Commentary on The Gospel of Matthew Chapters 13–18

320 Pages·2010·1.95 MB·English

Commentary on
The Gospel of Matthew
Chapters 13–18
by
Tim Hegg
TTORAHRESOURCE • 2010
©TorahResource, 2010
All rights reserved
This book may not be copied or reprinted except by
written permission of the author.
For information regarding use of this material, contact:
TorahResource
4105 N 25th St
Tacoma WA 98406
[email protected]
Scripture quotations follow the NASB, ©Lockman Foundation,
1960, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
Table of Contents
Chapter Thirteen .......................................................................................................................503
Excursus: Miracles ...............................................................................................................552
Chapter Fourteen .......................................................................................................................557
Chapter Fifteen ..........................................................................................................................585
Chapter Sixteen .........................................................................................................................637

Chapter Seventeen ....................................................................................................................703
Excursus: The Temple Tax in the Pre-Destruction Era ...................................................742
Chapter Eighteen .......................................................................................................................753
Excursus: Hell & Eternal Punishment of the Wicked .....................................................762
Excursus: Forgiving as God has Forgiven ........................................................................806

Chapter Thirteen
Commentary
Chapter 13 comprises a number of parables (extended midraim) that
continue the general theme of discipleship, describing membership in the
kingdom of Heaven.
Many have suggested that the chapter should be divided into two sec-
tions (1–35; 36–52), but since Matthew is so fond of triads, it seems warrant-
ed to consider the possibility that the chapter is structured in three sections.
When we look for a triadic structure, it appears to be evident, as Allison-Da-
vies has shown:
13:1–9 Parable of the sower
13:10–17 Discussion of parables (+ scriptural allusion)
13:18–23 Interpretation of the sower
13:24–30 Parable of the tares
13:32 Parable of the mustard seed
13:33 Parable of the leaven
13:34–35 Discussion of parables (+ scriptural citation)
13:36–43 Interpretation of the tares
13:44 Parable of the treasure
13:45–46 Parable of the pearl
13:47–48 Parable of the net
13:49–50 Interpretation of the net
13:51–52 Discussion of parables (saying on treasure) 1
Note that each section begins and ends with a key word which forms an
inclusio for that section. While sections 2 and 3 each have three parables, the
opening parable of the sower in section 1 is the longest and therefore offers
a general balance of material for the three shorter parables in each of the fol-
lowing sections.
Further, there are seven parables in all, and once again, it appears that
Matthew has arranged them into a clearly defined structure. In general, the
opening parable of the sower describes four types of soil upon which the
seed is sown. It seems very possible that the subsequent parables offer fur-
ther descriptions of each of these four soils:
1a 1b 1c 1d 2 3 4 5 6 7
sower tares mustard seed treasure net
leaven pearl
1 Allison-Davies, Matthew, 2.371.
503
504 – 13:1–2 The Gospel of Matthew
Interpreting Parables
A particular issue which faces the Bible interpreter of the gospels are
the parables they contain. The parable has been referred to by some as a
“long simile.” It functions as a story to teach a lesson, but a story which
is not mythological or fairy tale in nature. Rather, parables are based upon
common occurrences of life with people working and acting in normal ways.
Why did Yeshua teach in parables? For several reasons: 1) because
God’s creation and nature, if properly listened to, reveal the hand of God,
2) it is good teaching to take what is commonly understood and use it as an
illustration of profound and deep truths, 3) because Yeshua intended that
those who had their eyes opened by the Ruach would understand, and those
whose eyes were closed would remain in their ignorance. This He plainly
states in Matt 13, Mk3, and Lk 8.
There are some guidelines for interpreting the parables which should
be carefully considered: 1) begin, as with any biblical text, to understand
the words and phrases themselves. This is of utmost importance. 2) Find
the main theme or lesson the parable is teaching. This will often be obvi-
ous by the final or key statement (“the moral of the story is . . .”). Too often
parables are interpreted as though they were narrative or even legal texts in
which each aspect of the story (and many that are extensions of the story) are
thought to play a key role in the proper interpretation and application. But
this is not the purpose of parables. The purpose is to graphically or dramati-
cally illustrate a main point or teaching. Most often if parables are made to
“walk on all fours,” the illustration will fail or something will be imported
into the parable which the parable giver never intended.
