GOSPEL OF MATTHEW: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: PART 3

Matthew 22:1-14 I wanted to get clarification on the Parable of Wedding Banquet. Is the man who is referred to as "friend" but not wearing wedding clothes and "...who was thrown outside into the darkness..." someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, but in reality has not accepted Jesus' gift of eternal life?

The short answer is “yes.” The long answer follows.

With most of Jesus' parables it is a mistake to try to pin down the identification of each detail and treat them as allegories. However, in this case it is important to the proper interpretation of the story to know what category of people he is talking about.

The context of this parable is at the tail end of a series of stories all critical of the religious leaders of the day who questioned Jesus' authority (21:23). When he finished the Parable of the Two Sons (21:28-32) and the Parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard (21:33-44), Matthew records that the chief priests and the Pharisees realized that Jesus was talking about them. Then, after the Parable of the Wedding Banquet, the Pharisees with the Herodians set about to entrap Jesus (22:15-16).

So it is probable that at least the first part of parable dealing with those initially invited to the banquet refers to the Jewish religious establishment, which not only refused to accept Jesus' message but also mistreated his messengers and later killed Jesus himself. If we take this prophetic interpretation to be correct, then verse 7 can even be seen as a veiled prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem.

From verse 8 on, the action turns to those generally considered unworthy but who gladly accepted the king's invitation. These could include those such as the tax collectors and the prostitutes mentioned in 21:31-32, and later the gentiles who would come to faith in larger numbers than the Jews. Among this mixed bag (“both good and bad” - 22:10), however, is one who has not clothed himself appropriately. Who does he stand for, and what does this parable say to us today? To answer this, I will rely on various articles found in Volume 1 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

First, the fact that he is addressed as “friend” should not mislead us. The Greek word for “friend” appears only three times in the NT. “In each case, the person speaking is addressing an inferior who has insulted him in some way, but the words are without malice.” (p. 259)

The nature of the insult in this case is the lack of an appropriate wedding garment. This has been explained as either clothes he brought with him (good deeds as evidence of good faith) or, more likely, those supplied by the host. In the latter case, “The wedding garment is a metaphor for forgiveness and the promised righteousness” as in Isaiah 61:10. (p. 317) The latter can only be obtained by accepting God's grace through Christ's sacrifice.

The final verse about many being called but few chosen shows that this parable is similar to those of Jesus found in Matt. 13:36-43 (the wheat and the tares) and 13:47-50 (the mixed catch of fish) in which there will be a separation at the Last Judgment, but not before that time.

“The many who have come together to hear the word of God are in fact called, but their mere belonging to the congregation is no guarantee that they are chosen for the world to come.” (p. 97)

“It shows that, at least from the standpoint of human response, the circle of the called and of the elect cannot be taken as necessarily coinciding.” (p. 274-5)

“Evidently not all to whom God shows favor actually arrive at the goal of this call.” (p. 540)

Matthew 23:8-10 “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.” Explain this verse.

All commentaries agree that v. 8 marks a shift where Jesus begins addressing his disciples.

Poetic parallelism in the last the two sentences shows that they refers to spiritual leaders who are called fathers (such as Catholic priests). “Jesus is telling His audience that God alone is to be exalted, venerated, and given unquestioned loyalty and obedience. We are still to honor our fathers and mothers.” (101 Most Puzzling Bible Verses, pp. 103-4) This passage also indicates a close connection between God the Father and the Messiah.

Rabbi = my great one; “Father” was applied to great rabbis, master = professor. The only final spiritual authorities are God and Christ. “It is doubtful if the use of the terms themselves is intended to be forbidden, but rather the attitude of mind of those who seek to be dependent on others and those who like to receive that dependence.” (NBC) The rabbis disliked using “father” but reserved it for the patriarchs or a specially admired rabbi. (International Bible Commentary, p. 1144) Word for teacher in this passage appears only here in the Bible. It means “authoritative guide.” (Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 74)

The goal of a disciple was to become a master eventually. But disciples of Christ never leave the disciple status. (DNTT, I, 488)

“There is a distinction between the proper respect for older people and the uncritical adulation of a particular teacher which Jesus condemns.” (Marshall, I John, p. 139)

Only Matthew uses “rabbi” in a negative connotation. Other gospels have apostles calling Jesus “Rabbi.” In Matthew, it is only Judas who uses “rabbi” toward Jesus (26:25,49). In the Catholic Church, “father” denotes that the church is a family whereas “pastor” denotes the church is a flock. Both are appropriate. Although some go so far as not to use “mister” since it is derived from “master.” Use of reverend, friend, brother? (Hard Sayings, pp. 394-5)

Some titles merely express a truth or make communication easier. Others are used in flattery or pride.

