Matthew 9:1. This sentence is the end of the narrative beginning with Matthew 8:18, and should by all means have formed a part of the preceding chapter. Compare on Matthew 10:1. Mark (Mark 5:18 ff.) and Luke (Luke 8:38 f.) relate that when Jesus had entered the boat, the man who had been delivered begged to go with him, but was sent back to tell what God had done for him. (Compare on Matthew 8:4) Passed over, and came into his own city, viz., Capernaum. (See on “Matthew 4:13”.) Chrys. remarks (Cat.), “For Bethlehem bore him, Nazareth reared him, Capernaum was his residence.” [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:2-34. Further Miracles, With Call Of Matthew, And Discourse At Matthew’s Feast. The series of miracles (see on “Matthew 8:1; Matthew 8:19”) is now continued by giving—

I. The Paralytic Healed

Matthew 9:2-8; compare Mark 2:1-12 Luke 5:17-26. The connection in Mark renders it probable that this miracle preceded the Sermon on the Mount. We have already observed that Matthew is evidently here not following the chronological order, but grouping together certain specimens of our Lord’s actions and sayings in the way best calculated to subserve his object, viz., to establish the Messiahship of Jesus, and exhibit the nature of the Messianic reign. We cannot always see the particular principle on which he groups. But in the present case Alexander has pointed out a natural relation between the events, which accounts for their being thrown together. Shortly after the miracle of the two demoniacs, (Matthew 8:28-34) occurred the raising of the ruler’s daughter, (Matthew 9:18-26) as we learn from Mark 5:22 Luke 8:41. But we see from Matthew 9:18 that the ruler came to Jesus while he was talking with the Pharisees about fasting; and that conversation occurred (Matthew 9:14) directly after what he said to the Pharisees in reply to their complaints that he had associated with publicans and sinners, at Matthew’s feast. (Matthew 9:10-13) Now this feast would naturally suggest to the Evangelist’s mind his own call to follow Jesus, which led to the feast given some time after the call. (See on “Matthew 9:10”.) But the call occurred (Matthew 9:9) while Jesus was going away from the house at which he healed the paralytic; and this was a very important, a peculiarly instructive miracle, which it was desirable to introduce. So instead of taking up at once the raising of the ruler’s daughter, Matthew first describes the healing of the paralytic, (Matthew 9:2-8) and his own call, on that same day; (Matthew 9:9) then passes (see on “Matthew 9:10”) to the feast he subsequently gave, and the conversation which ensued; (Matthew 9:10-13, Matthew 9:14-17) and thus approaches the case of the ruler’s daughter, and the other notable miracle connected therewith (Matthew 9:18-26) afterwards appending two other miracles which took place the same day. (Matthew 9:27-31, Matthew 9:32-34) We may also note (Lutteroth) an internal relation between the complaint of the Scribes in Matthew 9:3, and that of the Pharisees in v. ll, culminating in Matthew 9:34; and this may have affected the grouping. That the Evangelist’s mind should thus have worked according to the natural laws of suggestion, is altogether compatible with the inspiration of his narrative; for every part of the Bible bears the impress of human thinking, only preserved by the Spirit from error and guided into all truth, so that the inspired writer says precisely what God would have him say.

The scene of this miracle was in Capernaum, (Mark 2:1, Mark 2:12) and quite probably at Peter’s house, which might well be our Lord’s recognized stopping place. Mark and Luke, as is frequently the case, give fuller details than Matthew. Weiss holds that Matthew makes this occur on the street, and thus conflicts with Mark; but Matthew gives not the slightest hint of locality. What in the world is gained by manufacturing discrepancies?

Matthew 9:2.And behold, see on “Matthew 8:2”, also see on “Matthew 8:24”. They brought to him, literally, were bringing, a form of expression which not merely narrates the fact, but depicts it as going on. A man sick of the palsy, a paralytic—see on “Matthew 4:24”; see on “Matthew 8:6”. Lying on a bed. ‘Lying’ is the same word as in Matthew 8:6, Matthew 8:14. The ‘bed’ was doubtless a thin mattress, or a well-wadded quilt, the inner material being wool. It may have been placed in the present case on a slight frame of wood, making it more comfortable and easier to carry; but it was usually for ordinary sleeping laid on the floor; while sometimes a more elevated bedstead was employed; see Mark 4:21, R. V., ‘under a bed.’ We learn from Mark and Luke that four men were bearing the paralytic on the bed, and that in consequence of the great crowd in and about the house where Jesus was, they got on the housetop, broke through the roof, and let him down on his bed into the presence of Jesus. (Compare Edersheim) And Jesus seeing their faith, that is, the faith of the bearers and the paralytic. He was more ready to work miracles for those who had faith, (see on “Matthew 9:19; Matthew 9:28”); and where forgiveness of sins was also involved, it was indispensable that the person concerned should have faith. (Compare on Matthew 8:3) ‘Seeing’ their faith is of course a mere vivid expression for perceiving, as when we say “I see your motive.” The pains they had taken (Mark and Luke) showed their faith all the more plainly. Son, be of good cheer. Literally, Be encouraged, child, or we should better imitate the simplicity and vigour of the originalby saying, ‘Courage, child.’ ‘Child’ is the literal rendering (marg. Rev. Ver., compare Darby, Davidson), and is often used in colloquial English as an expression of familiar affection, though not now suited to an elevated style. Compare ‘daughter’, Matthew 9:22. Thy sins be—-or, are—forgiven, as correctly rendered by Com. Ver. in Luke (Luke 5:20.) The Greek verb is not imperative, but indicative, while the old English ‘be’ is used for either. The common Greek text has a perfect tense, meaning ‘have been forgiven,’ stand forgiven (so in Luke 7:47 f.; 1 John 2:12); Westcott and Hort have the present tense, which would cause the forgiveness to be conceived of as just then taking place; it is not easy to decide which form is the original text.[1] The position of the Greek words makes ‘forgiven’ emphatic. No doubt all present were much surprised, when instead of healing the bodily disease, Jesus spoke to the man thus. It seems probable that the disease had in this case resulted from some form of dissipation, such as not infrequently produces paralysis. Compare the man at the Pool of Bethesda, (John 5:14, lit.) ‘Thou hast become well; do not sin any more, lest something worse happen to thee.’ It would not at all follow that all peculiar diseases and remarkable misfortunes result from some special sin-an idea prevalent among the Jews, but distinctly corrected by our Lord. (John 9:3 Luke 13:2 f.)

[1] The perfect might have been introduced by way of assimilation to Luke 5:20 (where there is no variation), or might have been abandoned because it is an unusual form of the verb. There is a similar difficulty in Mark 2:5. We may not unreasonably think that the poor paralytic was troubled and dispirited, because he felt that his sad disease was the consequence and the merited punishment of his sin; so the words of Jesus, which surprised all the bystanders, would be to him precisely in place and full of comfort. Yet it would suffice to say (Schaff) that “the man’s conscience was aroused through his sickness,” without supposing the disease to have been caused by special sin. [Broadus, 1886]

And, behold, this too being remarkable. (compare Matthew 9:2) As to the scribes, see on “Matthew 2:4”. Luke (Luke 5:17, Bib. Un. Ver.) mentions that there were present “Pharisees and teachers of the law (the latter being substantially the same as ‘scribes’), who had come out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem.” Here was quite a crowd of critical hearers. Said within themselves. Compare on Matthew 3:9. Blasphemeth. The Greek word, borrowed by us, signifies to speak injuriously, or insultingly, to defame, slander, etc., as in Romans 3:8, 1 Peter 4:4 Titus 3:2. From this it was applied to reviling God; saying anything insulting to God, anything impious. The Scribes held Jesus to be blaspheming, because he arrogated to himself a power and right which belonged exclusively to God, viz., that of forgiving sins. This is distinctly expressed by them, in the additional words recorded by Mark and Luke, ‘Who can (is able to) forgive sins but God only?’ He who claimed a power peculiar to God, spoke what was injurious and insulting to God. Yet it is not wise to find here a proof of our Lord’s divinity; for he speaks as the Son of man, and speaks of authority given him. (Matthew 9:6-8, compare Matthew 28:18) [Broadus, 1886]

Knowing—properly, seeing—their thoughts, like seeing their faith in Matthew 9:2.[1] Mark (Mark 2:8) has the expression ‘perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves.’ The faith of the paralytic and his bearers could be seen from their actions; but to see the unexpressed thoughts of the Scribes required superhuman perceptions. Compare Luke 6:8, Luke 9:47 Mark 12:15 John 2:24 f; John 4:29. Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? The ‘heart,’ according to Scripture use, is regarded as the seat of the thoughts as well as the affections. (See on “Matthew 6:19”.) Jesus replies not only with a mild rebuke, but with a proof that he was not blaspheming.