Usually, the pri mary theme or point is ob vious. This is what the par-
able is meant to teach. The in di vidual things within the parable cannot teach
some thing in de pen dent of the main theme or point. Be careful not to base
doc trines or specific teachings on the individual things within parables. For
instance, in the parable of the net (13:47–50), some of the fish are “evil.” This
does not mean that wherever you might see a fish in the Bible, it represents
evil! That is not the point of the story. Let each of the individual things in a
parable direct the story toward the primary theme or teaching point.
Likewise, metaphors are often fluid. A metaphor in a given parallel
may represent something entirely different than the same metaphor in a dif-
ferent parable. And this is even more true when comparing a parable with
something like Apocalyptic literature. Birds in the parable of the mustard
seed seem clearly to indicate the grandeur of the tree that is produced. Birds
in an apocalyptic text might be portends of evil, especially if they are birds
of prey. Similarly, leaven in one place may represent sin, while in another
text may stand for joy. For instance, in 1Cor 5, leaven is clearly that which is
undesireable and sinful, yet leaven in the loaves offered at Shavuot have no
such connotation. In the end, then, it is important to allow the parable to tell
its own story within the context in which it is told, and not to import data
from other texts or contexts.
The Gospel of Matthew 13:3–9 – 505
1 That day Yeshua went out of the house and was sitting by the sea. 2
And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down,
and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.
The setting is the Keneret (Sea of Galilee), and the house is most likely
Peter’s house. Mark’s version is more compact: “He began to teach again
by the sea. And such a very large crowd gathered to Him…” (Mk 4:1). The
opening words, “that day” (ejn th`/ hJmevra /ejkeivnh,/ literally “in (on) that day”)
should most likely be understood to mean “that same day.” 1 The teaching in
parables that will encompass Yeshua’s teaching here therefore connects both
with what has come before and what will follow. They graphically describe
both what it means to accept “the Kingdom” as well as what it means to
reject it.
As in Matt 4:25, the appearance of the Master draws a large crowd,
reinforcing the fact that Yeshua was very popular in His day. Indeed, the
crowd was so large that to address them He got into a boat and taught the
people as they stood on the beach. In Luke’s account, he says nothing about
Yeshua teaching from a boat, but includes the fact that people had jour-
neyed from various cities to hear His teachings, something neither Matthew
nor Mark mention. Does this imply that the phrase “that same day” was
something other than an ordinary day? Was it a day upon which the people
expected Yeshua to be teaching? Regardless, this section begins the third of
five discourses recorded by Matthew, a section generally called “The King-
dom Parables.” 2
3–9 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold,
the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside
the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on the rocky
places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang
up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun had risen, they
were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 Oth-
ers fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8
And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold,
some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.”
And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying … Parables
(parabolh,v parabole) are extended midrashim. They carry a primary message
illustrated by common, everyday occurrences.
The Parable of the Sower
The first parable is well known, and as noted above, may be a kind of
“index” marking the import of the subsequent parables. Each of the soils, as
we learn in the subsequent explanation (vv. 18ff), represents various kinds
of people, distinguished by how they receive the message of the Kingdom,
i.e., the proclamation of the Kingdom as given by Yeshua and His disciples.
Young suggests that the traditional name, “Parable of the Sower” actually
1 See the remarks of Carson, Matthew, on 13:1; Note the translations of both
the NIV and ESV, “That same day….”
2 See pgs. 9–10 of the commentary (Matthew, Vol. 1) for a listing of the five
discourses.
