in the south of Galilee. For after the transfiguration, it is said, Mark 9:30, that they departed and passed through Galilee, and then came to Capernaum. �ow it is not very probable that the evangelist would in this manner have narrated our Lord’s journey from the mount of transfiguration to Capernaum, if that mountain had been in Galilee, the region in which Capernaum stood. Yet upon the faith of the tradition mentioned above, the Christians very early built a monastery and church on the top of Tabor, which church was dedicated to Jesus and his two attendants, Moses and Elias. And from 2 Peter 1:18, they called the mountain itself, the holy mountain. And he was transfigured before them — �amely, before these three disciples. It was necessary that so remarkable an occurrence should be supported by sufficient witnesses; and hence it was that the three above mentioned were chosen, because so many were required among the Jews to establish a fact, and no more were chosen, because this number was sufficient. The word µετεµορφωθη, rendered here, transfigured, may either imply that there was a transformation made in the substance of his body, according to the import of the word in Ovid, and other writers; or that the outward appearance only of his body was altered, which seems most probable from the expression used by Luke, who says, το ειδος του προσωπου αυτου ετερον, the appearance of his countenance, or person: was changed: and this change, according to that evangelist, took place while he was praying, chap. Matthew 9:29. And his face did shine as the sun — Became radiant and dazzling, and shone like the sun in its unclouded, meridian clearness; and so was incomparably more glorious than the face of Moses at the giving of the law. And his raiment was white as the light — Became, says Mark, shining exceeding white, as snow, so as no fuller on earth could white it. Was white and glistering, says Luke, or white as lightning, as λευκος εξαστραπτων properly signifies. It seems it was bright and sweetly refulgent, but in a degree inferior to the radiancy of his countenance. “The indwelling Deity,” says Mr. Wesley, “darted out its rays through the veil of his flesh: and that with such transcendent splendour, that he no longer bore the form of a servant. His face shone with divine majesty, like the sun in its strength; and all his body was so irradiated by it, that his clothes could not conceal his glory, but became white and glistering as the very light, with which he covered himself as with a garment.”

COFFMA�, "Luke makes the time interval "eight days" (Luke 9:28); but there is no discrepancy from Mark and Matthew. Luke used the inclusive method of reckoning time, counting the portion of a day at either end of the period, whereas Mark and Matthew counted only the complete days. A suggestion of this is in the

precise terminology used. Matthew has it "after six days," and Luke stated that it was "about eight days." Today people might say, "six or eight days."

Matthew was omitted from that inner circle of three disciples who witnessed the marvel here related, and one can find only amazement at the complete detachment and objectivity of his narrative. Peter, James and John formed a kind of inner committee, or cadre, within the Twelve, and were the exclusive witnesses of the transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter, and the agony in Gethsemane. Peter would take the lead in establishing the church; James would be the recognized leader of the church in Jerusalem; and John would receive the final revelation. The experience on the mount of transfiguration would better equip them for future duties and responsibilities. The Saviour's prophecy of his approaching death and humiliation had doubtless imparted some measure of shock and disappointment to the Twelve, and that event was possibly designed to lift their spirits, strengthen their faith, and lead them into an acceptance of the approaching passion of our Lord.

The location of the wondrous unveiling of his glory is not given; but there are excellent and convincing reasons for placing it at Mount Hermon, or one of its supporting peaks. Robertson stated that "The tradition that places the transfiguration on Mount Tabor is beyond question false."[1] He would appear to be correct for these reasons: (1) Tabor does not qualify as a "high" mountain, being only 1,800 feet in elevation, compared with Hermon's 9,000 feet. (2) Tradition favoring Tabor, first advocated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century,[2] is much too late to have much weight. (3) Mount Tabor was populated, having a fortress on top, during the time of Christ,[3] and was not suitable for such an event as the transfiguration. To have ascended Tabor would not have taken them "apart," as Matthew expressed it. (4) Mount Tabor was three days journey removed from the last named geographical placement of Christ and his disciples; and, although a sufficient time interval of six or eight days had elapsed, none of the gospel narratives mentions a journey of any kind. Hermon, on the other hand, was nearby and is the most likely site. (5) Furthermore, when the gospels again take up the narrative, they were still in the vicinity of Hermon. Peter, in after years, called it the Holy Mount (2 Peter 1:18), and in the words of A. L. Williams, "We may conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality."[4]

[1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (�ew York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 102, footnote.

[2] A. Lukyn Williams, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 15 II, p. 171.

[3] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (�ew York: The Macmillan

Company, 1937), p. 683.

[4] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 172.

COKE, "Matthew 17:1. And after six days— That is, about six days if we reckon exclusively, and about eight days if we reckon inclusively, after our Lord had accepted the title of Messiah. See Luke 9:28 who has it, about eight days after. The two accounts differ only, as if one should say, that Christ appeared to his disciples after his death, another after his resurrection: the connection with the end of the former chapter must be attended to here, as in many other places. Heylin. Tradition has generally conferred the honour of the transfiguration on mount Tabor, famed in ancient history for the victory which Deborah and Barak gained over Sisera, Judges 4:14. Roland observes, that this tradition took its rise from Mark 9:2 where it is said, that Jesus carried Peter, James, and John into a high mountain apart by themselves. It seems the original words κατ ιδιαν, apart, were thought to describe the position of the mountain; and because Tabor is very high, and stands in the plain of Esdraelon, at a distance from other hills, they thought it could be said of no other mountain so properly, that it is an high mountain by itself. Hence the tradition of our Lord's being transfigured on this mountain might arise; especially as this mountain is not only high, but verdant also, and woody, and of a beautiful regular form; nevertheless the whole account determines the transfiguration to some mountain not far from Caesarea Philippi, rather than to Tabor, which was situated in the south of Galilee: for after the transfiguration, when Jesus had cured an epileptic who was also possessed by a demon, it is said, Mark 9:30 that they departed and passed through Galilee, and then to Capernaum. �ow it is not very probable that the Evangelist would in this manner have related our Lord's journey from the mount of transfiguration to Capernaum, if that mountain had been in Galilee, the region in which Capernaum stood, especially if, as the continuators of Chemnitz's Harmony affirm, the word παραπορευεσθαι signifies to pass through quickly, secretly, and as it were in a journey: yet, upon the faith of the tradition mentioned above, theChristians very early built a monastery and church on the top of Tabor, which, according to the account of travellers, spreads itself into an ample plain, surrounded with a wood. The church was dedicated to Jesus, and his two attendants Moses and Elias; and from 2 Peter 1:18 they call the mountain itself the Holy Mount. Our Lord admitted to the singular honour of his transfiguration, Peter his most zealous, James his most active, and John his most beloved disciple. It was necessary that this remarkable occurrence should be supported by sufficient evidence: hence it was that three of the disciples were chosen, because so many witnesses were required to establish a fact by the Jews; and no more were chosen, because this number was sufficient. Besides this reason for electing these three persons in particular, we may add, that Peter was the most sanguine and the most forward speaker among the apostles, that James was the first martyr, and that John, being the survivor of all the other Apostles, gave a sanction to this record, as it is most probable that he had a sight of all the other Gospels, and likewise confirmed it by his personal testimony as long as he lived. See Macknight, Renald's Palaest. Illust. lib. 1 and Maundrell's Journey, p. 112.

PETT, "‘And after six days Jesus takes with Him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart.’

‘After six days.’ Here we must ask the question, six days from when? The answer could possibly be ‘after the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi’, or it could signify six days ‘after saying these words’. The fact that Luke has it as ‘about eight days after’, however, possibly warns against our trying to read too much into the ‘six days’. (Luke’s ‘about eight days’ includes a part day at the beginning and a part day at the end, and is therefore the equivalent of these six days). It would thus appear simply to literally indicate the passing of time an unusual situation in Matthew, although of course taken from his source. �evertheless as he could easily have abbreviated it out, as he so often does with extraneous material, this suggests that at the very minimum it is because he wants to maintain the link between the Transfiguration and what has gone before. This would seem to confirm the fact that he sees the Transfiguration as at least a partial fulfilment of the promise in Matthew 16:28, if not the whole.

Some have seen the six days as connected with the six days in Exodus 24:16, but surely if Matthew had intended us to identify with those he would have introduced ‘and on the seventh day’ as it does in Exodus. �or are the circumstances anything like identical. In Exodus 24:16 Moses was already higher up the mountain prior to waiting for the six days, and the waiting was in order to enter the cloud. Furthermore Moses did not initially take up only three people, he took up seventy four, Aaron, �adab, Abihu, the seventy elders and Joshua. The differences are thus significant. If Jesus (or Matthew) had wanted us to identify the two scenarios surely more effort would have been put into some kind of nearer parallelism. The emphasis in Matthew, as in the other Gospels, is on Moses A�D Elijah, even if Moses does come first, in other words on the Law and the Prophets.

‘Peter and James and John.’ It is clear that these three are selected out as special and especially trustworthy witnesses from among the disciples (compare Matthew 26:37; Mark 5:37). Three is a number indicating completeness which is why we so often find threes in Scripture.

‘Into a high mountain apart.’ The suggestion of a high mountain indicates an ‘other worldly’ experience for Him. Compare Matthew 4:8. This in the same way as going up into ‘the mountain’ always seems to indicate a specially blessed experience for His disciples, although at a lower level.

The mountain where the Transfiguration happened is traditionally said to have been Mount Tabor, a 600 metre (1,900 foot) hill that rises conspicuously at the east end of the Jezreel Valley. However as Josephus wrote that in those days there was a walled fortress on its summit it would not really have been the place to go for peace and solitude, and it is not really describable as ‘a high mountain’. Others have suggested Mount Hermon. This was close to Caesarea Philippi, and was 3000 metres (9,232 feet) high. But that would be an unlikely place to find Scribes and a crowd waiting at the bottom (although crowds did go long distances seeking Jesus).

Another suggestion is Mount Miron, the highest mountain in Israel between Caesarea Philippi and Capernaum at 1,000 metre (3,926 feet) high. A fourth possibility is Mount Arbel on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. This is a high mountain from which the whole of the Sea of Galilee is visible. Mount Miron would appear a likely candidate, but clearly no one thought the question important, which tends to confirm that we are to learn a lesson from the fact that it was a ‘high mountain’.

BURKITT, "The former part of this chapter gives us an account of our Saviour's glorious transfiguration, he laid as it were the garments of frail humanity and mortality aside for a little time, and assuming to himself the robes of majesty and glory, the rays of his divinity darted forth, his face shined with a pleasing brightness, and his raiment with such a glorious lustre, as did at once both dazzle and delight the eyes of the beholders.

Here observe, 1. The reasons of our Lord's transfiguration,

1. To demonstrate and testify the truth of his divinity; that he was Christ the Son of the living God; according to St. Peter's confession just before. This divine glory was an evidence of his divine nature.

2. Christ was thus transfigured, to prefigure the glory of his second coming to judgment, when he shall be admired of his saints, as here he was admired by his disciples.

Observe, 2. The choice which our Saviour makes of the witnesses of his transfiguration, his three disciples, Peter, James and John. But why disciples? Why three disciples? Why these three?

1. This transfiguration was a type and shadow of the glory of heaven: Christ therefore vouchsafes the earnest and first fruits of that glory only to saints; upon whom he intended to bestow the full harvest.

2. Three disciples were witnesses sufficient to testify this miracle. Judas was unworthy of this favour, yet lest he should murmur or be discontented at his being left out, others are also left out besides him.

3. These three, rather than others; because,

1. These disciples are more eminent for grace, zeal, and love to Christ; and, consequently, are most highly dignified and honoured by him. The most eminent manifestations of glory, are made by God to those that are most eminent in grace.

2. These three were witnesses of Christ's agony and passion, to prepare them for which, they are here made witnesses of his transfiguration. This glorious vision from

Mount Tabor fitted them to abide the terrors of mount Calvary.

Learn, that those whom God singles out for the greatest trials, he will sit beforehand with the best enablements.

2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

1. We talk about people have a bright face, and a face that lights up the room, but here we see the face of Christ being made brighter than any human face has ever been. It shone like the sun, and his clothes reflected the light on his face so that they became just as white as his bright face. It had to look scary to the three as they beheld the ordinary Jesus clothed in the light so obviously supernatural.

2. Barnes, “(1.) His face shone as the sun; that is, with a peculiar brightness. A similar appearance is described respecting Moses when he came down from the mount,Exodus 34:29,30. See also Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is called the brightness of the glory of God; in the original, the splendour, or shining, like the brightness of the sun.

(2.) The second change was that of his garments. They were white as the light. Mark

says, white as snow, so as no fuller on earth could whiten them. The word "fuller"

means, commonly, one who dresses cloth, or fulls it, so as to make it more thick and

strong. Here it means one who bleaches cloth, or makes it white; one who cleanses

garments, when by wearing they become soiled. Among the Greeks, that was a

distinct trade. Luke says, white and glistering; that is, resplendent, shining, or a

very bright white. There is no evidence here that what is commonly said of him is

true, that his body was so changed as to show what his glorified body is. His body,

so far as the sacred writers inform us, underwent no change. All this splendor and

glory was a change in appearance only. The Scriptures should be taken just as they

are, without any attempt to affix a meaning to them which the sacred writers did not

intend.

Raiment. Clothing; apparel. John refers to this transfiguration in John 1:14; and

Peter in his second Epistle, 2 Peter 1:16,17.

3. Broadus, “As the three disciples were oppressed with

sleep during the scene (Luke), and his return

to the other disciples was on the next day

(Luke9:37), it seems clear that the Transfigura

tion occurred at night. The shining of our

Lord s face and garments, and the bright

cloud, would thus be more manifest, and the

whole scene more striking.”

3B. CALVIN, "2.And was transfigured before them. Luke says that this happened while

he was praying; and from the circumstances of time and place, we may infer that he had

prayed for what he now obtained, that in the brightness of an unusual form his Godhead

might become visible; not that he needed to ask by prayer from another what he did not

possess, or that he doubted his Father’s willingness, but because, during the whole course

of his humiliation, he always ascribed to the Father whatever he did as a divine Person,

and because he intended to excite us to prayer by his example.

His transfiguration did not altogether enable his disciples to see Christ, as he now is in

heaven, but gave them a taste of his boundless glory, such as they were able to

comprehend. Then his face shone as the sun; but now he is far beyond the sun in

brightness. In his raiment an unusual and dazzling whiteness appeared; but now without

raiment a divine majesty shines in his whole body. Thus in ancient times God appeared to

the holy fathers, not as He was in Himself, but so far as they could endure the rays of His

infinite brightness; for John declares that not until

they are like him will they see him as he is, (1 John 3:2.)

There is no necessity for entering here into ingenious inquiries as to the whiteness of his

garments, or the brightness of his countenance; for this was not a complete exhibition of

the heavenly glory of Christ, but, under symbols which were adapted to the capacity of

the flesh, he enabled them to taste in part what could not be fully comprehended.

COFFMAN, "The glory of Christ was revealed. The effulgence of the Godhead made his

face luminous and shone through his garments. Again from Williams,

It is a subjective vision that is here related, no mere inward impression on brain or nerve

with nothing external to correspond, but a real objective occurrence, which was beheld by

mortal eyes endued with no supernatural or abnormal powers, except insofar as they were

enabled to look on this partial emanation of the divine effulgence.[5]

The heavenly glory of Christ irradiated his face and clothing, demonstrating his eternal

nature in a way to make the apostles who witnessed it absolutely certain that Christ was

God in human form. The profound impression made by the event was permanent. Long

afterward, John wrote, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the

Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

PETT, "‘And He was transfigured before them, and his face shone as the sun, and his

garments became white as the light.’

And there in that high mountain the disciples saw an amazing transformation take place.

They saw Jesus transfigured before them. Before their eyes His face shone like the sun,

and His clothing became ‘white as light’, glistening and other worldly, and glorious. And

they must have been shaken to the core, for this was not what they had been expecting

when they went up with Him into the mount. It was true that Peter had declared Jesus to

be ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God’. But those had been words which manifested a

conviction that had taken hold of his heart. This was something different. They were

seeing that He was. They were being made to recognise as never before the uniqueness of

Jesus.

And well they might for there is no other occasion in Scripture where this kind of

appearance is seen as being true of a human being. It is seen to be true to some extent of

heavenly figures (see Matthew 28:3; Daniel 10:5-6; Revelation 1:13-15), but never of an

earthly One. For here there is no thought that it is the presence of God in glory that has

caused it. This is no reflected glory, as it was with Moses when his face, and only his

face, shone in Exodus 34:29, when he had been face to face with God in the cloud. (We

should note also that that was semi-permanent and that Moses brought it down from the

mountain with him. It was not a once for all revelation. It was borrowed glory intended to

impress the people below. So its source was different, its aim was different, and the detail

of the description is very different). The idea here is rather that the inward glory of Jesus

is being revealed to His disciples. In that ‘high mountain’, having come closer, as it were,

to Heaven, what He was in Himself could not remain hidden. The sun was the brightest

light then known to man, and beyond man’s reach, and spoke of heavenly glory, while

garments as white as light indicated total purity and unearthliness. He was thus here being

revealed as of absolute glory and purity, and as basically One Who was from Heaven.

The description is, of course, making clear what was seen, not defining it. Glory shone

out from Him. The parallels in the other Gospels mainly concentrate on the clothing.

Mark says it was unearthly. It was ‘as no scourer on earth could whiten it’. Luke says it

was ‘glistening’ (exastraptown), a word used in Daniel 10:9 of the glistening feet of a

rather spectacular angel. But ‘white as light’ here in Matthew goes further. It brings to

mind Psalms 104:2, ‘You are clothed with honour and majesty, Who cover yourself with

light as with a garment’. This confirms that the aim here is to bring out Jesus’

‘unearthliness’, and here in Matthew even His divinity.

Daniel 7:9 speaks of the Ancient of Days (God) as having ‘raiment as white as snow’

(compare Matthew 28:3), and this is in fact picked up by copyists who later incorporated

it in the Transfiguration text of both Matthew (D and versions) and Mark (A D and

versions). But even if we reject those readings on the basis of the evidence the

comparison does confirm the heavenly nature of the ‘whiteness’. So Jesus is being

revealed as a heavenly figure, and more.

This is backed up by the fact that the word for ‘white’ (leukos), when used elsewhere in

the New Testament, either refers to the clothing of angels, or else to the clothing of

glorified saints who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. It symbolises what is pure

and is not of earth.

However Luke also confirms that ‘the appearance of His countenance was altered’, and

Matthew here describes it as ‘shining like the sun’. This connects Him with the righteous

who will in the future shine forth as the sun in the Kingly Rule of their Father (Matthew

13:43), but here it is seen as His already, not something that He has to receive in the

future. He is already the Righteous One (compare Acts 3:14) shining like the sun. One

day all the righteous ones, made righteous by His coming and the divine activity upon

them (see on Matthew 5:6), will be like Him for they will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

Matthew may well also have had in mind the Sun of righteousness Who would arise with

healing in His wings (Malachi 4:3).

This growing in righteousness and glory of His people so that they become ‘the

righteous’ is in fact revealed in similar terms to the Transfiguration in 2 Corinthians 3:18.

There it comes about through beholding/reflecting the glory of the Lord. But there it is we

and not the Lord whose shining is likened to the shining of Moses’ skin.

Comparison can be made with the faces which were ‘as lightning’, again of the angels in

Matthew 28:3; Daniel 10:9. But as the sun is brighter and more permanent than the

lightning, so was His glory seen to be more glorious as compared with theirs. If the ideas

are being borrowed and to some extent improved on in order to bring out what is unique,

the outshining of the glory of Jesus (compare Hebrews 1:3), they are not just being

duplicated. In contrast with them He is the outshining of the glory of God and the

‘stamped out image’ of His substance (Hebrews 1:3). As Peter puts it, ‘we were

eyewitnesses of His majesty’ and ‘He received honour and glory from God the Father’ (2

Peter 1:16-17).

However, the main immediate comparison that would probably have been made by the

Apostles as they saw Him in His glory on the Mount, would be with the glory of the Lord

as He came down on the Tabernacle (and later the Temple). There He met with the

children of Israel, and there His holiness was manifested. See Exodus 29:43; Exodus

40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:11. But here the glory is seen rather to have emanated from Jesus,

revealing that Jesus Himself was, in His humanity, God’s Dwellingplace, and it is

important in this regard to note that the glory is seen as being that of Jesus Himself, for

the voice of the Father ‘came out of Heaven’ (2 Peter 1:18), from the cloud, not from

Jesus Himself.

This ‘vision’ might well also have reminded the disciples of another vivid scene in Isaiah

6:1-8. That too was a glorious vision of a King in His glory, for although His glory is not

mentioned there, it is implied in the fact that the seraphim covered their faces before Him

and in the moving of the foundations, and there can be little doubt that the disciples

would have seen that appearance in Isaiah in the light of the Shekinah, the revelation of

the glory of God in His Dwellingplace. And there too He was accompanied by heavenly

attendants who spoke to Him. There too the cloud came down (the house was filled with

a smoke cloud), and there too a voice spoke from Heaven, referring to the need to listen

(which would not be heeded in the case of Isaiah’s listeners). So there are a number of

similarities. Of course here on the Mount Jesus could not yet be on a throne because He

had not yet been glorified, but that is how He will be depicted in Matthew 25:31. Here He

is being depicted rather as the beloved Son, prior to His coronation (Matthew 28:18), but

it is probably still in terms of that vision of Isaiah (compare also Isaiah 60:19). This ties

in again with Matthew’s emphasis on Isaiah and his prophecies in Matthew 3:2 to

Matthew 20:28.

Later in Revelation 1:13-16 similar descriptions will be used of Jesus, in a similar

manifestation of glory, there described in terms of His face shining as the sun and as

walking in the midst of His ‘congregation’, (seen in terms of seven ‘congregations’ which

represent the universal congregation), and having the keys of Death and of Hades. These

are concepts which tie in with this whole passage from Matthew 16:13 to Matthew 17:8,

which reveals as it does the increasing manifestation of Christ, first as the Son of the

living God (Matthew 16:16) revealed in power in establishing His congregation and

bringing the keys which release from Hades (Matthew 16:18), and then as the glorious

Son making known His glory (Matthew 17:2; Matthew 17:5; Revelation 1:17). And all

this in terms of tribulation and kingship (Matthew 16:24-25; Matthew 16:28; Revelation

1:9). It is no coincidence that the Apostle John was present at both visions. Revelation 1

was an even greater (because totally heavenly) manifestation of what happened here.

4. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “He needed to be’with the Father

after the disciples’ jarring rejection of His clear revelation of His death. It cost Him

to tell them the

unwelcome truth, but He must remain true to His mission, so Hetook refuge in the Father’s presence. But what need had He to betransfigured for His own personal benefit? Jesus was not an angel,but a MA�! (Heb. 2:9, 14-18) He needed whatever encouragementthe Father could give. (Cf. Jn. 12:27f in context.) He may haveprayed that God would help Him to succeed in making His ownglory more evident to His Apostles, and so defeat the discouragementHe could not help but feel because of their obtuseness. TheTransfiguration, whether desired or sought by Jesus or not, wouldserve to brace His courage to face the bitterness ahead in two ways:

a, The foretaste of the glory which would follow His suffering (Heb.12:2) would be like being back home for just an instant, makingHis voluntary obedience. even unto death (Phil. 25-11) to beseen, by comparison, as something to be despised.

b. The Father’s loving voice, even speaking directly to the Apostles,would reaffirm His pleasure in His Son, warm His heart and encourageHim in His lonely mission among unsympathetic men.It is like the encouragement felt by an expert pilot flying througha storm-tossed night with no visible landmarks, when suddenlya voice comes over the radio, saying, “We’ve picked you up onradar, friend, and you're right on course!”Peter testifies that “he received honor and .glory from God theFather.” (2 Pt, 1:17)

2. His disciples needed further evidence of His true glory: could Henot request the Father to grant them this, even in words similarto those in Jn. 17:1, 5? These men who believed the Good Confessionwhich God had revealed to Peter (Mt. 16:17) did not acceptthe Messiah’s mission to suffer (Mt. 16:22), although He hadguaranteed them His vindication in glory (16:27). So they neededthe direct teaching that a brief, but convincing, revelation of Hisdivine majesty and a word from God would convey. The immediateand imperative significance of this Transfiguration before Hisstatus-seeking, materialistic Apostles is to give them a glimpse of

a majesty they had never dreamed, a glory that would make allearthly grandeur and magnificence to fade away into insignificance,In perspective, the Transfiguration would confirm the programof Jesus in a moment when, according to every human prediction,He was headed for failure. (Cuminetti, Matteo, 233) Peter, interpretingthis golden memory in his life, offered it as a supremeillustration and convincing proof of the deity of Christ, as well asthe solid kind of evidence upon which we base our faith. (2 Pt.1: 16-19) The understanding of their discipleship depended upontheir concept of His Lordship.”

5. The College Press Harold Fowler Commentary goes on, “The three Evangelistsgrasp for adequate terminology to communicate the grandeur of thistransformation. They emphasize the splendor of the dazzling whitelight radiating from His entire being. Although His features retainedtheir recognizably human form, everything else about Him took ona blinding light, blazing with sun-like glory. This is the incident whichso marvelously encapsules what the Apostles meant when they said:“We have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father”(Jn. 1:14), and “We were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pt. 1:16ff).This is something of that majestic dignity for which Jesus longed:“. . , the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.”(Jn. 175) It is that unbearable, blinding splendor which shone abovethe brightness of the noonday sun on the Damascus road that convictedSaul of Tarsus that he lay prostrate in the presence of ‘‘Jesusof �azareth, the Lord of glory” (Ac. 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13; 1 Co.2:8) This is a foretaste of that radiant beauty recognized by the elderApostle when Jesus dictated the Revelation to him. (Rev. 1:9-19)He was transfigured means that when people saw Jesus, theynormally saw nothing different from a normal Galilean, like athousand others they could name. But for this brief, splendid momentthe three disciples beheld “the glory of God in the face of Jesus”(2 Co. 4:6) He was transfigured (rpetemorf6the) means that the “formof God” (morfi theoii) shone through the “form of a servant.” (mog2

d o 6 h ) (See Phil. 2:6, 7; Edersheim, Life, 11, 96.)The effects on the reader would be at least two:

1. The common reader would see that here in the glory of Jesus is asuggestion of the awe-inspiring glory with which He would be surroundedas He began to reign at the right hand of the Father andin which He will return, (Mt. 16:27; Lk. 9:26) Is this a foretaste ofthe glory that one day we too shall share? (Cf. Phi. 3:20, 21;Col. 3:4; 1 Co. 1535-58; 1 Jn. 3:2, 3)

2. If the Transfiguration reminded the Hebrew reader of the shiningface of Moses after his conversations with God on Mt. Sinai (Ex.34:29ff), it would be a comparison by contrast. The luminousness

of Moses’ face was relatively so feeble that a veil easily concealedit. (Ex. 34:33-35; 2 Co. 3:12-18) Contrarily, the brilliance of theperson of our Lord was such that every part of His entire beingwas radiant. A greater than Moses is here.”

5. Gibson, “It seems probable that the idea was to spend the night in prayer. We know that this was a not in frequent custom with Him ; and if ever there seemed a call for it, it must have been now, when about to begin that sorrowful journey which led to Calvary. With this thought agree all the indications which suggest that it was evening when they ascended, night while they remained on the top, and morning when they came down. This, too, will account in the most natural manner for the drowsiness of the apostles ; and the fact that their Lord felt none of it only proved how much more vivid was his realization of the awfulness of the crisis than theirs was. We are to think of the four, then, as slowly and thoughtfully climbing the hill at eventide, carrying their abbas, or rugs, on which they would kneel for prayer, and which, if they needed rest, they would wrap around them, as is the Oriental custom. By the time they reached the top, night would have cast its veil of mystery on the grandeur of the mountains round about them

5B. Gibson gives us his impression of what happened.“A careful reading of all the records leads us to think of the following as the order of events. Having gone up to pray, they would doubtless all kneel down together. As the night wore on, the three disciples, being exhausted, would wrap themselves in their cloaks and go to sleep ; while the Master, to whom sleep at such a time was unnatural, if not impossible, would continue in prayer. Can we suppose that that time of pleading was free from agony ? His soul had been stirred within Him when Peter had tempted Him to turn aside from the path of the Cross ; and may we not with reverence suppose that on that lonely hilltop, as later in the Garden, there might be in His heart the cry, " Father, if it be possible " ? If only the way upward were open now ! Has not the kingdom of God been preached in Judaea, in Samaria, in Galilee, away to the very borderlands ? and has not the Church been founded ? and has not authority been given to the apostles ? Is it, then, absolutely necessary to go back, back to Jerusalem, not to gain a triumph, but to accept

the last humiliation and defeat? There cannot but have been a great conflict of feeling ; and with all the determination to be obedient even unto death, there must have been a shrinking from the way of the cross, and a great longing for heaven and home and the Father s welcome. The longing cannot be gratified : it is not possible for the cup to pass from Him ; but just as later in Gethsemane there came an angel from heaven strengthening him, so now His longing for heaven and home and the smile of His Father is gratified in the gladdening and strengthening experience which followed His prayer a foretaste of the heavenly glory, so vivid, so satisfying, that He will thenceforth be strong, for the joy that is set before Him, to endure the Cross, despising the shame. …...…...We need not wonder, then, that it should have been so with our Lord, only in an immeasurably higher degree : that His face should have shone even "as the sun"; and that, though He could not yet ascend to heaven, heaven s brightness should have descended on Him and wrapped Him round, so that even " His raiment was white as the light." And not only heavenly light is round, but heavenly company ; for " behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him."

6. J. C. Ryle, “In the first place, we have in these verses a striking pattern of the glory

in which Christ and His people will appear when He comes the second time.

There can be little question that this was one main object of this wonderful vision. It was meant to encourage the disciples, by giving them a glimpse of good things yet to come. That "face shining as the sun," and that "clothing white as the light," were intended to give the disciples some idea of the majesty in which Jesus will appear to the world, when He comes the second time, and all His saints with Him. The corner of the veil was lifted up, to show them their Master's true dignity. They were taught that, if He did not yet appear to the world in the semblance of a king, it was only because the time for putting on His royal apparel was not yet come. It is impossible to draw any other conclusion from Peter's language, when writing on the subject. He says, with distinct reference to the transfiguration, "We were eye-witnesses of hismajesty." (2 Peter 1:16.)

7. So many authors say the same thing about this being a sort of preview of His second coming, but I think Calvin is more on the mark of believing that this was far from what he will be in his coming again. He wrote, “His transfiguration did not altogether enable his disciples to see Christ, as he now is in heaven, but gave them a taste of his boundless glory, such as they were able to comprehend. Then his face

shone as the sun; but now he is far beyond the sun in brightness. In his raiment an

unusual and dazzling whiteness appeared; but now without raiment a divine majesty shines in his whole body. Thus in ancient times God appeared to the holy fathers, not as He was in Himself, but so far as they could endure the rays of His infinite brightness; for John declares that not until

they are like him will they see him as he is, (1 John 3:2.)

There is no necessity for entering here into ingenious inquiries as to the whiteness of his garments, or the brightness of his countenance; for this was not a complete exhibition of the heavenly glory of Christ, but, under symbols which were adapted to the capacity of the flesh, he enabled them to taste in part what could not be fully comprehended.”

8. Gill, “and his raiment was white as the light:he did not put off his clothes, nor were the nature and substance, and fashion of them changed; but such rays of glory darted through his flesh, and through his clothes, as made them as bright and shining, as the light of the sun at noon day. Mark says, they became "exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them". The Vulgate Latin reads, "as snow", here; and so do the Ethiopic version, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel. Snow has a peculiar whiteness in it, and is therefore made use of, to express the glittering brightness of Christ's raiment; and the fuller is mentioned, who by the Jews is called, and means one that whitens wool, or raiment, and such an one is here designed: not that any fuller makes garments of another colour white; for though this may be done, it is not the work of fullers, but dyers: but fullers, whatever colour garments are of, if sullied and spotted, can restore them to their native colour; and if white, can bring them to their former whiteness: now Christ's garments were as white, yea, whiter, than any such men could possibly make garments, that were white at first: what colour Christ's garments were of before, is not certain; now they appeared white, to the greatest degree of whiteness.

Dr. Hammond F2 has a conjecture, that in the phrase "on earth", reference is had to the earth fullers make use of in cleaning, and which is called "fullers' earth"; and that the words are to be rendered, "as no fuller, by or with earth can white them"; but if this will not bear, the sense is, that there is no fuller, nor ever was, or ever will be upon earth, that can make raiment so white as Christ's was.”

9. Macarthur, “Jesus was totally changed before the three disciples. The Greek root of metamorpho[ma]o is morph[ma]e, which refers to form. His form was totally changed. The glory of God was unveiled, radiating from the inside of Christ outward. He was like a supernatural light bulb. The light from within Him was as brilliant as the sun.

The scene leaves little doubt regarding who Christ is. Whenever God, who is spirit (John 4:24), chose to manifest His invisible essence in the Old Testament, He did so as light. In Exodus He manifested Himself in a pillar of fire and a cloud.

a) 2 Peter 1:16--"We have not followed cunningly designed fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were

eyewitnesses of his majesty."

b) John 1:14--"We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

c) Matthew 24:30--"They shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (cf. Matt. 25:30).

d) Revelation 1:14-16--The apostle John gave the following description of Jesus Christ in his vision: "His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were like a flame of fire; and his feet like fine bronze, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword; and his countenance was as the sun shineth in its strength."

When Christ came into the world, He used the veil of humanity to cloak His divine nature. The body is a wall that veils one's inner nature. But when Christ pulled back the veil, the blazing glory of God became visible. That's what the three disciples saw, and that's what we see in this text. The transfiguration leaves no doubt about who Christ is. So don't let anyone tell you Jesus isn't God.”

10. Henry, “�ow his transfiguration appeared in two things:

1. His face did shine as the sun. The face is the principal part of the body, by which we are known; therefore such a brightness was put on Christ's face, that face which afterward he hid not from shame and spitting. It shone as the sun when he goes forth in his strength, so clear, so bright; for he is the Sun of righteousness, the Light of the world. The face of Moses shone but as the moon, with a borrowed reflected light, but Christ's shone as the sun, with an innate inherent light, which was the more sensibly glorious, because it suddenly broke out, as it were, from behind a black cloud.

2. His raiment was white as the light. All his body was altered, as his face was; so that beams of light, darting from every part through his clothes, made them white and glittering. The shining of the face of Moses was so weak, that it could easily be concealed by a thin veil; but such was the glory of Christ's body, that his clothes were enlightened by it.”

11. Plummer, “During these last months of His earthly career the shadow of the Cross was falling on Him more and more, and He may have needed this foretaste of His glory to help Him to endure the foretaste of His sufferings. He accepted the strengthening of an Angel in the garden ; and He may have accepted similar strengthening on the mount.”

12. Scougal, “When once the soul by contemplation is raised

to any right apprehension of the Divine perfections and

the foretastes of celestial bliss, how will this world and

all that is in it vanish and disappear before his eyes ?

With what holy disdain will he look down upon things,

which are the highest objects of other men's ambitious

desires ? All the splendor of courts all the pageantry

of greatness will no more dazzle his eyes than the faint

luster of a glow-worm will trouble the eagle, after it hath

been beholding the- sun. �eh. vi. 3 ; John iv. 32. — “

13. COKE, "Matthew 17:2. And was transfigured before them— The word µεταµορφωθη implies either that there was a transfiguration made on the substance of his body, according to the import of the word in the best classic writers; (See Philippians 3:21.) or that the outward appearance only of his body was altered, as seems most probable from the manner in which St. Luke has expressed it. In this transfiguration the face of Jesus became radiant and dazzling; for it shone like the sun in its unclouded meridian clearness, and so was incomparably more glorious than the face of Moses at the giving of the law: at the same timehis garments acquired a snowy whiteness bright as light, and sweetly refulgent, but in a degree inferior to the radiancy of his countenance. Thus for a little while, during the state of his humiliation, the Son of God permitted the glory of his divinity to break forth, as it were, and shine through the veil of his human nature with which it was covered. See Macknight and Calmet.

3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

1. Jesus was talking to dead people on the mountain. It is good to know that even after we are dead we can still climb mountains, or maybe just appear there, or anywhere else, for that matter. What we know for sure is that Moses was a dead man. Deuteronomy 34:5-6 says, “So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Bethpeor”And in Joshua 1:2 God said:

“Moses my servant is dead”

2. Those who believe in soul sleep, which means the dead are asleep until the resurrection, teach that Moses and Elijah are not really here, but are still sleeping in their graves, and this vision is just that-a vision produced by supernatural means. This is how they escape the reality of the dead still being alive and conscious.

2B. Calvin, “It is asked, Were Moses and Elijah actually present? or was it only an apparition that was exhibited to the disciples, as the prophets frequently beheld visions of things that were absent? Though the subject admits, as we say, of arguments on both sides, yet I think it more probable that they were actually brought to that place. There is no absurdity in this supposition; for God has bodies and souls in his hand, and can restore the dead to life at his pleasure, whenever he sees it to be necessary. Moses and Elijah did not then rise on their own account, “Moses and Elijah did not then rise for themselves, and with respect to the last resurrection.” but in order to wait upon Christ. It will next be asked, How came the apostles to know Moses and Elijah, whom they had never seen? The answer is easy. God, who brought them forward, gave also signs and tokens by which they were enabled to know them. It was thus by an extraordinary revelation that they obtained the certain knowledge that they were Moses and Elijah.”

2C. Calvin implies that Moses and Elijah were raised up for this special assignment, but this supports soul sleep. Better is the view that the dead, such as these two great men, are always in a state of consciousness after death, and they were brought to this mountain to encourage Jesus. They knew of the cross and what he was facing, and they talked to him about it giving him assurance of what lies ahead beyond the cross and grave. These two men were up on what the future held, and so were not asleep in death, but awake and fully aware of what God was doing in history.

2D. Clarke, “Elijah came from heaven in the same body which he had upon earth, for he was translated, and did not see death, 2 Kings 2:11. And the body of Moses was probably raised again, as a pledge of the resurrection; and as Christ is to come to judge the quick and the dead, for we shall not all die, but all shall be changed, 1 Corinthians 15:51, he probably gave the full representation of this in the person of Moses, who died, and was thus raised to life, (or appeared now as he shall appear when raised from the dead in the last day,) and in the person of Elijah, who never tasted

death. Both their bodies exhibit the same appearance, to show that the bodies of glorified saints are the same, whether the person had been translated, or whether he had died. It was a constant and prevalent tradition among the Jews, that both Moses and Elijah should appear in the times of the Messiah, and to this very tradition the disciples refer, Matthew 17:10.”

3. Barclay, “It is fascinating to see in how many respects the experience of these two great servants of God matched the experience of Jesus. When Moses came down from the mountain of Sinai, he did not know that the skin of his face shone (Exo.34:29). Both Moses and Elijah had their most intimate experiences of God on a mountain top. It was into Mount Sinai that Moses went to receive the tables of the

law (Exo.31:18). It was on Mount Horeb that Elijah found God, not in the wind, and not in the earthquake, but in the still small voice (1Kgs.19:9-12).”

4. What could they be talking about? Dr. Luke gives us an insight here, and Barclay goes there to give us his understanding of what this conversation was all about. “Once again we must turn to Luke's account of the Transfiguration. He tells us that Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus, as the Revised Standard Version has it, "of his departure which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem" (Lk.9:31). The word which is used for departure in the Greek is very significant. It is exodos (GS�1841), which is exactly the same as the English word exodus.

The word exodus has one special connection; it is the word which is always used of the departure of the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt, into the unknown way of the desert, which in the end was going to lead them to the Promised Land. The word exodus is the word which describes what we might well call the most adventurous journey in human history, a journey in which a whole people in utter trust in God went out into the unknown. That is precisely what Jesus was going to do. In utter trust in God he was going to set out on the tremendous adventure of that journey to Jerusalem, a journey beset with perils, a journey involving a cross, but a journey issuing in glory.

In Jewish thought these two figures, Moses and Elijah, always stood for certain things. Moses was the greatest of all the law-givers; he was supremely and uniquely the man who brought God's law to men. Elijah was the greatest of all the prophets; in him the voice of God spoke to men with unique directness. These two men were the twin peaks of Israel's religious history and achievement. It is as if the greatest figures in Israel's history came to Jesus, as he was setting out on the last and greatest adventure into the unknown, and told him to go on. In them all history rose up and pointed Jesus on his way. In them all history recognized Jesus as its own consummation. The greatest of the law-givers and the greatest of the prophets recognized Jesus as the one of whom they had dreamed, as the one whom they had foretold. Their appearance was the signal for Jesus to go on. So, then, the greatest human figures witnessed to Jesus that he was on the right way and bade him go out on his adventurous exodus to Jerusalem and to Calvary.”

4B. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “They discussed His “departure which He was

about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Lk. 9:31) This is the entire pointof this personal appearance of the chief representatives of the Lawand the Prophets. Whereas the Apostles refused Jesus’ predictionsof His death as an idea contradictory to the basic concepts of theOld Testament, here Moses and Elijah unhesitatingly discuss Hisdeath as perfectly in harmony with all they taught. Were they talkingabout His victory from their own point of view? After all, they toowould have been redeemed by His suffering, and now that theirRedeemer was nearing his final goal, His accomplishment of their

salvation would undoubtedly have been on their minds and causefor their gratitude.

The “departure” (kxodos) was no unavoidable accident, but somethingHe Himself was shortly to “fulfil,” Le. carry out of His ownfree choice. (Remember “must” [dei] of Mt. 16:21) But what, exactly,is this “departure” or kxodos?

1, Exodos can be a military term, referring to an expedition, a march,a sally or a sortie, a sudden issuing of troops from a defensiveposition to attack the enemy, (Rocci, 670) Does Luke mean Jesuswas conferring with Moses and Elijah about the “breakthrough”which He would accomplish at Jerusalem? The plan of God, whileholding Satan’s forces at bay for millennia, had moved steadilyforward in a defensive posture. Even God’s Son had preachedpositively, limiting Himself merely to skirmishes with Satan. But atthe battle of Jerusalem, Jesus would launch an all-out attack thatwould permanently destroy Satan’s capacity to win. (Gen. 3:15;Isa. 42:l-4) Since our Lord intended to win this battle in the onlyway it could be won, Le. by giving His own innocent life for the lifeof the world, “the Just for the unjust that He might bring us toGod,” the breakthrough must necessarily take place at the crossand the open tomb. (See also on 17:22.)

This way, Jesus stands at approximately the same place Mosesstood on Mount Horeb reflecting upon his exodus which he would

accomplish in Egypt. (Ex. 3, 4) The Son of God must go to HisEgypt too, Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8). There He would become thenew Deliverer to lead the new Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) out of their

59317:3, 4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

bondage to sin. Thus, all that Jesus accomplished at Jerusalem,His death as the perfect Pascal Lamb of God, His burial, Hisresurrection and ascension to glory, was but the accomplishmentof the actual departure. This is His praiseworthy victory, not overa defeated Pharaoh (Ex. 15:1-18), but over Satan himself. (Cf.Rev. 7:l-17; 14~1-51; 52-4) Then, the Mediator of a New Covenantwould lead His people past Mount Zion, the new Sinai, where Hisnew Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Ro. 8:2) would be“once and for all delivered to the saints” (Heb. 13:18-24; Jude 31,and then on through the wilderness trek (Heb. 13:14), and righton into our Promised Land, the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of theliving God. The departure of Israel from Egypt was an exodusin triumph by the power of God, and so is “His exodus which Hewas to accomplish at Jerusalem!”In short, the Apostles needed to return to their Bible and re-evaluatetheir own concepts, bringing them into harmony with what Moses inthe Law and the prophets really believed and taught. What we havelearned as a common characteristic of Matthew’s Gospel, and notuncommon in the others, was a real revelation to these disciples:

“EVERTHI�G written about me in the law of Moses and the prophetsand the psalms MUST BE FULFILLED’.’ (Lk. 24:44; see also Mt. 26:54,56) If the prophets are not shaken at the thought of a crucifiedMessiah, why should the disciples? In fact, Peter later admitted:

“The prophets prophesied . . . predicting the sufferings of Christand the subsequent glory.” (1 Pt. 1:lOf)

5. Balmer, “The Transfiguration scene is like an announcement or fore- shadowing of the future glory just mentioned. Jesus takes the three disciples who were closest to him "up a bigfr mountain apart.** He appears to them resplendent with light as he will one day appear as the glorified Son of Man. What does the presence of Moses and Elijah signify? We have seen earlier that Jesus is considered in the Gospel as a new Moses; he is also the prophet of the �ew Age proclaiming the charter of the Kingdom of God. Moses had announced Jesus* coming (Deut. 18:15-19; see John 5:45-46; Luke 24:27). Elijah is the forerunner who is to prepare for the coming of the Messiah (Mai. 4 : 5-6) . These two great figures by their presence confirm the Messianic mission of Jesus and the indissoluble bond which binds the �ew Covenant to the Old, the fulfillment to the promise. The Mount of the Transfiguration cor- responds to Mount Sinai. It is there that God descends and reveals himself.

6. College Press Harold Fowler Commentary, “This is the second encouragement of Jesus. At last

He is able to converse with men who really understand and shareHis aims. Just why, of all the illustrious giants of OT history, Moses

and Elijah should have been distinguished for this appearance is noteasily ascertained. Certain instructive factors stand out, however, tosuggest a motive for their selection:

1. Their lives and ministry paralleled that of Jesus at precisely this point:a. Moses was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God. (�U. 20~1-13).

Elijah was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God. (1 Kg. 19:1-10).

Jesus was discouraged by the faithlessness and perversity of the people of God. (Mt. 16:22ff; 17:17).

All three talked with God on the mountain, and all three were glorified on the mountain.

Another lesson from the appearance of the heavenly pair is that

death, or removal from the earth, is not the final end of one’s placein God’s plan. Moses and Elijah, although separated in time bymany centuries, are suddenly united and ushered into Jesus’presence for this specific mission. The dismayed disciples, horrifiedat the thought of Jesus’ abandoning them by voluntary death, aresuddenly reminded that death does not bring man to an end, nordoes it terminate his mission and service to God.”

7. J. C. Ryle, “�ow we have in the transfiguration the clearest evidence that the dead will rise again. We find two men appearing on earth, in their bodies, who had long been separate from the land of the living--and in them, we have a pledge of the

resurrection of all. All that have ever lived upon earth will again be called to life, and render up their account. �ot one will be found missing. There is no such thing as annihilation. All that have ever fallen asleep in Christ will be found in safe keeping; patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs--down to the humblest servant of God in our own day. Though unseen to us, they all live to God. "He is not a God of the dead, but of the living." (Luke 20:38.) Their spirits live as surely as we live ourselves, and will appear hereafter in glorified bodies, as surely as Moses and Elijah in the mount. These are indeed solemn thoughts! There is a resurrection, and men like Felix may well tremble. There is a resurrection, and men like Paul may well rejoice.”

8. Gill, “�ow they came. Luke says, they appeared "in glory": in glorious bodies, in a glory upon their bodies; like, though inferior, to the glorious body of Christ, now transfigured: that they appeared in their own real bodies, no doubt need be made; about the body of Elijah, or Elias, there is no difficulty; since he was carried soul and body to heaven, he died not, but was changed; and has ever since remained in a glorious body, in which he doubtless now appeared: and why this should not be the case of Moses, or why he should appear in another body, and not his own, I see not; for though he died, yet he was buried by the Lord, and no man ever knew the place of his sepulchre; and there was a dispute about his body, between Michael and the devil, all which are uncommon circumstances: so that it might be, that his body was, quickly after his death, raised and restored to him; or at this time, as a pledge of the resurrection of the dead, as Christ's transfiguration was of his glory. The Jews have a notion that Moses is not dead, but is ascended, and stands and ministers to God, in

the highest heavens F5: the appearance of these two with Christ, was to show, that Christ is the end of the law and prophets; that there is an entire agreement between him and them, and that they have their full accomplishment in him; and also shows, that he was neither Elias, nor any of the prophets, as some took him to be; since he was distinct from them, and the chief and more glorious than any of them. If it should be asked; how came the disciples to know these two to be Moses and Elias, since they never saw them before, nor could have any statues or pictures of them, these being not allowed among the Jews; nor do the accounts of them in Scripture seem to be sufficient to direct them to such a thought; especially, since by their glorification, they must be greatly altered: it may be replied, they knew them, either by immediate divine revelation, or by the discourse that passed between them and Christ...”

9. Macarthur, “God was telling Peter to keep quiet--it was not the right time for

stupid suggestions. But what was wrong with what Peter said? His attitude wasn't wrong, but there was something foolish about his request. Peter didn't understand two things: first, he didn't realize that he had experienced a preview only. He still had to go down the mountain and live through suffering and hardship. The Messiah still had to suffer and die. Second, Peter didn't understand that Jesus, Moses, and Elijah can't be given equal treatment. When Peter offered his suggestion, Moses and Elijah were departing from Jesus (Luke 9:33). The appearance of Moses and Elijah was temporary because their purpose was to salute their divine successor--the One who fulfilled the law and the prophets--and then to leave Him alone in the glory of unchallenged supremacy. To build booths for all three didn't fit God's plan. Peter simply didn't know what he was talking about.

10. Brian Bell stimulates some interesting issues in his comments. He calls Moses and Elijah extraterrestrials, for they came from a different world than this one where they once lived in the flesh. When Jesus expounded on who he was after his resurrection he went to these two, and other prophets. Luke 24:27 says, “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” All of the Old Testament people were looking to the day the Messiah would come, and now it is here and these two represent the whole of God's Old Testament people. They greet Jesus and acknowledge him to be the fulfillment of all the Old Testament pointed to. These two had momentous experiences on the mountain, and Jesus did as well. Below is a partial list of the events they each experienced on mountains.

11.Moses - (Ex.34:29) “When Moses came down from Mnt. Sinai, He knewest not that his skin of his face shone.”

(Ex.31:18) “It was on Mnt. Sinai that he received the tables of the Law. 36 times in

Exodus Mnt. is used.

Elijah - (1 Kings 19:9-12) “It was on Mnt. Horeb that Elijah found God, not in the

wind, & not in the earthquake, but in the still small voice!”

(1 Kings 18) “It was on Mnt. Carmel where Elijah saw God respond visually w/fire

to defeat his enemy.”

Jesus - (Mt.5-8) He gives the Beatitudes on a mnt.

(Mt.14) Found praying on a mnt.

(Mt.15) Found resting & healing on a mnt.

(Mt.28) After His Res. He meets the disciples on a mnt. in Galilee.

His 3 famous discourses were given on a mnt.

Bread of life[Jn.6]; Sermon on the mnt.[Mt.5-8]; Olivet [Mt.24,lk21,Mrk.13].

He also Ascends from Mnt. Olivet/ His Return is to the same.

Mnt. top experiences aren’t Consistent, but are Unforgettable! {steal away!}

12. Henry, “He will come, at last, with ten thousands of his saints; and, as a specimen of that, there now appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him, Matthew 17:3. Observe, 1. There were glorified saints attending him, that, when there were three

to bear record on earth, Peter, James, and John, there might be some to bear record from heaven too. Thus here was a lively resemblance of Christ's kingdom, which is made up of saints in heaven and saints on earth, and to which belong the spirits of

just men made perfect. We see here, that they who are fallen asleep in Christ are not perished, but exist in a separate state, and shall be forthcoming when there is occasion. 2. These two were Moses and Elias, men very eminent in their day. They had both fasted forty days and forty nights, as Christ did, and wrought other miracles, and were both remarkable at their going out of the world as well as in their living in the world. Elias was carried to heaven in a fiery chariot, and died not. The body of Moses was never found, possibly it was preserved from corruption, and reserved for this appearance. The Jews had great respect for the memory of Moses and Elias, and therefore they came to witness of him, they came to carry tidings concerning him to the upper world. In them the law and the prophets honoured Christ, and bore testimony to him. Moses and Elias appeared to the disciples; they saw them, and heard them talk, and, either by their discourse or by information from Christ, they knew them to be Moses and Elias; glorified saints shall know one another in heaven. They talked with Christ. �ote, Christ has communion with the blessed, and will be no stranger to any of the members of that glorified corporation. Christ was now to be sealed in his prophetic office, and therefore these two great prophets were fittest to attend him, as transferring all their honour and interest to him; for in these last days God speaks to us by his Son, Hebrews 1:1.”

The whole incident is Glory! {His face Glowed w/Gamma Rays; His Garments Glistened & Gleamed!}

This is the only record we have of Him reveling His Glory while on earth.

He was “Transfigured”{metamorphosis} “a change on the outside that comes from the inside.

Our Lord’s Glory was not Reflected but Radiated from within!

Heb.1:1-3 esp.“who being(not reflecting) the brightness of His

glory..”

The Shekinah of His heart was for the most part hidden, but

here it burst thru the veil of flesh.

We must also be “Transfigured/Transformed”! Not that we should for a brief moment see & reflect our Lord’s face! But, that we would Enshrine Him in our hearts! That we would rid ourselves of all hindering veils. And let the light of the knowledge of the glory of God make even the garb of daily drudgery beautiful!

“Here is the Great Climax of our Lord’s earthly life, when He definitely turned away from the Glory that was set before Him, to endure the Cross for our Redemption!”

