The Secret Codes in Matthew: Examining Israel’s Messiah, Part 15: Matthew 18:21-20:34, by Kevin M. Williams

Forgiveness. Fidelity. Laying on of hands. Kevin Williams puts these and other teachings of Jesus in their context, pulling back the veil of history and culture that is now far removed from us.

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive men? Up to seven times?” (Matthew 18:21).

So begins the thorny issue of forgiveness. There are many views and many practices regarding forgiveness today. What we shall attempt to do here is to examine the issue from a biblical perspective and prayerfully, enrich our own understanding.

Peter’s question about forgiving someone up to seven times may have seemed quite magnanimous from his own perspective. The practice of the day was to forgive someone up to three times:

For they pardon a man once, that sins against another; secondly, they pardon him; thirdly, they pardon him; fourthly, they do not pardon him”¹

Our hero Peter likely feels he has gone above and beyond the call of duty by offering to forgive someone seven times! This contrasts Genesis 4:15 very well. Cain had killed his brother Abel and had been judged by God. Now he worried that others would try and kill him. But God decreed, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken upon him sevenfold.” By Peter’s era, it was common to take a negative in the Bible and give it a positive application. In other words, if vengeance should be sevenfold, then in contrast forgiveness ought to be sevenfold. Peter was likely quite proud of his conclusion.

But Yeshua (Jesus²) sees things differently. Just as Genesis 4:24 goes beyond sevenfold, “If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold,” Yeshua goes even beyond Peter’s simple seven.

Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22).

For many disciples, this statement by Yeshua, left to stand on its own, seems to present a cart blanche obligation for Bible believers to forgive those who sin without requiring any repentance on the sinner’s behalf. There are many respected teachers who say that forgiveness is an obligation placed upon believers, a mark of their status as citizens of the kingdom of God, and the only healthy means to exist in a fallen world.

As reasonable as this might sound, it is not exactly the example the Bible lays out for us. If it were, who would ever need to come to faith in the Messiah? When men and women come to faith, there is recognition of their sin, recognition of the penalty of that sin, and a conscious decision to repent and ask forgiveness. It is at this point that God is moved with compassion and mercy is poured out. This is how the fullness of genuine forgiveness is exercised.

This was similarly true in the period of the tabernacle and temple. Individuals came to make their sin and guilt offerings, specific sacrifices intended to heal the rift sin had created between them and God. God did not need the fat of the lamb or the blood of the goats—God needs nothing. The sacrifices were (supposed to be) an active act on the part of the sinner to recognize their sin, its penalty, and to make a conscious decision to repent and ask forgiveness. This was not limited to three, seven, or seventy-times seven times. This divine freedom was available to the sinner every moment, of every day, of every year.

So the established and God-given biblical pattern was repent first and then be forgiven: a pattern repeated in the New Testament as both John the Baptist and Yeshua preach, “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.”

Even in the parable Yeshua uses in verses 23-35 of Matthew Chapter 18, we see some evidence of this principle.

“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. And when he had begun to settle them, there was brought to him one who owed him ten thousand talents. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell down and began to entreat him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ He was unwilling however, but went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me. ‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, even as I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

The first debtor asks for patience from the king. The king is moved with compassion by the slave’s plea and forgives the debt (which some estimates place at $3 billion by today’s standards—a heavy debt indeed!).

The obligation therefore is not to forgive “willy-nilly” when someone sins against us, but rather, when someone asks for forgiveness, to respond with compassion and forgive.

The lesson may be considered in this way: it is not about carte blanche forgiveness; it is about molding our hearts and ourselves. When someone comes and asks forgiveness, are we really ready to forgive, or do we prefer to hold our grudge (as the slave did with the other slave that owed him money)? What if they ask three times, having committed the same transgression three times, are we ready to forgive? What if they sin against us seven times, do we still have the capacity to be moved with compassion and forgive? What if they offend us seventy times seven times for the same debt and genuinely beg our forgiveness? Is it still within our nature to truly forgive, knowing that the pattern shows they will simply turn around and do it again?

As Yeshua’s teachings were almost universally about our own personal condition and how we respond to God and others, this would seem to be the more biblical approach to Matthew 18:21-35.

