Matthew 20:20-28

SECOND SECTION

THE PLACES AT THE RIGHT AND AT THE LEFT HAND OF HIS THRONE—AND OF HIS CROSS

Matthew 20:20-28

(Mark 10:35-45)

20Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children [of the sons of Z., τῶν νἱῶν Z.] with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring [asking, αἰτομ͂σα, comp. Matthew 20:22] a certain thing [something]16 of him. 21And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant [Command]17 that these my two sons may [shall] sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. 22But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask [αἰτεῖσθε]. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?18 They say unto him, We are able. 23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:3 but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them [but it is for those] for whom it is prepared of [by] my Father. 24And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation19 against the two brethren [brothers]. 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes [rulers, ἄρχοντες] of the Gentiles [nations] exercise dominion [lordship, κατακνριεύουσιν] over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26But it shall not be so [But not so is it, οὐχ οὔτως δε ἐστίν]20 among you: but whosoever will be [would become, θέλῃ γενέσθαι] great among you, let him be your minister [διάκονος]; 27And whosoever will be chief [would be first, θέλῃ εἶναι πρῶτος] among you, let him be your servant [δον͂λος]: 28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for [ἀντί] many.21

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 20:20. Then came to Him the mother of the sons of Zebedee.—Salome (comp. Mark 15:40; Mark 16:1; Matthew 27:56), who must accordingly be regarded as the wife of Zebedee. Most of the ancient traditions assume that she was the daughter of Joseph by a previous marriage; while others suggest that she had been the wife of Joseph, by whom he was the father of two daughters; lastly, some regarded her as a niece of Zachariah the priest, the father of John the Baptist. But a correct interpretation of John 19:25 (see Wieseler, Studien und Kritiken, 1840, iii.) shows that she was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Accordingly, James the Elder and John were cousins of Jesus, and Salome His aunt. The relationship subsisting between them might seem to lend additional support to the claims of Salome, based as they were open the friendship subsisting between the Lord and John, and on the general position occupied by the sons of Zebedee. A twofold meaning attaches to the word τότε, then. It refers, in the first place, to the moment when, in company with His disciples, Jesus came forth from the wilderness of Ephraim, and joined the first caravan of festive pilgrims. Probably this band consisted of the more intimate friends and followers of Jesus, who had journeyed directly from Galilee to Ephraim through Samaria, and from thence passed with the Lord to Jericho, where they met the larger caravan coming from Galilee, which had travelled through Peræa. In that company was the ardent and daring mother of the sons of Zebedee. Evidently she had not been with them in the wilderness of Ephraim. Her sons had probably communicated what had passed, and she now advanced the request mentioned in the text. Meyer suggests that she may have heard from her sons what Jesus had promised to the Apostles in Matthew 19:28. No doubt she had been informed of the announcement of His impending sufferings; and this circumstance enables us to appreciate the deeper import of the word τότε. It was immediately after that fearful declaration on the part of Jesus, concerning His impending crucifixion, that she came forward with the request, that her sons should occupy the most prominent positions in His kingdom. The circumstances under which this prayer was urged, go to a certain extent to excuse its boldness, and to deprive it of the unfavorable impression which it would otherwise produce, as if Salome had wished to advance her sons at the expense of Peter. Viewed in this light, there is even something sublime and heroic in what she says. In the midst of such gloomy prospects she seems to raise the standard of highest hope, while she expresses her confident anticipation that in the approaching contest her children would be found by the side of Jesus, and sharing in the greatest dangers. But while admitting all that is noble, there is a sad want of humble surrender to the word of the Lord.

