And the Pharisees and Sadducees, coming to [him], asked him, tempting [him], to shew them a sign out of heaven.
At the start of Matthew 16, two groups who agreed on almost nothing arrive together. They ask Jesus for a sign from the sky. But they are not after evidence. Their request raises two questions: why do enemies unite against Him, and what does unbelief want when it asks for proof?
These two groups were opponents. One defended the law and its rules. The other were the freethinkers of their day. Only one thing brought them to the same spot.
It is a terrible thing to find opposing parties with only one thing uniting them — dislike of Jesus. At another time these people could have torn each other to pieces. But here is their meeting point: testing Jesus... There was no conflict between the scribes and the Pharisees, but a wide gap separated the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were the freethinkers of the day. The Pharisees were the champions who stood up for religious rules and the authority of the law. But both joined together to test Jesus.
What holds such a partnership together is not shared conviction but a shared world.
Taken on their own, the Pharisee and the Sadducee thought completely differently. But the world can be what they hold in common when they resist Christ. We see this in Matthew 16:1-5. They come together and say to Him, "Show us a sign from heaven." That is, they challenge the Lord to prove Himself in some way the world could admire. If He will not, they will agree together to reject Him.
The verse says they came "to test him." One writer explains why this request in particular made such a good trap.
The "sign from heaven" was only a catch. It was just the sort of thing that the Sadducees, with their materialistic ideas, would never accept. In reply the Lord pointed out that they were good judges of material things seen in the face of the sky. But they were blind to the "signs of the times," which need spiritual discernment to be understood. Being "wicked and adulterous," they had no spiritual perception, and so the signs God gives were no use to them.
They were standing in front of the very One they wanted proof about. Kelly shows how absurd that is.
The greatest sign God ever gave to man was in front of them in the person of His Son, and He outshone every other sign. But that is what unbelief is like. It can walk into the presence of God fully revealed. It can stare at a light brighter than the midday sun. And right there it asks God for a cheap little candle.
The demand had a taste behind it. Bellett names what drove it, and what the Lord gave instead.
Why was it ever said to Christ, "Show us a sign from heaven"? Worldliness dictated it. They wanted a Christ who would astonish the world. The Lord would not and could not answer that. If you and I cannot accept our Jesus while He is rejected, we shall never have Him in glory... Instead of giving a sign from heaven, He gives one from deep in the earth — in death and humiliation.
He does not refuse them forever. One day they get their answer, in a form they never had in mind.
But in due time a sign from heaven will be given to them, though not in the way they were looking for. They asked for it (Matt. 16:1), and they will have it (Matt. 24:29-30). But it will be a sign of coming judgment — a sign that the Son of Man is on His way from heaven in the clouds to carry out the vengeance that is written.
This meeting marks a turn. How it ends points far beyond one conversation — to the nation, and to the Gentiles, the nations outside Israel.
The solemn thing here is that there is no longer any teaching or appeal for them. They seek a sign and get a warning. They could read the face of the sky, but they could not read the presence of the Lord among them, because they did not want to... "So he left them and departed." Very soon He would leave the guilty nation too, and He would do it by way of the Cross. Then, risen out of death, He would send the good news of salvation and blessing far away to the Gentiles.
- United — Two parties who despised each other joined forces. Opposition to Christ can bind people together when nothing else could.
- Testing — They came to trap Him, not to learn. They asked for the one proof the Sadducees themselves would never accept.
- Blind — The greatest sign God ever gave was standing in front of them, and they asked for a smaller one.
- Refused — He would not prove Himself on the world's terms. He gave a sign out of death instead — and the sign from heaven they asked for will come one day as judgment.
- Departed — They would not see Him, so they got a warning instead of a sign. He walked away — a picture of what was coming to the nation.
But he answering said to them, When evening is come, ye say, Fine weather, for the sky is red;
The Pharisees and Sadducees came together to test Jesus. They asked Him for a sign from heaven, and He answered by pointing at the evening sky. Why could men who forecast tomorrow's weather not read the moment they were living in?
The two groups who asked had almost nothing else in common. Kelly shows what held them together:
It is a terrible thing to find opposing parties with only one thing uniting them — dislike of Jesus. These are men who could have torn each other to pieces on any other day. But this is their meeting point: testing Jesus. There was no conflict between the scribes and the Pharisees. But a wide chasm separated the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were the freethinkers of the day. The Pharisees were the champions who stood up for ordinances and the authority of the law. But both joined to test Jesus.
Hole points out that one of these groups would have rejected the very sign they asked for:
The "sign from heaven" was merely a trap, since it was precisely what the Sadducees, with their materialistic ideas, would never accept.
Kelly weighs what they were asking for against who was standing in front of them:
The most significant token God ever gave to man was in front of them in the person of His Son, who outshone every other sign. But this is what unbelief is like. It can walk into the presence of God fully revealed. It can gaze at a light brighter than the sun at noon, and there and then ask God for a cheap candle.