BE�SO�, "Matthew 17:3-4. And behold — To heighten the grandeur and solemnity of the scene; there appeared unto them — That is, unto the disciples as well as Jesus; Moses and Elias — Luke says, two men, which were Moses and Elias, and Mark, Elias with Moses. Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews, and Elijah, who had been a most zealous restorer and defender of the law, appeared in the glories of immortality, wherewith the blessed above are adorned: talking with him — And, according to Luke, the subject of their conversation was, the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem, that is, his departure out of the present life, or the sufferings and death whereby he was to atone for sin, and effect the redemption of mankind: a subject the most important of all others, and therefore the most proper to employ the thoughts and tongues of these illustrious personages, the most illustrious, certainly, that had ever met together on earth in one place. But the three disciples were seized with an irresistible drowsiness, and fell into a deep sleep. They awoke, however, time enough to see Christ’s glory, and that of the two men who stood with him. Probably the streams of light which issued from Christ’s body, especially his countenance, and the voices of Moses and Elias talking with him, made such an impression on their senses as to awake them. Lifting up their eyes, therefore, they must have been amazed beyond measure when they beheld their Master in the majesty of his transfigured state, and his illustrious attendants, whom they might know to be Moses and Elias by revelation, or by what they said, or by the appellations which Jesus gave them in speaking to them. Peter, particularly, being both afraid and glad at the glorious sight, was in the utmost confusion. �evertheless, the forwardness of his disposition prompted him to say something, and just as Moses and Elias were departing from Jesus, he said, Lord, it is good for us to be here — So doubtless they found it. Both before and after this transfiguration they had many refreshing seasons with their Master, heard many ravishing sermons, and saw many wonderful miracles; yet in no place, and on no occasion but this, were they ever heard to say, It is good for us to be here. Peter fancied, doubtless, that Jesus had now assumed his proper dignity; that Elias was come, according to Malachi’s prediction; and that the kingdom was at length begun. Wherefore, in the first hurry of his thoughts, he proposed to provide some accommodation for Jesus

and his august attendants, intending, perhaps, to bring the rest of the disciples, with the multitude, from the plain below, to behold his matchless glory. He thought this was better for his Master than to be killed at Jerusalem. He said, therefore, If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles — He says, three, not six, because the apostles desired to be with their Master. They were words of rapturous surprise, and, as Mark observes, very improper. But, perhaps, few in such an astonishing circumstance could have been perfectly masters of themselves.

COFFMA�, "How did the apostles recognize Moses and Elijah? The conversation seems to be the most logical source of that information. It may be concluded from this incident that the saints will know the redeemed of all ages in their glorified state in heaven. The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ was strong proof of his deity, since Christ was able to recall from the hosts of righteous dead those typical representatives of previous dispensations. Moses the great lawgiver, and Elijah the great prophet, were there summoned from the dead to resign their commissions and to lay their homage at his feet. Then the apostles K�EW that Christ was not merely some great Elijah or other notable, and they were certain beyond all doubt that he was the One greater than all others, superior even to Moses and Elijah.

PETT, "‘And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with him.’

And then to cap His glory Moses and Elijah appeared before the amazed eyes of the disciples and talked with Him. Men of Heaven came down to earth. ‘Behold’ indicates something new that is happening of which note should be taken. His glorious Transfiguration had undoubtedly revealed His heavenly nature and status (compare John 17:5), but now the question is, what did the presence of Moses and Elijah reveal, and what did it mean? �ote that they were ‘talking with Him’. It was not just to be seen as a series of strange visions, but as something that actually took place in which Moses and Elijah had a part to play.

It is quite possible that the disciples did not know who the visitors were at first, although it is equally possible that both Moses and Elijah wore things that identified them. Elijah’s prophetic dress would certainly have been very distinctive. But their conversations would probably be the sealing factor.

Unquestionably the first significance of their presence is that it indicated that both the great Lawgiver of Israel, and the great representative of the Prophets who, as the greatest of all the prophets, was to return again to turn many to God (Malachi 4:5), were there to witness to Jesus. And they were both there in their heavenly state, supporting Jesus, and seeing Him as the central figure, and as the One to Whom they looked, and to Whom they offered their support. It confirms that both of them supported what Jesus was doing, and that in Him a greater than Moses, and a greater than Elijah (compare Matthew 12:41-42), had come, in order to ‘fulfil the Law or the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17). And that is no doubt what they were talking to Him about. In this regard it should be noted that the book of the Prophets had closed with the words ‘Remember you the law of Moses My servant --- behold I will send you Elijah the prophet’ (Malachi 4:4-5). �ow they were both there testifying to

Jesus.

A further point that might be significant was that both of these men had previously gone into mountains for the very purpose of experiencing the mighty presence of God in person (Exodus 24:15; 1 Kings 19:8-18). And now here they were again in the mountain, but this time sharing in the glory of Jesus.

Matthew, like Luke, has reversed the order from ‘Elijah and Moses’ as found in Mark. Part of the reason for this might have been in order to fit in with the order in Matthew 5:17. But it may also signify that as a Jew he is putting a greater emphasis on Moses. To the Jews Moses had an unparalleled pre-eminence.

However, the grounds for seeing a ‘second Moses’ motif, rather than a second exodus motif, are not solid, unless we simply see by that that Jesus ‘fulfilled’ both Moses and Elijah, and more. While there are superficial similarities to the book of Exodus they are not exact enough to indicate that. Jesus is not here to be seen as a second Moses nor as a second Elijah. He is greater than both and fulfils both, and both point to Him. In Him ‘Israel’ are finally ‘coming out of Egypt’ for good (Matthew 2:15). And we should note in this regard that Matthew deliberately omits the fact that they were speaking of His coming ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:31) which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem, which would be strange if he particularly wanted to emphasise Jesus as a second, or even superior, Moses. Furthermore the reversal of the order actually makes it more difficult to see a pointer forward to a new Elijah (John), followed by a new Moses (Jesus) as lying behind the two names.

So what the presence of Moses and Elijah is accomplishing is the confirmation of Jesus’ unique status as the One to whom they had pointed as representatives of the Law and the Prophets. They had pointed forward. He is the fulfilment of it all. And what Matthew’s order may be intended to suggest is that he saw them as representing salvation history from its commencement to that time, with Moses as the great initial Deliverer, and Elijah as the final preparer of the way. And now the One has come for whom both have prepared, and they must point to Him and then withdraw. Their task is done. For Elijah’s work has been completed by John the Baptist. But none of the three disciples would ever forget that they had seen these great men bear witness to their Master. It threw new light onto many things.

But there is possibly a further significance in the mentioning of these two, for Moses was the one who originally formed ‘the congregation of Israel’ into a cohesive unit, and miraculously fed them with bread in the wilderness, and Elijah had been responsible in the northern kingdom of Israel for establishing ‘the sons of the prophets’ and for taking care of the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal whom God had reserved to Himself (1 Kings 19:18), who represented what was left of the congregation of Israel that was still acceptable to God, thereby establishing a new ‘congregation’ from the remnant. And he also miraculously fed a woman and her son with bread (1 Kings 17:12-16), while his successor too, who shared his spirit (2 Kings 2:9; 2 Kings 2:15), miraculously fed a hundred of his followers with bread (2 Kings 4:42-44, compare Matthew 4:1-7). Thus these two may be seen as pointing ahead to the One who will form and miraculously feed in a far greater way the final new ‘congregation of Israel’, preserved out of the old.

BURKITT, "Observe here, the glorious attendance upon our Saviour at his glorious transfiguration; they were two men, Moses and Elias. This being but a glimpse of Christ's glory, not a full manifestation of it, only two of the glorified saints attend upon Christ at it; when he shall come in his full glory, ten thousand of thousands shall attend him. These two attendants were two men, not two angels; because men were more nearly concerned in what was done; they were not only spectators but partners. Man's restoration was Christ's principal aim: the angels' confirmation his less principal design. But why Moses and Elias?

1. Moses the giver of the law, and Elias the chief of the prophets, attending both upon Christ, did shew the consent of the law and the prophets with Christ,and their fulfilling and accomplishment in him.

2. Because these two were the most laborious servants of Christ, both adventured their lives in God's cause, and therefore are highly honoured by Christ. Such as honour him, he will honour.

4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

1. Barclay, “Peter must have learned two lessons that night. When Peter woke to what was going on, his first reaction was to build three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah. He was always the man for action; always the man who must be doing something. But there is a time for stillness; there is a time for contemplation, for wonder, for adoration, for awed reverence in the presence of the supreme glory. "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps.46:10). It may be that sometimes we are too busy trying to do something when we would be better to be silent, to be listening, to be wondering, to be adoring in the presence of God. Before a man can fight and adventure upon his feet, he must wonder and pray upon his knees.

(iii) But there is a converse of that. It is quite clear that Peter wished to wait upon the mountain slopes. He wished that great moment to be prolonged. He did not want to go down to the everyday and common things again but to remain for ever in the sheen of glory.

That is a feeling which everyone must know. There are moments of intimacy, of serenity, of peace, of nearness to God, which everyone has known and wished to prolong. As A. H. Mc�eile has it: "The Mountain of Transfiguration is always more enjoyable than the daily ministry or the way of the Cross."

But the Mountain of Transfiguration is given to us only to provide strength for the daily ministry and to enable us to walk the way of the Cross. Susanna Wesley had a prayer: "Help me, Lord, to remember that religion is not to be confined to the church or closet, nor exercised only in prayer and meditation, but that everywhere I am in thy presence." The moment of glory does not exist for its own sake; it exists to clothe the common things with a radiance they never had before.”

2. Broadus, “Full of strange, bewildered, but

delightful feelings, Peter wanted to

stay there permanently, and not have the

Master go to Jerusalem for the predicted

sufferings and death. Keim fancies that Peter

wished to summon the other disciples and the

people from every direction to witness this

opening manifestation of the Messianic glory

which is pure hypothesis, but not impossible.

Meyer and Weiss imagine that Peter

means, " It is a good thing that we are here,"

so as to take the necessary steps. The Greek

will bear this sense, but the tone of the narrative

will not. It was indeed good to be there,

but they could not stay. Down again must

Jesus and his disciples go, amid human sorrow

and sin , down to witness distressing unbelief ,

and presently to set out on the journey towards

Jerusalem and the cross.”

2B. Peter could be so simple that he was silly. He said it is good for us to be here. This is like saying to the man who hands you the forty million dollar check you won on the lottery-it is good for me to be here. It was such an understatement, for they had just witnessed what no human has ever witnessed in all of history, and they had the greatest confirmation of Christ's deity than anyone could ask for. And he responds to this unbelievable awesome experience with, it is good for us to be here.

That is what you say when you happen to walk into a store just as they are announcing a special sale on the very item you are coming to buy. When deity lights up like the sun in your face, you had better come up with something closer to Wow! This is absolutely amazing! I am blown away! Hallelujah, I am so thankful to God I could be here for this! It is good for us to be here. Duh, Peter. This was goofy enough, but then he goes on to offer his building skills to erect shelters for these men who have roamed the universe of God's kingdom in heaven for centuries. You would think it would dawn on him that they were probably doing alright without him, being alive and well for a millennium and more. He had no clue that he was offering the equivalent of a cardboard box to the likes of Bill Gates. You can count on it that Moses and Elijah never sent him a thank you card for his offer. The funny thing is, you and I may have been just as silly had we been there to witness this awesome supernatural event.

3. Gibson, “That the conversation was intended for their benefit

as well, seems indicated by the way in which Peter s

intervention is recorded : " Then answered Peter, and

said unto Jesus." What he said is quite characteristic

of the impulsive disciple, so ready to speak without

thinking. On this occasion he blunders in a very

natural and pardonable way. He feels as if he ought

to say something ; and, as nothing more to the purpose

occurs to him, he blurts out his thoughtless proposal

to make three tabernacles for their abode. Besides

the thoughtlessness of this speech, which is manifest

enough, there seems to lurk in it a sign of his falling

back into the very error which a week ago he had

renounced the error of putting his Master in the same

class as Moses and Elias, reckoning Him thus, as the

people of Galilee had done, simply as " one of the

prophets." If so, his mistake is at once corrected ;

for behold a bright luminous cloud fit symbol of the

Divine presence : the cloud suggesting mystery, and

the brightness, glory wraps all from sight, and out

of the cloud there comes a voice : " This is My beloved

Son, in Whom I am well pleased ; hear ye Him."

4. Calvin, “But his desire was foolish; first, because he did not comprehend the design of the vision; secondly, because he absurdly put the servants on a level with their Lord; and, thirdly, he was mistaken in proposing to build fading tabernacles “earthly tabernacles.” for men who had been already admitted to the glory of heaven and of the angels.” “Justly, therefore, is it stated by two of the Evangelists, that he knew not what he said; and Mark assigns the reason, that they were afraid;

for God did not intend that the apostles should, at that time, derive any advantage from it beyond that of beholding for a moment, as in a bright mirror, the divinity of his Son. At a later period, he pointed out to them the fruit of the vision, and corrected the error of their judgment. What is stated by Mark must therefore mean, that Peter was carried away by frenzy, and spoke like a man who had lost his senses.”

5. The other two Apostles did not know what to say either, but they chose to say nothing, and that was fine. It was rambunctious Peter who had to blurt out something, and that something was nonsense. Wise are those who have nothing to say and just don't say it. Peter was not always wise, and he said whatever came into his head.

6. Henry offers this positive note about Peter's offer: “It argued great respect for his Master and the heavenly guests, with some commendable forgetfulness of himself and his fellow-disciples, that he would have tabernacles for Christ, and Moses, and Elias, but none for himself. He would be content to lie in the open air, on the cold ground, in such good company; if his Master have but where to lay his head, no matter whether he himself has or no.” But then he went on, “Yet in this zeal he betrayed a great deal of weakness and ignorance. What need had Moses and Elias of tabernacles? They belonged to that blessed world, where they hunger no more, nor

doth the sun light upon them. Christ had lately foretold his sufferings, and bidden his disciples expect the like; Peter forgets this, or, to prevent it, will needs be building tabernacles in the mount of glory, out of the way of trouble. Still he harps upon, Master, spare thyself, though he had been so lately checked for it. �ote, There is a proneness in good men to expect the crown without the cross. Peter was for laying hold of this as the prize, though he had not yet fought his fight, nor finished his course, as those other disciples, Matthew 20:21. We are out in our aim, if we look for a heaven here upon earth. It is not for strangers and pilgrims (such as we are in our best circumstances in this world), to talk of building, or to expect a continuing city.”

College Press Harold Fowler

PETER’S PRESUMPTUOUS PERPETUATIO� OF APERNICIOUS PANTHEON17:4 Until this moment the disciples had been passive participantsin the pageant. Now, however, Moses and Elijah began to take theirdeparture. (Lk. 9:33) Peter suddenly came alive to try to capture therapture of that precious moment. The fisherman’s ecstatic outburst

is marred by the following facts:1. It is paralyzing: Lord, it is good for us to be here. Peter, the manof action, suggests a move that would stop all action, without evenrealizing the contradiction. Never one to be still for long and muchpreferring to be busy doing something, he, ironically, desires toprolong this exquisite moment of closeness to God and glory,594

JESUS sIiows HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES. AND JOHN 17:4forgetting that the action o€ God is to take place, not merely on

this mountain of golden splendor, but down in the valley of dailyniinistry and on redemption’s cross. Does Peter’s “good to beIiERd’ have as its anithesis: “bad to be down THERE among unbelieving,conniving Pharisees and other miserable wretches,enduring sinners’ hostility and battling the myriads of evils thatplague the earth”? Even ONE booth would be too many, if it meant

to stay forever on the mount and ignore world need. Does Peter,in his thrill to keep the Feast with Moses and Elijah, forget theother Apostles, the waiting crowd and needy humanity? How longdid he hope to prolong it all? Surely he did not intend to desertthe world’s needs. However, from this viewpoint, if God’s Feastof Tabernacles has come, there would not be any needy humanityto worry about, for all would be supplied, all the world’s ills healed.2. It is perplexed. While both Mark and Luke affirm that Peter “didnot know what to say,’’ nor did he really “know what he said,”nevertheless he apparently felt he must say something, and blurtedout the first instinctive suggestion that came to mind. The verydeparture of these heavenly visitors may have triggered him toact to try to detain them. But it was unnecessary for him to react,since the entire Transfiguration was even then taking place tocorrect his own mistaken Christology. He was talking when heshould have been listening and learning! And Peter answered,does not mean he was answering something addressed to him, butrather that he was responding to the marvelous experience in generaland probably to detain the great OT worthies.3, It perpetuates what must of necessity be temporary.a. It is presumptuous to suggest to the Lord of glory what is right

and proper! True, he begins humbly: If you wish. Nevertheless,he did not realize the audacity and absurdity of his suggestion.The absurdity of his idea lies not so much in his providingmaterial shelters from the mountain cold for the glorified Jesusand His heavenly guests, as in believing that God’s great Feastof Tabernacles had come. (Cf. Lev. 23:33-36, 39-43; Zech.14:16-19; Dt. 16:13-15; see also Edersheim, Life, 11, 148-165for descriptions of rabbinical views of this feast and its typicalsignificance, as also of Jewish traditional observances.) If inthe Messianic Kingdom the remnant of the nations would participatewith Israel at the great Tabernacle Feast, symbol of God’sbringing them out of this life’s wanderings into the blessing ofeternal peace, perhaps that moment has come! If so, Peter59517:4, 5 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

would make here three tabernacles, forgetting that the Feast ofTabernacles lay in the near future (Jn. 7:2f, 10; Mt. 19:l; Mk.

1O:l; Lk. 9:51), the proposal of Peter to construct the littlehuts of branches from trees or shrubs may have been promptedby the realization that they were even then approaching theseason for it. The actual materials would have been near athand on the mountain down at the timberline. Peter’s natural,human desire to eternalize this breakthrough of glorious realityis understandable, but it reveals just one more time the factthat he did not comprehend the meaning of the event. This wasnot, as the Apostles were wishing, the beginning of the finaland defirlitive, but merely a prophetic and fleeting anticipationof it. Gpd’s final day of rest had not yet arrived, nor could ituntil after His day of judgment. And there had been no day ofmercy before the day of wrath! Peter presumptuously wantedto dispense with the cross of Christ and freeze history right atthat moment, not dreaming that, were he to have his way, hewould have been swept out of God’s presence forever alongwith the rest of us!b. Not only does he desire to prolong the mountain-top experience,but in the very act of providing THREE temporary lodges andplacing them at the same level with Jesus, he perpetuates theauthority of spokesmen whose messages served their day well,but from this day forward must rightly fade into the backgroundbehind the more glorious final revelation of Jesus Christ. Howcan Peter, who had but recently confessed Jesus to be God’sSon and Messiah, now consistently consider even such great andholy men as Moses and Elijah to be at the same level of importancewith Him? Is Jesus, after all, really just “one of theprophets”?! (Cf. Mt. 16:14) What is this, but the creationof a pernicious pantheon of personages, in which the definitiverevelation of Him who is the final word from the Father is relegatedto the status of lesser prophets.His thinking is still contaminated by his worldly Christology and byhis lack of comprehension about how the Messianic mission mustbe carried out.

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The person supplicating, Peter. No doubt the other two, James and John,were much affected, but Peter is more fervent and forward; yet there is no arguing with the Papists from his fervency to his superiority; his personal prerogatives were not hereditary.

Observe, 2. The person supplicated, Jesus; not Moses, nor Elias; the disciples make no prayer, no suit to them, but to Christ only. Prayers to saints departed are both vain and unlawful.

Observe, 3. The supplication itself, and that was for their continuance where they were. It is good for us to be here. O what a ravishing comfort is the fellowship of the saints! but the presence of Christ among them renders their joys transporting.

Observe, 4. Their proffer of service to farther this continuance; Let us make three Tabernacles. This motion was well meant and devout. St. Peter will stick at no cost nor pains for the enjoyment of Christ's presence and his saints' company, yet was the motion unadvised and rash. St. Peter erred in desiring a perpetuity of that condition which was but transient and momentary. This vision was only a taste of Glory, not a full repast. He errs, in that he would bring down heaven to earth, and take up with Tabor instead of heaven. He errs, in that he would enter upon the possession of heaven's glory, without suffering, and without dying. Peter would be clothed upon, but was not willing to be unclothed.

Learn, 1. That a glimpse of glory is enough to wrap a soul into ecstasy, and to make it out of love with worldly company.

2. That we are apt to desire more of heaven upon earth than God will allow: we would fain have the heavenly glory come down to us, but we are unwilling to go by death to that; we know not what we say, when we talk of felicity in tabernacles upon earth.

5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

1. Richard T. Ritenbaugh has a couple of excellent paragraphs on what is happening here. “ Why did Moses and Elijah appear with Him? This is where the events of Matthew 16 become important. These two servants of God were the most revered among all the Old Testament figures. Moses, the Great Lawgiver personified the Law, and Elijah, the Archetypal Prophet, the Prophets. Evidently, the vision depicted Moses and Elijah speaking to Jesus in a servant-Master relationship, but the disciples failed to see this vital distinction: Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. (Matthew 17:4-6) �otice how Peter puts it. "Let's make three tabernacles, one for each of you." The other accounts say he did not really know what he was saying, meaning that he had missed something in his fear, that he spoke without thinking it through (Mark 9:6; Luke 9:33). What happened as a result of his thoughtless comment? �otice that Matthew writes, "While he was still speaking . . .." This is a big clue. God, immediately seeing that the disciples did not understand, took steps to make it plain. To paraphrase what God says, "Look! Jesus is MY beloved Son, and He has MY highest approval. Listen to what HE says! He is far greater than Moses and Elijah, the Law and the Prophets." This is why the transfiguration occurred. God wanted to make it very clear to the disciples that His way of life is based on the life and death and life again of Jesus Christ, not on the Jews' traditional beliefs. He had to stun the disciples so that they would put Jesus and His teachings on a higher level than Judaism—even higher than the teachings ofMoses and Elijah.

Hebrews 3:1-6 confirms that this is the true understanding of the transfiguration. In the early AD 60s, Paul still had to reiterate this point to the Jewish Christians: Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. For this one has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honour than the house. For someone, but He who built all things, builds every house is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.”

1B. Peter did listen and he never forgot this experience. “In his last Epistle we read: "For we have not made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly imagined fables, but having been eye witnesses of His majesty. For He received from the Father honor and glory, such a voice being uttered to Him by the excellent glory : This is my beloved Son, in whom I found my delight ;* and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with Him in the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic Word made surer, to which ye do well taking heed as to a lamp shining in an obscure place until the day dawn and the morning star arise in your hearts" (2 Pet. 1: 16-20).

1C. It appears that God just interrupted Peter, for it was while he was speaking that God spoke, and cut him off in the middle of his nonsense. God actually did Peter a favor by taking the stage, for who knows what other foolishness Peter may have blurted out had he not been cut off. It is too bad God does not interrupt all who are speaking nonsense and render them silent by the awesome volume of his voice. It should be a common prayer of all speakers, Lord, please cut me off if I am saying meaningless, or ridiculous things.

2. Barnes, “Verse 5. A bright cloud overshadowed them. The word overshadow here means, rather, to be diffused or spread over them. It does not mean that it made a

shade. A cloud was a symbol of the Divine Presence. Thus God went before the Israelites in a cloudy pillar--dark by day, and bright by night, (Exodus 14:19,20) he appeared on Mount Sinai in a cloud bright by fire, (Exodus 24:15-17) and a cloud, the symbol of the Divine Presence--called the Shechinah-- dwelt continually in the Most Holy Place in the temple, 1 Kings 8:10,11; Ezekiel 1:4; 10:4. When, therefore, the disciples saw this cloud, they were prepared to hear the word of the Lord.

This is my beloved Son. This was the voice of God. This was the second time that, in a remarkable manner, he had declared this. See Matthew 3:17. This was spoken to

confirm the disciples; to declare their duty to hear Christ rather than any other, and to

honour him more than Moses and Elijah; and to strengthen their faith in himwhen they

should go forth to preach the gospel, after he was shamefully put to death. After

this, it was impossible for them to doubt that he was truly the Son of God. See 2

Peter 1:17,18.”

2B. Gill, “this is my beloved Son;not a servant, as Moses, Elias, and the rest of the

prophets were: though as Mediator, and as considered in his office capacity, he was

a servant; but in this clause, he is considered in his personal character and relation

to the Father, as a divine person, who was the Son of God: not by creation, as angels

and men are the sons of God; nor by adoption, as saints are; or on account of his

miraculous incarnation, and resurrection from the dead; whereby indeed, he was

manifested and declared to be the Son of God, which he was before; but on account

of his natural relation to God, as his Father; he being the eternal, essential, and only

begotten Son of God, in a way of filiation no creature is, and which, is ineffable by

us. And as such he is dearly beloved of God his Father, being his image and the

brightness of his glory; of the same nature and perfections with him, and equal to

him.

2C. Henry, “This cloud was intended to break the force of that great light which

otherwise would have overcome the disciples, and have been intolerable; it was like

the veil which Moses put upon his face when it shone. God, in manifesting himself to

his people, considers their frame. This cloud was to their eyes as parables to their

understandings, to convey spiritual things by things sensible, as they were able to

bear them.”

3. Barclay, “All the gospel writers speak of the luminous cloud which overshadowed

them. That cloud was part of Israel's history. All through that history the luminous

cloud stood for the shechinah, which was nothing less than the glory of Almighty

God. In Exodus we read of the pillar of cloud which was to lead the people on their

way (Exo.13:21-22). Again in Exodus we read of the building and the completing of

the Tabernacle; and at the end of the story there come the words: "Then the cloud

covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle"

(Exo.40:34). It was in the cloud that the Lord descended to give the tables of the law

to Moses (Exo.34:5). Once again we meet this mysterious, luminous cloud at the

dedication of Solomon's Temple: "And when the priests came out of the holy place,

a cloud filled the house of the Lord" (1Kgs.8:10-11; compare 2Chr.5:13-14;

2Chr.7:2). All through the Old Testament there is this picture of the cloud, in which

was the mysterious glory of God.”

4. Balmer, “A luminous cloud covered the appearances as it had

covered Moses earlier at Sinai (Exod. 24:15). A voice rang out, as it had rung out at the hour of the Baptism (Matt 3:17); for it is toward a new baptism, this time of blood, that Jesus advances in the obedience of faith (see Luke 12:49-50). The Father a second time acknowledges as his own this Son who has chosen the way of humiliation, the way of the Cross. It is in this un- limited self -giving that the Son reveals the Father, and the voice of the Father confirms this act of giving and hallows it.”

5. Broadus, “A bright cloud. Clouds are usually

dark, but this was a cloud full of light (same

word as in 6: 22), which in the night must

have been a sublime spectacle. Comp. in Old

Test, theophanies, Exod. 33: 9; 1 Kings 8:

10. The three disciples seem to have been

outside of the luminous cloud; Luke, in the

correct Greek text, leaves this uncertain, as

Matt, does; but a voice out of the cloud

suggests that those who heard it were with

out. Matthew repeats behold three times in

quick succession (v. s, 5), the events being each

very remarkable. On two other occasions a

supernatural voice bore testimony to Jesus.

(3:i7; John 12: 28.) The words here spoken are

the same as at the baptism (see on 3 : 17), ex

cept the addition here (in all three Gospels) of

hear ye him, a solemn call to listen to His

teachings and submit to his authority. The

phrase, in whom I am well pleased, is not

here given by Mark and Luke, and instead

of beloved the correct Greek text of Luke

(9=35) is chosen. Of course the words cannot

have been spoken in all these forms; an un

questionable proof, if it were needed, that the

Evangelists do not always undertake to give

the exact words. (Comp. on 3: 17.) The words

hear ye him probably refer to Deut. 18: 15,

" a prophet .... like unto me; unto him ye

shall hearken." It may be that Peter re

called them when he quoted that passage in

addressing the Jews. (Acts 3:22.)

6. Gabelein, “It was the cloud which spoke of Jehovah s

presence. That cloud which had been withdrawn from

Israel for centuries had all at once appeared again. Then Jehovah

had returned and condescended to be with His people

once more. They knew they stood in His presence as Isaiah

knew it when he saw the glorious vision. Therefore, they

were terrified, for they knew as sinful men they stood in the

Holy of Holiest and they had no sacrifice. And now

the voice out of the cloud. The Father speaks and He

speaks of the Son. He bears witness to the eternal relation

ship of Himself with Him, who was ever with Him and ever

His delight. He calls them away from occupation with

Moses and Elias ; neither law nor prophets can help you and

make you acceptable. Here He is my beloved Son, in

whom I am well pleased ; hear Him ! He has pleased the

Father and in Him the Father and the Father s heart is revealed.

Men are to hear Him, and refusing Him means

refusing God. In Him we are brought to God. Of course

the work of the cross is here anticipated. And thus in Him

the Father speaks, to Him the Father directs us, through

Him we are brought to the Father, and by Him the heavens

are opened. And all the precious thoughts which here

crowd to the heart and the mind we must leave untouched.

Oh, may we find our delight in Him in whom God finds

His delight ! �ever can we make too much of Him. As

then the cloud appeared and there was an open manifestation

of the Glory and Jehovah s presence, so in the coming day

of His return all will be repeated. Then He must be heard.

7. J. C. Ryle, “we have in these verses a remarkable testimony to Christ's infinite

superiority over all mankind.

This is a point which is brought out strongly by the voice from heaven, which the disciples heard. Peter, bewildered by the heavenly vision, and not knowing what to say, proposed to build three tabernacles, one for Christ, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. He seemed in fact to place the law-giver and the prophet side by side with his divine Master, as if all three were equal. At once, we are told, the proposal was rebuked in a marked manner. A cloud covered Moses and Elijah, and they were no more seen. A voice at the same time came forth from the cloud, repeating the solemn words, made use of at our Lord's baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased--listen to HIM."

That voice was meant to teach Peter, that there was one there far greater than Moses or Elijah. Moses was a faithful servant of God. Elijah was a bold witness for the truth. But Christ was far above either one or the other. He was the Savior to whom law and prophets were continually pointing. He was the true Prophet, whom all were commanded to hear. (Deut. 18:15.) Moses and Elijah were great men in their day. But Peter and his companions were to remember, that in nature, dignity, and office, they were far below Christ. He was the true sun--they were the planets depending daily on His light. He was the root--they were the branches. He was the Master--they were the servants. Their goodness was all derived--His was original andHis own. Let them honor Moses and the prophets, as holy men. But if they would be saved, they must take Christ alone for their Master, and glory only in Him. "Listen to Him."

8. Calvin, “This is my beloved Son. I willingly concur with those who think that there is an implied contrast of Moses and Elijah with Christ, and that the disciples of God’s own Son are here charged to seek no other teacher. The word Son is emphatic, and raises him above servants. There are two titles here bestowed upon Christ, which are not more fitted to do honor to him than to aid our faith: a beloved

Son, and a Master. The Father calls him my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, and thus declares him to be the Mediator, by whom he reconciles the world to himself. When he enjoins us to hear him, he appoints him to be the supreme and only teacher of his Church. It was his design to distinguish Christ from all the rest, as we truly and strictly infer from those words, that by nature he was God’s only

Son In like manner, we learn that he alone is beloved by the Father, and that he

alone is appointed to be our Teacher, that in him all authority may dwell.”

9. Clarke, “God adds his testimony of approbation to what was spoken of the sufferings of Christ by Moses and Elijah; thus showing that the sacrificial economy of the old covenant was in itself of no worth, but as it referred to the grand atonement which Jesus was about to make; therefore he says, In him HAVE I

delighted, intimating that it was in him alone, as typified by those sacrifices, that he HAD delighted through the whole course of the legal administration; and that it was only in reference to the death of his Son that he accepted the offerings and oblations made to him under the old covenant. Hear HIM. The disciples wished to detain Moses and Elijah that they might hear them: but God shows that the law which had been in force, and the prophets which had prophesied, until now, must all give place to Jesus; and he alone must now be attended to, as the way, the truth, and the life; for no man could now come unto the Father but through him. This voice seems also to refer to that prediction in Deuteronomy 18:15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me: HIM SHALL YE HEAR. Go no more to the law, nor to the prophets, to seek for a coming Messiah; for behold he IS come! Hear and obey him, and him only.

This transfiguration must have greatly confirmed the disciples in the belief of a future state, and in the doctrine of the resurrection; they saw Moses and Elijah still EXISTI�G, though the former had been gathered to his fathers upwards of 1400 years, and the latter had been translated nearly 900.”

10. Henry, “The great gospel mystery revealed; This is my beloved Son, in whom I

am well pleased. This was the very same that was spoken from heaven at his baptism (Matthew 3:17); and it was the best news that ever came from heaven to earth since man sinned. It is to the same purport with that great doctrine (2 Corinthians 5:19), That God

was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Moses and Elias were great men, and favourites of Heaven, yet they were but servants, and servants that God was not always well pleased in; for Moses spoke unadvisedly, and Elias was a man subject to passions; but Christ is a Son, and in him God was always well pleased. Moses and Elias were sometimes instruments of reconciliation between God and Israel; Moses was a great intercessor, and Elias a great reformer; but in Christ God is reconciling the world; his intercession is more prevalent than that of Moses, and his reformation more effectual than that of Elias.

This repetition of the same voice that came from heaven at his baptism was no vain repetition; but, like the doubling of Pharaoh's dream, was to show the thing was established. What God hath thus spoken once, yea twice, no doubt he will stand to, and he expects we should take notice of it. It was spoken at his baptism, because then he was entering upon his temptation, and his public ministry; and now it was repeated, because he was entering upon his sufferings, which are to be dated from hence; for now, and not before, he began to foretel them, and immediately after his transfiguration it is said (Luke 9:51), that the time was come that he should be

received up; this therefore was then repeated, to arm him against the terror, and his disciples against the offence, of the cross. When sufferings begin to abound,

consolations are given in more abundantly, 2 Corinthians 1:5.”

11. BENSON, "Matthew 17:5-8. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them — Such, probably, as took possession first of the tabernacle, and afterward of Solomon’s temple, when those holy places were consecrated. See Exodus 40:34; 1 Kings 8:10-11; where we are told that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister, because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. This, it is well known, used to be termed the shechinah, or visible symbol of the divine presence. A similar cloud, it seems, now overshadowed Jesus and his two glorified attendants, and therefore is termed by Peter, 2d 2 Peter 1:17, the excellent glory. And behold a voice out of the cloud — Namely, the voice of God himself; This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased — The same testimony which the Father bore to Jesus at his baptism, as recorded Matthew 3:17, where see the note. Thus, for the full confirmation of the disciples’ faith in Jesus, Moses, the giver of the law, Elijah, the most zealous of all the prophets, and God speaking from heaven, all bore witness to him. Hear ye him — As superior even to Moses and the prophets. This command of the Father plainly alluded to Deuteronomy 18:15, and signified that Jesus was the prophet of whom Moses spake in that passage, and concerning whom he enjoined, Unto him shall ye hearken. Luke informs us that the three disciples feared as they (namely, as Moses and Elias) entered into the cloud; but now, at the very moment when they heard the voice coming from the cloud, probably as loud as thunder, (see John 12:29,) and full of divine majesty, such as mortal ears were unaccustomed to hear, they fell flat to the ground on their faces, being sore afraid; an effect which visions of this kind commonly had on the prophets and other holy men to whom they were given. See Genesis 15:12; Isaiah 6:5; Ezekiel 2:1; Daniel 10:8; Revelation 1:17. It seems human nature could not of itself support such manifestations of the divine presence. In this condition the three disciples continued till Jesus came and touched them, and, raising them up, dispelled their fears. And when they had lifted up their eyes (Mark says, When they had looked round about) they saw no man — Saw no man any more, says Mark, save Jesus only with themselves. In Luke we read, When the voice was passed, Jesus was found alone.

This transfiguration of our Lord was doubtless intended for the following, among several other very important purposes: 1st, To prevent his disciples from being offended at the depth of affliction into which they were soon to see him plunged. For their beholding him clothed with such glory would tend to establish them in the belief of his being the Messiah, notwithstanding the sufferings which he was to pass through; and the conference which he had with Moses and Elias concerning those sufferings, and the death in which they were to terminate, might make them sensible how agreeable it was to the doctrine of Moses and the prophets that the Messiah should be evil-entreated and die before he entered into his glory. 2d, To arm them for, and encourage them under, their own sufferings, by a demonstration of a future state, and a display of the felicity of that state. Here they see Moses, who had died in the land of Moab, and was buried in a valley in that land. Deuteronomy 34:5, alive in a state of glory. This then was a demonstration to them of the immortality of the soul, for Moses, it is certain, had not been raised from the

dead with regard to his body, Christ being the first-fruits from the grave, or the first whose body rose to immortal life, as is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Acts 26:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5. Here they also see Elijah, who indeed had not died, but had been translated, that is, as the apostle expresses it, had not been unclothed of the body, but clothed upon with an immortal body, or whose mortality had been swallowed up of life, 2 Corinthians 5:4. He was therefore in that state of glory in which the saints will be after the resurrection and the general judgment. The disciples, therefore, had thus full proof, even of a two-fold state of future felicity awaiting the righteous, first, in their souls, immediately after death; and secondly, in both their bodies and souls after the resurrection. And it is remarkable that St. Paul particularly distinguishes these states, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, speaking of being caught up both unto paradise, the state and place of holy souls after death; and also into the third heaven, the state and place of the faithful after the resurrection. This discovery, made to the disciples, was of great importance, and very necessary in those times when the opinions of the Sadducees were so prevalent; and it appears from all the epistles in the New Testament, that the apostles derived great support under their sufferings from the prospect of the future glory that awaited them, in their hopes of which this vision must have greatly confirmed them. 3d, To show them the superiority of Christ as a teacher, lawgiver, and mediator, to Moses and Elias, who, though both eminent in their stations, were only servants, whereas this was God’s beloved Son; and, of consequence, that he was to be preferred to all that had preceded him, whether patriarchs or prophets, and therefore that the gospel was more excellent than the law, the Christian than the Jewish dispensation. For when Moses and Elias (representing the law and the prophets) were present, the Father from heaven commanded that his Son should be heard in preference to them. 4th, That the preceding dispensations of the law and the prophets were in perfect harmony with Christ and his dispensation, were introductory thereto, and to terminate therein; for when Moses and Elias had disappeared, Jesus remained as the sole teacher of his disciples, and of consequence of his church and people.

COFFMAN, "The triple "behold" is significant. Miracle was piled upon miracle in the succession of astounding occurrences. Here is a manifestation of the Trinity almost as definite as that at the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16. Christ was present, radiant in heavenly light; the Father spake out of heaven; and the cloud strongly suggests the Holy Spirit, although it is not so identified. The frightened apostles fell on their faces in abject terror at that overwhelming display of divine power. The exact nature of the bright cloud is not known, but Peter called it "the excellent glory" (2 Peter 1:17).

The words out of the cloud were the same as those at Jesus' baptism, except that the words "Hear ye him" were added. Like all of God's commandments, this is exclusive and means "Do not hear Moses; do not hear Elijah, etc."

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. A cloud was put before the disciples' eyes, for two reasons.

1. To allay the lustre and resplendency of that glory which they were swallowed up with. As we cannot look upon the sun in its full brightness, but under a cloud by reflection; so the glory of heaven is insupportable, till God veils it and shelters us from the surcharge of

it.

2. A cloud overshadows them, to hinder their farther prying and looking into the glory. We must be content to behold God here through a cloud darkly, ere long we shall see him face to face.

Observe, 2. The testimony given by God the Father out of the cloud concerning Jesus Christ his son: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here note, 1. The dignity of his person, he is a son, therefore, for nature coessential, for dignity coequal, for duration coeternal, with the Father; and a beloved son, because of his likeness and conformity to him. A father's likeness is the cause of love; a unison of wills causes a mutual endearing of affections.

Note, 2. The excellency of his mediation, In whom I am well pleased. Christ in himself was most pleasing to God the Father, and in and through him he is wll pleased with all believers. Christ's mediation for us makes God appeasable to us. .

Note, 3. The authority of his doctrine: Hear him, not Moses and Elias, who were servants, but Christ my Son, whom I have commissioned to be the great Prophet and Teacher of my church: therefore adore him as my Son, believe in him as your Saviour, and hear him as your lawgiver. He honours Christ most, that obeys him the best. The obedient ear honours Christ more than either the gazing eye, the adoring knee, or the applauding tongue. This is my beloved Son, hear him.

PETT, "‘And Peter answered, and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If it is your will I will make here three booths, one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” ’

Peter appears to have considered that this wonderful scene was something that was intended to be permanent, or at least strove to make it so, although Mark tells us that he also spoke out of fear, not knowing what to say. So we must not judge him too harshly. But what he says does demonstrate that to him at least what he was seeing was actually happening and not just a vision. For he suggested that he and his fellow disciples should build three booths, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah (for such great leaders could hardly be expected to build their own). His probable idea was that these booths would shield their glory from the people (see Luke 9:31) and act as sanctuaries to which people could come to consult with them. It may also have included the idea that as they had apparently come to assist Jesus in His work, they must therefore be given accommodation suited to their status (as tents of generals might be around that of the king). They would have been seen by Peter as useful men to have around. For both Moses and Elijah had been highly experienced in dealing with aggressors in their day, and Peter might have seen in their presence a hope of the fulfilment of his confession about the Messiah, without any suffering, which would lead to these mighty three acting to bring in the Kingly Rule of God. His view would be that such heavenly visitants could hardly fail to achieve their aims. And in his ignorance the last thing that he wanted was for them to leave. The mighty Peter who had been blessed by God with the revelation about Jesus’ Messiahship, is now seen to be the foolish Peter whose ideas are ridiculous in the

extreme. He is being taught that he has much to learn.

Possibly also there was the thought that the people would be able to come up the mountain and seek the wisdom of these three great teachers, and see in their presence the sign that up to this point Jesus had refused to give. Perhaps, Peter might have thought, this was what Jesus had been leading up to? His idea was probably that this would indeed then cause a stirring among the people and an establishing of the truth in their hearts, after which, led by these three ‘greats’, the people would go forward to conquer the world. Their prayer of, ‘Your Kingly Rule come’ would be dramatically answered (at this stage the Apostles were still looking for an earthly ‘kingdom’ - Acts 1:6).

Compare how both James and John are thinking of Jesus in similar physical terms when they try to pre-empt Peter later for the positions at His right and left hand sides (Matthew 20:21), and how John will describe the two witnesses in Revelation 11:5-6 in terms which appear to have Moses and Elijah in mind, although by then his ideas had been straightened out and he recognises their secondary position and that Jesus’ throne and kingship is in Heaven, so that their presence simply leads up to the Rapture and the final judgment, pictured in vivid terms.

There was, of course, in this idea of Peter’s a diminishing of the status of Jesus which Peter apparently did not appreciate, but he was soon to be made aware of it in the voice that followed, which would single out Jesus as unique, and greater than Moses and Elijah, as the One Who alone was to be listened to. Moses and Elijah were of the past. The future lay with Jesus and His words. He would not share His glory with another. (Nor indeed could they share it).

Colleger PressTHE PATER�AL PRO�OU�CEME�T OF THE PEERLESSPREEMINENCE OF CHRIST

17:s The correction of Peter’s no~isense was instantaneous, evenwhile he was yet speaking. A bright cloud overshadowed them, apparentlyenveloping them, because Luke mentions the disciples’ fear“as they entered the cloud,” (Lk, 9:34) Although sunny-bright clouds

naturally form around a niountainlop like that of Hermon, the specialcharacteristics of this one mark it as supernaturally produced: itsbrightness, the disciples’ extraordinary fear, the Father’s voice out ofit, its sudden appearance and disappearance at the right moments,and, finally, its possible theological significance. This cloud radiatedthe characteristically celestial brilliance with which Jesus was invested,Like other symbols in this unworldly vision, this cloud was part of

Israel’s unique history, The radiant cloud was the classic symbol ofGod’s presence among His people to lead and bless them. (Ex. 24:16fi

34:s; 40:34-38;L ev. 9:6, 23f; Dt. 5:22-24;1 Kg. 8:lOf; 2 Cliron.

5:11-14;7 :l-3;c f. Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; 4:5, 6; Ezek. 3:12; 8:4; 10:4,

18f; ll:22f; 43:2ff) However, more significantly for our context,

God appeared to Israel in the luminous cloud to vindicate the missionand authority of His servants. (Ex. 16:lO; Nu. 12:5, 10; 16:19, 42;

20:6) In exactly this same way God had appeared to Israel before

to say, “This is my trusted servant, Moses: listen to hint!” If theAlmighty could not tolerate for an instant the neglect of His servantsthe prophets, how niuch less can the Father overlook even the wellmeaningabasement of His Son! God’s Good Confession, althoughdirected to the disciples, would prove a third encouragement to Jesus.Three distinct, meaningful messages were given, which, Peteraffirms, conferred honor ana glory from God the Father when the

voice was borne to Him by the Majestic Glory: (2 Pt. 1:17)

1. THE FATHER HERE IDENTIFIES JESUS AS HIS OWN SON: This ismy beloved Son. By contrast, Moses and Elijah, highest exponentsof the prophetic office in the ecoiiomy of God, are but “servantsin His house.” (Cf. Heb. 3:l-5)J esus, too, stands last and highest

in the long line of God’s prophets (Cf. Heb. 1:lff; Mt. 21:11, 46;

Mk. 6:lSa; Lk. 7:16, 39; 13:33; 24:19; Jn. 4:19; 6:14; 7:40, 52;

9:17). Nevertheless, He is not to be classified as merely “one of theprophets” (Mt. 16:14), however honorable and holy they had been.

He is the very fulfilment of the Law and the prophets. (Mt. 517;Lk. 24:44f) He is not just “God’s Prophet”; He is God’s SON, a

597

17:s THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

word expressing a relationship so exalted and intimate that nomere prophet ever reached this pinnacle of greatness.In effect, this word from God says that Jesus is right on courseexistentially. Just as there is a father at the foot of this mountainpleading for his only begotten son (Lk. 9:38), so here at the summitthe Father intercedes on behalf of His only Son, also suffering, notfrom disease, but from ignorance and misunderstanding on thepart of His followers! He affirms that Jesus is really what He claimsto be. Peter had earlier confessed Jesus to be God’s Son, on thebasis of God’s revelations made through the words and works ofHis Son (See notes on 16:17.) Now the Father Himself confirmsthat conclusion by revealing it directly from heaven.2. THE FATHERH ERE IDENTIFIES THE PURPOSES AND PROGRAM OF

JESUS AS HIS OWN: in whom I am well pleased. This divine verdictannounces that Jesus is right on course morally and tactically.The mission of Jesus, however unworldly, impractical and seeminglyunreasonable, however contradictory of human plans andaims, is well-pleasing to God! Jesus’ manifestly waning popularity,approaching suffering and shameful death are not objective indicatorsof the ultimate failure of His mission. “He will continueto refuse to be a political Messiah of the Jews, He will stride intocertain death by the hand of wicked men, He will be rejected and

despised by the people, but I am well pleased with Him!’’ AtJesus’ baptism the Father had expressed His approval of the Son’s

determination “to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15, 17). Here,He repeats His expression of approval, now of the Son’s determinationto give Himself to death as humanity’s Redeemer (Mt.

3. Now THE FATHERID ENTIFIES THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AS HISOWN: Hear ye Him! God announces that Jesus is right on coursetheologically. This makes Jesus’ “prophetic word more sure” too(cf. 2 Pt. 1:19), because God has identified Him as “the Prophetlike Moses” to whom men must listen or be damned. (Dt. 18:lSff

LXX where the verb form is almost identical: future indicative forpresent imperative) This order to listen to Jesus intends to be adeliberate and solemn endorsement of all that Jesus had taught,especially concerning His own humiliation and obedience untodeath as well as the glory thereafter, and concerning the follower’sobligation to bear his own cross. (Mt. 16:21-28) God meansthat everything Jesus says on this and any other subject is totallytrue and in harmony with God’s eternal purpose. This command

16 : 2 1 - 28)598

JESUS SHOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES A�D JOHN 17:s-8represents the whole point of the Transfiguration, To miss it is tofail to comprehend the entire scene.

How badly l l i e disciples needed lo hear this voice! Foster (Staizdurd

Lesson Commentary 1955, 420) describes these men:They had been anxious to hear more of what Moses and Elijahhad to say; they were commanded to concentrate their attentionon Jesus and to yield iinplicit obedience to Him. The apostlesmust have been sore tempted in recent months to listen to thebewildering cross-currents of the conflicting desires and plansof the iiational leaders and the multitudes; they were now orderedto listen to Jesus and obey Hini.The exalted preeminence thus bestowed on Jesus and the transforniationof His appearance to harmonize with dignity of His position,and the manner in which His divine majesty was displayed neverbefore nor since witnessed on the earth,-all this would be neededas a steadying influence against the rapidly mounting oppositionand conflicts with the hierarchy and political heads of the nation.It is as if God were saying for all the world to hear: “Listen toJesus, not Moses and Elijah nor the Law and the prophets as final,not the suggestions of Peter, not the pretensions of popery, not thespiritualistic experiences of mystics nor the rationalistic propositionsof skeptics, but the voice of Jesus of Nazareth!” He is the final voiceof God, so the fundamental attitude of the disciples is not creativetheology, but listening and obedience! Man must give up trying tobe the measure of truth and become the disciple and obedient servantof Hini who is the Truth. Although every disciple, as a human being,has a right to his own personal opinion and free choice, the “Listento Him!” urges each to deny hiinself in order to let Jesus lead anddecide. Jesus is our only THEOLOGY A�D THEOLOGIAN.

6When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground, terrified.

1. Balmer, “The disciples, we are told, fall on their faces to the ground.

The approach of God is always experienced in the Bible as some- thing very majestic, very terrible. The fear which God's presence brings to birth is none other than the dread of a sinful man before the Holy God (see, for example, Isa, 6:1-5; Luke 5:8-10; Rev. 1:17). And the response is also the same: "Fear not**; "Have no f ear." To him who knows and acknowledges himself to be un- worthy God always shows his merciful face. The vision disap- pears, and Jesus alone is there, just as the Apostles have seen him and known him all along.”

2. Gill, “they fell on their face:not so much out of reverence, or for the sake of adoration, but as persons struck with astonishment and fear, and were as half dead; and so fell with their faces fiat to the ground, not being able to stand before God, to behold his majesty, and hear his voice:

and were sore afraid:they were filled with fear, when, awaking out of their sleep, they saw the surprising glory of Christ, and of the two men that were with him, insomuch that they knew not what to think, or say; and so they were when they entered into the cloud, and still more upon hearing the voice of God himself, even though it was a voice of love, grace, and mercy; see (Deuteronomy 5:24-26)”

3. “Matthew 17:1-9 – Peter’s idea to put up three “dwellings” there on that mountain was clearly a non-starter, so I find it amusing that subsequent generations have built a large church up there. It’s hard to imagine yourself into that story – the cloud overshadowing you – when you are in a fairly opulent building. Peter, James and John, like the rest of us lead-footed mortals, always find it hard to deal with those numinous moments when something clearly happens that blows our minds with a reality far too big for our brains. Peter, James and John were scared out of their wits, just as you and I would have been. So let’s not be too hard on them for making dumb suggestions. Those three had no idea what was going on, and neither do we know what really happened. It refuses to be contained in our neat theological categories or historical propositions. It can’t be held in church building any more than it could be contained in the booths Peter suggested. As far as I can see, there’s only one adequate word for such an event. “Wow!!!” Author unknown

PETT, "There is really no doubt that these three disciples must have been filled with awe from the beginning (as the other Gospels make clear). What they were seeing and experiencing was truly awesome. They would unquestionably have been shaken by the unbelievable glory emanating from Jesus, they would have been bewildered and astonished by the mysterious appearance and presence of men who had been heroes to them all their lives, and whom they knew were passed on and no longer of this world, and now the bright cloud which engulfed them and the voice that spoke to them was the final straw. They recognised that ‘God was in this place’. Here it is especially the voice that has made them very much afraid. We can compare this with the fear that Israel of old had known when God spoke to them directly (Exodus 20:19-20; Deuteronomy 5:24-27). Here were the foundations of the new Israel experiencing the same problem. And thus they fell down to the ground and buried their faces. They did not want to see or hear any more. It was all too much for them.

BURKITT,, "Observe here, 1. The effect which this voice from heaven had upon the apostles, it cast them into a passion of horror and amazement. They were sore afraid, and fell on their face.

Learn thence, that such is the majesty and glory of God, that man in his sinful state cannot bear so much as a glimpse of it, without great consternation and fear. How unable is man to hear the voice of God! and yet how ready to despise the voice of man; If God speaks by himself, his voice is too terrible; if he speaks by his ministers, it is too contemptible.

Observe, 2. The person by whom the disciples were recovered out of these amazing fears unto which they were cast; namely, by Christ: Jesus came and said, Be not afraid. It is Christ alone who can raise and comfort those whom the terrors of the Almighty have dejected and cast down.

Observe, 3. The manner how Christ recovered them out of this passionate amazement, it was three-fold:

1. By his gracious approach, he came unto them. Christ will come with comfort unto his children, when they are disabled from coming to him with comfort.

2. By his comfortable touch; He came and touched them. Christ comforts believers by a real and close application of himself unto them. An unapplied Christ saves none, comforts none.

3. By his comforting voice, He said, Be not afraid. It is a word of assurance, that

there is no ground or cause of fear; and it is a word of assistance. It is verbum operatorium: he that said unto them, Arise, Be not afraid, did by his spirit breathe life, and convey strength into their souls, to enable them to arise.

Observe, 4. The strict injunction given by Christ to his disciples, not to publish or proclaim this vision till after his resurrection, for two reasons:

1. Lest it should hinder his passion; for had the rulers of the world known him to be the Lord of life and glory, they would not have crucified him; therefore Christ purposely concealed his deity to give way to his passion.

2. Christ being now in a state of humiliation, would have his majesty veiled, his glory concealed, and consequently forbids that the glorious vision of his transfiguration should be published and accordingly charges his disciples, That they tell the vision to no man till he was risen.

As if Christ had said, Tell no man the things which you have seen; not the residue of the disciples, That they tell the vision to no man till he was risen.

As if Christ had said, Tell no man the things which you have seen; not the residue of the disciples, that they be not troubled, that they were not admitted to see with you; nor those believers which now follow me, that they be not scandalized at my sufferings after so glorious a transfiguration.

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PROSTRATE, PERPLEXED APOSTLES PERSUADEDTO PROMOTE THEIR PRESENT PRINCE17:6 Although the disciples had been exceedingly afraid before

(Mk. 9:6), especially as the cloud enveloped them (Lk. 9:34), theyhad been more or less passive spectators listening to a discussionthat did not require their direct participation. But Peter’s wrongheadedreaction brought them immediately into the picture, so God

reacted instantly by addressing them directly. And when the disciples59917:6-8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. The voice of theAlmighty so overawed them that their instinctive reaction, typicallyoriental, is to hurl themselves on their knees with their forehead

touching the ground. God dwells in unapproachable light (1 Ti. 6:16),so, when He approaches man, His presence is unbearably terrifying.

