Matthew 18:15-20

This passage occurs as a New Testament Lesson in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently September 2023 . 
 
Summary:  Jesus seems to let us off the hook today, telling us we can treat sinning Christians like gentiles and tax collectors, as long as we've gone through the appeal court system.  However, this is the worst news of all, because Jesus spends most of his time eating with tax collectors and even getting harassed for his association with them.  In other words, Jesus doesn't give us permission to drop them, but rather instructs us to bear them, teach them and even get persecuted because we continue to care for them over and against their difficulties toward us.  Yes, he does let us remove our heart strings a bit from them, but not our moral obligation.  Hence why Jesus has to promise us his presence in the midst of conflict!

Note:  I wrote a post in which I specifically look at "binding" of sins and what this might mean.

Key Words:
αδελφος (brother/sister; found throughout section)  Earlier in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus refers to his followers as his brothers and sisters (12:49).  He is telling his disciples that in the church they are also brothers and sisters to one another.  

εκερδησας (from κερδαινω, "to gain", 18:15)  Jesus puts it beautifully:  If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother.  It is not about winning people to your side, but restoring the relationship!  

Additional 2023 note:  That this passage occurs after the story of the (Good) shepherd finding the lost sheep might be lost on the normal preacher, because the lectionary leaves that story for the year of Luke.  Dr Rolf Jacobson offers a nice connection between the two stories.  He argues, correctly I believe, that the latter story reveals this story is about Jesus working to reconnect the lost to the flock.  

Additional 2026 note:  It is also interesting that the previous week's Gospel reading had Jesus reflect on "what profit" is it for a man to "gain" (κερδαινω) the world, but lose his soul.  Here Jesus reflects on gaining a friend back.

ακουω & παρακουω ("listen" and "listen aside", 18:15, 16 and 17)  Jesus does not say "if he apologizes" or "if he agrees"; he simply says, "if he listens."  If we can listen to each other, we make room for reconciliation.  In fact, in order to get the point of agreement (vs 19), we must first reestablish the relationship (vs. 15).  

Jesus introduces a word that is rare in the New Testament: παρακουω.  That ακουω is part of it should be readily clear.  What is added is the preposition/prefix:  παρα.  This means alongside of.  So this verb means "to hear aside", i.e. not hear directly, not focus, not pay attention.  Definitely an indictment of our culture today!

εθνικος (pagan, gentile, literally "ethnic"; 18:17)  Jesus suggests we treat Christians who have greatly sinned against us as gentiles.  Interestingly, Jesus final words in the Gospel of Matthew instruct us to preach to the gentiles (all the nations of the world; same root word) and earlier Jesus reminds us to love our enemies.  Jesus is not giving us permission to be rude and dismissive to our brothers and sisters in Jesus, even those whom we are angry with.

τελωνης ("tax collector"; 18:17)  Jesus eats with tax collectors.  He repeatedly takes heat for being seen with them.  So considering someone a tax collector means something more like this:  "Treat them in such a way that no one knows how much they anger and embarrass you, bearing your cross and thanking God for this opportunity to become a more patient and compassionate person."

δησητε (form of δεω, meaning "bind"; 18:18)  Bind does not mean declare forgiven.  (In another post, I explore the historical meanings of this word within the context of "The Keys").   In short, ways to look at this:

1)  It means to forgive, understood in connection with Matthew 16 and John 20 as the priestly office of the keys

2)  It means to declare something taboo.  Marriage is a binding of two people together, which means that certain actions are permitted, but also that certain actions are no longer permitted.  This is interesting that in order for their to be life together, there has to be an established set of norms.

3)  I offer it means to bind sins to Christ.

συμφωνησωσιν ("agree" or "match", from συμφωνεω; 18:19)  The actually meaning of this word is not that interesting.  What is interesting is the derivation, "symphony" which means "together-sounds."  Jesus says that if we make a symphony, God listens.  Haha!  Also worth noting that this coming together takes place within a story about renewing of relationships and returning of lost sheep to the fold.  This is NOT then, simply two people coming together, but two people who were previously at odds.

επι της γης ("upon the earth", 18:19)  I want to point out something in the Greek overlooked in most translations -- Jesus says that if two or three on the earth agree, God in heaven will act.  This would suggest that people coming together is bridge between heaven and earth.  Reconciliation is a thin space, so speak.  The God in heaven responds to people on earth, when we find unity.  While this sounds like we are the agents of reconciliation, remember the context: the shepherd finding the lost sheep.

This passage also underscores a fundamental theme in the Bible:  Humans are estranged from each other.