What if He had given them the sign? One writer explains what it would have produced:
They wanted a sign that could work on an earthly-minded people, and it would have left them earthly-minded still. The faith it woke up would have had none of the moral qualities of faith in it. Conscience and heart would both have been absent, and God displayed that way would have been half dethroned.
Their skill with the sky was real. Grant lists the signs they overlooked:
They had no difficulty forecasting the next day's weather when they looked at the evening sky. In natural things they read the signs easily. Yet they claimed to be Israel's spiritual leaders. Many spiritual signs of the times surrounded them. Still they asked Him for a sign! His miracles of grace and power were signs. The moral condition of the people was a sign too. And a most striking sign was the spiritual deadness and hostility of Israel's leaders!
Kelly sets their skill in one area against their failure in another, and names the cause:
Men were good enough judges of the signs of the weather. They were shrewd enough in judging the present things they saw. But they failed completely in what matters most for a man: judging what is morally above him, judging what touches him most closely in his relationship to God, judging what concerns his eternal future. Their love of evil, covered over with a veil of fair religious appearance, made them blind. Their love of their own interests made them quick to notice present things, and practised at chasing them.
A red evening sky promised fair weather. Kelly asks what the fair weather and the foul weather meant for Israel that day:
Their own moral condition was the sign and proof that judgment was close. For those who could see, there was the fair weather, the dawn from on high that had visited them in Jesus. They did not see it! But could they not see the foul weather? They were in the presence of the Messiah, and were asking for a sign from heaven!
Ridout names what caused the threatening sky:
These leaders pretend to want a sign. But they fail to notice the very thing that testifies of the coming judgment: the red and threatening sky. That sky was caused by the dark cloud of unbelief, which hid the shining of the Sun of righteousness.
The exchange ends with the Lord walking away.
They had rejected Christ and now, after long patience, are rejected by Christ. They are a wicked and adulterous generation for whom there is only one sign — the sign of Jonah, which speaks of judgment about to fall. The Lord exposed their character, pronounced their doom, and left them and departed.
- Sign demanded. Two parties who despised each other united to ask Jesus for a sign from heaven. Hostility to Christ can bind together men who agree on nothing else.
- Sign refused. A sign from the sky would have produced belief with no conscience and no heart in it.
- Sign present. The Son of God stood before them. Asking for another sign was like asking for a candle in blazing sunlight.
- Sign missed. They read the red sky with ease. They missed the fair weather of the Messiah among them, and the storm of judgment gathering over them.
- Sign final. One sign was left — Jonah, speaking of judgment about to fall — and then He left them and went away.
and in the morning, A storm to-day, for the sky is red [and] lowering; ye know [how] to discern the face of the sky, but ye cannot the signs of the times.
The Pharisees and Sadducees ask Jesus for a sign from heaven. He answers by pointing at the sky they read every day, and His question is sharp: how can men who can forecast tomorrow's weather be blind to what God is doing in front of them?
The two groups who came to Him normally had nothing in common. One commentator draws attention to what it took to bring them together, and to the strangeness of asking for a sign while standing in front of the Son of God:
It is an awful thing to find opposed parties with only one thing uniting them — dislike of Jesus. At another time these people could have torn each other to pieces, but this is their meeting point: testing Jesus… They wanted a sign from heaven. The greatest token God ever gave man stood in front of them in the person of His Son, and He eclipsed all other signs. But such is unbelief. It can walk into the presence of the full display of God, gaze at a light brighter than the sun at noonday, and there and then ask God for a small candle.
The "signs" were not hidden. Both the mercy and the coming judgment were on display, and reading the weather was the very skill they should have applied here:
They understood the signs of nature, the warnings of a coming storm and the signs of a fine day… They observed every change in nature, but they did not discern the signs of the times. They were blind to these. If their eyes had been open, they would have known that a great change of seasons had come in a realm beyond nature. They could have seen the evidence of judgment fast approaching the nation that had turned from God. They could equally have seen the blessed evidence of the visit from on high, in the presence of the Lord, that had already taken place.
Their own state was part of the evidence. Kelly reads both halves of the weather picture back into the scene:
Their own moral condition was the sign and proof that judgment was near. For those who could see, there was the fair weather, the Dayspring from on high that had visited them in Jesus. They saw it not! But could they not discern the foul weather! They were in the presence of the Messiah, and were asking for a sign from heaven! The God that made heaven and earth was there, but the darkness did not comprehend it… They could discern physical changes, but had no perception of the moral and spiritual glories actually before them.
Kelly explains what made these men so shrewd in one area and so dull in another:
Men were good enough judges of the signs of the weather. They were shrewd enough about the present in what they saw. But they failed completely in what suits a man most: judgment of what is morally above him, judgment of what touches him most closely in his relationship to God, judgment in what concerns his eternal future. In these things they failed, and they were hypocrites. Their love of evil, covered with a veil of fair religious appearance, made them blind. Their love of their own interests made them sharp-eyed and skilled at chasing present things.