(Cf. Israel’s reaction to the voice of God at Sinai. Ex. 20:18-20;Dt. 5:22-27) Sinful mortals have reason to tremble in the presenceof the unmitigated brightness of the glorious holiness of the livingGod and in that of His messengers. (Cf. Gn. 3:lO; Ex. 3:6; Dt.9:19 = Heb. 12:21; Isa. 6:s; Dan. 8:17; 10:9-11; Ezek. 1:28; 3:23;44:4; Rev. 1:17)17:7 And Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise and benot afraid. The touch of Jesus brought them back, not to reality,but back to the events of time and earth. (They testify to the vividnessof the reality of all they had witnessed.) They had just seen aglimpse of the world of eternity and Paradise, and the program isnow over. They must return to the equally real world of time andtribulation, the world into which Jesus Himself had come. He lovedthem, so He walked over to them, stooped to their level and tenderlylaid His hands on their shoulders to encourage them to rise and haveno fear. (Cf. Dan. 10:2-19; Rev. 1:17)

7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid."

1. Fred B. Craddock, “..only Matthew records three epiphanies, or more correctly

Christophanies, in which the living and glorified Christ comes to his followers. (There are countless occasions when others come to Jesus, but in these three texts Jesus comes to his disciples.) One Christophany occurs following the resurrection, on a mountain in Galilee. "And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them" (28:17-18) . Another such occurrence is on the sea of Galilee, in the fourth watch of the night, during a storm. In a time of fear and faith, doubt and worship, the disciples wonder whether they are seeing a ghost, as Jesus "came to them, walking on the sea" (14:25) . The other such appearance is recorded in today’s text. Peter, James and John see a dazzlingly transfigured Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah and they hear heaven’s voice declare Jesus the Son of God to be heard and obeyed. While they lie prostrate with

fear and awe, "Jesus came and touched them."

2. Jesus quite frequently told his disciples not to be afraid, but it was easy for Jesus to say this, for he knew what was going on all the time. His disciples were experiencing things that they never had in their lives, and they were naturally fearful. I think what Jesus is saying is that you no longer need to be afraid, for I am in control here, and nothing bad is going to happen to you. They were not condemned for being afraid, but just told to trust him now, and not continue in their fear.

3. Gibson, “ Moses and Elijah return to the world

of spirits Jesus, God s beloved Son, to the world

of men. And all His human sympathies were fresh

and quick as ever ; for, finding His three disciples

fallen on their faces for fear, He came and touched

them, saying, " Arise, and be not afraid." They no

doubt thought their Lord had laid aside His human

body, and left them all alone upon the mountain ; but

with His human hand He touched them, and with His

human voice He called them as of old, and with His

human heart He welcomed them again. Reassured,

they lifted up their eyes, and saw their Lord the man

Christ Jesus as before and no one else. All is over;

and as the world is unprepared for it, the vision is

sealed until the Son of man be risen from the dead.”

4. Gill, “the Persic version renders it, "he came and brought them to themselves"; who were just fainting and swooning away, at the awfulness of the voice:

and said, arise, and be not afraid:it is not the voice of an angry God, but of God well pleased with me, and in me with you; it is the voice of my God, and your God, of my Father, and your Father; arise, stand on your feet, take heart, and be of good courage, no hurt will come to you.”

PETT, "‘And Jesus came and touched them and said, “Arise, and do not be afraid.” And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, save Jesus only.’

The three disciples had been so very much afraid at the realisation of the nearness of God, accompanied no doubt by a deep awareness an sense of His presence, that they had fallen on their faces, hiding their eyes in the ground. Thus we are not told what followed, for they knew nothing more until Jesus came to them and touched them, telling them to stand up and not be afraid. And when they then lifted up their eyes the vision had gone and they were alone with Jesus. ‘They saw no man but Jesus only.’

Their being touched by Jesus in this way parallels the touching of Daniel by the angel whose description has lent something to this narrative (Daniel 10:10). But it is not just a matter of borrowing ideas, for as we have been told, Jesus constantly touches people (e.g. Matthew 8:3; Matthew 8:15; Matthew 9:29; Matthew 20:34).

The point is that the disciples were traumatised, just as Daniel had been, and in need of supernatural help. There the angel had helped Daniel up. Jesus may well have done the same here. It is a reminder that when we are desolated we can be sure that Jesus will always approach us and touch us when we fall before Him. But in this case it was more than that, and perhaps the sequence of hearing a voice, falling on their faces, being afraid, receiving a touch, and being told not to be afraid was intended to indicate that what they had seen was a heavenly visitation as in Daniel.

They must have experienced a feeling of great relief, and at the same time of great disappointment, when they rose to their feet. On the one hand they had failed to see the end of what was being enacted out, and now it was gone, but in another they had now got Jesus back, seemingly just as He was before, although they would never be able to see Him in quite the same way again. The lesson had, however, been learned. Others could go on looking to the past. But they now knew that the past pointed to Jesus, and that He was the future, for those who were the greatest of the past had themselves said so. So they not only ‘saw Jesus only’, but knew that He was all that they would need for the future. They could still learn from Moses and the prophets, but now only because they pointed to Jesus.

As we close this passage we should stop for a moment and try to consider and experience its deeper significance. We can become so tied up with our explanations of ‘this and that’ that we overlook the whole. The experience would never be forgotten and would forever be spoken of in the future with an awed voice (2 Peter 1:15-18). The manifestation of the eternal glory of Jesus in a light that outshone the sun, and of His purity as revealed by the unearthly and dazzling whiteness of His clothing, the appearance from the past, and from beyond, of the great Moses and the fiery Elijah, the bright cloud that overshadowed them, the sense of the presence of a holy God in a way never known by them before, the terrible voice speaking from the cloud concerning His beloved Son, all were reminders of the purpose for which they had been chosen, even though as yet their conceptions of what it was were so small. They knew now that this was something beyond anything that they could have previously conceived. Jesus was the Son of the living God indeed.

8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

1. Henry, “The disappearing of the vision (Matthew 17:8); They lift up themselves, and then lift up their eyes, and saw no man, save Jesus only. Moses and Elias were

gone, the rays of Christ's glory were laid aside, or veiled again. They hoped this had been the day of Christ's entrance into his kingdom, and his public appearance in that external splendor which they dreamed of; but see how they are disappointed. �ote, It is not wisdom to raise our expectations high in this world, for the most valuable of our glories and joys here are vanishing, even those of near communion with God are so, not a continual feast, but a running banquet. If sometimes we are favored with special manifestations of divine grace, glimpses and pledges of future glory, yet they are withdrawn presently; two heavens are too much for those to expect that never deserve one. �ow they saw no man, save Jesus only. �ote, Christ will tarry with us when Moses and Elias are gone. The prophets do not live for ever (Zechariah 1:5), and we see the period of our ministers' conversation; but Jesus Christ is

the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, Hebrews 13:7,8.”

2. E. Boyle, “As the Apostles, at first, saw Moses and Elias

talking with Jesus, but, at the second view, when the cloud was withdrawn, and He had spoken to them, saw none but Jesus only ; so such passages, as I am speaking of, in the Law, the Prophets, and the (Gospel, at first survey, appear very distant things ; but, upon a second inspection, and the access of more light from an attentive collation of things, they do all, as it were, vanish into Christ, ii 9 ; xxvL 56 ; S. John i. 29, 55 ; Heb. Xii. 1.”

COFFMA�, "The big words in this whole passage are "Jesus only." Moses and Elijah were no longer visible, having been caught away in the cloud; thus, the message was definite and emphatic, "Jesus only!"

The significance of this is apparent in the consideration of other possibilities.

They might have seen no one after the cloud lifted. How unhappy would have been their lot if all the glory had departed, leaving no one. In such a case, no salvation, no hope would have been indicated. They might have seen MOSES O�LY. This would have indicated the Law as still supreme, and forgiveness would yet have remained impossible. They might have seen ELIJAH O�LY. What a catastrophe that would have been. James and John could have called down fire upon the villages; Herod would have been slain like Ahab; the Pharisees would have met their match; Herodias would have fared like Jezebel. They might have seen all three, as suggested by Peter's rash proposal. His statement, "Lord, it is good for us to be here," seems to indicate that he thought it was better to be there with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, than to be there with Jesus only. At first glance, this may appear to have been an attractive possibility. It certainly was so for Peter; but such could not possibly be true. Some things bespeak better conditions by their absence than by their presence. If one were able to see the sun, moon, and stars all at once, it would be a dreadfully dark day!

Jesus only! This is the message humanity needs. He is the only Saviour, the only

Mediator, the only Authority in heaven or upon earth. He is the only means of access to God (John 14:6), the only hope of the world, the only Judge of the world, and the only Atonement for man's sin.

COKE, "Matthew 17:8. And when they had lifted up their eyes, &c.— This transfiguration of our Lord was intended for several important purposes. About six days before it happened, Jesus had predicted his own sufferings and death; at the same time, to prevent his disciples frombeing dejected by the melancholy prospect, as well as from falling into despair when the dismal scene should open, he told them, that though in appearance he was nothing but a man, and affliction was generally to be the lot of his disciples, he would come hereafter in great glory as universal Judge, and render unto every man according to his deeds, ch. Matthew 16:27-28. And for proof of this he declared, that some of themselves should not taste of death till they saw him coming in his kingdom; saw a lively representation of the glory which he spake of, and were witnesses to the extent of his power as judge, on his enemies, the unbelieving Jews, who were to be punished by him with the most terrible destruction that ever befel any nation. The first article of his promise he fulfilled by the transfiguration, wherein he gives three of his Apostles both a visible representation, and also a clear proof of the glory in which he will come to judgment. That this was one principal end of the transfiguration, and of the voice from heaven which attended it, we learn from St. Peter, who urges both, to demonstrate the certainty of Christ's coming: 2 Epist. Matthew 1:16-18. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this voice which came from heaven, we heard when we were with him in the holy mount.—�evertheless, other purposes might likewise have been served by the transfiguration: as, 1. The conference which our Lord had with Moses and Elias, concerning the sufferings that he was to meet with in Jerusalem, might animate him to encounter them with resolution, and make his disciples sensible how agreeable it was to the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, that the Messiah should be evil-intreated and die, before he entered into glory.—2. The appearing of these two great men, so long after they had gone into the invisible world, was a sensible proof and a clear example of the immortality of the soul, very necessary in those times, when the opinion of the Sadducees was so prevalent.—3. To find Moses and Elias assisting Jesus in the new dispensation, must have given great satisfaction to the converted Jews, and particularly the Apostles, who thus could not doubt that the Gospel was the completion and perfection of the law. For had it not been so, Moses, the giver of the law, and Elias, who with a flaming zeal had maintained it in times of the greater corruption, would not have appeared on earth to encourage Jesus in his design of setting it aside.—4. The threeApostles were allowed to be witnesses of their Master's glory in the mountain, that they might not be offended by the depth of affliction into which they in particular were soon to see him plunged.—5. The transfiguration demonstrated, that all the sufferings befalling Jesus, were on his part perfectly voluntary, it being as easy to deliver himself from dying, as to have adorned himself with celestial glory.—6. The glory with which our Lord's body was

adorned in the transfiguration, exhibited a specimen of the beauty and perfection of the glorified bodies of the saints after their resurrection. This the Apostle intimates, Philippians 3:21. Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is also intimated by St. Luke: for although the glory of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration was vastly inferior to that of Jesus, he says expressly, that they appeared in glory; not because they appeared in heaven, but because they appeared in glorified bodies, like to those which the saints shall have in heaven. There can be no doubt of this, with respect to Elias, for his body was changed and fitted for immortality when he was translated; and as for Moses, though he had not his own body, he might have one formed for the occasion. See Macknight.

College Press Harold Fowler

17:8 And liftiig up their eyes means that they had remained inthe prostrate position from the moment God spoke from heaven.This is the first time they dare raise their heads. Because Jesus hadgently encouraged them, they did so. They saw no one, becausethey actually started “looking around” (Mk. 9:8) to see what hadhappened to Moses and Elijah. The result of this fruitless searchis the more impressive because they had desired that Moses and Elijahremain forever present, and because God had ordered: “Listen toJesus!” Now, literally in this symbolic vision, and later in theologicalreality, Moses and the prophets faded away as the final arbiters ofhuman destiny, leaving Jesus onb. The brusqueness with which thevision of Moses and Elijah faded serves to underline the fact thatGod has given to the disciples (hence to the Church) no other, nohigher final authority than Jesus only. This is the final reality thatmust guide the life of the believers. The NT itself reflects this truth.In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, it is always about Himwho is the Author and Perfecter of our faith, the Prophet, Priestand King of the new era of God’s grace. If men miss this, they misseverything, for this is the one point of this entire event, that is moreimportant than anything else of significance. ’

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

1. How hard would this be for three guys to keep it a secret when they just had a supernatural experience. They would have a terrible time not talking about it among themselves, and it would be hard to keep the others from hearing. Peter also had a wife, and he would have a difficult time not letting her know what he saw on that mountain. Keeping secrets is a challenge, but Jesus told people often to do just that and not tell about many of the marvelous things that he did.

2. Barnes, “Tell the vision to no man. This vision was designed particularly to confirm them in the truth that he was the Messiah. While he was with them, it was unnecessary that they should relate what they had seen. When he was crucified, they would need this evidence that he was the Christ. Then they were to use it. There were three witnesses of it--as many as the law required; and the proof that he was the Messiah was clear. Besides, if they had told it then, it would have provoked the Jews and endangered his life. His time was not yet come.” “The sole design of this transfiguration was to convince them that he was the Christ; that he was greater than the greatest of the prophets; that he was the Son of God.”

3. Barnes adds, “Mark adds, Mark 9:10 they kept this saying, questioning what the rising of the dead should mean. The Pharisees believed that the dead would rise; and there is no doubt that the disciples believed it. But their views were not clear. And, in particular, they did not understand what he meant by his rising from the dead. They do not appear to have understood, though he had told them Matthew 12:40 that he would rise after three days.”

4. Broadus, “Tell the vision to no one. 1) It is a

difficult and important duty sometimes to keep

silence when we burn to speak. 2) Some points

of religious truth are best withheld from persons

not prepared to understand. 3) Delay in telling

sometimes prepares us to tell more intelligently

and impressively.”

5. Clarke, “observe, that as this transfiguration was intended to show forth the final abolition of the whole ceremonial law, it was necessary that a matter which could not fail to irritate the Jewish rulers and people should be kept secret, till Jesus had accomplished vision and prophecy by his death and resurrection.

The whole of this emblematic transaction appears to me to be intended to prove, 1st.

The reality of the world of spirits, and the immortality of the soul. 2dly. The resurrection of the body, and the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, see Matthew 16:27. 3dly. The abolition of the Mosaic institutions, and, the fulfilment of the predictions of the prophets relative to the person, nature, sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 4thly. The establishment of the mild, light-bringing, and life-giving Gospel of the Son of God. And 5thly. That as the old Jewish covenant and Mediatorship had ended, Jesus was now to be considered as the sole Teacher, the only availing offering for sin, and the grand Mediator between God and man. There are many very useful remarks on this transaction, by the late venerable Bp. Porteus.”

6. Transfigured by Jay C. Treat

We went up the mountain with Jesus,

but quite unprepared for surprise.

We never expected to see him

transform right in front of our eyes!

His face was as bright as the sunlight,

his clothes were as bright as the skies.

He talked with Elijah and Moses,

who stood right in front of our eyes.

We thought we could build them three temples:

one shrine for the giver of laws,

and one for Elijah the prophet,

and one for this master of ours.

A bright cloud then covered the mountain.

A Voice echoed deep from within,

Said, "This is my son, my beloved one!

He pleases me! Listen to him!"

We came down the mountain with Jesus,

now ready for any surprise.

We're ready to listen and follow

and change right in front of his eyes.

COFFMA�, "Silence was commanded because nine of the apostles had not witnessed the transfiguration, and there was a possibility of jealousy developing among them, as indeed it did a little later; also the primary reason, as noted earlier, was the need not to compromise the Saviour's death which he would soon accomplish in Jerusalem.

An extremely important supplement to Matthew's account is in Luke who gave the subject matter of the conversation between Jesus and Moses and Elijah. "(They) spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). This conversation was calculated to encourage and reassure the apostles who had been severely shocked and disheartened by the Saviour's revelation of his death and sufferings, to be followed by his resurrection. It seems that the apostles focused all their attention upon his death and continue not to realize, though they had been told, that he would also rise from the dead. The subject matter during the transfiguration showed that the death of Christ was a part of the Master Plan and that it was of the utmost concern and interest on the part of all previous generations as represented by Moses and Elijah. It also revealed Christ as the Great Architect of the crucifixion. Evil men, dominated by Satan, would have their part in it, but only Christ would accomplish his death. These events, coupled with the sublime conversation, should have enabled the apostles more readily to accept the somber events of his approaching passion.

College Press Harold Fowler

PROHIBlTION OF PREMATURE PUBLICATION BECAUSE

OF PREDOMINANT PRECONCEPTIONS A�D PREJUDICE17:9 And as they were coming down from the mountain. Whenthey made their descent is not told, so we have no inkling aboutwhether the Transfiguration occurred by day or night. Nor is it clearhow soon after that event they started down. Not even Luke’s note,

“On the next day when they came down . . . I ’ (Lk. 9:37), helps,

because, before starting their descent, they may have camped onthe mountain one more night after a daytime Transfiguration, Thefatigue of the Apostles, evident during the event itself (Lk. 9:32),is no indication of night-time either, since they could have beenworii out by the ascent up into the rarified air of the peak.Jesus commanded them. This very order tests their readiness to“Near ye Him!” Can they begin obeying instantly? How the otherApostles would have pumped them with questions, cajoling them tofurnish information about that wonderful something which musthave taken place on the mountain, which was visible in the changedattitude of the three Apostles upon their descent. The Three obeyed

the Lord faithfully and “kept the saying to themselves.” (Mk. 9:lO;Lk. 9:36) By so doing, they proved their discipleship to be true, atleast in this point. Others, ordered to silence, almost invariablydisobeyed Jesus. (Mk. 1:44f) They probably justified themselves:“He just cannot really mean what He says!” These Apostles trustedHim to know best, and so obeyed. His order contains three elements:

1 . The prohibitive limitation: Tell . . . to no man. While this is another

case of Messianic reserve (cfr. 8:4; 12:16) whereby Jesuswisely restrained popular Messianic excitement by simply prohibitingits divulging, why should the inner circle of disciples notshare information so essential to reinforce the faith in Him, forexaniple, of a Judas Iscariot? Why tell absolutely no man? Luke’sexpression (9:36) implies that the Three understood Jesus to mean

they were to maintain absolute silence. Jesus knew His men andHe had granted the vision of His glory only to those three, amongall His disciples, with whom He could trust the information. Hewell knew what the others would have done with this kind of information,so He simply withheld it by instructing the Three not

to disclose it. In fact, the others proved only too clearly their unfitnessby their faithlessness and failure at the mountain’s base.(See on 17:l4ff .) Further, as is likely, even the Three themselvesbo 117:9 , THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

2.had not yet digested the full significance of this event and neededtime to ponder it in the context of later teaching and events.The content: the vision. With this convenient summarizing wordJesus intends to include every part of the disciples’ mountaintopexperience. But does this word tell us anything about the natureof the experience?a. Hendriksen (Matthew. 669) fears that to call a “vision” everythingthat the Apostles saw, would somehow render unhistoricalthe transfigured appearance of Jesus, except in the mind of the

three Apostles. He urges that td hdrama, here rendered “thevision,” be translated “what has been seen” or “what you haveseen,” finding confirmation in the verb forms of Mark (9:9) andLuke (9:36). He feels that the distinction between subjectiveand objective appearance would really make a significant differencefor the history. We agree that the objectiveness of Jesus’personal transformation is a fact: “He was transfigured beforethem” (Mt. 17:2; Mk. 9:2), “the appearance of his countenancewas altered” (Lk. 9:29a), His garments became a glisteningwhite. (Mt. 17:2; Mk. 9:3; Lk. 9:29) If this is so, then, by whatcriteria may we distinguish one part of the narrative as a “vision”from another part, calling it objective reality?b. But the distinction between the subjective and the objectivenature of the vision would not make a difference for the HISTORY;it would only make a difference for some of the HISTORIANS.After all, the eyewitnesses of this event are sufficient in numberand their other well-known qualifications as inspired Apostlesare sufficient and convincing that they can render impartialtestimony. The real problem is not “visions” versus “real and

historical,” but a problem of prejudice in the reader who woulddeny the reality and importance of WHATEVER occurred duringthis event. Must we conclude that the “visions” given to Ananias(Ac. 9:lO) or to Saul (Ac. 9:12) or to Cornelius (10:3) or toPeter (Ac. 10:17, 19; 11:5) or to Paul (Ac. 16:9, 10; 18:9), orPeter’s impression (Ac. 12:9) were any less historical, becausethey were subjective rather than objective? Just because Godprojects a “vision” on the subjective consciousness of the viewerdoes not mean that He is not objectively revealing what theyreally see in this subjective way. We are dealing with historicalfact either way.c. To say that a vision cannot be collective, Le. given to morethan one person at a time (because such would smack of mass602

JESUS SHOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES A�D JOHN 17:9hallucination), or to say that it would be seen by only one person,misses the point. In fact, when God gives visions He canrender them visible to one or a thousand as He deenis it necessary,Besides, our experience with the world of the spirit and

visions is so limited as to disarm any dogmatism about whetherany true experience of that world is “subjectively” or “objectively”experienced.

d. “Vision” does not necessarily niean something unreal or artiiiciallyimagined and which became the subject of myth. The

word iv’sioii here is a suniniary of what happened and is itselfclarifed by the narration of the event itself, and for this reasonmust not be used as a definition for that for which it is only asuiiiiiiary, especially where it is flexible enough to refer to “whatthey saw” (objective) as well as a subjective experience (“vfsion”).Peter, hiniself an eyewitness, forever distinguishes this eventfrom even the slightest suspicion of fraud or invention: “We didnot follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to youthe power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were

eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and

glory from God , , . we heard this voice borne from heaven,

for we were with him on the holy mountain.” (2 Pt. 1:16-19)3, The terminus: until the Son of man be risen from the dead. Thebasic reason for this particular time limitation lies in its appropFiateiiess:a. It would have accomplished no immediate good to have publicizedthe event:( I ) If people believed it true, it would only have ignited misguidedzeal and unfounded hopes, hindering the progress ofunderstanding the true, spiritual aims of the King and HisKingdom.(2) If they disbelieved it, they would have to doubt the truthfulnessof the fishermen who told it, and the time is not yetconie for their powerful, unique, independent witnessing.Later, He would empower them with their own supernaturaldeeds to serve as credentials to convince men to believe theirtest ini on y.b. To keep it a secret would have pushed the eyewitnesses tomeditate on its meaning, i.e. what is there about such a gloriousevent which occurred at such a time that, while crying to be told,

must be kept confidential? Time is required to unlearn what isso deeply ingrained, so they must be silent in order to learn.60317:9, 10 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

c. The death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus to glorywould explain the meaning of the Transfiguration. These evidencesof Jesus’ divine Lordship would be completed by Hissending the Holy Spirit. (Ac. 2:33) His crucifixion was requiredto dash their misguided hopes and His resurrection would unveilHis true glory. Despite all His explanations given prior to theactual occurrence of these facts, they still did not make theproper connections, because even now they are “questioningwhat the rising from the dead meant!” (Mk. 9:lO) They understood

resurrection as such, but could not mentally connect it inany rational way with the Son of man. Again, understandingis far easier after some unexpected event has taken place and isexplained, than with all the explanations given prior to its takingplace. The disciples’ misconceptions are psychologically understandable,however, on the basis of their emotional rejection ofany concept of His death. Resurrection, as a solution to death,would not interest anyone so completely convinced that hisMaster shall not die. Even now, when the Master alluded to Hisresurrection, it was as if He had introduced an absolutely foreignsubject. Surely this Master of superb figurative language mustmean “resurrection” in the metaphorical sense!d. Silence would also tend to keep them from boasting about theprivileged intimacy with glory to which they had been admitted,lest they be too elated by the abundance of revelations. (Cf.2 Co. 12:7) A man finds difficulty in bragging about somethinghe cannot even talk about! Pride would be as serious a problemfor these disciples as for the others. (Cf. Mk. 9:34 and noteson 18:l and 20:20-28)

Henry, “The discourse between Christ and his disciples as they came down from the mountain, Matthew

17:9-13. Observe, 1. They came down from the mountain. Note, We must come down from the holy

mountains, where we have communion with God, and complacency in that communion, and of which we are saying. It is good to be here; even there we have no continuing city. Blessed be God, there is a mountain of glory and joy before us, whence we shall never come down. But observe, When the disciples came down, Jesus came with them. Note, When we return to the world again after an ordinance, it must be our care to take Christ with us, and then it may be our comfort that he is with us.

2. As they came down, they talked of Christ. Note, When we are returning from holy ordinance, it is

good to entertain ourselves and one another with discourse suitable to the work we have been about. That communication which is good to the use of edifying is then in a special manner seasonable; as, on the contrary, that which is corrupt, is worse then than at another time.

Here is, (1.) The charge that Christ gave the disciples to keep the vision very private for the present (Matthew 17:9); Tell it to no man till the Son of man is risen. If they had proclaimed it, the credibility of it

would have been shocked by his sufferings, which were now hastening on. But let the publication of it be adjourned till after his resurrection, and then that and his subsequent glory will be a great confirmation of it. Note, Christ observed a method in the manifestation of himself; he would have his works put together,

mutually to explain and illustrate each other, that they might appear in their full strength and convincing evidence. Every thing is beautiful in its season. Christ's resurrection was properly the beginning of the gospel state and kingdom, to which all before was but preparatory and by way of preface; and therefore, though this was transacted before, it must not be produced as evidence till then (and then it appears to have

been much insisted on by 2 Peter 1:16-18), when the religion it was designed for the confirmation of was brought to its full consistence and maturity. Christ's time is the best and fittest for the manifesting of himself and must be attended to by us.

(2.) An objection which the disciples made against something Christ had said (Matthew 17:10); "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? If Elias make so short a stay, and is gone so suddenly,

and we must say nothing of him; why have we been taught out of the law to expect his public appearance in the world immediately before the setting up of the Messiah's kingdom? Must the coming of Elias be a secret, which every body looks for?" or thus; "If the resurrection of the Messiah, and with it the beginning of his kingdom, be at hand, what becomes of that glorious preface and introduction to it, which we expect in the coming of Elias?" The scribes, who were the public expositors of the law, said this according to the

scripture (Malachi 4:5); Behold I send you Elijah the prophet. The disciples spoke the common language of

the Jews, who made that the saying of the scribes which was the saying of the scripture, whereas of that which ministers speak to us according to the word of God, we should say, "God speaks to us, not the

ministers;" for we must not receive it as the word of men, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Observe, When the disciples could not reconcile what Christ said with what they had heard out of the Old Testament, they desired him to explain it to them. Note, When we are puzzled with scripture difficulties, we must apply ourselves to Christ by prayer for his Spirit to open our understandings and to lead us into all truth.

(3.) The solving of this objection. Ask, and it shall be given, ask instruction, and it shall be given.

[1.] Christ allows the prediction (Matthew 17:11); "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all

things; so far you are in the right." Christ did not come to alter or invalidate any thing foretold in the Old Testament. Note, Corrupt and mistaken glosses may be sufficiently rejected and exploded, without diminishing or derogating from the authority or dignity of the sacred text. New-Testament prophecies are true and good, and are to be received and improved, though some hot foolish men may have misinterpreted them and drawn wrong inferences from them. He shall come, and restore all things; not restore them to their former state (John Baptist went not about to do that), but he shall accomplish all things (so it may be read), all things that were written of him, all the predictions of the coming of Elias. John Baptist came to restore things spiritually, to revive the decays of religion, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children; which means the same with this, he shall restore all things. John preached repentance, and that restores all things.

[2.] He asserts the accomplishment. The scribes say true, that Elias is come, Matthew 17:12. Note, God's promises are often fulfilled, and men perceive it not, but enquire, Where is the

promise? when it is already performed. Elias is come, and they knew him not; they knew him not to be the Elias promised, the forerunner of the Messiah. The scribes busied themselves in criticizing upon the scripture, but understood not by the signs of the times the fulfilling of the scripture. Note, It is easier to explain the word of God than to apply it and make a right use of it. But it is no wonder that the morning star was not observed, when he who is the Sun itself, was in the world, and the world knew him not.

Because they knew him not, they have done to him whatsoever they listed; if they had known, they

would not have crucified Christ, or beheaded John, 1 Corinthians 2:8. They ridiculed John, persecuted him, and at last put him to death; which was Herod's doing, but is here charged upon the whole generation of unbelieving Jews, and particularly the scribes, who, though they could not prosecute John themselves, were pleased with what Herod did. He adds, Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them. Marvel not that Elias should be abused and killed

by those who pretended, with a great deal of reverence, to expect him, when the Messiah himself will be in like manner treated. Note, The sufferings of Christ took off the strangeness of all other sufferings (John

15:18); when they had imbrued their hands in the blood of John Baptist, they were ready to

do the like to Christ. Note, As men deal with Christ's servants, so they would deal with him himself; and they that are drunk with the blood of the martyrs still cry, Give, give, Acts

12:1-3.

(4.) The disciples' satisfaction in Christ's reply to their objection (Matthew 17:13); They understood

that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. He did not name John, but gives them such a description of him as would put them in mind of what he had said to them formerly concerning him; This is Elias. This is a profitable way of teaching; it engages the learners' own thoughts, and makes them, if not their own teachers, yet their own remembrancers; and thus knowledge becomes easy to him that understands. When we diligently use the means of knowledge, how strangely are mists scattered and mistakes rectified!

BENSON, "Matthew 17:9. Jesus charged them — Tell the vision to no man — Not to the rest of the disciples, lest they should be grieved and discouraged because they were not admitted to the sight; nor to any other persons, lest it should enrage some the more, and his approaching sufferings should make others disbelieve it. “He knew,” says Macknight, “that the world, and even his own disciples, were not yet capable of comprehending the design of his transfiguration, nor of the appearing of Moses and Elias; and that if this transaction had been published before his resurrection, it might have appeared incredible, because hitherto nothing but afflictions and persecutions had attended him.” Till the Son of man be risen again — Till the resurrection shall make it credible, and confirm your testimony about it. Accordingly we learn from Mark and Luke, that they kept the matter close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen. They questioned, however, one with another, what the rising from the dead should mean, Mark 9:10. They had never heard from the doctors that the Messiah was to die, far less that he was to be raised from the dead. On the contrary, they thought he was to abide for ever, John 12:34, and that there was to be no end of his kingdom; wherefore they were utterly at a loss to understand what their Master meant when he spake of his rising again; and being afraid to ask a particular explication of the matter, they disputed much among themselves about it to no purpose.

COKE, "Matthew 17:9. And as they came down, &c.— Jesus and his disciples having been in the mountain all night, (See Luke 9:37.) the transfiguration may be supposed to have happened either in the day-time, or in the night: that it happened in the night-time is probable, from the disciples falling asleep while Jesus prayed; a circumstance which could hardly happen by day to all the three, and in the open air. Next morning, as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged the Apostles to conceal what they had seen, till he should arise from the dead. He knew that the world, and even his own disciples, were not yet capable of comprehending the design of his transfiguration, nor of the appearance of Moses and Elias; and that if this transaction had been published before his resurrection, it might have appeared incredible, because nothing hitherto but afflictions and persecution had attended him. See Macknight, and for an explication of the following verses, the note on Mark 9:10; Mark 9:50.

PETT, "As they were coming down from the mountain Jesus commanded silence about what they had seen until He had risen from the dead. (They would be unaware of how soon that would be). It was not only the idea of His Messiahship that He did not want spreading (by those who did not fully understand it), it was the whole idea of Who He really was, to those who were not ready to receive it.

However they were now totally confident that He was the Coming One, and that the ‘last days’ were here. But in view of this they could not understand why Elijah had come and gone. They were puzzled. It was clear from what they had seen that the work of Moses and Elisha was now completed. Why then did the Scribes teach that Elijah would first come preparatory for God to act? Jesus’ reply was clear and simple. Elijah had come. He had come in the person of John the Baptist (compare Luke 1:15-22). But He incorporated within His reply a further warning of His coming suffering. They must not be deceived by having seen His glory into thinking that He could therefore not suffer.

Analysis.

a As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying (Matthew 17:9 a).

b “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead” (Matthew 17:9 b).

c And his disciples asked him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?” (Matthew 17:10).

d And he answered and said, “Elijah is indeed coming, and will restore all things” (Matthew 17:11).

c “But I say to you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did to him whatever they would” (Matthew 17:12 a).

b “Even so will the Son of man also suffer of them” (Matthew 17:12 b).

a Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:13).

Note than in ‘a’ Jesus commanded them, and in the parallel they understood what He meant. In ‘b’ He refers to the resurrection of the Son of Man, and in the parallel to the prior death of the Son of Man. In ‘c’ is the question about the coming of Elijah, and in the parallel is the answer that Elijah has indeed come. Centrally in ‘d’ is the emphasis that the Scripture must be fulfilled.

10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

1. Barnes, “ Why then say the Scribes, etc. The disciples appear to have been satisfied now, that he was the Messiah. The transfiguration had taken away all their doubts. But they recollected that it was a common doctrine among the Jews that Elijah should appear before the Messiah came; and they did not then recollect that he had appeared. To this difficulty the word then refers. "We are satisfied that thou art the Christ. But Elijah is not yet come, as was expected. What, 'then,' is the meaning of the common opinions of our learned men, the scribes? Were they right or wrong in their expectation of Elijah?"

2. Barclay, “It was going to take a tong time for the idea of a conquering Messiah to be unlearned; it was so ingrained into the Jewish mind that it was difficult--almost impossible--to alter it. Matt. 17:9-13 are a very difficult passage. Behind them there is this idea. The Jews were agreed that, before the Messiah came, Elijah would return to be his herald and his forerunner. "Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes." So writes Malachi, and then he goes on: "And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and

the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse" (Mal.4:5-6). Bit by bit this idea of the coming of Elijah gathered detail, until the Jews came to believe that not only would Elijah come, but he would restore all things before the Messiah came, that he would, we might put it, make the world fit for the Messiah to enter into.

The idea was that Elijah would be a great and terrible reformer, who would walk throughout the world destroying all evil and setting things to rights. The result was that both the forerunner and the Messiah were thought of in terms of power. Jesus corrects this. "The Scribes," he said, "say that Elijah will come like a blast of cleansing and avenging fire. He has come; but his way was the way of suffering and of sacrifice, as must also be the way of the Son of Man." Jesus has laid it down that the way of God's service is never the way which blasts men out of existence, but always the way which woos them with sacrificial love.”

3. Broadus, “ Some of the Jews held that Elijah

would anoint the Messiah. But here is Mes

siah present beyond question, and no such

preparatory ministry of Elijah has occurred.

They ask him therefore to explain why the

Scribes say that Elijah must come before the

Messiah ; and this he proceeded to do. Meyer

and others suppose, with far less probability,

that the disciples took this appearance of Elijah

on the mount to be the predicted coming, and

were only perplexed that Elijah had not come

first, but after the Messiah had appeared.”

4. Gill, “�ow the Scribes made use of this popular sense, to disprove Jesus being the Messiah: they argued, that if he was the Messiah, Elias would be come; but whereas he was not come, therefore he could not be the Messiah. The disciples having just now seen Elias, are put in mind of this tenet of the Scribes, and of their use of it; and inquire of Christ, not so much about the truth of it, and the reason of their imbibing it, as why they were suffered to make use of it, to his disadvantage; and especially why they, the disciples, should be forbid publishing what they had seen; whereas, were they allowed to divulge this vision, and bear their testimony to this truth, that Elias had appeared, and they had seen him, it might be a means of stopping the mouths of these Scribes; and of convicting men of the truth of the Messiahship of Jesus, upon their own principles, and of confirming them that believed it: or else the sense is, whereas they had seen Elias, and he was gone again, without making any

public appearance in the nation, their question is, how came the Scribes to say, that he should come first? and if there was any truth in this, how came it to pass, that he did not come sooner, even before Christ came in the flesh; and inasmuch as he did now appear, why he did not appear more publicly, as the person that was to come, at least, before the setting up of the kingdom and glory of the Messiah; which they might hope were at hand, and that Elias was come to usher it in: but that he did not appear publicly, and they were not allowed to speak of it, they wanted to know Christ's sense of these things; and took this opportunity as they came from the mountain, to converse with him about it.”

BE�SO�, "Matthew 17:10-13. His disciples asked, &c. — Being much surprised at the sudden departure of Elias, and at their Master’s ordering them to keep his having appeared a secret, they had no sooner finished their dispute about what the rising from the dead should mean, than, addressing themselves to Jesus, they said, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come — Before the Messiah, if no man must know of his coming? As if he had said, Since Elias has gone away so soon, and since thou orderest us to keep his appearing a secret, how come the scribes to teach, on all occasions, that Elias must appear before the Messiah erects his empire? As they supposed that Elias was to have an active hand in modelling and settling the Messiah’s kingdom, they never doubted that he would abide a while on earth; and knowing that the scribes affirmed openly that Elias was to appear, they could see no reason for concealing the thing. Jesus answered, Elias truly shall first come, and restore, or regulate, all things — Jesus not only acknowledged the necessity of Elijah’s coming before the Messiah, according to Malachi’s prediction, but he assured his disciples that he was already come, and described the treatment he had met with from the nation in such a manner as to make them understand that he spake of John the Baptist. At the same time he told them, that though the Baptist’s ministry was excellently calculated to produce all the effects ascribed to it by the prophets, they need not be surprised to find that it had not all the success which might have been expected from it, and that the Baptist had met with much opposition and persecution. For, said he, both the person and the preaching of the Messiah himself shall meet with the same treatment.

PETT, "‘And his disciples asked him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?” ’

But the disciples were puzzled. They now accepted that He was the greater than Elijah, and that the last days were here, but why then had Elijah not come as the Scribes had declared? Were they wrong in that belief? Furthermore if Elijah was to restore all things as the Scribes taught, why would the Son of Man be treated in such a way that He needed to be raised? Surely that would mean that the Scribes would be on His side? �one of it seemed to make sense. This last would be especially relevant if they had caught on to the fact that it was these very Scribes who would cause Jesus’ death.

BURKITT, "Here we have the disciples' question, and our Saviour's answer. They ask our Saviour, how the observation of the Jewish doctors holds good, that Elias must come before the Messias come? We see the Messias, but we see no Elias; our Saviour answers, that Elias was come already: �ot Elijah in person, but one in the spirit and powers of Elias; one of his spirit and temper; to wit, John the Baptist, who was prophesied of under the name of Elias. And great indeed was the resemblance between the Elias of the Old Testament, and of the �ew, namely John the Baptist; they were both born in bad times; they were both zealous for God and religion; they were both undaunted reprovers of the faults of princes; and they were both hated and implacably persecuted for the same.

Learn, that hatred and persecution, even unto death, has often been the lot and portion of such as have had the zeal and courage to reprove the faults of princes; Elias is come, and they did unto him whatsoever they would.

11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.

1. Barnes, “Verse 11. Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things, He did not mean by this that Elijah was yet to come for he directly tells them that he had come; but he meant to affirm that it was a true doctrine which the scribes taught, that Elijahwould appear before the coming of the Messiah. To restore, means to put into the former situation. See Matthew 12:13. Hence it means, to heal, to correct, to put in

proper order. Here it means that Elijah would put things in a proper state; be the instrument of reforming the people; of restoring them, in some measure, to proper notions about the Messiah, and preparing them for his coming. Before the coming of John, their views were erroneous, their expectations worldly, and their conduct exceedingly depraved. He corrected many of their notions about the Messiah,Matthew 3:1 and was the instrument of an extensive reformation; and thusrestored them, in some degree, to correct notions of their own economy and of the Messiah, and to a preparation for his advent.

2. Broadus, “Elijah will effect a preparatory

reformation, comp. Luke 1: 17, to make ready

for the Lord a people prepared. Our Lord

means to say that so the prediction stands.

The future tense does not appear to mean, as

Chrys. and others have imagined, that there

was to be some other coming of Elijah still

future when our Lord was speaking. Elias

(Elijah) is come already, coin p. 11 : 14.

Whatsoever they listed, or wished, the old

English listed being a modified form of lusted,

i. e., desired. They is here impersonal ; a

very common use in Heb. of the third person

plural, like the Eng. they say. The refer

ence is to the way John had been treated by

the people in general, and by Herod in par

ticular. John was not Elijah come to life in

his own proper person, but he was Elijah in

"spirit and power," (Luke i: IT), in character

and reforming influence, (comp. on 3 : 1).

Some of the rabbinical writers represent that

Elijah will bring back the ark, the pot of

manna, etc. ; Jesus regards him as coming to

effect a moral renovation or restoration. In

Acts 3 : 21, Peter points forward to a future

"restoration of all things" in connection with

the second coming of the Messiah. Likewise

shall also the Son of man suffer of them,

viz., at the hands of the people, not necessarily

the same persons who had maltreated

John, but the same generation. He here

recalls to the three the prediction of a week

before, which Peter had found it so hard to

bear.

3. Calvin, “Christ now declares that every thing which Malachi uttered was true, but that his prediction had been misunderstood and distorted from its true meaning. “The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.”

And will restore all things. This does not mean that John the Baptist restored them perfectly, but that he conveyed and handed them over to Christ, who would complete the work which he had begun. �ow as the scribes had shamefully rejected John, Christ reminds his disciples that the impostures of such men ought not to give them uneasiness, and that it ought not to be reckoned strange, if, after having rejected the servant, they should, with equal disdain, reject his Master. And that no one might be distressed by a proceeding so strange, our Lord mentions that the Scripture contained predictions of both events, that the Redeemer of the world, and Elijah his forerunner, would be rejected by false and wicked teachers.”

4. Clarke, “We are not therefore to understand the version of the Septuagint quoted by our Lord in any other sense than the Hebrew will allow. �o fanciful restoration of all men, devils and damned spirits, is spoken of as either being done, or begun, by the ministry of John; but merely that he should preach a doctrine tending to universal reformation of manners, and should be greatly successful: see Matthew 3:1-7, and especially ; Luke 3:3-15, where we find that a general reformation had taken place, 1. among the common people; 2. among the tax-gatherers; and 3. among the soldiers. And as John announced the coming Christ, who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, i.e. to enlighten, change, and purify the heart, that the reform might be complete, both outward and inward, he may be said, in the strictest sense of the word, to have fulfilled the prophecy: and that he was the Elijah mentioned by Malachi, the words of Gabriel to the virgin Mary prove; Luke 1:17. And he (John) shall go before him (Christ) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the

fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, ; and that his ministry was powerfully effectual for this purpose, we have already seen.”

5. Gill, “�ow the Scribes made use of this popular sense, to disprove Jesus being the Messiah: they argued, that if he was the Messiah, Elias would be come; but whereas he was not come, therefore he could not be the Messiah. The disciples having just now seen Elias, are put in mind of this tenet of the Scribes, and of their use of it; and inquire of Christ, not so much about the truth of it, and the reason of their imbibing it, as why they were suffered to make use of it, to his disadvantage; and especially why they, the disciples, should be forbid publishing what they had seen; whereas, were they allowed to divulge this vision, and bear their testimony to this truth, that Elias had appeared, and they had seen him, it might be a means of stopping the mouths of these Scribes; and of convicting men of the truth of the Messiahship of Jesus, upon their own principles, and of confirming them that believed it: or else the sense is, whereas they had seen Elias, and he was gone again, without making any public appearance in the nation, their question is, how came the Scribes to say, that he should come first? and if there was any truth in this, how came it to pass, that he did not come sooner, even before Christ came in the flesh; and inasmuch as he did now appear, why he did not appear more publicly, as the person that was to come, at least, before the setting up of the kingdom and glory of the Messiah; which they might hope were at hand, and that Elias was come to usher it in: but that he did not appear publicly, and they were not allowed to speak of it, they wanted to know

Christ's sense of these things; and took this opportunity as they came from the mountain, to converse with him about it.”

COFFMA�, "A difficulty, to some, appears in the use of the future tense in Matthew 17:11, causing the conjecture that there are two fulfillments of the prophecy of Elijah's coming, the first being in the coming of John the Baptist, the other to come near the end of time when Elijah will appear (so goes the speculation) and "restore all things," before the second advent of our Lord. Interesting as this speculation is, it is rejected on the simple words of the text to the effect that Christ was speaking of John the Baptist. The tense, whether future or not, should give no concern. In assigning a study of the Old Testament, a professor is well within the bounds of legitimate speech when he says, "�ow Abraham comes before Moses, and Moses comes before David." The utmost accuracy of our Lord's word must be allowed; but the possibility of just such a misunderstanding was anticipated and eliminated by the plain assertion, "He spake unto them of John the Baptist." Also, "Elijah is come already!"

PETT, "‘And he answered and said, “Elijah is indeed coming, and will restore all things, but I say to you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did to him whatever they would. Even so will the Son of man also suffer of them.” ’

In His reply Jesus first confirms that the promise that Elijah would come and ‘restore all things’ was true. ‘Restore all things’ is probably quoting the Scribal viewpoint, without necessarily accepting their interpretation of it (it is not found in Scriptures concerning Elijah, but Sirach 48:10 paraphrases Malachi 4:6 as ‘to restore the tribes of Jacob’. Compare Isaiah 49:6 where ‘the preserved of Israel’ are in mind). But then He pointed out that that had already happened. Elijah had come (compare Matthew 11:14). But the Scribes had failed to recognise him as well (because he had not restored things in their favour and exalted them and their teaching), and thus they had ‘treated him as they would’. This last is a typically Jewish description representing the self-will of evil men (compare Daniel 8:4; Daniel 11:3; Daniel 11:16).

So the Scribes had failed to recognise the very one of whom they had spoken, and they had caused him to suffer just as they will also cause the Son of Man to suffer. Indeed their very treatment of Elijah means that such treatment must be anticipated for the Son of Man as well. If they fail to recognise the one, they will not recognise the other (compare here Matthew 21:23-27).

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PO�DERI�G OVER A PIVOTAL PERSO�ALITY17:lO Having just heard the living voice of Elijah in glory, the

disciples think they see a connection between that and another conceptpopular in Israel: And his disciples asked him, saying, Why thensay the scribes that Elijah must first come? To the unaware, thisquestion would appear to be a gross non sequitur, especially the word“then” which logically links this question with His prohibition to proclaimthe Transfiguration until after His resurrection. But the connectionis there, so intimate and so obvious to a Jewish reader thatMatthew did not even need to express it. The disciples’ perplexity604

JESUS SHOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES A�D JOHN 17:10,16is composed of the following elements:

1, “What the rising from the dead meant” in reference to the Son of

2. “Elijah must first come,” or chronological order in God’s timing.3. Whether Messianic prophecy is fulfilled in the brief appearance of

4. The inexplicable injunction to silence, if Elijah has truly come.5. They ignored an alternative sequence, an “Elijah” already comewho fulfilled tlie prophecy without being Elijah the Tishbite.So, if the implications of the disciples’ question had been inkedin, their meaning would read something like this: “You just affirmedthat you, the Son of man and our true Messiah, must rise from thedead, implying that you must die. This implies a time when deathis possible. But the scholars teach that Elijali must come BEFORE

the Messiah, in order to reform the world with its evil and death.Since we know you are God’s Messiah ALREADY come, and since wejust saw Elijah appear with you in glory AFTER your own appearance011 earth, (1) on what basis do the scribes affirm that Elijali niustcome FIRST? (2) Does what we saw have anything to do with the fulfilnientof tlie prophecy of Elijah’s coming? (3) If so, why did he notremain to do the work expected of him, instead of disappearing almost

immediately? (4) But if he must yet morally reform the world,

eliminating nian’s rebellion against God, would this not eliminateany need, yes, even the possibility for you to die? What possiblepurpose could the death of the Messiah serve in a restored society?If it is restored, a Messianic death would be meaningless, since all

murderous opposition to Him would have already ceased. (5) Last,why not speak openly about Elijah’s appearance? After all, ourtestimony to having seen him is evidence that he has come and thatyou are, therefore, the Christ!”The Apostles are not unaware of the Malachian prophecy (Mal,

4:5, 6), so their question does not mean: “Where did the scribes gettheir idea?” (See on 17:11, 12)Just how widespread the knowledge of the “Elijah-prophecy”really was is illustrated by the fact that even courtiers of HerodAnlipas knew of it! (Mk. 6: 15) Priests and Levites from Jerusalemhad interrogated John the Baptist himself whether he were ElijahRather, they mean, “With what propriety do the scribes take such’a

man, (Mk. 9:lO; Mt. 17:9)Elijah or not,or not. (Jil. 1:21)60517:10, 11 THE GOSPEL OE MATTHEW

position on Malachi’s prophecy?” Elijah must first come may have

been the scribes’ rebuttal to the disciples as the former argued that

Jesus could not be the Messiah since the promised Elijah had not yetappeared.17: 1 1 Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things. Note theunsectarian fairness of Jesus: when the scribes represent truth correctly,as here, He is glad to recognize it. (Cf. Mt. 23:2, 3) He lovestruth above party. (Cf. 1 Co. 13:6) They were correct in their analysisat1.

2.3.4.these points:The absolute certainty of Elijah’s coming was based on God’sordering: Elijah must come (Elian deielthein).

The sequence of the comings was correct: first that of Elijah andthen that of the Messiah.The purpose of Elijah’s coming was correctly seen as restoration.Their only mistake was in literalizing the prophecy, by expectingElijah the Tishbite personally (See the LXX!), and by exaggerating,or completely missing, the spiritual, individual, voluntary characterof the results of his mission.Elijah is coming and shall restore. How is this future tense to bereconciled with the Lord’s next statement that “Elijah has alreadycome”? He means that their free quotation from Malachi’s bookand time, then yet future, is correct. However, what was future forMalachi has already had its fulfilment in John the Baptist who hascome “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Lk. 1:17), even if he wasnot Elijah in person. (Jn. 1:21, 25) See my notes on 11:14 where thisprophecy is discussed more fully.And shall restore all things is a free, but good interpretation ofElijah’s mission. In fact, restore (apokatastksei) is the word used bythe LXX translators. In Malachi’s thought the all things is clearlymoral renovation.MALACHI HIMSELFIN HEBREW:

Behold, I will send youElijah the prophet beforethe great and terrible day

of the Lord comes.And he will turn the hearts

of the fathers to their children,and the hearts of thechildren to their fathers,

lest I come and smite theland with a curse.(Mal. 4:5,6)MALACHI

TRANSLATED BY LXX:Behold I send you Elijahthe Tishbite before the

great and famous day ofthe Lord comes,who will restore (a) heart

of (a) father to (his) sonand a man’s heart to hisneighbor,

lest I come and smite theland completely.

(LXX = 3:22,23)

GABRIEL’SINTERPRETATION:He will go before him in

the spirit and power ofElijah,

to turn the hearts of thefathers to the childrenand the disobedient to thewisdom of the just, tomake ready for the Lorda people prepared.(Lk. 1:17)

606

JESUS SIJOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES A�D JOHN 17: 11,12The “fathers” iii Malachi are the godly ancestors of the corruptcontemporaries of Malachi, as well as those of later times, “tliechildren,” Neither shares the same attitude toward God as the other.

A comiiion love for God which should have united them is missing,

The niissjon of tlie great “Elijah” is to correct this by putting thegodly heart of the fathers in tlie place of the degenerate heart of theirdescendents, and by leading the children to ’be like-minded withtheir godly ancestors and by turning the ungodly heart of the descendentstoward what made their god-fearing ancestors what theywere, lovers of God. Thus, the “Elijah” would prepare the way ofthe Lord to His people, that at His coming He might not have tosmite the land with a curse. (Keil, Minor Prophets, 11, 472)The scribes with their hoary traditions and exaggerated notionsabout this text had been listening for the first whispers of an automatic,universal, almost mechanical renovation of the present order,a restoration with only superficial overtones, accomplished throughthe personal ministry of Elijah the Tishbite himself. (Cf. Sirach48:lO; see also Edersheim, Life, 11, Appendix VIII, 706ff; Append.

IX, 737 on Ecclus. 48:10, 11 and relative references.) This, however,was not the purpose of Malachi’s great “Elijah” nor the businessof John the Baptist. For a people far from God and righteousness,the restoring of the original, physical aspects of their land, or eventhe returning of Israel to its home, are not of first importance. Restoringall things begins with getting men and women to repent andturn to God! Helping men to believe in Jesus Christ is fundamentalto any attempts at restoring a11 things, and, until this is done, unregeneratemen admitted to a restored Paradise will turn it into ahell on earth in five minutes. Repentance is the only real restorationof the proper state of things; nothing else even comes close! The onlyalternative God offered was destruction because of a refusal to repent.The entire message of Malachi was aimed at bringing nien to anawareness that only in this condition of soul would men be readyto receive tlie Messiah, and that only in this spirit would they be readyto see in Him the realization of all God’s promises and the hopes oftheir fathers. Repentance was the only way to avert destruction, notprovoked by a world of nature out of joint, but by nien who paidno attention to their God! But tlie materialistic, worldly-mitidedrabbis could not fathom this nor recognize the true realization ofthis kind of thinlting when it was put into practice and preached bysomeone who restored nien to fellowship with God like no one elsehad done for centuries. (See Jesus’ sermon on John, Mt. 11) Ironically,607

17:ll. 12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Jesus Himself was mistaken for “the Elijah” by His contemporaries,probably on the grounds of the marvellous moral reformation Hewas preaching. (Cf. Lk. 9:8, 19)17:12 But I say to you, as I have already told you before (Mt.1 1 : 141, Elijah is come already.At this point, according to Mark (9:12b), Jesus made an interestingappeal to the prophecies: “Elijah does come first to restore all things;and how is it written of the Son of man? That he should suffer manythings and be treated with contempt.” (Note Tischendorf s punctuationwhich suggests that Jesus asked a question about the Messianicprophecies and then answered it.) Note the intentional parallelismin Mark: (9:12, 13)

12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

1. Barnes, “Verse 12. Elias is come. That is, John the Baptist has come, in the spirit and power of Elias. See Luke 1:17.They have done whatsoever they listed. The word list is an old English word, signifying to choose, to desire, to be inclined. See John 3:8. It means here, that they had done to John as they pleased; i.e., they had put him to death, Matthew 14:10. Mark adds, Mark 9:12, that Jesus told them that it was written of the Son of man that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. This was written of him particularly in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. To be set at nought, is to be esteemed as worthless, or as nothing; to be cast out and despised. No prophecy was ever more strikingly fulfilled. See Luke 23:11.