συνηγμενοι ("gathered"; passive perfect participle from "συναγω"; 18:20)  This participle covers up a familiar word:  synago, from which we get synagogue.  The voice is significant here.  We do not gather ourselves in the church, but rather are gathered God.  Thus, we are moving  from human action to God's promise. Also worth noting that Jesus promises his presence in the midst of the office of the keys and congregational conflict.  The church is a gift, however human and sinful it can be!

εν μεσω ("in the midst", 18:20)  Matthew begins his Gospel by declaring Jesus to be Immanuel -- God with us.  Matthew ends his Gospel with Jesus declaring he is God with us.  In the middle of the Gospel Jesus affirms this as his mission (and identity) when he declares that, at the crossroads of worship and conflict, he is with us.

Translation Issue:  Hypothetical situations with εαν

Technically, this word is a combination of:  ει αν, both of which are "subjunctive" markers.  Put them together and you have a very hypothetical situation.  If you have the word εαν, the writer/speaker is not specifying if this will actually happen.  It means something like, "if" or perhaps "whenever."  If is used in Greek to set up a simple phrase (so necessary for science), if-then.  So in our text for this week, Jesus is not promising conflict; nor is he promising that people will not listen.  He is simply saying, "If you experience this, well, then do this..."

Also worth noting:  Every other verse in this section has an "if" clause, yet in 18:20 Jesus simply declares -- Where two or three are gathered, I am in the midst of you.

Binding of Sins (Matthew 18:15-20)

Note:  This post comes out of my 2023 sermon on Matthew 18:15-20.  I will focus on the word "bind."  However, you can access my post on Matthew 18:15-20 or John 20:19-31.

I want to reflect a bit more on what Jesus means when he says "Truly I tell you, whatever you BIND on earth will be BOUND in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  I offer that this word "bind" (δεω) might have three meanings.

• Classic medieval: The binding, along with the loosing, refers to the keys of heaven which are given to the church (see Matthew 16:19).  These keys of loosing and binding will open and close the door.  As the church chooses to absolve or not absolve sins, people are moved in or blocked from heaven.
• Rabbinic:  A movement has picked up in recent scholarship to view the "binding" and "loosing" referring to the Rabbinic practice of determining, within a community, what was "bound", that is "sinful" and what was "loose", that is ''permitted." 
• Pastoral:  The binding refers here to the act of restoring a lost sheep by binding sins to Christ.

I want to unpack each of these, describe the Scriptural argument for each, its implications and its shortcomings.

Classic Medieval

In a nutshell:  The classic understanding of the office of the keys is nicely summarized by Martin Luther in his small catechism:

What is the Office of the Keys?  The Office of the Keys is the special authority which Christ has given to His Church on earth: to forgive the sins of the penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent.

(See footnote for a longer passage of Luther) 

It is worth noting that the medieval Roman Catholic church and Luther were in agreement about what the keys did (see Aquinas on the office of the keys belonging to the church).  Luther disagreed about whether the keys belonged to the "holy Roman Catholic church" or the "holy catholic church, the communion of saints" and how the keys were dealt with through the sacramental system.

Biblical support:  All of this understanding arises from Matthew 16, Matthew 18 and John 20, in which Jesus gives the apostles authority to forgive sins and retain them.  It is worth noting that the wording is different in Matthew and John, with Matthew using the words "bind" and "loosen" and John using the words "forgive" and "hold/retain/grasp."

Implications and Shortcomings:  The mission of the church becomes clear:  act as a gate keeper for who is in and who is out of the Kingdom of God.  This clarifies and perhaps simplifies the task of the church in an age when the objectives often seem political and social.  

However, the church doors, physically and spiritually, become hard boundaries of God's mercy on earth.  As discipleship in Jesus moves from a Jewish renewal movement to an inter-continental institution, this boundary becomes a wall and the institution abuses its power, time and time again.

It also makes the point of life "getting into heaven" rather than experiencing eternal life, which begins here and now, as Jesus comes to us.

Rabbinic

In a nutshell:  This way of thinking might be new to some.  The binding and loosing, in this view, refer to the process by which community leaders, Rabbis, would determine what was morally permissible (or not) for a community.  A good article I found online by the author Kindalee Pfremmer De Long outlines it.  As she writes

In this practice of [rabbinic] binding and loosing, rabbis uphold the law as eternal and universal but recognize that new contexts require new decisions about how to bind or loose particular behaviors. 

Biblical support:  In the article by De Long, she delves more deeply into historical and linguistic support of this interpretation, which she acknowledges is solid but not exhaustively conclusive.  It is not a strictly biblical argument, per se, but one in which extra-Biblical sources allow us to better understand what the original authors (or in this case, the original speaker, Jesus) likely meant.

