Matthew 18-22
Service of the King

• 33a teaching – the content of what God wants, directed to the mind;
• 33b keeping – a commitment of the will to steadfastly obey all that God has revealed;
• 34a understanding – a conscience that discerns between what is and isn't God's will;
• 34b wholeheartedness – a focus of the emotions (and will) solely on obeying God.

• 35 direction – daily insight/guidance into what steps to take;
• 36 value change – looking to please God rather than himself;
• 37a focus – on what is eternal rather than worthless;
• 37b revival/restoration – to God's ways which was lost due to the temporal focus

Now that he is in a position to be blessed, he asks God to fulfill His promises, so that others may see and fear God. The disgrace/scorn he dreads is that of not receiving God's blessing. As a final appeal he offers his longing for God's word, as the basis for God reviving him in His righteousness (the basis of blessing).

Wise people value and appreciate counsel from people who have their best interest at heart. Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the counsel. “Earnest counsel” usually tells us what we don't want to hear, to keep us from wandering away into destruction.

Building (and cultivating) friendships is a skill that takes time and effort. Friends share things including their hearts: plans, ambitions, hopes and dreams. Counsel is an intergral part of sharing as one reacts to another from a Biblical perspective, affirming or questioning. People without friends have unshared and unexamined hearts, and lack joy.

Another one of the “betters” which helps us make wise choices. A close friend (geographically and emotionally) is better than a distant brother. Friends not only share hearts (27:9) but also share in serving each other's needs. That develops a loyalty, intimacy and interdependency which can supersede blood relationships, like a marriage does. Friends fulfill their obligations to each other like David and Jonathan did.

. Mt 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Jesus said they needed a paradigm shift (repent=change of mind); it's not about pride, but humility. Children are dependent upon others for their needs. The children of the wealthy had a slave/tutor ruling over/tutoring them, and thus were lower than a slave in status, considered weak and powerless. He set a child before them, and communicated four truths about the kingdom: 

1. Entrance (which means more than stepping over the threshold, but taking up possession) into the kingdom required humility and dependence, not pride.
2. Greatness/possession corresponded to humility/meekness/dependence.
3. Welcome and acceptance of the humble/weak was parallel to accepting the Messiah.
4. Rejection and causing the humble/weak to stumble or go astray was a fate worse than physical death.

Jesus broadens the discussion to that of offenses/stumbling in one's own life and that of others. Fire of the age is paralleled with the garbage dump, Gehenna (see comments on losing enduring blessing for diminishing short term gain). In contrast to the Pharisaical attitude toward the humble, and those going astray, the Son of Man came to save such. The Father doesn't want or desire that any of the weak ones will perish (same as the verb “wanted” in 23:37; a different verb with similar intent is in 2Pt 3:9). God values the humble and especially the repentance of those who have gone astray, which leads to the next section on restoration of the repentant.

Church restoration/discipline is one of the most recognizable hallmarks of a Biblical church, which takes sin and its consequences seriously. This is the second and last mention of the church/assembly in the Gospels (16:18). The process is simple to understand, difficult to carry out, yet commanded. A weak/straying brother/sister has sinned against another. The passage isn't limited to interpersonal conflict. The word for “sin” is that of omission “missing the mark” or the standard God has mandated, from loyal love to doing no harm. “Against” is “eis” meaning “to or toward.” The context of the previous verses is concerned with a weak believer who has gone astray, stumbling, missing the mark, failing to love as Christ mandated, usually because of self-centered thinking and independence. They are alienated from the fellowship of believers in their hearts, yet temporarily and occasionally present in their body. These are the folks who have not removed from their lives the things that will cause a trip to the garbage dump for a burning of all to which they are devoting their unrepentant hearts. God doesn't want that to happen, and neither should more mature saints who should love as Christ loved. The epistles will further elaborate on the essential ministries of discernment, admonishment, exhortation, encouragement, reproof, rebuke, and rejection, which are illustrated here. You should study each of these words in the Scriptures, or you can cheat and find the outlines on Truthbase.net.