506 – 13:3–9 The Gospel of Matthew
misses the point, because the parable is not about the Sower but about the
Hearers. He would rather that the parable be called “the Hearers” rather
than “the Sower,” and his point is well taken. 1 Yet there is something to be
said about an emphasis upon the Sower as well, for it is his work that casts
the seed. More importantly, however, the picture of a sower casting the seed
seems to emphasize that the seed would be expected to fall, not only on the
ground that had been prepared for the seed, but also upon the road and
upon sides of the field that had not been ploughed. This was not the fault
of the sower but the obvious consequence of the method used to sow the
seed. Casting the seed to the wind meant the widest of distributions with
the subsequent success or failure dependent upon the soil itself. The empha-
sis on the sower, then, is two-fold: he had doubtlessly ploughed the field to
prepare it for the seed. 2 He therefore could expect that seed falling upon the
ploughed ground would yield a crop. But he could also expect that some
seed would fall upon unprepared ground and that it would therefore fail to
germinate for numbers of reasons. Thus, the casting of the seed was done
with both of these scenarios in mind. Moreover, it is the same seed that falls
on the various types of soil, so once again, it is the condition of the soil that
makes all the difference.
and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate
them up. The Mishnah notes that in the field there were often paths or roads
that marked the boundaries of the fields:
And these establish [the boundaries of a field] for [purposes of desig-
nating] peah: (1) a river, (2) pond, (3) private road, (4) public road, (5)
public path, (6) private path that is in use in the hot season and in the
rainy season, (7) uncultivated land, (8) newly broken land, (9) and [an
area sown with] a different [type of] seed. (m.Peah 2.1)
When one sowed seed at the edge of a field it would be obvious that some of
the seed would land on the path or road that marked its boundary. The birds
come and eat the seed which lies upon the hardened earth of the path or
road. It therefore has no possibility of taking root. Birds are utilized in other
stories (cf. Gen 40:17; Jubilees 11.11) as symbols of evil or of forboding cir-
cumstances, particularly birds of prey (cf. Gen 15:11; Is 18:6; Matt 24:28).
Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and im-
mediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. But when the sun had
risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. This
most likely describes rocky out croppings in the field around which the soil
was thin. As such, the seed cannot put down solid roots but rather springs
up quickly. Luke adds the note that the tender plant withered in the shallow
soil “because it had no moisture” (Lk 8:6). This amplifies Matthew’s account
of the risen sun that scorches (dries out) the plants.
Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out.
This marks an advance over the first two groups. The seed on or along the
1 Brad Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Hen-
drickson, 1998), 251.
2 The commentators debate whether the seed was sown and then the field
ploughed, or visa versa. Since Yeshua says nothing about ploughing, and
since some of the seed takes root in the “good soil,” it seems most likely
that Yeshua envisioned a sower sowing seed on a field that had already
been ploughed. See the comments of Allison-Davies, Matthew, 2.382–83.
The Gospel of Matthew 13:3–9 – 507
road never germinates, while the seed on the rocky soil sprouts but only
briefly. Here, the seed actually takes root and grows, but is eventually
choked out by the weeds. The pattern is obvious: the lifetime of the seed
increases with each example, moving us toward the climax in which the seed
on the good soil grows until harvested.
There is no need to speculate on the species of these thorns. The point
is simply that they, like most unattended weeds, dominate the area and de-
prive the seed of light and nutrients from the soil.
And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some
sixty, and some thirty. Here is the climax of the parable. Some, and we might
obviously presume most, of the seed fell on the prepared soil, took root, and
grew to produce a crop able to be harvested. But even the good soil does not
produce uniformly. Once again, any farming community would understand
this. Richness of soil, amount of sunlight per day, ability to retain moisture,
and a host of other variables would render parts of a field more productive
than other parts.
Mark (4:8) has the order as “thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold” while
Luke has “…and produced a crop a hundred times as great” (Lk 8:8). We
cannot discern a clear reason why Matthew and Mark have reverse order of
crop yield, but perhaps Matthew puts hundredfold first to indicate that the
majority of the seed falls on ground of superior quality. In other words, the
majority of the sown seed produces the maximum harvest. This would ac-
cord with Luke’s wording.