De Long also does not dismiss the classic way of understanding this passage.  She offers that both people may be bound or loosed (classic) and that laws or ethical standards may be bound or loosed (rabbinic).  I resonated with De Long's article, not simply in substance, but also tone.  She wrote in a generous spirit - rather than a "everyone got it wrong because we/I've discovered this social science data from the 1st century that upends everything you knew", she approached it with a "there is likely another layer to this that has impact for ministry" attitude.

Implications and Shortcomings:  In this way of thinking, Christian communities become loci of ethical and moral discernment.  For a community to exist, there must be agreed upon standards of behavior, processes for determining these standards and then means by which people are restored to the community. 

The Rabbinic perspective returns to the Achilles' heal for Protestants - once you've left the institution AND acknowledged that differences are inevitable, on what basis can you find unity and on what basis will your ethical teachings stand?  And furthermore, why attend a church that doesn't suit your moral proclivities, which increasingly means your political stances?  Like, if you disagree with your church's moral conclusion about some issue, why not leave?  In short, if your church is going to stake its hat on getting it right morally and you don't agree, why stay?

Pastoral

As a western and American, living in the 21st century, I live in just about the most autonomous and individualized culture in the earth's history.  Never before have people been less grounded in their past, including both family of origin and even biological gender.   In short, we tend to trust our feelings and are motivated to create a life, a story, an identity for ourselves, often over and against the entities that brought us to bear.  Our participation in society often amounts to signaling our virtue more than bearing one another's burdens and we move to "cancel" rather than listen.  

This all makes me acutely hungry for Matthew 18 and Jesus words about community.  More and more, in fact, I sense that God's Kingdom is a place where this individualism dissolves in Christ's grace.  I can stop having to create myself and simply let Christ define me.  While I retain a sense of distinction from others -- we do not become a blob -- I am finally able to get over myself in a way that I can be for others.  God's Kingdom allows for real community, truly communion, with God of course, but also with others.  In that light, I very much appreciated Rolf Jacobson's article about the community dynamics within Matthew 18.  Jacobson helps these words of the binding and loosing be heard in their context, namely, that of a good shepherd finding lost sheep.

If Jesus is indeed speaking about bringing people into "Life Together" as Bonhoeffer called it, what might binding look like?  Fascinatingly, Bonhoeffer ends his book with a chapter on Confession and Communion.  He extols the virtues of confession and bases participation in Holy Communion on confession.  Yet he does not mention binding of sins, but rather the proclamation of forgiveness. 

In short, a community needs to bind and loosen laws in terms of structuring life together, but given the reality of sin (see again Jacobson's article), inevitably we fill mess up before God and each other.  The only way forward is forgiveness and reconciliation.  Does this mean, then, that we have left the binding of sins behind or simply see binding as the way to remove people from the community?

μη γενιοτο (heck no!)  The community needs something bound in order for the key of loosing to work.  Sin must be dealt with.  The only binding that can actually hold a community together, then is confession and absolution, which is a binding of the sin to the cross and the freeing of the new creation for life together.

In reality, this binding will likely take weeks and be on-going given the capacity for humans to hurt ourselves and each other.  We will again and again need to bind the old sinner to the cross - our shame, our guilt, our pride, our fears, everything.  While I cannot prove it, I sense that a congregation that truly experiences this kind of forgiveness, not simply from the pulpit, but from each other (as Bonhoeffer envisions) is the kind of church that will cohere even when people disagree.  

***

PS  Longer Luther passage on the keys:

"We possess these two keys through Christ's command.  The key which binds it the power or office to punish the sinner who refuses to repent by means of a public condemnation to eternal death and separation from the rest of Christendom... The key which binds carries forward the work of the law.  It is profitable to the sinner in as much as it reveals to him his sins, admonishes him to fear God, causes him to tremble and moves him to repentance and not to destruction." ("The Keys", pg 372, LW 40)

Matthew 16:13-20

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A, most recently Aug 23, 2026.
 
Summary:  This passage presents many powerful preaching angles that I try to amplify with the Greek. 

• Confessing Christ is the work of the individual and the church
• Confessing Christ is on-going
• Confessing Christ must happen on the road of life, even in places of moral rot
• Confessing Christ happens over and against other co-religionists and their confession of who Jesus is (I include here some research by NT Wright on the various 1st century understandings of what "Messiah" meant).

For 2026, I wondered what might be worth preaching on within Matthew's version because this story comes up in both Matthew and Mark's Gospel.  I am pondering how Peter is given his identity after his confession of Christ and the way in which identifying who Christ is allows us finally to hear and be identified as who we are.  In the 21st century, we obsess over identity and an identity that is self-constructed.  But here we discover that our identity cannot be found by our own analysis, but comes from Christ.  I don't have Greek analysis for this, just simply a point I am pondering!