1. Rescue starts with discernment, an awareness that things aren't as they should be, that a person is missing the mark, and has stumbled into the pit of sin, from which they have not escaped. 
2. Admonishment is warning each other of where their current path leads, or the consequences of the course of action. This is implicit in the next step, but spelled out more in the epistles. 
3. Reproof, is a bringing to light, by showing a fault. Biblical preaching and teaching based upon discernment of the needs of the audience seek to accomplish admonition and reproof, at a low volume, by presenting truth and portraying what obedience and disobedience look like (Mt 28:20). Unfortunately, some folks are deceived and hardened by their sin, so a more personal and pointed attempt is necessary. Jesus said take the initiative and go to the person, at a low volume, to prevent pride from blinding the person from seeing and repenting. A good way to do this, is to highlight a behavior, and ask the person what interpretation they could put on it. For example, it looked like you did or failed to do, or are not doing “X”, am I mistaken? Is there another way to look at it? Is this something that pleases God? If the person isn't a fool, they fear God, are sensitive to the Holy Spirit, and want to do what's right in God's sight, they will hear you. Repentance and restoration of the relationship should follow, and you've gained back a brother or sister. It usually doesn't happen like this in my neck of the woods, but your mileage may vary. 
4. Exhortation is enhanced admonition to repent, and encouragement follows repentance. If you just encourage a sinner without their repentance, you are encouraging them to continue to sin, and you will share in it, and its consequences. Goodness and love lead to repentance. If there is no repentance, then the “goodness and love” are disobedience, enabling the sin, and detrimental to the sinner. 
5. Refused reproof leads to rebuke (telling them they are wrong). This occurs after a couple of witnesses corroborate the story and the sin (Galatians 6:1-5). If a number of godly people tell someone they are sinning, and they refuse to acknowledge their sin and repent, they are a deceived fool (Pr 12:15; 26:12). In Matthew 7:6 Jesus warned against casting pearls of truth before swine, who can get quite nasty. Proverbs 23:9 instructs the wise to keep quiet when the person demonstrates their determination to follow the devil rather than God. One last effort, as an expression of grace is called for. 
6. If the person doesn't listen and demonstrate that they are not sinning after round two, the church is to be told of the person's refusal to repent (and the sin where appropriate). Presumably people in the city would ask the person what's going on, and seek to help them get back on track. But, by the time it reaches this stage, the hardened sinner has shut down, and are no longer receptive to God, nor fellow believers in whom the Spirit dwells (more on this later). Therefore Jesus requires rejection of the individual, outwardly demonstrating the distance between the person and God, and cutting them off from the blessings of the community, just like in the OT, except you don't stone them. 
7. Rejection is a very loving thing to do, if it leads to repentance. Even if it doesn't, it warns others not to sin (which is the loving thing), and maintains one's loyal love to Christ. The goal of treating the one rebelling against God and His people as an outsider, is still repentance and restoration. See 1Corinthians 5 (entire chapter) and the outline on Truthbase.net for more. People had nothing to do with Gentiles and tax-collectors. 

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Forgiveness of those who've repeatedly sinned against us is a very Christlike thing to do. Once you get to 490 times start over, demonstrating the same mercy God has extended to us. Mercy does not preclude discipline, which has just been commanded, because if the person shows up on judgment day, still clinging to their sin, they will sorely wish they had listened, repented and sought forgiveness of those they harmed by their selfish folly.

Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but is often treated as such. For more on this topic Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage on Truthbase.net.

This passage, as does 5:31-32, mentions an “exception clause” “except for fornication”, which Mark and Luke neglect to tell their readers in Rome and Greece. Fornication is the correct translation, meaning sex between unmarried persons. Adultery is another word, which Matthew also uses in verse 9, to refer to sex between married persons. As mentioned in Matthew 1:18 the Jewish culture considered a couple married when they were betrothed or pledged to be married to each other. If in the course of the engagement there was fornication, or unfaithfulness, there could be a divorce, as Joseph wanted to do (put away = divorce). That's the only exception. The reason given, is that what God has joined together, man must not separate. The disciples considered this to be a tough call. They concluded that it would be better to remain single (expedient/profitable is used in 5:29,30; 18:6). Jesus replied with a comment about becoming a eunuch for the sake of greater reward in the Kingdom. All are free to embrace that path, but only a few would be able to do so (we'll revisit this in 1Cor 7). From the beginning (Genesis 2:24) marriage had three components:

1. Leaving: a social-legal declaration of intent of leaving one's family and singleness (two talks frequently missed in dysfunctional marriages) to become a new unit (single entity).
2. Cleaving: this is the emotional bonding that occurs after the social-legal the leaving. After, means after (as in after one is permanently committed to the other in a covenantal relationship, which are what vows should be all about). See post on the Song of Solomon for help in “not waking love until the proper time.” Cleaving or being joined refers to two pieces of parchment being glued together so that they can't be separated without permanently ripping pieces out of each other. Dysfunctional couples also fail at this task, carving out their territories, and meeting only in agreed DMZ (demilitarized zones). Selfishness inhibits the skill and joy of being able to trust and share themselves with another. Study all the marriage outlines on Truthbase.net for help in developing this intimacy of being inextricably intertwined.
3. One Flesh: this is physical intimacy, occurring not only after the first two, but is built upon them. The joy one experiences here is dependent upon leaving and cleaving. Dysfunctional couples use each other rather than give themselves to each other, becoming one on multiple levels.

