CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 16:9-10. Baskets.—See notes on Matthew 14:20, Matthew 15:37.
Matthew 16:12. Doctrine.—Teaching (R.V.). Not so much the formulated dogmas of the sect as its general drift and tendency (Plumptre).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 16:5-12
Unlearned learners.—When the Saviour has left His enemies, as He appears to have done somewhat abruptly and with a good deal of decision (Matthew 16:4), He is in the company of His friends (Matthew 16:5). His thoughts were with them as well; and He has that, in consequence, which He feels it important to say to them when they arrive at “the other side.” What this was, in the first place; how it was misconceived, in the second; and how that misconception was put right, in the third place—are the points we have to consider.
I. What the Saviour said.—It is the language, on the one hand, of agitation and distress. Evidently His mind is still full of His late encounter with His enemies. Evidently He is much impressed with the secret “hypocrisy” of their conduct (cf. Matthew 16:6 with Luke 12:1). The description given of Him in Mark 8:12 applies to Him still. The sight of such wickedness—the sight of such folly—has left a deep mark on His soul. It is the language, also, of apprehension and fear. This leaven-like insincerity of theirs was a thing much to be dreaded. Corrupt in itself it tended inevitably to produce corruption in turn. It tended to do this, also, in a peculiarly dangerous and insidious way, after the manner of “leaven.” He Himself, it is true, had only just now withstood and exposed it. Would the same be true of those disciples whom He had chosen to speak in His name? It was the language, therefore, in the third place, of earnest entreaty and warning. “Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matthew 16:11). St. Mark has it (Mark 8:15) a little differently in appearance. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod.” The difference is not a discrepancy but rather a proof of agreement. For Herod himself is believed to have been a Sadducee, and may very well, therefore, have had something to do with the movements of the Sadducees at this time and in that part of Palestine which was subject to him (see above Matthew 14:1; Matthew 14:13; Luke 13:31-32). Anyway, there was that about the men referred to which made them a danger indeed. Take heed and beware—take note of and avoid—that which I mean by their leaven.
II. How the disciples misunderstood Him.—Looked at from their point of view this was an exceedingly natural thing. Partly, it may be, in consequence of the abruptness (end of Matthew 16:4) with which they seem to have left the other side of the lake, the disciples had “forgotten” to “take bread.” It was found, indeed, when they came to inquire—or else came out in some other way—that they had only with them “one” little “loaf” (Mark 8:14)—“little,” i.e. compared with such as we are accustomed to see. This being so, it was not unnatural, when they hear mention of leaven, that they should bethink them of loaves. When their Master had spoken of sowing seed He had meant preaching the word
(13). When He had spoken of a dead child as only sleeping, He meant that she could be recovered from death (Matthew 9:24). May there not, then, be something similar in this mention of leaven? Something other and further meant than that which is said? To us, in these days, it may be, with all that we have further learned of this Teacher of teachers, such a way of reasoning may appear almost like that of a child. But it is highly probable, had we been in the place of those disciples, that we should have done the same thing. We should have thought that the Master must be referring to that which was at that time in our thoughts (cf. Matthew 9:4; Matthew 12:25; John 2:25, etc.).