Idea for a children's sermon:  the whole fish, Ι-Χ-Θ-Υ-Σ, i-ch-th-u-s, thing (Jesus Christ God's Son Savior) as the most basic confession.

λέγετε (saying, 16:15) When we hear this translated in English, we hear this a personal question:  "Who do you say that I am?"  Given that Peter individually responds, it is correct in acknowledging this is a question that we must each answer individually.  However, it is worth pointing out that this is a plural question.  The whole community is asked to confess Christ, one might even argue, together!

ἠρώτα (imperfect of ἐρωτάω, asking, 16:13)  This verb here is in the imperfect tense.  Jesus is repeatedly asking them.  This adds movement and emotion to the scene, but also points to the way in which our whole lives again and again, we will need to confess Christ.

καισαρειας φιλιππι (Caesarea Philippi, 16:13):  This town is not a coincidental mention.  It was a trading hub, located along some major land routes.  It had been associated in the past with Baal (OT Canaanite god) and Pan (Greek god).  In Jesus day, it was one of the Roman capitals in the area, with immense building projects undertaken by Herod, including the construction of a temple in honor of Augustus.  In fact, city's temple to Pan was believed to be located at the gates of Hades, a direct connection to the underworld.  Philippi epitomized the Greco-Roman religious milieu of the day: a pantheistic cult that continued to give more space to emperor worship; above all, a worship of beauty, sex, power and money. 

One can go even further though and think about the extent to which these are all not simply dead gods, but gods of death.  At the main temple in Caesarea Philippi, which was a temple believed to be the gates of Hades, people would offer dead animal sacrifices  (http://www.generationword.com/Israel/caesarea_philippi.htm good pictures!).  Hence the importance in Peter's confession that God is a living God! 

If you want to go even further, you can study more about what worship of Pan actually entailed, but now we would have an adult only sermon.

υιος του ανθροπος  (Son of Man 16:13).  As Christians we likely recognize this title as a reference to Jesus.  In fact, we often look at this title as one that uplifts Jesus as the pinnacle of humanity.  But what exactly does this title mean?  

On the one hand, this term is associated with the Messiah and his coming in glory in the book of Daniel:

• “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (7:13-14)

Yet, on the other hand, this particular title for an individual or humanity seems to suggest humanity's weakness:

• What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:4; See also Psalm 144:3)
• If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot-- a son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:5-6)
• God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)

God also calls Ezekiel the Son of Man a number (80?) times; it is a way of reminding Ezekiel he is not divine.  In short, calling Jesus the Son of Man ascribes both majesty but also humility to him.  (I even checked with Wikipedia to see if I was missing something here; in fact, its article emphasizes my point about this title and humility.)

χριστος  (Christos, Messiah, 16:16)  Christos is Greek for anointed.  In Hebrew, the word for anointed is Messiah.  Peter is calling Jesus the Messiah.  The Old Testament strongly associates Messiah with a king, in the line of David, one who leads and protects the people.  

• The idea seems to be that a Messiah is a divine talisman, in that he has special protection (1 Sam 26:23; Psalm 20:6).  
• Interestingly, in Leviticus (4:6 eg) the High Priest is also referred to as the "anointed" or "Messiah."  
• Furthermore, Isaiah in chapter 61, declares himself anointed for his vision, hence prophet could also be understood as the role of the anointed (Psalm 105:15 connects this as well).  

As Messiah then could be understood to capture three offices:  king, priest and prophet, which matches up with Calvin's understanding of Christ and his offices.  

While Calvin and other theologians have tried to clarify what "Messiah" means, it is helpful to remember that various first century Jewish groups had their own understanding of the word.  Different factions within that society had different senses of what a Messiah would be like and what the Messianic age would entail. It can helpful to avoid statements like:  "All of the Jews expected X out of a Messiah."  Consider Christians today -- do we all have a common vision for what the return of Christ will look like?  While I will try to summarize some thoughts on what this term meant, I do so aware that this term had a variety of meanings.

If there is any common theme for first century understandings of Messiah, it would be a theme of conquering.  While Kings, priests and especially prophets may suffer, there seems a much stronger note of victory, even theology of glory, surrounding this term.  As NT Wright puts it:  "Everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah." (p. 230, The New Testament and Its World.) This would explain why Peter so soon afterwards does not want Jesus to suffer!  (In short, Peter knew his Old Testament!).  It also shows a great contrast with the ideas laid out in Daniel for what to expect from the son of man. 