Yet as biblical as this appears, and with an entire collection of precedent setting books in the Hebrew Scriptures supporting the point, this principle is not always easy to practice. Once offended, it is often human nature to nurture hurts and let the distance between ourselves grow wider and wider, making reconciliation all the more difficult. This may therefore, be why Yeshua admonishes, “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those; who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you … if you love those who love you what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them”(Luke 6:27-32).

So the injunction is not to “forgive” without first witnessing repentance as some have suggested, but to “love” those who have sinned against us, even though they do not deserve our love.

To help illustrate this point, we’ll quote a story about a rabbi and his guests at Sabbath dinner. According to the book from which this story originates, it is a true story, and not merely a parable.

Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Herman often had twenty to thirty people at his Sabbath table, people from all walks of life who had gathered to enjoy his family’s hospitality. It happened that one Sabbath afternoon Rabbi Herman put on a new and costly dinner jacket, given to him by a close relative. He passed from guest to guest ladling out steaming soup into large soup bowls.

One of the guests present was emotionally unstable. When Rabbi Herman set his portion of hot soup in front of him, the guest shouted, “I don’t like this!” He picked up the soup bowl in his hands and flung it at Rabbi Herman’s chest, sending all the contents flying onto Rabbi Herman’s costly jacket.

Everyone at the table drew back in one motion, horrified. The family members sat aghast. The guest looked down at his hands, at the bowl on the floor, then lifted his head and dazedly looked around the table. Frightened at what he had done, he jumped from his chair and bolted out the door.

Rabbi Herman placed the ladle and soup pot on the table and raced after him. In a few minutes he returned with the guest, bits of onions and beans still clinging to his coat, and with a gentle arm guided the still frightened man to the table. He put out a new place setting and said in a soothing voice, “Don’t worry, I will give you another bowl of soup that you will like.”

Later, as he was trying to wipe off his coat, someone came up to him and said, “Tell me, how do you have the patience to deal with people like that?” Rabbi Herman shrugged and continued wiping at his coat, “If you have compassion, you don’t need patience.”³

In other words, if someone sins against you, offering false forgiveness in a personal attempt to achieve mental peace is not as healthy, as productive, and does not achieve the kind of genuine reconciliation that being moved with compassion for the sinner may achieve. As Yeshua promises, “Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men” (Luke 6:35).

The pattern set before us by God Himself is that the world is full of ungrateful and evil people and even though justice would tug on our hearts to scorn them, we, like our Father, are to love them.

Forgive with a whole heart when someone asks your forgiveness. When they do not ask your forgiveness, then choose the higher, more difficult but more spiritual path: love them.

___

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (Matthew 19:3).

Sadly, because there are times when the Pharisees challenged Yeshua in order to trap him in an attempt to prove him false, the tendency is to believe that all of them were doing so at every turn. This text does not support that theory.

Rather, it is more likely that they were attempting to discern his personal leanings. Was he more in keeping with the School of Shammai and a typically more strident application of the Torah, or did Yeshua fall into the School of Hillel and the more liberal school interested in the spirit of the Torah more than it’s strict application? Yeshua was perplexing. At times, his teachings were more parallel to Hillel. But on this occasion, he seemed to align more with Shammai.

The School of Shammai say a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, as it is said, ‘… because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’ But the School of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she burns his food, as it is said, ‘… because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’ (Mishna: Gittin 9:10).

Yeshua’s response, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”(Matthew 19:6) would likely have provoked a puzzled response from the Pharisees. This rabbi from Nazareth was typically more liberal, looking for the spiritual principles within the Torah than this. Hence the next question, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?” (Matthew 19:7).

Yeshua answers the core of the matter, which just happens to follow the subject he had just finished teaching in the Galilee region in Matthew 18:21-35. Because there was no chance for genuine reconciliation and forgiveness in the hearts of mankind, for the sake of a more harmonious community, God made an exemption. Yeshua then wraps up his argument, lining up with the School of Shammai, “whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

This must have puzzled the Pharisees, making it all the harder to “peg” this rabbi from the north.

The next comment from his disciples, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19: 10) was a bold statement. Within Judaism in that day and age, as today, marriage was considered a paramount virtue. To “be fruitful and multiply” is a commandment and for the faithful Jewish man and woman, a requirement. To consider otherwise, as the disciples do here, would have raised more than one eyebrow.

When a boy is born in a Jewish home, the first prayer canted after the bris (circumcision) on the eighth day is, “Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into the Torah, the marriage canopy, and good deeds.” From his eighth day, his family and the entire congregation are already looking forward to his marriage.