A further sign would not have cured them, because the request came out of the disease rather than a genuine search:
They require proof to their natural senses, that is, to their unbelief. They will not believe God, either by listening to His words or by looking at His works. God must satisfy their wilfulness, which would be neither faith nor the work of God. They had understanding for human things that were much less clearly shown, but none for the things of God.
Another writer adds what kind of faith such a spectacle would have produced — and what it would have cost:
A sign that could work on a carnal people was what they sought, and which would have left them a carnal people still. The faith so awakened would have had none of the moral qualities of faith in it: conscience and heart would have been alike missing.
This failure was not only theirs. Faith still has to read the times, and Scripture is the measure:
These "signs of the times" are seals of God's hand on the passing hour. It is the duty of faith to discern them, because they always line up with the advance notices of Scripture. Current events are only "signs" as they agree with, or fulfil, those earlier notices.
Kelly turns the Lord's reproach into a positive expectation for believers:
The Lord reproached the Jewish leaders because they were unable to discern the signs of the times. We ought to be able not only to read what is before us according to God, but also to speak of the future with calm confidence because we believe the Word of God.
- Sight — They could read a red sky at evening with ease. Their failure was not a lack of intelligence but a lack of spiritual sight.
- Sign — The greatest sign God ever gave stood in front of them. Asking for another was like staring at noonday light and asking for a candle.
- Season — Two things were in plain view: God's visit in Jesus, and judgment coming on a nation that refused Him.
- Self — He calls them hypocrites. Love of evil behind a religious front blinded them, while love of their own interests kept them sharp about everyday things.
- Scripture — Faith still reads the times. It reads them by what God has already written, and so speaks of the future with calm confidence.
A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonas. And he left them and went away.
Two religious parties who agreed on almost nothing joined forces to ask Jesus for proof from the sky. He named what they were, refused them every sign but one, then left them and departed. That departure marks a turning point in Matthew's account.
The request looks fair until you see who was standing in front of them.
The Pharisees and the Sadducees hated one another, yet they join together in their still greater hatred of Christ. The ritualists and the rationalists of the day join hands to tempt the Son of God. Both reveal their utter blindness to the glory of His Person by asking for a sign from heaven. As one has well said: "That is unbelief. It can walk into the presence of God fully displayed, gaze at a light brighter than the sun at noon, and then and there ask God for a candle." They had rejected Christ, and now, after long patience, He rejects them.
Commentators read the two words in different ways. One takes them as fitted to the two parties standing there:
The Sadducees were marked above all by wickedness in their doctrine. The Pharisees were marked by adulterous unfaithfulness to the truth they claimed to hold. The only sign they would get was the sign of Jonah the prophet. His three days and three nights in the belly of the fish picture the death and resurrection of Christ.
Another writer traces "adulterous" back to Israel's old idolatry. The charge held even though the nation had given up its idols:
Verse 4 calls them adulterers because of their idolatry of old, though they are not idolaters now. The house was swept and decorated, and the evil spirit had gone out.
So what made Jonah a sign? Not the man himself, but what happened to him — and what the Lord did next.
What was this sign? It is the sign of a man who disappeared from the earth. Through the figure of death he passed away from the Jewish people, and after a while was given back to them. It was the symbol of death and resurrection, and our Lord acted on it at once. He "left them and departed." He would pass under the power of death; He would rise again, and the message which Israel had despised He would carry to the Gentiles.
One writer follows the story to the day the sign came.
Being "wicked and adulterous" they had no spiritual perception, and so such signs as God gives were no use to them. As He had said before (Matt. 12:39), one sign remained: "the sign of the prophet Jonah" — His own death and resurrection. With that word He left them. When that great sign took place they used all their craft and their money to try to cancel it. We see this in the last chapter of this Gospel.
It can jar to hear such words from Jesus. One writer sets them beside the welcome He gave to sinners.
He was the perfect display of love. But remember: He is the One who said "wicked and adulterous generation" and "brood of vipers"! Such words flow from true love, if only men would bow to the truth that convicts them. Bow to God's word, to the truth, now in this world, and you are saved. Be convicted by the truth only in the next world, and you are lost for ever. Jesus can meet a soul in its ruin. He may eat with tax collectors to show that He can receive sinners. Yes, He came to seek and to save the lost, and to forgive sins to the full. But He will never give any sign to satisfy the unbelief that rejects Him.
What does Jonah's sign stand for, and what did the Lord not say here?
As they had no eyes to see God's signs, they should have no other sign than that of Jonah: a man who was cast into the overwhelming judgement of God, and found deliverance from Him. Christ's death and resurrection is God's way of deliverance. In Matthew 16:4 the Lord does not tell them that this picture is fulfilled in Himself. Instead we have the dreadful words, "He left them and departed." They were left in the judgement of Jonah.
One writer draws the warning out for us:
Now the Lord leaves them. This is very solemn. Nothing worse could happen to us than to be left to ourselves. "Whom the Lord loves He disciplines."
- Demand — Two parties who despised each other united against Christ. They asked for a candle while standing in light brighter than noon.
- Verdict — "Evil" points to corrupt doctrine. "Adulterous" points to broken faith with the truth they claimed, and to Israel's old idolatry.
