Chapter Nine

1–8. Healing of the paralyzed man in Capernaum. – 9–17. The calling of Matthew, the feast he gave, and the discussion about the objections raised by the Pharisees and John’s disciples. – 18–26. Healing of the woman with a flow of blood and resurrection of Jairus’s daughter. – 27–31. Healing of two blind men. – 32–34. Healing of a mute demon-possessed man. – 35–38. Preliminary remarks spoken before the sending of the apostles on a preaching mission, which is discussed in detail in chapter 10.

Matthew 9:1. Then, entering the boat, He crossed over and came to His own city. (See Mark 5:18-21; Luke 8:37-40.) The city to which the Savior came, Matthew calls “His own.” According to Jerome, this was Nazareth. But others think it was Capernaum. The latter opinion has very strong grounds in its favor. Matthew says that Christ left Nazareth and “settled in Capernaum by the sea” (Matt 4:13). This was before the events recounted by the evangelist in chapter 9. Furthermore, the miracle of which Matthew speaks in the following verses of chapter 9, according to the evangelist Mark, was performed in Capernaum (Mark 2:1 and following). John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, and others say that Bethlehem was the city in which He was born, Nazareth was where He grew up, and in Capernaum He had His permanent dwelling. As for the order in which Matthew and the other synoptics recount the healing of the paralyzed man in Capernaum, it must be noted that it is almost entirely different. In Mark (Mark 2:1 and following) the account is placed immediately after the healing of the leper, as it is also in Luke (Luke 5:17), but the time of the paralyzed man’s healing is determined in more general terms. Chiefly from this, it is concluded that Matthew’s account should be assigned to an earlier time, that is, to the circumstances recounted by him in Matt 8:1-4 and following. We cannot here enter into a detailed examination of the question of the precise order in which Gospel events should have followed the healing of the leper, because this question is extremely difficult and complex. It suffices to note that in Matthew the verse in question is directly connected with the preceding chapter, that is, when the inhabitants of the land of the Gadarenes asked Christ to depart from their borders, it was precisely because of this request that He entered the boat, crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, and then in Capernaum healed the paralyzed man.

Matthew 9:2. And behold, they brought to Him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralyzed man, “Be of good cheer, child; your sins are forgiven you. (See Mark 2:3-5; Luke 5:18-20.) Mark and Luke recount the event with greater detail than Matthew (Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). The word “their” faith (αὐτῶν) should first of all refer to those who brought the paralyzed man. If the sick man himself had strong faith, there would be no need to remind him of his sins. It is very possible that the sick man viewed his illness as punishment for his sins. Thus he could suffer not only physically but also spiritually. To end these sufferings, it was necessary first of all to heal him of his spiritual sickness. Therefore, as if deferring the matter of miraculous healing, Christ says first: “your sins are forgiven you.” By speaking these words, the Savior “first healed the soul, forgiving sins; if He had first healed the sick man, this would not have brought Him great glory” (Saint John Chrysostom).

Matthew 9:3. And behold, some of the scribes said within themselves, “This man blasphemes. (See Mark 2:6-7; Luke 5:21.) The word “some” in Matthew and Mark apparently shows that there were quite many scribes, but not all of them participated in condemning Christ. The scribes and Pharisees thought that He blasphemed because He was claiming for Himself, as a man, prerogatives (forgiving sins) that belong only to God.

Matthew 9:4. And Jesus, seeing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? (See Mark 2:8; Luke 5:22.) The accusation is refuted not only by the fact that Christ heals the paralyzed man (verse 6), but also by the fact that Christ becomes known what His enemies secretly thought about or spoke of. This very penetration into their thoughts could show them that He had power to forgive sins.