[1] Obvious as is the meaning of this, several MSS. (including B) and several early versions took the trouble to change it to ‘knowing’; this is adopted of course by Westcott Hort (who cannot forsake B), and is unwisely followed by Rev. Version. How can we account for a change of ‘knowing’ into ‘seeing’? [Broadus, 1886]

For whether—or, which—is easier! It was as easy to say one as the other, viz., to say it with effect. Euthym: “Both were possible for God, both impossible for man.”In the case of the healing they could test the reality of the power he claimed; and from this they ought to infer that he possessed the other power also, seeing that he claimed to possess it, and that one who could work a miracle ought to be believed. They had already had many proofs at Capernaum of his power to work miracles. We are often told at the present day that Jesus always relied on his teaching to convince men, and not at all on his miracles; but here he distinctly appeals to miracles as establishing the truth of his teachings. [Broadus, 1886]

The Son of man, our Lord’s favourite designation of himself, see on “Matthew 8:20”. Power. The word thus rendered is much used throughout the N. T. It signifies primarily, permission (license, privilege), then authority, (dominion, rule, etc.), and this sometimes suggests ability and power. The word very often conveys two of these ideas at once, as privilege and power, (John 1:12) authority and power. (John 19:10) Compare on Matthew 7:29, Matthew 28:18. The Rev. Ver. has everywhere else in Matt. rendered ‘authority,’ and it would have been better to do so here, as is done by the American Revisers, Davidson, and Noyes. In this passage it is meant that Jesus has authority to forgive sins, and the power which such authority carries with it; this power is alluded to by the phrase, ‘Who can ‘, (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) and ‘Which is easier‘. (Matthew 9:5, Bib. Un. Ver.) The word ‘authority’ is in this passage so placed as to be emphatic, ‘the Son of man hath authority,’ etc. And while they naturally thought of forgiveness of sins as performed only by God in heaven, he will show them that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins. Compare the authority to judge, John 5:27. He does not proceed to tell the Scribes what he will do to prove his authority, but turns to the paralytic and lets them see. Take up thy bed. Being such as described on Matthew 9:2, a man could easily take it up and carry it. Go, or ‘go along,’ not said severely, as in Matthew 4:10, but kindly, as in Matthew 8:13; the word taking colour from the connection. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:7 f. What a moment of suspense for all the beholders—some hoping, others fearing, that the man would indeed show himself to be healed. What a thrill must have passed through the crowd, as he arose and went off. How the Scribes must have been abashed and confounded. The paralytic went away ‘glorifying God’; (Luke 5:25) we can imagine his feelings of joy and gratitude, when he found himself carrying the bed which had carried him, treading the earth in vigour and health again, yea, and with his sins all forgiven. The effect upon the bystanders at large is stated in Matthew 9:8. But when the multitudes—the crowds—saw it. ‘Crowds’ is the same word as in Matthew 5:1. They marvelled—better, feared—this, and not ‘wondered,’ being pretty certainly the correct reading of the text.[1] They felt that alarm and painful uneasiness which is art to be awakened in the bosom of sinful man by anything that seems to bring God nearer to him. (Luke 5:8; compare above on Matthew 8:34) But this alarm quickly passed into praise, and they glorified God, which had given such power unto men. (Compare Luke 5:26) Regarding Jesus as only a man, it was right that they should give the glory to God. (Matthew 5:16) And they probably did not consider this authority and power as peculiar to him, but as bestowed on men, and possible for others also. It was true, in a sense which cannot have entered into their thoughts, that what was given to Jesus was given to mankind.

[1] Superficial students and copyists would fail to see the deep meaning of ‘feared’ in this case, and change it to the more obvious term ‘wondered.’ So the internal probability here concurs with the testimony of tim early MSS. and versions.[Broadus, 1886]

Before proceeding to further miracles, the Evangelist narrates-

II. The Call Of Matthew, And Conversation At A Feast He Gave, Matthew 9:9-17

These are also described in Mark 2:13-22 Luke 5:27-39.

Matthew 9:9. And as Jesus passed forth from thence. Mark (Mark 2:13) shows that this occurred immediately after the healing of the paralytic, as implied in Matthew’s ‘from thence.’ Sitting at the receipt of custom—custom-house—(so translated in Rheims) probably the place for receiving tolls on the fishing and trade of the lake. The Romans laid taxes, as the Syrian kings had done before them, on almost everything. (See details in Edersheim) Matthew. Luke calls him ‘Levi,’ and Mark ‘Levi, the son of Alpheus.’ It had become very common for a Jew to bear two names; and probably the first readers of the different Gospels would readily understand that Levi, the son of Alpheus, was also called Matthew. (The name Matthaios, Mattai, might mean simply ‘given,’ like Nathan; or else might be a contraction of Mattijah, ‘gift of Jehovah,’ like Jonathan, Nethaniah.) It would be natural that Matthew should give only the name by which he was known as an apostle, which Mark and Luke also give in their lists of the apostles, (Mark 3:18 Luke 6:15) and should avoid, as Paul did, the name associated with his former life. Some argue that this Matthew was not the Evangelist, since he is spoken of in the third person; but it has always been common, in ancient and modern times, for writers thus to speak of themselves; and the apostle John, in his Gospel, employs elaborate circumlocutions to avoid even mentioning his own name. Luke here tells us (Luke 5:27) that Matthew was a publican, which is implied in the narratives of Matthew and Mark, and stated by Matthew in the list. (Matthew 10:3) As to the publicans, see on “Matthew 5:46”; and as to Matthew, see further on “Matthew 10:3”. And he arose and followed him. Luke says (Luke 5:28, Bib. Un. Ver.) ‘And leaving all, he arose,’ etc. Matthew does not mention this, because it would have been speaking in his own praise, which the Evangelists never do. (Compare on Matthew 9:10) We can account for his immediately leaving all and following Jesus by the reasonable supposition that at the place of toll by the lake-side he had often seen and heard him, and had gradually become prepared in mind to obey such a call. It is even possible that he had been following Jesus before, and only now attached himself permanently to him (compare on Matthew 4:18 ff.). At the name time we may be sure there was something deeply impressive in the Saviour’s tone and look as he spoke the simple words. (Compare John 18:6) Observe that while all of the Twelve seem to have been men in humble life Matthew belonged to a class greatly despised. The Talmud (Edersheim) distinguishes customhouse officials from other tax-gatherers, and speaks of them with peculiar hate, probably because their extortions were more frequent and more manifest. This publican Matthew and the notorious persecutor Saul, were as unlikely, humanly speaking, to become apostles of Christ as any men that could be found Yet such has been the work of sovereign grace in every age of Christianity. [Broadus, 1886]

