Baptist Foundations - Sepration of Church and State
Matthew 22:15-21
Baptist Foundations — What Jesus Says About
the Separation of Church and State
The Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”[1]
The pericope chosen as the text for this day is well-known; even outsiders know of this account. It relates an incidence when Jesus’ enemies attempted to trap Him, to make Him appear as either a Roman sycophant or a rabid Judean revolutionary. However He might respond to their carefully laid trap, they assured themselves that He would be discredited in the eyes of the rabble, the common people. This is why the text notes that they plotted how to entangle Him in His talk. They deliberately plotted against Him. The Pharisees sought to expose Jesus as a fraud, even compromising their convictions in order to ensnare Him in His own words.
James, the brother of our Lord, warned that we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body [James 3:2]. Despite their efforts, His enemies were unable to trap the Master into the quagmire that results whenever we are compelled to explain our meaning. Jesus’ response has served to guide the thinking of His people concerning the relationship of church and state. His words are worthy of serious consideration. I invite you to join me in study of His words concerning Caesar and God.
The Tension Between Church and State — There are a disturbing number of “religious” organisations in the United States that agitate against a phantom they have identified as “the Religious Right.” Anyone familiar with the modern evangelical scene will know that there is no monolithic entity that could be identified as the religious right.
However, I do make an observation of those frothing at the mouth at the thought that people of conscience may actually be concerned about the condition of their nation. Those opposed to righteousness appear even more willing to use the state to oppress their opponents than those they inveigh against. Thirty-one liberal pastors in Ohio recently attempted to have the United States Internal Revenue Service investigate two churches. The liberal preachers were incensed that the two pastors were outspoken in their encouragement of politicians who were committed to morality and ethics.[2]
Undoubtedly, each of those thirty-one liberal preachers would argue that they do not particularly wish the government to investigate their own congregational affairs, but they had no difficulty attempting to punish two conservative preachers. This illustrates the grave danger of a union between state and church. In such a union, church leaders sacrifice principle and become mere trollops used by the state for its own purpose.
There exists an unfortunate assumption that representatives of the Lord Jesus must be silent concerning their Faith. The supposition appears to be widespread throughout Canada that Christian Faith must be “private;” it must not be public nor must it be permitted to influence one’s choices in life. This is done under guise of inclusiveness; unbelievers and non-Christians must not be made to feel excluded. At least there is a debate in the United States; Canadians will not even debate the issue.
Now, chaplains in the United States military are pressed to avoid praying in the Name of Jesus. They are instructed to pray non-sectarian prayers so as not to offend anyone.[3] Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt fasted in front of the White House for weeks until he forced the US Navy to back down by permitting him to pray in Jesus’ Name.
Pastor Tom Swartley, a minister of the First Christian Church of Elm Creek, Nebraska, recently precipitated almost unified outrage in the Nebraska Unicameral. He prayed, but he prayed the wrong prayer. Standing before the legislators, Swartley asked God forgiveness for abortion, which he called a “33-year-long nightmare.” He continued his prayer by saying, “We go to work and school and come home and watch TV while genocide, infanticide and homicide is being committed against our own children.”
If somehow his prayer for forgiveness for the sin of slaughter of the unborn was insufficient to enrage the members of the legislative chamber, his next request of the Almighty plunged the self-important members of the legislature into a rage that nearly matched the intensity of those politicians that stoned Stephen, the first martyr. Swartley asked forgiveness for “teaching the religion of evolution to our young citizens.” He said in the presence of these politically correct leaders of the state, “We put our children in the same category as other mammals and then wonder why some act like animals.”
Senator Jim Cudaback of Riverdale, Nebraska, the lawmaker who invited Swartley to pray, complained that the minister had “stepped over the line.” Cudaback revealed the view of the world when he said, “You’re here to make us feel good.”[4]
Politicians in Wellington, Florida seek a religious façade that makes politicians “feel good” by opening the meetings of the village council with prayers. Those presenting the prayers are compelled to ensure that their prayers are non-sectarian.[5] Increasingly, ministers are “used” by politicians for religious purposes. Consequently, there is a state religion in the United States and Canada. That state religion does not openly parade as such, but it is nevertheless real. That state religion is secularism.