I would also add that NT Wright does a great job of unpacking the Jewish understanding of "son of man" and "messiah."  In his mind they work together, in that the Son of Man refers to Daniel 7 and comes with hopes of Israel's redemption over the foreign and invading empires.  While even Wright admits the Daniel 7 is bit more ambiguous of a connection, he helpfully demonstrates the Jewish people of the 1st century had very earthly hopes.  They all wanted an end to their situation as a puppet regime of Rome; they may have understood this happening in different ways, but ultimately, it was for the same reason.  In short, no first century Jew would have said:  "I want the Messiah to come, die in a humiliating fashion, be resurrected and then promise us that if we follow him, we will die and then enter into a non-earthly eternity with God that will include lots of non-Jews."  The Messiah was to bring about the new reign of God on earth, which included the vindication of Israel (p. 234, The New Testament and Its World).

πετρος /πετρα Petros Petra:  We've all heard that Peter's name means Rock, because he was the Rock on which the church would be built.  Both words clearly have a the same first few letters (Petr), but I am not sure if we must necessarily infer that Peter the person is what the church will be built on.  Beyond some linguistic oddities (Petra is a feminine noun and ends in an a, nothing like Peter's name's ending), the far more logical thing is that the church will be built on the confession, which comes from heaven.  I think the Bible really underscores this by showing Peter's misunderstanding just a few sentences later. Luther writes a sermon delving into why this passage is about the confession of Christ and not Peter's person.

αδης hades:  See my blog post on words for hell in the Bible.  http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/09/mark-938-50.html

Grammar note:  In the infinitive phrase "Who do you say that I am" the word "I" is in the accusative (me).  Why?  Because in the subject of an infinitive clause is in the accusative, not the nominative.

Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, year A, most recently July 26, 2026

Rather than offer a summary of these parables, I will offer a word or two comment on each parable.  Hopefully this can offer a connection to a parable for you

Parable of the mustard seed
παραθηκεν ("put before", 13:31)  Jesus does not tell them parables, he puts them before his disciples.  A reminder that we are invited to consider their meaning.

βασιλεια των ουρανων ("kingdom of heaven", 13:31)  A reminder that Matthew Gospel does not discuss the Kingdom of God, but rather the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is in contrast to the other writers of the new Testament.  Perhaps Matthew's Jewish roots made him uncomfortable using the word God?

λαχανων (-ον, "shrub/herb", 13:32) The word for tree/plant here signifies an edible plant.  A reminder that the mustard seed is intended for consumption by another, just like our lives.  While I am on the mustard seed...interesting the mustard seed was used to make chemical weapons in world war I.  Also used to make the first chemotherapy drugs.  A reminder that all things can be used for God's purposes.  Or not.

κατασκηνουν (-οω, "live in tent", 13:32)  John's Gospel tells us that Jesus "dwelt"/"tented" among us (same word.)  Is Jesus like one of the birds that dwells in the tree?  I don't think so, but hey, its a parable and always fun to ask the question:  Where is Jesus in this parable?

Parable of the kneading woman

ενεκρυψεν (literally and in meaning "encrypted", 13:33)  The kingdom is somehow hidden -- literally encrypted -- into this world.  I appreciate that this is a feminine protagonist!  I wonder if this is the work of the Spirit, to mash the Word into the world!

ζυμη (yeast, 13:33)  Fascinatingly Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a single-celled micro-organism that is considered fungi.  I am not going to preach on this, but there is some potential here -- it makes things rise; it takes a bit of heat, but not much; it is a fun-guy ;-)

σατα (from σατον, 13:33)  This is a Hebrew measure of flour, a reminder that this parable is (almost certainly) translated from the original that Jesus told!

Parable of the field and treasure
αγοραζει ("agorize" meaning "to buy or sell", 13:44;46)  Interesting economic metaphor.  If Christ is the one who finds us, the pearl, then Christ is the one who sells all that he has to buy us.  This is a pretty way (the only way??) to use the buy/sell metaphor common in Christian soteriology.

μαργαριτας ("margarita" meaning "pearl", 13:45)  Just wanted to everyone to know the word for pearl is margarita.  The Kingdom of God is like a margarita :-)

ευρων (from ευρισκω meaning "find", 13:44; 46)  A reminder that there a many lost and found parables in the Bible!

Parable of the net
γενους (literally genous, meaning "type" or "species"; 13:47)  This word can even mean peoples or races.  The net is intended for all people!!  (Not just fish!)

συναγαγουση (from συναγω meaning "gather", 13:47)  The purpose of the net is to gather all people together.  The word literally means synagogue.  The net is to bring us all into the same synagogue...

συντελεια (meaning "completion", 13:48)  I have no idea why Christians don't call it the fullness of all time instead of the end of time.  The word is completion and fullness, not termination!

Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

This passage occurs in year A of the Revised Common Lectionary, most recently July 2026
 
Summary:  This passage lends itself very easily to a divided world in which there are good and bad people; the good get saved and the bad get punished in fire.  God tolerates the bad lest the good be obliterated.