- Sign — Only Jonah's: three days buried, then raised. That is the death and resurrection of Christ, and the message Israel despised then went to the Gentiles.
- Love — Naming the evil is love speaking. Bow to the truth now and you are saved; meet it only in the next world and you are lost.
- Departure — He states the sign without explaining it and walks away. Nothing worse can happen to anyone than to be left to himself.
And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
The note that the disciples reached the far shore with no bread looks like an afterthought. But Matthew places it at a turning point. The Lord has just refused the sign the religious leaders demanded, and He has walked away from them. Empty hands in the boat then expose something emptier in the disciples' hearts.
The place of this warning matters. It stands between the Lord's rejection of Israel's religious leaders and His first word about the church He would build.
Where this special warning stands in Matthew 16 gives good reason to believe that the Lord's warnings fitted that moment exactly. They come between two things. Before them is His final rejection of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and His departure from them (v. 4) — and so from Judaism, which He judged to be fully identified with these two schools and marked by them. After them comes the introduction of what was now clear in His own mind and was about to take the place of Judaism: the Church.
Verse 4 ended with the leaders left behind in their blindness. Verse 5 opens with the disciples showing a version of the same fault. Being close to Christ did not protect them from it.
He had already exposed the blindness of the nation when He gave Jonah as a sign against them in Matthew 12. Here He goes further and turns away from them. "He left them and departed," verse 4. It is humbling to see that the disciples, for all the privilege of being always in His company, were held back by materialism too. When He warned them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, their minds ran on food. They seemed unable to take in moral teaching.
Twice they had handed out bread from His hands to hungry crowds. That memory should have made one missing loaf nothing to worry about.
When the Lord warned them against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they thought He meant that they had forgotten to bring bread. His power in feeding the crowds had touched them so little — and He had even let them take an active part in it.
Their own oversight shaped how they heard Him. They turned a warning about teaching into a remark about food.
They were to beware of their "leaven." At first the disciples took this warning in a physical sense, and their failure to bring bread helped the misunderstanding along. Yet they should not have given the matter a thought, after the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand. In the end they understood that by "leaven" the Lord meant "teaching." So it is clear that a true disciple could never be a Pharisee or a Sadducee, yet their teachings can still leaven him — either one, or both.
Two questions show how strange their thinking was.
How could they think the Lord was afraid He might have to use the bread of the Pharisees?… He had taught them not to worry about what they should eat and drink. Did they suppose that He was worried Himself, in case He and His disciples were forced to eat the bread of the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
The warning names two schools. The disciples' own reply carried a trace of each.
The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy. It comes from not taking deeply to heart what they claimed to believe. The disciples show this very thing by their response. The leaven of the Sadducees was the false doctrine of rationalistic thoughts. The disciples, by their rationalizing, missed the truth the Lord sought to impress on them. Their very response to Him showed how deeply they needed the warning of His words. Is our need any less than theirs?
Their reasoning did not only miss His meaning. It read a complaint into His care.
He was concerned for their spiritual welfare, and they all but accused Him of complaining about a shortage of food! How important it is for us always to take the truth of God's word deeply to heart, instead of suspecting the motives of the servant through whom God sends it to us.
- Forgot bread. The missing loaves are the small failure that opens the scene. The bigger loss was the memory of the two feedings they had helped serve.
- Forgot Him. Being always with Christ did not cure them. Materialism still held them back.
- Heard wrong. Their own oversight made them hear a complaint about food where He was warning about teaching.
- Warned twice over. Hypocrisy from the Pharisees, rationalism from the Sadducees. Their own reply showed both at work.
- Placed on purpose. The warning sits between His departure from Israel's leaders and His first word about the church.
And Jesus said to them, See and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
The Lord has just left the Pharisees and Sadducees behind. Crossing the lake with His disciples, He gives a short, sharp warning about leaven — and they think He means bread.
This warning is not for the Pharisees or Sadducees. The Lord aims it at His own followers. Later He tells them what "leaven" stood for.
At first the disciples took this warning in a physical sense. Their failure to bring bread helped the mistake along. Yet they should have had no thought on that score in the light of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand. At last they understood that by "leaven" the Lord meant "doctrine." It is clear, then, that a true disciple could never be a Pharisee or a Sadducee. Yet their doctrines can still leaven him — either one, or both.
Why did the Lord choose a picture? Because of the way leaven behaves in dough.
Leaven works like this: add a small particle to a mass of pure dough, and its special character always passes to the whole lump. This spreading action of leaven is automatic, and needs no human help. Silently and unseen, the subtle influence works on. Only when the hidden spreading and blending is finished does the result show. Its action is quicker and stronger when screened from the light.
The two groups err in opposite directions. The Lord names both in one warning.
The leaven of the Pharisee was the religious hypocrisy that puts all the weight on outward things and ceremony. The leaven of the Sadducee was pride of intellect. It lifts human reason into the place of sole judge, and waves aside God's revelation and faith. Both these things have leavened much of Christendom, as is sadly clear today. Ritualism is rampant on the one hand, and rationalism, or "modernism," on the other. Often the two blend, and the result is the rationalistic ritualist.