The warning is directed solely toward the disciples and not applied to the general community. No one of them is to be treated higher than another. (Matthew AB, p.279; NCBC; NICNT)

“It is not difficult for a modern reader to think of similar honorifics in use today, and to discern behind the titles an excessive deference to academic or ecclesiastical qualifications.” Doctor for example. “The title [rabbi] is not in itself objectionable, since it is here forbidden not for Jesus himself but only for his disciples.” The ideal situation is pictured in Jeremiah 31:34 where no one would need to teach another. (NICNT Matthew, p. 858)

There is nothing wrong with titles such as Father, Reverend or Doctor, but “One wonders for how long the recipients of such forms of address can resist an unbiblical pride from all plaudits. It is probably best to abolish most uses of such titles.” (NAC Matthew, pp. 342-3)

“...what Jesus is here condemning is the yearning for ranking for special recognition above one's fellow members.” (William Hendricksen, pp. 824-5)

Matthew 23:35 Does this verse refer to Zechariah the prophet? I don't recall reading the story of his death in the OT.

The situation regarding the reference to Zechariah is even more complicated once you delve into it further. In the first place, even in the Old Testament there is some confusion as to the prophet's lineage. Zechariah 1:1 says that he is the son of Berechiah the son of Iddo. However, in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 Iddo is listed as his father, not his grandfather. There are several ways to explain this seeming discrepancy, the most likely being that Iddo was more famous than Berechiah. This would be the same as calling Jesus the son of David, since “son” is a rather loose designation in Hebrew thinking. In addition, there is a Zechariah son of Iddo listed in Nehemiah 12:16 who may or may not be the same person.

It should be pointed out also that both Zechariah and Berechiah (or Baruch for short) were very common Jewish names, and there were 30 different Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible. This gave rise to much confusion in the Septuagint translation in several passages. (New Century Bible Commentary, Matthew)

At least three explanations have been given for the problem with Jesus calling Zechariah the son of Berechiah: (1) Matthew made a mistake and misquoted Jesus, (2) both Zechariahs were martyred in the Temple, or (3) an early scribe added the words “son of Berechiah,” which are not present in Luke's parallel passage. Option 1 is unacceptable for most evangelicals.

Regarding option 2, we have no biblical evidence recording the prophet Zechariah's death, much less that he was martyred in the Temple. However, later Jewish tradition (Targum to Lamentations 2:20) does hold that the prophet was martyred. (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament)

Option 3 is a possibility, but arguing for early tampering with the text (either purposefully or accidentally) is probably a last resort since there is absolutely no textual evidence that this occurred in this particular passage. This sort of argument has been used for numerous other passages where difficulties arise. It is too facile to merely resort to the phrase “inerrant in the original autographs” since all we have is the present text, and if we can have no confidence in it then, in fact, we do not have an inerrant Bible. All this is not to say that textual criticism is meaningless. It is highly important in judging between variant readings in the Bible, but here we have no variants to choose between and so would be engaging in mere speculation without any proof to posit an original reading of which we have no evidence.

All of the above options pop up in various commentaries, but there are additional possibilities as well:

One piece of information that should be helpful in narrowing down the possibilities, but really isn't, is that Jesus is listing the martyrs starting with Adam and ending with Zechariah. If this is a chronological listing, then the martyrdom of the late prophet Zechariah is probably in mind. However, supposing that the early Hebrew canon of Scripture began with Genesis and ended with II Chronicles (which many commentators feel was true, although The Dictionary of Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry and Writings has doubts), then the last listed martyrdom is that occurring in II Chronicles 24:20-21, and that is the event being referred to. And there are two other even later martyrdoms that may be referred to here:

    1. The New American Commentary and Anchor Bible commentaries on Matthew propose that Jesus is alluding to an otherwise unknown Zechariah martyred just prior to Jesus' lifetime.

    2. The New Century Bible Commentary on Matthew and others point out that there was a Zechariah son of Baruch (short for Berechiah) who was actually martyred in the Temple in 70 AD, referenced in Josephus' writings (Jewish Wars, IV, v.4). This would, of course, be later than Jesus' time so unless he was speaking prophetically, the explanation is that the event was fresh in Matthew's mind as he was writing, and so he updated Jesus' original comments by adding “son of Berechiah” to allude to an even more current example of martyrdom for his readers.

    3. Finally, both the New International Commentary on the New Testament and the Bible Knowledge Commentary propose that in the II Chronicles 24:20-21 reference to Zechariah's parentage, Jehoiada was actually his grandfather and the unlisted father was named Berechiah.