We have now the account of some conversation that arose while Jesus and his disciples were eating at Matthew’s house, in company with many publicans and sinners. It is clear from Matthew 9:14 and Luke 5:33 that the inquiry about fasting and the Saviour’s reply occurred during this meal; and from Matthew 9:18, that the ruler’s request to come and raise his daughter was made while Jesus was speaking in response to that inquiry. But from Mark 5:22 f., and Luke 8:41 f., we see that the raising of the ruler’s daughter took place after our Lord’s return from Gadara, and thus at a much later period than the healing of the paralytic and the call of Matthew. We therefore conclude that the feast was actually given by Matthew a considerable time after his call, and that it is merely introduced by him, and also by Mark and Luke, in connection with the call, because it was natural to bring the two together, thereby completing at once all that had any personal relation to this apostle. It thus appears that all three put the case of Jairus’ daughter in its actual chronological position, and all three bring together the call and the feast, although they were really separated by a considerable interval; the difference is, that Mark and Luke tell of the paralytic and the call at the early period when they occurred, adding the feast by anticipation, and then some time afterwards introduce the healing of Jairus’ daughter, which we know immediately followed the feast; while Matthew puts the feast in its real chronological connection with the application of Jairus, and just before the feast introduces the call (which had occurred earlier) and the healing of the paralytic, which preceded the call. (Compare on Matthew 9:2) Any one who will take the trouble thoroughly to grasp the facts, will see that this view removes all the difficulty attendant upon harmonizing the three Gospels at this point, a thing which has often been declared impossible. We need not feel bound, nor imagine ourselves able, to remove all such discrepancies, but it is surely worth while to do so when practicable. If the nervous harmonizers stand at one extreme, the scornful despisers of harmonizing certainly stand at the other.

And it came to pass, the same word as in Matthew 1:22, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 7:28, Matthew 8:13. As Jesus sat at meat, etc., better, while he was reclining in the house, compare on Matthew 8:11, where the Greek word is similar and substantially equivalent. Matthew omits to mention whose house it was; probably he omitted it through modesty (compare on Matthew 9:9), or perhaps ‘the house’ seemed enough in his vivid recollection; though it is implied in the connection; Mark (Mark 2:15) and Luke (Luke 5:29) distinctly state that it was Levi’s house, and Luke says that “Levi made a great feast (literally ‘reception’) in his house.” This would indicate that he possessed some means; he seems to have sacrificed a somewhat lucrative position in order to follow Jesus. Meyer’s attempt to make ‘the house’ here mean Jesus’ own house, and thus to bring Matthew into conflict with Mark and Luke, is strained and uncalled for. Even Keim and Weiss understand it to be Matthew’s house. Behold, see on “Matthew 8:2; Matthew 8:29”. Many publicans and sinners came and sat down, or, were reclining. As to the publicans, see on “Matthew 5:46”. The Jews were accustomed to call those persons ‘sinners’ who lived in open violation of the moral or ceremonial law; and they shrank from contact with all such as polluting. Matthew’s previous associations had brought him into connection not only with publicans, but with all those other men, who, disregarding many of the prevailing religious observances, and feeling themselves to be objects of popular dislike, naturally flocked together. Luke’s expression as to the number present is still stronger, ‘a great crowd.’ Mark (Mark 2:15) mentions that these ‘followed’ Jesus, as if of their own accord. This is not inconsistent with the idea that Matthew invited them in, while it implies that the feast was a sort of public affair, which agrees with the fact that the Pharisees appear to have pressed in as spectators. (Matthew 9:11) Matthew doubtless wished to show respect to his Teacher by inviting a numerous company to meet him, perhaps asking in every one who followed Jesus toward his house. At the same time he must have had some cherished friends among these despised men, some whom he knew to have better stuff in them than was generally supposed, and to have been driven by popular neglect and scorn into association with abandoned persons; and he would hope that they might be benefited by being in company with Jesus and hearing what he said. The example deserves imitation.

Imagine the character of the general conversation at this great entertainment. We should not suppose that the presence or the words of Jesus chilled the guests into a dead stillness; that he showed a lack of sympathy with the common concerns and feelings of mankind. He was not proud, haughty, and forbidding, like many of the Rabbis, but was meek and lowly, kind and gentle, and everything about him tended to attract men rather than repel. Whatever he spoke of, it would be in a spirit marked by fidelity to truth, and yet by delicate consideration for the feelings of others. And when it was appropriate to introduce distinctively religious topics, we can see with what ease and aptness he would bring them in, from striking examples in Luke 14:7, Luke 14:12, Luke 14:15-16, and John 4:10, John 4:16. [Broadus, 1886]

It is plain that these Pharisees were not themselves guests at the feast, for in that case they would have been doing the very thing they complained of in Jesus. Probably they pressed into the house before the feast ended, in order to hear what Jesus would be saying. In Luke 7:36 ff. no surprise is expressed at the woman’s entering the dining-room, and no objection made by the host. Pharisees, see on “Matthew 3:7”. Why eateth your master (or your teacher,didaskalos, see on “Matthew 8:19”), with (the) publicans and sinners? The two nouns with but one article present the two classes as forming but one group. According to the prevailing Jewish ideas, a Rabbi, of all men, “ought carefully to avoid all intercourse with such persons.” There was not only the social objection to “keeping low company,” but the constant dread of ceremonial pollution, from coming in contact with persona likely to be ceremonially unclean; (Mark 7:4) and also that feeling so natural to man, which says, “Stand back; I am holier than thou.” (Isaiah 65:5) Accordingly, our Lord was frequently met with the objection here made to his course. (Matthew 11:19 Luke 15:2 ff.) [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:12 f. He said, the correct text omitting ‘Jesus’ and ‘to them.’ The disciples told their Teacher of the question which had been asked. They were themselves as yet very imperfectly freed from the erroneous Jewish conceptions of the Messiah’s work, and would probably find it difficult to explain why Jesus should pursue such a course. It was cunning in the Pharisees to ask them, in hope of turning them away from their Teacher. It appears from the connection, and is distinctly stated by Luke, (Luke 5:30-31) that his reply was addressed especially to the Pharisees, with whom the question had started. This reply embraces three points: (1) an argument from analogy; (2) an appeal to Scripture; (3) an express declaration that his mission was to men as sinners, and so he was now acting accordingly. In like manner Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:7, presents first an argument from the analogy of men’s common modes of action, and afterwards an argument from Scripture.—(1) They that be whole, or are strong, stout, well, compare the connection of the English words hale, health, whole. Luke 5:31 has literally, ‘they that are in health.’ But they that are sick, or ill, the same expression as in Matthew 4:24, Matthew 8:16. The order of the Greek words puts an emphasis on need not. The force of the illustration is manifest; the physician goes among the sick, and why should not the teacher of salvation go among sinners? Here is a lesson needed in every age, for we are too apt to hold ourselves aloof from the vile and disreputable, when kind and patient efforts might win some of them to better things. At the same time we must, like the physician, take great pains to avoid the contagion of the diseases we seek to cure. And if our good is evil spoken of, as happened here to our Lord, we should be careful not to afford any just occasion or excuse for such reproach. (2) The second point of his reply is an appeal to Scripture. But go ye and learn. The Rabbis frequently employed the same formula, “go ye and learn,” indicating that one needs further reflection or information on the subject in hand. This was a severe rebuke to Scribes (Luke 5:30) and Pharisees, who assumed and were popularly supposed to be particularly versed in Scripture. Learn what that meaneth (literally is), i.e., the following saying. The passage is referred to as familiar to them, while yet they were quite ignorant of its real meaning. The Old Testament throughout, when rightly understood, agreed with the teachings of Jesus. I will have (wish, desire) mercy, and not sacrifice, quoted according to the Hebrew. (Hosea 6:6) The Hebrew word includes the ideas of kindness and compassion toward men, and of piety towards God. So piety and pity are originally the same word. Hosea’s connection shows that the word was by him taken in the widest sense, but the single idea of kindness or mercy is all that is here necessary to the connection. The absolute statement ‘and not sacrifice,’ is not intended to he taken literally, but as a strong expression of preference for mercy. (Compare Luke 14:12) The idea is, I wish kindly feeling and conduct toward others, especially toward the needy and suffering, rather than the externals of religion—of which sacrifice was then the most important. So the Sept. translates, ‘I wish mercy rather than sacrifice.’ Or the passage might be expressed, I wish kindness, and I do not want sacrifice without this. The rendering ‘I will have mercy,’ which Com. Ver. took from Great Bible and Geneva, is very apt to mislead, because to have mercy now usually means to exercise St.—The mere externals of religion are offensive to God, where its spirit and life are absent. The Pharisees were extremely particular to avoid that external, ceremonial pollution which they might incur by mixing with the publicans and sinners, but were not anxious to show them kindness or do them good. Notice that it is Matthew only that records this argument drawn from the Old Testament, just as he most frequently refers to the prophecies fulfilled in the person of Jesus; this course being natural for one who wrote especially for Jewish readers. See the same passage quoted again in Matthew 12:7. (3) I am not come(see on “Matthew 5:17”), to call the righteous, but sinners. The words ‘unto repentance’ are not properly a part of the text of Matthew, but they are genuine in the parallel passage of Luke, and so were actually spoken on this occasion. Such additions to one Gospel from a parallel passage in another, are often found in MSS. and versions. This third point of our Lord’s reply is that his conduct in associating with the very wicked accords with the design of his mission,’ for I came not,’ etc. The word translated ‘righteous’ has no article. He is not speaking of any actually existing class as righteous, but uses the term in a general way for contrast. (Compare Luke 15:7) There is comfort to the burdened soul in the thought that our Lord’s mission was to men as sinners, even to the most vile. [Broadus, 1886]