2. Hall, “A strange opportunity! in his highest

exaltation to speak of his sufferings; when

his head shone with glory, to tell him how it

must bleed with thorns; when his face shone

like the sun, to tell him it must be spit* upon;

when his garments glistened with that celestial

brightness, to tell him they must be stripped

and divided; when he was seen between two

saints, to tell him how he must be seen between

two malefactors."

College Press Harold Fowler

12 How is it written of the Son of 13 Elijah has come and they didman? that he should suffer to him whatever they pleased,many things and be treatedwith contempt (as it is writtenof Him)Was the persecution of the “Elijah” (John the Baptist) predictedin Scripture: “they did to him whatever they pleased, as it iswritten of him”? Or does this phrase refer only generally to thecoming “Elijah”? If this latter, then Jesus is only filling in the detailsof the fulfilment of the prophecy, while affirming that

“Elijah has come . . . as it is written of him” (that he would).

The fate of John is, then, a parenthetical remark, not specificallyprophesied.Some believe that what was written of the original Elijah, describinghis rejection and suffering at the hands of Ahab andJezebel, has had its historical repetition in the rejection andsuffering of John at the hands of Herod and Herodias.as it is written of him.It is as if Jesus said, “Although the scribes do correctly tell you of thecoming and restoration of Elijah, they do not tell you of the sufferingof the Christ, but the SCRIPTURES DO.YOU have as much Scripturalreason to expect the despised and suffering Messiah as you do thecoming Elijah, and should not lay so much emphasis on the one tothe neglect of the other.” While on the basis of Scripture the scribeswere perfectly orthodox in insisting that Elijah must fwst come, theyhad totally missed its true, proper fulfilment in the person of Johnthe Baptist. But these same theologians, so adamant in assertingthat Jesus cannot be the Christ since Elijah had supposedly not608JESUS SHOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMES A�D JOHN 17:12appeared to lay the necessary groundwork for the Messiah, need tore-examine other Bible prophecies concerning the humiliation andsuffering of the Messiah, to see that their theological grasp of the

Messiahship was faulty. A correct reading of the Messianic propheciesmight lead to a truer understanding of the Elijah of Malachi, andvice versa.Elijah is come already, and they knew him not. (Cf. Mt. ll:13f)But they did to him whatever they pleased. The ungodly in Israellaughed him off as a brassy-voiced revivalist or a religious crank.(MI. 11:18; Lk. 7:30) Or they sent delegations to challenge his

authority. (Jn. 1 : 19-25) Or else they cowardly surrendered his innocenthead to the vengeful and imnioral. (Mt, 14: 1-12) They knew him not!If people could not recognize John the Baptist as the fulfilment of

the great “Elijah” prophecy, what better results could be expectedof them as they interpreted the great Messianic prophecies? And itwas precisely such faulty interpretation as this that had misled theApostles, and which had required that Jesus correct their false notionsby being transfigured before them.In answer to the Apostles’ implied objection that Elijah’s moralrestoration would automatically obviate the monstrous death of theMessiah at the hands of the rulers of the elect people of God, Jesusresponds, in effect, that not even the benefic ministry of the promisedElijah would eliniinate or even compromise man’s liberty. In fact,in the personal case of him who was “the Elijah,” John the Baptist,they did to him whatever they pleased. Moral reformation does notmean universal destruction of human freedom to reject God’s willor messengers. God has no intention of making people be good whodo not want to, however much the theorizing scribes wished it. (Seenotes on 13:9; “Apologetic Value” after 13:43, esp. point 2. Also13:lO) In fact, even the prophecy of Malachi did not promise unqualified

success: “Behold, I will send you Elijah , . . He will turn

the hearts . , . lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” (Mal.

4:5, 6) What if the hearts refuse to turn “before the great and terribleday of the Lord conies”? Some would hearken; most would not, soall that would be left for God to do was to smite Israel with the banof utter destruction.So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands, because theywould not recognize Him either! John the Apostle, later, had to

comment that Jesus “was in the world . . , yet the world knew him

not. He came to His own home and His own people received Him

not!” (Jn. l:lO, 11) Had the princes of this world recognized the609

17:12, 13 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

wisdom of God, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.(1 Co. 2:8) The fate already befallen John also lay in store for Jesus,as already intimated in 11:ll-19. (See also ofi 14:l-13 Introduction.)And as the prophet Elijah predicted by Malachi appeared in Johnthe Baptist, so did the Lord come to His temple in the appearing

of Jesus Christ. . . . Israel rejected its Savior, and was smitten

with the ban at the destruction of Jerusalem in the Roman war.(Keil, Minor Prophets, 11, 473f)This second Passion Prediction mercilessly thrust the Apostles backinto the fiery furnace of anxiety over Jesus’ impending death, butthe Transfiguration had now furnished them significant pieces inthe puzzle whereby they could more readily grasp the paradoxicalterms on which Jesus intended to be God’s Messiah: the glorious Sonof God and, at the same time, the suffering Servant of JavCh.17: 13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them ofJohn the Baptist. Jesus had formally and publicly identified His forerunneras the coming “Elijah,” but He did so with this premise: “Ifyou are willing to receive it.” (Mt. 11:14) Although they had probablyheard Him say it, they obviously had not been open to receive it.The reticence to believe that John was really “the Elijah,” whilesurprising in these ex-disciples of John (cf. Jn. 1:35-40 notes), is

decidedly comprehensible. Since their vision of what the Elijah mustrestore had not matched the actual ministry of their former teacher,now that Jesus categorically declared the prophecy’s fulfilment inJohn, they see that they had already missed the right interpretationas badly as did their scribes. Once more, in this humiliating way,they learn that the plan of God is different from their own schemes.Nevertheless, having beheld Jesus’ glory, they now have strength tocontinue in His discipleship like never before. God Himself hasconvinced them that, everything else notwithstanding, they can trustJesus to know what He is talking about and where He is leadingthem.By pointing to its undoubted fulfilment Jesus has just authenticatedMalachi 4:5, 6 as true prophecy and a trustworthy witness to God’swill. Additional proof of the authority of that text is the proper, unshakenconfidence of the Jewish scribes that divine necessity requiredthat Malachi’s words be fulfilled (“Elijah MUST first come”). Thisevidences Jewish acceptance of the prophecy and the book that containsit as backed by the authority of God.The relative positions represented in this discussion may be610

JESUS SHOWS HIS GLORY TO PETER, JAMBS A�D JOHN 17:l-13represented graphically as follows:

-S

E

QU

ENC

E

-MEANING

-MALACHI 4:5,6

1. Elijah, “my messenger”

(Mal. 3:l; 4:502. Messiah, “the Lord,the messenger of thecovenant” (Mal, 3:l-3)

1. Elijah will come,2. He will bring restorationof hearts.3. Lest I smite the landwith a curse,THE SCRIBES

(and Apostles too)1. Elijah comes first.Disciples imply:“Did Elijah comesecond, Le. at Transfiguration?”2. Messiah comes second.Disciples imply:“Did you comefirst before Elijah?”

-1. “He will come personally.”2. “The restorationwill be automatic,universal, mechanicaland material.”3. “The curse is improbable,being renderedunnecessaryby Elijah’s success.”JESUS~ ~~

1. Elijah already camefirst = John theBaptist,2, Messiah = Jesus1. “One like Elijah”2. “The restorationwill be spiritual,hence voluntary,hence individual,”3. Death and sufferingof the Messiahand His forerunnerare still possible.FACT QUESTIONS1, The Transfiguration occurred “six days after” what event? Howharnionize this with the fact that Luke 9:28 says “eight days”?

2. On what other occasions did Jesus select Peter, James and Johnfor some special privilege to be the intimate observers of whatoccurred ?3. What information in the text helps us to decide up into whatmountain Jesus went?4. Describe the transfiguration itself by listing the ways the Synopticwriters tell about it.

5. What is the significance of Moses and Elijali respectively, thatexplains the propriety of their appearance with Jesus here?6. What, according to Luke, was the topic of their conversationwith Jesus?

7. Why did Peter propose to make three tents, rather than oneonly, or perhaps six (one each for the three Apostles, Jesus, Mosesarid Elijah)? Does Peter mean to build little shelters or large

13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Barnes, “See also Mar_9:11-13.Why then say the scribes ... - The disciples appear to have been satisfied now that

he was the Messiah. The transfiguration had taken away all their doubts, but they recollected that it was a common doctrine among the Jews that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came, and they did not then recollect that he had appeared. To this difficulty the word then refers. “We are satisfied that thou art the Christ, but Elijah has not yet come, as was expected; what, then, is the meaning of the common opinions of our learned men, the scribes? Were they right or wrong in their expectation of Elijah?” See the notes at Mat_11:14.

Mat_17:11

Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things - He did not mean by this that Elijah was yet to come, for he tells them immediately Mat_17:12 that he had come; but he meant to affirm that it was a true doctrine which the scribes taught, that Elijah would appear before the coming of the Messiah. To “restore” means to put into the former situation. See Mat_12:13. Hence, it means to heal, to correct, to put in proper order. Here it means that Elijah would put things in a proper state; he would be the instrument of reforming the people, or of restoring them, in some measure, to proper notions about the Messiah and preparing them for his coming. Before the coming of John their views were erroneous, their expectations were worldly, and their conduct were exceedingly depraved. He corrected many of their notions about the Messiah (see Matt. 3), and he was the instrument of an extensive reformation, and thus restored them, in some degree, to correct views of their own system and of the Messiah, and to a preparation for his advent.

Mat_17:12

Elias is come already - That is, John the Baptist has come, in the spirit and power of Elias. See Luk_1:17.

They have done unto him whatsoever they listed - The word “list” is an old English word, signifying to choose, to desire, to be inclined. See Jdg_3:8. It means, here, that they had done to John as they pleased; that is, they had put him to death, Mat_14:10.

Mark adds Mar_9:12 that Jesus told them that it was “written of the Son of man that he must suffer many things, and be set at naught.” This was written of him particularly in Isa_53:1-12. To be set at naught is to be esteemed as worthless or as nothing; to be cast out and despised. No prophecy was ever more strikingly fulfilled. See Luk_23:11, Luk_23:14-21. This narrative, with some additions, is found in Mark 9:14-29, and Luk_9:37-43.

Clarke, “Then the disciples understood - When he spoke of the sufferings of this prophetic Elijah, and also of his own, which had been the subject of the conversation on the mount, during the transfiguration, they clearly apprehended that he spoke of John

the Baptist.

Gill, “Then the disciples understood,.... By his saying that Elias was come, and by the account he gave of his ill usage, it was clear to them,

that he spake unto them of John the Baptist; and that he was the Elias that was to come, and was come: so that this observation, that according to prophecy Elias was to come before the Messiah, was no objection to Jesus being the Messiah; but on the contrary, since he that was intended by Elias was come, and had done his work and office, it was a confirmation of the truth of his Messiahship.

Henry, “ The disciples' satisfaction in Christ's reply to their objection (Mat_17:13); They understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. He did not name John, but gives them such a description of him as would put them in mind of what he had said to them formerly concerning him; This is Elias. This is a profitable way of teaching; it engages the learners' own thoughts, and makes them, if not their own teachers, yet their own remembrancers; and thus knowledge becomes easy to him that understands. When we diligently use the means of knowledge, how strangely are mists scattered and mistakes rectified!

PETT, "‘Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist.’

Then the disciples realised that He was speaking of John the Baptist. He was the Elijah who was coming. They had taken a further small step in understanding. But we may ask, can we really say that John had ‘restored all things’? Clearly a phrase like that can mean a number of things. It could not possibly be taken literally, for then he would have forestalled the Messiah. If ‘Elijah’ literally ‘restores all things’ there would be nothing left for anyone else to do. But what then was prophesied of the coming Elijah? It was that he would ‘turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers’ (Malachi 4:6). He would restore all that was necessary in God’s purposes. He would put right the basics. And this was to be in order to forestall the judgment of God and make His people ready for blessing and not cursing. This was the ‘restoration of all things’ that was promised.

And that was certainly also promised of John the Baptist. He would turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God (Luke 1:16). And he would go before God’s face inthe spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready for the Lord a prepared people (Luke 1:17). This was the restoration promised, and this John fulfilled. This was why there was such fruitful ground awaiting the coming of Jesus (John 4:38).

The Healing of a Boy With a Demon

14When they came to the crowd, a man

approached Jesus and knelt before him.

1. Barnes, “Verse 14. And when they were come to the multitude. This took place on the day following the transfiguration, Luke 9:37. This multitude was probably composed of persons who had attended on his ministry, and many of whom were his real disciples. With them, as Mark Mark 9:14 informs us, were scribes questioning with them. That is, they were probably professedly making inquiries about the Saviour, but really attempting to introduce their own sentiments, and to draw them off from him. They probably artfully asked them many questions about his birth, his family, his appearance, his manner of life, and his instructions, all which were contrary to the general expectation respecting the Messiah; and they intended, therefore, to insinuate that such a person could not be the Christ. The people were persuaded of it, and it would not have done to have attacked their opinions openly, but they attempted to gain the same point by sly insinuations. Error is always subtle, and often puts on the appearance of calm and honest inquiry. Well had he compared them to leaven, Matthew 16:11,12. The multitude, seeing Jesus coming down, left the scribes, and ran to meet him, (Mark.) They were amazed, probably because they had not expected to see him there. In their joy at meeting him in this unexpected manner, they saluted him, (Mark;) i.e., they probably prostrated themselves before him, after the manner of salutation in eastern countries. See Barnes "Luke 10:4". Jesus, seeing the scribes and their artful design, reproved them by asking them why they questioned thus with his disciples? Mark 9:16. Conscious of their guilt and their base purpose, they returned no answer.

A certain man kneeling down to him. That is, saluting him, or showing high regard

for him. See Barnes "Luke 10:4". It did not imply religious homage, but merely

high respect and earnest entreaty.

J. C. RYLE, "We read in this passage another of our Lord's great miracles. He

heals a young man lunatic and possessed with a devil.

The first thing we see in these verses is a lively emblem of the dreadful influence

sometimes exercised by Satan over the young. We are told of a certain man's son,

who was an "epileptic, and suffered grievously." We are told of the evil spirit

pressing him on to the destruction of body and soul. "He often falls into the fire, and

often into the water." It was one of those cases of Satanic possession, which,

however common in our Lord's times, in our own day is rarely seen. But we can

easily imagine that, when they did occur, they must have been peculiarly distressing

to the family of the afflicted. It is painful enough to see the bodies of those we love

racked by disease. How much more painful must it have been to see body and mind

completely under the influence of the devil. "Out of hell," says Bishop Hall, "there

could not be greater misery."

But we must not forget that there are many instances of Satan's spiritual dominion

over young people, which are quite as painful, in their way, as the case described in

this passage. There are thousands of young men who seem to have wholly given

themselves up to Satan's temptations, and to be led captive at his will. They cast off

all fear of God, and all respect for His commandments. They serve diverse lusts and

pleasures. They run wildly into every excess of riot. They refuse to listen to the

advice of parents, teachers, or ministers. They fling aside all regard for health,

character, or worldly respectability. They do all that lies in their power to ruin

themselves, body and soul, for time and eternity. They are willing bondslaves of

Satan. Who has not seen such young men? They are to be seen in town and in

country. They are to be found among rich and among poor. Surely such young men

give mournful proof, that although Satan now-a-days seldom has possession of

man's body, he still exercises a fearful dominion over some men's souls.

Yet even about such young men as these, be it remembered, we must never despair.

We must call to mind the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. Bad as this

boy's case was, of whom we read in these verses, he was "cured from the very

hour" that he was brought to Christ! Parents, and teachers, and ministers should go

on praying for young men, even at their worst. Hard as their hearts seem now, they

may yet be softened. Desperate as their wickedness now appears, they may yet be

healed. They may yet repent, and be converted, like John �ewton, and their last

state prove better than their first. Who can tell? Let it be a settled principle with us,

when we read our Lord's miracles, never to despair of the conversion of any soul.

In the second place, we see in these verses a striking example of the weakening effect

of unbelief. The disciples anxiously inquired of our Lord, when they saw the devil

yielding to his power, "Why weren't we able to cast it out?" They received an

answer full of the deepest instruction--"because you have so little faith." Would

they know the secret of their own sad failure in the hour of need? It was lack of

faith.

Let us ponder this point well, and learn wisdom. Faith is the key to success in the

Christian warfare. Unbelief is the sure road to defeat. Once let our faith languish

and decay, and all our graces will languish with it. Courage, patience, long-

suffering, and hope, will soon wither and dwindle away. Faith is the root on which

they all depend. The same Israelites who at one time went through the Red Sea in

triumph, at another time shrunk from danger, like cowards, when they reached the

borders of the promised land. Their God was the same who had brought them out of

the land of Egypt. Their leader was that same Moses who had wrought so many

wonders before their eyes. But their faith was not the same. They gave way to

shameful doubts of God's love and power. "They could not enter in because of

unbelief." (Heb. 3:19.)

In the last place, we see in these verses that Satan's kingdom is not to be pulled

down without diligence and pains. This seems to be the lesson of the verse which

concludes the passage we are now considering--"This kind goes not out but by

prayer and fasting." A gentle rebuke to the disciples appears to be implied in the

words. Perhaps they had been too much lifted up by past successes. Perhaps they

had been less careful in the use of means in their Master's absence, than they were

under their Master's eye. At any rate they receive a plain hint from our Lord, that

the warfare against Satan must never be lightly carried on. They are warned that no

victories are to be won easily over the prince of this world. Without fervent prayer,

and diligent self-mortification, they would often meet with failure and defeat.

The lesson here laid down is one of deep importance. "I would," says Bullinger,

"that this part of the Gospel pleased us as much as those parts which concede

liberty." We are all apt to contract a habit of doing religious acts in a thoughtless,

perfunctory way. Like Israel, puffed up with the fall of Jericho, we are ready to say

to ourselves, "The men of Ai are but few;" (Josh. 7:3;) "there is no need to put forth

all our strength." Like Israel, we often learn by bitter experience, that spiritual

battles are not to be won without hard fighting. The ark of the Lord must never be

handled irreverently. God's work must never be carelessly done.

May we all bear in mind our Lord's words to His disciples, and make a practical use

of them. In the pulpit, and on the platform--in the Sunday school, and in the

district--in our use of family prayers, and in reading our own Bibles--let us

diligently watch our own spirit. Whatever we do, let us "do it with our might."

(Eccles. 9:10) It is a fatal mistake to underrate our foes. Greater is He that is for us

than he that is against us--but, for all that, he that is against us is not to be despised.

He is the prince of this world. He is a strong man armed, keeping his house, who will

not "go out," and part with his goods without a struggle. We wrestle not against

flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers. We have need to take the

whole armor of God, and not only to take it, but to use it too. We may be very sure

that those who win most victories over the world, the flesh, and the devil, are those

who pray most in private, and "discipline their bodies, and bring them into

subjection." (1 Cor. 9:27.)

BE�SO�, "Matthew 17:14-18. And when they were come to the multitude —

�amely, the day following, Luke 9:37, there came a certain man, kneeling down to

him — In great humility before Jesus, and with deep reverence for him, and saying,

Lord, have mercy on my son — Compassionate his miserable condition, for he is

lunatic and sore vexed — With terrible fits. “This man’s disease,” says Dr.

Campbell, “we should, from the symptoms, call epilepsy, rather than lunacy. The

appellation given it ( σεληνιαζεται) shows the general sentiments, at that time,

concerning the moon’s influence on this sort of malady.” It appears from Mark

9:17-20; Luke 9:39; (where see the notes,) that the disorder, whatever it was, was

owing to his being possessed by an evil spirit; he might, nevertheless, be properly

said to be lunatic, though his case was chiefly preternatural, as the evil spirit would

undoubtedly take advantage of the influence which the changes of the moon have on

the brain and nerves. I brought him to thy disciples — This he had done in Christ’s

absence; and they could not cure him — Could not cast out the evil spirit, as

appeared by their having attempted it without success. Christ gave his disciples

power to cast out devils, when he sent them forth to teach and preach, Matthew

10:1; Matthew 10:8, and then they were successful; yet, at this time, they failed in

the operation, though there were nine of them together: and Christ permitted this,

1st, to keep them humble, and to show them their dependance upon him, and that

without him they could do nothing; 2d, to glorify himself and his own power. Jesus

answered, O faithless and perverse generation — In these words our Lord might

first intend to reprove both the disciples and the father of the child, for the

weakness of their faith. With respect to the disciples, this appears evident from

Matthew 17:20; but the reproof, contained in the words, could not be designed

principally for them: for though their faith was weak, they were not faithless, nor do

they appear to have deserved so sharp a rebuke. It seems to have been intended for

the people, and, perhaps, especially the scribes, who are mentioned, Mark 9:14, as

disputing with the disciples, and, it should seem, insulting over them, as having now

met with a case that was too hard for them; a distemper which they could not cure,

even by the name and power of their Master. And this conduct of the scribes, which

proceeded from their unbelief, was highly criminal, since Jesus had already given so

many undeniable demonstrations of his power and divine mission. Therefore he

treated them no worse than they deserved, in calling them a faithless and perverse

generation, and in adding, how long shall I be with you — �amely, ere you be

convinced? How long shall I suffer you, or bear with your infidelity? A reproof

much more applicable to the scribes, than either to the disciples or the father of the

child, the weakness of whose faith proceeded from human infirmity, rather than

from wilful obstinacy and perverseness. After having thus rebuked the scribes, he

turned to the father of the child, and said, Bring him hither to me — And while he

brought him the evil spirit tare him, and he fell on the ground, and wallowed

foaming, Mark 9:20; Luke 9:42. Doubtless Jesus could easily have prevented this

attack of the devil, but he wisely permitted it, that the minds of the spectators might

be impressed with a more lively sense of the young man’s distress. He then rebuked

the devil. — Commanded him to come out of the youth, Mark 9:25. And the child

was cured from that very hour — The cure was immediate and perfect! Great

encouragement this to parents to bring their children, whose souls are under the

power of Satan, to Christ, in the arms of faith and prayer! He is able to heal them,

and as willing as able.

PETT, "The Failure Of The Disciples To Cast Out A Demon (17:14-18).

On arrival at the bottom of the mountain they came across a crowd of people who

were with the disciples and there discovered that while Jesus was in the mountain

they had been unable to heal a boy who gave the appearance of being epileptic as a

result of the presence of a powerful demon active within him. Observing this Jesus

expresses His concern at the faithlessness of that generation and heals the boy. This

incident is always connected with the Transfiguration and it may well be that there

is an indication in this that without the presence of Jesus with them the disciples’

faith had been affected. They were not sure where He had gone or what He was

doing. It may also indicate that with Jesus involved in heavenly activity and out of

the way the demon world felt more assured.

But we should note that Matthew, unlike Mark, lays little stress on the demonic

power at work here, although noting it at the end. He speaks rather of the boy being

‘cured’. There was seemingly a mixture of disease and demon possession. Perhaps

indeed the demon possession had taken place as a result of using occult methods to

try to cure the boy of epilepsy. Matthew’s main aim here is to bring out the failure

and lack of faith of the disciples. And as usual he abbreviates considerably.

A vivid picture is found here of how little the disciples could achieve without the

power of Jesus with them. That is why Jesus’ last words in Matthew are, ‘lo I am

with you always’ (Matthew 28:20). Without Him they could do nothing.

Analysis.

a And when they were come to the crowd, there came to him a man, kneeling to him

(Matthew 17:14).

b Saying, “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is epileptic, and suffers grievously,

for regularly he falls into the fire, and regularly into the water” (Matthew 17:15).

c “And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him” (Matthew

17:16).

d ‘And Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long

shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?” (Matthew 17:17 a).

c “Bring him here to me” (Matthew 17:17 b).

b And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon went out of him (Matthew 17:18 a).

a And the boy was cured from that hour (Matthew 17:18 b).

�ote that in ‘a’ the man came to Jesus and knelt before Him, and in the parallel the

boy was subsequently cured. In ‘b He learned about the demon’s activity in the boy,

and in the parallel He cast it out. In ‘c’ the boy was brought to the disciples but they

could not cure him, and in the parallel Jesus said ‘Bring him to Me’. Centrally in

‘d’ Jesus bemoaned the faithlessness and perversity of that generation.

College Press Harold Fowler

17:14 And when they were come to the foot of the mountain thenext day (Lk. 9:37), they immediately encounter the multitude (tdndchfon). The definiteness of this expression makes the reader ask,“What multitude?” Since there was none mentioned as they wentup the mountain, McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 152) disposes of the

problem by deduction: “From the expression . . . we infer that Jesusand the three had left a multitude when they went into the mountain,and that they now return to the same.” The point is, of course, thatthe presence of the article made such a deduction necessary. Thelast time a definite “crowd” was mentioned previously, was the multitudepresent with the disciples during Jesus’ sermon on “The Costof Our Salvation” (Mt. 16:24-28), but it was Mark who mentionedthe crowd in that instance, not Matthew. (Mk. 8:34) Perhaps thiscrowd had remained with Jesus’ party until now, lingering aroundthe Lord for further teaching.The solution may be that suggested by Thayer (Lexicon, 433, see

his examples): “The article is used with names of things not yetspoken of, in order to show that definite things are referred to, tobe distinguished from others of the same kind and easily to be9:43)618

JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 37:14

known from the context . . ,” Arndt-Gingrich (552) agrees that

“the individualizing article also stands before a con~nion nounwhich, in a given situation, is given special attention as the onlyor obvious one of its kind , , ,”The linguistic result would be much like the coniinon Americanidiom with which people often begin a story: “There was this

man , , , ,” although we learn who the man was from whatfollows, not from what precedes, since this is the beginning of thestory with a definite demonstrative pronoun!So, Matthew may mean nothing inore than “the (usual) crowd.”As with all crowds, these folks were eager to find Jesus for almostas many different reasons as there were people. They had become,however, unwilling eye-witnesses both of the disciples’ humiliationand of the scholars’ insinuating questions. The fact that Jesus’ suddenreturn immediately brought them running to greet Him i s evidenceof where their sympathies lay during the heated discussion betweenthe rabbis and His disciples. But the great amazement of the crowdcaused by His sudden appearance so near them must not be attributedto any traces of the radiance of His transfiguration lingering aboutHis face or body. Such a hypothesis is at variance with Jesus’ forbiddingall publicity connected with His Transfiguration. The betterexplanation of their amazement is that Jesus’ sudden return at justtlie right moment took everyone by surprise. Those who sided withthe rabbis would feel suddenly exposed as if they had been caught intlie act. These loyal to Jesus would be happily surprised and relievedthat He had arrived at just the right moment.Upon His descent from the mount of Transfiguration He founddisorder among His disciples, however not as crude as Moses foundin the camp of Israel when he descended from Sinai. (Ex. 32) Butthe perversity and faithlessness were no less damning. Hurrying intotlie midst, Jesus challenged the scribes and His disciples alike withone blistering question: “What were you discussing with them?”(Mk. 9:16)

1. To the gloating scribes, this would mean: “DO you dare say to mewhat you just said to my disciples?”

2. To the disciples, this would mean: “What was so important thatyou had to discuss it with THEM, instead of getting on with thebusiness of God?”The scribes stand voiceless and impotent before His onslaught. Their61917:14. 15 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

silence evidences a felt rebuke for the unjustified revelling over thefailure of His disciples. The silence of the nine Apostles betrays theirguilty conscience and they have not the courage publicly to admittheir failure to their Lord and Master. Despite His fiery challenge,there came to him a man, kneeling to him. The desperation of a distraughtfather pushes him to leave the anonymity of the crowd andrush to his knees to state the pitiful plea in Jesus’ presence. Althoughthis is not the answer to Jesus’ question, his case is the object aroundwhich the entire discussion had hinged.B.

Intervarsity Press, “Lacking a Mustard Seed of Faith

As Moses found that those he had left in charge were unable to control the people (Ex 24:14; 32:1-8), Jesus found that those he had left behind could not cast out a particularly troublesome demon. Jesus casts out the demon immediately, demonstrating how it should be done (17:18; compare 8:26), but the disciples' inability twice invites Jesus' reproof of their weak faith (17:17, 20).

Jesus Honors One Person's Faith on Behalf of Another (17:14-15)

A man brings his son to the One with power to deliver him. Some of the symptoms depicted here resemble those of epilepsy (for example, Alexander 1980:83), which may imply that demons gaining control over the human central nervous system can sometimes cause epileptic-type phenomena. This observation does not, however, mean that epilepsy is always caused by demons; both the differentiation of the two in 4:24 and the numbers of committed Christians who suffer from epilepsy invite us to distinguish the two. Some contemporary accounts of spirit possession tell of spirits seeking to make people burn themselves (Kaplan and Johnson 1964:211).

Jesus accepts the father's faith on behalf of his son. Those who support infant baptism have found in this text a principle they believe supports it (Richardson 1958:359-60); those who emphasize the importance of personal faith at baptism are not persuaded by the analogy. But in either case the principle applies for many other kinds of prayer (compare, for example, 10:8; 18:15-20; 1 Jn 5:16) and encourages us in our faith for others' needs (compare 8:13; 9:2; 15:28).

Jesus Summons Us to Grow in Active Faith (17:16-18)

Jesus expected his disciples to have sufficient faith to repeat his miracles by this point (vv. 16-17, 20). Unbelieving . . . generation (v. 17) applied generally to Jesus' contemporaries (11:16; 12:39-45; 13:39, 45; 16:4; 23:36; 24:34), but in this case specifically to his disciples, who proved unable to stand in for him in his absence (17:16). Disciples were by definition apprentices in training to assume the role of their teachers.

Jesus had already sent his disciples out, and they had healed the sick and driven out demons (10:8). Had they not seen enough to believe (compare 8:26)?

Matthew expected his audience to learn from these recorded signs of Jesus, just as the first disciples did when they witnessed them. We who read these accounts in the Bible should be growing in our faith relationship with Jesus, as the disciples did who first walked with him. How often do needs around us go unmet because we neglect radical trust in God, especially on behalf of others' needs?

The Disciples Lacked the Most Basic Level of Faith (17:19-20)

Jesus explicitly attributes their inability to the smallness of their faith (compare 6:30; 8:26; 14:21; 16:8), pointing out that even a mustard seed's worth of faith would be sufficient to cast out not merely demons but mountains (17:20; 21:21; 1 Cor 13:2). The disciples already recognized how small a mustard seed was (Mt 13:32). Ancient peoples thought of mountains as rooted far beneath the earth (Gundry 1982:353), so "moving mountains" was a typical Jewish teacher's image for doing what was virtually impossible. With this illustration Jesus indicates that even were we casting out mountains rather than demons, we would only be scratching the surface of a life of faith. What could we do with faith greater than that of a tiny mustard seed! Like children who have only begun to walk, most of us have only begun our adventure of faith.

Faithful Obedience to God Invites Martyrdom As Well As God's Power (17:22-23)

We may become too infatuated with God's power and protection (v. 20); God sometimes calls us into danger. God twice honored Elijah's call for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:10-12), but then instructed him to accompany the third captain (who by this point, at least, feared God enough to provide the prophet safe passage). Jesus' disciples had preferred the glories of the messianic kingdom to suffering (Mt 16:16, 21-22; 17:4); like them, we must avoid missing the point of his triumphant empowerment (compare 1 Cor 13:2; Lk 10:17-20). Faith means willingness to go where God leads, not power to avert all unpleasant circumstances. We mature as the Lord leads us through hard tests for his name's sake, forcing us to actively trust his provision and power.

Jesus gives us access to tremendous power for accomplishing his will. Jesus' own example shows us, however, that those who have an intimate faith relationship with God act in compassion for others' needs rather than exploiting power frivolously (Mt 4:3-10).

Henry, We have here the miraculous cure of a child that was lunatic and vexed with a devil.

Observe,

I. A melancholy representation of the case of this child, made to Christ by the afflicted father. This

was immediately upon his coming down from the mountain where he was transfigured. Note, Christ's glories do not make him unmindful of us and of our wants and miseries. Christ, when he came down from the mount, where had conversation with Moses and Elias, did not take state upon him, but was as easy of access, as ready to poor beggars, and as familiar with the multitude, as ever he used to be. This poor man's address was very importunate; he came kneeling to Christ. Note, Sense of misery will bring people to their knees. Those who see their need of Christ will be earnest, will be in good earnest, in their applications to

him; and he delights to be thus wrestled with.

Two things the father of the child complains of.

1. The distress of his child (Matthew 17:15); Lord have mercy on my son. The affliction of the

children cannot but affect the tender parents, for they are pieces of themselves. And the case of afflicted children should be presented to God by faithful and fervent prayer. This child's distemper, probably, disabled him to pray for himself. Note, Parents are doubly concerned to pray for their children, not only that are weak and cannot, but much more that are wicked and will not, pray for themselves. Now, (1.). The nature of this child's disease was very sad; He was lunatic and sore vexed. A lunatic is properly one whose distemper lies in the brain, and returns with the change of the moon. The devil, by the divine permission, either caused this distemper, or at least concurred with it, to heighten and aggravate it. The child had the falling-sickness, and the hand of Satan was in it; by it he tormented then, and made it much more grievous than ordinarily it is. Those whom Satan got possession of, he afflicted by those diseases of the body which do most affect the mind; for it is the soul that he aims to do mischief to. The father, in his complain, saith, He is lunatic, taking notice of the effect; but Christ, in the cure, rebuked the devil, and so struck at the cause. Thus he doth in spiritual cures. (2.) The effects of the disease were very deplorable; He oft falls into the fire, and into the water. If the force of the disease made him to fall, the malice of the devil made him to fall into the fire or water; so mischievous is he where he gains possession and power in any soul. He seeks

to devour, 1 Peter 5:8.

2. The disappointment of his expectation from the disciples (Matthew 17:16); I brought him to thy

disciples, and they could not cured him. Christ gave his disciples power to cast out devils (Matthew

10:1,8), and therein they were successful (Luke 10:17); yet at this time they failed in the operation, though there were nine of them together, and before a great multitude. Christ permitted this, (1.) To keep them humble, and to show their dependence upon him, that without him they could do nothing. (2.) To glorify himself and his own power. It is for the honour of Christ to come in with help at a dead-lift, when other helpers cannot help. Elisha's staff in Gehazi's hand will not raise the child: he must come himself. Note, There are some special favours which Christ reserves the bestowment of to himself; and sometimes he keeps the cistern empty; that he may bring us to himself, the Fountain. But the failures of instruments shall not hinder the operations of his grace, which will work, if not by them, yet without them.

II. The rebukes that Christ gave to the people first, and then to the devil.

1. He chid those about him (Matthew 17:17); O faithless and perverse generation! This is not

spoken to the disciples, but to the people, and perhaps especially to the scribes, who are mentioned in Mark

9:14, and who, as it should seem, insulted over the disciples, because they had now met with a case that was too hard for them. Christ himself could not do many mighty works among a people in whom unbelief reigned. It was here owing to the faithlessness of this generation, that they could not obtain those blessings from God, which otherwise they might have had; as it was owing to the weakness of the disciples' faith, that they could not do those works for God, which otherwise they might have done. They were faithless and perverse. Note, Those that are faithless will be perverse; and perverseness is sin in its worst colours. Faith is compliance with God, unbelief is opposition and contradiction to God. Israel of old was perverse, because faithless (Psalms 95:9), forward, for in them is no faith, Deuteronomy 32:20.

Two things he upbraids them with. (1.) His presence with them so long; "How long shall I be with

you? Will you always need my bodily presence, and never come to such maturity as to be fit to be left, the people to the conduct of the disciples, and the disciples to the conduct of the Spirit and of their commission? Must the child be always carried, and will it never learn to go alone?" (2.) His patience with them so long; How long shall I suffer you? Note, [1.] The faithlessness and perverseness of those who enjoy

the means of grace are a great grief to the Lord Jesus. Thus did he suffer the manners of Israel of old, Acts

13:18. [2.] The longer Christ has borne with a perverse and faithless people, the more he is displeased with their perverseness and unbelief; and he is God, and not man, else he would not suffer so long, nor bear so much, as he doth.

2. He cured the child, and set him to-rights again. He called, Bring him hither to me. Though the

people were perverse, and Christ was provoked, yet care was taken of the child. Note, Though Christ may be angry, he is never unkind, nor doth he, in the greatest of his displeasure, shut up the bowels of his compassion from the miserable; Bring him to me. Note, When all other helps and succours fail, we are welcome to Christ, and may be confident in him and in his power and goodness.

See here an emblem of Christ's undertaking as our Redeemer.

(1.) He breaks the power of Satan (Matthew 17:18); Jesus rebuked the devil, as one having authority,

who could back with force his word of command. Note, Christ's victories over Satan are obtained by the

power of his word, the sword that comes out of his mouth, Revelation 19:21. Satan cannot stand before the rebukes of Christ, though his possession has been ever so long. It is comfortable to those who are wrestling with principalities and powers, that Christ hath spoiled them, Colossians 2:15. The lion of the tribe of Judah will be too hard for the roaring lion that seeks to devour.

(2.) He redresses the grievances of the children of men; The child was cured from that very hour. It

was an immediate cure, and a perfect one. This is an encouragement to parents to bring their children to Christ, whose souls are under Satan's power; he is able to heal them, and as willing as he is able. Not only bring them to Christ by prayer, but bring them to the word of Christ, the ordinary means by which Satan's strongholds are demolished in the soul. Christ's rebukes, brought home to the heart, will ruin Satan's power there.

III. Christ's discourse with his disciples hereupon.

1. They ask the reason why they could not cast out the devil at this time (Matthew 17:19); They came

to Jesus apart. Note, Ministers, who are to deal for Christ in public, have need to keep up a private communion with him, that they may in secret, where no eye sees, bewail their weakness and straitness, their follies and infirmities, in their public performances, and enquire into the cause of them. We should make use of the liberty of access we have to Jesus apart, where we may be free and particular with him. Such questions as the disciples put to Christ, we should put to ourselves, in communing with our own hearts upon our beds; Why were we so dull and careless at such a time? Why came we so much short in such a duty? That which is amiss may, when found out, be amended.

2. Christ gives them two reasons why they failed.

(1.) It was because of their unbelief, Matthew 17:20. When he spake to the father of the child and to the people, he charged it upon their unbelief; when he spake to his disciples, he charged it upon theirs; for the truth was, there were faults on both sides; but we are more concerned to hear of our own faults than of other people's, and to impute what is amiss to ourselves than to others. When the preaching of the word seems not to be so successful as sometimes it has been, the people are apt to lay all the fault upon the ministers, and the ministers upon the people; whereas, it is more becoming for each to own his own faultiness, and to say, "It is owing to me." Ministers, in reproving, must learn thus to give to each his portion of the word; and to take people off from judging others, by teaching all to judge themselves; It is because of your unbelief. Though they had faith,

yet that faith was weak and ineffectual. Note, [1.] As far as faith falls short of its due strength, vigour, and activity, it may truly be said, "There is unbelief." Many are chargeable with unbelief, who yet are not to be called unbelievers. [2.] It is because of our unbelief, that we bring so little to pass in religion, and so often miscarry, and come short, in that which is good.

Our Lord Jesus takes this occasion to show them the power of faith, that they might not be defective

in that, another time, as they were now; If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall do wonders,

Matthew 17:20. Some make the comparison to refer to the quality of the mustard-seed, which is, when bruised, sharp and penetrating; "If you have an active growing faith, not dead, flat, or insipid, you will not be baffled thus." But it rather refers to the quantity; "If you had but a grain of true faith, though so little that it were like that which is the least of all seeds, you would do wonders." Faith in general is a firm assent to, a compliance with, and a confidence in, all divine revelation. The faith here required, is that which had for its object that particular revelation by which Christ gave his disciples power to work miracles in his name, for the confirmation of the doctrine they preached. It was a faith in this revelation that they were defective in; either doubting the validity of their commission, or fearing that it expired with their first mission, and was not to continue when they were returning to their Master; or that it was some way or other forfeited or withdrawn. Perhaps their Master's absence with the three chief of his disciples, with a charge to the rest not to follow them, might occasion some doubts concerning their power, or rather the power of the Lord with them, to do this; however, there were not, at present, such a strong actual dependence upon, and confidence in, the promise of Christ's presence with them, as there should have been. It is good for us to be diffident of ourselves and of our own strength; but it is displeasing to Christ, when we distrust any power derived from him or granted by him.

If ye have ever so little of this faith in sincerity, if ye truly rely upon the powers committed to you, ye

shall say to this mountain, Remove. This is a proverbial expression, denoting that which follows, and no more, Aothing shall be impossible to you. They had a full commission, among other things, to cast out devils without exception; but, this devil being more than ordinarily malicious and inveterate, they distrusted the power they had received, and so failed. To convince them of this, Christ shows them what they might have done. Note, An active faith can remove mountains, not of itself, but in the virtue of a divine power engaged by a divine promise, both which faith fastens upon.

(2.) Because there was something in the kind of the malady, which rendered the cure more than

ordinarily difficult (Matthew 17:21); "This kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting. This possession,

which works by a falling-sickness, or this kind of devils that are thus furious, is not cast out ordinarily but by great acts of devotion, and wherein ye were defective." Note, [1.] Though the adversaries we wrestle, be all principalities and powers, yet some are stronger than others, and their power more hardly broken. [2.] The extraordinary power of Satan must not discourage our faith, but quicken us to a greater intenseness in the acting of it, and more earnestness in praying to God for the increase of it; so some understand it here; "This kind of faith (which removeth mountains) doth not proceed, is not obtained, from God, nor is it carried up to its full growth, nor drawn out into act and exercise, but by earnest prayer." [3.] Fasting and prayer are proper means for the bringing down of Satan's power against us, and the fetching in of divine power to our assistance. Fasting is of use to put an edge upon prayer; it is an evidence and instance of humiliation which is necessary in prayer, and is a means of mortifying some corrupt habits, and of disposing the body to serve the soul in prayer. When the devil's interest in the soul is confirmed by the temper and constitution of the body, fasting must be joined with prayer, to keep under the body.

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. A sick patient brought to Christ, the great physician, for cure and healing. A lunatic, that is, a person, at certain times of the moon, afflicted with the falling sickness.

2. This sickness of his was aggravated by Satan, who bodily possessed him, and cruelly

cast him into the fire and into the water, but rather for torture than dispatch.

O how does Satan, that malicious tyrant, rejoice in doing hurt to mankind! Lord, abate his power, since his malice will not be abated.

Observe, 3. The person who brought him forth for cure, his compassionate father, who kneeled down and cried out, need will make a person both humble and eloquent. Everyone has a tongue to speak for himself; happy is he that keeps a tongue for others.

4. The physicians that he was first brought unto: first, to the disciples; and when they could not cure him, then to Jesus. We never apply ourselves importunately to the God of power, till we begin to despair of the creature's help.

15"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.

1. Barnes, “Verse 15. Lord, have mercy. The word Lord here means Sir, a title of civility, not implying Divinity.

My son. This was an only son, (Luke.) He was possessed with a devil. This calamity

was attended with the following symptoms:--he was lunatic, See Barnes "Matthew

4:24"; he was sore vexed, i.e., he suffered greatly, or was greatly afflicted; he fell

often suddenly in the manner of persons having epileptic fits; he was dumb, that is,

he was dumb except when the fit was coming on him; for Luke says, that when the

spirit took him, he cried suddenly out; he foamed and gnashed with his teeth, and

wasted away, or became poor and emaciated. It tore him, (Luke,) and scarcely

departed from him, or he had only short intervals of reason; for so the passage in

Luke, bruising him, hardly departeth from him," should be translated.”

Barclay, “We see here the constant demands made upon Jesus. Straight from the glory of the mountain top, he was met by human suffering. Straight from hearing the voice of God, he came to hear--the clamant demand of human need. The most

Christ-like person in the world is the man who never finds his fellow-man a nuisance. It is easy to feel Christian in the moment of prayer and meditation; it is easy to feel close to God when the world is shut out. But that is not religion--that is escapism. Real religion is to rise from our knees before God to meet men and the problems of the human situation. Real religion is to draw strength from God in order to give it to others. Real religion involves both meeting God in the secret place and men in the market place. Real religion means taking our own needs to God, not that we may have peace and quiet and undisturbed comfort, but that we may be enabled graciously, effectively and powerfully to meet the needs of others. The wings of the dove are not for the Christian who would follow his Master in going about doing good.”

2. Gill, “For he is lunatic:not a mad man, but troubled with the epileptic disease; upon which, as on madness or lunacy, the changes and full of the moon have an influence: hence the next clause,

and sore vexed,is rendered in the Arabic version, "and sore vexed at the beginning of full moons"; at which times, he had very grievous and frequent fits of his disorder:

for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water:which shows it to be the "epilepsy", or "falling sickness", he was afflicted with; which, whenever it seized him, whether by the fireside, or by the side of a river or brook, or any place of water, or in any other dangerous situation, he fell into it, not being able to help himself, or avoid any danger to which he was exposed. A larger account of this child's disorder, and of the circumstances of his cure, are related by (

Mark 9:17,18) where this case will be more fully considered.”

College Press Harold Fowler

17:15 Lord. The other two Evangelists quote him as saying,“Teacher.” (Mk. 9:17; Lk. 9:38) Without denying these other testi-’monies, Matthew seems to underline the proper lordship of Jesusby showing the man’s respect for Him. However, since lord (kyrie)

may also mean nothing more than “Sir,” an address used in placeof the proper name of the person addressed, we cannot assess the

depth of the man’s faith on the basis of the form of address alone.Have mercy on my son. Although the father will later show the inadequacyof his confidence in Jesus’ power (Mk. 9:22b), his initialrequest appeals to Jesus’ compassion, as if the Lord’s ability to healthe boy were for him a foregone conclusion.The child is an epizeptic, but not just an epileptic, because thisphysical malady is merely the background upon which his demon

possession is superimposed. Rather, the cause of the epilepsy and itsaccompanying symptoms was a demon. (v. 18) On demon possession,see notes on 8:28ff and Seth Wilson’s “Notes on Demon Possession”

(Learning From Jesus, 302ff). Although the NT does not teach thatall, or even most, cases of epilepsy were produced by demonic power,this one was. Note that doctor Luke (Col. 4:14), who would havemost scientific reason to doubt the demonic cause, is as descriptiveas Mark in attributing the seizures to “an unclean spirit, a demon.”(Mk. 9:17f, 20, 25; Lk. 9:39, 42f) Matthew himself knew how todistinguish cases that were strictly demonic from those which werenormal, non-demonic epileptics, paralytics and other various diseasesand pains. (Mt. 4:24) Beware of that undiscrimihating pseudoscholarlytalk that affirms that “during this time it seems to havebeen common to attribute various types of physical difficulties todemon possession. It should be obvious because of this that the term620

JESUS HEALS kND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:15, 16‘demon1 in the various Gospel narratives may mean a number ofdifferent things, mainly bound up with what were otherwise inexplicablehuman problems.” (McMillan, Mark, 1 13)For he often falls into the fie and often into the water. Are thesephenomena to be attributed to tlie epileptic seizures or to the attacksof tlie demon who maliciously tried “to destroy him”? (Mk. 9:22)Certainly tlie father means that the unexpected effects of the (den~onically induced) convulsions required that the boy be constantlywatched lest such terrible accidents endanger his life. Into the fire.Even non-epileptic children, if not controlled, can be horribly burnedby their accidentally falling into the open brazier of live coals usedfor heating their homes. Into the water. The danger of drowningis just as real for a non-swimmer whose body is out of control.

PETT, "“Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is epileptic, and suffers grievously, for regularly he falls into the fire, and regularly into the water.”

He asked Him to have compassion of his son. Here the son is described as ‘affected by the moon’ (lunatic), translated as epileptic because of the symptoms, and also, some have suggested, because epileptics were seen as ‘moonstruck’. But in Mark it is made clear that he is possessed by a ‘dumb spirit’, and that this was thus no ordinary epilepsy. It is unlikely that the Apostles would have been thwarted by an ordinary case of epilepsy. The presence of this evil spirit is confirmed here by the fact that it is stressed that it tends to cause the son to be cast into either fire or water. The suggestion appears to be that it happened to an abnormal extent, as though the demon had perverse pleasure in being selective, although it may simply be that the father vividly remembered such incidents and was using them to impress on Jesus the seriousness of the situation.

‘Lord.’ This was probably showing due reverence to a recognised prophet.

16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

1. Barnes, “Verse 16. And I brought him to thy disciples, etc. That is, not to the apostles, for they had power over unclean spirits, Matthew 10:8 but to others of his followers, who attempted to work miracles. It is probable that many of his disciples attempted this, who were not personal attendants on his ministry, Mark 9:38.

2. Barclay, “We cannot but be moved by the faith of the boy's father. Even though the disciples had been given power to cast out devils (Matt. 10:1), here was a case in which they had signally and publicly faded. And yet in spite of the failure of the disciples, the father never doubted the power of Jesus. It is as if he said: "Only let me get at Jesus himself, and my problems will be solved and my need will be met."

There is something very poignant about that; and there is something which is very universal and very modern. There are many who feel that the Church, the professed disciples of Jesus in their own day and generation, has failed and is powerless to deal with the ills of the human situation; and yet at the back of their minds there is the feeling: "If we could only get beyond his human followers, if we could only get behind the facade of ecclesiasticism and the failure of the Church, if we could only get at Jesus himself, we would receive the things we need." It is at once our condemnation and our challenge that, even yet, though men have lost their faith in the Church, they have never lost a wistful faith in Jesus Christ.”

3.Calvin, “As Mark is more full, and explains the circumstances very minutely, we shall follow the order of his narrative. And first he points out clearly the reason why Christ uses a harshness so unusual with him, when he exclaims that the Jews, on account of their perverse malice, do not deserve to be any longer endured. We know how gently he was wont to receive them, even when their requests were excessively importunate. “even though they showed themselves to be importunate and troublesome in their requests.” A father here entreats in behalf of an only son, the necessity is extremely urgent, and a modest and humble appeal is made to the compassion of Christ. Why then does he, contrary to his custom, break out suddenly into passion, and declare that they can be endured no longer? As the narrative of Matthew and Luke does not enable us to discover the reason of this great severity, some commentators have fallen into the mistake of supposing that this rebuke was directed either against the disciples, or against the father of the afflicted child. But if we duly consider all the circumstances of the case, as they are related by Mark, there will be no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion, that the indignation of Christ was directed against the malice of the scribes, and that he did not intend to treat the ignorant and weak with such harshness.

During Christ’s absence, a lunatic child had been brought forward. The scribes, regarding this as a plausible occasion for giving annoyance, seized upon it eagerly, and entreated the disciples that, if they had any power, they would exercise it in curing the child. It is probable that the disciples made an attempt, and that their

efforts were unavailing; upon which the scribes raise the shout of victory, and not only ridicule the disciples, but break out against Christ, as if in their person his power had been baffled. It was an extraordinary display of outrageous impiety united with equally base ingratitude, maliciously to keep out of view so many miracles, from which they had learned the amazing power of Christ; for they manifestly endeavored to extinguish the light which was placed before their eyes. With good reason, therefore, does Christ exclaim that they could no longer be endured, and pronounce them to be an unbelieving and perverse nation; for the numerous proofs which they had formerly beheld ought at least to have had the effect of preventing them from seeking occasion of disparagement.”

4. Gill, “and they could not cure him.This he said, partly to show the malignity and stubbornness of the disease, and partly to accuse the disciples of weakness; when he himself was as much in fault as

they, as the following words show. Here the Jew F23 insults, and charges with contradiction, that in one place it should be said, that Jesus gave his disciples power to cast out unclean spirits, and here all the disciples could not cast a spirit out of one little child: but without any reason; let it be observed, that "all" the disciples were not present, the three principal ones were with Christ; besides, this was not owing to want of power in them, which Christ had conferred on them, and which they often made use of with success: but partly to their own unbelief, and partly to the unbelief of the father of this child, and others with him, as appears from what follows: and it is clear from Mark, that when he came to Christ, he had but little faith; he says to him, "if thou canst do anything, help us"; and after Christ had talked with him about his faith, he could only say, "Lord, I believe, help mine unbelief".

PETT, "“And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him.”

But then came the body blow. The disciples had been unable to cure the boy. It is noteworthy that we are shortly to learn that they were themselves shocked at their failure. They had expected to be successful, as it would appear up to this point they always had been. They were unable to understand their failure themselves. Thus they had clearly exercised a certain amount of faith, sufficient usually to achieve success. But it had not been enough. Before we are too critical we should note that probably all nine of the remaining Apostles were there and that not one of them had been able to be successful. It would seem that this was a particularly powerful demon.

The failure of the disciples has been a theme of this section. They did not understand about the loaves and the fishes (Matthew 14:16-21); they were afraid of the ghost at sea (Matthew 14:26-27); they could not understand why only what came from inside could defile a man (Matthew 15:16); they had wanted Him to send the Canaanite woman away without meeting her deepest need (Matthew 15:23); they failed to be aware of how the crowds could be fed (Matthew 15:33); they became anxious about having no bread in

spite of all that they had seen and had been taught (Matthew 16:5); the disciples had failed to recognise in John the Baptist, the coming Elijah (Matthew 17:10-11). And now they have failed to cast out this demon. It is being made quite clear why they must have Jesus with them when they go out to disciple all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Furthermore Peter had lost his faith as he looked at the ferocity of the tempest (Matthew 14:28-31); had sought to dissuade Jesus from the path of suffering (Matthew 16:22); and had wanted to keep Moses and Elijah on the mountain with Jesus (Matthew 17:4). His moment of insight (Matthew 16:16) was seen as far outweighed by his failure to see. But what a different picture is revealed after Pentecost once the living Christ has possessed them through His Spirit.