These “temper tantrums” by elected officials lead me to ask a serious question. “If a ‘man of God’ prays to an unidentified deity, does the invocation mean anything?” Prayer to unidentified deities reminds me of a cartoon in which the town drunk identifies himself as a “First Seventh Latter-Day Roman Baptist.” Challenged as to the tenets of that particular faith, the drunk says, “We believe in taking no chances.” Personally, I am loath to participate in any official governmental activity as a minister.
There is yet one other recent example of the corrupting influence attending the union of state and church. This example comes out of an instance that was permitted because Evangelicals thought it was their job to influence government through political action, instead of serving as salt and light in a corrupt world. I observe that it is easier to incite a noisy demonstration against the “mal du jour” than it is to get Christians to witness to the lost as Christ commanded. It is this tendency to imagine that issues of the Faith can be accomplished through political pressure that tarred otherwise good people.
Recently, a Washington lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, pled guilty to illegal lobbying activities while promoting gambling interests of several Indian tribes in the American Southeast. Tragically, a number of prominent Evangelicals have been implicated as pawns of mammon as this scandal has unfolded. Ralph Reed, former executive direction of the Christian Coalition, is implicated as having blindly participated in accomplishing Mr. Abramoff’s self-serving ends. Reed’s actions appear to have ultimately drawn a disturbing number of evangelical luminaries into the Scandal. Included among those potentially contaminated by Mr. Abramoff’s greed are: James Dobson and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Gary Bauer, a well-known spokesman for family values; Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum; Jerry Falwell; Pat Robertson; and American Family Association head Don Wildmon. Though none of these noted individuals has been implicated as deliberate participants in the misdeeds of Mr. Abramoff, all appear to have been contaminated, essentially believing that God accomplishes his work through politics. Each one served as a pawn—unwittingly or otherwise—of Mr. Abramoff.[6]
Christianity has been reduced to the handmaiden of the state. Politicians feel free to “use” the Christian Faith, much as a rake would use a whore. We should not be surprised. When the Body of Christ ceases to be holy, she sacrifices power and has no influence for good. So long as the people of God live righteous, godly and holy lives, the world holds them in awe. When the people of God live for the immediate, live only to please themselves, or when the people of God are awed by the trappings of power of this dying world, the world sees that they are no different from any other political lobby.
I do not say that we should become eremites, retreating into desert caves, but I do caution that we must not permit ourselves to be overawed by the might of this world. We must live in the presence of God, holding Him in awe in our hearts, refusing to bow the knee to Baal. The seductive illusion of power has blinded and destroyed many saints.
The priests that will be appointed to serve during the Millennial Reign of the Lord Christ are instructed not to wear anything that causes them to sweat [Ezekiel 44:18], because the priests are responsible to teach the people the difference between the holy and the common, and how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean [Ezekiel 44:23]. Even choices that may have an impact on involuntary actions must demonstrate consciousness of God’s holiness. We, also, must distinguish between the holy and the common.
Perhaps you will recall an occasion when God showed Himself holy in the early church, killing Ananias and Sapphira because they lied to God. Then great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things [Acts 5:11]. The church walked in power and demonstrated the reality of the Risen Son of God in their lives with the result that none of the rest dared join them and the people held them in high esteem [Acts 5:13].