The above is God's plan A, dependent upon drawing on His strength to love sacrificially (agape) in addition to emotionally-affectionately (philia and storge) and physically (eros). But what about those who don't know God? This leads to a consideration of what constitutes marriage in God's sight. If two people of random or similar gender go to the town hall and get a permit to sleep with each other (and get insurance benefits) as long as they both shall please, or until someone more attractive shows up, is that marriage in God's sight? Does God join unbelievers together who live in a state that has common law marriage, while across the street, He doesn't join two people who live together in a state that doesn't have common law marriage? If one follows the state's laws about marriage, but not about divorce are they logically consistent (a good test for truth)? How about two people put together by cult leadership or against their will? How about deception and defrauding? Are those who are already married to someone else, or marry for money or a green card, with no intent to honor their commitment, and just mouth words in a religious building any more married in God's sight? Does God join a Druid and a Satan worshiper who sacrifice a goat and have sex? Does God join an Israelite and a “foreign wife”? That last one is the easiest to answer, since the God who after the exile reiterated how He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) also hated the Israelite-pagan unions and mandated divorce (Ezra 10). Apparently God didn't recognize the marriages, and didn't join the two parties together, because He wouldn't bless people until they divorced. The thing that makes people married in the sight of God, is the declaration and intent to do and be so (that's what the vows are all about). If two divorced individuals, each with kids from a prior marriage, get married and have a bunch of kids, and then show up in church, should they be seated in the adulterer's section? If you're in a dysfunctional relationship, don't get divorced, get help. God's grace empowers the impossible. If you are divorced, or divorced and remarried, God has a great Plan B for you, which is better than anything you could achieve on your own, and it starts with developing a great relationship with Him. We'll revisit this topic in 1Corinthians 7.

This section about the little children provides a bookend or inclusio to the beginning of chapter 18, from where one gets the understanding of little children (not one's speculative thinking about kids). Humbly and dependently seeking after Jesus results in possession (belongs to) of the kingdom.

See the Survey of Rewards on Truthbase.net where all the parallel accounts are also considered with the supporting evidence (that is too much to include here). Note that the context is reward in the kingdom, not forgiveness of sins. Where in the gospel, thus far, has Matthew talked about the subsitutionary atonement? Where in this section does it talk about belief and faith in Christ's death as payment for one's sin (Uhhh...nowhere??? Right.). See introductory post to Matthew 1 for the contention that the sins of OT saints were covered by participation in the Day of Atonement. Jesus first harasses the young man, who called him good, but wasn't following Him. If only God is good, and Jesus was good, then Jesus was God, and the man should have left all to follow. The young man wants dominion/life in the kingdom/age to come. See previous discussion on both terms. Jesus states quite simply, if you want enter (see comments on enter=possess), keep the commandments (see anywhere in the previous 39 books of the OT for this theme). He asks Jesus for clarification and gets some specifics and a summary. The young man testified to his righteousness, which Jesus accepted. The only thing he lacked (for “perfect,” see Mt 5:48) was getting rid of what was keeping him from following Jesus, his wealth. For Jesus not to have pointed out his need for justification by faith (if that were the issue) would have made Jesus as dishonest, as those who try to read that into the passage. The issue is clearly reward or inheritance in the kingdom (Col 3:24 equates the two). As a result of giving, the man would have treasure in heaven (Mt 5-7 anyone?). This was denying himself, and then he needed to follow. The cost was too high for the righteous young man, who had a temporal value system. Some, with good cause, think this guy was Mark, who eventually turned around, which we'll explore, when we get to Mark 14:51-52. Jesus turned to his disciples and affirmed the difficulty of the rich to have possessions in the kingdom (equated to being saved by the disciples, in the glorification sense, see Survey of Rewards, and earlier discussion on the three/four aspects of salvation). Matthew uses the term Kingdom of God (as in the one coming from God), perhaps a reference to Mt 6:24 (can't serve two masters) and/or Mt 6:33 (seek first the kingdom of God). The camel and the eye of a needle refer to an impossible thing. Mark 10:24 records Jesus' words additional words “how hard it is for those trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God”

The “eye of the needle gate” hasn't been discovered by archaeologists, and the point is not humility, but self-denial to follow Jesus. Jesus was not opposed to wealth, nor was the OT nor Paul (1Tim 6), but rather an advocate of stewardship and following the Savior. The young man's wealth kept him from doing that. What keeps you from following wholeheartedly?