Worshipping Him, and asking a certain thing of Him.—While Matthew represents Salome as interceding for her sons, Mark puts the request into the mouth of the sons themselves. The two accounts supplement each other. Mark lays stress or the fact, that the request of the mother was prompted by her children,—a circumstance which is implied in the indignation of die other Apostles against the two brothers, mentioned by Matthew in Matthew 20:24. On the other hand, our Gospel alludes more particularly to the form in which the request was actually made, the noble aspirations of the mother leading her to sympathize with the desire of her sons. The manner in which this prayer is urged is very significant. Salome seems the first to acknowledge the Lord as Messiah the King. Falling down before Him, she worships Him. At the same time she requests a certain thing of Him; i e., according to a frequent custom in Eastern courts, she entreats His unconditional consent to what she is about to ask (see 1 Kings 2:20). The comment of Meyer that αἰτος͂σά τι means, as one that made a request, is flat. But while it may be somewhat anticipating, with Scultetus, Maldonatus, and Fritzsche to regard τί as implying aliquid magni, it certainly conveys that she was about to urge a petition which she would fain have accorded before actually uttering it. But the reply of the Lord obliged her to express her wish in distinct language.

Matthew 20:21. Command that, or, Say that: εἶπε.—This form of her address tends to present it in a more favorable light. She seems to imply that in point of fact the matter was already decided, and that it now only required a formal declaration on the part of Jesus to have it legally established. What she requested was, that her sons might occupy the two highest places in the kingdom of the Messiah. In the East, the highest place of honor was at the right hand of the king; and next to it, that on the left (Joseph. Antiq. vi. 11, 9. Thus Jonathan and Abner are seated beside Saul, and the Talmud represents the Messiah and Abraham as placed beside God). According to human views of the matter, it needs no special apology, that even “the gentle and meek John should have cherished such a desire” (Meyer). If an arrangement like this had been made, John would, personally, not have gained much; for, considering that James was the elder brother, his could only have been the place at the left hand,—a distinction which would not have been withheld, even if the first place had been accorded to Peter. In fact, as matters actually were, John already occupied a higher place than this. But it is scarcely necessary to say that the views and hopes of John had still to be purified and cleared by the cross, and spiritually elevated at Pentecost.

[Luther: “The flesh ever seeks to be glorified before it is crucified; exalted before it is abased.”—P. S.]

Matthew 20:22. Ye know not what ye ask.—Different views are entertained of this reply. De Wette explains it: Your request arises from an incorrect view of the character of My kingdom, which is spiritual. Meyer paraphrases: Ye know not that the highest posts in My kingdom cannot be obtained without sufferings such as I have to endure. We explain it (comp. Leben Jesu, ii. 3, 1150): They had no idea what fearful honors they would have obtained if their desire had been granted. They would have occupied the place of the two malefactors who were crucified with Jesus. Truly, ye know not what ye ask! The Lord thus replied, in mercy and compassion toward that ignorance, in consequence of which His beloved disciples too frequently seek for themselves what would be dangerous, and even destructive—and, perhaps still more frequently, what is unbecoming. The rebuke of Christ was not merely directed against the ignorance which led them to covet the place of the two malefactors, but also against the presumptuous selfishness which made them forget the other disciples. Still, the answer of the Lord shows that He also had regard to that noble feeling which prompted them to desire a share in His impending sufferings.

Are ye able to drink of the cup? כֹּיס.—“A metaphorical designation for fate in general, and more especially for sufferings; Gesenius on Isaiah 51:17; Knobel on Isa. p. 355.” Meyer. But the term is here purposely chosen, with an allusion, on the one hand, to the cup on the royal table, and, on the other, to the cup of sufferings (Matthew 26:39). The same twofold import attaches to the expression βάπτισμα in the parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark. It may signify a festive bath, but also the baptism of blood which awaited the Lord. Hence the term at the same time expressed the views of the Apostles, and those of the Lord Himself.

We are able, δυνάμεθα.—The sons of Zebedee now come forward in their own names. As from the first they had intended to express their readiness to undergo the deepest sufferings for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, in which they coveted the first places, they now declare their assent to the view set before them by the Lord, that the royal cup must, in the first place, be a cup of suffering—His kingly bath a baptism of blood. Accordingly they express their willingness to suffer with Christ But this statement implied an over-estimate of their own strength, or rather a want of knowledge of their weakness and impotence which afterward became manifest during the night of Christ’s betrayal. Still it cannot be questioned that they were the most courageous among the disciples, as appears from John’s going into the high priest’s palace without denying His master, and from the fact that James was the first martyr of Christ.