Opposite as they look, one writer traces both back to the same source in man:
Both Ritualism and Rationalism are the fruits of the fleshly mind. The one takes refuge in forms and ceremonies. It tries to reach God through the senses. That proves the true living knowledge of God and of His revelation in Christ is unknown. The other refuses to believe anything the fleshly mind cannot grasp.
Where this warning falls in the chapter is part of its force.
Where this special warning stands in Matthew 16 gives good ground to believe it fitted that exact moment. Just before it, the Lord finally rejects the Pharisees and Sadducees and leaves them (v. 4). So He leaves Judaism too, which He judged as fully marked by these two schools. Just after it comes what was now fully before His own mind and about to take the place of Judaism: the Church.
Their answer — that they had no bread — was more than a mistake. It was a sample of the very thing He warned them about.
The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy. It comes from not taking to heart in a living way what they professed to believe. But the disciples show this very thing by their response. The leaven of the Sadducees was the false doctrine of rationalistic thoughts. The disciples, by their rationalizing, missed the truth the Lord was seeking to press on them. Their very response to Him showed how deeply they needed the warning of His words. Is our need any less than theirs?
The warning does not stop with two old groups. It reaches the reader.
On the one hand there is religious self-satisfaction. On the other there is the practical ignoring of spiritual realities. On one side is lack of self-judgment, on the other the lack of self-sacrifice. Which of us is safe from one or the other? Can we look at the two types, with the Lord's warning in our ears, without being hit by the question, "Lord, is it I?"
- Leaven is doctrine. The Lord explains His own picture: leaven means teaching, not bread. A disciple who would never join either party can still take in both errors.
- Leaven spreads silently. It works on its own and needs no help. The influence spreads unseen until the whole lump shows it. That is why the command is to watch before, not repair after.
- Leaven comes in two forms. One is outward ceremony that stops at form. The other is human reason made judge over God's revelation. Both grow from the same fleshly mind.
- Leaven meets us at the door of the Church. The Lord gives this warning between leaving the Pharisees and Sadducees and bringing in the Church that would replace Judaism.
- Leaven is a mirror. The disciples' answer about bread showed the very rationalizing He warned of. It leaves every reader with one question: "Lord, is it I?"
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, Because we have taken no bread.
Jesus had just left the Pharisees and Sadducees, warning His followers to beware of their leaven. The disciples had forgotten the loaves, so they took a warning about their souls as a complaint about food.
The disciples did not just misunderstand the warning. One writer shows how they read a motive into it.
In the Pharisees and Sadducees we have seen gross unbelief. Now we see that the disciples themselves have caught some measure of the same disease. Having forgotten to take bread with them, they felt that the Lord's mention of leaven was an indirect hint that He was displeased at their neglect. He cared about their spiritual welfare. They as good as accused Him of complaining about the lack of physical food! How important it is for us to always take the truth of God's word to heart! We must not suspect the motives of the servant through whom God sends it to us.
Older translations say the disciples reasoned among themselves, where the ESV says they discussed it. One writer makes that word the root of the failure.
They did not understand Him. They reasoned among themselves. And whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything.
The same writer marks off what he means, since he does not condemn all thinking. The test is which end you start from.
There is such a thing, of course, as sound and solid deduction. The difference is this: wrong reasoning always starts from man and tries to rise to God. Right reasoning starts from God and moves towards man. The natural mind can only infer from its own experience, and so it forms its ideas of what God must be. This is the basis of human speculation in divine things. But God is the source, strength and guide of the thoughts of faith.
The disciples turned to each other. Writing on the same scene in Mark's Gospel, one writer notices who they did not ask.
They were unsure of their interpretation, so they looked for light from one another. Yet the Source of all wisdom was there among them. They turned to one another for help, and this showed that they lacked confidence in the love and sympathy of Christ for them. Otherwise, would they not have gone straight to Him, admitting their dullness and asking Him to teach them? They, however, reasoned and questioned and debated and argued with one another.
Their conclusion was not only wrong. It made no sense, as one writer points out.
They can only think that it is because they have taken no bread. Yet it is puzzling how the ritualism or rationalism of these men could affect their bread-making. This showed again the terrible unbelief of men who had twice just seen Him multiply the loaves to satisfy thousands. Yet they could think He was worried about the supply of bread! No, it was of the teaching of the Jewish leaders He was speaking, and of its subtle, spreading work.
So what does leaven mean? It is the yeast that spreads through dough, and Scripture keeps the picture consistent.
As a symbol, Scripture always uses it for the working of the human element in the things of God, whether mind or flesh, and so for evil… In Matthew 16:6-12 leaven stands for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Christ warned His own followers, so the danger is ours. One writer turns it into a personal test.