Charles Colson lists several dangers posed to the church that is used by the state, or to the church that attempts to use political means to influence government.[7] He warns that the church will become just another special interest group, indistinguishable from any other lobby group. Colson cautions that politics can become like the proverbial tar baby, with the church driven by politics. Christian leaders tend to overestimate their importance, imagining that their views actually mean something to pragmatic politicians. History is littered with gifted men and women of God who thought that they had the ear of some prominent politician. Again, the Faith can easily be held hostage to the political fortunes of a particular group. When regimes change, as they must, favoured religious leaders are jettisoned like so much garbage. Consequently, Christians acting as lobbyists justify compromise in order to maintain the ear of government. Perhaps the gravest danger Colson identifies is the danger that the church will lose her independence. Each of these dangers would mean that ultimately the church waters down the Gospel.
No one should assume that I am suggesting that Christians should avoid politics. As Christians, each of us is obligated to be good citizens. Among other things, this means we are responsible to participate in the selection of leaders, especially by voting our values. It is not a sin to serve in politics within the various levels of government. Politics can be a honourable profession; however, the child of God must be cautious not to overestimate the importance of what is accomplished through human means. Only a church free of outside domination can actually serve as the conscience of society. The people of God, through godly lives lived in obedience to the Word of God and through sound teaching of the Word, are responsible to hold society in general, and government in particular, morally accountable before God to live up to its own claims.
Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting the United States in the early nineteenth century, saw the separation of spheres of responsibility as crucial to democratic governance. This French writer was impressed that religion gave support to democratic political institutions because it restrained the exercise of liberties, appealing to conscience and morality in lieu of imposition by the state. He made this observation, “[R]eligions should be most careful to confine themselves to their proper sphere, for if they wish to extend their power beyond spiritual matters they run the risk of not being believed at all.”[8]
Before moving to Canada, I served as a professor in a school dedicated to training men for service among the churches. Shortly after I had moved to Vancouver, I returned to the city in which we had formerly live so that I could care for personal business that arose as result of our move. While in that area, I was also scheduled to address the student body of the school where I had previously served. My visit coincided with a Presidential election campaign, and there was great excitement among the faculty of the school. Former colleagues asked repeatedly whether I was registered to vote.
After addressing the student body and faculty on a Tuesday morning, I retired to the faculty commons area where a number of faculty and staff were gathered. I commented that I had made a disturbing observation. “I have witnessed today,” I began, “a number of you who are greatly exercised about the upcoming elections. I have even seen some of you stop total strangers on the street seeking to register them to vote. Never, during the entire time I worked together with you in this place, did I witness any of you stop a total stranger to ask whether that person had faith in Christ.”
At this, I had the rapt attention of every person within earshot. “You will undoubtedly see a successful conclusion to the pending election, but I caution you that when this man is elected you will discover that he puts his pants on one leg at a time. He is not the Messiah, and the Millennial Kingdom will not come after his election. It just seems to me that you are staking everything on a foundation of sand.”
The majority of my former colleagues deliberately and quickly moved away, some exhibiting palpable disappointment and even anger, others simply shook their heads at how naïve I had become in the few months since my move. A couple of staff members lingered, however. One woman in particular stated that she was convicted by the challenge I had issued, because she knew that she had never been as concerned for the eternal welfare of anyone as she was to register people to vote.
On the whole, those were good people, even godly people, who genuinely sought for and longed for the glory of God to be evident in their lives. However, they had been infected with the insidious malady of political power, and it had caused each of them to become momentarily blind to eternal values. I learned then, and I have become even more convinced since, that each of us is just as susceptible to the illusion of power that surrounds political activity. Christians are responsible to distinguish between eternal values and those that are transient.
Pilate rightfully claimed the authority of the world’s sole superpower when Jesus was arraigned before him. Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you, the proud procurator inquired? Jesus’ response must have unsettled the man. You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above [John 19:10, 11].
So, Jesus stated unequivocally that authority does not reside in the state. Power does not lie within the purview of government. Power, authority, is exclusively God’s prerogative. This is the reason Jesus cautioned His disciples, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him [Luke 12:4, 5]!