Matthew 9:5. For what is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven you,” or to say, “Arise and walk”? (See Mark 2:9; Luke 5:23.) The question posed to the scribes is remarkable in its depth and subtlety. They thought it difficult to say what had already been said by Christ. They themselves would not have said such a thing. And “arise and walk” — they would not have dared say it at all. Thus for them both were impossible. But for Christ it was different. The first He had already said, so it was easy for Him. But was it equally easy to say “arise and walk”? Inter dicere et facere (between doing and saying), as Jerome says, multa distantia est (there is great distance). The expected answer was that it is easier to forgive sins, because those words had already been spoken; but in themselves, they could be neither proved nor disproved. On the other hand, if the words “arise and walk” proved ineffectual, they could only provoke ridicule. Therefore Christ confirms His apparently easier utterance by demonstrating His power through the harder deed. In the proof presented by the Savior, careful attention must be paid to the fact that He does not ask: what is easier — to forgive sins or to raise the sick man? Because one cannot assert that forgiving sins is easier than healing. But — what is easier to say. “By human judgment it is easier to say: they are forgiven” (Bengel) — by human reckoning it is easier to say “forgiven.” But I, the Savior explains, will prove My right to speak thus by saying a harder word (Trench).

Matthew 9:6. But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — then He said to the paralyzed man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house. Matthew 9:7. And he arose, took up his bed, and went to his house. (See Mark 2:11-12; Luke 5:24-25.) In some codices the words “took up his bed” are missing. In the Russian translation they are underlined; in the Slavonic translation they are placed in brackets; in the Vulgate, German, and English translations they are omitted. In the Russian and Slavonic translations they were inserted arbitrarily, probably only in correspondence with the accounts of the other evangelists. The original Greek of Matthew has no variation at all in this verse. The narrative of the miracle is distinguished by extreme simplicity. A man who could not be carried into the house while sick comes out of it healthy without outside assistance.

Matthew 9:8. And when the crowd saw this, they were amazed and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (See Mark 2:12; Luke 5:26.) “Who had given such authority to men.” The evangelist in this verse is clearly depicting the impression produced on the people by the healing of the paralyzed man, and probably in those very words in which this was expressed by the people themselves — and the people were in general composition simple (ὄχλοι). Could they think of anything particularly lofty or philosophical rather than express themselves in their ordinary popular language? Clearly, the force of the expression here is almost equivalent to our usual popular expressions used when, having heard of someone’s good fortune, we say: “what blessing comes to people.”