The disciple's astonishment (first marriage, and now this) was based upon the Pharisaical teaching that wealth was a sign of God's favor and blessing (a legitimate concept from the OT when accompanied with righteousness). God can persuade and motivate a rich person to follow Him, did so in the Scriptures, and has done so throughout history. The rich righteous are doubly blessed and usually are a blessing to others, as God intended (remember He blesses us so we can bless others?).

Peter gets a flash of insight and realizes that they have left everything to follow Jesus. If the rich young ruler who wanted life/dominion in the Messiah's kingdom would get treasure in heaven, “What then will we have?” Note that Jesus did not say everything was equal, but clearly spelled out that they would be granted the highest privilege of rulership/dominion, sitting on a throne, ruling over the twelve tribes, when Jesus sets up His kingdom. This is yet future in Jesus' day, and ours. At the regeneration of all things, when God reverses the effects of the Fall, and sets up the kingdom, look for the twelve on thrones as Jesus promised. But what will there be for us? Anyone who has accepted the terms of discipleship and suffered loss for the sake of following Christ, will be repaid with a hundred times as much (Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 elaborate that it is in this life) and in the age to come will inherit life/dominion of the Messianic Age. Count on it. The Pharisees were considered first, but would be last in the kingdom, and the disciples, who had nothing but a determination to follow Jesus, would be considered first.

This section starts with a “gar” in Greek (a useful little preposition to know in following an argument, for it “gives a reason” for a preceding statement), here giving us an explanation of the first-last-last-first of 19:30. All the workers are paid the same amount, but not the same hourly rate. A denarius was the agreed upon rate for a day's work. The master chose to give those hired last, the same amount as those who worked all day. The last guys got the best hourly rate, the first guys the worst, thus illustrating the first-last comment. Remember, this is about reward, not justification. It is about the master or owner choosing to bless those that from outward appearances don't deserve it (the disciples), and diminish the blessing of those who outwardly do appear to deserve it (the religious establishment). It does not teach equal reward for all believers, since that would violate God's revelation and promises in both testaments to reward righteously. Not everyone sits on a throne over a tribe of Israel. But it does teach that God is generous in rewarding His servants, even those who are late to the game. See comments on 19:30, for Pharisee-Disciple parallel. The last part of verse 16, “many are called and few are chosen”, has caused a lot of controversy. It isn't in some versions, but does show up again in 22:14 (where it better fits the context, and that's where we'll explore it).

Giving another preview of upcoming events, Jesus again mentions His death at Jerusalem, indicating that it will be crucifixion, but ending with resurrection. The purpose, though, isn't given until verse 28.

The mother of James and John tries to do an end run around Peter by requesting that her sons sit on either side of Him in the kingdom. Jesus replied that His Father was the one who determined that (probably Moses and David, but Elijah could be a contender). The other disciples got upset (that their mom's hadn't asked first), and Jesus gives them the Biblical perspective on leadership: it's about serving, not being served. Since they wanted to be great in the kingdom, Jesus told them how to go about it. Be a servant, meeting the needs of others. The greatest serves the most, which was what Jesus was intent on doing. Here for the first time in the gospel of Matthew we are told that Jesus was going to give His life as a ransom for many. This is the vicarious substitutionary atonement (which is theologian-speak for giving one's life as a ransom for many). There is no elaboration of it, nor anything about the necessity of faith. Any understanding of Matthew prior to this chapter that includes justification by faith, is totally missing the point, and is a distortion of the text. We'll talk more about this when the Scripture does.

Two blind men get their eyes opened, and follow God, which is an appropriate metaphor for what believers should do. A similar miracle happened in 9:27, which is a little far away to be a bookend, but there might be some instructive structure and progression between the two accounts. In the first, the recipients disobeyed God; these guys follow. That's progress.

Jesus enters Jerusalem a week before His death (Palm Sunday), on the colt of a donkey (the quote is a combination of Isa 62:11 and Zech 9:9). A multitude of pilgrims, on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover greet him, singing “Hosannas”. These are among the same people who would be screaming “crucify Him” within the week.

Jesus entered the temple and cleaned house. The sacrificial system had become a criminal racket, in which “secular money” wasn't acceptable, so it had to be changed into “temple money” to buy sacrifices at inflated prices. Jesus rebuked them for turning the house of prayer into a den of robbers, and drove out the wicked. The religious establishment leaders, who had permitted and profited from the evil doers, showed their mettle by trying to silence those who were praising the Son of David (typical). Jesus tell the leaders to stuff it, quoting Psalm 8:2.