College Press Harold Fowler

17: 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not curehim. What damning evidence of their failure! The man had originallycome, bringing his son to Jesus. (Mk, 9:17) Finding Him temporarilyabsent, he cheerfully turned to the very men who were reputedlydisciples of His, men who had shared His miraculous power, menwho should have shared His mind and heart and turned instantlyto God in prayer for power. Instead they stood POWERLESS, sputteringover their embarrassing incompetence.Had this distraught father neglected to try every remedy known

in his time? would such a father have left any stone unturned, anysolution untried to save his boy? If not, do we not learn that there

was nothing in that time equal to the task of liberating him? Wasthere nothing in all Hebrew culture or religion that could touch thatboy? Was there nothing in the refinement and learning of Hellenismto free him? In the presence of the most, refined philosophies of hisage, that father personally experienced their absolute bankruptcyand helplessness to set his little lad free from the foul demon thatenslaved him! Only spiritual power can deal with spiritual problems,and even Jesus’ disciples did not possess this.Thy disciples means the nine Apostles left at the base of the mountainwhile Jesus ascended with Peter, James and John for prayer.Barnes (Matthew-Mark, 179) suggests that the disciples here arenot the Apostles, but other followers who attempted to work miracles,for others of His disciples also worked them who were not personalattendants on His ministry. (Mk. 9:38) However, this explanationpresupposes that the father had never asked the Apostles to heal

his son. But this is highly improbable, since the Nine were physicallypresent in this scene., The father probably would not have asked others62117:16. 17 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

of Jesus’ disciples present in the crowd, instead of the Apostles whowould presumably have had more faith and mare experience andpower than those unsuccessful “disciples.” On the contrary, the

word disciples calls us back to remember that the mighty Apostlesof the Church of Christ were one day but learners, struggling withdoubts and mistakes. 2 -

They could not cure him. This is the first time any failure on theirpart is mentioned in the sacred narrative. Their embarrassed questionat the conclusion is further proof that this is the only failure in theirability to work miracles. (17:19; see also Lk. 10:17-20) And, sinceJesus showed them the cause of this unsuccessfulness, it is evidencethat they learned the lesson of faith. (17:20)

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me."

1. Losing patience with people is not a sin, for Jesus had this experience, and so does every parent. It is impossible to get through life and never become impatient with people for their slow understanding. Jesus had to put up with men who could be told in plain language over and over that with faith they could do all things necessary. That is what he meant by saying they could remove mountains by faith. �obody needs to move a real mountain, but they do have to remove many obstacles to achieving God's will, and it all depends on faith. Here, they did not have the faith to believe, and they failed in healing the boy. Jesus is impatient with their lack of faith and he complains of being stuck in this fallen world with the likes of his followers. What pastor has ever lived who did not express this same emotion? Thank heavens it is not a sin, for we would all be guilty.

2. Barnes, “Verse 17. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation!Perverse means that which is twisted or turned from the proper direction; and is often used of the eyes, when one or both are turned from the natural position. Applied to a generation, or race of men, it means that they hold opinions turned or perverted from the truth, and that they were wicked in their conduct. He applied this probably to the Jews, and not to his real disciples.

How long shall I suffer you? That is, how long shall I bear with you? How long is it

necessary to show such patience and forbearance with your unbelief and perversity?

This was not an expression of impatience or complaint, so much as a proof that they

were so slow to believe that he was the Messiah, notwithstanding his miracles, and

that even his disciples so slowly learned to put the proper trust in him.

Mark adds, (Mark 9:20-22,) that when he that was possessed was brought, the spirit, by

a last desperate struggle, threw him down, and tore him, and left him apparently dead. He

adds farther, that the case had existed during the whole life of his son, from a child. This

was a case of uncommon obstinacy. The affliction was fixed and lasting. The disciples,

seeing the obstinacy of the case--seeing him dumb, wasted away, torn, and foaming--

despaired of being able to cure him. They lacked the faith which was necessary;

doubted whether they could cure him, and therefore could not.

Jesus said to the father, Mark 9:23 "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him

that believeth." That is, this cure shall be effected if you have faith. Not thathis faith

would give Jesus the power to heal him, but it would render it proper that he should

exert that power in his favour. In this way, and in this only, are all things possible to believers. The man had faith, Mark 9:24. The father came, as a fathershould do,

weeping, and praying that his faith might be increased, so as to make itproper that Jesus should interpose in his behalf, and save his child. "Help my unbelief," (Mark

9:24). This was an expression of humility. If my faith is defective, supply what is lacking.

Help me to overcome my unbelief. Let not the defect of my faith be in the way of this

blessing.”

3. Broadus, “ O faithless (unbelieving) and per

verse generation. The terms are borrowed

from Deut. 32: 5, 20; comp. Phil. 2: 15. They

were not unbelieving through lack of evidence,

but through perverse neglect or rejection of

the evidence. The Greek word means thoroughly

twisted, crooked, etc., and so does the

Latin perversus. (Comp. Eng. wrong from

wring.) Tyn., Cran., Gen., here render

crooked. The term generation seems to

be used generally, not meaning specifically

the disciples or the Scribes, etc., as various

writers have supposed. The father, the nine

disciples, the crowd, the Scribes (Mark:u),

would all in varying degrees and way? suggest

that the current generation was unbelieving

and perverse. SoZwingli, Bengel, Ewald,

Trench (see Morison). Unbelieving does

not necessarily mean that no one in the

generation believed at all ; the disciples had

little faith (v. 20 \ the father believed and

did not believe. This prevalence of perverse

unbelief made it painful to live amid such a

generation, and to suffer, or bear with, them.

He had shown keen distress at unbelief before,

Mark 8: 12 (see above on 16: 4); Mark 3: 5

(see above on 12: 13). Our Lord s sensitive

ness of feeling appears in many ways, but

only here is recorded as taking the form of

momentary impatience at dwelling amid such

an environment; it must have been all the

more distressing from the contrast with the

scene of the Transfiguration, a few hours

before. How long? literally, until when?

as if expecting a time of release. Yet he did

bear with that generation for yet many months

(see on 19 : 1), and did on this occasion, amid

all the disheartening and intolerable unbelief,

promptly recognize and bless a faith that was

confessedly weak.”

4. Clarke, “These and the following words may be considered as spoken: 1. To the disciples, because of their unbelief, Matthew 17:20. 2. To the father of the possessed,

who should have brought his son to Christ. 3. To the whole multitude, who were slow of

heart to believe in him as the Messiah, notwithstanding the miracles which he wrought.

Perverse, signifies-1. Such as are influenced by perverse opinions, which hinder them from receiving the truth: and, 2. Such as are profligate in their manners. KYPKE. This last expression could not have been addressed to the disciples, who were certainly saved from the corruption of the world, and whose minds had been lately divinely illuminated by what passed at and after the transfiguration: but at all times the expression was applicable to the Jewish people.

5. Gill, “�ot to the disciples, but to the father of the child; see (Mark 9:19) and those

that were with him, and the Scribes that were present, disputing with the disciples,

upbraiding them with their weakness, and triumphing over them: "O faithless and

perverse generation"; a way of speaking, which is never used of the disciples, and indeed

could not be properly said of them; for though they often appeared to be men of little

faith, yet not faithless; nor were they so rebellious, stubborn, and perverse, as here

represented, though there was a great deal of perverseness in them: but the characters

better suit the body of the Jewish nation, who, on account of the incredulity of this man,

and those that were present, being of the same temper with them, are exclaimed against in

words, which were long ago spoken of their ancestors, (Deuteronomy 32:5) and from

whence they seem to be taken.

How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? Upbraiding them with the length of time he had been with them, in which so many wonderful works had been done among them, and yet they remained unbelieving and incorrigible; and intimating, that his patience and longsuffering would not always continue; and that in a short time, he should be gone from them, and they should no longer enjoy the benefit of his ministry and miracles, but wrath should come upon them to the uttermost: but however, whilst he was with them, notwithstanding all their unbelief and obstinacy, he should go on to do good; and therefore says,

bring him hither to me,meaning the lunatic child. These words also are directed, not unto the disciples, but to the father of the child; for so it is said in (Luke 9:41) "bring thy son hither"; and so the Syriac renders it here (whyta) , "bring thou him"; though, as expressed in the plural number, may very well be thought to intend him, and his friends.”

BURKITT, "These words are a severe rebuke given by Chrsit to his own disciples.

Where, observe, The person upbraided, his discples: and the sin upbraided with, unbelief. O faithless generation! Yet was it not the total want of faith, but the weakness and imperfection of faith, that they were upbraided with and reproved for.

Hence learn, 1. That secret unbelief may lie hid and undiscerned in a person's heart, which neither others nor himself may take notice of, until some trial doth discover it. The disciples were not sensible of that unbelief which lay hid in them, till this occasion did discover it.

Learn, 2. That the great obstacle and obstruction of all blessings, both spiritual and temporal, coming to us, is our unbelief: O faithless generation! Others conceive that these words were not spoken to the disciples but to the Scribes, which Mark 9. says, at this time were disputing with Christ's disciples, and perhaps insulting over them, as having found out a distemper which could not be cured by Christ's name and power; and these he called now, as he had done heretofore, a generation of vipers.

College Press Harold Fowler

17: 17 The pained outcry of our Lord is provoked primarily by thepowerlessness of His nine Apostles to heal the boy. Mark 9:18b, 19underlies this by saying: “ ‘I asked your disciples to cast it out, and

they were not able.’ And he answered THEM . . .” Matthew in v. 16

furnished the fullest statement of the disciples’ discomfiture. So,his v. 17 most naturally expresses Jesus’ chagrin at THEIR ineptness.Some consider this exclamation as addressed to the unbeliefof the relentless scribes who were present, the doubting father,the vacillating multitudes, the human miseries caused by sin andunbelief, as well as the weak faith of the baffled Apostles. Otherswould inexplicably exempt the Apostles from censure, and blamerather the perversity on the malicious influence of the rabbis atwork in the crowd, and only indirectly on the Apostles, if at all.It is not wrong to ascribe perversity and faithlessness on thecrowds and the scribes, who undoubtedly were all of this.In fact, can the Lord be complacent in the face of the perniciousinfluence that threatens to undermine the faith of Hisdisciples and destroy the precious nucleus He had labored sopatiently to create? And should He not denounce it, even in generalterms, so that A�YO�E who shared these doubts would feelcompelled to reaffirm his personal decision about Jesus to followHim in single-minded faith?Because they had begun to entertain some of the uncertainty aboutJesus and His Messianic methodology and the same doubts thatwere characteristic of their cultural ambient, the Apostles had beenbrought back temporarily to the same level of unfaithfulness withtheir own unbelieving countrymen. This is why they must share in

the common condemnation.622JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:170 faithless and perverse generation. Often when Jesus used theword generaiion, He considered the whole contemporary generation

of‘ Jews as a uniform mass confronting Him. (Cf. Mt. 11:16; 12:41f;23:36; 24:34; Mk. 13:30; Lk. 7;31; 11:29-32, 50f; 17:25; 21:32) Hedescribed that generaation as “evil” (Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:29), “eviland adulterous” (Mi. 12:39; 16:4), “adulterous and sinful” (Mk,8:38). Contemporaries of the Apostles appeared to them as a “crookedgeneration” (Ac, 2:40) and “crooked and perverse” (Phil. 2: 13,like the kind that provoked God in the wilderness (Heb, 3:10). See

Arndt-Gingrich on geneh, p, 153.Here, however, He leveled the charge of perverseness and unbeliefprimarily at His own disciples. How can such an attitude of bitterdisappointment be justified? This is an unmitigated outburst ofdivine judgment upon people to whom had been granted the mostextraordinary opportunities to know and obey the truth, ThereforeHis words are to be taken in their harshest sense. (Cf. Dt. 32:5, 20,esp. in LXX!)1. There is no necessity to soften the apparent severity of His words,because the disciples had done more than merely empty theirreputation as miracle workers. In their self-seeking, they hadnearly wrecked the father’s faith. They would not have gone awaygrieved about the poor boy whom they had failed to heal; theywould have slunk away, red-faced over their soiled reputation.Consequently, they had embittered the father, armed the scribeswith handy arguments, and tarnished the name of the Lord whosediscipleship they owned.2. The Apostles had worked miracles in the name of Jesus before,especially the casting out of demons. (Mt. 10:1, 8; Mk. 6:13) Hadthey only now succumbed to the temptation to use this power fortheir own glory “just to show those scribes that they really could”?As a matter of fact, they were arguing with the theologians insteadof striving in prayer to God. Apparently they merely began totry to cast out the demon, But the Lord had not told them to TRYto do anything: He told them to CAST THEM OUT through confidence

in His authority. (Mt. l O : l , 8) He had provided the power,but they were to furnish the faith. They are now perversely faitliless,and He furnished them no power.3, The perversity of their faithlessness was further evident in, andactually caused by, their running mental debate with Jesus’ viewsof the Messianic Kingdom. They refused to envision any hope of62317:17 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

success for a suffering, dying Messiah who worked so patientlywith the most unpromising people and whose notorious lack ofeconomic schemes, power structures and military policy was becomingintolerable. In other words, what they could not rationallyaccept, they tended to believe impossible. Believing that God inJesus Christ could work out all the seemingly contradictory detailswas fundamentally foreign to large segments of their entire wayof thinking. THIS IS UNBELIEF, PERVERSE AND WICKED U�FAITHFUL�ESS!

They, too, needed to have Jesus repeat to them: “Allthings are possible to him who believes!” To the extent that theApostles shared the feeling that Jesus’ views and practice were uneconomical,impractical, unsound, unscholarly and bound to fail,they must suffer His condemnation upon their skeptic age.

Perverse (diestrammine, from diastrkfo) means “twisted, contorted,

distorted, disordered, inverted, changed, seduced, depraved.” (Rocci,466) If this sounds too strong for Jesus’ Apostles, or even His disciples,Morgan (Matthew, 224) shows the connection:Moreover, the age was not only “faithless”; it was “perverse”;which does not mean merely that it was rebellious, but that it wasa generation twisted, and contorted; a generation in which thingswere out of the regular; a generation distorted in its thinking, inits feeling, in its action; a generation unable to think straightly,to feel thoroughly, to act with rectitude; a generation in whicheverything was wrong.The use of the two words “faithless and perverse,” indicates asequence. A generation that loses its faith, becomes distorted,out of shape. A people who live exclusively upon the basis of thethings seen, form untrue estimates; their thinking is distorted,their feeling is out of the straight, their activity is iniquity, whichsimply means crookedness.There is no more tragic unbelief in all the world of any generation

than the unbelief of B E L I E V E R Si-s Tno~ p~e~rv~er sity more wickedthan that which claims discipleship to Jesus and claims to be askinghonest questions, while attempting to force its own opinions uponHim. It is perverse for disciples to refuse, however unconsciously,to let Him be the Teacher and Lord, debating His every word as ifHe were no more than a common rabbi from the country!

How long shall I be with you to rescue from the abortive attemptsof your faithfulness and to teach you until you understand? How624JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:17

long iiiust I visit you until you take my medicine instead of yours?R , C. Foster (Slu17dur.d Lesson Corirri~enlaq1~9 59, 10) thinks thatThis sweeping statement of Jesus seems to contrast earth andheaven. I1 was as if He looked up momentarily to all the gloryand implicit obedience which had surrounded Him in heaven.It seem that a bit of nostalgic longing for all He had surrenderedto come into this world suddenly swept over His soul. But it wasnot a word of self-pity, not to mention despair. It was a biting,challenging criticism and protest.He had put up with this nonsense for almost three years now, andHe longs for it all to be over. Not intolerable conditions, but intolerableUNBELIEF, wore Jesus out! In contrast to their waveringand wrongness, He trusted God and lived a life in harmony withHis will, and the contrast caused Him pain. He had provided themenough reasons to trust Him implicitly, so He had a right to expectmore intelligent faith. This anguished impatience is not evidenceof His humanity, but of His deity! In fact, had He been but a mereman, He would have already given up! His impatience, disgust and

weariness is just like God’s! (Study Ex. 16:28; Nu, 14:11, 27; Isa.1:14; 7:13; 43:24b; Jer. 4:14, 21; 156; Mal. 2:17) This longing for

the finish of His earthly mission, even if that meant the cross andsuffering in virtual preference to these continual disappointments,shows just how wearying to Jesus must have been the disciples’obtuseness and lack of confidence in Him. Yet, He loved them andcontinued patiently to minister to their needs until He could trulysay, “It is finished!”Bring him here to me. What imperative majesty there is in thissummons! What confidence in the power of God at work in Himself!This prompt, decisive action is an indirect challenge to the scribes,

because it focuses everyone’s attention on Himself with whom Ifallthings are possible,” because HE believes that God will work throughHim, It shames the Apostles for their time-wasting, faith-dissipatingdiscussions.The immediacy of Matthew’s narrative omits the delay that occurred

between Jesus’ order (v. 17) and the expulsion of the demon (v. 18).In fact, Mark and Luke inform us that, while the boy was beingbrought, the demon, when he came in sight of Jesus, threw him tothe ground in a convulsion. (See on 17:21.) At this point the follow.ing conversation took place:62517:17, Mk. 9:21r24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

C. THE FAINED BUT PERCEPTIVE PLEA OFTHE PRESSURED PARENT (Mk. 9:21-24)Mark 9’:21 And Jesus &ked his father, “How long has he hadthis?” The Lord’s apparently clinical manner is not intended tofurnish Himself information for a proper diagnosis, and certainlynot to prolong the suffering of the victim and, consequently, of hisfather. He achieved two purposes by this question: (1) He showedthe father His personal concern and steady nerve even though thedemon was raging his wildest, and (2) at the same time, He impressedeveryone present with the obstinacy and apparent hopelessness ofthe case, so that they might form some estimate of the supernaturalpower required to resolve it completely. When combined with thedisciples’ bafflement and the father’s desperation and the scribes’overconfidence and the multitudes’ indecision, these two factors arewell calculated to throw Jesus’ calm mastery of the situation into

greater relief. From childhood (paidibthen) may not mean too long a

time, since the victim was still a “child!’ (paidiou, Mk. 9:24)Mark 9:22-24 Confident of the Lord’s power, the leper had said,

“If you will, you can . . .” (Mt. 8:2) The believing Martha showed

some uncertainty about whether it would be Jesus’ will to raiseLazarus, but she too had no doubt about His power. (Jn. 11:21-27)But this poor doubter, basing his plea only on Jesus’ compassion,now cried: If you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.

Imagine the audacity of saying to Jesus Christ, “If you CAN . . .”!

No wonder Jesus exploded, “What do you mean by saying to me,

‘If you can . . .’? All the might of the living God is at the disposal

of the person who trusts Him!” Him who believes. Where personalfaith was impossible on the part of the victim, Jesus welcomed thefaith expressed by those who brought them. (Cf. 9:2; 15:22, 28)The epileptic boy, victim of a malicious demon, could not be expectedto believe, so Jesus requires faith of him who made the request and

could believe. When HE breaks down under doubt, the Lord mercifullypricks his conscience to show him where his weakness lay. Notethat the Lord expected him to believe in the face of the disicples’humiliating failure and the seemingly unanswerable attacks of thescribes and the deadening confusion of the crowds.All things are possible to him who believes. Is this a general truthequally applicable to every believer, or to be understood only in thislocal frame of reference? The most natural explanation is to viewJesus as speaking directly to the need of a man who was clearly626

JESUS HEALS A�D FREES DEMONIZED BOY Mk. 9:22.24doubting Jesus’ ability. Tliere is no suggestion here of Jesus’ inabilityto heal an unbeliever. (See notes on 13:58.) Rather, He hints at tlieinan’s possible refusal, or failure, to believe that He could do anythingneeded. His word intends to stir the father to rid himself of

the skepticism implied in his petition, It was the father’s own waveringthat was rendering the difficult healing even more so. Further,in the presence of the scornful scribes who liad exulted over tlie failureof the nine disciples, Jesus would prove that ull things UPP possible

to Him,’ He Himself believed God and He would prove the truth ofthis doctrine by His miracle.This passage is no justification for the assumption on the part ofsome who would take this as an unqualified promise for indiscriniinateapplication, implying that God will automatically bend theuniverse to suit the fancies of the sincere. In His infinite wisdom,God may actually choose to bless the believer who prays that His willbe done, in precisely the form in which the believer requests it. Yet,faith, to be faith, must be based upon objective evidence of God’swill. (Ro. 10:17) But “faith” that is based on one’s subjective wishesor dreams is not faith, but presumption. The backing of God is notpromised for some screwy idea we cook up and attempt “on faith,”because Jesus has not obligated God to deliver anything accordingto our whims.The father instantly corrected his error, wringing out of his soultlie most beautiful, most profound confession of trusting dependenceupon God’s niercy: “I believe; help my unbelief!” What a modelfor our every prayer in our struggle for righteousness! What profoundunderstanding of the temptations to doubt despite our professionof faith! What humility to bare,before the Lord our own unworthinessand lurking mistrust! What genuine confidence in Jesus to help usto greater faith and more real dependence upon His grace and power!What insight to call his little faith “unbelief!” This faith stood outin sharp contrast to the rabbis who had resisted the impact of theevidence and stubbornly insisted on not believing. Recognizing theinadequacy both of the content and of the sufficiency of one’s faith,taken together with that intense, overwhelming longing to be allthat it is possible for us to be, is the kind of faith that Jesus waslonging to find.What did the father believe? Jesus had been niaking tremendous,transparent claims to deity, leading men to accept Him as the onlyone who knew God (Mt. 11:25-30) and as tlie Forgiver of sins (Mt.9:6) Despite its admitted weakness, this confession of faith made in627

Mk. 9~22-24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

the presence of hostile witnesses admits that Jesus is possessor ofdivine power and divine truth. No small test this, it involved morethan believing that the Nazarene could cure, since the very basisof this miracle was what Jesus claimed to be. Did the father believethis? His reaching out to grasp all the truth may have been causedby the ghastly realization that he only imperfectly saw Jesus as God’s

Revealer .Meanwhile, the foaming, convulsing boy was half-carried, halfwalkedpast the embittered critics and incompetent teachers of theage, past the fumbling, faltering followers, past the irresolute and

inactive throng, into the presence of the Son of God.

PETT, "‘And Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to me.” ’

Nevertheless Jesus was concerned about their failure, because of what it revealed about them. It meant that they were still only marginally better in themselves than others in their generation. They were lacking in what He desired to see in them. For He saw the whole generation of that time as lacking in faith, as unreliable, and as constantly disobedient and wayward (compare Matthew 12:39), and the disciples as being only a little better. They too were lacking in full faith and were perverse (constantly turning from the right path). Note how the two go together. The root cause of unbelief is the disobedient heart. For the ideas compare Deuteronomy 32:5. And because of this their failure was such that it caused Jesus great distress. He had hoped for so much more from them. In His view they should not have failed. Their faith should have been true. But it appeared that as soon as He left them to themselves they began to fail again.

‘How long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?’ This brings out something of the trial that it was for Jesus to walk on earth in the midst of unbelief and failure which was so foreign to His own being. Had we been among them we would have been amazed at the greatness of their faith. But to Jesus it was very different. Their very attitude tore at His heart. Why was it that they were unable to understand and believe? He found it very hard to bear when He knew how faithful their Father was, and how He loved them.

‘Generation.’ The one generation that had less excuse than any other, for it was the generation that had had Jesus among them, and had proved itself for what it was (compare Matthew 12:41-42).

18 Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

1. Barnes, “Verse 18. And Jesus rebuked the devil. The word rebuke has the combined force of reproving and commanding. He reproved him for having afflicted the child, and he commanded him to come out of him. Mark 9:25 has recorded the words which he used--words implying reproof and command: "Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him." And the spirit cried, and with a mighty convulsion came out, leaving him apparently dead. Jesus lifted him up by the hand, (Mark,) and gave him to his father, (Luke.)

2. Gill, “And Jesus rebuked the devil…The words may indeed be rendered, "and Jesus rebuked him, and the devil departed out of him"; so the Vulgate Latin, and the Oriental versions; but the sense our version gives is certainly right; for it was not the father of the child Christ rebuked for his unbelief; this he had done already; nor the lunatic himself, as some have thought, either for his unbelief, or because he was possessed by the devil, for some sins of his own; which is not likely, since he was so from a child, and perhaps not now in his right mind, and capable of any rebuke: besides, the Evangelists Mark, and Luke expressly say, that he "rebuked the foul", or "unclean spirit": for though it was a natural disease which attended this child, yet he was afflicted with it in a preternatural way, by the means of Satan; who, by divine permission; had a power of inflicting bodily diseases: and that this disease was effected by him, is clear from the manner of curing, by the dispossession of him; for when

he departed out of him;at the command of Christ, whose power he could not withstand, but was obliged, whether he would or not, to obey;

the child was cured from that very hour;directly, immediately, and continued well, and in good health. Hence the word rendered lunatic, in (Matthew 17:15) is in several Oriental versions, translated in the sense of "demoniac", or one possessed with a devil. The Arabic version renders it, "he is with a demon": the Persic thus, "on whom a demon hath power"; and the Ethiopic after this manner, "an evil demon takes hold on him". And it is usual with the Jews, to ascribe diseases to evil spirits; and perhaps this uncommon dispensation in the times of Christ, may give rise to such a notion; particularly, they ascribe this very same disease of the

"epileptic", or "falling sickness", to the same cause, which they call F24 "Kordicus", or

"Cardiacus", the "Cardiac" passion, which one of their commentators F25 explains thus.

``It is a disease which proceeds from the repletion of the vessels of the brain, whereby the understanding is confounded; wherefore it is one of the sorts (lpwnh ylwx) , "of the falling sickness".''

Says another F26 of them,

``It is (hdyv Mv) , "the name of a demon", that rules over such, that drink much wine out of the vat.''

To which others agree, saying F1, that one attended with this disorder, is one,

``whose understanding is confounded, (dv tmxm) , "by means of a demon", who rules over such, that drink new wine; and lo! the spirit's name is "Kardiacus".''

From whence it is clear, that with them, the disease and the demon go by the same name; and that the former is from the latter.

COFFMA�, "Christ succeeded, of course, even though his apostles had failed; thus his name and honor were vindicated. A strange sidelight on this cure is the obvious fact that not all demon-possessed persons were morally corrupt. There is no suggestion of such in the case here. Just how Satan's servants were able to possess even innocents on some occasions is not revealed. The verse here is Matthew's first intimation that a demon was involved, but Jesus' words immediately afterwards left no doubt. Christ rebuked, not the disease, but the demon. As Trench observed, all disorders in nature are traceable to their fountain source in the kingdom of evil, whose head is Satan.

Other graphic details are given by Mark, describing Jesus' conversation with the father and the final tearing of the child as they brought him to Jesus. (See also Luke 9:42). Spurgeon saw in the intensified activity of the demon a pattern of Satan's vigorously increased opposition against those who are in the act of coming to Christ for salvation. He wrote, "Sinners, when they approach the Saviour, are often thrown down by Satan and torn, so that they suffer exceedingly in their minds, and are well nigh ready to give up in despair."[6] Any gospel minister can recall instances of mighty oppositions to souls on the brink of decision for Christ.

E�D�OTE:

[6] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons (�ew York: Funk and Wagnalls), Vol. 2,297.

PETT, "Then Jesus rebuked the evil spirit and it came out of him. There was no spirit, whatever its power and importance, that could do anything but obey Jesus. He had bound their master, He had no problem, even as a human being, in controlling his minions. Matthew stresses the instantaneous nature of the healing. This might suggest that as one of the disciples he was very conscious of how long they had tried to do it and had failed.

For ‘from that hour’ compare Matthew 8:13; Matthew 9:22; Matthew 15:28 referring to the centurion’s servant, the woman with constant bleeding, and the Canaanite woman, in each case concerning people with insistent faith, and people who came to Him against the odds. He always responded promptly to determined faith.

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PITEOUS PRISO�ER PROMPTLY PURGEDOF HIS PERVERSE POSSESSOR17:18 And Jesus rebuked him and the demon went out of him,thus ending years of suffering. (Mk. 9:21) That the Lord desired theclearest, most decisive conclusion to this event, is evidenced by thefollowing considerations:1. Before rebuking the unclean spirit Jesus waited until He “saw acrowd come running together.” (Mk. 9:25)a. A great crowd of people had been present from the outset. (Mk.9:14) There is no evidence that these ever left. It is psychologicallyimprobable that anyone would move a step until thisgreat question was settled.b. He had reason to await the atrival of newcomers. His purposein waiting may have been to secure the largest possible numberof eyewitnesses to His successful healing of the demoniac boy,since His own disciples had already muddied His reputation bytheir bungling.2. When Jesus rebuked the demon, His wording is deliberate, preciseand explicit (Mk. 9:25):a. The specific demon causing the malady is singled out by description:

“You dumb and deaf spirit . . .” Le. the demon that

caused the boy to be deaf and dumb. Note, Jesus did not addressthe disease, but the demon. Luke says it precisely: ‘‘Jesus rebukedthe unclean spirit and healed the boy.” (Lk. 9:42)b. Jesus expressed His own personal authority: “I command you”(egdepitbssosoi). He needed not, as the Apostles, to appeal to628JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:18any higher authority, (CE. Ac. 16:18)

c, A specific order was given: ‘‘Come out of him!”

d. A warning admonished: “And never enter him again!” Men

may have thought that the return of the convulsions had beenassociated with the return of the demon, Nevertheless, demons

can return to former victims, (Cf. Mt. 12:43-45) However,we have no evidence that any Jesus expelled ever returned,McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 425) contrasts the particular“malicious effrontery and obstinacy” of this demon with the“cowed supplicating spirit shown by the Gadarene legion,”

(Mt. 8:28ff), suggesting that this demon might just try it, apossibility that would necessitate this precautionary warning.3. Had He desired to avoid a valid use of theatrics, He could haveshortened His conversation with the boy’s father (Mk. 9:20-24)and gotten down to the business of casting out the demon muchsooner, and done it instantly without any resistance by the demon.But the way Jesus led the father to deeper faith all the more clearlyshows His deliberate intention to glorify God in the most spectacularway possible under the circumstances.4. Finally, when He actually began the healing itself, He did iiot

forestall the demon’s violent, final convulsion which left the boylike a corpse and most of the witnesses convinced of his death.This tense moment furnished Jesus the privilege of lifting the boyup, perfectly and instantly cured. The first step (rebuking thedemon) left the audience disappointed, so they were psychologicallyunready for His last move. The last step left the observers conipletelybreathless and staring in wonder, So, His technique wasmade far more spectacular by a two-stage process than if He hadsimply hurried to banish the demon and heal the boy, all in onerapid gesture.

So, it is incorrect to affirni that Jesus’ noting the gathering of acrowd caused Hini to accelerate the healing, because this is iiot anexample of His Messianic reserve, since there is no hint of an attemptto avoid the spectacular. If we have correctly located in semi-pagancountry the mountain at the base of which this event occurred (see

on 17:1), there would have been little or no need for silence to forestallunwanted publicity. It was only when He “went on from thereand passed through Galilee” that “He would not have any one knowit,” (Mk. 9:30) Now, however, since His unbelieving, bungling discipleshave forced Hini to clear His name publicly, He has ample62917:18, 19 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

reason to avoid secrecy on this occasion.And the demon came out of him, not, however, without violentconvulsions that left the lad so much like a corpse that bystanderspronounced the victim dead. Jesus ignored their judgment, took theboy by the hand, lifted him up and he arose, cured instantly. (Cf.Mk. 9:26f) The sensitive Luke notices that He “gave him back tohis father.” (Lk. 9:42) The instantaneous cure shows the decisivenessand completeness of Jesus’ power, in contrast to others’ time-wastingdiscussions and neglect of the suffering victim. It also leaves Hishecklers suddenly facing the pressure of facts which they must accept(in which case they must repent) or reject (in which case they mustinvent plausible explanations in the presence of rejoicing crowds,astonished at the majesty of God and marvelling at everyting Jesusdid! Lk. 9:43). Whereas the disciples had drawn attention to themselvesby their faithlessness and failure, the scribes had leveledunjustified criticism at the Lord’s power, the demon had succeeded(apparently) in procuring the death of the afflicted lad, the crowdsstood around with hands tied by human helplessness, the Lord, onthe other hand, acted with compassion and total mastery. This vividcontrast left the crowd standing in awe of GOD! Lest our short-sightedlove for Jesus cause us to be a bit jealous that “all were astonishedat the majesty” not of Jesus, but “of God,” let us rejoice at thiscompliment to Jesus whose every move draws men’s eyes toward God.It is for this that we love and worship Him!

19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and

asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

1. Barnes, “Verse 19. Then came the disciples, etc. This inquiry was made in some house to which they retired near the place where the miracle was performed, (Mark)Jesus told them, in reply, that it was because of their unbelief that they had not been able to cast him out. They were appalled by the difficulty of the case, and the obstinacy of the disease. Their faith would not have made it more easy for God to work this miracle, but such was his will; such the way in which he worked miracles, that he required faith in those who were the instruments.

BE�SO�, "Matthew 17:19-20. Then came the disciples to Jesus — �amely, the nine disciples, who had been left with the multitude, when Jesus and the three others went up to the mount. They were silent before the multitude, ashamed, it seems, that they could not cast out this evil spirit, and, perhaps, vexed lest through some fault of their own they had lost the power of working miracles, formerly conferred upon them. But when they came with Jesus to their lodging, they asked the reason why they could not cast out that particular demon? Jesus said, Because of your unbelief — Because in this particular you had not faith. You doubted whether I could or would enable you to cast out this evil spirit, and I permitted him to resist your efforts, to reprove the weakness of your faith. For if ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed — If ye have the least measure of the faith of miracles; ye shall say to this mountain, Remove, &c. — Ye shall, by that faith, be able to accomplish the most difficult things in all cases wherein the glory of God and the good of his church are concerned. It is certain that the faith here spoken of may subsist without saving faith: Judas had it, and so had many, who thereby cast out devils, and yet will, at last, have their portion with them. It is only a supernatural persuasion given a man, that God will work by him in an extraordinary and supernatural way, at that hour. �ow, though I have all this faith, so as to remove mountains, yet if I have not the faith that worketh by love, I am nothing. To remove mountains, was a proverbial phrase among the Jews, and is still retained in their writings, to express a thing which is very difficult, and to appearance impossible.

GillMatthew 17:19

Then came the disciples to Jesus apart…Or "secretly", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel read; that is, privately, and when alone; and as Mark says, "when he was come into the house"; and was by himself, then came the nine disciples to him, to converse with him about this matter,

and said unto him, why could not we cast him out?That is, the devil, and so cure the lunatic; the Syriac and Persic versions render it,

"why could not we heal him?" The lunatic; which only could be done by casting out the demon: they were concerned, fearing they had lost the power which Christ had bestowed on them, and wanted to know what they had done, which had deprived them of it; and what should be the cause of their late unsuccessful attempt, when they had so frequently triumphed over the unclean spirits, that were subject to them. Though they might have learned from the answer Christ gave to the father of the lunatic, and the general character of the Jewish nations in that answer, the true reason of their own inability; but this they took no notice of, imagining it belonged entirely to others, and not to them.

College Press Harold Fowler

THE APOSTLES’ PUZZLEME�T OVER THEIRPITIFUL PRODUCTION

17: 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why couldwe not cast it out? The Nine had enough personal pride-or wasit the timidity of bad conscience?-to reserve for private discussionthe postmortem appraisal of their fiasco. In fact, Mark (9:28) notes

that “when he had gone home” (kal’ eiselthdntos autoii eis oikon),they approached the Lord.NOTE: Who went home? Does this genitive absolute refer tothe demoniac boy’s departure for home, or the return homeof Jesus? The last mentioned possible antecedent for pronounautoit, subject to the participle, is the subject of the precedingverb, “he arose, (an&&), referring to the boy. If so, then Mark’s630

JESUS NEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:18, 19expression would mean simply that when the boy left, the crowdsapparently dispersed, leaving Jesus alone with His followers whocan IJOW ask Him the cause of their vain attempt,On the other liand, if the pronoun refers lo Jesus, Mark mayiiiean that the disciples reserved their question until Jesus had

souglil lodging in the area. Then, when He liad gone indoors,they approached Him, But since eis ofkon is idiomatic for“home,” especially with eiskrchesthai (See Arndt-Gingrich, 563),Mark may mean that they did not dare bring up the questionuntil they were clear back lo Jesus’ “home” in Capernauni!(Ct‘. MI<. 2:l; 9:33) If so, this section is recorded here because ofits direct connection with the story of the demonized boy, ofwhich it is the proper theological and psychological conclusion,But, from this standpoint, it serves as more fuel for the fiery debate

on “who is greater in the Kingdom of heaven?” (See on Mt.18: Iff)It is to their credit, however, that, sooner or later, they came to Jesusfor the solution to their turmoil.

This question is not proof that the pained lament of Jesus (17:17)could not have been leveled at them, since the formula used by Jesusliad been broad enough to include A�Y disciples contaminated withtlie spirit of the age. In fact, the Apostles ask a question which appliesonly to theniselves, for had the answer they expected involved thefailure of otlier “disciples,” the question would not have been askedin the first person plural, but “Why could THEY not cast it out?,”

and, in the absence of the other disciples who presumably wouldhave needed it, the answer beconies only academic information anda general warning to tlie Twelve, This question is, rather, proof onlythat they missed the connection Jesus intended to make betweentheir perverse faithlessness and their failure.Ironically, their failure was absolutely essential to their usefulnessto Jesus, It was failure after exhilarating successes had left them

elated with an inviiicible self-confidence. This was a humiliatingdefeat, but one they needed to see the fallacy of self-confidence andto iiialte these disciples more really trusting, these strong men stronger.The question may also have been part of the motivation behind

the struggle for status in the Kingdom. (See on 18: 1 .) The Nine adniitthey could not cast out the demon, while the Three rememberedthat they themselves had been with Jesus, basking in the light oftransfiguration glory. Naturally, these Nine cannot know about the63117:19, 20 -THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

glory, but if the Three nourished any hopes of promotion (cf. Mt.20:20-28), this contrast in fortune could not have escaped their notice.We could not cast it out. This sentence guarantees the authenticityof this account, because the Gospel writers do not hide the weaknessesand failure of characters even this important in their narration. Thisshame, both in the presence of the multitude that day, as well as inthe eyes of the present readers, is evidence of that stern truthfulnessthat must tell the facts as they occurred without embellishment evento save the influential. Lastly, this question and Jesus’ answer is proofpositive that they had not failed to work miracles before this time.It was a totally new experience, since, presumably, He could haveanswered, “You could not cast it out for the same reason you failedbefore. ”

Calvin, “Matthew 17:19. Then the disciples coming. The disciples wonder that the power which they once possessed has been taken from them; but they had lost it by their own fault. Christ therefore attributes this want of ability to their unbelief, and repeats and illustrates more largely the statement which he had previously made, that nothing is

impossible to faith It is a hyperbolical mode of expression, no doubt, when he declares that faith removes trees and mountains; but the meaning amounts to this, that God will never forsake us, if we keep the door open for receiving his grace. He does not mean that God will give us every thing that we may mention, or that may strike our minds at random. On the contrary, as nothing is more at variance with faith than the foolish and irregular desires of our flesh, it follows that those in whom faith reigns do not desire every thing without discrimination, but only that which the Lord promises to give. Let us therefore maintain such moderation as to desire nothing beyond what he has promised to us, and to confine our prayers within that rule which he has laid down.

But it may be objected, that the disciples did not know whether or not the Lord was pleased to cure the lunatic It is easy to reply, that it was their own fault if they did not know; for Christ is now speaking expressly about special faith, which had its secret instincts, as the circumstances of the case required. And this is the faith of which Paul speaks, (1 Corinthians 12:9.) How then came it that the apostles were deprived of the power of the Spirit, which they had formerly exercised in working miracles, but because

they had quenched it by their indolence? But what Christ said about special faith, in reference to this particular event, may be extended to the common faith of the whole Church.

PETT, "The Reason For Their Failure (17:19-21).

The disciples learn that their failure was due to the lack of quality in their faith. What was needed was the kind of faith that can only be built up by depth in prayer (Mark 9:29). It was their failure to spend their time in continuing prayer that was at the root of their unbelief (Matthew 14:16-27; Matthew 14:31; Matthew 15:5; Matthew 15:8).

Analysis..

a Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, “Why could we not cast it out?” (Matthew 17:19).

b And he says to them, “Because of your little faith” (Matthew 17:20 a).

b “For truly I say to you, If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed (Matthew 17:20 b).

a “You will say to this mountain, ‘Remove hence to yonder place’, and it will remove, and nothing will be impossible to you” (Matthew 17:20 c).

Note that in ‘a’ they ask why they could not cast it out, and in the parallel that with proper faith they will be able to cast anything out. In ‘b’ their failure was due to little faith, and in the parallel all that is required is faith the size of a grain of mustard seed.

BURKITT, "Observe here, How ashamed the disciples were of this open rebuke given them by their Master; they privately ask him the case of their ill success, Why they could not cast out Satan, according to the power promised them to work miracles? Our Saviour tells them, that their power to work this miracle now failed them for a double reason.

1. For their unbelief, by which we are to understand the weakness of their faith, not the total want of faith.

2. Because they neglected the special means appointed by God, in order to that end, to wit, fasting and prayer: that is a fervour of devotion, joined with faith and fasting.

Thence learn, That fasting and prayer are two especial means of Christ's appointment, for enabling us victoriously to overcome Satan, and cast him out of ourselves and others. We must set an edge upon our faith by prayer, and upon our prayer by fasting.

Question. But what are we to understand by faith as a grain of mustard-seed?

Answer. 1. Some do thereby understand a faith that groweth and increaseth as a grain of mustard-seed, or a faith as strong and active in heart as mustard-seed is on the palate. And by removing mountains, understand the performing things that are most difficult; as if Christ had said, Did your faith increase as a grain of mustard-seed grows, it would enable you to surmount all difficulties whatsoever.

2. Others by faith as a grain of mustard-seed, understand, the least degree of sincere faith on God, it being a proverbial speech among the Jews, used pro reminima, for the least thing; as if Christ had said, "Had you the least measure of that faith which cast out fear and doubting of success in the discharge of your office, you might perform things most difficult, and even this faith in its effects would be mighty." Dr. Whitby.

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. �othing will be impossible for you."[a]

1. Barnes, “Verse 20. As a grain of mustard seed. See Barnes "Matthew 13:31,32". The mustard seed was the smallest of all Seeds. It has been supposed by some, therefore, that he meant to say, if ye have the smallest or feeblest faith that is genuine, ye can do all things. The mustard seed produced the largest of all herbs. It has been supposed by others, therefore, to mean, If you have increasing, expanding, enlarged faith, growing and strengthening from small beginnings, you can perform the most difficult undertaking. There is a principle of vitality in the grain of seed, stretching forward to great results, which illustrates the nature of faith. Your faith should be like that. This is probably the true meaning.

Ye shall say unto this mountain, etc. Probably he pointed to a mountain near, to

assure them, if they had such faith, they might accomplish the most difficult

undertakings--things that at first would appear impossible.

2. Gibson, “

The last words of the paragraph * carry us back to

the ultimate necessity for prayer. It is plain that our

Lord refers to habitual prayer. We cannot suppose

that these nine disciples had utterly neglected this

duty ; but they had failed to live in an atmosphere of

prayer, as was their Master s rule. We may be sure

that they had not prayed at the base of the mountain

as their Lord had prayed on the summit, or they would

certainly not have failed in their attempt to cure the

lunatic child. This demand for prayer is not really

anything additional to the faith set forth as the one

thing needful. There has been a good deal of discus

sion lately as to whether we can think without words.

We shall not presume to decide the question ; but it

may safely be affirmed that without words we could not

think to any purpose. And just as the continuance

and development of our thinking is dependent on

words, so the continuance and development of our faith

is dependent on prayer.”

3. Clarke, “Some eminent critics think this a proverbial expression, intimating a

GREAT DEGREE of faith, because removing mountains, which St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:2, attributes to ALL FAITH; i.e. the greatest possible degree of faith, is

attributed here, by our Lord, to that faith which is as a grain of mustard seed. However

this may be, there can be no doubt that our Lord means, as BISHOP PEARCE well

remarks, a thriving and increasing faith; which like the grain of mustard seed, from

being the least of seeds, becomes the greatest of all herbs; even a tree in whose

branches the fowls of the air take shelter.”

PETT, "Verse 20-21

‘And he says to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly I say to you, If you

have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Remove hence

to yonder place’, and it will remove, and nothing will be impossible to you.” ’

Jesus explains that the reason that they had failed was because of the insufficiency

of their faith. That it was quality of faith and not the size of it that mattered comes

out in the comment that followed. If faith is of the right quality then only the tiniest

amount is required, faith the size of a mustard seed, and the mustard seed was, in

Palestine, the smallest of all seeds used by Galilean farmers and proverbially small.

But with the right quality of faith even mountains can be removed by a word.

Indeed, Jesus stresses, with the right quality of faith nothing is impossible. So what

needs to be developed is faith, and this can only be developed by regular prayer. The

need to build up faith is Matthew’s emphasis.

It is in Mark 9:29 that He makes clear that such faith is developed by much prayer.

We are never told how much the disciples prayed, but from this it was clearly not

enough. Jesus was not, of course, advocating actually removing mountains. That

would hardly be within God’s will, and believing prayer must be within His will (1

John 5:14). He was speaking about every kind of difficulty. Compare especially

Zechariah 4:7. ‘Removing mountains’ was a proverbial figure of speech for

overcoming great difficulties (compare Matthew 21:21-22; Isaiah 40:4; Isaiah 49:11;

Isaiah 54:10; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2).

‘And nothing will be impossible to you.’ �othing would be impossible for the one

who truly believed God. This was because of the greatness of their God (see

Matthew 19:26). His point is that nothing is too hard for the Lord (see Genesis

18:14; Job 42:2; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27), and therefore nothing is

impossible for the one whose faith is true.

COFFMA�, "The reasons for the apostles' failure were (1) their lack of faith, (2)

the double difficulty of the case at hand, and (3) their failure to exercise the

privilege of prayer and fasting. At this place in Matthew, some very ancient

authorities include Matthew 17:21 which reads, "But this kind goeth not out save by

prayer and fasting." Mark 9:29 reads, "This kind can come out by nothing, save by

prayer." The disciples had some faith, else they would not have tried to cast it out.

The fact that they had previously cast out demons but could not cast out that one

shows that some demons are more malevolent and stubborn than others. This opens

a whole field of questions regarding the character and variety of demons, but the

Scriptures afford little information on such a point. The necessity for prayer

(certainly) and fasting (perhaps) was stressed. The child had long been possessed by

the demon, and the usual pattern of demonic destruction was evident in the danger

incurred from falls into the fire and into the water. It is noteworthy that Satan's

purpose, wherever revealed in Scripture, invariably appears destructive. In the

cases of Job (Job 1:16), Judas (Luke 22:3), the swine (Matthew 8:32), and in many

others, death and destruction always resulted quickly when Satan or his emissaries

had a free hand to work their will.

�othing shall be impossible unto you, is a very strong statement by the Lord. One is

tempted to make our Lord's remark about removing mountains mere hyperbole,

but no such restriction seems justified from the text. To the true believer, and

especially to the apostles, all things were possible through faith. To every true child

of God, all moral and material difficulties vanish. The tragedy is that most disciples,

like the nine in the case here, are hindered by seeds of doubt and unbelief, and

perhaps also by the lack of fervent and devoted prayer.

COKE, "Matthew 17:20. Because of your unbelief— When the disciples were come

with our Lord, they askedhim the reason why they could not cast out that particular

demon; to which he replies, because of your unbelief.—"Knowing that you doubted

whether I could enable you to cast out this demon, I ordered it so, that he would not

go out at your command, for a reproach of the weakness of your faith." We may

observe that the disciples had attempted to cast him out. To encourage them, our

Lord describes to them the efficacy of the faith of miracles; If ye have faith as a

grain of mustard-seed, &c. If you have but the least degree of the faith of miracles,

you may say to the vast mountain whence we just now came down, Move thyself,

and go to some other place, and it shall obey you. Ye shall by that faith be able to

accomplish the most difficult things, in all cases where the glory of God and the

good of his church are concerned. It is certain that the faith which is here spoken of

may subsist without saving faith: Judas had it, and so had many, who thereby cast

out devils, and yet will at last have their portion with them. It is only a supernatural

persuasion given to a man that God will work miracles by him at that hour. �ow,

though I have all this faith so as to remove mountains, yet if I have not the faith

which worketh by love, I am nothing. �ot only the persons on whom the power of

working miracles was bestowed, were obliged to have faith likewise, in order to the

exercise of that power; but it was a different kind of faith from that which was

necessary in the subject of the miracles. For it consisted, first, in a just and high

notion of the divine power, by which the miracle was to be effected: secondly, as we

observed, in a firm persuasion that the miracle was to be wrought at that particular

time. �ow this persuasion was to spring from a two-fold source: 1. A consciousness

of the power which Christ had conferred on them when he ordained them his

Apostles: 2. It was to arise from a sensible impression made upon their minds by the

Spirit of God, signifying to them that a miracle was to be performed at that time.

Accordingly, the Apostles, and such of the first Christians as were afterwards

honoured with the power of miracles, never attempted to exerciseit without feeling

an impression of this kind; as is plain from St. Paul's leaving Trophimus at

Miletum, sick.—Wherefore as the nine had, in all probability, attempted to cure the

youth spoken of in this account, and had made the attempt with some degree of

doubtfulness, it is no wonder that they were unsuccessful. To remove mountains is a

proverbial expression, which signifies the doing of any thing seemingly impossible,

as we may learn from Zechariah 4:7. When the Jews had a mind to extol any of

their doctors, they were used to say of him that he plucked up mountains by the

roots. In this description of the efficacy of faith, there is abeautiful contrast between

the smallness of a grain of mustard seed, to which their faith is compared, and the

vast size of the mountain that was to be removed thereby. Dr. Heylin finely remarks,

"All inanimate nature is passive to Deity, and therefore infallibly executes what it is

designed for. When faith is consummate in the human nature, that becomes alike

susceptible of the divine energy."

GILL

Matthew 17:20

And Jesus said unto them, because of your unbelief…The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, "because of your little faith", or "the smallness of your faith"; and so does one Greek manuscript; and which is what is doubtless meant by their unbelief; for they were not altogether destitute of faith, but their faith was very low, and their unbelief very great. Christ says, not because of the unbelief of the parent of the child, and those that were with him, though that also was a reason; but because of their unbelief, being willing to convince them of their unbelief, as he had done the father of the child, who had confessed it, and desired it might be removed from him: but lest they should think they had lost their power of doing miracles, Christ adds;

for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed;which was a very small seed, the least of all seeds, and is used very often

proverbially by the Jews, to signify anything of a small quantity or weight F2, and is sometimes used of faith, as here; so speaking of the congregation of Edom, meaning the

Christians, they F3 say,

``they have not (ldrx lv Nyerg wmk hnwma) , "faith as a grain of

mustard seed".''

And it is used in like sense in other eastern nations; and by Mahomet in his Alcoran F4, who says,

``We will appoint just balances in the day of resurrection, neither shall any soul be injured at all, although the merit or guilt of an action be of the weight of "a grain of mustard seed".''

So that it has no reference to the quality of mustard seed, being hot and acrimonious; which has led some interpreters wrong, to compare faith unto it, for its liveliness and fervency: when our Lord only means, that if his apostles had ever so small a degree of faith in exercise, which might be compared for its smallness to this least of seeds, such an effect as he after mentions would follow; and which therefore is to be understood, not of an historical faith, by which men assent to all that is in the Bible as true; nor of a special, spiritual faith, by which souls believe in Christ, as their Saviour and Redeemer; for of neither of these can the following things in common be said; but of a faith of miracles, peculiar to certain persons in those early times, for certain reasons; which such as had but ever so small a degree of, as the apostles here spoken to might say, as Christ observes to them,

ye shall say to this mountain;pointing perhaps to that he was just come down from, which might be in sight of the house where he was,

remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove:meaning, not that it would be ordinarily or ever done in a literal sense by the apostles, that they should remove mountains; but that they should be able to do things equally difficult, and as seemingly impossible, if they had but faith, when the glory of God, and the good of men, required it. So that it does not follow, because the apostles did not do it in a literal sense, therefore they could not, as the Jew

insultingly says F5; since it was meant that they should, and besides, have done, things equally as great as this, and which is the sense of the words. So the apostle expresses the faith of miracles, by "removing mountains", (1 Corinthians 13:2) i.e. by doing things which are difficult, seem impossible to be done: wherefore Christ adds,

and nothing shall be impossible to you;you shall not only be able to perform such a wonderful action as this, were it necessary, but any, and everything else, that will make for the glory of God, the enlargement of my kingdom and interest, the confirmation of truth, and the good of mankind.