    4. Then there is Hendricksen's view (Gospel of Matthew) that perhaps the father of the murdered man went by two names, Jehoiada and Berechiah, as did other characters in the Bible. So that gives a total of seven options instead of three. Take your pick.

Matthew 24:30 What is the nature of the sign mentioned in this verse?

We really are given no sure answer to this question elsewhere in the Bible. Thus, it has given rise to a host of responses, which I will summarize without comment:

New Century Bible Commentary: This is an allusion to Zech. 12:10-12. The lost mourn when they see the elect gathered and the Son of Man coming in judgment. Sign (semeion) = ensign (see Isaiah 11:12)

New American Commentary: Jesus' return happens immediately after the previous “tribulation” (Matthew usually omits this word). The sign may be the Son of Man appearing in the sky or some other heavenly sign or banner (Isaiah 11:12; 18:3). The early church fathers thought it was a cross in the sky such as Constantine supposedly saw right before a crucial battle. The nations are mourning because of coming judgment on them, or of Jewish tribes signaling repentance for their acts.

William Hendricksen: The appearance of Son of man coming on clouds of glory is the probable sign. Mark and Luke parallels leave out the word “sign.” Terror of the wicked is described in Zechariah 12:10,12 and Revelation 1:7; 6:15-17.

New International Commentary on the New Testament: See Daniel 7:13 Jesus is coming to God, not from God, as in 16:28 and 26:64. (The Anchor Bible agrees with this interpretation.) Mourners are those of the land, not the earth. It should read, “The sign which is the Son of Man in heaven.” It may not be a visible sign, but a sign that Jesus is in heaven. This may be seen by what is happening on earth such as the destruction of the temple. Remember the negative comments in v. 24 regarding “signs and wonders.”

G. K. Beale: See Revelation 1:7-8 where mourning applies to all those of every nation who have rejected Jesus.

Clouse, The Meaning of Millennium, p. 54 (postmillennial view): The Son of man is in heaven but the sign is on earth (destruction of temple).

Dictionary of New Testament Theology, III, p. 634: Shining of lights (Isaiah 60:1). An event occurring in the heavenly sanctuary much as God's Shekinah glory appeared in the earthly sanctuary. Didache 16:6 calls it “sign of spreading out in heaven.”

International Bible Commentary: The sign (see Isaiah 11:10) is probably the light of v. 27.

Bible Knowledge Commentary: The return of Shekinah glory to Israel. Or it may be the New Jerusalem physically hovering over earthly Jerusalem, or lightning, or Jesus himself.

G. K. Beale: A banner or ensign raised to gather exiles (see Isaiah 11:2).

Matt. 26:39-46 Jesus prayed “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” He returned to find the disciples asleep, went away a second time and prayed a similar prayer. He returned to find the disciples asleep again and then went away and “prayed the third time, saying the same thing.” What exactly is Jesus praying for that he would repeat it three times? Is Jesus asking that he not have to go through with this?

The first thing to note is that this is by no means the only time Jesus is recorded as spending much time in prayer to the Father. The many recorded occasions of Jesus' praying in private include his fasting (usually accompanied by prayer) in the wilderness for 40 days and nights (Matthew 4), his rising in the morning before daylight to pray (Mark 1:35), and one whole night he spent in prayer (Luke 6:12). These last two are probably not isolated instances, but are typical of Jesus' prayer life.

Regarding the specific subject of Jesus' prayer in the garden, the interpretation all hinges on the metaphoric meaning of “cup.” The most common meaning of cup in the Old Testament is that of God's cup of wrath from which he will force the disobedient to drink. This image carries over to the New Testament when Jesus uses it to refer to his coming death on the cross. Thus, in Mark 10:38 he asks the sons of Zebedee whether they are able to drink the cup that he drinks. Also, the cup at the Last Supper represents Jesus' shed blood. And finally, in John 18:11 as he is being arrested he says, “Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

“When we remember the predominant use of cup imagery in the OT, Jesus' repeated use of the word cup to signify his impending death takes on great significance. When he pleads, “Abba, Father...Take this cup from me,” we realize that his anguish grows principally from the prospect of feeling the full weight of his Father's anger against sin fall on himself. Jesus' ordeal is especially poignant because he, alone among humankind, does not deserve God's wrath, yet he chooses to surrender to crucifixion so that sinners can receive forgiveness.” (The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery ).

Thus, we could say that Jesus in his humanity is thinking of the upcoming torture, mockery, disgrace and agony of the cross while he is praying. But more importantly, Jesus in his divinity is picturing the wrath of the Father for the sins of all mankind coming down on him.