Matthew 9:9. Passing along, Jesus saw a man sitting at the place of toll, named Matthew, and says to him, “Follow Me.” And he arose and followed Him. (See Mark 2:13-14; Luke 5:27-28.) In the Gospels of Mark and Luke the same account is transmitted with certain details and in the same context. According to Mark, the Savior, after healing the paralyzed man in Capernaum, went out again to the sea; the crowd followed Him, and He taught them. On this path He saw Levi, who, after the command to follow, “arose” and went after Him. In Luke there is no mention of Christ’s journey to the sea, but it is noted that after the calling Matthew left all things and, arising, followed Christ. The transmission of Christ’s words by the three evangelists can be considered identical. All three evangelists connect the account of the calling with the preceding miracle of the healing of the paralyzed man in Capernaum and the subsequent feast at Matthew’s house. From this it is clear that all speak of one and the same event. The only difference is that the first evangelist calls himself Matthew, while Mark and Luke call him Levi. Such disagreement was the cause of numerous disputes and investigations. Some hold that it could not possibly be that accounts nearly identical to the point of literalness would report about different persons. The identity of Matthew and Levi has therefore been recognized from ancient times. It is thought that under the name Levi the evangelist was known before he became a disciple of Christ. And the name Matthew was either taken by him after the calling and given to him by Jesus Christ (see John 1:42), or he had two names before, like John Mark (Acts 12:12). According to other exegetes, the name Levi properly indicates his descent from the tribe of Levi, while Matthew (in Hebrew — a gift of God, the same as the Greek Theodore) was the name by which the evangelist was known. Speaking of his calling, Matthew, out of humility, calls himself by the name under which he was known as a tax collector, so that he might more fully designate his former sinful life and, by contrast, exalt Christ, who did not disdain him, the sinner and tax collector. Matthew himself has not the slightest hint that he was called Levi, while the other evangelists, having called Matthew Levi in the accounts of his calling, in the list of apostles called by Christ (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), mention Matthew here and make no reference to Levi. “This,” says Alford, “is almost inexplicable if we assume that Matthew had two names.” The circumstance that according to the meaning of the account Matthew immediately followed Christ raised doubt in ancient times about the authenticity of the fact reported by the evangelist. Porphyry and Julian said that it would be unreasonable for a tax collector to follow after “some” person who called him. But this objection is refuted by the fact that Matthew could have heard both the earlier teaching of Christ and seen His miracles, and thus could have known Him long before his calling. In reality, the account does not show at all that Matthew immediately followed Christ, because the word “immediately” does not appear in the Gospel. But if the following had begun immediately (see John 1:43), this would not at all exclude the possibility of Matthew settling his accounts and calculations from his former activity. There is no necessity to suppose that the feast at Matthew’s house was arranged immediately after he was called by Jesus Christ to apostleship, although the latter was possible. Matthew was a tax collector, or collector of tribute. We have no detailed information about the methods of collecting taxes in the land which at that time was ruled by Herod Antipas, so it is very difficult to say for certain whether Matthew was an official serving precisely under Herod Antipas (see βασιλικός — John 4:46, ἐπίτροπος Ἡρώδου — Luke 8:3), or an agent of the general collection of taxes for the Romans (Zahn,). Matthew was undoubtedly a Jew. If so, this circumstance alone provoked distrust and contempt from his compatriots, who considered such people traitors and enemies of their country. Matthew belonged to the class of tax collectors whom the Romans called portitores (those who collected taxes at ferries). Tax collectors were unpopular throughout the empire. But their position was profitable. Mark and Luke say that Matthew was sitting at the “tax booth,” which probably should be understood not as a house but as some kind of hut or tent with a table, where accounts were kept and money was paid for various goods transported across the lake. According to Mark (Mark 2:14), Matthew’s father was Alphaeus. Since Matthew relates the account of his calling in the midst of the narrative of miracles performed by the Savior, it was suggested that his calling was such a great miracle as the other miracles of Christ, a miracle in the sense that a tax collector became an apostle. Theophylact, it seems, is the only one to remark that the Savior called Matthew after Peter and John.

Matthew 9:10. And when Jesus reclined in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and reclined with Him and His disciples. (See Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29.) Mark speaks in greater detail about the same matter, Luke speaks more clearly. Matthew, on the other hand, recounts the matter very briefly, not placing this verse in close connection with the preceding one. For him the matter is presented as follows: Matthew followed Christ, without indicating where exactly. Then the speech seems to be interrupted, the picture of following is replaced suddenly by the picture of reclining at table, and the evangelist gives no indication of whose house this took place in. In Mark it is added that this took place “in his house,” but whose house is still unknown, because the word “his” could refer to Jesus Christ Himself. Luke adds a phrase saying that Levi arranged a great feast “in his own house” (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), from which it is concluded that the house belonged to Levi himself. If Matthew had come to Christ’s house, there would have been relatively nothing particularly remarkable about it. But if Christ visited Matthew’s house, that was remarkable. He, the Divine Teacher, who taught not as the scribes and Pharisees did, who performed such great miracles, came to the house of a poor tax collector and reclined in his house, accepting his hospitality! Naturally, Matthew and the other synoptics wish to present to their readers precisely this remarkable fact.