The inquiry about fasting, and our Lord’s reply, (Matthew 9:14-17) are also found in Mark 2:18-22 Luke 5:33-39. Then. The connection in Luke (Luke 5:33) also indicates that this conversation immediately followed the preceding (for the whole connection see on “Matthew 9:2”). Luke represents the Pharisees, to whom Jesus had been speaking just before, as asking the question; Matthew has the disciples of John asking him, and Mark (Mark 2:18) says that both came and asked, and thus suggests a way in which many similar “discrepancies” may be explained. The questioners do not venture directly to find fault with Jesus himself. (Compare Matthew 9:11) Who are these disciples of John, who in respect to fasting resemble the Pharisees rather than the disciples of Jesus? It was the design of John’s ministry (compare on Matthew 3:1) to bring men to believe on Jesus as coming, and to follow him when he came; and he took great pains to prevent the people from regarding himself as the Messiah. (John 1:20, John 3:28-30 Acts 19:4) Yet there were some who, failing to follow out their master’s teachings, felt jealous of the growing influence of Jesus, (John 3:26) and continued to hold exclusively to John; and in the second century we find heretics who maintained that John was the Messiah. How many there were at this time who kept themselves aloof from Jesus, and were simply disciples of John, and what were their precise views, we have no means of determining. As to their fasting frequently, like the Pharisees, (Luke 18:12) it is enough to understand that they had not really changed from the prevailing Jewish opinions and practices. Even among the Jewish Christians addressed in the Epistle of James we find many characteristic Jewish errors and evil practices. It is possible, besides, that these disciples of John found encouragement to fasting in that self-denying mode of life which John pursued for special reason. It seems likely from Mark 2:18 that they were for some reason fasting at this particular time; it may have been one of their regular days of fasting, or it may possibly have been from grief at John’s long-continued imprisonment.[1]. Jerome: “The disciples of John were certainly to blame, in calumniating him whom they knew to have been proclaimed by their teacher, and joining the Pharisees whom they knew to have been condemned by John.”—The strict Jews not only fasted very often, but in many cases on very trivial occasions. The Talmud of Jerus, speaks of one rabbi as fasting four-score times to see another; and of a second who fasted three hundred times to see the same person, and did not see him at last.

[1] The word rendered ‘oft,’ literally ‘much,’ is wanting in B ‏א‎ and a few cursives, and hence omitted by Tischendorf, and Westcott Hort One cannot readily decide whether it was omitted to agree with Mark or inserted to agree with Luke. There is no important difference, as Matthew’s expression without ‘oft’ naturally indicates that they were in the habit of fasting. [Broadus, 1886]