Our Responsibility to Recognise Spheres of Interest — The Christian ideal is a free church in a free state. Our Lord here teaches that there are two complementary spheres of influence and authority—God and Caesar. They are tangential—Caesar derives authority from God, though Caesar has no power to grant authority to God. Caesar has limited and defined responsibility to citizens, but Caesar has no authority over conscience. Unfortunately, the ideal is rarely achieved in the history of this fallen world.
The Pharisees and Herodians conspired to trap Jesus by asking where He stood on a political issue. If He said it was lawful to pay taxes, they could accuse Him of being a supporter of Roman occupation and thus discredit Him to His disciples. If He said it was unlawful to pay taxes, they could expose Him as a traitor and let the Romans deal with Him. It certainly appeared that Jesus was impaled on the horns of a dilemma.
Reading the Gospel accounts, we frequently miss important details. For instance, the Pharisees united with the Herodians. The Pharisees tended to be fiercely patriotic, detesting the Roman occupation; while the Herodians were clients of Herod, the Roman vassal. The Pharisees opposed paying the tax, since to pay the tax was to acknowledge Caesar as king and they held that the Jews had only one king—God. Conversely, the Herodians were willing to pay the tax since the Romans propped up Herod and kept him in power. Nevertheless, these natural enemies were brought together by common hatred.
It is also important to note that in a.d. 6, a Galilean named Judas led a rebellion against the Romans. His name is mentioned by Gamaliel during an address to the Sanhedrin when Peter and John were arraigned before that body [Acts 5:37]. Simon, one of the Apostles, possibly had a connection to the Zealots that arose from Judas’ rebellion [see Luke 6:15]. The ignition for Judas’ rebellion was the coin demanded for the poll tax that bore Caesar’s image. The coin, probably struck in Lyon, bore the image of Caesar together with the inscription “Tiberiou Kaisaros,” giving him the title “son of god.”[9] Opposition to the poll tax was based upon the coin itself, because it bore Caesar’s image. Throughout Palestine, the Jews circulated their own copper coins, which bore no image on them. Judaism had interpreted the stamping of an image as a violation of the Second Commandment, possibly leading to a violation of the First Commandment.
In this, Judaism had added to the clear command of God, demonstrating that when man “creates” a religion, it cannot bode well for society. Something similar is occurring in our day as jihadists are enraged at the thought that the press of any nation is free to provide illustrations representing their founder. Despite the perceived insult to Jewish religion, Rome demanded that the poll tax must be paid with Roman coinage.
So, the Pharisees and the Herodians conspired to snare Jesus by asking whether it was morally right to pay the poll tax. Note Jesus’ response: show Me the coin for the tax [Matthew 22:19]. He specifically asked for the coin required to pay the tax. This would be the same coin that bore the emperor’s image. Of course, when they produced the coin, it had the image of Caesar on it. The unspoken assumption of Jesus’ interlocutors was that no patriotic Jew should have been carrying this idolatrous portrait of the emperor. The battle was over before His antagonists were even aware that it had begun.
Gazing at the coin His adversaries proffered, the Master asked them to identify whose likeness and inscription was on the coin. They were compelled to respond that it was Caesar’s. I appreciate paraphrase of Jesus’ words provided by the Baptist theologian, John Broadus, “You got this from Caesar, pay it back to him.”[10] Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.
What is fascinating about Jesus’ teaching is that He never laid down rules and regulations, but instead, He laid down principles. The Christian is always responsible to recognise divine principles and bring them to bear on the choices facing him or her. God is not in the business of absolving us from thinking, but rather He calls us to thoughtful application of the principles He provides to guide our decision making. Here, Jesus provides a most important principle for all mankind to observe.
Government bears responsibility over a limited sphere of life. Though we imagine government is responsible for our health, education and general welfare, such thinking is relatively recent and subject to serious doubt. Parents are responsible for their children’s welfare and for their education. Government was never appointed to educate children, but rather historically and biblically, fathers and mothers bear responsibility to educate their own children. Individuals are responsible to care for their own health. If an individual chooses to smoke or to chew tobacco, that person needs to realise that government is not responsible for the consequences of individual actions. It is not the business of courts to support the deliberately ignorant in suits against tobacco companies because the individuals chose to use a lawful substance, knowing that it could harm them.