Matthew 9:11. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners? Matthew 9:12. And Jesus, hearing this, said to them, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick, Matthew 9:13. Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (See Mark 2:16-17; Luke 5:30-32.) The line of thought appears to be thus: You think that I acted wrongly in coming to the sick. You think so because you are too attached to the law and its sacrifices, and believe that all piety and pleasing God are exhausted in people bringing Him sacrifices. But sacrifices are one thing; in communion with people needing help, what is required is not sacrifices but mercy. You bring sacrifices and remain indifferent toward people requiring mercy and love; I act differently — the foremost place in My activity is occupied by mercy. And this mercy consists in the fact that I have come to call them to Myself — and only them, sinners, not the righteous — and to heal them of their ailments. Concerning the words: “I have come to call...” some Church writers raise the following questions. Christ came to all — why then does He say He did not come to the righteous? Consequently, were there people who did not need Him to come? Did Christ really wish to express the thought that He came only to sinners? If He includes both sinners and the (supposedly) righteous in the same category and actually understands only sinners as both, then can we ascribe to Him the thought of dividing sinners into classes? In response to these questions, we shall say that Christ’s expression should be understood only in the broadest, if not absolute sense: He came exclusively to sinners. Why not to the righteous? Because they do not exist. Who is the man who lives and does not sin? Only Christ is absolutely righteous, while all others are sinners. In verse 13, therefore, Christ expresses the thought about the sinfulness of all people. The scribes and Pharisees, who considered themselves righteous, were mistaken: they were not only sinful, but even more sinful than these tax collectors and their companions. Thus the distinction should be made not between sinners and the righteous, but only between those who are relatively sinful and those who are absolutely sinful. The former are not so sinful as to refuse to receive Christ; the latter are more sinful because, faced with living and absolute Righteousness and Sinlessness, they consider themselves righteous and therefore cannot receive Christ. Christ never said that all must receive Him, have received Him, or do receive Him. Throughout the Gospel runs the thought of sinners being saved and sinners for whom the door of salvation is closed.

Matthew 9:14. Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast? (See Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33.) All three evangelists recount the event with essential similarity, but the expressions vary completely. To clarify what is involved, let us attempt to present it somewhat more vividly through comparing all three evangelists. Those who come: Matthew (Matt 9:14) – the disciples of John Mark (Mark 2:18) – the disciples of John and Pharisees Luke (Luke 5:30) – Pharisees and scribes Those who speak: Matthew (Matt 9:14) – about themselves and the Pharisees Mark (Mark 2:18) – about themselves and the disciples of the Pharisees Luke (Luke 5:30) – about John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees. From this comparison it is evident that both the disciples of John and the Pharisees came to Christ and spoke both about themselves and about other people with whom they were in agreement. Since the subsequent speech of Christ is clearly directed to the disciples of John, one can conclude that they came forward chiefly before Christ and spoke to Him. But since the Pharisees are mentioned alongside them, we can understand that the latter instigated the disciples of John to propose questions to Christ and perhaps hoped thereby to place Him in difficulty.

Matthew 9:15. And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. (See Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35.) The general meaning of Christ’s speech is the same in all three evangelists. This speech was apparently directed to the disciples of John and reminded them of what John the Baptist had spoken of before. According to the testimony of the evangelist John, when the disciples of the Baptist had a dispute with Jews about cleansing and when his disciples came and spoke to him about Christ (John 3:25-28), the Baptist spoke among other things: “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, standing and hearing him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice” (John 3:29). The meaning of the speech in the synoptics is identical in meaning down to the letter with this speech of the Baptist. But instead of John’s words, in which only he himself considered himself the “friend of the bridegroom,” Christ now speaks of many “friends,” “sons of the bridegroom chamber” — almost what we call “groomsmen” at weddings. The Savior does not answer the first part of the question posed to Him at all, the assertion that John’s disciples and the Pharisees fast much. He completely leaves it to the Pharisees and John’s disciples to follow their own conscience. All the content of His answer is directed to the defense of His disciples. He Himself takes on the image of bridegroom indicated by the Baptist. This image is not something new but has its basis in the Old Testament (Ps 44; Song 2; see also Eph 5:22-23; Rev 19:7-9). Among the Hebrews, wedding feasts continued for seven days and this was a time of joy and gladness. Meanwhile, fasting served as a sign of sorrow. The presence of Christ as bridegroom among the sons of the bridegroom chamber should have eliminated sorrow from them. But this time would not last forever. Just as wedding celebrations end and the “groomsmen” depart to their homes, so too Christ’s dwelling with the disciples will end. After His departure the disciples will fast. These words should not be understood as a commandment. The Savior speaks here as though saying: “the disciples cannot fast now, but a time and occasion will come for both fasting and various expressions of sorrow.” Rightly it is noted that here for the first time in Matthew the Lord points to His sufferings.

