THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 27, Chapter 7 and 8
We'll conclude Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount today, which we have spent 17
lessons studying because of its incomparable value, and we'll also open the door
into Matthew chapter 8. But first let's take a look back on the all-important (and
not just a little bit scary) topic from last week about what Yeshua meant by what
He said in Chapter 7 verses 22 and 23.
CJB
Matthew 7:22-23
22
On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't
we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't
we perform many miracles in your name?'
23
Then I will tell them to their
faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
The phrase of our focus is "workers of lawlessness". The bottom line is that after
a thorough study of this term last week, the conclusion is that the term
"lawlessness" can only indicate one thing: "Torah-lessness" or "The Law of
Moses-lessness". It is the Greek word anomia being translated that most literally
means "without law". We even find Paul using this same term (many years after
Yeshua's time on earth) to describe the anti-Christ. Working backwards from
Paul, we have to ask ourselves a basic question: is the anti-Christ called the
"Man of Lawlessness" because he thumbs his nose at societal civil and criminal
laws? If so, according to which set of human laws is he rebelling? International
law? American law? European Union law? Sharia law? My question is somewhat
rhetorical in that the answer is obvious: it can be none of these manmade law
codes. The anti-Christ is called such because He is by nature against (he is anti)
God. The only laws that God validates are the ones that He has laid down for
mankind: the biblical Law of Moses; the anti-Christ wants none of that. So it is
that in Jesus's statement in verse 23 that "workers of lawlessness" is a term
1 / 12

describing all those who deny and/or disobey God's commandments; the Torah,
The Law. Remember: there was no such thing as a New Testament in Yeshua's
day and such a thing wouldn't exist for nearly 2 more centuries after His death
and resurrection. So neither Christ nor Paul could in any way be referring to the
supposed New Testament laws that replace the Old Testament laws. The
reference to "lawlessness" can only be to the Old Testament laws since that was
the only Holy Scripture in existence in that era, and especially since Yeshua's
entire sermon is based on His teaching and authoritative interpretation of the
Torah in light of the recent arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
Therefore when taken in proper context "workers of lawlessness" include non-
Believers, fake Believers, and self-deceived Believers. It is my opinion that a
goodly portion of the Church is, and has been for centuries, self-deceived
because of the adoption of doctrines that specifically deny the relevance of The
Law of Moses for Christ followers and in fact legislates against following it. Yet
there is a gray area in between a "worker of lawlessness" and a person who is, in
chapter 5 verse 19, relegated to being "least in the Kingdom of Heaven" for not
obeying The Law and for teaching against it.
CJB
Matthew 5:19
19
So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and
teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the
Kingdom of Heaven.
That is to say that in 7:23, the "workers of lawlessness" are those who are denied
entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. But in 5:19, whoever disobeys The Law and
teaches others to do so will be those who are given entry into the Kingdom
(based upon their trust in Messiah Yeshua), but they will be placed (forever) on
the absolute lowest rung of whatever societal structure exists within the Kingdom
of Heaven. Where that fine but hazy line exists between those two designations I
do not know. However in both cases the issue is a chosen and determined
disobedience to God's Torah. So the wise thing for a Believer to do in order to
avoid either of these eternal consequences is to quit listening to a blinded Church
that says that the Law is dead and gone and that Christ has replaced the Law of
Moses with a Law of Jesus (something that doesn't biblically exist); and therefore
once we get our salvation we can sort of retire because subservience to God or
unquestioned obedience to any divinely given rule is legalism and thus to be
avoided as a bad thing. This doctrine is an agenda driven lie and it will lead us to
a very harsh outcome that Christ Himself has warned us against. I plead with
2 / 12