If our Christianity looks different to our fellow men from what God sees it to be, there is the Pharisaic element in it. If we hold doctrines in our heads without knowing their power in our hearts, the Pharisaic element is there. If there is praying without answers, preaching without converts, or talk without power, it is there too. If our walk looks right on the outside but bears no real fruit in our lives to God, the Pharisaic element is in it all.
- Warning. Christ warned about leaven: the human element working its way into the things of God. The danger He named was the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
- Reasoning. The disciples reasoned instead of believing. Reasoning that starts from man and tries to climb to God never reaches understanding.
- Suspicion. The forgotten loaves were on their minds, so they heard His concern for their souls as a complaint about food.
- Distance. They debated with each other while the Source of all wisdom was there beside them. That was a lack of confidence in His love, not just a lack of information.
- Forgetfulness. They had watched Him feed two crowds, yet they thought He was anxious about bread. Unbelief lives in believers too. The test is whether our life before God matches what others see.
And Jesus knowing [it], said, Why reason ye among yourselves, O ye of little faith, because ye have taken no bread?
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Do ye not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many hand-baskets ye took [up]?
Jesus warned His disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and they thought He meant the bread they had forgotten to bring. His reply is not an explanation but a question about memory, pointing back to a miracle they helped Him perform.
One writer finds the same unbelief seen in the Lord's opponents now at work in His own disciples:
There are other forms of unbelief, and the next scene is with His disciples. What you see at its worst in an unconverted man may show up, in another way perhaps, in believers. The Lord told them to watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. They did not understand Him. They reasoned among themselves. Whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything. They reasoned among themselves, saying it was because they had taken no bread.
Their reasoning also put a wrong motive on Him. He was speaking of their souls; they heard a complaint about food.
He was concerned for their spiritual welfare, yet they all but accused Him of complaining about a lack of physical food! How important it is for us to always take God's word deeply to heart! We should not suspect the motives of the servant God sends it through.
The baskets in this verse were a particular kind, and the number matters too:
When He fed the five thousand there were twelve baskets of leftovers, but the word used then was kophinos, a hand basket. The two perfect numbers seven and twelve show the inexhaustible supply the Lord provides when His purpose is to bless His own.
His wording also puts the disciples inside the miracle:
The Lord uses the same descriptive words that Matthew used in his record of the story. He does not call them simply "baskets" in each case. The twelve baskets taken up were hand baskets. The disciples figure more in that miracle.
The Lord asks whether they yet "perceive" — a word that asks for more than recall. One writer, on the parallel scene in Mark, explains it and traces their failure to what they had missed:
The verb used here for "understanding" has been translated in various ways. On the whole it seems to mean putting things together in the mind and heart, so as to find their true meaning by spiritual reflection... They saw in the miracle the work of His all-powerful hand. But they failed to see in it the intense love of His heart for needy men. They had watched the feeding of the five thousand, and they had shared in the work. That act of mercy was meant to fill hungry mouths and also to wake up slow hearts. It was another proof that Jehovah Himself was present in Israel, giving His people bread. But the hearts of the disciples were so dull that they missed the meaning of His presence. So they lacked that comfort in the hour of their trial.
One writer traces the warning back to what lies in the disciples' own hearts:
But these Pharisees and Sadducees do not present an evil wholly outside the circle of His disciples. Sad to say, we all have within us what makes us, on the side of nature, far too much like them... This showed again the terrible unbelief of these men. Twice, and recently, they had seen Him multiply the loaves to satisfy thousands. Yet they could think He was troubled about the supply of bread!
They worried about the wrong danger:
Providing the food they needed was a simple thing for Him. It was no simple matter for them to discern the corrupting influence of the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and to beware of it.
The Lord points them back to a past mercy. Faith argues the same way:
How opposite is the arguing of unbelief to that of faith! Faith reasons, "Because You have been my help in time past, therefore under the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice." Every past mercy is a pledge of mercy to come. Unbelief sees every fresh danger as a bigger threat than all that went before. It forgets the mercy of God and remembers only the dangers it has faced.
- Reason — The disciples did not grasp the warning, so they reasoned instead of trusting. Reasoning that starts with our own circumstances never reaches His meaning.
- Remember — His cure for their worry is memory: five loaves, five thousand fed, twelve hand baskets they filled themselves.
- Receive — Those baskets were never only about bread. The numbers point to a supply that never runs out. The miracle showed the love in His heart, not just the power in His hand.
- Recognise — The unbelief on show in the Pharisees and Sadducees had a root in the disciples too. The danger was never an empty bread bag, but a corrupting teaching.
- Rest — Faith treats every past mercy as a pledge of mercy to come. Unbelief counts up dangers and forgets the One who met them.
nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took [up]?
The Lord has just warned His disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and they thought He meant bread. So He asks them to count baskets: twelve after the five thousand, and here, seven after the four thousand.
The word for "baskets" here is not the word used one verse earlier. Both feedings left leftovers, but the containers differed in size and name.
Of the three Greek words used in the New Testament, spyris means "a hamper." It names the seven baskets of fragments left after the four thousand were fed. When the five thousand were fed there were twelve baskets of fragments, but the word then was kophinos, "a hand basket."... The two perfect numbers seven and twelve show the inexhaustible supply the Lord furnishes when His purpose is to bless His own.