Matthew 9:16. And no one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. (See Mark 2:21; Luke 5:36.) Here the expressions of all three evangelists are distinguished by extreme obscurity, and this has always presented enormous difficulties for exegetes. The meaning of this verse is expressed more clearly in Luke (Luke 5:36): no one sews a patch from a new garment on an old garment; if they do otherwise, the new tears apart and the patch from the new garment does not fit the old garment. So by the most literal and possibly accurate translation. Now, what connection do these words have with what precedes? The discussion was about fasts. The absence of fasting, while the groomsmen are with the bridegroom, in the new religion was one of its characteristics. A characteristic of the old religion was the existence of fasts in it. If one now takes away the new characteristic and applies it to the old, then in the new a gap will appear, which, however, will be useless for the old garment, because it cannot be mended with this patch. If there is a hole in the old garment, it does not matter. It is destined for destruction. But in the new garment a hole will appear, which one would be unhappy to have and see.

Matthew 9:17. Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are ruined. But they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved. (See Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-39.) The speech in this verse is much clearer than in the preceding verse, and the images are more intelligible. It is well known that if a liquid capable of fermentation is enclosed in some weak vessel, it will burst it and itself be spilled. Christ intentionally uses the image of young and consequently fermentable wine, which in Palestine even to this day is poured into wineskins. If they are not sturdy, the wine bursts them, makes them completely useless, and itself is spilled. In Mark and Luke the meaning is the same, if we do not take into account the addition in Luke’s verse 39, which is absent in both Matthew and Mark. The expressions of all three evangelists are different. What should be understood by “new wine”? It should be noted that the connection between the speech about new and old garments, new wine and old wineskins, with the images of verse 15, where there is talk of a wedding feast and of Christ as bridegroom — if one thinks that new garments and new wine are characteristic of a wedding feast — is only external. The parable was spoken in answer to a question about fasts. Under them one should understand the old garments and old wineskins. The new teaching about fasts — this is the new garment and new wine. To require of the disciples the former observance of fasts means to pour new wine into old wineskins or to sew new patches onto an old garment. According to Zahn, the teaching in this verse is essentially the same as in verse 16, but the goal is different: there it speaks of maintaining the old, here — of preserving the new.

Matthew 9:18. While He was speaking to them, behold, a certain ruler came and knelt before Him, saying, “My daughter has just died; but come, lay Your hand on her, and she will live. (See Mark 5:22-23; Luke 8:41-42.) The contradiction arising here between Matthew and the other synoptics some exegetes consider irreconcilable. But this can scarcely be agreed with if we allow that Matthew presents events briefly, omitting the details found in the other synoptics. Factually the matter presents itself as follows: Jairus left his daughter only dying but not dead, and when he came to the Savior, he thought that she had already died. He spoke, therefore, of his daughter’s death either by conjecture or because he received news of her death during his very negotiations with the Savior. Matthew and Mark do not mention the raising of the widow’s son of Nain. From Luke’s account one can conclude that this event occurred before the raising of Jairus’s daughter. If so, it is easy to understand why Jairus asked Christ to come and lay His hand on his daughter. But if the raising of Jairus’s daughter was the first resurrection, it is not easy to understand Matthew’s speech of the father, for he asks the Savior for nothing other than the raising of his daughter. One must, therefore, assume that Jairus was already acquainted with the fact of the raising of the widow’s son of Nain. As for the name Jairus, it means what shines or glows, from the Hebrew root “or,” that is, “caused to shine” (luxit). Jairus was undoubtedly a Hebrew.

