Matthew 9:32-34: A mute demoniac is healed
Hover over the references to see the Biblical text
Matthew 9:32-34
Why so Amazed?
Verse 32 details this healing as occurring directly after the healing of the two blind men, with the now sighted pair leaving and the mute man entering simultaneously. Whether this is literally the case or is an editorial choice by the author, it raises an interesting question: why is the crowd so amazed by the healing of a mute man? Although Jesus instructed the healed blind men to tell no one what had happened, the crowd who respond to the healing of the mute by saying "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel" (NIV) were likely there when those two entered the house blind and exited sighted. Even if they were not, it is clear that Jesus has a reputation as a healer at this point. Otherwise, why would the blind men have sought him or the mute been brought to him? Also, these two healings follow right after the raising of the ruler's daughter.
Some commentators have suggested the crowds response is placed here to contrast the reaction of the Pharisees1. The more I consider it, the more reasonable that conclusion seems to me. After all the miracles Jesus has done, there is no good reason to declare one mute being given voice is like nothing ever seen before. Craig Keener, in his commentary, notes that ridicule of Jesus was the only avenue for attack the Pharisees had left to them2. So we have this comparison of the crowd and the Pharisees. One group responds with wonder, the other with condemnation. Furthermore, this follows directly after the healing of blindness and muteness caused by demonic power. I may be reading too much into this, but I see in that placement of the events the suggestion that the Pharisees are spiritually blinded by the devil, and that their verbal response is a result of that. The crowd, seeing exactly the same thing, are not so blinded and responded completely differently. The repetition of these elements in Matthew 12:22-24 followed by the discussion about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit seems to confirm my suspicion.
1. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers claims this contrast to be obvious.
2. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. 307.
Matthew 9:32-34
Why so Amazed?
Verse 32 details this healing as occurring directly after the healing of the two blind men, with the now sighted pair leaving and the mute man entering simultaneously. Whether this is literally the case or is an editorial choice by the author, it raises an interesting question: why is the crowd so amazed by the healing of a mute man? Although Jesus instructed the healed blind men to tell no one what had happened, the crowd who respond to the healing of the mute by saying "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel" (NIV) were likely there when those two entered the house blind and exited sighted. Even if they were not, it is clear that Jesus has a reputation as a healer at this point. Otherwise, why would the blind men have sought him or the mute been brought to him? Also, these two healings follow right after the raising of the ruler's daughter.
Some commentators have suggested the crowds response is placed here to contrast the reaction of the Pharisees1. The more I consider it, the more reasonable that conclusion seems to me. After all the miracles Jesus has done, there is no good reason to declare one mute being given voice is like nothing ever seen before. Craig Keener, in his commentary, notes that ridicule of Jesus was the only avenue for attack the Pharisees had left to them2. So we have this comparison of the crowd and the Pharisees. One group responds with wonder, the other with condemnation. Furthermore, this follows directly after the healing of blindness and muteness caused by demonic power. I may be reading too much into this, but I see in that placement of the events the suggestion that the Pharisees are spiritually blinded by the devil, and that their verbal response is a result of that. The crowd, seeing exactly the same thing, are not so blinded and responded completely differently. The repetition of these elements in Matthew 12:22-24 followed by the discussion about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit seems to confirm my suspicion.
1. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers claims this contrast to be obvious.
2. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. 307.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'm looking forward to reading what you wrote!