Applying this to ourselves today and quoting again from DBI, “All who accept Jesus' sacrifice for themselves can appropriate the blessings of forgiveness, fellowship with God and other believers, and certainty of eternal life that this cup of the new covenant holds. But any who take Jesus' sacrifice lightly or reject it completely will find themselves drinking the cup of God's judgment.”

Matthew 27:9-10 Where in Jeremiah does this quote come from?

This quotation actually appears to be a free paraphrase of Zechariah 11:12-13 and is not from Jeremiah. So does that prove that the Bible is in error? Here are some possibilities to consider before jumping to that conclusion:

1. Matthew may have been quoting from memory and made a minor mistake not affecting any teaching or doctrine.

2. The ideas quoted are found in Jeremiah 19 even though the exact wording is closer to that in Zechariah. Matthew only cited the most prominent author.

3. Similar chains of quotations are found in the NT, leading us to believe that collections of quotations (testimonia) were available for use in NT times. Each group may have been known under the name of the most prominent author only.

4. If all the books of prophecy were bound together, they may have been known by the name of the first book, which happened to be Jeremiah in the case of the Babylonian Talmud. This is similar to us referring to the Psalms of David, even though many of the psalms in the collection are specifically attributed to other authors.

Matthew 28:18 What do we know about Christ's reign on earth?

To start with, there are many references in the OT to the fact that God's reign over creation is a present one that lasts forever (Psalm 22:28; 145:11-13, for example). But there are others that talk about it being a future reign (perhaps Psalm 146:10). One commentator reconciled these two aspects by stating that God will truly be king of all creation only when the creation acknowledges Him as such.

When God came to earth as Jesus, the Kingdom of God came at that time according to Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20. This was not in an overtly physical form as explained in Luke 17:20-21 and Romans 14:17, but it represented the start of a process which would grow with time (see the kingdom parables of Matthew 13).

Daniel 7:13-14 predicted a time when one like the son of man (Jesus' favorite term for himself) would be presented by God with an everlasting dominion and kingship over all peoples, nations and languages. The resurrected Jesus used this same terminology to refer to his own present reign over all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). Ephesians 1:20-23 is a parallel passage stating that God exalted Jesus and put him above all rules and authority and power and dominion now and in the age to come with all things put under his feet. Hebrews 3:22 specifically says that now Jesus is at the right hand of God with angels, authorities and powers made subject to him.

This present situation of Christ's delegated reign over all creation will continue until all the enemies of God are completely conquered (Hebrews 10:12-13). When all of these enemies, including death itself, are conquered, then Christ will hand the reign back to the Father (I Corinthians 15:24-28).

At that time, God will in turn then share the reign with Christ from their joint throne, and this kingdom will last forever (Revelation 11:15; 22:3-5).

This is, at least, my present understanding of a subject that will have to remain somewhat veiled to our eyes since it includes the difficult concept of the three persons of the Trinity and their relationship to one another.

Matthew 28:20 This verse seems to indicate that Jesus will not be with us anymore after a particular time. Is that what it means?

First you need to consider the various ways this verse has been interpreted:

    “and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (KJV, Living Bible, J. B. Phillips) to the close of the age (RSV)

    to the end of time (NEB)

    even to the end of the age (NAS)

    to the end of the age (TEV, NRSV)

    yes, to the end of time (Jerusalem Bible)

    to the very end of the age (NIV)

There are several possible approaches to understanding this verse, and some are interrelated:

    1. Note that in all of the above translations, the last phrase is understood to be a restatement of the first statement, which has no time limitations: “I am with you always.”

Blomberg (Matthew, NAC) similarly notes that “end of the age” may be an idiom for “forever.”

Vine's Word Studies says that the similar Greek phrase “unto the age” (Hebrews 5:6, etc.) actually means “forever.”

The word aion is notoriously hard to translate and may mean age, era, world or time (as seen in the translations above.) The last translation, “time,” would yield a phrase equivalent to “forever.”

    2. Jesus may have only intended these reassuring words for the eleven apostles he was talking to. But that is unlikely because the phrase “to the end of the age” would then make little sense.

    3. Elsewhere within Matthew's Gospel “to the end of the age” clearly means “until the Last Judgment” (see Matthew 13:39, 40, 49) and was probably also what the apostles had in mind in Matthew 24:3.

The context of Matthew 28:18-20 refers to the missionary and evangelizing ministry of the Church only (France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT). This will continue until the Last Judgment. “The period is from the Resurrection to the final consummation – the era of the Church's life and mission.” – David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCBC.

    4. “He is spiritually with them until the Second Coming, when he will again be physically with them.” – Blomberg, Matthew, NAC. This idea may or may not be related to the often-noted bookends to the Gospel of Matthew formed by his name Immanuel (“God is with us”) in Matthew 1:23 referring to the Incarnation and Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”).