The reply of Jesus is conveyed by three illustrations. (Matthew 9:15-16, Matthew 9:17) Luke (Luke 5:39) has a fourth. The children(sons) of the bride chamber. The term ‘son’ is employed, as explained on Matthew 8:12, strongly to express the idea of intimate relation to the object mentioned, but in what precise sense must in every particular expression be determined by the nature of the case. Here it denotes (Edersheim) the guests invited to a wedding, while “friends of the bridegroom” meant his special attendants. (See Jud Matthew 14:11 John 3:29) The festivities were commonly prolonged during a week. (See on “Matthew 25:1 ff.”) The word rendered can is so placed as to be emphatic: can it be, in the nature of things? And the Greek has the peculiar particle which denotes that a negative answer is taken for granted. The Talmud declares that the bridegroom, his personal friends, and the sons of the bride-chamber, were free from the obligation to dwell in booths during the Feast of Tabernacles—these being unsuited to their festivities; and were not expected to attend to the stated prayers. This shows how natural and probable, according to the prevailing ideas and usages, was our Lord’s illustration. Already in prophecy had the Messiah been spoken of as a bridegroom; (Psalms 45, etc.) and John the Baptist had employed a figure drawn from the nuptial ceremonies as setting forth his own relation to Jesus; (John 3:29) so that in answering John’s disciples this image was all the more appropriate. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken I away from them—and then shall they fast. The term ‘will come’ is so placed as to be emphatic. For “when” read whenever, which will indicate that the time of his being taken away is uncertain; this is the first instance recorded in Matthew of our Lord’s alluding to his death. Fasting is naturally and properly an expression of grief, and therefore unnatural and unsuitable at a time of great joy. Such a time was this when the disciples were delighting in their Teacher’s presence. But there was coming a time when it would be natural for them to grieve, and therefore appropriate to fast. The immediate reference is to the grief which would be felt by his disciples at the time of his death. After his resurrection, ascension, and glorious exaltation, their sorrow was turned into joy again. (John 16:22 ff.; Acts 2:32-36, Acts 3:13 ff., etc.) Yet often afterwards, and often ever since, have his followers grieved over his absence and longed for his coming again; so that the time for fasting still continues. By this illustration our Lord teaches that fasting is not to be regarded or observed as an arbitrary,”positive” institution, but as a thing having natural grounds, and to be practised or not, according to the dictates of natural feeling as growing out of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. In some situations it is appropriate and may be made beneficial; in others, it is out of place. We have no evidence that Jesus ever fasted himself, except in the quite extraordinary case of the forty days; (for Matthew 17:21 is a spurious passage) but we know that the apostles and other Christians of their time fasted upon special occasion. (Acts 13:2, Acts 14:23, 1 Corinthians 11:27) The principle here laid down cuts at the root of fasting as a regulated observance, leaving it to be done or omitted, not indeed according to accidental or momentary impulse, but according as it is most suitable under the circumstances and likely to do good. (Compare on Matthew 6:16-18) [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:16 f. Regulated fasting, though enjoined by Moses only on the occasion of the Day of Atonement (Luke 16:29), yet was now frequently practised among the Jews, and quite in accordance with the distinctive spirit of the Old Dispensation. But it did not suit the spirit of the gospel; and our Lord shows, by two homely and striking illustrations, how incongruous and injurious would be the connection with the new of what was peculiar to the old. Luke (Luke 5:36) calls this a ‘parable,’ i. e., comparison for the purpose of illustration. The parables of the Gospel are usually in the form of narrative, but not necessarily. (See on “Matthew 13:3”.) No man putteth, etc.,—literally, patches, a patch of an unfilled piece (i.e., fragment of cloth) upon an old garment. The word rendered garment is here naturally taken in the general sense, and not to denote simply the outer garment. (Matthew 5:40, Matthew 9:20) What is meant is not simply new cloth, for that is often used for patching, but cloth which has not been completely dressed. A part of the process of preparing woollen cloth for use consists in shrinking it, and a patch of ‘unfilled’ cloth, not duly shrunk, would contract the first time it should become wet, and as the older and weaker cloth all around must then give way, the result would be a worse rent. We must remember that Jewish garments of that day were usually all wool; and if unfilled, would shrink almost like our flannel. Mark’s statement of the comparison (Mark 2:21) is almost identical with this. Luke (Luke 5:36) gives it in quite a different form, though the general purport is the same. Neither do men put, literally, they, the usual impersonal expression, see on “Matthew 5:11”. Into old bottles—or, skins. The Greek word signifies properly and exclusively skins for containing liquids, such as the Orientals, ancient and modern, have largely employed. The skin is usually that of a goat or kid, which is tough and light. The head and feet of the animal being removed, the skin is stripped off whole. It is then sometimes tanned in a peculiar way to prevent a disagreeable taste, and the orifices are tied up, leaving one leg or the neck as the opening. The hairy side is of course outward. These skins are habitually used for transporting liquids, such as wine, water, milk, oil, and are admirably adapted to that purpose. Every traveller, in Egypt or Palestine, often sees them, and sometimes drinks water from them. They are mentioned by Homer and other classical writers, and in various passages of the Old Testament Both in ancient and modern times, larger vessels have sometimes been prepared of the skin of the ox or the camel. However preserved, these skins would of course become hard as they grew old, liable to crack and burst, through the fermentation of new wine. (Compare Psalms 119:83 Job 32:19) It is a mistake to suppose that the Jews had no other vessels for holding liquids than these skins. Vessels of metal, as gold, of earthenware, even fine porcelain, of stone, and alabaster, and of variously coloured glass, were in use among the Egyptians from an early period, and most of them among the Greeks, Etruscans, and Assyrians; and the Jews, especially in New Testament times, would no doubt import and use them. (Compare Matthew 26:7; Jeremiah 19:1; Lamentations 4:2) This second illustration is to the same effect as that in Matthew 9:16; just as we often find a pair of parables, in Matthew 13, and elsewhere. Both are drawn, as is usual in our Lord’s comparisons, from matters of common observation and experience. The “spiritualizing” as to what the ‘skins’ represent, and what the ‘wine’—what the ‘garment’ stands for, and what the ‘patch,’ is wholly unwarranted, (See on “Matthew 13:3”.) We have simply a vivid illustration of the general truth that the combination of the Old and the New Dispensations would be not merely unsuitable but injurious, tending to defeat, rather than to promote, the aims of the Messianic Dispensation. And in the second case there is added the positive statement, but they put new wine into new bottles, etc., showing (Meyer) that a new life needs new forms. While the principle here illustrated was introduced with regard to fasting, it is obviously of wider application, extending to everything in which the two dispensations characteristically differ; and the great mass of the Christian world, from an early period, has sadly exhibited the evil results of disregarding this principle. They would, notwithstanding this and numerous other warnings, connect Levitical rites with Christianity. The simple preacher and pastor must be regarded as a priest, and spiritual blessings must depend on his mediation, as if it were not true that all Christians are priests, and all alike have access through the one Mediator. The simple memento of the Saviour’s death must be a sacrifice, offered by the priest for men’s sins. Numerous religious festivals and stated fasts must be established and enjoined, tending to make religion a thing only of special seasons. The buildings in which Christians meet to worship must be consecrated as being holy ground, like the temple, land splendid rites, in imitation of the temple worship, must lead men’s minds away from the simple and sublime spirituality of that worship which the gospel teaches. With good motives, no doubt, on the part of many, was this jumble of Judaism and Christianity introduced, and with good motives do many retain it; but none the less is it the very kind of thing the Saviour here condemned; and with results as ruinous as he declared. It is not strange that Chrysostom and his followers (Theopbyl., Eutbym.), and Jerome, practising a Judaized Christianity, were unable to understand this passage. [Broadus, 1886]

Returning now to the series of miracles, Matthew gives—

III. The Ruler’s Daughter, And The Woman With A Flow Of Blood, Matthew 9:18-26

This is found also in Mark (Mark 5:22-43) and Luke, (Luke 8:41-56) who as in many other cases give various details which Matthew omits. For the general connection, see on “Matthew 9:2”.

While he spake (was saying) these things unto them, with emphasis on “these things.” It is thus plain that the application of the ruler, which led to these two miracles, was made while Jesus was in the act of speaking to John’s disciples and the Pharisees (compare on Matthew 9:14) These miracles must therefore have taken place at Capernaum. Behold, something remarkable. A certain ruler, or, ‘one ruler‘(margin Rev. Ver.), as in Mark 8:19. The Greek text is here greatly confused, but there is little doubt that the true reading is that of the Rev. Ver. The term ‘ruler’ is ambiguous, and might denote a member of the Sanhedrin, as Nicodemus is called a ‘ruler of the Jews’; (John 8:1) but Mark (Mark 5:22) says he was ‘one of the rulers of the synagogue.’ There were several of these, having authority over the conduct of public worship in the synagogue, (Acts 13:15) and a certain influence rather than authority over the social relations and personal conduct of the people (compare on Matthew 4:23). We see therefore that it was a man of importance who made this application. Luke (Luke 8:41) gives his name, Jairus; in Old Testament Jair. Came. The common Greek text would make it came in, viz., to the scene of the preceding conversation, probably Matthew’s residence; but the more probable reading (as in W. H.) would mean ‘came near,’ ‘approached.’ Worshipped him, bowed down before him as an expression of profound respect.(compare Matthew 8:2) My daughter is even now dead. Luke (Luke 8:42, Bib. Un. Ver.) in giving the substance of what Jairus said, has it ‘was dying.’ Mark (Mark 5:25, Rev. Ver.) has, ‘My little daughter is at the point of death.’ And then Mark and Luke inform us that while Jesus was on his way to the ruler’s house, and after the healing of the woman, messengers came meeting him to tell the ruler that his daughter was now dead; and that Jesus told him not to fear, etc. Matthew makes no mention of this message, and we conclude (Calvin) that designing a very brief account, he has condensed the incidents so as to present at the outset what was actually true before Jesus reached the house. For a similar case of condensing see on “Matthew 8:5”. But come and lay thy hand upon her. Jairus probably thought it necessary that Jesus should be present and touch the person to be healed, as the nobleman in the same town thought; (John 4:47, John 4:49) the centurion of that town (Matthew 8:8) had a juster view. [Broadus, 1886]