Matthew 20:23. Ye shall drink indeed of My cup.—Our Lord does not discuss the question, how far they were capable of bearing suffering. The great question connected with the sufferings of the cross was not one of human heroism, or of the capability of endurance, but of inward, divine, and holy preparation. As yet the two disciples were incapable of making this distinction. Hence the Lord declined their sharing His sufferings in the former sense; while at the same time He pointed forward to the period when they should have part in them, in the higher and only true sense (the future tense is here used by way of antithesis to the present moment). The reply of Christ must therefore be regarded in the light of a correction implying an admission of their calling to suffer with Him; the fact of their being at present unable, in the spiritual sense, to share in His sufferings, being graciously presented in the form of an affirmation that the time for this should arrive. The admission to which we refer is all the more fully made, that the Lord has to add, “But to sit on My right hand, and on My left,” etc. This fellowship of suffering with Christ appeared more distinctly in the case of James than in that of any other of the Apostles. And although John died a natural death, at a very advanced age (see the article in the different Encyclops.; the Histories of the Apostolic Age, and the Fathers, Irenæus, Matthew 2:22; Matthew 2:5; Eusebius, 3:23, etc.), yet in a spiritual sense his was the longest and deepest martyrdom among the Apostles,—not to speak of the fact, that for the sake of Christ he underwent many and severe outward sufferings. Meyer correctly observes, that the apocryphal legend, to the effect that John had emptied a cup of poison without sustaining any harm, may probably have been derived from a misinterpretation of this passage.

[Wordsworth: “Our Lord here describes the two kinds of Christian martyrdom; and all Christians must be prepared for one or the other of them. Every one must be a James or a John.” Similarly Pope Gregory, who distinguishes the martyrium in mente, and the martyrium in mente et actione, so that we may become martyrs, and yet, like St. John, die a natural death.—P. S.]

But to sit on My right hand, etc.—Different views have been taken of this difficult passage: 1. Chrysostom, Castellio, Grotius, and others, regard the word ὰλλά as used instead of εἰ μή, except,—i.e., it does not become Me to bestow it upon others than those to whom it is granted.22 To this de Wette objects—(a) that this is incompatible with the real meaning of οικ ἔτιν ἐμόν; (b) that the word ἀλλά implies an antithesis. At any rate the meaning would be unsuitable. 2. Augustine interprets: It is not Mine, in My capacity as man. 3. Bengel paraphrases: Before My exaltation by suffering. 4. Fritzsche remarks: The Father has prepared the kingdom ( Matthew 25:34); to which de Wette replies, that Christ was certainly the Founder and Ruler of the kingdom. 5. De Wette attempts to combine the views of Augustine and Bengel, and holds that Jesus here speaks of Himself as the human individual who was destined to be the Messiah, but had not yet been perfected as such. But in that case Christ would have expressed it: It is not yet Mine, but will be so at a future period. 6. Meyer holds that the Messianic administration of Christ was not strictly absolute, but limited by His relationship toward the Father. 7. My own view is thus expressed in the Leben Jesu, iii. 2, Matt 1151: “The statement refers not merely to the dispensation of an earthly fate, which cometh from the Father, and according to which two malefactors were to be crucified with Christ, but also especially to the eternal predestination of eternal positions in the kingdom of God.” In other words, Christ here distinguishes between the economy of the Father—creation, and its ideal basis, election to different degrees of glory—and the economy of the Son, or redemption, and an official call to labor in the vineyard. The prominent positions in the kingdom of God depend on certain relationships connected with original creation, and are not bestowed in consequence of office. This explanation is not inconsistent with the fact of a correspondence between chosen spirits and their official position in the kingdom, far less does it imply that the Sons of Thunder did not occupy a high place in the kingdom of Christ. But it conveyed the truth, that this position was not a part of the work of redemption (which was designed only to realize and to manifest the mystery of election)—far less that it depended on official position in the kingdom of Christ. The statement of the Lord thus serves as an introduction to what immediately follows. Spiritual aristocracy must prove its claims by humility, greatness by littleness, and the highest exaltation by the deepest self-abasement. The place which each of us is to hold in the eternal kingdom, is the result of our eternal destination, and intimately connected with the state of our minds and hearts.—For whom it is prepared, οἶς ἡτοίμασται.—That question has been decided before the foundation of the world.