One possible direction is one that Luther took, namely, using this passage as a plea for tolerance.  (Seriously, worth reading the big Luther quote at this site).

Another possibility is that each person is made up of both saint and sinner.  The sinner in each of us must be put to death.  Good religion is not what helps us divide the world into good and bad.  Good religion helps us purify the bad within each of us.

Key Words:
ζιζανια ("wheat resembling weed", 13:25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40).  This likely refers to a particularly bad weed:

Lolium temulentum is a weed of wheat farmlands. Even a few grains of this plant will adversely affect crop quality. Its seeds are poisonous to people and livestock. It is very difficult to separate the seeds of L. temulentum from those of what and other small grain crops as they are similar in size and weight. L. temulentum can be a host to a variety of crop pests and diseases.  For more, read here.

οικοδεσποτος ("master of the house", 13:27)  I saw on Facebook in 2023 that someone did not like the metaphors of agriculture because God had too much power and ownership.  I am okay with these metaphors.

εχθρος ("enemy", 13:25 and 28)  This word comes from the word hate.  The enemy can mean "the hostile one."  When we have come to hate the other, we have become like the enemy.

There are three "syn" words closely written together
συλλεγοντες (13:29):  Collect

συναυξανεσθαι  (13:30):  Grow together
συναγαγετε (13:30):  Gather
συντελεια (13:39): Complete

I am still pondering what to make of this.  Some things bound must be undone (the sinner and saint).  Some binding still is yet to come (the faithful gathered).

σκανδαλα (σκανδαλον, meaning stumbling block, 13:41)  Finally, in the eschaton there are no more scandals :-)  Actually, I think there is a lot of good news here in that there is a furnace of πυρός (fire, 13:42).  Ultimately, the bad in this world needs to be destroyed.

ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (13:42)  One wonders if the weeping and gnashing of teeth is from those who suffer or from the one who knew that they must be destroyed!  Given that in the parable the weeds are entirely consumed, one possible interpretation is that people are not being tortured, but that this death produces sadness.

Matthew 13:1-9; 18-23

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently July 2026.  Since the two sections have similar vocabulary, I will focus my comments on one section, namely 18-23.

Summary:  What is this parable about:  The soil?  The seed?  In the parable, certain individuals endure hardship, survive temptation and finally bear fruit.  How is that going to happen?  How will they, to use the metaphor of the parable, have deep soil?  As Jesus says, the parable is about the sower, the sower who constantly comes to us again and again, sowing the seed that we might finally be at a point in our lives where the soil is deep, that we might repent, turn and be healed (13:15), that we will bear fruit.

New for 2026:  A reflection on that day, Mary and good soil.

Key words: 
παραβολή ("parable"; 3, 18)  Just a reminder:  This is Jesus first parable! (In Matthew's Gospel and therefore, the New Testament!)

σπειραντος ("the one who sows", participle of σπειρω; 18)  There is nothing distinct about this word, but it is worth pointing out that Jesus says the parable is about this, namely, the one who throws his seed, even into wasteful places!

καρπος ("grain"/"fruit"; 8, 23)  The first time through the parable, most translators translate the word as "grain" or a "crop."  Which is too bad because one misses the crucial connection to bearing fruit, one of the few metaphors that is consistent across the entire New Testament.  I love this image, because you can do so much with it:
* Fruit is not for the sake of the tree that produced it (our life is about our neighbor)
* Fruit often takes a season if not years to produce (patience)
* Fruit doesn't last long (our good works are needed every day)
* Fruit needs pollination (need a word outside of ourselves)
* Fruit needs the death of a flower...

καρδια ("heart"; 19)  Interestingly, this word never refers to the actually beating heart inside the body in the NT!  Hebrew and Greek map the whole heart-brain-feelings-thoughts a bit differently, but the basic point is that the heart here is not the Hallmark center, but the core of who we are, including our thoughts.

πονηρος ("evil"; 19)  Jesus here personifies evil.  A couple of thoughts.  First, it could be that Jesus here simply describes evil as "the evil" rather than the "evil one."  He may leave evil more abstract.  Second, it is also interesting and scary that the devil can engage with the human heart.  Third, it is haunting how evil is portrayed as multi-faceted:  a personified agent that works against us, the structural oppression in the world and the selfish desires of the human.  As Luther said, "the devil, the world and the sinful self." 
see also
ερχεται ("coming"; 19)  This word is a word we learn in our first few Greek lessons.  What I want to emphasize in this case is the tense:  present tense.  Furthermore, the tenses of the participles starting the sentence are also in the present tense.  This means all of the actions are on-going and concurrent:  the listening, the not comprehending and the coming of the evil one are all happening at the same time.  I had always imagined the coming of the evil one happened after the fact.  But Jesus' use of present participles (or Matthew's) suggests these are all happening at the same time.  Scary.