In Mark (Mark 5:24) and Luke (Luke 8:42) we are told that a great crowd thronged around Jesus as he was going, and that Jesus afterwards inquired, when in the midst of the crowd, as to who touched him (compare on Matthew 9:22). [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:20-22. On the way to the ruler’s house occurred another miracle. And, behold, a fresh wonder. A woman…. with an issue of blood twelve years. We know nothing as to the particular nature of the haemorrhage, but the most obvious supposition is probably correct. We learn from Mark (Mark 5:26) and Luke (Luke 8:43) that she had been subjected to a variety of methods of treatment by numerous physicians, spending her entire estate in paying them, but instead of receiving benefit, had been growing worse—a chronic, aggravated, and unmanageable case. Strauss finds an unveracious element in the double occurrence of the number twelve in this narrative (the woman has suffered twelve years, and the maiden was twelve years old, Mark 5:42); some of our allegorizes would find in it a deep spiritual meaning—which is the sillier notion? Came, etc., or coming to him from behind, partly, no doubt, through general timidity, partly from a reluctance to have public attention called to her peculiar affliction; and perhaps also because the law made her ceremonially unclean, (Leviticus 15:25) and she was afraid of being censured and repelled if it should be known that in that condition she had come into the crowd, since any one would likewise become unclean by touching her. Touched the hem (border) of his garment. We know from Numbers 15:37 ff.; Deuteronomy 22:12, that the Israelites were directed to wear on the corners of the upper garment a fringe or tassel (we cannot certainly determine the exact meaning), with an occasional blue thread. These were designed, as being always before their eyes, to remind them continually of the commandments of the Lord, which they were solemnly bound to obey. If we think of the outer garment as merely an oblong cloth thrown around the person like a large shawl—as it undoubtedly was in many cases (see on “Matthew 5:40”)—then ‘tassel’ is the more natural idea; and in that case ‘the tassel’ would be simply the one nearest to her. The Jews attached great importance to this fringe or tassel, the ostentatious Pharisees making it very large (see on “Matthew 23:5”); and it is possible that the woman thought there might be a peculiar virtue in touching this, which was worn by express divine command—though such a supposition is not necessary. See a good discussion of the probable dress of Jesus in Edersheim. [Broadus, 1886]

For she said within herself, as in Matthew 9:3. Strictly it is, was saying; i.e., at the time when she pressed through the crowd and touched him. If I may but—better, if I only—touch his garment. The ‘may’ of Com. Ver. is misleading. We do not know how far this feeling of hers was mingled with superstition, but in the main her conviction was just, since Jesus commends her faith, and power did go forth from him, (Luke 8:46) the moment she touched him. It was usual in miracles of healing that some manifest connection should be established, however slight, between the sufferer and the healer, as in Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15) and Paul’s handkerchiefs. (Acts 19:12) See also Matthew 14:36; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:19.I shall be (made) whole, literally, ‘saved’; the word has been explained see on “Matthew 1:21″as signifying ‘preserve’ and ‘deliver,’ and as applied to physical dangers, disease and death, as well as to sin and its consequences. What strong faith this woman possessed l And it was justified by the event; for immediately (Mark 5:29) she felt the disease was indeed healed—healed by merely touching the edge of Jesus’ garment, when all the skill of the ablest physicians, through all the weary years, had been unable to relieve it. [Broadus, 1886]

But Jesus turned, etc. Matthew omits the facts narrated at length by Mark and Luke, that she touched him in the midst of a great crowd, and he insisted on being told who it was that had touched him. We can see that it was not proper to let her be healed and go off, apparently without his knowledge; because this fact, as it should gradually become known, would confirm men in the superstitious notion that he performed healing involuntarily and unconsciously, as if by some magical virtue inherent in his person. His asking who it was is not inconsistent with the idea that he knew. Compare Elisha’s asking, ‘Whence comest thou, Gehazi?’, (2 Kings 5:25) though well aware of all that he had done; and God’s saying to Adam, ‘Where art thou?’ See also Luke 24:19, where Jesus asks, ‘What things?’ though he must have understood what they meant. He asked the woman in order to bring her to confession, which would be a benefit to herself—preventing superstition, strengthening faith, and deepening gratitude—as well as to others. Daughter, etc., or, Courage, daughter. Compare on Matthew 9:2. ‘Daughter,’ in this figurative and kindly use, appears nowhere in the New Testament, save in this narrative. (Mark 5:34 Luke 8:48) Thy faith hath made thee whole, literally, saved, as in Matthew 9:21. The perfect tense vividly represents the healing as standing complete. Her faith was of course not the source of the healing, but its procuring cause, as leading her to apply to the healing power of Jesus. and as being the reason why the application was successful. See the same expression used in Luke 7:50, Luke 17:19, Luke 18:42. Was made whole (healed) from that hour. The healing took place at the moment of the touch; what is here said is that from that time forward she was no more sick, but well—not only delivered, but preserved. So in Matthew 15:28, Matthew 17:18. Eusebius (“Hist.” VII. 17) gives a tradition that this woman’s name was Veronica. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:23-26. This resumes the narrative of Matthew 9:18 f. We learn from Mark (Mark 5:37) and Luke (Luke 8:51) that Jesus suffered no one to go into the house with him save Peter and James and John, and the parents of the girl. The other two occasions on which he took these three disciples only, viz., the Transfiguration and Gethsemane, were singularly solemn and momentous. What was there corresponding in this case? It was the first instance of our Lord’s raising the dead. And saw the minstrels etc., rather in Rev. Ver., the flute players, (compare Revelation 18:22) and the crowd making a tumult, the same Greek word as in Mark 5:39; Acts 17:5, Acts 20:10. This last expression is confined in the original to the crowd, so that a comma is needed after ‘flute players.’ It was the custom in the East and still is, for the relatives and special friends of the dying person to gather round the couch, and the moment the breath ceased they would break out into loud cries, with every exclamation and sign of the most passionate grief; and unable to continue this themselves, they would hire professional mourners, especially women, who would keep up the loud, wailing cry throughout the day and night. (Compare Jeremiah 9:17, Jeremiah 16:6 Ezekiel 24:17 Amos 5:16, 2 Chronicles 35:25) Persons of wealth might afford to hire musicians also; and Jairus being a man of consideration, a ruler of the synagogue, we find that the flute players have arrived, and although but a few minutes after the child’s decease, already there is a crowd present, making a tumultuous noise of lamentation. All these things are witnessed by travellers in Egypt or Palestine at the present day. [Broadus, 1886]

Is not dead, but sleepeth. Jesus speaks with reference to what he intends to do. She is going to rise up presently as one who had been asleep, so that her death will be, in the result, no death; it will only be as if she were sleeping. Likewise in John 11:11, he speaks of Lazarus as sleeping, because he was going to awake him out of sleep. Thus there was no occasion for the noisy mourning, and the preparations for a funeral; and the crowd must withdraw. Laughed him to scorn. This might only mean that anybody could see she was dead, (Luke 8:53) and it seemed silly to think otherwise. But there in Capernaum, where he had wrought many miracles, it may be that they supposed he would try to heal her, and thought the attempt absurd, as she was unquestionably dead, and it was too late. It is not likely they thought he was proposing to bring the dead to life, which he had never done. Their scornful laughter shows that the people were by no means swift to believe in his miraculous powers and his divine mission; and thus renders the wondering acknowledgment, repeatedly extorted from them by facts, an evidence all the more valuable and satisfactory. [Broadus, 1886]

But when the people were put forth, or, thrust out, the word implying some constraint or urgency. He was as yet in the more public reception room of the dwelling. Having expelled the crowd, he with the parents and his three followers, (Luke 8:51) went in, viz., into the inner room where the body was lying. Took her by the hand. Touching the dead body, like touching the leper, (Matthew 8:3) or being touched by the woman with a flow of blood, would have the effect, according to the law, of producing the highest degree of ceremonial uncleanness; but in all these cases Jesus, instead of receiving pollution through the touch, imparted cleansing. Mark (Mark 5:41) and Luke (Luke 8:54) relate that in addition to grasping her hand he spoke, and bade her arise. Also that he charged her parents much, not to tell what had happened (compare on Matthew 8:4), notwithstanding which we find here that the fame thereof went abroad into all that land, i.e., Galilee, or the parts of Galilee adjacent to Capernaum.