Matthew 20:24. And when the ten heard it, ἠγανάκτη αν, they became indignant, or, were much displeased.—Not in the sense of holy indignation, but as partaking of the same spirit of ambition which had prompted the request. It deserves notice that on this occasion Peter does not seem to have prominently come forward. Of course, we do not mean that he formed on exception to the others. They all shared the same jealousy and indignation, as appears from the general tenor of the rebuke of the Lord. [The ten, including St. Matthew , 23 who here records his own weakness together with that of his colleagues, as St. Peter recommends the epistles of his brother Paul (2 Peter 3:15-16), in one of which his own inconsistency is severely censured (Galatians 2:11). A proof of humility and truthfulness.—P. S.]

Matthew 20:25. The rulers of the nations.—The expression τῶν ἐθνὼν in this passage does not refer exclusively to the Gentiles. Luther: Secular princes. Κατακνριεν́ονσκ, κατεξονσιάζουσιν. In this instance the two verbs have the additional meaning of pride and violence, which κατακυρ. has in 1 Peter 5:3; Psalms 10:5 (Sept.); al hough the word may also simply mean to bear rule. But from the addition of the ἄπαξ λεγόμενον, κατεξουσ., we infer that it bears the meaning above indicated (similarly m Diod. Sicul. 14, 66).—De Wette suggests that οίἄρχοντες refers to the kings, their substitutes and officers (in the Gospel of Mark the expression of οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν is used with special allusion to the symbolical import and the legal validity of the secular power), and that οἱ μεγάλοι applies merely to the officers of state. Bengel explains the employment of the stronger verb in connection with οίμεγάλοι, because the latter are: ipsis sœpe dominis imperiosiores. As the term μεγάλοι primarily refers to persons great or powerful in themselves, perhaps the expression princes may allude to the legitimate rulers, and the term great to illegitimate usurpers and conquerors. Hence also the use of the stronger verb in the second clause.

Matthew 20:26. But not so is it among you.—The reading έστίν is very significant. Christ had already prepared them for this order of things, which was so different from that prevailing in the world. The order and succession in His kingdom was not to be settled according to any legal determination. Jesus had introduced a new and spiritual life, in direct opposition to secular monarchies and hierarchies. Hence also the reading of the future tense (ἔσται), instead of the imperative (ἔστω), is more suitable in the sentence next following.

Matthew 20:26-27. Whoever would become great.—De Wette observes that μέγας =μέγιστος, and πρῶτος in the next clause. Meyer questions the correctness of this view, on the ground of the corresponding antithesis. Evidently, διάκονος corresponds to μέγας, and δον͂λος to πρωτος. Comp. Matthew 18:1. In this instance, then, the “minister” and the “servant,” or “slave,” are intended as emblems of the greatness which the disciples should covet, even as formerly the little child set in the midst of them. In other words, deep humility appearing in service of love was to be the measure of their greatness.