Matthew 9:19. And Jesus arose and followed him, and his disciples. (See Mark 5:24; Luke 8:42.) From the word “arose” one cannot conclude that Jesus Christ was at that time reclining at the feast at Matthew’s house. According to the account of Mark, this was when Jesus Christ was surrounded by much people (ὄχλος πολύς). In the Bible the word ἐγείρεσθαι, like ἀνίστασθαι (the Hebrew “kam”), often means only “transition from rest to movement” (Zahn,).

Matthew 9:20. And behold, a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His garment; Matthew 9:21. for she said to herself, “If I only touch His garment, I will be healed. (See Mark 5:28-29; Luke 8:44.) Mark provides details about the very process of healing; Luke speaks of the same very briefly. Matthew does not speak of the healing, but of course it is implied of itself. The deed of the woman and her thoughts cannot be considered “superstitious” because that word means vain, futile faith; but the circumstances showed that the woman’s faith was neither vain nor futile. This eliminates all reasoning about the superstitious deed of the woman and about her belief in the efficacy of touching the clothes of the Savior.

Matthew 9:22. And Jesus, turning and seeing her, said, “Take courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you.” And from that hour the woman was made well. (See Mark 5:30-34; Luke 8:45-48.) Compared with the accounts of Mark and Luke, Matthew’s account is distinguished by brevity. Matthew conveys only that the Savior, turning back and seeing the woman, told her that her faith had saved her, and she was made well from that hour. In Matthew it is not as clear as in the other synoptics what was the source of the woman’s fear. However, that she was indeed afraid of something can be inferred from his account, for she touched Christ secretly, and speech with Him was prevented her, of course, by her fear or dread. “Daughter” in this case can serve as an addition to the word “be of good cheer.” The woman should be brave because she is not a stranger to Christ, but His daughter, just as the paralyzed man was His “child” (Matt 9:2), and all other people who believed in Christ. A greeting full of loving-kindness.

Matthew 9:23. And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the flute players and the crowd in confusion, Matthew 9:24. He said to them, “Leave this place; the girl is not dead, but sleeping.” And they laughed at Him. (See Mark 5:35-40; Luke 8:49-53.) The account that on the way to Jairus’s house people came to the ruler (according to Luke, τις — a certain man) saying that the girl had died, that he should not trouble the Teacher, and the other details given by Mark and Luke — Matthew omits. The most detailed account is in Mark. According to Matthew’s account, Jesus Christ enters Jairus’s house (who is not called by name) and sees pipe players (αὐλητάς) and the people thrown into turmoil (τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον), commands everyone to go out (ἀναχωρεῖτε — expresses backward movement, retreat, withdrawal), because the girl did not die but sleeps. The circumstance that the girl had indeed died is not indicated clearly by Matthew, but the further account, that “they laughed at Him” — they laughed, of course, because they saw in His words at least an error — points to the reality of death. The evangelist, though in the shortest expressions, here presents us with the ordinary picture of preparation for burial, which was customarily performed among the Jews on the very day of death. In a small town, where everyone knows each other, they know what is happening with their neighbors, and the death of a girl was learned quickly. And as soon as it was learned, hired pipe players and mourners appeared. The mention of pipe players does not appear in the parallel accounts of Mark and Luke. The instruments used by them were flutes. The number of pipe players usually exceeded the number of mourners, if we can draw such a conclusion from the assertion in the Talmud that the poorest Israelite was obliged to provide for two pipes and one mourner when his wife died. The number of both increased according to the means of the family, and in this case, there was probably a considerable number of both. Mourners are already mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 9:17). The custom of lamentation over the dead existed among Greeks and Romans. Since the flute players and mourners were hired, there was of course much falsehood and hypocrisy in this matter. In their laments they enumerated the merits and virtues of the deceased in order to move their close relatives to even greater weeping. It was precisely this falsehood and hypocrisy that provoked Christ’s indignation. He commanded all present to depart, leaving (according to the other synoptics) only a few people. As we should understand, His words: “the girl is not dead but sleeps,” aimed to counteract not only hired and hypocritical, but even sincere lamentation. For the former they were a rebuke, for the latter — a comfort. The further meaning of Christ’s words, as is rightly noted, was that He counted death as sleep. So more than once, but also in the raising of Lazarus. Death is a lie in human life, and being a lie, it produces and causes other lies. This truth is opposed to truth, which commonly provokes mockery from lies and liars. This explains the mockery of Christ. In the deepest and most serious moments of human history, people mocked the Son of Man. But all this only proves more strongly the truth of the words of Truth Himself: the evangelists would not have said κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ if the whole matter seemed like a baseless legend or if the girl had fallen into a lethargic sleep. Κοράσιον — a diminutive from κόρη — means “little girl” or “maiden.” In interpreting these verses, John Chrysostom seems to make an error, asserting that, according to Mark and Luke, Christ took three disciples with Him, while Matthew simply says that (Christ took) disciples.