The woman, for one reason, was required to tell; Jairus, for another, was forbidden to tell. It cannot be that Jesus expected the matter to remain wholly unknown; he probably wished to prevent their speaking of it at once and generally, as they would have done, because in that case there would have been too much excitement produced, by the series of extraordinary miracles then occurring in immediate succession. (Compare on Matthew 9:28) Stier : “Three awakenings from death the Spirit has caused to be recorded for us, though others may well have taken place; and these indeed, in a remarkable and significant progression…. the maiden is here dead upon her bed, the young man at Nain was carried forth upon his bier, Lazarus had lain four days in his grave.” [Broadus, 1886]

The series of miracles in Matthew 9, and the whole group of Matthew 8, 9, ends with—

IV. Healing Two Blind Men, And A Dumb Demoniac, Matthew 9:27-34. These miracles are not recorded by the other Evangelists.

Matthew 9:27-31. Healing the blind men. And when Jesus departed thence—was passing along thence—the same expression as in Matthew 9:9. It shows that the following miracles occurred immediately after the preceding. Followed him, in the purely literal sense, went along behind him. They may have been sitting beside the road when he passed by, as in Luke 18:35-37. Have mercy, or, have pity. The word really includes both ideas, and the latter is the one here prominent. (See on “Matthew 5:7”.) By saying, Son of David, they declare their belief that he is the Messiah. (Compare Matthew 22:42, Matthew 15:22) The order of the Greek shows that their first thought was for mercy on themselves—very naturally. They had probably heard of Jesus’ miracles, perhaps of the two wonderful works just wrought. If one inquires why they should believe him to be Messiah, while others did not, we can only reply by asking why there is a similar difference now. The Gospels frequently mention blind persons healed. (Matthew 11:5, Matthew 12:22, Matthew 15:30, Matthew 20:30, Matthew 21:14; Mark 8:22; John 5:3, John 9:1) Blindness is much more common in the East than among us, in consequence of abounding dust, the practice of sleeping in the open air, the sudden change from darkened houses to dazzling light without, and the fact that their head-dress does not protect the eyes. [Broadus, 1886]

Into the house, viz., the house to which he returned from that of the ruler. (Matthew 9:23) It may have been Matthew’s house, (Matthew 9:10) or Peter’s, (Matthew 8:14) or some other which Jesus made his usual place of abode at Capernaum. (Compare Matthew 13:1, Matthew 13:36, Matthew 17:25) Observe that in Capernaum occurs all that is narrated in Luke 18:2-34, as well as in Luke 8:5-22. As they followed him along the street, Jesus gave them no answer or notice; but when he had entered the house, they approached and he spoke to them. This failure to notice them at first was doubtless designed (1) to develop and strengthen their faith; (compare Matthew 15:23) (2) to avoid the excitement which another public miracle just then might have produced among the people, already stirred by the healing of the woman, and by the rapidly spreading news of the raising of Jairus’ daughter to life. (Compare on Matthew 9:2-6) The question, Believe ye that I am able? developed into greater clearness the faith they bad already shown by following and asking. In their answer, Lord is probably no more than a very respectful form of address. (See on “Matthew 8:2”.) Jesus was more ready to work miracles where there was faith in him. (Compare on Matthew 9:2, Matthew 9:22, and Matthew 13:58) But it is too much to say that he never wrought miracles without faith; instance the widow’s son at Nain, and Malchus’ ear. Observe that his question was simply whether they believed that he could heal them; his willingness remained to be seen. (Compare on Matthew 8:2) [Broadus, 1886]

Touching the eyes of the blind (compare Matthew 9:20-34), was a natural and kindly act, like taking the hand of one prostrate with fever. (Matthew 8:15) According to your faith be it—let it happen—unto you. (Compare on Matthew 8:13). An old German writer says that faith is like a bucket by which we draw from the inexhaustible fountain of God’s mercy and goodness, to which otherwise we cannot penetrate; and Calvin compares it to a purse, which may itself be worthless, but filled with money makes the man rich. [Broadus, 1886]

And their eyes were opened. We have no means of judging whether this physical blessing was attended with the pardon of their sins. (Compare on Matthew 8:3.) The fact that they soon after disobeyed Christ’s explicit and emphatic command renders it improbable that they believed unto salvation, though not impossible. And Jesus straitly (sternly) charged them, an unclassical, but natural sense of the Greek word, found also in Mark 1:43. The expression implies that he would be seriously displeased if they disobeyed. As to the probable reasons for this, compare on Matthew 8:4; and add here that they were virtually calling him Messiah, which might excite popular fanaticism. (Matthew 16:20 John 6:15) He may have spoken with greater severity of manner, because a similar injunction in previous cases had been disregarded; yet it was disregarded again in this case. Spread abroad his fame in all that country, as in Matthew 9:26. The Com. Ver., with its passion for variety, must needs give ‘land’ in Matthew 9:26, and ‘country’ here, though the Greek has the same word and in the same connection, and though the earlier Eng. versions translate it alike in both places. Some have sought to excuse the disobedience of the two men on the ground that it was very natural, and was no doubt sincerely designed to do him honour. But still it was a fault. What can be so pleasing to him, or so conducive to his glory, as simple, unquestioning, loving obedience? [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:32-34. Healing a dumb demoniac. This is not related by the other Evangelists. And as they went (were going) out, namely, out of the house in which they had been healed. (Matthew 9:28) ‘They’ is slightly emphatic, standing in contrast to the next person who came to be healed. Behold, calling attention to what follows as wonderful. They brought to him, i.e., some persons brought; impersonal or indefinite, as in Matthew 5:11, Matthew 9:17, and often. A dumb man possessed with a devil, a demoniac, see on “Matthew 8:28; Matthew 8:31.” Compare Mark 9:25 for a similar case. Mark 7:32 mentions a deaf man who spoke with difficulty, and says nothing of demoniacal influence. Matthew 12:22 gives a demoniac who was both blind and dumb. And the multitudes, crowds, as in Matthew 5:1, Matthew 9:8, and often. Marvelled, etc. Wondered, saying, It never at any time appeared thus in Israel; there was never such a thing seen before, in all the wonderful history of the nation. (Compare Mark 2:12 John 9:32) Probably their wonder referred not merely to this last case of the dumb demoniac, but to the series of miracles that day wrought, and, it would seem, in quick succession—the woman, the daughter of Jairus, the two blind men, and now the dumb man. The Evangelists never stop to say themselves that the miracles of Jesus were wonderful. To them these things were not astonishing now as they looked back from the time of writing their narratives, for it was a fact long familiar to their minds that he who wrought them was divine; and so they calmly tell the story of miracle after miracle, without any exclamation or remark. But it was appropriate to mention, as they often do, the wonder felt by the persons witnessing a miracle, because this was one of the evidences of its manifest reality. Matthew 9:34.[1] But the Pharisees said, strictly ‘were saying,’ viz., while the people were expressing their wonder. Through, literally ‘in ‘(margin of Rev. Ver.), i.e., in union with, by power derived from, the prince of the devils, demons. This insulting charge was probably made on the present occasion in the absence of Jesus, but made afterwards in his presence; see on “Matthew 12:24”. The Pharisees; see on “Matthew 3:7”. They had been finding fault with Jesus in connection with all the preceding matters for undertaking to forgive sin, (Matthew 9:3) for associating with publicans and sinners, (Matthew 9:11) and for not fasting, (Matthew 9:14) and now their opposition grows yet more bitter and bold, when they venture upon the accusation of union with Satan. The crowds, for their part, wondered at the unparalleled event, but the Pharisees tried to explain it away, by however baseless and blasphemous a supposition. So also ill Matthew 12:28 f. They were not willing to acknowledge the truth about Jesus’ miracles, for it would diminish their own consideration among the people; and so they struck out madly after some explanation or other. Thus ends the remarkable series of miracles which Matthew has grouped (Matthew 8, 9), as specimens of our Lord’s wonderful works. (Compare on Matthew 8:1). [1] Westcott Hort bracket this verse, as of doubtful genuineness. But the only evidence for omitting is that of D, two copies of the old Latin, and two Latin Fathers of the fourth century, evidence exclusively “Western,” and quite meagre. This often arbitrary “Western” type of text might easily have omitted the sentence, from the notion that such a thing occurred but once and that its true place is in Matthew 12:24. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:35 to Matthew 10:15. Mission Of The Twelve. Our Lord here undertakes another circuit of Galilee, similar to that described in Matthew 4:23 ff., and in connection with it he now sends out the Twelve to engage in the same work, viz., to make the Same proclamation of the near approach of the Messianic reign (compare Matthew 10:7 with Matthew 4:17), and to work similar miracles of healing. (Matthew 10:1, Matthew 10:8) Before sending forth the Twelve, our Lord addressed them a long discourse, (Matthew 10:5-42) giving them instruction not only for this mission, but for all their subsequent labours in his name; after which discourse he went to his work, (Matthew 11:1) and they to theirs. (Mark 6:12 f.; Luke 9:6)—Some prefer to consider this as not the record of a distinct journey, but simply a return to the general statement of Matthew 4:23. The idea would thus be, that having given a grand specimen of our Lord’s teaching (ch. 5-7), and a group of specimens of his miracles (ch. 8 and 9), the Evangelist now repeats the general description of his journeying, teaching and healing (same terms in Matthew 9:35 as in Matthew 4:23), and presently branches off again to describe the mission of the Twelve. But it seems more likely that this was a second and distinct journey. Indeed, Luke appears to give a third journey, (Luke 8:1-3) which a Harmony would make intermediate between the two in Matthew.—Our present section includes so much of the address to the Twelve as is given by Mark and Luke also. The remainder (Matthew 10:16-42) is given by Matthew only.