In our day, when a daughter is born in a Hassidic (ultra Orthodox) home, the father will very often take out marriage insurance. He will pay a monthly premium so that when his daughter reaches a marriageable age, he can cash in the policy and pay for an elaborate wedding—often costing upwards of $50,000. At 18 years of age, she qualifies for the full amount. At 20, she gets a little less. By age 30, she may get nothing. So the pressure to marry is culturally and financially very high.

Clearly Yeshua does not talk down marriage. His response to the disciples was, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given” (Matthew 19:11). What should not be missed is, for once, the disciples got something right! They had been paying attention and reached the correct conclusion. This was not a common occurrence.

Yet Yeshua’s reaction still fell very highly in favor of those men who wish to marry. The implication is, few would accept their conclusion, and that should be left well enough alone. There was no command, as some sects today teach, for celibacy. But there certainly was room made for singles.

Lest the disciples’ heads swell too much, their discernment quickly evaporated.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” And after laying His hands on them, He departed from there” (Matthew 19:13-15).

Only a short while ago, in Matthew 18:2-10, Yeshua had called a child to himself and said, “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me” (Matthew 18:5). If the disciples had been listening to what Yeshua had to say about marriage, they had forgotten what he had said about children.

The practice of “laying on hands” is deeply rooted in the Jewish culture, both then and now. The act of touching another person is significant, and forms a physical and spiritual connection. Readers of the gospels will note that when Yeshua encounters the “lepers” he touches them. Forming a human connection was and is a healthy spiritual principle. The laying on of hands by a rabbi was considered a special blessing. When a boy of 13 participates in his bar mitzvah (son of the good deeds) celebration, the rabbi, often along with the elders of the congregation and the boy’s father, will lay their hands on the young man and pray blessings upon him, for health, for prosperity, for spiritual purity, for a wife, and for a long life. They envision a positive future for the child and speak words of life into his life. The intimate contact and importance of the child is demonstrated through the laying on of hands.

Jesus was not simply communicating a spiritual lesson to the crowds. If He was, He could have done so by simply placing one child in the center of the group as He did on another occasion (Matthew 18:2). Jesus was demonstrating His knowledge of a child’s genuine need.⁴

“Meaningful touch was an essential element in bestowing the blessing in Old Testament homes,” say Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing.⁵ They comment that large percentage of children today, particularly girls have never had a meaningful touch from their father once they reach elementary school age. Sadly, our western society as a whole frowns on healthy touching even among adults, that is to say, touching that is not sexual in nature. For many singles in a congregation, no one takes the time to hug them and they exist entirely without human contact. Physical contact is a love language, but it is a language our society is forgetting.

And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-17).

Yeshua’s answer, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments,” may set some Christians on edge. Most of us have been taught that the commandments of the Pentateuch have nothing to do with salvation. Yet here Yeshua seems to say that they promise eternal life!

But his answer is a clever ploy. The young man seeks to know which commandment is more important than another that he might excel in the best. Yeshua’s answer is again the Torah, right out of the Ten Commandments, and the young man says that he does all these things.

And here is where the point is made. Despite doing all these wonderful things, the young man still recognizes that his life is incomplete. The Torah never promises eternal life, and neither does the rabbi from Galilee make any such promise. He engages the young man’s mind and spirit in a dialogue to show not only the young man, but the disciples as well that the Torah does not satisfy the inner craving for salvation.

The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property (Matthew 19:20-22).

Yeshua encourages him to sell and give all, but most importantly, to follow him. Time and again Yeshua talks about the kingdom of God and in Matthew 6:33, calls upon us to “seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.” Yeshua was the presence of the kingdom of God on earth, the very Prince of Peace. What the young man sought was there in front of him!

This exchange, and Yeshua’s teaching that it is difficult for a wealthy person to come to faith was a trouble for the disciples. Here was someone who appeared to have reached the pinnacle, at least by earthly standards. Not only was he wealthy, he was what most people would deem a “good and holy person.” The text says this astonished them and they asked, “Then who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:25).

Yeshua gain speaks to the heart of the matter. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Here was a man who proved that a person could live a completely godly life and still be ungodly! Here was a man who could live by the letter of the Law and still miss its spirit. Here was a man reliant upon his own strength and wisdom to achieve what only God could achieve for him. When the text says that he “went away grieved,” we shouldn’t wonder at the severity of that grief!