What responsibility does government bear to citizens, and specifically, what is the responsibility of government to Christians? Paul, in Romans, writes: there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God… Do what is good, and you will receive [government’s] approval, for [the government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For [government] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection [to government], not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing [Romans 13:1, 3-6]. This teaching is iterated by Peter [1 Peter 3:13-15].
According to the Word, government is responsible to commend what is good and also to punish evil. Implicit within these broad parameters is the thought that government is responsible to maintain the peace and to protect the innocent. This teaching charges government to police society—including regulating morals and ethics for the general good—and with raising and maintaining a military. Certainly, government has a right to raise taxes to support these areas of interest. Though government claims authority over other areas, it is impossible to substantiate that claim through appeal to the Word of God.
Christians are responsible to honour government, and in so far as possible, to yield allegiance to government. Specifically, as Christians we are to avoid speaking ill of government leaders and also to pray for those in authority [1 Timothy 2:1-3; Titus 3:1]. We are to live such good lives that though those about us may seek to harm us through speaking ill of us, there will be no basis for their claims [1 Peter 2:12, 15, 16].
Responsibility to Integrate Life — Ultimately, Christians are not really separated from responsibility within the state. No Christian can segregate life into two separate spheres—church and state. We have obligations to God; and we have obligations within the state. The ignorance of modern politicians and jurists is demonstrated in the creation out of whole cloth the fallacious idea of the separation of church and state. Every Christian bears dual citizenship. The Christian is a citizen of the country in which he was born or in which he was naturalised; and the Christian is also a citizen of Heaven.
From his earthly home the Christian legitimately receives many benefits. Government is responsible to provide citizens with safety against lawless men. Citizens also receive a variety of public services. Few families are wealthy enough to have an electrical system or a sewer system or a water system of their own; these are public services. In a welfare state, though support is extracted from the citizen himself, the citizen nevertheless receives still more from the state—education, medical services, provision for unemployment and old age. This places him under a debt of obligation.
Because the Christian seeks to be honourable, he must be a responsible citizen; failure in good citizenship is also failure in Christian duty. Untold troubles can descend upon a country when Christians refuse to take their part in the administration of that country, leaving it to selfish, self-seeking, partisan, and unchristian men. The Christian has a duty to Caesar in return for the privileges that the rule of Caesar brings to him.
However, there are matters of religion and of principle in which the Christian’s responsibility is to God. It certainly is to be hoped that the two citizenships will never clash; they do not need to. But when the Christian is convinced that it is God’s will that something should be done, it must be done; or, if he is convinced that an action is against the will of God, he must resist it and take no part in it. Together with the Apostles Peter and John, conscientious Christians are compelled to aver, we must obey God rather than men [Acts 5:29].
Where the boundaries between the two duties lie, Jesus does not say. That is for a man’s own conscience to test. But a real Christian—and this is the permanent truth which Jesus here lays down—is at one and the same time a good citizen of his country and a good citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. He will fail in his duty neither to God nor to man. He will, as Peter said, Fear God and he will also honour the emperor [1 Peter 2:17]. Therefore, a Christian fulfils his duty to earthly authority by first fulfilling his obligation to God. At the risk of being simplistic, I see some truths to which I have alluded that must now be emphasised for completeness’ sake. These truths should serve to guide us in our relationship to government.
Christians must honour and obey rulers. This is taught throughout the Word of God, as we have already seen [Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1 ff.]. Though Christians hold citizenship in one nation or another, they are citizens of Heaven [Philippians 3:20]. Therefore, we Christians are to respect our earthly rulers—our elected officials. We are also responsible to obey the law, pay taxes and to pray for all who are in authority.