Spending the night outside town in Bethany, He returns the next morning (second coming?) and sees a fig tree that should have had fruit (since that appeared before the leaves). Not finding any fruit, He curses the tree and it withers, a symbolic judgment on the generation/nation that failed to bear fruit. (See Romans 11 for the restoration). The disciples are noticeably impressed, and Jesus says that with faith (which has to be in what God has revealed) they could do greater things, like moving mountains.

Jesus spends the rest of the chapter sparring with the establishment, who first want to know by what authority He is teaching and disrupting things. Since they won't answer His question about John, He doesn't directly answer theirs. But in the next two parables, clues emerge. The first compares them to the son who didn't do God's will and repent like John taught. The tax collectors and prostitutes (some of the lower echelons of society) were doing God's will because they repented, and thus are entering the kingdom ahead of the elders and chief priests. Notice that they are all said to enter. Enter still means have a possession, as it has earlier in the book. Here is another example of last-first first-last. Note also the veiled reference to the son doing the Father's will, by laboring in His vineyard (Israel), which is what Jesus was doing. The second parable, gets more pointed, with God the Father being the master, Israel the vineyard for which He cared, the religious leaders the farmers who kept the fruit for themselves, the servants being the prophets, and the Son being none other than...well you know. After eliciting from them that the miserable farmers deserved judgment, Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-23 to show that they, who should have been building God's temple are rejecting the chief cornerstone. Therefore they would be judged by having the Kingdom taken from them and given to those who would produce the righteous fruit God desired. The stone would cause some to stumble and be broken, and would crush others (Daniel 2 maybe??). The leaders wanted to kill Him but a focus group from their political consultants suggested they wait until popular opinion waned a bit.

The Kingdom which comes from the Heavens, which we've been discussing throughout the gospel, is compared to a wedding feast, to which the Jews were called, invited, and summoned by the prophets. But they refused, by an exercise of their free will, and chose to do their desire rather than the King's will. They even went so far as to abuse and execute His servants the prophets. The King destroyed them and burnt their city (as would happen in AD 70). Then He called/invited others to His feast, whomever His servants found. In keeping with the reward motif of Matthew, the garments could refer to righteous works (Rev 19:8), or in light of the recent but undeveloped ransom teaching, Christ's righteousness. If the latter view is valid, in keeping with the context of the parable, the King would have provided wedding garments for them since the messengers just gathered them, good and bad, off the streets. Then the improperly clad guest had declined the King's provision. This requires a couple of steps (leaps?) in logic, the former view only one: he was improperly prepared for the kingdom feast because he had failed to listen to the prophets. This corresponds better with a Biblical understanding of choice/chosen, below. So, many were called or summoned to the feast, but not all were worthy or acceptable. Called is summoned, or invited to something, which requires a free will choice to accept or reject, and there are lots of Biblical examples of each, as well as in this parable. Chosen is a word that means choice or select, and by extension, accepted or valuable (cf. USDA Choice steak). Many were invited, but only a few (a smaller number) were shown to be worthy and choice. Compare Jesus' words in 7:13-14.

The Pharisees (who hated Rome and opposed their puppet ruler Herod) and Herodians (who supported Herod and Rome), mortal enemies, teamed up to trip up Jesus, by asking about the obligation to pay taxes. Jesus politely calls them hypocrites and declares the obligation to give to Caesar what is Caesar's (which would include taxes), and to God what is God's (which would include ultimate allegiance). See the chiastic structure in 1Peter 1:17 for another statement of this. In making this statement Jesus paves the way to prevent the tyranny of the state by carving out territory upon which the state might not intrude, and opens the door to political freedom. This verse also provides a basis for civil disobedience, since the state may not overstep its boundaries and demand the allegiance owed only to God. They can demand, but the believer doesn't have to obey, but is free to suffer the consequences of loyalty to God (Cf. Acts 5:29).

Next up, the Sadducees take a swipe at Jesus on the resurrection of the dead, erring, as many modernists do, by being ignorant of the Scriptures, and the power of God. Correcting their misconceptions first about the power of God, they did not understand that the resurrection would not just be an awakening to continue life as they knew it, but a transformation of earthly bodies into glorified bodies, like the angels. Then He addressed their ignorance of the Scriptures, using God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:6 (a book the Sadducees accepted) and a little grammar lesson. By using the present tense God was indicating that He is the God of the living, not the dead. The crowds cheered.

The Pharisees get up at bat for the third out, testing Jesus on the greatest commandment. They agreed that the Law and the Prophets hung on loving God with all they had, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. Jesus then asks a question out of Psalm 110, where David calls his “Son” Lord, indicating His divinity. No one could answer His Biblical logic, so they stopped talking to Him.