Matthew 20:28. Even as the Son of Man came not to he ministered to.—In Matthew 18:0 greatness was spoken of in the sense of dignity. Accordingly, Christ placed a little child in the midst of them, and ultimately appealed to His own example: “The Son of Man has come to seek that which was lost.” But the greatness referred to in this passage refers to rule or dominion. Hence the Lord points His disciples to ministers or slaves; while He once more referred to His own work and mission, who “had come, not to be ministered to, but to minister.” The expression, “not to be ministered to,” refers to all merely outward rule, whether in the shape of monarchy or hierarchy; in other words, to exercise authority over others for His own interest, for His own glory, or even by external means. Accordingly, the expression, to minister, applies to His submission or obedience. Viewing it in connection with its blessed motive, the passage implies: In His infinite love toward men, the Saviour has come to serve them; and He does so in obedience to the demands of the law and to the will of God, in order thus to redeem them. Hence the addition, and to give His life; which must be regarded as a further explanation, and indicates the climax of the service in which He was engaged. Comp. Philippians 2:6 : obedient—obedient unto death on the cross. The term ministering expresses the spirit of the life of Christ. His sufferings and death illustrated and displayed the submission of His whole course; they shed the fullest light on the object of His life. The Holy Servant of God surrendered His life; and that unto death (the φνχὴ). He gave His life a ransom of life, λύτρον=כֹּפָר; Exodus 30:12; Numbers 35:31; Proverbs 13:8. This price of redemption He gave ἀντί, and not merely ν̔πέρ, in the wider sense, i.e., instead of, in exchange of, or as a substitute; Matthew 17:27; Hebrews 12:16. This redemption at the price of His life was made ἀντὶ πολλῶν The expression many is not intended to indicate a exclusive minority, or a smaller number as compared with all,—for the latter expression occurs in Romans 5:18; 1 Timothy 2:4. The term is intended rather by way of antithesis to the one whose life was the ransom of the many. At the same time, it undoubtedly indicates not only the objective bearing, but also the subjective efficacy of this ransom, by which many (a great multitude) are in reality redeemed. Comp. Romans 5:15; Matthew 26:28.—The state from which these many are redeemed may readily be inferred from the figure employed. De Wette supplies—from death or from the misery of sin; Meyer—from eternal ἀπώλεια. Both commentators are right; but we would express their meaning more definitely. The death or the άπώλεια is here referred to as spiritual bondage or slavery. Comp. John 8:34-36; Hebrews 2:14.

[Similarly Alford: λν́τρον ὰντὶ πολλῶν is a plain declaration of the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the death of our Lord…It is here=ἀντίλντρον ὕπὲρ πάντων, 1 Timothy 2:6. No stress should be laid on this word πολλῶν as not being πάντων here; it is placed in opposition to the one life which is given—the one for many—and not with any distinction from πάντων. ΙΙάντων is the objective, πολλῶν the subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for all, objectively; subjectively, the great multitude whom no man could number, πολλοί, will be saved by Him in the end.”—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Evangelists record three distinct instances in which the disciples seem to have contended for rank and position. (1) In Matthew 18:1, their dispute referred to the highest dignity. Then our Lord placed among them a little child, and taught them that He Himself watched over the little ones, and was the Shepherd of the lost. (2) In the passage under consideration, the reference seems more particularly to supreme rule. The Lord now directs them to the office of minister, and to the position of a slave; He Himself being that Holy Servant of God who had given Himself for the service of man, and redeemed them from the bondage of destruction, at the price of His own life. (3) According to Luke 22:24, another similar discussion took place during the celebration of the Eucharist. The Evangelist records, indeed, but few traits connected with this event. Still, even the circumstance that our Lord washed the feet of the disciples (John 13:0), shows that some occurrence of this kind must have taken place. Properly speaking, this service of love should have been performed by the master of the house. In this case he was not present; nor does any of the disciples seem to have been disposed to do it for the others. Contrary to the common custom, they were already seated at the table with unwashed feet, when the Lord Himself girt the linen towel about Him. From the words of Jesus, as recorded in Luke 22:27, we infer that this formed the commencement of another dispute. But, if the first discussion referred to pre-eminence of dignity, the second to pre-eminence of office and rule,—the third and last dispute probably referred to personal pre-eminence, or a higher place among those who were officially placed on the same level. But even this pre-eminence of personal (in opposition to official) position should give place to voluntary and mutual subordination, prompted by love.

2. “So long as this world shall, for its training, require secular authority and power, the Lord will, in His providence, raise up princes and great ones to administer rule and government. But the Apostles of the Lord were neither to imitate this rule, which was only intended for a preparatory state of things, nor to substitute their own domination in its stead, nor to attempt supplementing it.” Comp. the remarks of James at the council in Acts 15:21 : “Moses has of old time in every city them that preach him;” in other words, the servants of Christ in the Church are not called upon to attend to the legal administration of the law: this is the business of the servants of Moses in the synagogue. Let us beware of confounding Moses and Christ, or the secular government and the ministry of the Church.