College Press Harold Fowler

17:20 Because of your little faith. The Apostles, not the crowd orthe scribes, had possessed but little .faith. Their failure was not a

question of lack of courtesy or skill, courage or readiness, or enthusiasm,or any other excellent quality, but of spiritual power! Itwas not the obstinacy of this loathsome disease with its foamingconvulsions and shrieks, that left them despairing of being able tocure him, because they had faced bad ones before. It was not eventhis kind of malicious demon that stumped them, because “thiskind comes out by prayer.” It was not because Jesus was away, becauseHe had commissioned them to cast out demons before in Hisabsence, and they reported no failures then. It was not the hecklingopposition of the scribes. Their insinuating questions <perhaps contributedto the failure, but could have been silenced by confidencein God, prayer and miraculous success. Rather, it was their lack ofconfidence in the supernaturaI power of their Lord, which left themparalyzed in the presence of agonizing human need.Their confidence in Him had been deeply shaken by His insistenceupon the path of shame and suffering and the cross as theonly road to glory. Perhaps they had hoped their Rabbi would changethe world by an educational process, but now He had demandedtheir personal participation in the blood and ignominy of His owninevitable martyrdom. Consequently, to the extent that they did notfully trust Him to know, they began to be afraid of Him, even unconsciously,afraid lest He be mistaken, afraid to hold tenaciously to632JESUS HEALS A�D FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:20Him and let Him lead, come what may. However unconsciously andinsidiously this distrust grew, it nevertheless left them morally quitesome distance from Christ, the Source of their power. At thatmoment, when face to face with real, demonic power and armed with

only a paralyzed dependence upon a Christ only half-trusted, theyfailed!Some have supposed that the demonized boy’s father’s lack of faithmight have been a factor in the Apostles’ failure. But the man’sdemonstration of doubt came after Jesus’ arrival on the scene andafter the Apostles’ failure. The man himself had brought his sonto Jesus originally. (Mk. 9:17) This is faith. Finding Him away,he asked His disciples to cast it out. (Mk. 9:18) This is cheerfulperseverence that welcomes a suitable alternative. The man’s desperationand struggles with doubts were caused, not by some original,deeply rooted distrust of Jesus, but by the blundering of the discipleswho were supposed to know what they were doing, but clumsilyhandled the case and consequently collapsed, taking the father downwith them! Even if the man himself possessed some faith, his weaknesscould have been healed by the Apostles’ positive dependenceupon God, had they but cast themselves on their knees instead oflaunching a debate with the scribes,Note that faith is demanded of both: the Apostles and the one whorequests the miracle. The mere possession of miracleworking powerin the past was no guarantee of their present possession of faith orrighteousness or worthiness to be God’s representatives. (Cf. Mt,1. Even Judas Iscariot had worked these miracles previously. At least,he is not singled out as a non-participant. (Mk. 6:13) But miraclesper se did not guarantee his personal honesty. (Jn. 12:6)

2. Remember Samson who would “go out as at other times . . .”

but “did not know that the Lord had left him.” (Jdg. 16:20)3. “The Spirit of the Lord departed from King Saul, and an evilspirit from the Lord tormented him.” (1 Sa. 16:14) Nevertheless,stubborn in his unbelief, he went out to battle the Philistines,hoping against hope to be able to “beat his luck,” the certaindeath predicted for him by God through Samuel. (1 Sa. 28:3-28;4. The sin of Achan compromised the sanctity of Israel, so that,their miraculous victory over Jericho notwithstanding, Israel’sfirst attack on tlie city of Ai crumpled. God was not with them as

7: 2 1 -23)31 : 1-13)63317:20 THE‘ GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

before! (Josh. 6, 7)5. Even the nlighty Moses buckled under the pressure of constantlyhaving to prove himself the God-sent leader of Israel, and justonce took credit for a miracle. Although God could have humiliatedMoses and Aaron by letting them fail to bring forth waterfrom the rock, He chose to punish them differently. But He didpunish them, “Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me

in the eyes of the people of Israel . . .” (Nu. 20:12)6. Remember Peter’s imperfect walk on the water. (Mt. 14:28ff andnotes.)So, Jesus’ disciples’ previously effective ministry became ineffective,because they had grown self-reliant, supposing that busyness andactivity could substitute for humility, prayer and worship of God.They had begun to identify their results as their own accomplishments,and this self-trust undermined their confidence in God as theonly true Source of their power.Because of your little faith to depend on and receive God’s power.Their faith was not expected to CREATE miracle-working power independentof God’s might; it was only expected to COLLABORATE

with God in whom their confidence should have rested. It was expectedto trust God to do His part perfectly. (See notes on 14:31;also 6:30; 8:26; 16:8 for notes on little .faith) Faith, as such, doesnot confer God’s power: God does that. Rather, faith makes it appropriatethat He exert His power in favor of the believer.If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to thismountain, “Move hence to yonder place,” and it will move. Thismountain, even massive Hermon, then in plain sight, is a symbol ofimpossible tasks, just as a grain of mustard seed symbolizes beautifullythe smallest quantity of real spiritual power to fulfill them. Thatthis is figurative, not literal, language, is proven by the Apostles’understanding and practice of what Jesus meant here. They did notgo around rearranging earth’s geography, but, by the exercize ofgenuine faith, they certainly “turned the world upside down!” (Cf.Ac. 17:6; Phil. 4:13) They did the impossible.Some, while admitting that the point of the comparison is thesmallness of the mustard seed in contrast to the huge mountain,insist that more is meant. Hendriksen (Matthew, 675) says: “Amustard seed (see 13:31) though at first very small, yet, becauseof its uninterrupted and vital contact with its nourishing environment,grows and grows until it becomes a tree so tall that the

634JESUS HEALS A�D FREES DEMONIZED ROY 17:20birds of the air come and lodge in its branches, Accordingly,

‘faith as a grain of mustard seed’ is the kind of trust in God

which does not immediately give up in despair when its efforts donot nieef with immediate success. It maintains its uninterruptedand vital contact with God and therefore continues to pray

fervently, knowing that God in His own time and in His own waywill bestow the blessing,” That is, does Jesus mean lo indicate a

faith that, however small initially, will rise to meet the task itSaccs, in the same way a mustard grain flourishes against itsobstacles and becomes a tree at the right time? While this is trueof living faith, it seems to be pushing the figure farther than Jesusactually intended it. Others, in a similar vein, suggest: “If youhave any of this real faith at all, you possess what is certain togrow into more, and thus you have what will ultimately be competentto remove the most impossible obstacles.”But the Lord’s point is not based upon the seeds’ growing tobe what it should become, but upon mustard seed AS IT IS asopposed to the iiiouiitaiii AS IT IS. On another occasion whenJesus taught something the disciples thought impossible to accomplish,they exclaimed: “Increase our faith!” His reactionis significantly similar to our present context. (Lk. 17:1-6) Whatwas needed, was not larger faith to meet this “impossible task,”but confidence that even the smallest amount of authentic trustin God can accomplish wonders.But having litt1e.faith is not equal to having “a little faith” evenso small as a grain O/’niustard seed, because, while the latter i s indeed

small by contrast to the mountain it must move, it is real. Little

jbith is not really faith, but doubt asserting itself as self-trust. Genuinefaith is solid confidence in God, does not dictate to God any timeschedules, does not waver, does not give up. (Jas. 1:6-8; Lk. 18:1-8)Faith means believing what Jesus says. Ironically, some later readerof Mark’s text of this incident (Mk. 9:29) just could not believe thatprayer was sufficient, so to the words of the Son of God he added:”and fasting!” Cannot He even be trusted to tell us what is necessarywithout our doubts reasserting themselves? Faith in Jesus means that

He must fill all our vision, His will must be our only standard of judgment.When we permit Him to be measured by human consideraiionsand place Him among other human beings and gauge Him as but

one among many other great teachers. His power is Dot available

to us. It is onJy when we let His Word be the standard by which all635

17:20, (21) THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

else is judged, when He is Lord of all for us and our only hope, thatwe can be competent to accomplish the impossible in His service.Jesus Himself BELIEVED that the Kingdom COULD be established“not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord,” andall the mountains of traditional theology, all the mountains of ignorantzeal and deliberate opposition, were no match for Him! (Cf.Zech. 4:6, 7) As later events proved Him right point by point, Hiswords, which now must have seemed so visionary, would have beenthe pragmatically successful power behind the unflinching courage

of these same disciples. Belief did not come easy for them. Theywere even then totally incapable of grasping the most fundamentalconcept of God’s Kingdom. (See on 17:22f.)�othing shall be impossible to you. Although addressed to Hisancient disciples, is this promise applicable to modern ones?1. Hurte (Restoration ?T Commentaq, 37) answers,No, it can only apply to those who had the gift of power. Christianscan appropriate any promise made to them as God’schildren, but the working of miracles was a special gift bestowedonly upon a few. It was true to the apostles in relationto their work, but not to others.2. However, it is GOD who decides what specific powers He willconfer on any one disciple in any given age. Faith lets God decidethis. Faith does not desire nor attempt anything but whatHe desires, a fact that automatically eliminates capricious rearrangementsof terrestrial topography and any other supernaturalfireworks not within His will. But the question of the hour is not:“Doe’s anyone today have the miraculous power to, do the impossible?,”but: “Does anyone have faith enough to do all thatIS POSSIBLE for him?” The fault of our failure to attain to allthat is good, true and noble lies in our shallow, inconstant faith.

(Jas. 1:s-8; 4:2, 3; 58-11, 13-18)

OSWALD CHAMBERSWe have the idea that God rewards us for our faith, it may he so in the initial stages; but we do not earn anything by faith, faith brings us into right relationship with God and gives God His opportunity. God has frequently to knock the bottom board out of your experience if you are a saint in order to get you into contact with Himself. God wants you to understand that it is a life of faith, not a life of sentimental enjoyment of His blessings. Your earlier life of faith was narrow and intense, settled around a little sun-spot of experience that had as much of sense as of faith in it, full of light and sweetness; then God withdrew His conscious blessings in order to teach you to walk by faith. You are worth far more to Him now than you were in your days of conscious delight and thrilling testimony.

Faith by its very nature must be tried, and the real trial of faith is not that we find it difficult to trust God, but that God's character has to be cleared in our own minds. Faith in its actual working out has to go through spells of unsyllabled isolation. Never confound the trial of faith with the ordinary discipline of life, much that we call the trial of faith is the inevitable result of being alive. Faith in the Bible is faith in God against everything that contradicts Him - I will remain true to God's character whatever He may do. "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - this is the most sublime utterance of faith in the whole of the Bible.

21.

*Tt is interesting to know that the twenty-first verse is not found

in the two oldest manuscripts dating back to the fourth century,

the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Gabelein

Calvin, “21. This kind goeth not out, 492492 “Cest espece [de diablos] ne sort point;” — “this kind [of devils] goeth not out.” By this expression Christ reproved the negligence of certain persons, in order to inform them that it was not an ordinary faith which was required; for otherwise they might have replied that they were not altogether destitute of faith The meaning therefore is, that it is not every kind of faith that will suffice, when we have to enter into a serious conflict with Satan, but that vigorous efforts are indispensably necessary. For the weakness of faith he prescribes prayer as a remedy, to which he adds fasting by way of an auxiliary. “You are effeminate exorcist,” said he, “and seem as if you were engaged in a mock-battle got up for amusement; 493493 “Vous y venez ainsi qu’a un combat de petits enfans, et comme s’il n’estoit question que de s’escarmoucher pour passe-temps.” — “You come to it as if it were to a fight of little children, and as if you had nothing to do but to skirmish for amusement.” but you have to deal with a powerful adversary, who will not yield till the battle has been fought out. Your faith must therefore be excited by prayer, and as you are slow and languid in prayer, you must resort to fasting as an assistance.” 494494 “Comme une aide pour vous exciter et enflamber;” — “as an assistance to excite and inflame you.” Hence it is very evident how absurdly the Papists represent fasting to be the specific method of driving away devils, since our Lord refers to it for no other reason than to stimulate the earnestness of prayer. When he says that this kind of devils cannot be cast out in any

other way than by prayer and fasting, he means that, when Satan has taken deep root in any one, and has been confirmed by long possession, or when he rages with unbridled fury, the victory is difficult and painful, and therefore the contest must be maintained withall our might.

GILL

Howbeit, this kind goeth not out…The Vulgate Latin renders it, "is not cast out"; and so do the Arabic version, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel; and which confirm the more commonly received sense of these words, that they are to be understood of that kind of devils, one of which was cast out of the lunatic, and was of the worst sort, of a fierce and obstinate kind; and having had long possession, was not easily ejected: and that there is a difference in devils, some are worse and more

wicked than others, is clear from (Matthew 12:45) and not of that kind of miracles, or kind of faith to the working of such miracles. Moreover, the above versions,

as they fitly express the word (ekporeutai) , here used; see (Mark 9:17) compared with (Matthew 15:17) . So they pertinently set forth the dispossession of devils, who do

not go out voluntarily, but by force; and this sort could not be ejected,

but by fasting and prayer:that is, in the exercise of a miraculous faith, expressed in solemn prayer to God, joined with fasting. It seems that Christ not only suggests, that faith was greatly wanting in his disciples; for which reason they could not cast out the devil, and heal the lunatic; but they had been wanting in prayer to God, to assist them in the exercise of their miraculous gifts; and that whilst Christ, and the other three disciples were on the mount, they had been feasting and indulging themselves with the people, and so were in a very undue disposition of mind, for such extraordinary service, for which our Lord tacitly rebukes them. This agrees with the notions of the Jews, who think that, by fasting, a divine soul

COKE, "Matthew 17:21. This kind goeth not out, &c.— Prayer and fasting could have no relation to the ejection of demons, but so far only as they had a tendency to increase the faith of miracles in him who had that power formerly conferred upon him. For example, prayer, by impressing a man's mind with a more intimate sense that all things whatsoever depend upon the infinite and incomprehensible power of God, raises his idea of that power to a greater sublimity than can be done in the way of ordinary speculation. And as for fasting, by weakening the animal life, it subdues such passions as are nourished by continual repletion of body. Hence fasting has a tendencyto free the mind from the dominion of passion, which never fails to occasion a great inward perturbation, and at times has been found to make even holy men inattentive, at least to the more silent impressions of God's Spirit. Fasting therefore produces an inward quietness and calm, very favourable to the growth of faith

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PURIFYI�G POWER OF PERSO�AL PE�ITE�CEAND PERSISTENT PRAYER(17:21 is omitted in the better manuscripts: But this kind cornethnot out except by prayer and fasting. See Mk. .9:29) Comment ismade on this verse, not because Matthew wrote it, ‘since he probably

did not, but because Mark says that Jesus said it, and because of its636

JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:(21)appropriateness as a comment 011 Matthew. (This is probably whysonieone originally copied it from Mark into their copy of Matthew,and a later scribe mistook the marginal note for a textual correction.)

This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer. (Mk. 9:29)This k i d of demon suggests the natural antithesis: “other kinds,”Trench (Aotes 017 Miracles, 232) believes that

, , , this kind marks that there are orders of evil spirits, that as

there is a hierarchy of heaven, so is there an inverted hierarchy ofhell. The same is intimated in the mention of the unclean spirit.going and taking “seven other spirits more wicked than himself.”(Mt. 12:45)On these hierarchies, remember also Eph. 2:2; 6:12; 1:21.

Are we to infer that “other kinds” of demons were more cowardly,hence more easily cast out? Jewish exorcists apparently attainedconsiderably professional notoriety and success through the, useof incantations and magic by which they were able to bringtemporary remission for demoniacs. (See on Mt. 12:27; cf. Ac.

19:11-17; 5ee also Josephus, Antiquities, VIII, 2, 5) In this case,it would be thought that some demons might be cast out withoutprayer and dependence upon God. And, if they obtained controlover demons by obtaining, through magic, power of Satan or by ’compromises with him, they could temporarily appear to succeed.But their results were tainted with evil, unlike those of Jesus whocaused all to be “astonished at the majesty of God.” (ISBE, 1068)

This kind, then, speaks of the audacious wickedness and peculiarly

determined viciousness of the demon Jesus had just cast out. The

demon’s maliciousness not only drove him to keep a strangle-holdon the lad despite the disciples’ attempts, but appeared obstinatelydetermined to defy the power of Jesus too! (Cf, Mk. 9:20; Lk. 9:42)Further, he took hellish delight in inflicting pain. (Mt, 17:15; Mk.9:22) Confidence in God gives moral power that commands respectfor the man of God determined to expel a demon. But without thisfundamental confidence in God’s backing, or faith, even the mostexperienced niiracle-worker must back down and admit defeat inthe presence of tenacious, malignant spirits of this kind,

Besides the disciples’ prayerlessness, their floundering is attributablealso to their alternative: they were arguing with the rabbis. (Mk.9:14, 16) It is quite likely that they had been busy defending themselvesagainst the heckling of these skeptics, when they should have

63717:(21) THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

been praying and getting on with the business of glorifying God byhealing the demonized epileptic. (Mk. 9:29) Prayer is the only suitablepreparation of one’s faith to address oneself to the task of doingthe impossible. Prayer itself would not have given them the powerneeded, but it would have intensified their sense of dependence uponGod, and so enabled them to be His instruments in utilizing thepower He had granted them.APPLICATIONWhat a striking parable of the modern Church! How importantthe lesson for the modern disciple during the Lord’s absence, whenhe too is facing the daily cry of needy humanity in the valley of humiliation,the positive opposition of the agnostics, the frustration ofconfrontations and the need to succeed! The desperate world, findingJesus temporarily away from the earth, turns to those who shouldknow Him best and share the secrets of His power, crying for assistanceto cure the ills of human existence. Far too often the faithlessnessof the prayerless Church, busy with her ecclesiastical machinery andworldly concerns, is not only the main ingredient of her own failure,but, more tragically, the principle cause of the world’s unbelief anddoubting even the mighty power of Christ Himself, Embarrassed bylac!r of real spiritual power, the Church is too ready to try to saveman by social programs of self-improvement, by theological debate,by religious programs, by psychological micks or by the powerof positive thinking. She depends upon these as a source of power,

rather than fulfill a mission blessed by the power of God. Then, thenow nearly hopeless world, bypassing the fumbling Church, with onelast rattling gasp, whispers to our Lord, “If you can do anything,have pity on us and help us!”Under such circumstances, brethren, we deserve the sternest denunciationour Lord can pronounce! To the extent that we personallyshare the doubts and consequent helplessness of our age, our perversityand unbelief cannot escape His holy judgment!Brethren, when we are pressured by circumstances to doubt ourdirection, our abilities and our Lord’s care and concern for us, letus pray. Let us admit our lack of great faith, confess our dependenceupon God, consecrate ourselves more completely to Him, and riseto do the work of God as the men of God in our time until our Lordreturns! Since men are not going to be saved and made fit for God638

JESUS HEALS AND FREES DEMONIZED BOY 17:(21)except by our faith and prayer, let us by prayer nourish a faith somighty that it will not be put to shame as we deal with the impossible

difficulties of our time! (1 Jn. 54)

DEMON POSSESSION - DO WE BELIEVE IT?

With his usual keen insight, Foster (Standard Lessoil Commentary,1959, 13) asks this incisive question and applies its significance toour section, in a note that well deserves repetition:It is remarkable that in a lesson which concentrates upon ourlack of faith, our need of faith, and the fact that Jesus calls forthfaith, we find ourselves considering the type of record which todaycauses many people to doubt the truth and accuracy of theGospel accounts.Many people are caused to stumble at the fact that demonpossession existed in the time of Jesus, that Jesus talked with thedemons, that they responded intelligently and with evidence ofsuperhuman knowledge, that He cast them out. As Jesus called

for faith in the heart of this father, so He demands faith of us aswe study these records.Who are we to attempt to dispute the record of demon possession?What do we know about the spirit world? We cannotcomprehend, except in a superficial manner, even the physicalworld approached by the five senses. If a person is moved todoubt that there are actually in existence the devil and his angelswho serve him and seek to bring man to destruction, then will healso doubt the existence of angels in heaven? Thus the Sadduceeswent forward in their logical deductions that denied tlie existenceof angels and of any life after death. That this compelled them todeny the truth of the Old Testainent and robbed them of all hopedid not bring them to a halt in their folly, But if there be noangels and no life after death, how can there be any God?Jesus calls forth faith in the heart of every humble Christiantoday to accept without question tlie New Testament record as atrue and faithful account of what actually happened.The fact that vast mysteries lie imbedded in the records shouldnot mere finite beings with puny outreach of both intellect andphysical power? We cannot encompass God. We must believe.I not overwhelm us with doubt. What else can we expect? Are we

63917:(21) THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

We must depend upon God when our understanding and ourstrength fail.FACT QUESTIONS1. Where had Jesus and some of His disciples been when they encounterthe remaining Apostles and a crowd of people? When andwhere did this take place? At what chronological point in Jesus’ministry did it occur?2. In what activity were people engaged just before Jesus appearedon the scene? Where would they have likely come from? What wastheir interest in this situation?3. What special goal would the scribes have hoped to reach in theirdebate with the disciples of Jesus? Who are the scribes: whatsection of national life in Judaism of Jesus’ day did they represent?4. What was the central point of focus of the entire situation thatcaused the excitement before Jesus’ arrival?

5. What reasons did the disciples have for believing that they couldhave cast out the demon? Had they ever done so befoi-e?6. List the physical symptoms described by the epileptic’s father.7. Did the father distinguish between epilepsy and demon possession?Are all epileptics demon-possessed?

8. What information in the text indicates that Jesus clearly distinguishedbetween the disease and demon possession?9. There are only four possible views with reference to the Gospelaccounts of demon-possession and the casting them out, butonly one of them is tenable. List them, showing why each of thethree is illogical or historically improbable while the other ispractically unassailable.

10. From the Biblical information available to us, is it possible tosay whether demons always caused maladies or defects? Arethere other symptoms of demon possession not seen in the casereported in this section (17:14-21)? If so, what are they?11. To whom did Jesus address the words: “0 faithless and perversegeneration”? Prove your answer. What is the meaning of Jesus’question: “How long shall I be with you?”? What does He meanwhen He says: “How long shall I bear with you?”?12. What caused the father to say to Jesus, “If you can do anything

. . .”? (Mk. 9:22)13. What is the point of Jesus’ reply? (Mk. 9:23)640

JESUS MAKES THIRD PASSION PREDICTION 17:22, 2314, Explain the seemingly contradictory answer of the father: “I be-

15, How did Jesus cast tlie demon out?

16. What was the effect of the niiracle on the eyewitnesses? (Lk. 9:43)17, Why did the disciples fail to cast out tlie demon? State both of

Jesus’ answers. (Mt, 17;20; Mh, 9:29) Explain what He meantby each one.18, List any Biblical passages which would tend to qualify our understandingof the phrase: “All things are possible to him that

believes ,’ ’19, List other Biblical examples of demon expulsion that would aidour understanding of demons and demonic possession. Are

demons merely bad habits? Must those who are demon-possessedbe exceptionally wicked? What other young children have beenmentioned as demon-possessed during Jesus’ ministry?20, What is learned about demons from the command Jesus gave to

the denion: “Enter no more into him”? Can demons return?21. What does the phrase “unclean spirit” indicate about the natureor the effect of demon-possession on the one possessed?22. What is the significance of the reaction of the multitude to Jesus’signal victory over the demon? (Lk, 9:43)

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.

1. Barnes, “Verse 21. Howbeit this kind, etc. This kind means this kind of devils; this species of possession. Where they have had long possession; where they produce such painful, and fixed, and alarming effects, they can be expelled only in connexion with prayer and fasting.

Goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. That is, in order to work miracles of this

kind, to cast out devils in cases so obstinate and dreadful as this, faith of the highest

kind is necessary. That faith is produced and kept vigorous only by much prayer,

and by such abstinence from food as fits the mind for the highest exercises of

religion, and leaves it free to hold communion with God.

Verses 22,23. See also Mark 9:30-33; Luke 9:43-45. And while they abode in

Galilee. Galilee, the northern part of Palestine. See Barnes " :".

The Son of man shall be betrayed, etc. To betray, means to deliver up in a

treacherous manner. This was done by Judas Iscariot, called for that the traitor,Matthew 26:14-16,47-50. A traitor, or betrayer, is one who makes use of confidence

reposed in him for the purpose of delivering him up, who puts that confidence in him to

the hands of enemies.”

2. Broadus, “The Son

of man, see on 8: 20. Shall be (or is going

to be, } the same construction as in 16 : 27. Be

trayed, or delivered up, into. So Com. Ver.

rightly in Mark and Luke, though rendering

betrayed in Matt. (comp. on 10: 4); and

we shall find similar inconsistency throughout

in translating the term. The words which really

mean betray and traitor occur only in

LukeG: 16; Acts 7: 52. Into the hands of

men. In 20: 19 it becomes more definite,

unto the Gentiles ; 26: 45, into the hands

of sinners. The idea of losing liberty and

being rudely handled by other men, is always

in itself painful. This being delivered into

the hands of men is the new idea here added ;

the rest is repeated from 16 : 21. (See note.)

And they were exceeding sorry, or exceed

ingly grieved. Mark and Luke state that they

did not understand the saying (comp. on 17:

9), and feared to ask him about it probably

with that feeling which often restrains per

sons from seeking more precise information

that would probably but increase their dis

tress. The three who had witnessed the trans

figuration must have been better able to bear

this renewed and painful announcement; but

they could not tell the others what they had

seen and heard.”

GILL

Matthew 17:22

And while they abode in Galilee…

Munster's Hebrew Gospel reads it (wklhvkw) , "and while they were walking in

Galilee", for they passed through it, when they departed from hence; see (Mark

9:30) and as they were going to Capernaum, and so onward, to the coasts of Judea, in order to be at Jerusalem at the feast of the passover; where, and when, Christ was to suffer: and observing that the time of his death drew nigh, he inculcates it again to his disciples a third time, that they might be prepared for it, and not be discouraged and terrified by it;

Jesus said unto them, the son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

some copies read, "sinful men"; and so the angels report the words, in (Luke 24:7) by whom may be meant the Gentiles, who, by the Jews, were reckoned very wicked men, and called sinners of the Gentiles. Now Christ intimates, that the son of man, meaning himself, should be betrayed by the Jews, into the hands of the Gentiles; than which, with the Jews, nothing was reckoned a fouler action, or a viler crime; their canons run thus F8:

``It is forbidden to betray an Israelite into the hands of the Gentiles, whether in his body or in his substance; and though he may be a wicked man, and a ringleader in sin, and though he may have oppressed and afflicted him; and everyone that betrays an Israelite into the hands of the Gentiles, whether in his body, or in his substance, has no part in the world to come.''

They forgot this rule, when they delivered Christ to Pontius Pilate. They go on to observe, that

``it is lawful to kill a betrayer in any place, even at this time, in which they do not judge capital crimes; and it is lawful to kill him before he betrays; but when he says, lo! I am about to betray such an one in his body, or in his substance, though his substance is small, he exposes himself to death; and they admonish him and say to him, do not betray: if he is obstinate, and says I will betray him, it is commanded to kill him; and he that is first to kill him, is a worthy man,''

COFFMAN, "THE SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT OF JESUS' PASSION

One additional and very significant detail is added by this recapitulation of the prophecy of his Passion. That is that he would be "delivered up," or "betrayed" as the word is translated in Matthew 10:4 (English Revised Version (1885) margin).

From Mark, it is known that Christ at that time had returned to Galilee and was in retirement there, using every possible means to instruct and prepare the

apostles for the awful events looming so near in the future. The fact that they were "exceeding sorry" shows what enormous difficulty attended this revelation for them. It was, in fact, incomprehensible; and most of the things Christ taught them on that subject were to remain unrealized by them until after the events. Looming nearer and nearer were the dark scenes of Calvary, blotting out their view of the oft-repeated promises of his resurrection. The ability of finite men to understand so gargantuan a fact as God in Christ dying for the sins of the whole world was strained to the breaking point. Never was there a better example of the weakness of the flesh (all flesh) than in the shocked and perplexed attitude of the Twelve. They had been given all the facts, but full realization would come afterwards.

The curtain rings down on the retirement in Galilee. We may suppose that Jesus stressed over and over the sad outlines of the Passion; and the apostles, unable to comprehend it, nevertheless remembered his words which would spring up in their hearts unto eternal life as soon as the gloom of Calvary was drowned in the light of his resurrection.

COKE, "Matthew 17:22. And while they abode in Galilee— It should seem that the wonder of the discipleswasaccompaniedwith proportionably high expectations of happiness in that temporal kingdom, which they were now convinced Jesus could easily erect. Our Lord, knowing this, thought fit when they came to Galilee, the country where he had the greatest train of followers, to moderate his disciples' ambition, not only by concealing himself for awhile, forbearing to preach and work miracles as he returned through Galilee, but also by predicting a third time his own sufferings and death. Upon this they were exceeding sorry, taking no comfort from the mention that he made of his resurrection: the prediction concerning his death raised such fears in their minds, that they durst not ask him to explain it; especially as they remembered that he had often inculcated it, and reprimanded Peter for being unwilling to hear it.

PETT, "Jesus Again Warns Of His Coming Arrest, Execution, And Rising Again (17:22-23).

Then Jesus presents the final example of faith. He is not just calling on His disciples to believe. He too will evidence His faith by going forward in the hands of God Who will deliver Him (‘will be delivered’ is a divine passive) into the hands of men. The result will then be that they will kill Him. But on the third day God will then raise Him from the dead. So He is going forward with His faith fully in His Father.

Jesus had given constant indications of the suffering that He must face almost from the beginning (Matthew 9:15; Matthew 10:38; Matthew 12:40 and compare John 2:19-22) but from the time of the disciples’ open recognition of Him as ‘the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ He has proclaimed with even more force the necessity for His humiliation, death and resurrection in accordance with Isaiah 53:7-12. See Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 17:12. But now it is included so as to demonstrate that He has the faith that He desires of His disciples. Initially He had spoken of it in Caesarea Philippi, but

now it is in Galilee. He knows that His hour is near.

Analysis.

a And while they gathered (came together) in Galilee, Jesus said to them (Matthew 17:22 a).

b “The Son of man will be delivered up into the hands of men” (Matthew 17:22 b).

c “And they will kill him” (Matthew 17:23 a).

b “And the third day he will be raised up” (Matthew 17:23 b).

a And they were very upset (Matthew 17:23 c).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus spoke seriously to them of what was coming, and in the parallel they were very upset. In ‘b’ we have a description of God’s first act in the coming drama and in the parallel God’s last act. Centrally in ‘c’ is the fact of what men will do in the face of God’s activity.

College Press Harold Fowler

REPETITIO� OF THE PASSIO� PREDICTIO�, A. THE PERCEPTIBLE PRESSURE OF POPULARITYI

17:22 While they abode in Galilee. The American Standard Versionrevisers decided that the better reading here is “abode” (anastrefome‘

non). However, in the calculation of probabilities of scribalcorrection, Metzger’s evaluation (Textual Co~n~nei l rar4y4 ) is themore sound:It is probable that the reading sustreforndnon (taken to mean“were gathering together”) would strike copyists as strange, andtherefore would be changed into what seemed more appropriate(anasfrefome‘non, “abode”). The verb sustrkfein, which occursonly twice in the New Testament, apparently meails here ”whilethey were crowding (around Jesus).”The attentive reader will object (as probably did the one who madethe original change in Matthew’s copy) that, if the original readingwere “they were gathering” instead of “abode,” it would makeMatthew’s affirmation of the presence of crowds (“gathering” or“crowding”) contradict Mark’s secret journey (“And he would not

17:22 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

have any one know it”). To this it may be countered that even Luke(9:43) seems to contradict Mark by implying the presence of crowdsat least in the general area when Jesus made the Passion Prediction.Doubtless this is but faulty harmonization. A better solution is to seethat the Lord repeated this prediction several times during this sameperiod. Resultantly, the three Gospels were never strictly parallelbecause they refer to different aspects of this period. The basis forthis solution is as follows:1. Mark’s verbs in the imperfect tense (kthelen, edidasken, klegen)

affirm that Jesus repeated His Passion Prediction many timesduring this period, so exact harmonization of the three Gospelsis not necessary, even if the wording of the prophecy is comparativelysimilar each time. Thus, Matthew’s “gathering in Galilee”is not even parallel, much less contradictory, to Mark’s secretjourney.2. Luke’s version is to be closely linked with the epileptic demoniacepisode, hence the first of the series of Passion Predictions impliedin Mark’s imperfect-tense verbs.3. Matthew’s “gathering in Galilee,” then, occurred near the closeof this journey from the mount of Transfiguration, perhaps asJesus and His disciples neared, or arrived at, Capernaum.4. Another solution is the lexical significance of sustrefomknon givenby Rocci (1784) who interprets this word in Mt. 17:22 as “to roamabout together.” Accordingly, he would see no crowds whatever,since the last personal reference in the context is only to Jesus

and the disciples talking privately. (17: 19ff) If this interpretationbe adopted, Matthew and Mark would be seen as more closelyparallel.Certainly there is no ground here for accusing the Evangelists of selfcontradictionand no basis for emending the text. In fact, there iseven another suggestive solution which would see Matthew and Markas parallel.Although Rocci personally interpreted sustrefomdnon in our textas “to roam about together,” he points out that sustrkfo is also amilitary term meaning “to regroup, to close ranks,” i.e. pulling one’sforces into a compact unit ready for action. What a picture, if thisbe thought of as Matthew’s intention! With a materialistic coup d’etatin mind, the Galileans would be closing rank around Jesus to marchon Jerusalem. The Apostles and more spiritually-minded discipleswould expect Him to proclaim His Messianic Kingdom there. Jesus644JESUS MAKES THIRD PASSION PREDICTION 17:22Himself is going to battle in Jerusalem too, but in the only way thiswar can be won-by dying for sinful man. So, in this Galilean stagingarea for “the long march” on Jerusalem, Jesus called aside His aidesfor a private briefing, (Mk. 9:30) Not only “would he not have anyone know” about their travel through Galilee toward Capernaum(Mk, 9:30, 33), but He must repeat His incredible message onlyin the hearing of His disciples. (Lk. 9:43b, 44; Mk. 9:31; Mt. 17:22b,23) Altliougli He will make several quick trips to Jerusalem beforethe fated Passover (cf. Jn. 7:lO; 10:22f; 11:17f), the final assault

actually begins from Galilee, (Cf. Ac. 10:37-39; Lk. 9:51) But beforeleaving Galilec, the Apostles must understand the true purposeof this final approach to Jerusalem, So He now lays before His menfor tlie nth time the ultimate targets to be reached, but they are notthe kind of objectives that anyone else had in mind,Although Matthew mentions nothing of great crowds, except thispossible oblique reference (“while they were crowding” around Jesus),Luke (9:43) connected the first of these Passion Predictions with theliberation of the demonized epileptic boy and the consequent astonishmentof the people at the majesty of God, causing them to marvelat everything He did, Therefore, enthusiastic praise and popularexcitement are definitely part of tlie background situation to whichthe Lord addressed this prophecy of His death. The excitement causedby the healing of the demonized boy in the area of the mount ofTransfiguration (Lk. 9:43) may have had only local repercussions.Nevertheless, if the Feast of Tabernacles was not far off (cf. Jn. 7:2),it is not impossible that crowds should begin to form for the trekto the capital. Although the Lord desired privacy (Mk. 9:30), Hisdeliberate return into Galilee and Capernauni in particular bringsto an end the “withdrawals” He had begun when He took His disciplesto Plioenicia. (Mt. 14:1, 13; 15:21; 16:4f, 13) So, as they returnto Galilee and potential popularity, with the hallelujahs of His recentvictory ringing in their ears, they must be brought back down toreality.Incidental proof of Jesus’ long absence from Galilee during thepreceding period is furnished by John, who, although he doesnot recount Jesus’ withdrawals from Jewish population centers,nevertheless, records the challenge of Jesus’ unbelieving brothers,“Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see theknown openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.”

17:22, 23 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

(Jn. 7:3ff) Ironically, this too tempts Jesus to ignore the realityof the cross and keep the popular, enthusiastic approval coming.Accordingly, Jesus’ Passion Prediction, given in these circumstances,means, “Gentlemen, do not let yourselves be taken in by the falsehopes of the people nor fall for their mistaken opinions, by forgettingor doubting my declarations. In fact+ it is into the hands of ignorant,mistaken men that I am to be delivered, men to whom I am relatedby blood, men from whom I should expect understanding and faith,loyalty and submission, gratitude and honor!”Ironically, the basis of the astonishment at the majesty of Godevident in everything He did should have furnished the Apostlesreasons to accept anything Jesus said, however unreasonable orimprobable it might seem. For these are proof that He is “a Teachercome from God, for no man can do these signs unless God be withHim.” (Jn. 3:2) But, like Nicodemus who must argue the new birthwith Jesus rather than let Him reveal it, the Apostles, too, are leftdistressed by His teaching. So, rather than strengthen their faith inHim, the miracles psychologically widened the breach between ’theirbelief that He is the Christ, on the one hand, and their total incomprehensionof His death-predictions, on the other, because ofthe strident incongruency between these two ideas. The more miracles

He did the more He seemed like the Messiah and God’s Son, andthe less likely seemed His predicted murder!B. THE PAINFULLY PRECISE PLAN OF HIS PASSIONThe Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men, andthey shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. All generalsask men to die for the cause they represent, but Jesus talkedabout voluntarily dying for His enemies. Now, those disciples whoexpected a triumphant militaristic Kingdom in which men would bedelivered into the hands of the Messianic King, must now learn that

the Son of man is about to be delivered (rnPllei paradidosthai) intothe hands of men. Who delivered Jesus over to His enemies? Judaslscariot thought HE did, but it was God the Father who handed His

own Son over to men. (Ac. 2:23) In Gethsemane Jesus actuallyhanded Himself over! (Study Jn. 18:4-11; Mt. 26:51-54; Jn. 10:18!)

While the God-fearing disciples wept bitterly around the cross, theywould deem the Passion of Jesus a betrayal by a God who had let646

JESUS MAKES THIRD PASSION PREDICTION 17:22, 23them down at this critical moment by not intervening to rescue Himh ~ i siuc h a fate. But the Father had not betrayed Ihem. He handedover His only Son, yes, but not to have done so would have been abetrayal of tlie entire human race. This is what it mans to believethat “God so loved the world that He GAVE His only Son!”C, THEIR PERCEPTION PREVENTEDBY PERSISTENT PREJUDICE

As we evaluate His planning from our vantage point, we appreciate

tlie precision of His time-schedule. His divine foreknowledge, likeall prophecies, is more impressive after the fulfillment. But His discipleswere not unimpressed: they were appalled!

1, They were exceedingly sorry (elupdthesan sfddra), deeply grieved,Although they found no place in their mental framework for theliteral interpretation of His words, His persisting in repeating them

(Mk, 9:31) hurt them deeply. Whereas they had been shockedbefore, and indignant that anyone should think of plotting Hisdeath (Mt. 16:21ff), now they are crushed with disappointment.Not even the promise of His resurrection can transform this griefinto hope. This sorrow proves how unsympathetic they yet werewith Jesus’ intentions, and proves that they too were yet unbelieving.(Study 11:6 and notes.)2. “They did not understand this saying and it was concealed fromthem, that they should not perceive it.” (Mk. 9:32a; Lk. 9:45a)Since its obvious, literal sense was totally unacceptable to them,and since they could not decipher any other meaning, they wereas unable to understand it as if someone were trying to hide itsmeaning from them. How could the Messiah they believed Him

to be, actually permit His enemies to slay Him when He possessedthe supernatural power to annihilate them, assert His God-givenright and so prevent such an injustice?3. “And they were afraid to ask him about this saying,” (Mk. 9:32b;Lk. 9:45b) Two motives:a. Fear to be reproved by Jesus for their reluctance to accept it atface value, as Peter had been rebuked. (163222)b. Fear to face the horrible truth, hoping that ignoring it would

make it go away. This is based on the horrifying possibilitythat He really intended to go through with every appalling

Calvin, “Matthew 17:22. And while they remained in Galilee. The nearer that the time of his death approached, the more frequently did Christ warn his disciples, lest that melancholy spectacle might give a violent shock to their faith. It was shortly after the miracle had been performed that this discourse was delivered; for Mark says that he went from that place to Galilee, in order to spend there the intervening time in privacy; for he had resolved to come to Jerusalem on the day of the annual sacrifice, because he was to be sacrificed at the approaching Passover.The disciples had previously received several intimations on this subject, and yet they are as much alarmed as if nothing relating to it had ever reached their ears. So great is the influence of preconceived opinion, that it brings darkness over the mind in the midst of the clearest light. The apostles had imagined that the state of Christ’s kingdom would be prosperous and delightful, and that, as soon as he made himself known, he would be universally received with the highest approbation. They never thought it possible that the priests, and scribes, and other rulers of the Church, would oppose him. Under the influence of this prejudice, they admit nothing that is said on the other side; for Mark says that they understood not what our Lord meant. Whence came it that a discourse so clear and distinct was not understood, but because their minds were covered by the thick veil of a foolish imagination?

They did not venture to make any farther inquiry. This must have been owing, in part, to their reverence for their Master; but I have no doubt that their grief and astonishment at what they had heard kept them silent. Such bashfulness was not altogether commendable; for it kept them in doubt, and hesitation, and sinful grief. In the meantime, a confused principle of piety, rather than a clear knowledge of the truth, kept them attached to Christ, and prevented them from leaving his school. A certain commencement of faith and right understanding had been implanted in their hearts, which made their zeal in following Christ not very different from the implicit faith of the Papists; but as they had not yet made such progress as to become acquainted with the nature of the kingdom of God and of the renewal which had been promised in Christ, I say that they were guided by zeal for piety rather than by distinct knowledge.

In this way we come to see what there was in them that deserved praise or blame. But though their stupidity could not entirely be excused, we have no reason to wonder that a plain and distinct announcement of the cross of their Master, and of the ignominy to which he would be subjected, appeared to them a riddle; not only because they reckoned it to be inconsistent with the glory of the Son of God that he should be rejected and condemned, but because it appeared to them to be highly improbable that the grace which was promised in a peculiar manner to the Jews should be set at naught by the rulers of the nation. But as the immoderate dread of the cross, which had suddenly seized upon them, shut the door against the consolation which was immediately added, arising out of the hope of the resurrection, let us learn that, when the death of Christ is mentioned, we ought always to take into view at once the whole of the three days, that his death and burial may lead us to a blessed triumph and to a new life.

Matthew 18:1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus. It is evident from the other two Evangelists, that the disciples did not come to Christ of their own accord, but that, having secretly disputed on the road, they were brought out of their lurking-places, and dragged forth to light. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the account given by Matthew, who hastens to Christ’s reply, and does not relate all the circumstances of the case, but passes over the commencement, and relates in a summary manner the reason why Christ rebuked the foolish ambition of his disciples for the highest rank. When Christ makes inquiry about a secret conversation, and forces the disciples to acknowledge what they would willingly have kept back, this teaches us that we ought to beware of all ambition, however carefully it may be concealed. We must also attend to the time at which this occurred. The prediction of his death had made them sad and perplexed; but as if they had received from it unmingled delight, as if they had tasted of the nectar which the poets feign, 497497 “Comme si tout alloit a souhait et comme si ce qu’on leur a dit estoit aussi doux a avaller que sucre;” — “as if every thing went to their wish, and as if what was said to them were as pleasant to swallow as sugar.” they immediately enter into a dispute about the highest rank. 498498 “De la primaute;” — “about the primacy.” How was it possible that their distress of mind vanished in a moment, but because the minds of men are so devoted to ambition, that, forgetful of their present state of warfare, they continually rush forward, under the delusive influence of a false imagination, to obtain a triumph? And if the apostles so soon forgot a discourse which they had lately heard, what will become of us if, dismissing for a long period meditation on the cross, we give ourselves up to indifference and sloth, or to idle speculations?

But it is asked, what occasioned the dispute among the disciples? I reply, as the flesh willingly shakes off all uneasiness, they left out of view every thing that had given rise to grief, and fixed on what had been said about the resurrection; and out of this a debate sprung up among idle persons. And as they refuse the first part of the doctrine, for which the flesh has no relish, God permits them to fall into a mistake about the resurrection, and to dream of what would never take place, that, by mere preaching, Christ would obtain a kingdom, an earthly kingdom, and would immediately rise to the highest prosperity and wealth.

There were two faults in this debate. First, the apostles were to blame for laying aside anxiety about the warfare to which they had been called, and for demanding beforehand repose, and wages, and honors, as if they had been soldiers that had served their time. The second fault is, that, instead of laboring with one consent, as they ought to have done, to render mutual assistance, and to secure for their brethren as large a share of honors as for themselves, they strove with wicked ambition to excel each other. If we wish that our manner of life should receive the approbation of the Lord, we must learn to bear patiently the burden of the cross that has been laid on us, till the proper time arrive for obtaining the crown, and, as Paul exhorts, in honor preferring one another, (Romans 12:10.) To the first of these faults is closely allied the vain curiosity of those persons in the present day, who, leaving the proper duties of their calling, eagerly attempt to fly above the clouds. The Lord, who in the Gospel invites us to his kingdom, points out to us the road by which we are to reach it. Fickle persons, who give themselves no concern about faith, patience, calling on God, and other exercises of religion, dispute about what is going on in heaven; as if a man who was about to commence a journey made inquiry where a lodging-place was situated, but did not move a step. Since we are commanded by the Lord to walk on

the earth, those who make the condition of departed saints in heaven the subject of eager debate will be found, in so doing, to retard their own progress towards heaven.

2. And Jesus called a child to him. The general meaning is, that those who desire to obtain greatness by rising above their brethren, will be so far from gaining their object that they do not even deserve to occupy the lowest corner. He reasons from contraries, because it is humility alone that exalts us. As we are more powerfully affected by appearances presented to the eyes, he holds up to them a little child as an emblem of humility. When he enjoins his followers to become like a child, this does not extend indiscriminately to all points. We know that in children there are many things faulty; and accordingly Paul bids us be children, not in understanding, but in malice, (1 Corinthians 14:20;) and in another passage he exhorts us to strive to reach the state of a perfect man, (Ephesians 4:13.) But as children know nothing about being preferred to each other, or about contending for the highest rank, Christ desires that their example should banish from the minds of his followers those eager longings after distinction, which wicked men and the children of the world continually indulge, that they may not be allured by any kind of ambition.

It will perhaps be objected, that children, even from the womb, have a native pride, which leads them to desire the highest honor and distinction; but the reply is obvious, that comparisons must not be too closely or too exactly carried out, so as to apply at all points. The tender age of little children is distinguished by simplicity to such an extent, that they are unacquainted with the degrees of honor, and with all the incentives to pride; so that they are properly and justly held out by Christ as an example.

3. Unless you are converted. To the example of little children must be referred the conversion of which he now speaks. Hitherto they had been too much habituated to the ordinary customs of men; and if they would gain their object, they must pursue a totally different course. 499499 “Il leur est besoin de tourner bride, et de s’accoustumer a tout cela;” — “they must wheel round, and get accustomed to all this.” Every one wished for himself the first or the second rank; but Christ does not allot even the lowest place to any man who does not lose sight of distinctions and humble himself On the contrary, he says,

4. Whosoever shall humble himself like this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom

of heaven. This is intended to guard us against supposing that we degrade ourselves in any measure by freely surrendering every kind of distinction. And hence we may obtain a short definition 500500 “La vraye definition;” — “the true definition.” of humility. That man is truly humble who neither claims any personal merit in the sight of God, nor proudly despises brethren, or aims at being thought superior to them, but reckons it enough that he is one of the members of Christ, and desires nothing more than that the Head alone should be exalted.

5. And he that shall receive such a child. The term children is now applied metaphorically by Christ to those who have laid aside lofty looks, and who conduct themselves with modesty and humility. This is added by way of consolation, that we may not account it troublesome or disagreeable to exercise humility, by means of which Christ not only receives us under his protection, but likewise recommends us to the favor of men. And thus believers are taught in what way they ought to esteem each other: it is by every one humbling himself How is mutual friendship usually maintained among the

children of the world but by every man complying with the wishes of another? The more desirous a man is to obtain renown, the more insolently does he grasp at power, that he may be raised to a lofty station, and that others may be ridiculed or despised; but Christ enjoins that the more a man abases himself, the more highly shall he be honored. Such, too, is the import of the words given by Luke, he that is least among you shall be great;

for our Lord does not enjoin us to think more highly of those who justly deserve to be despised, but of those who divest themselves of all pride, and are perfectly willing to occupy the lowest place.

Henry, “Christ here foretels his own sufferings; he began to do it before (Matthew 16:21); and, finding that it was to his disciples a hard saying, he saw it necessary to repeat it. There are some things which God speaketh once, yea twice, and yet man perceiveth it not. Observe here, 1. What he foretold concerning himself--that he should be betrayed and killed. He perfectly knew,

before, all things that should come to him, and yet undertook the work of our redemption, which greatly commends his love; nay, his clear foresight of them was a kind of ante-passion, had not his love to man made all easy to him.

(1.) He tells them that he should be betrayed into the hands of men. He shall be delivered up (so it

might be read and understood of his Father's delivering him up by his determined counsel and fore-

knowledge, Acts 2:23,Ro+8:32); but as we render it, it refers to Judas's betraying him into the hands of the priests, and their betraying him into the hands of the Romans. He was betrayed into the hands of men; men to whom he was allied by nature, and from whom therefore he might expect pity and tenderness; men whom he had undertaken to save, and from whom therefore he might expect honour and gratitude; yet these are his persecutors and murderers.

(2.) That they should kill him; nothing less than that would satisfy their rage; it was his blood, his

precious blood, that they thirsted after. This is the heir, come, let us kill him. Nothing less would satisfy God's justice, and answer his undertaking; if he be a Sacrifice of atonement, he must be killed; without blood no remission.

(3.) That he shall be raised again the third day. Still, when he spoke of his death, he gave a hint of

his resurrection, the joy set before him, in the prospect of which he endured the cross, and despised the shame. This was an encouragement, not only to him, but to his disciples; for if he rise the third day, his absence from them will not be long, and his return to them will be glorious.

2. How the disciples received this; They were exceedingly sorry. Herein appeared their love to their

Master's person, but with all their ignorance and mistake concerning his undertaking. Peter indeed durst not

say any thing against it, as he had done before (Matthew 16:22), having then been severely chidden for it; but he, and the rest of them, greatly lamented it, as it would be their own loss, their Master's grief, and the sin and ruin of them that did it.

PETT, "‘And while they gathered in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of man will be delivered up into the hands of men,” ’

This is the first specific indication that they are back in Galilee. At the opening of this section Jesus was in His home town (probably Nazareth although Matthew does not say

so) and left it because of their unbelief (Matthew 13:53-58). Now He will return to His home town (Capernaum - Matthew 17:24 compare Matthew 4:13) where they still do not recognise Him. Matthew centres the salvation history around Galilee. He depicts Jesus’ ministry only from when it commences in Galilee (Matthew 4:12-16), as continually returning to Galilee, and as finalising in Galilee in the resurrection appearance on the mountain (Matthew 28:16-20), after the interlude in Jerusalem. This may be seen as confirming that he is a Galilean.

‘While they were gathered.’ Mark has ‘passing through’. This may suggest that the wider group of disciples were gathering ready for the trip to Jerusalem for Passover, so that prior to travelling to Jerusalem Jesus wants them all to be aware of what lies ahead. As the Son of Man He will be delivered by God into the hands of men. There may here be a wordplay on ‘Man’ and ‘men’. The One Who has come representing man, and as born of woman, will be delivered into men’s hands for them to do their will with Him. Men will show once and for all what they will do with a man who dares to be too much like God.

Others see the verb as meaning ‘gathered around Him, moved around together’, indicating that He was teaching them as they moved around.

As we have seen the chiasmus indicates that this must be taken together with the previous passages. Here therefore Jesus’ words are a demonstration of true faith. He is ready for His Father’s will, and is voluntarily following the path that will lead to it.

It is possible that ‘handed over’ has in mind Judas Iscariot. This might be Jesus’ first attempt to win Judas from the path he has chosen to tread.

23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

1. Barnes, “Verse 23. And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised

again, SeeMatthew 12:40. Mark and Luke add, that they understood not that saying, and it was hid from them, and they were afraid to ask him. The reasons of this may have been:

(1.) They were strongly attached to him, and were exceedingly sorry (Matthew) at

any intimation that the was soon to leave them. They learned with great slowness

and reluctance, therefore, that he was to be treated in this manner.

(2.) They were not willing to believe it. They knew he was the Messiah. But they

supposed that he was to be a distinguished Prince, and was to restore the kingdom to Israel, Acts 1:6. But to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and be put to death,

appeared to them to be frustrating all these expectations.

(3.) Though what he said was plain enough, yet they did not understand it; they

could not see how he could be the Messiah, and yet be put to death in this manner.

�or did they understand it fully till after the resurrection.

GILLMatthew 17:23

And they shall kill him…Put him to death, with the death of the cross; for the angels in rehearsing these words, affirm, that Christ told his disciples at this time, and in this place, whilst they

were in Galilee, that he should be crucified, (Luke 24:7) .

And the third day he shall be raised again:this he said for their comfort; and it is observable, that when Christ speaks of his rising again, he makes mention of the exact time, the third day, on which he should rise, according to the types and prophecies of the Old Testament:

and they were exceeding sorry:that he should be betrayed into the hands of the Gentiles, fearing that another nation would come, and take away, and possess the worldly kingdom and grandeur they were dreaming of; and that he should die at all; and much more that he should die such a cruel and ignominious death, as that of the cross. They seem to have overlooked, and to have taken no notice of his rising again from the dead; which might have administered comfort to them, and have relieved them under their melancholy apprehensions of things; but this they understood not, nor indeed truly any part of what he had said; so Mark and Luke intimate: but then it may be said, how came they to be so very sorrowful, if they did not know what was said? To which may be replied, that this might be the reason of their sorrow, because they did not understand what he said, and they were afraid to ask; they could not tell how to reconcile the betraying of him into the hands of men, and his sufferings and death, with their notions, that the Messiah should abide for ever, and should set up a temporal kingdom, in great splendour and magnificence; and what he meant by rising again from the dead, they could not devise; they could not tell whether all this was to be understood in a literal, or mystical sense.

PETT, "Verse 23

“And they will kill him, and the third day he will be raised up.” And they were very upset.’

And He then makes clear what will follow. ‘They will kill Him.’ He is in no doubt about what His fate will be. Man is to be allowed to do His worst. But the last

word will be with His Father. On the third day He will be raised up. Jesus has total faith in His Father. For the rising up on the third day see on Matthew 16:21. ‘The third day’ might simply signify ‘within a short time of less than a week’, being in contrast with ‘seven days’ (compare the use of ‘three days’ and ‘seven days’ in Genesis).

The concentration of the disciples, in so far as they understand it at all, is on His words about death, and they are therefore very upset at this talk of death. They still cannot really bring themselves to believe it.

The Temple Tax

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax[b]?"

1. Barnes, “Verses 24-27. And when they were come to Capernaum. See Barnes "Matthew 4:13".

They that received tribute. In the original this is, they who received the two drachms.

The drachm was a Grecian coin, worth about 12 1/2 cents [about 7d.] of our money.