Matthew 9:25. But when the crowd had been sent out, He went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. (See Mark 5:40-42; Luke 8:54-56.) This was the first resurrection reported by Matthew. In the account of the raising of Jairus’s daughter, Matthew is almost as brief as Luke, but Mark provides vivid details. No accounts, of course, have been subjected to such great doubts as the accounts of resurrection. Attempts were made to explain them by lethargic sleep, fainting, and similar conditions of the people raised. One thing is certain: the evangelists themselves intended to set forth and convey the facts in such a way that those reading their accounts could see that persons who had truly died were brought back to life by Christ. However sparse the details, from various small features one can see that this was indeed the case. Without entering into a detailed exposition of this subject, we can only note that “investigations in the most recent period tend to affirm the greater, not lesser historical value of the Gospels” (Sanday). The proofs of all the miracles recounted in the Gospels are very strong. Especially favored ways of naturally explaining miracles are contained in the following three propositions: 1) Gospel miracles are imitations of Old Testament accounts; 2) exaggeration of natural events; 3) transformation of what was originally a parable into actual facts. But whatever value we assign to these propositions in themselves, they are unable to explain either all together or separately the greater part of the miraculous Gospel accounts (Sanday). To this we add that if we acknowledge one series of miracles as unreliable — physical miracles — we will encounter another series of miracles — in word, to which should be attributed the parables and speeches of Jesus Christ. If physical miracles were fabricated, who could have fabricated the teaching attributed to Him?

Matthew 9:26. And the report of this went out through all that land. Properly, not “report” but utterance, rumor (ἡ φήμη αὔτη, Latin fama); such was the natural consequence of the great miracle. Matthew does not mention the horror reported by Mark and Luke (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:56) over the miracle and the prohibition to speak of it. The expression: “through all that land” (properly, “into all that land”), serves for some exegetes (Bengel) as proof that the Gospel was written not “in that land” but in another. Otherwise Matthew would have said not “that” but “this.”

Matthew 9:27. And when Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, “Have mercy on us, Son of David! Only Matthew reports the two miracles recounted in verses 27–31 and 32–34. The words of the blind men “Son of David,” addressed to Christ, appear in Matthew’s Gospel in all three cases of the Savior healing blind men (see Matt 12:23). Frequently, too, prophets called kings “who they wished to honor and exalt” (Saint John Chrysostom). Very probably this title was connected with earthly ideas of a conquering Worldly King, which explains Christ’s clearly expressed displeasure both in this case and in the healing of the Canaanite woman.

Matthew 9:28. And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to Him, “Yes, Lord. It is unknown into what house the Savior entered. That the event occurred on the road from Jairus’s house cannot be asserted with certainty, even in view of Matthew’s disregard for chronological and partly topographical data. In any case, we can think that it was not Jairus’s house. It would be incredible if it were Matthew’s or Peter’s house. Most probably it was the house where Christ’s mother, brothers, and sisters lived (John 2:12; see Matt 4:13). As is evident from the account, the Lord at first did not respond to the cries of the blind men for the aforementioned reason, but they went after Him into the house itself and there asked Him for healing. Healing did not happen immediately, but after the question: “Do you believe” and so forth. “In general, Matthew reports a great variety of actions in healings: a simple word (Matt 8:13), word and touch (Matt 8:3), only touch (Matt 8:15, otherwise Mark 5:41), neither one nor the other (Matt 9:20-22); no description at all (Matt 9:33)” (Zahn, 1905). The word translated into Russian as “yes” is expressed in Greek by ναί, which appears many times in the New Testament and means: yes, exactly, certainly.