3. The statement of Christ, “Whoever among you would be great,” etc., conveys, that the only superiority of authority in His kingdom is that which springs from the service of love, and the only superiority of power is that which appears in ministering to the Church. This, however, does not imply that there is to be no order of office in His Church. But it does convey that anything like difference of rank or tyranny over the Church is incompatible with the will of Christ, and that all ecclesiastical offices are to lead to spiritual services of love. They are intended to subserve and advance the liberty, not the bondage, of the Church. In other words, their tendency is to be toward freedom. It is otherwise with the rule of this world, whether it appear in the form of monarchy or of hierarchy. Every hierarchy requires, more or less, the aid of despotism, and in fact contains the germ of it; while despotism always relies on the support of a hierarchy, or else itself attempts to exercise hierarchical domination over the conscience. Hence also these powers will at last become the instruments of the kingdom of darkness (see the corresponding passages in Dan. and Rev.; also 1 Peter 1:18-19). From all such powers of the world, Christ has redeemed the souls of His people. Hence it were the grossest self-contradiction to attempt introducing the forms of this bondage into the administration of the kingdom of grace.

[Origen: As all carnal things are done by compulsion, but spiritual things by free-will, so those rulers who are spiritual ought to rest their power in the love of their subjects, not in their fears.—Chrysostom: High place courts him who flies from it, and shuns him who courts it…. Men become masters in this world that they may exercise domination over their inferiors, and reduce them to slavery, and rob them, and employ them even to death for their own profit and glory…. But men become governors in the Church that they may serve those who are under them, and minister to them whatever they have received of Christ, that they may postpone their own convenience, and mind that of others, and not refuse even to die for those beneath them. To seek therefore a command in the Church is neither righteous nor profitable….How much soever you humble yourself, you cannot descend so far as did your Lord. Translation taken from the Oxford edition of Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, 1841, vol. 1 part. 2 pp 696, 697).—P. S.]

4. It admits of no question that the word ἀντί in the text implies a vicarious atonement or redemption by a substitute. Still, viewed in its connection, the passage primarily refers to redemption in the narrower sense, and not to the atonement itself. The following three elements may be distinguished in the work of redemption: 1. The καταλλαγὴ, which may be called the prophetic element in redemption; or, the announcement of the grace of God, and its sealing by the death of Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. Klaiber, Stier, and others, even in our own day, do not go beyond this. 2. The ἱλασμός, 1Jn 2:2; 1 John 4:10 : the atonement or propitiation; or, the high-priestly act of redemption, wrought out when Christ gave Himself a sacrifice to the judgment of God pronounced upon the ancient world, thereby converting that judgment into salvation. Anselm has developed this idea, although not with sufficient clearness in the distinction of terms. 3. The ἀπολν́τρωσις, Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 1:14 : the redemption of man from the bondage of destruction by the λν́τρον of the blood of Christ; or, the royal act of redemption, which Christ accomplished when He surrendered His life to the powers of the world and to the power of darkness, thereby redeeming Himself and His people from the rulers of darkness, 1 Peter 1:18-19; Acts 10:38; Acts 26:18. The older Fathers chiefly dwelt on the last-mentioned element, as constituting redemption. During the Middle Ages exclusive stress was laid on the priestly element (to which Athanasius and Gregory of Naz. were the first prominently to call attention); while of late, theologians have chiefly insisted on the prophetical element in redemption. The defect of all these systems consists in their not distinguishing, and at the same time combining, all the three elements in the work of redemption. In Scripture they are generally presented more or less combined under one aspect (see the author’s “Positive Dogmatik,” pp. 858 and 893). Still, one or other of these elements is generally referred to in a more peculiar manner. Thus, in the passage under consideration, there is special reference to the royal office of Christ in redemption which He accomplished in the form of a servant. He gave His life as a ransom to redeem mankind from the power of darkness and to make us His own property. Hence the office of publishing this work of redemption was not to be transformed into a rule over His free Church, 1 Corinthians 7:23. (“Least of all by cruel despotism and the shedding of the blood of His members.”)

5. If there were any truth in the Romish doctrine of the primacy of Peter, our Lord would have given a very different reply to the sons of Zebedee. He would have said in effect: You know that in Cœsarea Philippi I have already accorded the first place unto Peter. But how different was the answer of Jesus!