Small but interesting words:
σπειρος  ("seed"; multiple times; also see 13:38)  In Greek the word "seed" is actually a participle made into a noun, literally "The thing that is sown."  It is worth point out that in verse 38 the good seed are the sons of the kingdom (as opposed to the seed being the Word).   Jesus switches the metaphor, reminding us, that these are parables and not allegories.  [Note:  I wrote this years ago, and I am now wondering what I meant by the different in parables and allegories.]

ακουω ("hear"; multiple times)   Warning:  Overly pietist comment coming up:  Hearing the word is not sufficient.  In this parable hearing must move to understanding.

σκανδαλιζεται ("stumble"; 21)  This means "scandalize"; how does the word scandalize you?
απατη ("deception"; 22)  An interesting side note on this word.  It closely sounds like "agape" which Christian communion meals were often called.  2 Peter 2:13 plays on this a bit a condemns the "apate" at the communion meals.

ἐκείνῃ ("that"; 13:1) This word is the demonstrative pronoun in Greek (remember back in summer Greek...)  Anyway, here is the significance.  Jesus is teaching on that day.  Why might Matthew want to connect the teachings to the events of chapter 12, where Jesus has essentially disowned his family?  Perhaps it can further the rejection of the family -- Jesus is moving on, continuing to sow the seed for all those who listen.  Or maybe it is an illustration of what Jesus means that he is sower.  His own family will reject him, at least at this point, but in the end, they will become pillars in the early church.  As it turns out, the soil of Mary may have been choked out at this point by cares of the world.  Yet, many would view her soil the richest soil a human has ever had.  This is a powerful reminder that Jesus keeps on sowing the seed, even if we cannot bear fruit in that season of life.

One can also get there by looking at the verb tenses of the infinitive σπείρειν (13:3, sow), imperative ἀκουέτω (13:9, hear) and participles of  ἀκούων καὶ συνιείς (13:23, hear and understand).  They are all in the present tense, suggesting that both God's action of sowing and our action of listening are on-going.

Grammar Review:  Substantive participles
In Greek, you can make "substantive" participles very easily.  They are also easy to translate.
They follow the following pattern:  "The one who does X/Y/Z"  In English, this idea is accomplished with a relative pronoun clause:  I like the woman who married me.  Greek also has relative clauses, but the substantive participle is common.  Here we have a nice one:
ο τον λογον ακουων
Step one:  Identify it as a substantive participle.  How?  Well, you have a "the" (ie a definite article:  ο) and you only have one, otherwise it would be an adjectival.
Step two:  Get the participle:  ακουων
Step three:  Translate the basics under the formula "the one who does X":  The one who hears
Step four:  Correct for voice and tense:  Don't have to hear.
Step five:  translate the other stuff:  "The one who hears the word."  Greek will often sandwich important stuff for the substantive participle clause in between the article and the participle

Give it a try, with the last five words of verse 19...

Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30

Summary:  I had some other ambition in the post, but I ended up focusing on the idea of Woman Wisdom.  This is not a complete post on this topic, but hopefully something that whets your appetite for more reading!

Key Word
σοφια (wisdom):  Most Christians -- myself included -- likely grew up in a church that did not emphasize the personification of Wisdom in the bible.  But in the Old Testament, Wisdom not only personified, but almost deified. This happens most clearly in Proverbs but also in other "wisdom literature".  I have included long form Bible quotes because these are likely less familiar to many of us.

• Does not wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?  On the heights, beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand;  beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals she cries out:  "To you, O people, I call, and my cry is to all that live..."  Proverbs 8:1-4 
• While I was still young, before I went on my travels, I sought wisdom openly in my prayer.   Before the temple I asked for her, and I will search for her until the end.  From the first blossom to the ripening grape my heart delighted in her; my foot walked on the straight path; from my youth I followed her steps.  I inclined my ear a little and received her, and I found for myself much instruction.  I made progress in her; to him who gives wisdom I will give glory.  For I resolved to live according to wisdom, and I was zealous for the good, and I shall never be disappointed.  My soul grappled with wisdom, and in my conduct I was strict; I spread out my hands to the heavens, and lamented my ignorance of her.  I directed my soul to her, and in purity I found her. With her I gained understanding from the first; therefore I will never be forsaken. Sirach 51:13-20 (Sirach is a book in the apocrypha) 

That wisdom is to be desired is not necessarily a surprise.  But the Old Testament wisdom literature makes three crucial shifts.  First, the writers begin talking about wisdom as a woman; there is a big contrast in fact, between woman wisdom and the foolish woman (harlot)!  This is in itself interesting, but might be seen as a literary device to get the focus of young men.  But then the writers go further and begin to speak about Wisdom as one to be worshiped.  This might seem like a misguided step to worship an attribute of God.  But the writers double down and begin speaking about Wisdom's role in creation. 