Matthew 9:29. Then He touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith let it be done to you. It is reported that the blind men’s eyes were opened as a result of the touch of His hand. This was a response to the faith of the blind men. The account is so brief that one cannot speak of the character of the blindness or what and how they saw when their eyes were opened.

Matthew 9:30. And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, saying, “See that no one knows about this. The reason for forbidding the blind men to spread news of their healing, according to the interpretation of John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, was the humility of the Savior, who did not wish His glory to spread and hinder His preaching. It is also quite possible that He observed in the faces of those to whom He addressed such prohibitions certain individual characteristics that prompted Him to give such commands.

Matthew 9:31. But they went out and spread the word about Him throughout that land. “Going out,” that is, from the house. “Throughout that land” — probably Galilee. The healing of the blind men was the tenth miracle (Jerome). Church writers justify the blind men in that they spread news of the healing. They did this not as a result of disobedience, but out of gratitude (Theophylact). But others hold a different view, although, if we may say so, no harmful consequences of this spreading appear in the Gospel. It could be that the prohibition was given in view of the malicious intentions of the enemies of Jesus Christ, who were already preparing to declare that He cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul.

Matthew 9:32. As they were going out, behold, a dumb demon-possessed man was brought to Him. Matthew 9:33. And when the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowd, amazed, said, “Never has anything like this been seen in Israel. (See Matt 12:22.) About the miracle of healing the mute demon-possessed man, only Matthew reports. The healing evokes amazement in the crowd, but such amazement as is characteristic when seeing a miracle (as indicated by the verb θαυμάζω).

Matthew 9:34. But the Pharisees said, “By the prince of demons He casts out demons. Concerning what significance this accusation had, it will be said below, in the explanation of Matt 12:24 and following. For now, let us note with Bengel that magnitudinem miraculorum negare non poterant: magno igitur ea auctori, sed pessimo, adscribunt (they could not deny the greatness of the miracles: therefore they ascribe them to a great author, but the worst one).

Matthew 9:35. And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every illness among the people. (See Mark 6:6.) From this verse begins a new section, constituting a transition to the instructions given at the sending of the apostles on a preaching mission, set forth in chapter 10. The time is not determined. According to Mark and Luke, the apostles were called before (Mark 3:16; Luke 6:13).

Matthew 9:36. When He saw the crowds, He had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. The reason for compassion is stated as the fact that people were worn out (“harassed”) and “helpless.” What these concepts mean is not easy to determine, though the comparison shows that the people resembled sheep in the wilderness with no shepherd. These sheep from hunger are emaciated in body and have a suffering appearance; they have no unity, they are not gathered into one flock, but wander wherever they happen, being subjected to numerous dangers. Such was the picture that presented itself to Christ’s eyes during His travels.

Matthew 9:37. Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; (See Luke 10:2.) The image of exhausted and helpless sheep is replaced by the image of harvest (θερισμός) — a field upon which grain has grown and ripened so that it may be reaped. See John 4:35 and following, where the same word is used. The field is large and the harvest is plentiful, but there are no workers who would undertake this work. Here for the first time we encounter the thought of a harvest that was the fruit of the intensive activity of the Savior during these months.

Matthew 9:38. Therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. Christ refers the sending of “laborers” (workers, though laborers is more precise from the Greek) not to Himself but to God, whom He calls the Lord of the harvest, the owner of the field where the grain ripened for harvest has grown. And the Savior Himself, no doubt, prayed to the Lord of the harvest, and invited His disciples to take part in His prayer.