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Salome and her sons; or, the difference between the noblest aspirations of mere natural enthusiasm and the spiritual courage of holy humility.—The projects of parents with reference to their children must be tried and purified in the light of the Lord.—Salome and her sons as compared with Mary and her sons, Matthew 12:46.—Christ proving Himself the heavenly King at His first public recognition in that character: 1. By His grace; 2. by His impartiality; 3. by the exercise of His prerogative (both in granting and in withholding); 4. by His holiness and justice (guarding and preserving the rights of the Father).—How the thoughts of the Lord are infinitely high above the thoughts even of His people.—Christ both correcting and offering up our petitions.—Ye know not what ye ask; or, the ignorance and the dangers connected with many of our dearest earthly wishes, as illustrated by the request of the sons of Zebedee: 1. They sought the place of the two malefactors; 2. they requested, so to speak, something which had only existence in their imagination (worldly honors in the kingdom of Christ); 3. they sought something which, in its higher import, had already been given away—perhaps to themselves, perhaps to others—viz., special degrees of election.—The threefold administration in the economy of God.—How Christ in His administration always shed a glorious light on that of the Father.—The work of redemption completing that of creation.—“When the ten heard it;” or, how ambition24 and jealousy frequently evoke each other even in the Church of Christ.—The second dispute about pre-eminence among the disciples.—Its relation to the first and the third disputes.—“Jesus called them unto Himself;” or, the teaching of Christ concerning the character of hierarchy, as addressed to the first council of His disciples.—Secular government in its relation to ecclesiastical order: 1. It is recognized without being approved in every particular; 2. it cannot serve as a model for the Church of Christ, or be adopted in the form of a hierarchy; 3. far less may it exercise rule over the Church itself (Cæsaropapacy).—How the government of the Church of Christ must be a ministry in the strictest sense: 1. He that is not willing to be a minister has no place in it; 2. every genuine minister will be great in proportion as he serves; 3. if we are willing to be servants or slaves in this house, i.e., to devote ourselves, body and soul, to its interests, we shall be first.—Only that arrangement has the approbation of the Lord which combines order with liberty in the Church.—The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, etc.; or, the Church is to be formed according to the model which Christ set before us in His life and death.—How Christ’s humiliation condemns the ambition of those who call themselves His servants.—No tyranny over the conscience may interpose between Christ, the kingly Redeemer, and His royal bride, the Church.—Christ has redeemed His people with His precious blood from, not to, the bondage of this world.—“Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men.”—As every other association or body, so the Church has its appropriate organization, corresponding to its nature. Thus the plant would die if it were subject to the conditions of the crystal; the animal, if it were subject to those of the plant; man, if he were subject to those of the animal; and the kingdom of heaven, if subject to those of the world. Or rather, the plant has burst through the conditions of the crystal, and passed beyond it, etc.; and the kingdom of heaven through the conditions and forms of this world.—They would fain have established an order in the Church, by which the forms of an unredeemed world would have been forced upon the redeemed: 1. They would have attempted to present spiritual life under shadows and in emblems; 2. knowledge and spiritual power under law and tradition; 3. redemption or liberty under constraint; 4. spiritual blessedness under force and restraint.—How the sufferings of Christ on the cross have given a right form and order to His kingdom: 1. They have converted the lowest depth into the most glorious height (reproach into honor, sorrow into well-being, service into dignity, apparent weakness into power). 2. They have subjected to His sway all the powers of the world (banished secular authority from the Church, and exalted Him to be the King of kings, and Lord of lords, Revelation 1:5).

On the two preceding sections combined.—The difference between the Lord’s prospect and that of His disciples: He sees the cross where they see thrones of honor; He sees the resurrection and eternal life, where they see only night and darkness.—The human nobility in the aspiration of the sons of Zebedee: the good in it (they express an unlimited hope in the Lord’s cause, and would forever unite their destiny with His); the evil in it (they over-estimate their enthusiasm, and approach too nearly a violation of the obedience due to the Lord, and the love due to their fellow-disciples).—The glance at the Lord’s cross sanctifies the wish of the disciples.