III. How this misconception was put right.—This does not, at first sight, seem quite easy to follow. There seems, indeed, at first sight, something like inconsistency in the Master’s language. At one time He seems to reprove His disciples on the score of their unbelief. “O ye of little faith.” At another time He seems to point rather to the obtuseness of their understandings. “How is it ye do not perceive?” Perhaps the explanation lies in supposing one deficiency to lie at the root of the other. Perhaps they did not understand for the simple reason that they did not believe as they ought. And how this might come about in their case is not difficult to imagine. Evidently the thought which was pressing on them was that of deficiency of supply. What was that one loaf among more than a dozen? Full of this thought they had no room for the thought of what the Saviour had done already in two cases of far greater necessity and far less comparative supply; still less for that far remoter meaning which the Saviour then had in His mind. A view this which appears to be strongly confirmed by two other considerations. One is that the Saviour, in correcting their thoughts, sets Himself to do so not only by reminding them of the two occasions in question, but of certain also of their most striking and characteristic distinctions; such as the relative numbers and needs, and the precise kind of basket employed in each particular case (Matthew 16:9-10). The other is that, having done this, He does nothing beside. “How is it,” He asks, “that ye do not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread?” What He was speaking of He leaves them to find out for themselves. In other words, having driven out the wrong thought in this manner He makes room for the right. Having shown that One who had supplied those far greater deficiencies could hardly have been referring to this very much smaller one now in the way of complaint, there is at once an opening, as it were, for what He was thinking of to come in (see Matthew 16:12).
Here are lessons of much importance:—
1. With regard to ourselves.—What need we have to pray that we may come with unbiassed minds to the study of Scripture! How little can be learned from the words of Jesus Himself unless this is the case. Be the “wells of salvation” as deep as they may, we shall taste none of their waters if the vessels we bring to them are already otherwise filled.
2. With regard to others.—Some candid minds are greatly disturbed sometimes by the way in which they find other minds misusing the Scriptures of truth, and by noting how they seem to overlook that in them which is as plain to them as the day. We seem to be taught here that this is not to be wondered at even amongst true disciples of Christ. “The eye sees what it brings the power of seeing,” says Thomas Carlyle. “It is no argument against the writings of Paul,” says a still higher authority, “that they are ‘wrested’ by some” (2 Peter 3:15-16). There are those whom the sunshine itself only lights to their death. Let us not, on that account, refuse to enjoy it ourselves.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 16:5-12. The Master and His disciples.—
I. The foresight of the Master and the negligence of the disciples.
II. The freedom from care of the Master and the anxieties of the disciples.
III. The calmness of the Master and the excitement and distress of the disciples.—J. P. Lange, D.D.
Matthew 16:6. The soul’s hunger for truth.—Let us look at some thoughts arising out of this passage.
I. That the profoundest energies and most urgent appetites of life are those of the moral and spiritual nature.—“They had forgotten to take bread.” How was this? A more urgent hunger was at their heart; a profounder appetite was craving for satisfaction. The expulsive power of this more potent principle had banished hunger from their thoughts. Has not the history of the growth and expansion of spiritual truth in the world—religious progress—illustrated this principle ten thousand times? The Divine Master’s ministry began with its assertion. Fasting forty days—ignoring bodily wants, forgetting physical appetites. The Master had bread to eat that the tempter knew not of. “Man shall not live,” etc. So the Great Teacher’s searching words aroused the dormant inner life of His disciples, and leaving fishing nets, etc., all the sources of bodily revenue, they cling to this poor Nazarene. There are epochs in life in which the higher nature of the man transcends the earthly appetites; he breathes a Diviner air, “hungers and thirsts after righteousness.”
II. That those truths, therefore, which deal with the spiritual nature of man take the deepest hold upon his life.—All doctrines that touch the moral and spiritual in man are leaven like:—
1. In the subtlety of their operation.—“Not with observation.”
2. In their progressive effect.—“A little leaven leaveneth,” etc.
3. In their assimilative power.—The leaven makes the mass like itself.
III. That hence it is imperative to guard against the inroads of erroneous doctrine.—“Beware,” etc. Life can not be right if those beliefs that are the basis of its moral character be wrong. What was the Pharisee’s life? What the Sadducee’s? Why? Their lives were the direct result of their doctrine.—Nevison Loraine.
Caution against false doctrines.—
I. Of Sadducees.—Materialism, no soul, no hereafter.
II. Of Pharisees.—Human righteousness a sufficient ground of hope.
III. With each false doctrine was held some truth.—Hence the danger.
IV. Respectability of sects and moral uprightness of some individuals holding false doctrine, increase the danger.—J. C. Gray.