Nothing went to waste, and the numbers carry meaning.
At the end of the meal they gathered up the fragments, for with the absolutely perfect One waste could not go with wealth and generosity. Seven large baskets full remained, compared with twelve hand-baskets full after the earlier feast. Scripture numbers stand for spiritual truths. Seven (repeated twice in this account) is the number of perfection: four is the world-number. So we learn, in symbol, that when He opens His hand to remedy the sorrows of men there will be perfection of blessing. And this is not only for Israel's tribes, but for the whole world.
Commentators differ on the exact application. Another writer sets the seven baskets here against the twelve of the earlier feeding.
It is not now the twelve baskets full. It is not in the character of perfect appointed human power. The baskets are seven. The perfection remains, but it is purely divine in its spiritual character, not worked out in human government. It remains, but it remains divine.
Unbelief is not only found in unconverted people. The same root shows itself in the Lord's own followers.
But there are other forms of unbelief. The next scene (v. 5) is with His disciples. What you see working in its worst form in an unconverted man may show itself, in another way perhaps, in believers... They did not understand Him. They reasoned among themselves. And whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything.
The disciples got the numbers right. Mark's account of the same exchange records what the Lord asked next.
When the Lord asked them directly about the miracles of the loaves, their memories came back. They could answer correctly when He asked how many baskets of fragments they had taken up. Then the Lord put the question that repeated and summed up all the earlier ones: "and He kept saying to them, Do you not yet understand?" (Mark 8:21).
The Lord does not ask how many people ate. He points to the leftovers, and the leftovers should have settled their worry.
In this scene in Mark, the disciples thought the Lord was scolding them for their short supply of food. He reminded them of His double miracle, worked so recently, and of the number of baskets of fragments they were able to collect because of His overflowing generosity. Might He not well say, O you of little faith, do you not remember?
Faith and unbelief both look back. They draw opposite conclusions.
How opposite is the reasoning of unbelief to that of faith! Faith reasons, "Because You have been my help in time past, therefore under the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice." Every past mercy is a pledge for mercy to come. Unbelief sees every fresh danger as a greater threat than all that came before. It forgets the mercy of God and remembers only the dangers it has faced... He had fed the five thousand. When the need comes again, with four thousand to feed, they ask the same unbelieving question.
- Count — The Lord answers worry with a question about numbers. Twice He had met an impossible need, and twice there was food to spare.
- Baskets — The seven here are large hampers, not the hand-baskets of the earlier feeding. The change of word marks a second, separate miracle.
- Fullness — Seven stands for perfection, four for the world. The surplus points to blessing that reaches beyond Israel's tribes to the whole world.
- Reasoning — The unbelief seen in unconverted people turns up again in the disciples. They reasoned among themselves, and their reasoning left them understanding nothing.
- Remembering — They recalled the numbers correctly and still heard, "Do you not yet understand?" Memory of His past supply only helps when it turns into present trust.
How do ye not understand that [it was] not concerning bread I said to you, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Jesus turns from the Pharisees and Sadducees to His own disciples and warns them about their "leaven." They think He is talking about bread, and His question shows that far more is at stake.
They took His warning as a remark about food supplies. One writer links their confusion to reasoning among themselves.
Unbelief takes other forms too, and the next scene is with His disciples. What you see at its worst in an unconverted man may be traced, in another way, in believers as well. Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They did not understand Him; they reasoned among themselves; and whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything.
They had a better option available and did not take it.
They were unsure what He meant, so they looked to each other for light. Yet the Source of all wisdom stood among them. Turning to one another showed that they did not trust the love and sympathy of Christ for them. Otherwise, would they not have gone straight to Him, admitting their dullness and asking Him to teach them? Instead they reasoned and questioned and debated and argued with one another.
The Lord's question carries a sting, because their reading of Him made Him small.
The question carried a charge of blameworthy dullness. How could they think that the Lord was afraid He might have to eat the bread of the Pharisees? Matthew does not record Mark's series of seven questions. He states the final question in a fuller form: "How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The Lord had taught them not to be anxious about what they should eat and drink. Did they suppose that He was anxious Himself, in case He and His disciples had to eat the bread of the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
The leaven He warned about is teaching. Commentators name its two strands.
The leaven of the Pharisee was the type of religious hypocrisy that puts all the stress on outward, ceremonial things. The leaven of the Sadducee was pride of intellect. It lifts human reason into the place of sole judge and waves aside God's revelation and faith. Both of these have leavened much of Christendom, and that is sadly plain today. Ritualism is rampant on one side, and rationalism, or "modernism," on the other. Often enough the two are blended, and the rationalistic ritualist is the product.
Opposite as the two look, they end in the same place.