Starke:—Cramer: Christian parents! seek not too lofty things for your children.—Zeisius: It is not only vain, but also most foolish, to seek from Christ temporal honor and glory.—It seems as if Christ here (by the cup and the baptism) had referred to the two great sacraments of the New Testament, which bind us to the imitation of Christ.—Quesnel: The weakness of man betrays itself even in his prayers, Romans 8:26.—First the suffering, then the crown, 1 Peter 4:13.—Osiander: Every Christian has his portion of tribulation assigned: let him take it as a salutary cup and healthy medicine.—The best men may make great mistakes as to the extent of their ability.—Lord Jesus! make me worthy to drink of Thy cup, and then place me where Thou wilt.—Canstein: One offence soon draws others after it (then were the ten displeased).—In the kingdom of Christ there are only ministers, servants, and brethren.—O how far is the external Church fallen from this purity!—Langii Opus: This declaration throws the whole papistical hierarchy to the ground.—Quesnel: Preachers must serve after the example of Christ.

Gerlach:—A warning to all in the Church who are higher than others, that they should remember the foundation of their power; lest it should be mere empty form, ruinous to themselves and the Church.

Heubner:—The sons of Adam gladly bow down when worldly honor is to be attained.—Vain maternal love often leads greatly astray.—To sit on Thy right hand: how much disposed the heart is to make religion the means of furthering worldly interests.—The higher a man looks, the greater the danger.—To partake of the highest honor with Jesus is to suffer with Him.—He who knows nothing of the cup of Christ’s passion will have no part in the cup of joy.—Hence we see how ambition exasperates others against us.—Wouldest thou rule, learn first to serve.

Footnotes:

[16] Matthew 20:20.—[Dr. Lange adds in small type and in parenthesis: a royal favor, following Maldonatus and Fritzsche who and in τι aliquid magni, by way of anticipation. See his Exeg. Notes.]

[17] Matthew 20:2.—[So Conant, who correctly observes that εἰπέ has here the sense of authoritative direction, as in Matthew 4:8 : “Command that these stones be made bread,” and in Luke 10:40 : “Bid her therefore that she help me.” Lunge: Sprich’s aus.—P. S.]

[18] Matthew 20:22-23.—The words: καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζουαι, βαπτισθῆςαι in Matthew 20:22. and the corresponding addition: καὶ …. βαπτισ θήσεσθε in Matthew 20:23, are wanting in Codd. B., D., L., Z. [and i Cod. Sinait., which belongs to the same class of MSS.], and in many ancient versions [and in all critical editions]. They were in all probability inserted from the parallel passages in Mark 10:38-39.

[19] Matthew 20:24.—[Or: were much displeased, ήγανάκτησαν, as the verb is rendered Mark 10:14; Mark 10:41, and by Conant in this place.—P. S.]

[20] Matthew 20:26.—Lachmann, with B., D., L., Z., and other authorities, reads: ἐστίν. So also Meyer: “The Recepta ἔσται is a change with the view to conform it to Matthew 20:26-27. where ἔσται occurs twice (instead of ἔστω, Fritzsche), according to Lachmann and the preponderance of authorities.” [Tischendorf reads ἔσιαι in Matthew 20:26, and afterward twice: ἔστω. God Sinait. twice: εστε.—P. S.]

[21] Matthew 20:28.—[Codd. D., Z., al., have a lengthy apocryphal addition to this verse. which resembles Luke 14:8 sqq. See the critical apparatus in Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford; also the Com. of Meyer, p. 875.—P. S.]

[22][So also Alford, who translates ἀλλ’ οἶς: except to those for whom—Wordsworth explains: It is not for Me to give, but it is for Me to adjudge; it is not a boon to be gained by solicitation, but it will be assigned to those for whom it is prepared, according to certain laws prescribed by God.—P. S.]

[23][Bengel: Decem. In his ingenuus evangelista.—P. S.]

[24] [Not: reverence, as the Edinb. translator has it, who thoughtlessly read: Ehrfurcht for Ehrsucht (und Eifersucht), and thus made Lange responsible for the nonsense that a fundamental virtue begets an evil passion and vice verse.—P. S.]