I. Matthew 9:35 to Matthew 10:1. Jesus Is Moved To Send Out The Twelve

While engaged in a circuit of Galilee, he is moved with compassion at the spiritual destitution of the people, and begins to prepare the Twelve for going out as teachers. The portion in Matthew 9:35-38 is found in Matthew alone, except that Mark (Mark 6:6) says simply, ‘And he went round about the villages teaching.’Matthew 9:35. Same as Matthew 4:23, except that for ‘went about all Galilee’ we here have more particularly, went about all the cities and (the) villages, referring still to Galilee, as the connection and the circumstances show. All is so placed in the Greek as to be confined to the cities; and he could not have visited all the villages. Josephus says there were in Galilee not less than two hundred and four cities and populous villages. (See on “Matthew 4:12”.) The word rendered villages denotes properly a town without walls, as opposed to a fortified town. The larger places would of course all be fortified. We learn then that our Lord made a thorough circuit, going into all the large towns, and very generally into the smaller places also. He did not go only where he could have a very large congregation. For every sickness and every disease—i.e., every kind, not necessarily every case—and for the other terms, see on “Matthew 4:23”. Among the people, com. Greek text, is omitted on overwhelming evidence. Here again, as in Matthew 8:16 and Matthew 4:23, we must pause and dwell on the strong general statement, or we shall not adequately conceive of the immense extent of our Lord’s work as a Healer. [Broadus, 1886]

But when he saw the multitudes—crowds—as in Matthew 5:1. As there his compassion led to a long address on the Mount, so here it leads him to send out the Twelve, that they might aid in the so much needed work of teaching and healing. Similarly after the return of the Twelve. (Mark 6:34) In the present case, as in Matthew 5:1, we understand that what follows took place at some unassigned time in the course of the circuit just described. Because they fainted, best text, were distressed, or ‘harassed,’ ‘worried,’ rendered ‘trouble’ in Mark 5:35 Luke 8:49. The evidence for this Greek word rather than ‘fainted’ (com. Greek text) is ample. Scattered, literally, ‘thrown,’ ‘hurled,’ might mean prostrate (so Davidson), lying down, as being worn out and unable to go forward, or might mean cast off, neglected; the general conception remains the same, that of a flock worried and suffering for lack of a shepherd’s care. In the East, where sheep wander freely in wild, unenclosed regions, so as to require constant attention, this image is very striking. Meyer supposes that our Lord saw the people to be worn out with following him in long journeys, and that this suggested to him the image of a flock tired down; but the supposition seems quite improbable. (Weiss). The people were greatly in need of spiritual instruction and guidance, for those who professed to be their shepherds were not faithful and safe guides. (See the same expression in Numbers 27:17, and compare 1 Kings 22:17; Jeremiah 50:6; Ezekiel 34:5; Zechariah 10:2) [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 9:37-38. He seeks to awaken a similar compassion in his followers. Disciples, see on “Matthew 5:1”. There were probably other disciples present, besides the Twelve, (Matthew 10:1) and the exhortation to pray was addressed to them all, but only the Twelve were at that time sent forth; at a later period, seventy others. (Luke 10:1) The figure of reaping a harvest he had employed before (perhaps a year before), at Jacob’s well, (John 4:25 ff.) and will use again when sending out the seventy. (Luke 10:2) Truly represents the Greek word (men) explained on Matthew 3:11, which denotes merely that this clause is set in contrast with what follows. The idea is sufficiently expressed in English by an emphatic utterance of ‘harvest’ and ‘labourers’; it was so rendered by Tyn. and Gen. (so also Davidson), ‘truly’ being introduced by Great Bible. The harvest signifies, not (as some explain) the elect, those who will actually be saved, but men in general, who unless gathered and saved will perish like wheat that is not reaped.—This compassion for perishing men will naturally lead to prayer for labourers, (Matthew 9:38) and such compassion and prayer will form the best preparation for going forth to be labourers ourselves. (Matthew 10:1) Any man who is called of God to devote himself to preaching the gospel will have felt something, ought to have felt much, of this pitying love for his perishing fellow men, and will have prayed much for their rescue; and those engaged in that work should be careful to maintain, as long as they live, this same pity and prayer. And not only preachers, but all Christians, should feel as Jesus felt, and should regularly and habitually pray this prayer. Send forth is literally cast out, ‘throw out,’ or ‘thrust out,’ the same word that is used in Matthew 9:33 f., in Matthew 10:1, and above in Matthew 9:25 (where see note). Compare its use in Mark 1:12; James 2:25. It always implies urgency, haste, constraint, or some such idea, and here means that the labourers should be sent out promptly, pushed into their work. Beza: “For we are all very tardy, especially in such matters.”This same word is retained when our Lord speaks to the seventy. (Luke 10:2)[1] Such labourers as the Lord of the harvest does put forth, we may endeavour, with his blessing, to train for the better performance of their work (see on “Matthew 10:1”); but they must be his labourers, not ours, called into the work, and urged to the performance of it, by himself. [1] That he send forth’ is a non-final use of hopos, see on Matthew 5:29. [Broadus, 1886]