This tribute, consisting of these two drachms, was not paid to the Roman

government, but to the Jewish collectors, for the use of the temple service. It was permitted in the law of Moses, (see Exodus 30:11-16,) that in numbering the people,

half a shekel should be received of each man for the services of religion. This was in

addition to the tithes paid by the whole nation, and seems to have been considered as

a voluntary offering. It was devoted to the purchase of animals for the daily

sacrifice; wood, flour, salt, incense, etc., for the use of the temple. Two drachms

were about equal to half a shekel.

Doth not your master pay tribute? This tribute was voluntary; and they therefore

asked him whether he was in the habit of paying taxes for the support of the temple.

Peter replied, that it was his custom to pay all the usual taxes of the nation.”

2. Broadus, “Moses directed (Exod.30: n tr.) that

whenever the people were numbered, every

male over twenty years old should give a half

shekel, rich and poor alike, for the support of

the tabernacle. Upon this Josiah based his

demand for a special contribution to repair

the temple. (2 ci.r. 24: e.) After the return from

the captivit.y, �ehemiah and his followers

"made ordinances" not as being required

by the law of Moses, but as a voluntary

agreement to pay every year ihethirdpnvtof

a shekel (they were poor then), in order to pro

vide sacrifices, etc., for the temple. (�eh. 10=32 r.)

In the Mishna, as here in Matt., we meet with

a well known contribution of a half shekel.

The Kabbis had kept �ehemiah s plan of

making it annual, but had returned to the

sum which the law of Moses required for the

occasional gift, and doubtless held that they

were but carrying out the law. The Mishna

has a separate treatise on this subject. Priests,

women, children, and slaves, were exempt,

but might give if they wished. The Jews in

Palestine were expected (Edersh.) to give

before the time of the Passover; those in

foreign countries were allowed till Pentecost

or even Tabernacles, and there was a special

chest in the temple for contributions due

the previous year. Commissioners were

sent through Palestine to collect they

that received the half shekel, distinct from

the publicans who collected the government

tax ; in foreign countries the money was de

posited by the leading Jews in some fortified

city till it could be escorted to Jerusalem.

(jos. "Ant.,- is, 9,1.) Cicero states that gold was,

every year, in the name of the Jews, exported

from Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem,

and commends Flaccus for prohibiting this

exportation from Asia.”

barnes

{1} "tribute money" "Didrachma, in value about 15d. Exodus 38:26

Verse 25. Jesus prevented him. That is, Jesus commenced speaking

before Peter, or spoke before Peter had told him what he had said.

This implies, that though not present with Peter when he gave the

answer, yet Jesus was acquainted with what he had said. Prevent

here means, to go before, or precede. It does not mean, as now with

us, to hinder, or obstruct. See the same use of the word in Psalms

59:10;79:8; 88:13; 119:148; 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

Of whom do the kings of the earth, etc. That is, earthly kings.

Their own brethren. Their sons; the members of the family.

Or of strangers? The word strangers does not mean foreigners, but

those who were not their own sons, or members of their family. Peter

replied, that tribute was collected of those out of their own family.

Jesus answered, then are the children, orsons of the kings, free; i.e.,

taxes are not required of them. The meaning of this may be thus

expressed: "Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute money is

taken up for the temple-service; i.e., the service of my Father. I,

therefore, beingthe Son of God, for whom this is taken up, cannot be

lawfully required to pay this tribute."

Verse 26. No Barnes text on this verse. See Barnes "Matthew 17:24"

Verse 27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them. That is, lest

they should think that we despise the temple and its service, and thus

provoke needless opposition, though we are not under obligation to

pay it, yet it is best to pay it to them.

Go thou to the sea. This was at Capernaum, on the shore of the sea of

Tiberias.

Thou shalt find a piece of money. In the original, thou shalt find a

stater, a Roman silver coin of the value of four drachms, or one

shekel, and of course sufficient to pay the tribute for two, himself and

Peter. In whatever way this is regarded, it is proof that Jesus was

possessed of Divine attributes. If he knew that the first fish that

came up would have such a coin in his mouth, it was proof of

omniscience. If he created the coin for the occasion, and placed it

there, then it was proof of Divine power. The former is the most

probable supposition. It is by no means absurd that a fish should have

swallowed a silver coin. Many of them bite eagerly at anything bright,

and would not hesitate, therefore, at swallowing a piece of money.

BENSON, "Matthew 17:24-27. When they were come to Capernaum —

Where our Lord now dwelt. Hence the collectors of the sacred tribute

did not ask him for it till he came to this the ordinary place of his

residence. They that received the tribute-money came to Peter —

Whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Jesus now

lodged, and therefore he was the most fit to be spoken to as being the

house-keeper, and they presumed he knew his Master’s mind. And

said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? — This was a tribute or

payment of a peculiar kind, being half a shekel, (that is, about fifteen

pence,) which every master of a family used to pay yearly to the

service of the temple: to buy salt, and little things not otherwise

provided for. It seems to have been a voluntary thing, which custom,

rather than any law, had established. He (Peter) saith, Yes — My

Master pays tribute. It is his practice to pay it, and I doubt not that he

will pay it now. And when he came into the house Jesus prevented him

— Just when Peter was going to ask him for it: Of whom do the kings

of the earth take custom, &c. — Of whom are they accustomed to take

it? Of their children, &c. — Of their own families, or of others? Peter

saith — Of strangers — Of persons not belonging to their families.

Jesus saith, Then are the children free — From any such demand. The

sense is, This tribute is paid for the use of the house of God. But I am

the Son of God. Therefore I am free from any obligation of paying this

to my own Father. Lest we should offend them — That is, give them

occasion to say that I despise the temple and its service, and teach my

disciples so to do; go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, &c. — He sends

Peter to the lake with a line and a hook, telling him, that in the mouth

of the first fish that came up, he should find a stater, ( στατηρα) a

Grecian piece of money so called, equal to two didrachma, or one

shekel of Jewish money, the sum required for himself and Peter; Peter

having a family of his own, and the other apostles being the family of

Jesus. How illustrious a degree of knowledge and power did our Lord

here discover! Knowledge penetrating into this animal, though beneath

the waters; and power, in directing this very fish to Peter’s hook,

though he himself was at a distance! How must this have encouraged

both Peter and his brethren in a firm dependance on Divine

Providence! “Jesus chose to provide this tribute-money by a miracle,

either because the disciple who carried the bag was absent, or because

he had not as much money as was necessary. Further, he chose to

provide it by this particular miracle, rather than any other, because it

was of such a kind as to demonstrate that he was the Son of the Great

Monarch worshipped in the temple, who rules the universe. Wherefore,

in the very manner of his paying this tax, he showed Peter that he was

free from all taxes; and at the same time gave his followers this useful

lesson, that, in matters which affect their property in a smaller degree,

it is better to recede somewhat from their just rights, than, by

stubbornly insisting on them, to offend their brethren, or disturb the

state.” — Macknight.

COFFMAN, "This half-shekel was a Jewish poll tax levied annually for

the support of the temple, a tax which Jesus perhaps had paid often in

the past; but the appearance of the solicitors with an inquiry placed a

different face on things. IF Christ paid the tax, it would mean, in a

sense, that he was laying claim to no special dignity but was accepting

the status of an ordinary Jew, rabbis being exempt. To be sure, Jesus

might have claimed exemption as a Jewish rabbi, or teacher; but to

have done so would have compromised his higher claim to be the

Messiah, which claim was widely known, though disputed by his

enemies. A refusal to pay it would have involved him as a technical

lawbreaker; and it is likely that the dilemma involved in these various

facets of the problem was what prompted the inquiry in the first place.

The poll tax was generally left to voluntary compliance; for centuries

no enforcement structure existed and no penalties for default were

prescribed or enforced. However, about the time of Christ, regulations

had been posted, with mild penalties; but these were rarely enforced.

[7]

ENDNOTE:

[7] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 179.

COKE, "Matthew 17:24. And when they were come to Capernaum—

Josephus has expressly asserted, that each of the Jews used yearly to

pay a didrachma, or half shekel, the piece of money here mentioned,

and in value about fifteen-pence of our currency, to the service of the

temple, (See Antiq. lib. 18. 100. 9.) a custom which probably took its

rise from the demand of that sum from each of the Israelites when

they were numbered, Exodus 30:13. Thus Casaubon, Hammond, and

many other great critics, understood it. It was gathered every year

through all their cities; and, as it should seem from the manner of the

collectors' making the demand, was a voluntary thing, which custom

rather than law had established. See Nehemiah 10:32. Beza is of

opinion, that it was the poll-tax levied by the Romans, after Judea was

reduced into the form of a province, (see Ch. Matthew 22:17.) and

which Agrippa Major, in the reign of Claudius, remitted to the Jews. If

this was the tribute which the collectors demanded of Peter, the import

of their question was this: "Is your master of the sect of Judas of

Galilee, whose opinion is, that taxes should be paid to no foreign

power?" They demanded the tribute for Jesus from Peter, either

because the house in which Jesus lived was his, or because they

observed him to be more forward than the rest, or because none of

them were with him at that time but Peter. See Macknight.

PETT, "Verse 24

‘And when they were come to Capernaum, those who received the

shekel came to Peter, and said, “Does not your teacher pay the

didrachma (shekel)?” (Matthew 17:24).

The didrachma or shekel tax was probably that payable to the Temple

treasury. It was payable yearly by Jews around the world, and

contributed greatly to the Temple funds. It was an indication of their

submission to God as His servants. Note the stress here on whether

Jesus paid it. Peter, of course, had to pay it as well, and they may

have approached him as the head of the house in which they were

staying (compare Matthew 8:14). But the whole point of this narrative

is as to whether Jesus should have to pay it (‘does not your teacher

pay?’), although it does then lead on to the question as to whether any

‘son of God’ should pay it.

Jesus has, of course, with some of His disciples, been out of range of

the collectors. Thus it is only when He arrives home that He is

approached through Peter. As Passover was approaching the tax was

due to be paid. The indirect question was probably simply a courtesy,

but it raised the right background against which Jesus could make His

position clear to Peter. The collectors did, of course, expect the answer

to be ‘yes’.

PETT, "Jesus Again Reveals His Sonship (17:24-27).

In contrast with man’s coming treatment of Him Jesus continues to

reveal His Sonship preparatory to what is coming. What follows is not

just an outlandish display of power and knowledge with little

significance, it is a specific indication that He is no longer subject to

men. To pay the Temple Tax to His Father from His own earthly

resources would have been to indicate that He was still subject to men,

and an acknowledgement that He was not truly the Son. But by

offering it from the abundance of the seas, His Father’s treasury (the

fish have no ruler - Habakkuk 1:14), as a sacrifice of righteousness

(Deuteronomy 33:19), He makes clear His independence of men, and

that He offers it as His Son.

Note On The Temple Tax.

The Law of Moses directed in Exodus 30:11 ff. that whenever the

people of Israel were ‘numbered’, every male over twenty years old,

rich and poor alike, should give a half shekel for the support of the

Tabernacle as a kind of ransom. It was on this basis that Josiah

demanded a special contribution to repair the temple (2 Chronicles

24:6). After the return from the captivity, Nehemiah and his followers

"made ordinances" (thus not seeing it as something that was required

by the law of Moses, but as something that was by voluntary

agreement) that every year men should pay the third part of a shekel

in order to provide sacrifices, etc., for the Temple (Nehemiah 10:32).

In Josephus the tax is a didrachma and in the Mishna the tax is a

shekel, and according to LXX the didrachma, as spoken of here in

Matthew, was the equivalent of one shekel. Thus the tax being

required here is one shekel. The leaders had thus retained Nehemiah’s

plan of making it annual, but had increased the sum to one shekel. The

extra half shekel may have been seen as a voluntary further

contribution for particular purposes, or it may be because they saw

they saw the sacred shekel as worth twice the value of a shekel. (Thus

half a sacred shekel is one shekel). The Mishna has a separate treatise

on the subject of this tax. Priests, women, children, and slaves, were

exempt from the tax, but might give if they wished. The Jews in

Palestine were expected to give it well before the time of the Passover;

those in foreign countries were allowed until Pentecost or even until

Tabernacles, and there was a special chest in the temple for

contributions due from the previous year so that people could catch

up. Commissioners were sent throughout Palestine to collect the Tax

(‘those who collect the didrachma’). They were distinct from the public

servants who collected the government tax. In foreign countries the

money was deposited by the leading Jews in some fortified city until it

could be escorted to Jerusalem. (Josephus "Antiquities" 18, 9, 1.)

Cicero states that gold was exported every year from Italy, and all the

provinces, in the name of the Jews, to Jerusalem, and commends

Flaccus for prohibiting this exportation from Asia Minor, the region

around Ephesus (Cicero, "for Flaccus," 28.) Josephus says

("Antiquities" 3,8,2) that the gift in Exodus 30:11 was from men

between twenty and fifty years old, a statement which may suggest

that those were the limits in his times. After Titus destroyed

Jerusalem, Vespasian decreed that the Jews everywhere "should bring

two drachmas every year for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, as

before they were wont to pay for the temple at Jerusalem." (Josephus’

"War," 7,6,6.).

The tax was in fact voluntary, but there was considerable pressure on

people to pay it, and most appear to have done so fairly willingly. The

Sadducees appear to have objected to it on the grounds that it was a

recent imposition and not in the Law. The community at Qumran

appears to have objected to it as a yearly tax supporting a Temple

they did not agree with. They argued for a once for all redemptive tax.

The tax had to be paid in Tyrian coinage, possibly so as to ensure that

no human or animal image was on the coin. It was because of this that

there were moneychangers in the Temple, doing a roaring trade. The

voluntary contributions to the Temple were quite distinct from this

yearly shekel, which was specifically required (by custom if not by the

law), and were varied in amount (Mark 12:41 ff). Entirely separate

from these was the tax due to the Roman government in the Roman

province of Judea and Samaria (Matthew 22:1).

End of note.

Analysis.

a When they were come to Capernaum, those who received the shekel

(didrachma) came to Peter, and said, “Does not your teacher pay the

shekel?” (Matthew 17:24).

b He says, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke first

to him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? The kings of the earth,

from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from

strangers?” (Matthew 17:25).

b And when he said, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Therefore

the sons are free” (Matthew 17:26).

a “But, lest we cause them offence, you go to the sea, and cast a

hook, and take up the fish that first comes up, and when you have

opened his mouth, you will find a shekel, that take, and give it to them

for me and you” (Matthew 17:27).

Note that in ‘a’ we have reference to those who collect the tax, and the

request concerning payment of the tax, and in the parallel the desire

not to cause them offence, and Jesus’ method of paying the tax. In ‘b’

Jesus asks the question concerning sons and strangers and in the

parallel gives His conclusion with regard to both.

Barclay “THE TEMPLE TAX

Matt. 17:24-27

When they came to Capernaum, those who received the half-shekel Temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the tax?" Peter said, "He does pay it." When he had gone into the house, before he could speak, Jesus said to him, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings take tax and tribute? From their sons or from strangers?" When he said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "So then the sons are free. But, so as not to set a stumbling-block in anyone's way, go to the sea, and cast a hook into it, and take the first fish which comes up; and when you have opened its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take it and give it to them for me and for you."

The Temple at Jerusalem was a costly place to run. There were the daily morning and evening sacrifices which each involved the offering of a year-old lamb. Along with the lamb were offered wine and flour and oil. The incense which was burned every day had to be bought and prepared. The costly hangings and the robes of the priests constantly wore out; and the robe of the High Priest was itself worth a king's ransom. All this required money.

So, on the basis of Exo.30:13, it was laid down that every male Jew over twenty years of

age must pay an annual Temple tax of one half-shekel. In the days of Nehemiah, when the people were poor, it was one-third of a shekel. One half-shekel was equal to two Greek drachmae (GSN1406); and the tax was commonly called the didrachm (GSN1323), as it is called in this passage. The value of the tax was about 8 pence; and that sum must be evaluated in the light of the fact that a working man's wage in Palestine in the time of Jesus was only 3 1/2 pence. The tax was in fact the equivalent of two days' pay. It brought into the Temple treasury no less than about 76,000 British pounds a year. Theoretically the tax was obligatory and the Temple authorities had power to distrain upon a man's goods, if he failed to pay.

The method of collection was carefully organized. On the first of the month Adar, which is March of our year, announcement was made in all the towns and villages of Palestine that the time to pay the tax had come. On the fifteenth of the month, booths were set up in each town and village, and at the booths the tax was paid. If the tax was not paid by the twenty-fifth of Adar, it could only be paid direct to the Temple in Jerusalem.

In this passage we see Jesus paying this Temple tax. The tax authorities came to Peter and asked him if his Master paid his taxes. There is little doubt that the question was asked with malicious intent and that the hope was that Jesus would refuse to pay; for, if he refused, the orthodox would have a ground of accusation against him. Peter's immediate answer was that Jesus did pay. Then he went and told Jesus of the situation, and Jesus used a kind of parable in Matt. 17:25-26.

The picture drawn has two possibilities but in either case the meaning is the same.

(i) In the ancient world conquering and colonizing nations had little or no idea of governing for the benefit of subject peoples. Rather, they considered that the subject peoples existed to make things easier for them. The result was that a king's own nation never paid tribute, if there were any nations subject to it. It was the subject nations who bore the burden and who paid the tax. So Jesus may be saying, "God is the King of Israel; but we are the true Israel, for we are the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven; outsiders may have to pay; but we are free."

(ii) The picture is more likely a much simpler one than that. If any king imposed taxes on a nation, he certainly did not impose them on his own family. It was indeed for the support of his own household that the taxes were imposed. The tax in question was for the Temple, which was the house of God. Jesus was the Son of God. Did he not say when his parents sought him in Jerusalem: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Lk.2:49). How could the Son be under obligation to pay the tax which was for his own Father's house?

None the less Jesus said that they must pay, not because of the compulsion of the law, but because of a higher duty. He said they must pay "lest we should offend them." The New Testament always uses the verb to offend (skandalizein, GSN4624) and the noun offence (skandalon, GSN4625) in a special way. The verb never means to insult or to annoy or to injure the pride of. It always means to put a stumbling-block in someone's way, to cause someone to trip up and to fall. Therefore Jesus is saying: "We must pay so as not to set a bad example to others. We must not only do our duty, we must go beyond duty, in order that we may show others what they ought to do." Jesus would allow himself nothing which might make someone else think less of the ordinary obligation of life. In life there

may sometimes be exemptions we could claim; there may be things we could quite safely allow ourselves to do. But we must claim nothing and allow ourselves nothing which might possibly be a bad example to someone else.

We may well ask why is it that this story was ever transmitted at all? For reasons of space the gospel writers had to select their material. Why select this story? Matthew's gospel was written between A.D. 80 and 90. Now just a little before that time Jews and Jewish Christians had been faced with a very real and a very disturbing problem. We saw that every male Jew over twenty had to pay the Temple tax; but the Temple was totally destroyed in A.D. 70, never to be rebuilt. After the destruction of the Temple, Vespasian, the Roman emperor, enacted that the half-shekel Temple tax should now be paid to the treasury of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.

Here indeed was a problem. Many of the Jews and of the Jewish Christians were violently inclined to rebel against this enactment. Any such widespread rebellion would have had disastrous consequences, for it would have been utterly crushed at once, and would have gained the Jews and the Christians the reputation of being bad and disloyal and disaffected citizens.

This story was put into the gospels to tell the Christians, especially the Jewish Christians, that, however unpleasant they might be, the duties of a citizen must be shouldered. It tells us that Christianity and good citizenship go hand in hand. The Christian who exempts himself from the duties of good citizenship is not only failing in citizenship, he is also fatting in Christianity.

HOW TO PAY OUR DEBTS

Matt. 17:24-27 (continued)

Now we come to the story itself If we take it with a bald and crude literalism, it means that Jesus told Peter to go and catch a fish, and that he would find a stater in the fish's mouth which would be sufficient to pay the tax for both of them. It is not irrelevant to note that the gospel never tells us that Peter did so. The story ends with Jesus' saying.

Before we begin to examine the story we must remember that all oriental people love to say a thing in the most dramatic and vivid way possible; and that they love to say a thing with the flash of a smile. This miracle is difficult on three grounds.

(i) God does not send a miracle to enable us to do what we can quite well do for ourselves. That would be to harm us and not to help us. However poor the disciples were, they did not need a miracle to enable them to earn two half-shekels. It was not beyond human power to earn such a sum.

(ii) This miracle transgresses the great decision of Jesus that he would never use his miraculous power for his own ends. He could have turned stones into bread to satisfy his own hunger--but he refused. He could have used his power to enhance his own prestige as a wonder-worker--but he refused. In the wilderness Jesus decided once and for all that he would not and could not selfishly use his power. If this story is taken with a crude literalism, it does show Jesus using his divine power to satisfy his own personal needs--and that is what Jesus would never do.

(iii) If this miracle is taken literally, there is a sense in which it is even immoral. Life would become chaotic if a man could pay his debts by finding coins in fishes' mouths. Life was never meant to be arranged in such a way that men could meet their obligations in such a lazy and effortless way. "The gods," said one of the great Greeks, "have ordained that sweat should be the price of all things." That is just as true for the Christian thinker as it was for the Greek.

If all this is so, what are we to say? Are we to say that this is a mere legendary story, mere imaginative fiction, with no truth behind it at all? Far from it. Beyond a doubt something happened.

Let us remember again the Jewish love of dramatic vividness. Undoubtedly what happened was this. Jesus said to Peter: "Yes, Peter. You're right. We, too, must pay our just and lawful debts. Well, you know how to do it. Back you go to the fishing for a day. You'll get plenty of money in the fishes' mouths to pay our dues! A day at the fishing will soon produce all we need."

Jesus was saying, "Back to your job, Peter; that's the way to pay your debts." So the typist will find a new coat in the keys of her typewriter. The motor mechanic will find food for himself and his wife and family in the cylinder of the motor car. The teacher will find money to pay his way in the blackboard and the chalk. The clerk will find enough to support himself and his dear ones in the ledger and in the account sheets.

When Jesus said this, he said it with that swift smile of his and with his gift for dramatic language. He was not telling Peter literally to get coins in fishes' mouths. He was telling him that in his day's work he would get what he needed to pay his way.

Henry, “We have here an account of Christ's paying tribute.

I. Observe how it was demanded, Matthew 17:24. Christ was now at Capernaum, his headquarters, where he mostly resided; he did not keep from thence, to decline being called upon for his dues, but rather came thither, to be ready to pay them.

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by

the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a

ransom for the soul, Exodus 30:12, &c. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

2. The demand was very modest; the collectors stood in such awe of Christ, because of his mighty

works, that they durst not speak to him about it, but applied themselves to Peter, whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Christ lodged; he therefore was fittest to be spoken to as the housekeeper, and they presumed he knew his Master's mind. Their question is, Doth not your master pay tribute? Some think that they sought an occasion against him, designing, if he refused, to represent him as disaffected to the temple-service, and his followers as lawless people, that would pay neither toll, tribute,

nor custom, Ezra 4:13. It should rather seem, they asked this with respect, intimating, that if he had any privilege to exempt him from this payment, they would not insist upon it.

Peter presently his word for his Master; "Yes, certainly; my Master pays tribute; it is his principle

and practice; you need not fear moving it to him." (1.) He was made under the law (Galatians 4:4); therefore under this law he was paid for at forty days old (Luke 2:22), and now he paid for himself, as one who, in his state of humiliation, had taken upon him the form of a servant,

Philippians 2:7,8. (2.) He was made sin for us, and was sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, Romans

8:3. Now this tax paid to the temple is called an atonement for the soul, Exodus 30:15. Christ, that in every thing he might appear in the likeness of sinners, paid it though he had no sin to atone for.

(3.) Thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness, Matthew 3:15. He did this to set an example, [1.] Of rendering to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, Romans 13:7. The kingdom of Christ not being of this world, the favourites and officers of it are so far from having a power granted them, as such, to tax other people's purses, that theirs are made liable to the powers that are. [2.] Of contributing to the support of the public worship of God in the places where we are. If we reap spiritual things, it is fit that we should return carnal things. The temple was now made a den of thieves, and the temple-worship a pretence for the opposition which the chief priests gave to Christ and his doctrine; and yet Christ paid this tribute. Note, Church-duties, legally imposed, are to be paid, notwithstanding church-corruptions. We must take care not to use our liberty as a cloak of covetousness or maliciousness,

1 Peter 2:16. If Christ pay tribute, who can pretend an exemption?

II. How it was disputed (Matthew 17:25), not with the collectors themselves, lest they should be irritated, but with Peter, that he might be satisfied in the reason why Christ paid tribute, and might not mistake about it. He brought the collectors into the house; but Christ anticipated him, to give him a proof of his omniscience, and that no thought can be withholden from him. The disciples of Christ are never attacked without his knowledge.

Now, 1. He appeals to the way of the kings of the earth, which is, to take tribute of strangers, of the subjects of their kingdom, or foreigners that deal with them, but not of their own children that are of their families; there is such a community of goods between parents and children, and a joint-interest in what they have, that it would be absurd for the parents to levy taxes upon the children, or demand any thing from them; it is like one hand taxing the other.

2. He applies this to himself; Then are the children free. Christ is the Son of God, and Heir of all

things; the temple is his temple (Malachi 3:1), his Father's house (John 2:16), in it he is faithful as a

Son in his own house (Hebrews 3:6), and therefore not obliged to pay this tax for the service of the temple. Thus Christ asserts his right, lest his paying this tribute should be misimproved to the weakening of his title as the Son of God, and the King of Israel, and should have looked like a disowning of it himself. These immunities of the children are to be extended no further than our Lord Jesus himself. God's children are freed by grace and adoption from the slavery of sin and Satan, but not from their subjection to civil magistrates in civil things; here the law of Christ is express; Let every soul (sanctified souls not

excepted) be subject to the higher powers. Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's.

III. How it was paid, notwithstanding, Matthew 17:27.

1. For what reason Christ waived his privilege, and paid this tribute, though he was entitled to an exemption--Lest we should offend them. Few knew, as Peter did, that he was the Son of God; and it would have been a diminution to the honour of that great truth, which was yet a secret, to advance it now, to serve such a purpose as this. Therefore Christ drops that argument, and considers, that if he should refuse this payment, it would increase people's prejudice against him and his doctrine, and alienate their affections from him, and therefore he resolves to pay it. Note, Christian prudence and humility teach us, in many cases, to recede from our right, rather than give offence by insisting upon it. We must never decline our duty for fear of giving offence (Christ's preaching and miracles offended them, yet he went on with him,

Matthew 15:12,13, better offend men than God); but we must sometimes deny ourselves in that which is our secular interest, rather than give offence; as Paul, 1 Corinthians 8:13,Ro+14:13.

2. What course he took for the payment of this tax; he furnished himself with money for it out of the

mouth of a fish (Matthew 17:27), wherein appears,

(1.) The poverty of Christ; he had not fifteen pence at command to pay his tax with, though he cured

so many that were diseased; it seems, he did all gratis; for our sakes he became poor, 2 Corinthians 8:9. In his ordinary expenses, he lived upon alms (Luke 8:3), and in extraordinary ones, he lived upon miracles. He did not order Judas to pay this out of the bag which he carried; that was for subsistence, and he would not order that for his particular use, which was intended for the benefit of the community.

(2.) The power of Christ, in fetching money out of a fish's mouth for this purpose. Whether his

omnipotence put it there, or his omniscience knew that it was there, it comes all to one; it was an evidence of his divinity, and that he is Lord of hosts. Those creatures that are most remote from man are at the

command of Christ, even the fishes of the sea are under his feet (Psalms 8:5); and to evidence his dominion in this lower world, and to accommodate himself to his present state of humiliation, he chose to take it out of a fish's mouth, when he could have taken it out of an angel's hand. Now observe,

[1.] Peter must catch the fish by angling. Even in miracles he would use means to encourage industry

and endeavour. Peter has something to do, and it is in the way of his own calling too; to teach us diligence in the employment we are called to, and called in. Do we expect that Christ should give to us? Let us be ready to work for him.

[2.] The fish came up, with money in the mouth of it, which represents to us the reward of obedience

in obedience. What work we do at Christ's command brings its own pay along with it: In keeping God's

commands, as well as after keeping them, there is great reward, Psalms 19:11. Peter was made a fisher of men, and those that he caught thus, came up; where the heart is opened to entertain Christ's word, the hand is open to encourage his ministers.

[3.] The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter. Thou shalt find a stater,

the value of a Jewish shekel, which would pay the poll-tax for two, for it was half a shekel, Exodus 30:13. Christ could as easily have commanded a bag of money as a piece of money; but he would teach us not to covet superfluities, but, having enough for our present occasions, therewith to be content, and not to distrust God, though we live but from hand to mouth. Christ made the fish his cash-keeper; and why may not we make God's providence our storehouse and treasury? If we have a competency for today, let to-morrow take thought for the

things of itself. Christ paid for himself and Peter, because it is probable that here he only was assessed, and of him it was at this time demanded; perhaps the rest had paid already, or were to pay elsewhere. The papists make a great mystery of Christ's paying for Peter, as if this made him the head and representative of the whole church; whereas the payment of tribute for him was rather a sign of subjection than of superiority. His pretended successors pay no tribute, but exact it. Peter fished for this money, and therefore part of it went for his use. Those that are workers together with Christ in winning souls shall shine with him. Give it for thee and me. What Christ paid for himself was looked upon as a debt; what he paid for Peter was a courtesy to him. Note, it is a desirable thing, if God so please, to have wherewithal of this world's goods, not only to be just, but to be kind; not only to be charitable to the poor, but obliging to our friends. What is a great estate good for, but that it enables a man to do so much the more good?

Lastly, Observe, The evangelist records here the orders Christ gave to Peter, the warrant; the effect is

not particularly mentioned, but taken for granted, and justly; for, with Christ, saying and doing are the same thing.

GILLMatthew 17:24

And when they were come to Capernaum…

Called Christ's own city, (Matthew 9:1) where he dwelt some time (Matthew 4:13) and Peter had an house, (Matthew 8:14) "they that received tribute money", or the

"didrachms"; in Talmudic language, it would be (Mylqvh Nybwg) F9, "they that collect the shekels": for not the publicans, or Roman tax gatherers are meant; nor is this to be understood of any such tribute: there was a tribute that was paid to Caesar, by the Jews; see (Matthew 22:17) but that is expressed by another word, and was paid in other money, in Roman money, which bore Caesar's image and superscription; and was exacted of them, whether they would or not: but this designs the collection of the half shekel, paid yearly for the service of the temple: the original of this custom, was an order of the Lord to Moses, upon numbering the people; that everyone that was twenty years of age and upwards, should give half a shekel as atonement money, or as a ransom for his soul; which was to be disposed of for the service of the tabernacle, (Exodus 30:12-16) . This does not appear to have been designed for a perpetual law, or to be paid yearly; nor even whenever the number of the people was taken, but only for that present time: in the time of Joash king of Judah, a collection was set on foot for the repair of the temple; and the collection of Moses in the wilderness, was urged as an argument, and by way of example; nor is any mention made of the half shekel, nor was any sum of money fixed they should pay; but, according to the account, it was entirely free and voluntary. In the time of Nehemiah, there was a yearly charge of the "third" part of a "shekel", for the service of the temple; but this was not done by virtue of a divine order, or any law of Moses, with which it did not agree; but by an ordinance the Jews then made for themselves, as their necessity required. Aben Ezra F11 indeed says, that this was an addition to the half shekel. Now in process of time, from these instances and examples, it became a fixed thing, that every year an half shekel should be paid by every Israelite, excepting women, children, and servants, towards defraying the necessary charges of the temple service, and this obtained in Christ's time. There is a whole tract in the Jewish Misna, called Shekalim; in which an account is given of the persons who are obliged to pay this money, the time and manner of collecting it, and for what uses it is put: and so it continued till the times of Titus Vespasian, who, as Josephus says F12, laid a tax of two drachms, the same with the half shekel, upon the Jews; and ordered it to be brought yearly into the capitol at Rome, as it used to have been paid into the temple at Jerusalem. We need not wonder that we hear of receivers of the half shekel at Capernaum; since once a year, on the "fifteenth" of the month Adar, tables were placed, and collectors sat in every city in Judea, as they did on the "twenty fifth" of the same month, in the sanctuary F13. The value of the half shekel, was about "fifteen pence" of our money. The Syriac version renders the word here used, "two zuzim of head money": now a "zuz" with the Jews, answered to a Roman penny, four of which made a "shekel" F14; so that two of them were the value of an half "shekel"; it is further to be observed, that shekels in Judea, were double the value of those in Galilee, where Christ now was: five "shekels" in Judea, went for ten in Galilee, and so ten for twenty F15. The receivers of this money

came to Peter;not caring to go to Christ himself; but observing Peter a forward and active man

among his disciples, they applied to him; or rather, because he had an house in this place, at which Christ might be:

and said, doth not your master pay tribute?or the "didrachms", the half "shekel" money. Had this been the Roman tribute, the reason of such a question might have been either to have ensnared him, and to have known whether he was of the same mind with Judas, of Galilee, that refused to pay tribute to Caesar; or because they could not tell whether he was reckoned as an

inhabitant, or citizen of that city; for, according to the Jewish canons F16, a man must be twelve months in a place, before he is liable to tribute and taxes; or because they might suspect him to be exempted, as a doctor, or teacher for the Jewish doctors, wise men, and scholars, were freed from all tribute and taxes F17 even from the "head money", the Syriac version here mentions; and which was a civil tax paid to kings F18; to which sense that version seems to incline: the rule concerning wise men or scholars, is this F19.

``They do not collect of them for the building a wall, or setting up gates, or for the hire of watchmen, and such like things; nor for the king's treasury; nor do they oblige them to give tribute, whether it is fixed upon citizens, or whether it is fixed on every man.''

But this was not the Roman tax, nor tribute, on any civil account, but the half shekel for religious service: and it may seem strange that such a question should be asked;

and especially since it is a rule with them F20, that

``all are bound to give the half shekel, priests, Levites, and Israelites; and the strangers, or proselytes, and servants, that are made free; but not women, nor servants, nor children; though if they gave, they received it of them.''

But a following canon F21 explains it, and accounts for it: on the fifteenth

``(i.e. of the month Adar,) the collectors sit in every province or city,

(that is, in the countries,) (lk) (txnb Nyebw) , "and mildly ask

everyone": he that gives to them, they receive it of him; and he that does

not give, (Ntyl) (wtwa Nypwk Nya) , "they do not oblige him to give":

on the five and twentieth they sit in the sanctuary to collect, and from hence and onward, they urge him that will not give, until he gives; and everyone that will not give, they take pawns of him.''

So that it seems, there was a different usage of persons, at different times and places: our Lord being in Galilee at Capernaum, was treated in this manner.

College Press Harold Fowler

THOUGHT QUESTIO�Sa. Why ask Peter? What do you suppose was the motivation behindthis question posed by the collectors of the temple tax? Did theyjust happen to meet Peter during their normal collection roundsand decide to take advantage of Jesus’ presence to close*out theirbooks? Or do you think that there was something sinister in thisquery? Why not come to Jesus directly?

b. Why did Peter answer as he did?c. On what basis could Jesus claim exemption from a tax that wasrequired by God from every Israelite? Was not Jesus a true Israelite?Should He not have to pay like everyone else? Why this tax dodge?d. Maybe you can justify Jesus for not having to pay the tax, but whydid Jesus pay the tax also for Peter? Did he enjoy the same exemption?

After all, did not Jesus say: “. . , lest WE cause them

to stumble”? Did not this imply that Peter too would not ,havehad to pay, technically, were it not for the fact that his not payingwould have caused this scandal? Or, is that what Jesus meant?e. Be honest now: on a plain reading of this text, do you see anythingmiraculous in the way Jesus had Peter procure the tax money?If so, where? If not, why not?f. Do you not think that this “n~iracleo f the coin in the fish’s mouth”violates the principle that “miracles are not necessary to be donewhere ordinary means are available”? There were plenty of otherplaces where Jesus could have obtained the tax payment withoutresorting to the use of His miraculous power. What possible goodcould come from a miracle that only one person, i,e. Peter, knewabout? Or would others know about it too?g. Does it not seem to you that this concentration of the mightypower of God to find one little fish with a coin in its mouth is ayou not think it a grotesque distortion of the dignified, soberI

1 misrepresentation of what we usually see in Biblical miracles? Do

presentation of divine power, to think that God concerns Himselfwith so tiny a sum as this? God has more important business toI

I64917:24-27 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

take care of than causing the right fish with the right coin tocome up at the right time when Peter first throws his hook in!What is your opinion?h. This mii’acle, if you still think of it as such, brought no relief tosuffering humanity. Therefore, it is unworthy of God and Jesus,so it probably did not really happen. Affirm or deny this andtell why.i. In the temptation scene in the wilderness Jesus refused to use Hismiraculous power to supply His own personal needs, even asdesperate as His need for food. Here, however, we see a narrativewhich totally reverses this unselfishness, because Jesus Himselfshared in the benefit of this “miracle,” a deed contrary to whatwe see of His spirit elsewhere. How can you possibly justify theinclusion of this story in the Gospel? How can you possibly justifyJesus for doing it?j. Show how Jesus’ decision to pay a,tax He did not owe marvellouslyillustrates one of the most fundamental principles of Christianethics, described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:12-1l:l; Romansk. How many people do you think heard this conversation betweenJesus and Peter, and, consequently, knew about the conclusionJesus drew from His own premises? In other words, how manywould probably have actually benefited from His good examplegiven here of paying a tax He did not really owe, in order to keep

others from stumbling? Why did not He pay for the other disciplestoo, as well as for Peter? Would not this have been a greater example?Or were the others not involved?14: 1 - 15~7.PARAPHRASE AND HARMONYUpon the arrival of Jesus and the Twelve to Capernaum, thosewho collected the special poll tax for the upkeep of the temple approachedPeter with the question, “Your teacher does pay the tax,does he not?”“Why, yes, of course, He does!” he said.However, when Peter got home, Jesus spoke to him first, “What’syour opinion, Simon?$Who is really subject to pay customs or tributeto earthly monarchs? Their own sons, or strangers outside the royalfamily?”“The strangers,” was Peter’s reply.6 50JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:24-27“That means, tlien, that their own sons are exeinpt,” Jesus remindedhim. “On the other hand, since we do not wan1 this refusal

to pay to become a hindrance to these people so that they would beinfluenced lo think or do something wrong, you go down to the lakeand throw in your hook. Haul in the first fish that bites, When youopen its mouth, you will discover a silver coin in it. Take thal andpay them the tax for you and for me.”SUMMARYJesus and the Apostolic company had no sooner arrived back inCaperiiaum when Peter was cornered by the poll tax collectors aboutJesus’ payment of the tax for tlie upkeep of the temple. Withouthesitation Peter covered Jesus. But upon his arrival back home, Jesusclarified His own right to exemption from this payment as Son of theKing. However, rather than horrify the moral sense of the Jews byHis seeming refusal to obey God, He chose to pay the tax. By providingthe necessary money in an unusual way, He paid for Himselfand for Peter.NOTESIV. READINESS TO BE SUBMISSIVE BEYOND DUTY

A, THE PETTY PESTERING FOR PAYMENTOF THE POLL TAX1 :24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they had justreturned from a long journey north to Caesarea Philippi (Mt. 16:13)and possibly to Mt. Herinon nearby. (See on 17:1,) This culminatesa series of wide-ranging journeys outside Palestine. (See on 17:22,)The discussion of the temple tax is tlie first of two events that occurredupon Jesus’ return to Cupelnuun~, before He left Galilee for elsewhere,and there is an amazingly close connection between them.Bruce (Trtrinirig, 224) is absolutely right to observe that,

. , . though the scene (of tlie temple tax question) occurred

before the seriiioii (on relative greatness in the Kingdom) wasdelivered, it happened ulier. the dispute which supplied the65117:24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

preacher with a text. The disciples fell to disputing on the wayhome from the Mount of Transfiguration, while the visit of the

taxgatherers took place on their arrival in Capernaum. . . , Is it

too much to assume that His knowledge of what had been goingon by the way influenced His conduct in the affair of the tributemoney, and led Him to make it the occasion for teaching byaction the same lesson which He meant to take an early opportunityof inculcating by words?In the discussion of the temple tax, Jesus, the Son of God the King,magnanimously pays a tax that He does not owe, thus making Himselfthe servant of others in order not to place before anyone a temptationto sin. By forgiving Peter’s presumptuousness, He illustratesHis own rule to forgive indefinitely. Rather than take offense atPeter’s compromising answer, He mercifully led him and the othersback to that faith in Him they sorely lacked, especially in the precedingmoment of failure at the mountain’s base. Jesus Himselfavoided harsh treatment by the kindliness He showed in dealingtenderly with Peter’s lack of understanding. The lesson of the firstevent is that stumbling-blocks can be avoided by gentle considerationof others, while that of the second is that stumbling-blocks occurby neglecting this consideration, and must be correctly removed.(Mt. 18)The half-shekel (didrachrna) means the yearly atonement moneyto be collected from every Hebrew over 20 years of age, as an offering,originally for the service of the tent of meeting, and then of thetemple. (Cf. Ex. 3O:ll-16; 38:25f; 2 Kg. 12:4; 2 Chron. 24:5, 6, 9;

also Josephus, Antiquities 111, 8, 2; XVIII, 9, 1; Wars VII, 6, 6) The

one-third of a shekel of Neh. 10:32 may represent a temporary reductiondue to the poverty of the people. Though it was called an“offering,” it was nevertheless compulsory, not only because commanded,but also to serve as a ransom for the payer during thecensus-taking: “that there be no plague among them when younumber them.” (Ex. 3O:ll-16) The plague during the census ofDavid may be an example of this. (See 2 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21:27323f.l The monetary value of the Hebrew half-shekel was twoGreek drachmas (thedidrachrna) or two Roman denarii, hence theequivalent of two days’ work of a common laborer. They that receivedthe half-shekel were Jewish (Wars, VI, 6, ,2), but not publicans,because no such outcast would have been permitted to handle whatwas destined for temple service.652JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:24Because the ha~/~she kiesl the temple tax, it is evidence for theearly redaction of this Gospel. For, if the Geriieindetheologie schoolis correct to assert that “the unknown editors of our present Gospelsdealt only with problems alive in their own given congregations(Geiiieindeit), then on the hypothesis of a later date for the writingof Matthew, how are we to explain this incident where Jesus is picturedas paying the temple tax, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.?For congregations after that date this problem would no longer exist.But if this temple tax payment were a pressing problem for earlyChristians living in Judea, problem to which the Evangelist gives apositive answer, then, we have positive evidence for the early datingof the final redaction of this Gospel. Before the fall of Jerusalem’stemple, when the Christians had separated themselves from Judaism

but continued to live in Jewish territory and under Jewish religiocivillegislation, the question of the legitimacy of the payment oftribute to the temple would have become quite urgent. And, if thefinal edition of this Gospel comes from so early a date, there is nonecessary reason why the Apostle Matthew himself could not havewritten it!That this episode was never intended to deal with civil taxes ingeneral is admitted by an exponent of the Geriieiridetkeologie,

Cuininetti (Matteo, 237). He frankly notes that, if Matthew includedthis episode to illustrate not merely the temple tax question, but taxesin general, then Jesus’ desire not to “scandalize them” (the taxcollectors)is nonsense. After all, for disciples to refuse to pay taxesin general on the ungrounded pretense to being sons of the King,would be to violate Christian orders to pay taxes. (Cf. Mt. 22:21;Ro. 13:6, 7) In this case there could be no scandal based upon amisuse of one’s personal liberty not to pay, but only disobedience toa positive divine command to pay. The intention of the Lord not toscandalize the tax-collectors is comprehensible only if it is a questionof the Jewish temple tax. In fact, “the force of the argument dependson the assumption that Jesus was a son of the king for whom thetribute was collected.” (McGai-vey, Mat the~~-Mar k1,5 5) And Hewas not the son of any Roman Caesar!The same should be said of Barclay’s attempt (Matthew, 11, 188)to date Matthew around 80 or 90 A.P., hence after 70 and thedestruction of the temple. Vespasian, accordingly, enacted that thehalf-shekel temple tax be diverted from the now non-existent Jewishtemple and paid to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.(Josephus, Wars, VII, 6, 6) Accordingly, says Barclay, Matthew65317:24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

included this story to calm the nerves of Jewish Christians so theywould be good citizens and pay their Roman taxes. Unfortunately forthis explanation, the Vespasian order is not a Jewish law which hadnow been superceded, but a Roman one to which the Christians mustrender obedience. Problem: how could the Christians then justify theirsupport of a pagan without compromise of their conscience towardGod? How would this differ from incense to Caesar? A simple butadequate answer would be that Matthew was not addressing himselfto the situation in Vespasian’s time, because he was really writinglong before the Jerusalem temple was destroyed.If this tax was not a Roman tax payable to publicans at the localtax office in Capernaum (cf. Mt. 9:9), and if the half-shekel for thetemple was payable at Jerusalem to Jewish officials, then how explainthe approach of these collectors? The answer lies both in their systemand in their motives:1. Concerning the system of collection, the Jewish fiscal organizationshould be noticed, On the first of Adar (February-March in ourcalendar) it was proclaimed in the Palestinean provincial citiesand towns that the temple tax time had arrived. On the fifteenthof the month authorized money-changers set up booths in, eachprovincial town and village. At these money-stalls, after the localmoney was exchanged for the sacred coin, the tax was paid tothese money changers. Ten days later on the twenty-fifth of Adar,

these pay booths were transferred to Jerusalem and set up in thetemple precinct. If the tax had not been paid by the twenty-fifth,therefore, the payer could only pay it directly at the temple inJerusalem. (Cf. Edersheim, Lifet 11, 111; also I, 367f)Although Peter paid his and the Lord’s tax at this time, there isno necessary indication in this fact that the time of year was nearPassover, since the collectors may have accosted Peter merely becauseJesus had just returned to Capernaum, and not becausethey were open for regular pre-Passover business.2. Concerning their motives for approaching Peter on the Capernaumstreet, we may notice:a. Jesus’ official residence for the major part of His life had beenat Nazareth, so the Capernaum collectors woufd not have beenconcerned with records of His payments for the ten years Hewould have been obligated to pay at age twenty until He beganHis ministry around thirty (cf. Lk. 3:23), because those yearswere the concern of the Nazareth census bureau and money-6 54JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:24, 25changing tax-collectors.

b, However, He had changed residence from Nazareth to Capernaumat about age thirty. (Cf, Jn. 2:12; Lk, 3:23; Mt, 4:13notes) This put Him under the jurisdiction of the Capernaum

office. But since His rapid-paced , itinerate ministry kept Himon the move from place to place, it took them nearly three yearsto catch up with Him, or at least with .someone who couldfurnish correct information about His payment for this year,Further, He had been out of the country a lot recently. (See 011

Mt, 15:21; 16:5, 13; 17:1, 22,) During the six months fromPassover (Jn. 6:4) until this return to Capernaum, He had beenin town once only briefly. (Jn. 659)c. Their question does not necessarily betray any hostility, since“yes”: “Your teacher does pay the two-drachma tax, does Hemar’, $427 (2); 440; Arndt-Gingrich, 594) This may or maynot be another move to entangle Jesus in such a way as to furnishthe t em pl e.

IIIIl it is framed in Greek in such a way as to permit Peter to answer

I not?” , , OM telei didrachma; See Blass-Debrunner, Gram-

Ia basis for saying that He was not keeping the Law or supportingtimidity to approach the great Rabbi on such a mundane subject.They may have considered Peter a particularly important

lI

Id. Their approaching Peter, rather than Jesus, may evidence their

,disciple, another factor possibly contributing to the jealousy

behind the subsequent discussion of relative greatness. (Mt. 18)e. However, being conversant with Jesus’ claims to superiority tomany points of Jewish law and His disdain for “authoritative”traditions (cfr. Mt. 12:l-14; 15:1-20), they may be questioningwhether He considers Himself exempt from paying this taxtoo. Since the Pharisees and Sadducees had fiercely debatedwhether this tax were obligatory or not (See Edersheini, Life,

11, 1121, they may be testing Jesus’ views thereabout. This wouldbe their preliminary investigation before attacking Him directlyfor ignoring what was obligatory obedience to God.

Intervarsity Press, “Upholding Society's Requirements

Adult Jewish males throughout the Empire paid an annual two-drachma tax, based on Exodus 30:13-16, for the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple (compare E. Sanders 1992:156). Even in Matthew's day, (probably) after the temple was destroyed, this tax remained important: after 70, the Romans required all Jewish people (including Jewish Christians maintaining allegiance to their Jewish heritage) to pay that tax to the Roman government (see CPJ 1:80-81; 2:119-36, 160-229; Hemer 1973; Carlebach 1975). For the sake of maintaining public identification with their Jewish heritage, Jewish Christians should join non-Christian Jews in paying the tax. The principle is that we must sometimesengage in otherwise unprofitable pursuits for the sake of upholding our witness as citizens of the communities where God has placed us.

Jesus Cares About Our Social Obligations (17:24-26)

Like a good prophet, Jesus knows in advance Peter's question (17:25). He also does not regard the poll tax as binding on himself or Peter (vv. 25-26), but recognizes that the tax collectors may (v. 24). He thus does not rebuke Peter for committing him (v. 25); he wishes to avoid unnecessary cause for misunderstandings (v. 27) that might turn people away from his gospel unnecessarily (compare 5:29-30; 13:41; 16:23; 18:6). Jesus has offended (literally "caused to stumble") members of the religious establishment before (15:12-14), but this is an unnecessary "stumbling block" because it addresses one's own rights rather than the truth of God's kingdom (18:6).

Surrendering "Rights" for the Sake of the Gospel (17:27)

Jesus' point here is similar to Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 9 and 10:29-33: one should sacrifice one's own privileges for the sake of the gospel. Head or poll taxes normally listed specific exceptions who would not have to pay (for example, N. Lewis 1983:169). Conquerors subjected conquered peoples, not their own subjects, to taxation. Priests were exempt from the two-drachma tax cited here (Reicke 1974:168; E. Sanders 1990:50); so in later times were rabbis (France 1985:268). Most significant here, dependents of a king were naturally exempt from his taxes (Derrett 1970:255).

Jesus Supplies These Aeeds As Well As Other Aeeds (17:27)

The four-drachma coin probably is a Tyrian stater, precisely enough to pay two persons' temple dues (Avi-Yonah 1974-1976:60-61). Following an old Greek story, some Jewish

stories of uncertain date speak of God blessing pious people by leading them to find precious objects in fish (Bultmann 1968:238; Jeremias 1971:87). If Peter knew of such stories, the moral of Jesus' causing him to find money in a fish would not be lost on him. This is irony of a sort: the King's children can pay the tax because the King gives them the money to do so (Patte 1987:247). Jesus can take care of his people who walk close to him.

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The question put to Peter; Doth your master pay tribute? This tribute-money originally was a tax paid yearly by every Jew to the service of the temple, to the value of fifteen-pence a head. But when the Jews were brought under the power of the Romans, this tribute-money was paid to the emperor, and was changed from a homage-penny to God, to a tribute-penny to the conqueror. The collectors of htis tribute-money asked Peter, whether his master would pay it or not.

Observe, 2. The answer returned, positively and suddenly. He does pay. Peter consults not first with our Saviour, whether he would pay it; but knowing his readiness to render to all their due, he says, Yes. There was no truer paymaster of the king's dues, than he that was King of Kings. He preached it, and he practised it: Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

Yet Observe, 3. Our Saviour insinuates his own exemption, privilege, and freedom form paying this tribute-money, as he was the Son of God, the Universal King; subjects pay tribute, but king's children are free. Though Christ was free from paying tribute by a natural right, yet he would not be free by a voluntary dispensation.

Therefore Observe, To prevent all scandal and offence, he works a miracle, rather than the tribute money should go unpaid. Whether Christ by his almighty word created this piece of money in the mouth of the fish, (which was half a-crown for himself and St. Peter, who had a house in Capernaum, and was there to pay his poll) or whether Christ caused the fish to take up this piece of money at the bottom of the sea, is not necessary to enquire, nor possible to determine. Our duty is, reverentially to adore that Omnipotent Power, whcih could command the fish to be both his treasurer to keep his silver, and his purveyor to bring it to him.

2. Industriously to imitate his example, in shunning all occasions of offence, especially towards those whom God has place in sovereign authority over us.

Observe lastly, The poverty of our holy Lord, and his contempt of all worldly wealth and riches: he had not so much as fifteen pence by him to pay his poll. Christ would not honour the world so far as to have any part of it in his own possession. The best man that ever lived in the world had not a penny in his purse, nor a house to hide his head in,

which he could call his own.

25"Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

1. Broadus, “Peter s ready answer, Yes, most naturally

suggests that Jesus had paid in previous

years, and so there was no doubt that he would

pay now. The fact that Matt, records this incident without

any explanation as to the nature and design of the

contribution, is one of the many proofs that he wrote

especially" for Jewish readers, to whom the matter would be familiar.”

COFFMA�, "Peter was probably completely unaware of the dilemma posed for Christ in the matter of payment, or non-payment, of the half-shekel; but, in his quick and ready impulsiveness, he accepted the obligation for Christ and himself also. Jesus' speaking to Peter first showed that he knew what had taken place without need of any report from Peter. Only God has such omniscience; and this is therefore another instance in which the deity of Christ is implied and affirmed by all that was said and done. Where did Christ learn the skilled Socratic method of teaching by asking questions, thus drawing from Peter's own mouth the essential truth he sought to convey? His wisdom was from above, and he needed not that any man teach HIM.

Peter had already confessed Jesus as God's Son, making him a Son of the King, in the highest and truest sense of those words. The well-known fact that the children of kings' palaces were exempt from taxation was thus elicited from Peter that he might see that Jesus was exempt from the half-shekel tax. The tax was for God, the true King; Jesus was his Son, therefore Jesus was exempt. Furthermore, the half-shekel was in the nature of a ransom or atonement; and how could he who came to give

himself a ransom for all be required to pay this trifling temple tax as ransom for himself? Though Christ had perhaps paid this tax in the past (based upon Peter's ready acceptance of the obligation), he was now the declared Messiah, and to pay it then would involve some inconsistency, hence the necessity for Jesus to be absolutely sure that Peter recognized his true status of exemption. In spite of all this, and to avoid focusing on an insignificant detail, Christ paid it anyway, although in such a manner that he could never be charged with having done so in any sense of renunciation of his high office as the world's only Redeemer.