Christ, the food of our souls, comes to us in the form of doctrine... The doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees is error in its two common types: outward, self-righteous religion, or unbelieving trust in human reason. The leaven in either case is the rejection of Christ as God presents Him and as faith enjoys Him. Mark's Gospel adds "the leaven of Herod," the party of the royal court. Add that, and we have the full triple alliance of evil: the flesh, the devil, and the world, all corrupting the truth of Christ.
He aimed the warning at believers, and their reply proved He was right.
The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, yet the disciples show evidence of this very thing by their response. By their reasoning they missed the truth the Lord was pressing on them. Their very answer to Him showed how deeply they needed the warning of His words. Is our need any less than theirs?
The position of this warning in the chapter is deliberate.
Just as malice and wickedness are called leaven in the earlier letter (1 Cor. 5:8), so the same image is here applied to evil teaching. Wrong doctrine is the corruption of the truth, and it spreads as easily as leaven in clean dough. So we need special care against this subtle agent of corruption working among the saints. Our Lord told His disciples to beware of the leaven of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:6, 11-12), His warning came right before He spoke of founding His church, and that order is worth noting.
- Warning. He says "Beware" to disciples, not to enemies. The leaven threatens people already following Christ.
- Misreading. They reasoned with each other about bread instead of asking the One standing among them. Reasoning replaced hearing.
- Meaning. The leaven is doctrine: outward, ceremonial religion on one side, and reason set up as sole judge on the other.
- Reach. Both errors end at the same point: refusing Christ as God presents Him. Both have spread through Christendom.
- Result. The warning stands right before the Lord speaks of building His church. Corrupt teaching spreads through believers like leaven through dough.
Then they comprehended that he did not speak of being beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus told His disciples to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They thought He meant bread, and verse 12 is the moment they see He was warning them about teaching.
The disciples heard the warning and thought about their empty food bag. His meaning was far more serious. It pointed to a danger that following Him did not remove.
At last they understood that by "leaven" the Lord meant "doctrine." So it is clear: a true disciple could never be a Pharisee or a Sadducee. Yet their doctrines may still leaven him — either one, or both.
Leaven is yeast. A small amount spreads through a whole batch of dough. Kelly applies the picture to a creed that spreads without faith behind it.
There is the spread of doctrine, of creed, of a mere verbal confession which does not suppose faith... This is compared to leaven, and leaven in Scripture is never the symbol of what is good. The leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees was their doctrine, which differed in each, but was far from good.
Bad behaviour is not the only leaven. Fereday sets wrong teaching beside it and weighs which does more harm.
Moral evil was active in the church at Corinth. Elsewhere Scripture warns us about doctrinal evil. Doctrinal evil comes from minds that are not subject to God, and it may do more damage than open immorality. Leaven in every form must not be tolerated by those who claim to value the grace of God and the blood of the Lamb.
God's word was the pure, unleavened food of His people. Israel's teachers worked something foreign into it.
Their rabbis had leavened the holy bread of the law as it was first given. They brought in the leaven of the rules of men. Their teaching was soaked in the traditions of the elders. So the leaven of hypocrisy and formalism spoiled the unleavened bread of Scripture for the children of the kingdom, and their tradition made the word of God of no effect.
The two groups carried opposite errors. Hole describes each one.
The leaven of the Pharisee was the kind of religious hypocrisy that puts all its stress on outward, ceremonial things. The leaven of the Sadducee was pride of intellect. It lifts human reason into the place of sole judge, and waves aside God's revelation and faith.
Another writer names the two errors and notes where this warning sits in the chapter.
Notice something important. Before He brought out the truth of the Church for the first time in His ministry to them, He warned them against these two leavens. The leaven of the Pharisees is ritualism, and the leaven of the Sadducees is rationalism. The pure truth of the Church has been corrupted all down the centuries by one or other, or both, of these leavens.
The disciples missed His meaning and talked it over with each other. Kelly treats that habit as a pattern.
They did not understand Him. They reasoned among themselves. And whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything.
One writer adds that by turning to each other instead of to Christ, they showed little confidence in His love and sympathy for them (The Bible Treasury).
Jesus aimed this at His own followers, not at outsiders. That is what makes the verse uncomfortable rather than merely historical.
So it is clear. In speaking of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, our Lord was warning His disciples against two dangers. These dangers have always been present among people who profess the name of God... On one side there is religious self-satisfaction. On the other there is the practical ignoring of spiritual realities. On one side there is a lack of self-judgment, on the other a lack of self-sacrifice. Which of us is safe from one or the other? Can we look at the two types, with the Lord's warning in our ears, without being struck by the question, "Lord, is it I?"
- Leaven named. The danger was never bread but teaching. The disciples saw it only at last.
- Leaven spreads. Scripture never uses it as a good picture. It spreads through the whole batch, and corrupt teaching may do more damage than open immorality.
- Leaven spoils. Human tradition mixed into God's word left the children of the kingdom with spoiled bread.
- Leaven has two shapes. Ritualism and rationalism look opposite. Both corrupt the truth, and the warning came just before Christ spoke of building His church.
- Leaven reaches disciples. Followers of Christ are not immune; the honest response to the verse is self-examination, not a history lesson.