Yeshua goes on to say, “And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24).

There have been theories about Yeshua’s meaning here. The Greek does not give us a clear indication either way. He may have spoken literally, about the difficulty of a literal camel passing through the eye of needle. The imagery would be vivid. However, he “may be referring to the protective narrow passage at the entrance to a walled city called a ‘needle’s eye.’”⁶

___

Chapter 20 picks up where 19 left off as Yeshua once again illustrates what the kingdom of heaven is like. We do well to remember that Yeshua began his ministry preaching that the “kingdom of heaven” was at hand. That message never changed.

It is also important to remember that the gospel message is not merely the “gospel message.” Throughout Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John it is always presented as, “the gospel of the kingdom of heaven.” For Yeshua, the “gospel” and the “kingdom of heaven” were inseparable. We do the Word of God an injustice when we preach anything differently.

And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 20:17-19).

This is the third time Yeshua has predicted his death and resurrection, but it is the first time he clearly identifies who is going to put him to death—the Gentiles. How many travesties over the centuries, the needless deaths of Jewish lives, could have been spared if churchgoers had read this passage? Yeshua is quite clear: not the Jewish people as a whole were going to turn him over, only the chief priests and scribes, the religious leaders. The Gentiles, however, do seem to be lumped together as a collective whole.

But message is clear enough. A) Yeshua promised he would rise again. Whoever “put him to death,” it was a plan that went awry—at least from a human perspective. The Messiah rose again! B) No single person or people group (i.e. the “Jews”) was solely responsible. All played their part and all bore the guilt. The sin of the ages that Yeshua’s kin, the “Jews,” are Christ-killers is not born out in the text. Countless millions have died because thousands have “borne false witness” against the Jewish people.

It is a tragic fact of history that the outward, visible Church is stained with the blood of the Jewish people. This painful memory is so vivid in Jewish hearts that an Orthodox Jewish author, in a book published in 1991, could say: “Today, one of the most fundamental causes of Jewish suffering is the hatred of Christians toward Jews and the Jewish faith.

This Jewish author actually believes: “From his birth, every Christian, practicing or nominal, imbibes the belief that the Jews, i.e., and every individual Jew, are answerable for the murder of his messiah. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the acts of persecution, religious coercion and massacres suffered in history by our People came at the hands of the Christians. Thus we see that Christianity was a significant and major cause of Jewish suffering.”⁷

Dr. Brown’s book, Our Hands are Stained with Blood, from which the above quote was taken, is rich with what is understood by the Jewish people to be our Christian heritage. You, the reader, may not believe the Jewish people are “Christ-killers” but that is the impression left on the local synagogue and Jewish community. When the local church holds a “crusade,” it brings back haunting memories of the first Christian crusades when Jewish men, women, and children were burned alive in their synagogues while worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Today’s Church may not be guilty of those sins (though some still teach the lies today), but the stain remains.

The solution? Compassion. How can we sing, “Noel, noel, born is the King of Israel,” while the Jewish community fears him and those who follow him? I read a sad bumper sticker not long ago. It said, “God, protect me from your followers.” This could be the prayer of every Jewish person. How can we sing, “O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel,” when the local Jewish community doesn’t even recognize Jesus as Jewish, let alone as “Emmanuel—God with us?”

The only way the stain of blood that taints our name and mars the reputation of our Savior to the apple of his eye is to reach out in genuine friendship—with Messiah-like compassion—and help them see that today’s Church has shed it’s serpent’s skin to be the emissary Yeshua has called her to be.

___

In Part 16, we begin the final week of Yeshua’s life on earth with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and how even then he was meeting Jewish expectations of the coming Redeemer.

Endnotes

¹ A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1Corinthians, John Lightfoot, Hendrickson Publishers, 1997, p. 259
² “Jesus” is the Anglicized form for Yeshua, which means “salvation.” Since this text seeks to put Jesus in his Hebraic context, the name Yeshua is used throughout except when used in specific quotes.
³ The Quill of the Heart: Loving your Fellow Jew: Patience or Compassion, The Cofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation, no copyright, pp. 36-37
⁴ The Blessing, Gary Smalley & John Trent, Pocket Books; ©1986, p. 27
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Jewish New Testament Commentary, David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, ©1992, p. 60
⁷ Our Hands are Stained with Blood, Michael L. Brown, Destiny Image, ©1992, p.p. xxi-xiv.