• The LORD created me (wisdom, identified in 8:2) at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.  Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.  When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.  Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth--  when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.  When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,  when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the human race. Proverbs 8:22-31
• It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.  Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15 
• O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.  Psalm 104:24 
• Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads its wings toward the south?   Job 39:26

For most of us as Christians we would associate the entity through whom God made all things as the "Word."  Yet, it is identified as wisdom here.  It seems as if there two schools of thought over time, one that emphasized the Word as a potentially divine agent within the God-head; another that emphasized Wisdom as a potentially divine agent within the God-head.  Both existed without great conflict, or at least, I cannot find any conflict.

The New Testament seems to break in the direction of the Word tradition.  It is the Word through which all things were made (John 1).  In fact, it is a bit pointless to find quotes explaining the importance of the Word within the New Testament understanding of God.  They are everywhere.

Yet the idea of a personified and feminine Wisdom remains.  There are a number of reflections on God's wisdom (notable 1 Corinthians 1).  Most importantly for this post, there are some strange verses about a seemingly personified Wisdom:

• Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'  so that this generation may be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world,  Luke 11:49-50  
• ...for I will give you words and (the) wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict.  Luke 21:15 (note the indefinite article in front of "a wisdom" is not in the Greek, although the lack of a definite article could allow one to translate it with  "a")
• The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!   Matthew 12:42
• And there verse from this week's pericope:  "Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."   Matthew 11:19  

Where does this leave us?  Well, one can go all sorts of ways with this.  One can identify wisdom with the Spirit, allowing for a feminization of the Spirit.  One can identify wisdom with the Word and therefore Jesus, allowing for a feminization of Jesus.  Like all things with wisdom, it takes a bit of work to process!

One last connection to reflect on.  Jesus ends this section of teaching in Matthew's Gospel with an invitation to come to him, all who are weary.  Likewise, Woman Wisdom extends an invitation as well:

• "You that are simple, turn in here!" To those without sense she says,  "Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.  Lay aside immaturity, and live, and walk in the way of insight."  Proverbs 9:4-6

And Proverbs nearly ends with someone complaining of their weariness:

• Thus says the man: I am weary, O God, I am weary, O God. How can I prevail?  Surely I am too stupid to be human; I do not have human understanding.  I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the holy ones.  Proverbs 30:1-3

That weary man must return to wisdom, as the weary in Matthew's Gospel must return to Jesus.  So don't discard the association of Woman Wisdom and Jesus too quickly...Like I said, Jesus may be willing to make things abundantly clear, but the Wisdom of God will always take a bit more wrestling to achieve and understand.  

***

πραΰς (meaning "gentle", 11:29)  This word has a fascinating history of modern translation and interpretation.  Some wanted to use this word to emphasize a feminine nature of Christ; others, in response, then found ways to make this word actually refer to "war horses" emphasizing the masculine nature of "gentleness.  "

For an excellent article rebuffing this connection between warhorses and gentleness, see this article:

The Greek Word ‘Praus’ and Meek Warhorses

Two things notable about what this author addresses:  

First, how much the internet possesses a "hive" mentality; people circularly cite that gentle was a macho characteristic of warhorses without digging into the original citations

Second, she offers this great quote by Aristotle:

“Now we praise a man who feels anger on the right grounds and against the right persons, and also in the right manner and at the right moment and for the right length of time. He may then be called gentle-tempered (πρᾶος/ praos), if we take gentleness (πραότης/ praotēs) to be a praiseworthy quality—for ‘gentle’ (πρᾶος/ praos) really denotes a calm temper, not led by emotion but only becoming angry in such a manner, for such causes and for such a length of time as principle may ordain although the quality is thought rather to err on the side of defect, since the ‘gentle-tempered man’ (πρᾶος/ praos) is not prompt to seek redress for injuries, but rather inclined to forgive them.”

It highlights, as she offers, that Christians viewed forgiveness and humility as GOOD things, but the Greco-Roman world did not.  In general, the Greco-Roman world praised NOT being emotional.  Passion was to be avoided.  Perhaps one can get there through warhorses...but not convinced that is what Jesus is talking about.

Note -- I did not look up the Aristotle quote, but trust her citation:

“Nicomachean Ethics 5.4 (1125b.25-1126a.1)” in Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, H. Rackham (transl.) (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, 1934) (Perseus Digital Library here and here.