GILL

Matthew 17:25

He saith, yes…Without any hesitation, knowing it had been his master's practice; and therefore as he had done it, did not doubt but he would again:

and when he was come into the house;that is, Peter, as both the Syriac and Persic versions express; when he was come into his own house, or at least into that where Christ was, in order to talk with him about this affair, the collectors had been speaking of to him, who seems to have been alone when they met with him; however, Christ was not with him:

Jesus prevented him;saying what he intended to say, on that head; for he being the omniscient God, though not present, knew what question had been put to Peter, and what answer he had returned; and therefore, before Peter could lay the case before him, he puts this question to him;

saying, what thinkest thou, Simon? How does it appear to thee, to thy reason and understanding? in what light dost thou consider this matter? what is thy judgment of it?

of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers,or others? What is the usual practice of earthly kings, whether of Judea, or of other countries? do their own children, sons, and heirs, such as are of their own family, pay? or is it only their subjects that are not of their family?

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PRECIPITATE PARRY BY PETER17:25 He saith, Yea. On the basis of Christ’s previous practice,Peter responds correctly that He does pay. Without even pausingl o wonder whether Jesus NEEDED to present any of the offerings65517:25 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

commanded in the law, Peter leaps to the defensive and presumes

to give a positive answer. Since, in the fisherman’s estimate his Lordis a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and since the tax is obligatory for everyself-respecting, Law-abiding Hebrew, Peter reasoned, his Masterobviously HAD to pay the tax every year. Although Jesus had apparentlypaid the tax on former occasions, He had taken a positionin the meantime, a position that Peter himself had accepted, i.e.that of being the Christ, God’s Son. (Mt. 16:13-20) Now, in contrastto all previous years, were Jesus to pay the tax without explainingHis motives for so doing, He would have caused very serious misunderstandingsfor His followers, especially those spiritually-mindedsouls who could sense the incongruity of the King’s Son paying taxesto His own Father. But Peter, in his concern to place his Teacherin a favorable light with the tax people, had overlooked the relationshipof Jesus’ divine Sonship to their question. He had not thoughtthrough his own confession to see its practical ramifications for theearthly life of Jesus.And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him. Returninghome from some errand in downtown Capernaum where hehad been accosted by the census people, he was met, not by a scoldingfor his impetuous inference, but by a puzzle. Jesus spake firstto him. Had Peter intended to mention his conversation in town?Edersheim (Life, 11, 111) thinks that he would have had no intention

of telling Jesus about the conversation, since his defense of the Masterwas but another way of eliminating opposition to Jesus in its everyform. He had answered without previous permission, so he probablysensed that the Lord would not have approved his decision. Whetherhe intended to bring it up or not, the Lord anticipated it and furnishedHis disciple not only the essentials for arriving at a correct solutionto his question, but gave him additional proof of His omniscience.He showed Peter that He knew about the discussion while that disciplewas away from Him. Feel the psychological soundness of Hisapproach to a question about which Peter stood on the wrong side:What do you think, Simon? Rather than browbeat him for his wrongness,Jesus invites him to ponder a phase of normal, royal administrationand give his opinion. Simon: is this a kindly, familiar use ofPeter’s real name (cf. Lk. 24:34; Ac. 16:14), or, when addressedto him who should have been “Peter” and what this implies, doesit imply that Jesus addressed His friend as the man who yet neededto learn much? (Cf. Mk. 14:37; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 21:15-17)656JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:25, 26

C. THE PRIVILEGED POSITION OF THE PRINCE

The kings of the earth. Is there an antithesis implied here: “the

King 01’ heaven”? (Cf. Dan, 4:37; 521-23; Mal, 1:14) From whomdo they lake toll or tribute? From their sons, or from others?NOTE: toll (tdlos) is just any kind of tax, customs, duties, the

collector of which is called a teldnes, lihe Matthew. Tribute

(ke^nsos = Latin: census) is a census tax, or poll tax, payableevery year, This latter word, while a common Roman word referringto the census tax (cfr. 22:19), shows Peter that the Lordknows about the Jewish census tax discussion downtown.The question is easy because of the absurdity it involves: Toll or

tribute is tax money for the support of the kings themselves and their

sons as well. To tax their sons is tantamount to taxing themselves,like one hand paying the other. No, kings collect taxes, not from theirown sons, but from those outside the royal family, i.e, from strangers.

COKE, "Matthew 17:25-27. He saith, Yes— Peter told the collectors, that his Master would pay tribute, and consequently, made a sort of promise to procure it for them; yet when he considered the matter more minutely, he was afraid to speak to the Messiah concerning his paying taxes upon any pretences whatever. In the mean time, Jesus knowing both what had happened, and what was turning in Peter's thoughts, saved him the pain of introducing the discourse: Jesus prevented him, saying, what thinkest thou, Simon, &c.? hereby insinuating, that because he was the Son of the Great King, to whom heaven, earth, and sea, and all things in them belong, he was not obliged to pay tribute, as not holding any thing by a derived right from any king whatever. Or if, as is more probable, the contribution was made for the service and reparation of the temple, his meaning was, that being the Son of Him to whom the tributewas paid, he could justly have excused himself. Nevertheless, that he might not give offence, He sent Peter to the lake, with a line and a hook, telling him, that in the mouth of the first fish that came he should find a stater, a Grecian piece of money so called, equal in value to two didrachma, or one shekel of Jewish money, the sum required for himself and for Peter. There can be no reason to suppose, with some commentators, that the piece of money was created on this occasion; but if the fish had accidentally swallowed it, perhaps as it was falling into thewater near some other prey, one cannot forbear remarking how illustrious a degree of knowledge and power our Lord discovers in the event before us. Jesus chose to provide the tribute-money by miracle, either because the disciple who carried the bag was absent; or because he had not so much money as was necessary. Farther, he chose to provide it by this particular miracle rather than any other, because it was of such a kind as to demonstrate that hewas the Son of the Great Monarch worshipped in the temple, and who rules the universe. Wherefore, in this verymanner of paying the tax, he shewed Peter that he was free from all taxes; and at the same time gave his followers this useful lesson, that in matters which affect their property in a smaller degree, it is better to recede somewhat from their just rights, than by stubbornly insisting on them to offend their brethren, or disturb the state. Instead of strangers, Matthew 17:25-26. Dr. Campbell reads others. We postpone the Inferences on the transfiguration, and the cure of the lunatic, to the other Evangelists, and subjoin here Inferences on our Lord's payment of the tribute-money.

Inferences.—All the other histories set forth the power of Christ; this shews both his power and obedience; his power over the creature, his obedience to the civil authority. Capernaum was one of his own cities: to his host therefore the collectors repair for the tribute. Doth not your master, say they, pay tribute? All Capernaum knew that Christ was a great prophet; his doctrine had delighted them, his miracles had astonished them; yet when it comes to a money matter, his share is as deep as the rest. Questions of profit admit no difference: and whatever reverence may be challenged by the sacred tribe, who cares how little they receive, how much they pay? Yet no man knows with what mind this demand was made, whether in a churlish grudging at Christ's immunity, or in an aweful address to the servant, rather than the master.

Peter had a ready answer at hand; I do not hear him require them to stay till he should go in, and learn his Master's resolution; but as one well acquainted with the mind and practice of his Lord, he answers, Yes; Peter well knowing that he not only gave but preached tribute. When the Herodians had laid snares for him, supposing that so great a prophet would be for insisting on the liberty and exemption of God's chosen people, he repels their artifices in their own way, and tells them that the stamp argued the right,—Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. O Saviour! if thou by whom kings reign didst not withhold the payment of tribute, what power under thee can deny it to those who rule for thee?

The demand was made without doors; but no sooner is Peter come in, than he is prevented by his Master's question, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom, &c. The very interrogation was a sufficient answer to his intended inquiry. He who could thus know the heart was certainly, by true right, liable to no human exaction. But O Saviour! may I presume to ask, What this is to thee? Thou hast said, my kingdom is not of this world; how then does it concern thee what is done by the kings of the earth, or imposed upon the sons of earthly kings? Thou wouldst be the son of a humble virgin, and choosedst not a royal but a servile state; but it is thy divine royalty and Sonship which thou here justly urgest. Hence the argument is irrefragable: "If the kings of the earth do so privilege their children, that they are free from all tributes and impositions, how much more shall the King of heaven give this immunity to his only Son? So that in true reason I might claim an exemption for me and my train."

Our Saviour was free, and yet would not urge that freedom. He was free by natural right, yet he would not be so by voluntary dispensation, lest an offence might be taken. Surely, had there followed an offence, it had been taken only, and not given; Woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh! It cometh by him who gives it; it cometh by him who takes it when it is not given; no part therefore of this censure could have cleaved unto our Lord either way: yet such was his goodness, that he would not suffer an offence even to be unjustly taken at that which he might justly have denied. We may hence learn that meekness of wisdom, which will teach us to seek the interest of others rather than our own, and to consider how we may edify mankind by the abundance of our good works, rather than how we may excuse ourselves in the omission of any.

To avoid the unjust offence even of publicans, Jesus will work a miracle. What would not one of a loving spirit do for peace? Any thing surely, which is not expressly forbidden in the word of God. Peter is sent to the lake, and that not with a net but with a hook: he knew a net might enclose many fishes: a hook could take but one. The disciple was now in his own trade: with that hook he must go and angle for the tribute-money! a fish shall bring him a stater in his mouth, and that fish which bites first. What an unusual bearer is here! What an unlikely element to yield a piece of ready coin! I adore thine infinite knowledge and power, O Saviour! which could make use of the unlikeliest means, and serve thyself of the very fishes of the sea, in a business of earthly and civil employment. Thy knowledge, in penetrating into the bowels of this animal, though in the sea; thy power, in directing the very fish to Peter's hook, though thou thyself wert at a distance! how must this have encouraged both Peter and his brethren in a firm dependence on the Divine Providence!

It was not out of need that our Saviour did this: what veins of gold and mines of silver lay open to his command! but out of a desire to instruct Peter, that, while he would be tributary to Caesar, the very fishes of the sea were tributaries to him. How should this encourage our dependence on that omnipotent hand of the Saviour, which hath heaven, earth, and sea at his disposal! still he is the same for us his members, as he was for himself the head: rather than offences shall be given to the world, by a seeming neglect of his dear children, he will cause the very fowls of heaven to bring them meat, and the fishes of the sea to bring them money. O let us then ever look up to Him by the eye of our faith, and not be wanting in our dependence on Him who cannot be wanting in his providential care of us.

REFLECTIONS.—1st, As Christ had so lately spoken of the Son of man's coming in his kingdom, he here gives them a glimpse of his glory on the mount of transfiguration. We are told,

1. When and where this happened, and who were the spectators. It was six days after the former discourse before recorded; or, according to St. Luke, about eight, he taking in the day the discourse passed, and that on which the transfiguration happened; but the other evangelists only mentioned the intervening space of time. The place was the top of a mountain apart, whither he had retired for prayer, with three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, whom he was pleased to favour with the glorious vision, the lively impression of which dwelt long after on their minds. See 2 Peter 1:16-18.

2. The manner of his transfiguration. As he was praying, Luke 9:29 the glory of the Divinity burst forth, and he who bore the form of a servant suddenly appeared in the form of God, Philippians 2:6. His face as the sun shining in its strength, dazzled the beholders with its transcendant lustre, and such bright beams darted from his glorified body, that, surrounded with irradiation, his very raiment glittered, and became white as the light—An aweful pleasing sight! Happy the favoured souls who then beheld him! and yet far happier they who shall with open face behold him on the mount of God, and be changed into the same image, fashioned like to his glorious body.

3. The attendants who waited on him, Moses and Elias. They too appeared in glory, known probably to the disciples by immediate revelation, or by the conversation they heard, which we are told, Luke 9:31 respected Christ's suffering and death at Jerusalem.

4. Overwhelmed with wonder and delight, Peter, the ready spokesman for his brethren, expresses the exulting rapture of his heart, and wishes for the continuance of the glorious vision. Fain would he for ever there fix his abode, and, with a mixture of commendable piety and inconsiderate weakness, proposes to make three booths, where Christ with his celestial visitants might dwell; scarce knowing what he said through the transport of his mind. Note; (1.) They who have ever known experimentally the sweetness of communion with Jesus, and have by faith beheld some of his glory, long to maintain the delightful intercourse; for it is good to be with him. (2.) The place to enjoy Christ's visits is not in the busy world, or gay circle, but in retirement, meditation, and prayer: in this mount of the Lord he may still be seen.

5. A bright cloud, at the instant Peter spoke, overshadowed them, the emblem of the Divine presence; and from the excellent glory issued forth the voice of God the Father proclaiming the dignity, excellence, and acceptableness of his dear Son Jesus, and enjoining on them solemn attention to all his words: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. Where we may observe, (1.) That this was a repetition of what had been declared at Christ's baptism, containing the grand truth on which our everlasting hopes depend, that God is well pleased with the undertaking of Jesus, and is in him reconciling sinners to himself, satisfied with his substitution on their behalf, and therefore not imputing their trespasses unto them. (2.) There never has appeared but one person under the sun concerning whom God could fully say, In him I am well pleased, and that was his own Son. Him therefore we must hear, since only by and through him can God be well pleased with us: the infinite merit of his righteous obedience unto the death of the cross must be alone our trust; his word of gospel-grace our constant rule, his will our duty and delight. Lord, speak thou to my heart, that I may thus hear thee!

6. Terrified with the appearance of the Divine Majesty, and trembling at the voice of God, the disciples prostrated themselves on the earth in silent adoration, conscious of their own vileness, and afraid to lift up their eyes before the holy Lord God. But Jesus kindly approached and quieted their fears, encouraged them to arise, and bid them not be afraid; the voice which they had heard was not that of an angry God, but of the Father of mercies; not speaking out of the thick darkness, as on Mount Sinai, the demands of an inexorable law, but, out of the bright cloud of Gospel light and love, publishing salvation, and pointing them to a Redeemer. Note; (1.) It is through the infinite merit of Christ alone that we can with boldness approach the throne of God. (2.) Jesus is the comforter of his afflicted people; and when we are dismayed under what we feel or fear, and ready to sink down in despair, his words of consolation revive our drooping heads, and embolden us to look up.

7. Rising at the command of Jesus, when they looked around the vision had disappeared, and Moses and Elias were gone. Jesus however still remained with them in his usual form, as before the transfiguration. Note; If Christ remain with us, we can easily rest content with the loss of any thing besides.

8. He charged them as they came down from the mount, to take no notice of the vision they had seen, but reserve it till his resurrection from the dead, when that would add credibility to their report, which now, considering the state of sufferings which was before him, might be disbelieved and rejected.

9. A difficulty arose in the disciples' minds; revolving what had passed; the short stay that Elias made; and the injunctions of secrecy laid upon them; why it should be so often inculcated by the scribes that Elias must first come, publicly ushering in the appearing of the Messiah; and this question they begged their Master to resolve: which he does to their full satisfaction. He tells them, it was true that Elias must be the forerunner of the Messiah, as was prophesied, Malachi 4:5-6 and by his preaching restore all things, preach the doctrine of repentance, and direct the people to him who comes to make all things new. But this had already been fulfilled; there had appeared one in the spirit and power of

Elias, whom they knew not as the person meant by the prophesy; and him the scribes and Pharisees in general had rejected, and treated with contempt: and Herod had murdered him. And as they had persecuted to death the messenger, so would they deal by the Master, that Son of man, whose way he was sent to prepare, who would suffer the like indignities, cruelty, and death itself, by their hands: Note; (1.) When we do not thoroughly understand any passage of Scripture, we must go to Christ on our knees, and shall find prayer the best means of arriving at all necessary truth. (2.) If we be treated with insult and cruelty by the world, let it not be thought strange; we are compassed with a great cloud of witnesses who have trod the way before us. Lastly; the disciples now understood clearly what he meant, and that John the Baptist was the person to whom he pointed; and from the fulfilment of the prophesy in him, they received a fresh confirmation of their faith in Jesus, as the Christ.

2nd, The next day, when Jesus, with the three disciples, returned from the mountain to the rest of their company and the people who waited for him, he found his presence greatly needed, and opportunely arrived to give a fresh display of his power and mercy.

1. An afflicted father addresses him on his knees, in behalf of his only son, possessed with a devil, a lunatic, and frequently seized with epileptic fits, in which he fell into the fire or water, which-ever he chanced to be near, to the great hazard of his life. In the absence of Christ he had applied in vain to the disciples, who were unable to cast out the evil spirit; so that, unless Jesus could help, the case was desperate. Note; (1.) Tender parents suffer in every pang which their children feel. (2.) Under all their diseases of body or soul, we must carry our children's miseries to Jesus, and at least commend them in prayer to him, when every other means and method fail.

2. Christ compassionates the case, and bids the patient be brought to him; but he directs a sharp rebuke to that perverse and faithless generation the Scribes and Pharisees, and the people, who probably insulted the disciples on their failing in attempting the cure, and imagined this was a case which would baffle the Master's skill. Justly he upbraids them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, after all the miracles that he had wrought before them; and well might he refute any longer to bear with their perverseness. Yet his patience waits, and he will give them fresh instances of his power, that at least they may be inexcusable in their rejecting him. Note; (1.) Nothing is so provoking to the Redeemer, as the perverseness and unbelief of those, to whom he has long vouchsafed the means of grace. (2.) Men's wickedness will not prevent the exercise of Christ's goodness; and if this lead them not to repentance, it will heap up wrath upon them against the day of wrath.

3. Jesus with a word dispossessed the devil, and the child immediately received a perfect cure. Before his authoritative command, Satan fell a vanquished foe; and by the word of Jesus, the sword of the Spirit, and the shield of faith, shall we still triumph over the powers of darkness, and see the arch enemy of our souls bruised under our feet.

4. The disciples took the first opportunity, when alone, to inquire of their Master why they had failed in attempting the cure, and dispossessing the evil spirit; being concerned perhaps for their reputation among the people, or fearful left they had provoked the Lord to withdraw that miraculous power which he had once bestowed upon them. Note; When

we see ourselves baffled in contending with the powers of evil, it becomes us seriously to inquire how we came to fail, and by what means the fault may be amended.

5. Christ gives them a full answer: it was their unbelief which prevented the cure. While the multitude in general were utterly faithless, they were culpable in a lesser measure; for though they were not utterly destitute of faith, they had at this time failed in the exercise of it. For, else, the least measure of this miraculous faith, possessed and exerted, was sufficient to remove the mountain now before them, and to do whatever else should be needful to confirm the truth of their mission, and to promote the glory of God and the good of mankind, however to human view impossible: but this faith must be the fruit of earnest prayer and fasting, the means appointed of God for obtaining it. Some refer the words, this kind, not to faith, but to the devils, supposing some more difficult to be dispossessed than others, and considering this as another reason why they could not succeed. See the critical notes. Note; (1.) Whenever we fail in duty, and are foiled in temptation—to this we must ever ascribe it, it is because of our unbelief. (2.) Though we may not be classed with unbelievers, yet have we daily cause to lament the weakness of our faith. (3.) The faith of miracles has ceased; we cannot now say to this mountain, remove: but it is as great an instance of divine power, and requires as real an exercise of divine faith, to remove the mountains of guilt and corruption. And, blessed be the Lord, this faith remaineth in all the faithful people of God.

3rdly, While they were journeying through Galilee, in their return to Capernaum, we are told,

1. That Jesus again took occasion to remind his disciples of the sufferings to which he must be delivered up through the treachery and malice of wicked men, who, thirsting for his blood, would murder him by the most cruel and ignominious death. See Luke 24:7. But for their comfort he added, that on the third day he should rise again.

2. His disciples appeared exceeding sorry, and deeply affected with what he told them. They did not understand what his rising again meant, and then all the rest appeared dark and dismal, and utterly contradictory to those opinions of the Messiah which they had entertained. Note; Through the darkness of our minds we suffer, needlessly, many a gloomy hour under afflictive providences. We do not look to their end, or understand how all these things are working together for our good: if we did, we should be always rejoicing.

4thly, The tribute mentioned Matthew 17:24, &c. was probably the half shekel, about fifteen pence in value, which every Jew, above twenty years of age, paid annually to the temple for the maintenance of the service. See the notes.

1. The collectors of this tax applied to Peter, at whose house, probably, Jesus abode when at Capernaum, Chap. Matthew 8:14 to know if his Master did not pay the usual tribute. And Peter, not doubting his Master's readiness to comply with the established law, answered in the affirmative.

2. Jesus prevented him, as he came to speak to him of the matter, with a question which

shewed his omniscience, as being acquainted with the purpose of his coming, and the right he had to exemption, had he chosen to plead his privilege. Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? The answer was obvious: and Peter instantly replied, such taxes could be exacted from none but strangers, since to tax their own children would be absurd and useless. Then, said Jesus, are the children free; and consequently I, who am the Son of God, for the service of whose temple this tribute is levied, am excused from the payment of it. Nevertheless he waves his right, though so poor as to be unable, without a miracle, to furnish the pittance demanded; and, to avoid the appearance of offence to those who, not knowing his character, might be led to esteem him, if he had refused to pay, a despiser of the temple, and thereby might be prejudiced against his doctrine, he orders Peter to go to the sea, and baiting his hook, to take up the first fish which came to it, in the mouth of which he would find a stater, a piece of money of the value of a Jewish shekel, which would just suffice to pay for both, and remove all occasion of offence. We may learn hence, (1.) The divine perfections which shone forth in Jesus during his humiliation. All creatures are under his controul, and subservient to his pleasure: he is acquainted with all that passes in the heart of man and in the depths of the sea; thus, even when in the form of a man, shewing still his divine power and Godhead. (2.) If Christ paid tribute, and submitted to the existing powers, who can plead a right to exemption? (3.) In many cases it is a Christian's duty to wave his title to what may be strictly his due, and even to suffer in his secular interests, rather than give offence, or prejudice any against the Gospel. We shall in the end be no losers by such self-denial. (4.) When Christ would work a miracle, Peter must use the appointed means; for it is in the way of diligence in duty, not in sloth, that we can expect a divine interpolation in our behalf. (5.) When Christ could have furnished all his wants for ever, he chose just a sufficiency for the present emergence, and depended for a subsistence afterwards, in the ordinary way; to teach us, if we have enough for to-day, to trust God for the morrow.

PETT, "‘He says, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke first to him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?” ’

As they expected Peter did say ‘Yes’. He knew of no reason why Jesus as a good Jew should be exempt, and probably knew that He had paid it without demur in previous years. But Jesus then challenges his assumption and makes him stop and think. He asks him who should pay tribute to a king. Should it be his sons, or should it be those outside the family?

‘The kings of the earth.’ Compare Psalms 2:2. Even the non-Davidic kings do not expect their own families to pay taxes. How much less then will the Father of the Davidic King expect it of His Son ‘The Anointed One’ (‘You are My Son’).

26"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him.

College Press Harold Fowler

THE PROPER PREROGATIVE OFA POTENTATE’S POSTERITY17:26 And when he said, From strangers, he had answered correctly,but Jesus must make His real point, using the half of theanswer that Peter omitted: Therefore the SO�S are free. Two reasonsprohibit our seeing in the plural soizs any application of His principleto the disciples, or even properly to Peter:1. The essence of the argument does not depend upon whether theroyal family is represented by one son or by several, since thecontrast is between those who are members of the royal family,hence exempt, and those who are not, hence obligated to pay.(Plummer, Matthew, 245)2. The question raised by the collectors is not whether Peter, or theTwelve, pay, but whether Jesus Himself does. It is nowhere doubtedthat the disciples are liable. In fact, all God-fearing Hebrews were“sons of God” in this secondary sense (cf. Hos. 1 : l O ; Isa. 43:6),but the very law in question rendered none so bound to pay thistax as they.So the plural sons does not consider Peter and Jesus together as“sons of God’s Kingdom,” Jesus as God’s true Son; Peter, His65717:26 THE GOSPEL OF MARK

disciple, a true “son of the Kingdom.” In fact, what was Jesus implyingin His conclusion about the exemption?1. The tax money in question was designated for the service of thetemple, the house of the true King of Israel, God Himself. Josephus

(Antiquities XVIII, 9, 1) affirms that Jesus’ contemporaries consideredthis tax as offered to God.2. Both God and Peter had confessed Jesus to be “the Son of theliving God.” (16:16; 17:s)3. If He is the Son of God, the King and Owner of the temple, thenthe tax destined for its service does not apply to Him. Should Hecontribute tax money to His own Father’s house? (Cf. Jn. 2:16)Why should He weaken His title as “Son of God,” or appear todisown it by acting in a manner out of character with its dignity?If this is all Jesus said about His own exemption, then we mayadmire His kindness in not exulting over Peter’s wrong thinking,by saying: “So, you see, Simon, how WRONG you were to commitme to pay taxes I do not even owe?” He just gently draws out theimplication and lets Peter think it over and see the obvious conclusions.This is the face value of His little puzzle, but consider theunstated, but nonetheless indisputable, magnitude of these implications:1. In His attitude, God’s Son towers above the Temple of JavCh andthe Mosaic legislation that collected half-shekels for its service.

Indeed, “something greater than the temple is here!” (Mt. 12:6)He challenges His obligation to pay this tax only for Himself, becauseall those who were not sons in the unique, unshared senseof His Sonship, were still liable.2. Without any preamble or a word of explanation from Peter, Jesusled him around a veritable labyrinth of theological speculationabout whether the Messiah, as typical Hebrew, should offer sacrifices,and, by means of a simple illustration, pointed out the rightsolutioh. Only One with,the certainty of Heaven could keep it thatsimple, that true and that conclusive. If He were not the Son ofGod in the highest sense of that word, even His conclusion, sorich in implications, is blasphemy, and He would have no choicebut to pay the tax like everyone else.3. Another reason for not submitting to the tax, which could havelaid before the disciples, is based on one of the purposes of the tax.It served as a ransom for the souls of the individuals being counted658JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:26, 27in the ceiisus, (Ex. 30:11-16) How could He who is the Godappointed

ransoiii for all inen somehow be thought to need araiisoiii for His own life? To admit obligation at this point wouldcast doubt 011 His true relation to God and to all other humanbeings.

GILLMatthew 17:26

Peter saith unto him…The Vulgate Latin reads, "and he said": and so the Ethiopic, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel; but without doubt Peter is meant, and rightly expressed; whose answer to Christ's question is,

of strangers:meaning not foreigners, or such who formerly belonged to other nations, but were now taken captive, and brought into subjection; but their own native subjects, so called, in distinction from their domestics, their children, and those of their own family:

Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free;from paying custom, tribute, and taxes, and leaves Peter to make the application; and which he suggested might be made, either thus: supposing it was a civil tax, that since he was the son of David, king of Israel, was of his house and family, and heir apparent to his throne and kingdom; according to this rule, he must be exempt from such tribute: or, thus; taking it to have respect to the half shekel, paid on a religious account, for the service of the temple worship; that since he was the Son of the King of kings, for the support of whose worship and service that money was collected; and was also the Lord and proprietor of the temple, and greater than that, he might well be excused the payment of it.

27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the

lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Was this a miracle, or was it a case of Jesus having knowledge that nobody else could have of that fish carrying a coin in its mouth? The miracle might be that Peter would catch this very fish the first cast of his line. It all borders on miracle, but it could be a case of special providence with Jesus having uncanny knowledge.

COFFMA�, "In paying that temple tax, Jesus did so out of charity and good will, not out of obligation. Trench wrote:

Christ was a Son over his own house, not a servant in another's; the head of the Theocracy, not one of its subordinate members - so that it was TO HIM in his Father that offerings were to be made, not FROM HIM to be received.[8]

Christ's submission to this tax reminds one of his request for baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. There, he might likewise have claimed an exemption, which fact John strongly affirmed, but he did not claim it. It was his perfect observance of all obligations and, as in the case here, his going beyond all true obligations in order to do that which was becoming, thus leaving no cause for offense, that enabled him to say that he had come to "fulfill" the law and the prophets. Born under the law, he came not to destroy, but to fulfill, its every provision in the most perfect and exacting sense.

The miracle of the coin in the fish's mouth does not appear to be one of outright creation, but rather one of absolute and perfect control over all things in nature. The existence of a fish with a coin in its mouth, which it had swallowed and was too large to go down, is not hard to understand. There have been many examples similar to this; and Wilson tells of a cod caught with a watch in its stomach, and the watch was still running![9] The miracle is seen in the absolute power and knowledge of the Master who directed the fish to Peter's hook and at the precise moment required. Trench wrote:

We see here, as at Jonah 1:17, that in the lower spheres of creaturely life, there is unconscious obedience to him; that these also are not out of God, but move in him,

and are, without knowing it, for grace or for judgment, the active ministers of his will.[10]

�ote also that Christ never touched the money. There is no evidence that he ever did. On the occasion of the question about the tribute money, he said, "Show me the tribute money!" Money was apparently something that others touched, but not the Saviour.

[8] Richard C. Trench, �otes on the Miracles (Westwood, �ew Jersey: Fleming H. Revell, 1953), p. 409.

[9] A. Lukyn Williams, op. cit., p. 181.

[10] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 164.

PETT, "Verse 27

“But, lest we cause them offence, you go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up, and when you have opened his mouth, you will find a shekel, that take, and give it to them for me and you.”

Thus Jesus is presenting Peter with a dilemma, for if what Jesus says is true, He Himself should not pay the Temple tax, and nor should Peter. But He is not desirous of making an issue of it, thereby causing offence, so He arranges to pay it in such a way that it is clear to Peter that it is not strictly He Who is paying it. And He does this by paying it out of His Father’ treasury. The treasures of the sea are God’s for the fish have no ruler over them (Habakkuk 1:14). And it is out of the abundance of the seas that the sacrifice of righteousness is offered (Deuteronomy 33:19). Thus by arranging to pay the Tax out of the fishes mouth Jesus evidences to Peter that He is the Son of God, because He pays the tax with His Father’s own money, while at the same time paying the tax, not as tribute, but as an offering of righteousness. Thus to all who know of this His Sonship is made clear.

Others have suggested that the idea is that money found by Peter belonged to Peter, thus if Peter paid both taxes with the coin he found then Jesus had not been involved in paying the tax. But this seems somewhat devious.

‘Cause offence.’ Or ‘cause to stumble’. The idea may be that it will be putting the collectors in difficulties, so that they would have to appeal to Jerusalem, and then put pressure on Him as the Son of God. Thus as a result of His action they would be caught up in sin, and that was something that He did not want.

This is the only place in the �ew Testament where fishing takes place by hook in order to catch an individual fish. It confirms that only one fish was to be caught. There are a number of fish in the Sea of Galilee capable of carrying a coin in their mouths, and there are a number of stories about coins being found in fishes mouths. The only reason for doubting the story as it stands is therefore scepticism. The recourse to ‘legend’ is the approach of those of ‘little faith’.

Some have suggested that Jesus was speaking jocularly and telling Peter to pay the tax by doing some fishing. But there is no real reason for doubting that Jesus meant what He said and that Peter did what He said and discovered that everything happened as He had said. It would be a test of Peter’s faith that might reassure him after his failure to walk on the waters.

This miracle is an outstanding example of ‘the gift of knowledge’ (1 Corinthians 12:8) combined with an act of God’s sovereignty. Jesus knew from His Father that the coin was there, and how to go about catching the right fish. And His Father then arranged for Peter to catch that fish. �ote that the coin (a tetradrachma) was for both, for Peter too was an adopted son of God. But the primary lesson was of Jesus’ Sonship.

College Press Harold Fowler

POWERS POSTPO�ED BY A PRACTICAL PLIABILITYAND A PURPOSE TO PROTECT PEOPLE

17:27 But, lest we cause them to stumble . . . We means both

Peter and Jesus, because the former had rashly taken a position thatcommitted the other to pay. So both would be involved in any scandalcaused by Jesus’ refusal to pay it now. The collectors of the halfshekelwould not have understood Jesus’ divine right not to pay.Unless convinced of His deity, they would have interpreted His properrefusal to pay as claiming a liberty He did not truly possess and asevidence of a lack of reverence for God, the temple and the Law,and they would have been unnecessarily horrified, whereas therewas no Hebrew in all the history of Israel that ever had a higher,more intelligent regard for God and His will.THE ASTOUNDING QUESTION ARISING OUT OF THISINCONGRUITIES DID JESUS HAVE TO ENDUREAS A HUMAN BEING?”SITUATION IS: “HOW MANY OTHER INDIGNITIES ANDDoes this section furnish an answer to the question whetherJesus attended the feasts, offered the sacrifices, and generallyrespected every other requisite of God’s Law given through Moses?

May we conclude, on the basis of what He reveals about Himselfand His policy in this incident, that it was His normal practice to do

everything that it was right for a Hebrew to do? (Mt. 3:15)1. He had been born under the law to redeem those who were underthe law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Gal.

4:4, 5) There was no intrinsic need for Him to be circunicized(Lk. 2:21) or purified (Lk. 2:22f), except “to perform everything

according to the law of the Lord” (Lk. 2:39). Is the temple tax

question but a tip of the iceberg of legal obligations which Jesusmade it His standard policy to respect?65917:27 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

2. The changes in OT legislation, that Jesus taught would go intoeffect after His death had set aside the old covenant. (Heb.9:15-17; Col. 2:13, 14; Eph. 2:14f) Examples:a. The distinction between clean and unclean meats (Mt. 15:ll;b. The centralized place of worship (Jn. 4:21-24)c. To what extent did He participate in Passovers without offeringsacrifices and sharing in the meals? (Jn. 2:13-23; Lk.22:l.S; cf. 1 Co. 10:18)

The Bible does not positively say whether Jesus did or did notoffer animal sacrifices-even as thank-offerings to God forHis goodness. Nevertheless, simple silence on this question is nota positive argument. Rather, His refusal to offer sacrifices withoutaccompanying His refusal with appropriate explanations toHis contemporaries would have caused far more scandal thanHis refusal to pay the temple tax! For Him to have offered suchsacrifices in the temple when not obligated to do so and whenfully aware of the temporary character of the Mosaic systemwould not have contravened His deity, any more than paying theransom involved in the temple tax would have disproven Hisright to be the Redeemer, any more than submission to John’sbaptism would have proven Him sinful merely because one of theprimary purposes of that rite was “the forgivenss of sins.” (Mk.1:4; Lk. 3:3)3. There is no warrant for affirming that Jesus and the Apostleshad never paid the temple tax during the three preceding years

of His ministry, as if Peter hurried anxiously to get a ruling fromJesus on the matter. Such anxiety would have been psychologicallyimpossible, if a precedent had already been established. Butthere is no textual indication that Peter was anxious for a rulingor that he even wanted to talk about it. Jesus’ anticipation ofPeter’s mentioning the tax conversation can be interpreteddifferently, not as anxiety on Peter’s part, but as urgency on theLord’s part. The Lord desired to furnish Peter additional proofof His Sonship to God. It is better to assume that Peter wellknew that the Lord paid every year, for the simple reason that,had He not done so, Peter could not have truthfully answered“Yes” regarding a yearly tax. Also, would not the Apostles havealready questioned Jesus about His non-payment and alreadyreceived the information just now revealed fo them in out text?If we rightly object that Jesus did not have to subject Himself to theMk. 7:19)

660

JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:27indignities of offering animal sacrifices required of other Hebrews,we still have not positively affirmed that He did not actually offer

them. In an exquisite passage rich in insight, Bruce (Traiiiing,217ff) observes:Surely, iii a life containing so many indignities and incongruities,-which was, in fact, one grand indignity from beginningto end,-it was a sinall matter to be obliged to pay annually,for the benefit of the temple, the paltry sum of fifteenpence!He who with marvellous patience went through all the rest,could not possibly mean to stumble and scruple at so trifling

a matter . . . He wished them to understand . . , that it was not

a thing of course that He should pay, any more than it was athing of course that He should become a man, and, so tospeak, leave His royal state behind and assume the rank of apeasant: that was an act of voluntary humiliation, forming oneitem in the course of humiliation, to which He voluntarily submitted,beginning with His birth, and ending with His deathand burial.For our magnanimous Lord, the dilemma was easy to resolve: torefuse to pay, merely to prove a point for some, would cause othersto stumble and cost the salvation of some precious souls, but to paywhen under no obligation to so do, costs exactly one didrachrna and

He could teach His disciples deference! So He paid, and in so doingHe did not violate either His own freedom or the conscience of others.Rather, by submitting, He demonstrated his majesty. Lest we causethem to stumble, expresses Jesus’ concern for the weak and ignorant.(See oil 18:12, 13.) By His example He instructs all disciples not toabuse their freedom and to be sensitive to unbelievers, refrainingfrom unnecessarily offending those who could be positively influencedto accept the Gospel. Although we cannot permit or refuse complianceto a thing on any other grounds, we cannot refuse on thisone. The requirement wholly uncalled for in Jesus’ case He foundabsolutely irresistible on the ground of others’ weakness. AlthoughHe was exempt from the tax because of Who He was, His interestwas not in exercizing His proper prerogatives, but in helping to protectothers from stumbling. Jesus’ justification for waiving Hisprivileges may well have been identical to that of Paul. (1 Co. 9:l-23) To relinquish one’s own undeniable, inalienable personal rightsfor the good of others is true self-denial and the story of Jesus’ life.(On self-denial, see ”The Cost of Our Salvation” after 16:28.) Behold661

17:27 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

how “though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor!” Hedid not possess one half-shekel to His name, and yet His honestywould not divert community funds for private need.3. THE PRAISEWORTHY PERFORMANCE OF THISPRINCIPLE OF PRECEDENCEHe paid by procuring the money in such a way as to furnish surprisingevidence that He really was the King’s Son and exempt asHe had said. Go thou to the sea (of Galilee just outside Capernaum)and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when

thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: take that, andgive unto them for me and thee. How would this particular choiceof miracles have impressed His fisherman-Apostle? This alone justifiesthe miracle of the coin in the fish’s mouth against all His detractors.Anyone who can either create a fish with the right coin in its mouthand bring it to Peter’s hook as the first one to bite, or else knewthat such a fish would so come, and tell the fisherman to go catchit, qualifies for temple tax exemption, because only Deity can dothat! Jesus is not the mere son of an earthly potentate, but the Sonof the Owner of the cattle on a thousand hills, and if He cannot makeuse of one small fish to bring Him a coin to fill the need, what kindof Son is He?! The moral purpose and spiritual instruction in hismiracle were aimed squarely at Peter, and indirectly and secondarilyat us. The coin itself was not n shekel, as translated in our text, but astat& a silver coin equivalent to the Jewish shekel, hence enoughto pay two half-shekel taxes.Take that, and give unto them for me and thee. Why pay for Petertoo? He was not a Son of God, hence not exempt in the way Jesuswas. However, his constant association with Jesus in His whirlwindministry may not have permitted him leisure to pay his just dues asa true Hebrew. Therefore, when Peter took Jesus’ payment to thecollectors, they might well have questioned Peter about his own taxpayment, and were they to find him delinquent, there would be anothercause of stumbling. So Jesus paid for them both to eliminateany possible cause for scandal. The money the Lord furnished, however,was not “for us,” as if both were sons of God in the same sense,but ,for me and .for yourself; the Son who is exempt and the citizenwho is not. The payments are identical, but the reason for whicheach of them is paid is different.662

JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:27OBJECTIONS TO THIS “FISH STORY”

I . Tliere is no real miracle here. Some would suggest that Jesus’reference to the fish be understood nietaphorically: “In the fish

that you will catch you will find what will pay for us.’’ Accordingly,this might mean that the fish would sell for the right amount. Andsince we are not told that Peter actually did find a coin in themouth of a fish, the confirmation of the prediction’s exact termsis missing.AASWER: Matthew did not need to elaborate on Peter’s obedienceto Jesus’ orders, the latter not being essential to the account ofJesus’ teaching about the temple tax. The fact that the miracle isnot described means that the emphasis of this story is not on themiracle, Matthew’s purpose being to teach Jewish Christians theirduty not to abuse their freedom. However, the natural impressionon the reader is that the order was obeyed and that the miracle

really occurred, This impression is confirmed by the skeptics’ ownattacks based on this impression. But to demythologize the miracleby reducing His statement to “You will find our tax money (in thesale of) the very first catch,” excludes divine foreknowledge and,in its place, substitutes simple, human probability prediction.2. It was not beyond human power to earn such a trifling sum. “Aday or two of fishing by the Apostles would have brought in enough

money to pay the tax for themselves and Jesus too. Therefore thismiracle violates the usual principle that supernatural means are notused where natural means suffice. Poor as Jesus and His discipleswere, the putting together a suni equivalent to the salary for fourworking days is not so serious a matter as to require a miracle toraise such a trifling sum,”AASWER: Natural means would never have sufficed in thissituation to prove what Jesus proved by this sign of His true Sonship,nor demonstrated that Jesus needed not to submit to thehumiliation of paying a tax for the support of the royal house.Divine power is required to testify that all nature serves HIM, andthat, as His father’s Son, He possessed all things. Admittedly,the intrinsic value of the suni is trifling, but this can never bethought the basis for considering the miracle as having been workedfor a very trifling purpose! Is it a trifling purpose to show Hisdisciples how profound was His voluntary submission to a servileobligation, despite His full consciousness of His own identity? Andis it a trifling purpose to establish that identity by choosing a663

17:27 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

manner of payment which would contemporaneously illustrateHimself “as the Lord of nature, to whom all creatures in land orsea were subject, and all their movements familiar, while yet sohumbled as to need the services of the meanest of them”? (Bruce,Trciining, 219) Even so, Jesus sent Peter to go fishing. He did notwill the fish to come to Him at the edge of the lake and drop thecoin within His reach. He made use of ordinary human means tocomplete the miracle.3. It served the personal need and was done for the personal benefitof the one who worked the miracle. “If this story be taken in itscrude literalism, it would show Jesus using His divine power tosatisfy His own personal needs. But He had decided never to useHis miraculous power selfishly to satisfy His own hunger or toenhance His prestige as a worker of wonders. (Mt. 4:l-ll) Thus,taken literally, this story violates Jesus’ own character and wildernessdecision.”A?SWER. Instead of seeming to compromise the completenessof His humiliation, this miracle only makes it that much more glaringlyconspicious, as if the miracle story proclaimed: “Notice who itis that must pay this tax and is so painfully poor that He muststoop to such a level in order to pay it! It is He who has ‘dominion

over the works of your hands . . . the birds of the air, and the fishof the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea!’ ” Psa. 8:6-8; 50: 11) So, rather than profit in such a way as to alleviate Hishuman life of hardship by the use of His divine power, He is stillteaching others the reality of His humiliation. If this seems anexception to His normal rule of doing nothing miraculous for Hisown benefit. “the exception, however, had the same reason as therule, and therefore proved the rule.” (Bruce, Trciinitzg, 220)3. The story is immoral in that it encourages man to suppose that bya stroke of good luck he can solve his problems, meet his obligationswithout exertion on his part.A?SWER: Those who accuse the Lord of solving His probIems

without exertion should consider how much it cost Jesus to placeHimself in the incongruous position of becoming a man at all. Letthem decide whether HE would have considered it a “stroke ofgood fortune” or “meeting one’s obligations in a lazy, effortlessway,” when His entire life was one grand indignity, one continuousand voluntary servanthood, from start to finish. No, the miraclestory, by its very nature and the lessons it teaches, distinguishJesus the miracle-worker from any common mortal who would6 64

JESUS QUIZZES PETER ABOUT TEMPLE TAXES 17:24-27excuse himself for effortless laziness and refusal to pay the normalprice of work for all things.

4, The iniracle is grotesque and unworthy of God: “The very idea ofusing a fish to deliver tax payments, indeed!”

AASWER: Consider God’s use of animals to do His bidding:

Nu, 21:6; 22:21-33; 1 Kg. 13:24; 17:4-6; 2 Kg. 17:25f; Ezek,14:15, and especially God’s use of the great fish to deliver Jonah!Jon. 1:17; 2:l-10. Why shouldn’t He have had to take the coinfrom the FISH’S mouth when HE could have taken it from an

ANGEL’S hand! On the other hand, Jesus did some other scandalous

things (Mi. 11:6) like going to a cross. (1 Co. 1:18-23) More

grotesque than that , . ,!

EVIDENCES OF JESUS’ DIVINE DIGNITY

REVEALED IN THIS SECTION1. Omniscience is revealed by His anticipating Peter’s recounting the

2. His consciousness of His true Sonship. (17:25)3. His considerate deference to others’ weakness shown in His unwillingnessto take offence at nor scandalize those who would notunderstand His reasons. (17:27)

4. His omnipotence was again manifest in drawing the right fish(the one that had precisely the right coin) to Peter’s hook first.(17:27) Or else, by divine omniscience He knew that the coin wasthere and that the fish would come to Peter’s hook. He knew andforetold that God would pay His tax in this way.

5. His generousness with Peter: not only did He not scold him forhis unfitting answer, but He shared His own bounty to pay Peter’stax along with His own. (17:27) God does things like this.Barclay’s note (Matthew, 11, 183f) beautifully concludes Jesus’We see here the constant demands which were made uponJesus. Straight from the glory of the mountain top, He came tobe met by the demands of human need and human suffering..Straight from hearing the vojce of God, He came to hear theclamant demand of human need. The most precious and mostChrist-like person in the world i s the person who never finds hisfellowmen a nuisance. It is easy to feel Christian in the momenttemple tax discussion. (17:25)lesson to us from this chapter:66517:24-27 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

of pray& and meditation; it is easy to feel close to God when theworld is shut out, and when heaven is very near. But that is notreligion-that is escapism. Real religion is to rise from our knees

before God to meet men and the problems of the humansituation. Real religion involves both meeting God in the secretplace and men in the market place. Real religion means takingour needs to God, not that we may have peace and quiet and undisturbedcomfort, but that we may be enabled graciously,effectively and powerfully to meet the needs of others.As noted before, the second half of this lesson will be concluded withJesus’ sermon in chapter 18.

GILL

Matthew 17:27

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them…Though Christ could have maintained his right of exemption from payment, by such strong and clear reasons and arguments; yet he chose to forego it, lest any should be offended with him, and look upon him as a transgressor of the law; one that had no regard to the temple, and slighted the worship and service of it, and so be prejudiced against him, and his doctrines: which, by the way, may teach us to be careful to give no offence, to Jew or Gentile, or the church of God; though it may be to our own disadvantage, when the honour and interest of religion lie at stake. This is following the example of Christ, who therefore said to Peter,

go thou to the sea;of Tiberias, which was near this city,

and cast an hook;a fisher's hook into it:

and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money:

a "stater", as in the original text, the same with the (arytoa) of the Talmudists; and

which word the Syriac version here retains, and was, they F23 tell us, of the same value with a "sela", or "shekel" of the province. The Arabic and Persic versions render it, by "four drachms", which also were the same with a "shekel": and so was just enough to pay the two half shekels, for Christ and Peter, and was worth, of our money, near "half a crown"; and not "nearly a crown", as in a late paraphrase is said, through mistake. This was a wonderful instance of the omniscience of Christ, who knew there was in such a fish, such a piece of money, as exactly answered the present exigence, and that that would come first to Peter's hook; and of his omnipotence, if not in forming this piece of money immediately in the fish's mouth, as is thought by some, yet in causing this fish to come to Peter's hook first, and as soon as cast in; and of his power and dominion over all creatures, even over the fishes of the sea; and so proved himself to be what he suggested, the Son of the King of kings; and to be a greater person than the kings of the earth, to whom tribute was paid: and yet, at the same time, it declares his great poverty as man, that he had not a shekel to pay on such an occasion, without working a miracle; and his great condescension to do it, rather than give offence by non-payment:

and take, and give unto them for me and thee;for the half shekel was expected of Peter, as well as of Christ, and he had not wherewith to pay it; and this Christ knew, and therefore provides for both. But why did not Christ pay for the other disciples, as well as for himself and Peter? It may be

replied, that this money would pay for no more than two: but this is not a full answer; Christ could have ordered more money in the same way he did this: it may then be further said, that only he and Peter were looked upon as inhabitants of this place; and so the rest were not called upon here, but in their respective cities, where they might pay also, and, besides, were not now present.

Clarke, “Verse 27. Lest we-offend them Be a stumbling-block to the priests, or rulers of the Jews, I will pay the tribute-go

thou to the sea-cast a hook, and take the first fish-thou shalt find a piece of money, ÏƒÏ„Î±Ï„Î·Ï Î±, a stater. This piece of money was equal in value to four drachms, or

two shekels, (five shillings of our money,) and consequently was sufficient to pay the tribute for our Lord and Peter, which amounted to about half-a-crown each. If the stater was in the mouth or belly of the fish before, who can help admiring the wisdom of Christ, that discovered it there? If it was not before in the mouth of the fish, who can help admiring the power of Christ, that impelled the fish to go where the stater had been lost in the bottom of the sea, take it up, come towards the shore where Peter was fishing, and, with the stater in its mouth or stomach, catch hold of the hook that was to draw it out of the water? But suppose there was no stater there, which is as likely as otherwise, then Jesus created it for the purpose, and here his omnipotence was shown; for to make a thing exist that did not exist before is an act of unlimited power, however small the thing itself may be. Some suppose that the haddock was the fish caught by Peter, because this fish has a blackish mark on each side of its neck or shoulders, as seems to exhibit the impression of a finger and thumb. The haddock is the gadus eglesinus. But this being a sea fish, could not be a native of the sea of Galilee or Tiberias, Galilee, and falls into the Dead Sea, which has no outlet to the ocean: no sea fish of any kind can be found there; and we may add to this, that Belzoni, a learned traveller, who examined the produce of the lake of Tiberias, found only trouts, pikes, chevins, and tenches. That it may, besides these, have some fishes peculiar to itself, as most extensive fresh water lakes have, need not be denied; but it could have no sea fish.

THE account of the transfiguration, the peculiar case of the lunatic, with his cure, and the miracle wrought to pay the tribute money, render this one of the most interesting and instructive chapters in the �ew Testament.

1. To what has already been said on the subject of the transfiguration, nothing need be added: I have given that sense to it which the circumstances of the case, the construction of the words, and the analogy of faith warrant. That others have understood the whole transaction differently, is readily granted. Some of the foreign critics, who are also called divines, have stripped it, by their mode of interpretation, of all its strength, use, and meaning. With them, it is thus to be understood:-"Jesus, with his disciples, Peter, James, and John, went by night into a mountain, for the purpose of prayer and meditation; while thus engaged, the animal spirits of the disciples were overcome by watching and fatigue, and they fell asleep: in this sleep they dreamed, or Peter only dreamed, that he saw his Master encompassed with a glorious light, and that Moses and Elijah were conversing with him. That early in

the morning, just as the sun was rising, there happened some electric or thunder-like explosions (a thing not unfrequent near some mountains) by which the disciples were suddenly awoke; that Peter, whose mind was strongly impressed with his dream, seeing the rising sun shine gloriously upon his Master, and his strongly impressed senses calling to remembrance his late vision, he for a moment imagined he saw, not only the glory of which he had dreamed, but the persons also-Moses and Elijah, still standing on the mount with Christ; that not being as yet sufficiently awake, finding the images impressed on his imagination fleeting away with his returning exercise of reason, he cried out, before he was aware, Lord! it is good for

its to be here, let us make three tabernacles, but in a short time, having recovered the regular use of his senses, he perceived that it was a dream; and, having told it to our Lord and his brother disciples, lest the Jews might take occasion of jealousy from it, he was desired to tell the vision to no man." This is the substance of that strange explanation given by those learned men to this extraordinary transaction; a mode of interpretation only calculated to support that system which makes it an important point to deny and decry all supernatural and miraculous influence, and to explain away all the spirituality of the �ew Testament. Whatever ingenuity may be in this pretended elucidation, every unprejudiced person must see that it can never be brought to accord with the letter and concomitant circumstances of this most remarkable case.

2. The cure of the deaf and dumb lunatic has been treated, by the same critics, in nearly the same way, and for the same obvious design, namely, to exclude from the world all supernatural agency; and could they succeed in this, of what value, or, indeed, utility, could the whole �ew Testament be to mankind? We might be well astonished to find such a history, with such a great variety of curious and apparently interesting circumstances:-a wondrous person, labouring, preaching, suffering, dying, having scarcely any thing in view, but a sort of merely moral reformation of the outward man! Truly, this:-

"Is like an ocean into tempest toss'd, To waft a feather, or to drown a fly."

But the truth of God's miraculous interpositions, the miracles of the �ew Testament, demoniacal possessions and influence, the atonement, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the regeneration of the corrupted human heart, please a certain description of persons, who have no commerce with God themselves, and cannot bear that others should either have or pretend to it.

3. The miracle wrought for the paying of the temple tribute money, is exceedingly remarkable. See Clarke on Matthew 17:27. which brings this particularly to view. To what is there said, it may be added, that our Lord seems to have wrought this miracle for the following purposes:-

1. More forcibly to impress the minds of his disciples, and his followers in general, with the necessity and propriety of being subject to all the laws of the different states, kingdoms, wheresoever the providence of God might cast their lot.

2. To show forth his own unlimited power and knowledge, that they might be fully convinced that he knew all things, even to the most minute; and could do whatsoever he pleased; and that both his wisdom and power were continually interested in

behalf of his true disciples.

3. To teach all believers a firm trust and reliance on Divine Providence, the sources of which can never be exhausted; and which, directed by infinite wisdom and love, will make every provision essentially requisite for the comfort and support, of life. How many of the poor followers of Christ have been enabled to discern his kind hand, even in the means furnished them to discharge the taxes laid on them by the state! The profane and the unprincipled may deride, and mock on, but the people of God know it to be their duty, and their interest, to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; and, while his grace and providence render this obedience, in things both spiritual and secular, possible, his love, which their hearts feel, renders their duty their delight. The accomplishment of such ends as these is worthy both of the wisdom and benevolence of Christ.