Some have suggested that these numbers are fantastic, because nor-
mally the yield in the ancient world was more on the level of tenfold. 1 Those
who take this data as true suggest that in speaking of thirty, sixty, or a hun-
dredfold, a miracle is envisioned. Others, however, contend that in Syria
seed could indeed yield a hundredfold, and this seems to be substantiated
by numbers of texts. 2
He who has ears, let him hear. The same phrase is found in 13:9, 43.
The singular form (“he who has an ear, let him hear”) is found throughout
John’s Revelation (1:3; 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 9:20; 13:9). This imperative to
“hear” what has been taught must be understood within the Hebrew mean-
ing of עַמשְׁ , sh’ma’. That is, “hearing” implies understanding and acting upon
what one has come to know. “He who has ears…” may thus be equivalent
to the oft used rabbinic phrase, “Come and hear” (עמש את, ta sh’ma’), used
to introduce a decisive quote or argument. In ending the parable with this
imperative, Yeshua presses upon the people their need to understand and act
upon the wisdom He has given.
What follows this initial giving of the parable in Matthew’s retelling is
the question of the disciples regarding the use of parables in the first place,
and Yeshua’s answer and reason for teaching in this manner. This is not
an interruption in the story but an important component in explicating the
message of the Kingdom. Even as the seed takes root only in the soil that has
been properly prepared, so the message of the Kingdom is received by those
who are chosen. The obscurity of the message, cloaked (as it were) in the
shroud of parables, brings about God’s sovereign design in choosing who
1 See Allison–Davies, Matthew, 2.385 who reference Jeremias, Parables, p.
150, n. 84.
2 Sib. Or. 3:263–4; Strabo 15.3.11; Pliny, N.H. 18.21.94–5, quoted from Al-
lison-Davies, Ibid, n. 50.
508 – 13:10-12 The Gospel of Matthew
will and who will not grasp the message.
10–12 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them
in parables?” 11 Yeshua answered them, “To you it has been granted to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been
granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have
an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken
away from him.”
After teaching the crowds, Yeshua and His disciples are together away
from the crowds and Mark adds the notice “As soon as He was alone” (Mk
4:10). It would have been inappropriate for the disciples to have questioned
Yeshua’s mode of teaching while in front of the crowds. But now that they
were alone, the disciples seek to know why He does not make plain the
meaning of His parables. It is not so much that the parable or midrash
seemed inappropriate, but that He never parsed their meaning to the people.
How were they to know precisely what His illustrative midrashim actually
meant?
Yeshua’s answer is straightforward and even abrupt: He teaches in
parables because He does not want everyone who hears His teaching to
understand it. What is required to understand and receive His teachings is
something divinely granted or given (divdwmi, didomi) to the individual. But
to those who have not been so favored, the mysteries of the Kingdom remain
just that, something undisclosed and hidden. This reminds us of Yeshua’s
words in 11:25f, where He praises the Father that He has “hidden these
things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants,”
and that it is the prerogative of the Son to reveal the Father to whomever He
desires.
What are the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (tav musthvria th`~
basileiva~ tw`n oujranw`n)? Mystery (musthvrion, musterion) answers to the Ara-
maic זָר (raz) or Hebrew דוֹס (sod) and is not taken from the mystery religions
of the Ancient Near East, but is a thoroughly Hebrew concept found in the
Tanach and inter-testamental literature. 1 Note Daniel 2:27 –
The king answered Daniel and said, “Surely your God is a God of
gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have
been able to reveal this mystery.”
Likewise, the idea that teaching should be hidden from some and revealed to
others is found in the Qumran literature. Speaking of “the Instructor” of the
community, we read:
In each case he shall decide what a man’s spiritual qualities man-
date, letting him enter the Yahad if his virtue and understanding of
the Law measure up. By the same standards he shall determine each
man’s rank. The Instructor must not reprove the Men of the Pit, nor
argue with them about proper biblical understanding. Quite the con-
trary: he should conceal his own insight into the Law when among
perverse men. He shall save reproof—itself founded on true knowl-
edge and righteous judgment—for those who have chosen the Way,
1 See Carson, Matthew on 13:11–12 who cites R.E. Brown, The Semitic Back-
ground of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Fortress, 1968).