Matthew 9:31

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

 

But when they had departed, they spread the news about Him in all that country. Matthew 9:31

 

“And they, having departed, they divulged Him in all that land” (CG).

 

In the previous verse, Jesus strictly charged the men whose eyes had been healed to see that none knew about what He had done. However, the account now says, “And they, having departed, they divulged Him in all that land.”

 

Charles Ellicott tells of a difference of perception about their actions, saying that the matter “curiously enough, has been answered by most patristic and Roman Catholic commentators in the affirmative, some even maintaining that the command was not meant seriously; and by most Protestant commentators in the negative.”

 

It is hard to see how what is plainly stated in black and white can be intended as anything other than disobedience to the word. There is no hint that Jesus wasn’t serious. That must be read into the text. One must wonder, then, why there is a striking divide.

 

A couple of possibilities come to mind. The first is that some noted Roman Catholic theologians may have decided their actions were ok and others fell in line with his analysis. This would not be uncommon. Reading commentaries that span hundreds of years, one can tell why a point is agreed on by various scholars by simply looking at unusual words that are used to make a point.

 

In other words, someone may comment on a verse using the word fructifying. Though this word may not be seen again in his writings, it is used in an analysis of the same verse by numerous later scholars. This tells us that later scholars read his analysis, liked the use of the unusual word, and used it in their own analysis, which mirrors in content that of the older scholar.

 

It is kind of a “follow-the-bandwagon” way of analyzing a verse. A second possibility is that the overall theology of the Roman Catholic Church finds this verse difficult to swallow as being a sign of disobedience because it would then conflict with their own theology in other areas.

 

What needs to be done is to consider why Jesus charged them in the first place and then why Matthew points out their reaction. It could be that there was an immediate reason for Him telling them not to tell others, such as noted in the previous commentary, which said Jesus may not yet have wanted it to be openly accepted that He was the Messiah.

 

By restoring sight to the blind, something Isaiah indicates is something the Messiah would do, it might then spur the masses in a direction not yet desired for Him to accomplish His work. However, there may be a reason for His charging them that would only be understood after He completed His work.

 

In other words, it has been seen that the healing of the woman with a flow of blood mirrored salvation in the church that Christ would establish. The raising of the child mirrors the restoration of Israel after the church age. Thus, it is logical to consider that this account may have something to do with future theology as well.

 

Here we have sight restored to two blind men. This was obviously something they thought Jesus could do, and when they called out to Him, they called Him the Son of David. They believed Him to be the Messiah and that He was capable of healing them. However, after He did so, He gave them a word to be obedient to. In the very next verse, they are shown to be disobedient to the word.

 

Despite their disobedience, there is no later note that they lost their eyesight, something Matthew would surely have recorded. But more, it goes on to say that they divulged Him in all that land. They didn’t just tell about Him to their family or in their city, but everywhere they went.

 

Though unstated, accompanying their words would have been praises to God and notes that this was surely the Messiah. It is unlikely they would hail Him as such, believe in Him, and then later say, “Some guy healed us.” Rather, they would say, “We were restored by the Messiah!”

 

So what is this account telling us? It is a note that when one is saved and has seen the light of Christ, that salvation is eternal. Despite their obvious disobedience to the spoken word, they retained their eyesight.

 

If we are honest with ourselves, each person who has been saved by Jesus will openly avow that he has been disobedient to the word we have been given, the word spoken by God, which is then recorded by His apostles. And yet, Jesus continues to save us and allow us to go out and tell others about who He is and what He has done for us.

 

Despite our failing Him, He is full of grace – enough to carry us for all of our days until He brings us to Himself. This must be the reason the words are recorded for us as they are.

 

Life application: Understanding the premise laid out concerning these men, it begs the question of why most Roman Catholic theologians see their actions as not being disobedient, while most Protestants take the opposite view.

 

It may partially be a follow-the-bandwagon thing, but more than that, it shows a vast gulf in the basic theology of the two approaches to the word. Protestants have accepted the five Solas since the Reformation: Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone).

 

Roman Catholics reject all of these to some extent. They believe Scripture to some point, but add in authoritative edicts from the Vatican, along with the apocrypha. It is Scripture, plus. They believe in faith plus works. They believe in grace, but personal merit is included for “getting out of purgatory” and all kinds of other nonsense.

 

They believe in Christ but also exalt Mary to co-redemptrix. They pray to her, petition her, and build lots of idols of her to worship. They also believe in exalting God, but their theology exalts angels and even the pope within their worship. Everything about Roman Catholicism is “plus.”

 

Because of this, seeing the man’s actions as disobedient would return too much emphasis concerning disobedience upon their own corrupt theology, which rejects the word of God as our sole authority that must be adhered to.

 

Most Protestants, however, understand that ignoring or being disobedient to the word is not something that can be denied. Thus, there is an understanding that it is grace that heals us (like the eyes of the blind men), and it is grace that continues to carry us through until the day when Jesus will bring us to Himself (as displayed in their disobedience without being re-blinded for it).

 

We are seeing in these few verses the doctrines of 1) free will, and 2) eternal salvation. Our perception of what Jesus has done and the effectiveness of it in our lives will be understood and worked out in how we perceive what the word “grace” means. The more we understand it, the more willing we will be to adhere to His word. And yet, it will also comfort us when we realize we continue to fail Him from day to day.

 

Lord God, even before Jesus came, we have types, pictures, and prophecies that reveal to us the many things He would do. They literally permeate the Old Testament. And in Jesus’ coming, we have hints concerning what things would be like after the completion of His work. Thank You, O God, for giving us such insight to help us make proper decisions about our theology now that we are saved by You through Him. Amen.