Let me be rather pointed in application of this truth. There should be no ridicule of governmental leaders. It is one thing to disagree with policies; it is another to deride leaders to another person. As Christians, we are obligated to pray for our leaders, asking God to give them wisdom and to permit us to live in peace [e.g. 1 Timothy 2:1-4]. Moreover, we must do this without becoming obsequious toward those same leaders and without compromising the Faith of Christ the Lord.
Christians must honour and obey God. Caesar is not God! Governments cannot enforce religion, but neither should they restrict freedom to worship. The best citizen honours his country because he worships God. Because the Christian worships God, he is obligated to speak the truth in love, warning governmental leaders against doing evil even as he urges them to do good.
You will observe in this concept that Jesus’ statement concerning God and government does not settle the issue of our relationship as Christians to the state. Rather, we must ask ourselves daily whether we are giving too little or too much of our energies to the political. “Jesus’ Caesar sentence is a slide rule asking us perpetually to readjust our use of time and priorities.”[11]
The relationship between religion and government is personal and individual. It is right for God’s people to serve in government, as did Daniel and Joseph. However, it is wrong for government to control the church, or for the church to control government. The church must be free to speak on matters of conscience, without restriction from government. This statement must be trumpeted loudly and often in this day when some religions attempt to muzzle dissent through intimidation through political process. In matters of faith and practise, the Bible is our authority and not governmental dicta.
Man bears God’s image and owes God his all. Caesar’s image [Greek, ikòn] was on the coin; God’s image is on man [Genesis 1:26, 27]. Though sin has marred that image, God can restore the image through Christ Jesus the Lord [Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10]. For this reason we are duty-bound to point all mankind to faith in the Living Son of God. If you are not a Christian, you must know that you bear the image of God. You are not an accident of evolution, but you are a living soul who must give an answer to God.
For this reason we are unapologetic in declaring the truth of God’s Good News—that Christ died because of your sin and that He was raised for your justification. Christ the Lord presented Himself as a sacrifice for your sin so that you might be forgiven, and so that you might know Him and be made alive in Him. This is the message we declare, that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved… For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Romans 10:9, 10, 13].
----
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, 2001. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] Mark A. Fisher and Dennis M. Mahoney, Laws of man, God obeyed, World Harvest Church says, Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, January 17, 2006, http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/01/17/20060117-A1-01.html, accessed 23 January 2006
[3] See Ron Strom, Chaplain ‘starves himself’ over Navy no-Jesus zone, WorldNetDaily, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48164; Ron Strom, Navy rebuts fasting chaplain’s claims, WorldNetDaily, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48205. For a report of similar problems in the United States Army, see Ken Walker, Prayer in Jesus’ name remains an issue in military chaplaincy, Baptist Press, February 10, 2006, http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22630, accessed 15 February 2006
[4] Prayer Sparks Feud, http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/2223346.html, accessed 25 January 2006
[5] Angel Streeter, Rights group urges Wellington Village Council to set rules on religious invocations, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 1, 2006, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pprayer01feb01,0,6758602.story?coll=sfla-news-palm, accessed 1 February 2006
[6] For a review of this scandal from a Christian perspective, see: Jamie Dean, “House of Cards,” World, January 14, 2006, 20-23
[7] Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1987) 309-311
[8] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, cited by Suzanne Fields, Islam’s problem with democracy, townhall.com, http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/suzannefields/2006/02/16/186742.html, accessed 16 February 2006
[9] See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I (Broadman Press, Nashville, TN 1930) 176, and Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament (Intervarsity, Downers Grove, IL 1993) 105-6
[10] John A. Broadus, An American Commentary on the New Testament: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Judson Press, Valley Forge, PA 1886) 453
[11] Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: The Churchbook (Matthew 13–28) (Word, Dallas, TX 1987, 1990) 785, cited in Michael J. Wilkins, NIV Application Commentary, New Testament: Matthew, Vol. 46 (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 736