you; if you value your eternity, then out of self-preservation I suggest you
consider fleeing such a congregation even if it means being ostracized from your
social circle. The one thing I can assure you is that you will lose some of the
relationships you've had with friends and acquaintances in that congregation; so
the count the cost. Yet, which means more to you as a Believer: obeying God
and His Word and reaping those eternal rewards? Or disobeying God and His
Word and suffering the consequences?
Let's read Matthew 7 starting at verse 24.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 7:24 - end
Yeshua says that every man that hears His words and DOES them is a like a
wise person who builds the foundation of his house on the rock. In a different
setting Luke has Yeshua saying the same thing, only slightly differently.
CJB
Luke 11:28 But he said, "Far more blessed are those who hear the
word of God and obey it!"
What is being expressed is the Hebrew concept of shema. Shema means to
hear and obey, or to hear and do. The concept is rather simple. In all ages it is
fallen man's tendency to want to be emotionally uplifted by hearing fine words of
truth, but then when it comes time to put those words into action, passivity or
ambivalence sets in. Jesus is telling His audience that while it is to their merit that
they came to hear Him, and many listened intently and being there and hearing
and agreeing with Him was good, but insufficient. Do not we see the same thing
happening in both Synagogue and Church in modern times? Perhaps even we
ourselves are guilty of it. We feel very good about ourselves that we set aside
that hour or so each week to go to a worship service and to sit quietly and listen
to the sermon. But once we leave our seats and get back to the real world, do we
remember what was said? Or more importantly, does it convert to actions and
deeds?
Not too long before he passed away, in a TV interview Billy Graham confessed
that after decades of follow up his organization had done on the millions that had
left their seats and come forward at his Crusades, only a little over 1% continued
on in any recognizable way with the commitment to Christ that they had so
enthusiastically made there. The 99% heard and were moved by it; but they did
not do. And because they didn't do, their rush of conviction to make a positive
3 / 12

change in their lives quickly faded away. Yeshua will, at a later time, actually
address this issue in a famous parable about sowing seeds in various kinds of
soil. God gave the basis for this ordinance and principle of shema, and the
outcome for ignoring it, in Deuteronomy 28.
CJB
Deuteronomy 28:15 "But if you refuse to pay attention to what ADONAI
your God says, and do not observe and obey all his mitzvot and regulations
which I am giving you today, then all the following curses will be yours in
abundance:
For the next few verses Jesus gives an illustration of how valuable it is to pay
attention to what He has just taught and to live it out. So He draws a simple
analogy that is self-evident to everyone present: the man who builds his house
on rock versus the man who builds his house on sand. Clearly not one in His
audience would build his house on sand anymore than we would. So the point He
is making is easily understood.
For us, the thing to understand is that He is speaking mostly about the foundation
of the house.... an analogy for our spiritual foundation. That is, every house
necessarily starts with a foundation. Any experienced builder will tell you that the
foundation and the soil under it is the key to it all. Begin with a faulty foundation
or unstable soil and everything above it will be shaky and short lived. Begin with
a firm soil and a solid, correctly constructed foundation, and everything above it
will be safe, secure, and long lived. The foundation He is speaking about is The
Torah.... The Law of Moses. Or in more modern thinking, The Bible (all of it, not
just the New Testament). If the foundation is built on rock then it means our
spiritual foundation is built on proper doctrine. If the foundation is built on sand,
then it is built on poor and incorrect doctrine.
Notice that what happens next has to do with when calamity strikes. That is,
Christ's point is about the inevitable tough times that come into every person's
life, Believer or non-Believer, if we live long enough. Sand or rock, when the
weather is good (indicating good times), then everything seems safe and secure.
The foundation stays in place and so the house seems to be properly built. But,
when the weather turns foul (indicating bad times), the foundation is put to the
test. If it is a good foundation, the house will survive the storm. But if it has a bad
foundation, the house will not.
To do the will of the Father in Heaven is the prudent thing for us to do and is
4 / 12

evidence of the good fruit that Yeshua spoke about earlier in His sermon.
Friends, modern Christianity has put a permanent happy face on our faith walk;
or more appropriately faith "stroll", although in reality too often ours is a lazy faith.
We believe that we should trust in Christ and our reward will be nothing but fair
weather and smooth sailing ahead. But then the inevitable and unexpected
happens, and because of the poor and shaky doctrine we have been taught, we
blame God for our troubles feeling that He has failed in His promise to protect us
from bad things happening in our lives. Many walk away from God disillusioned
and feeling jilted. These are those who built their houses on sand..... most did so
unknowingly, or perhaps a better word is to say they did it ignorantly. So to ignore
Jesus's words, and to believe that God's laws and commands, which Christ has
been urging us to uphold, are no longer relevant to a Christian, is to build one's
house on sand. I can say it no more plainly than that, for that is precisely what
Christ is teaching.
Yeshua's Sermon on the Mount has now come to a close. He has spoken for a
long time, addressed many subjects, and summed it all up in the last few verses.
Now the Gospel writer Matthew makes a comment. He says the crowd Jesus had
talked to was amazed by what they had heard. It was not only the Godly
principles He taught (some long forgotten), but rather it was the authority by
which He spoke. There was no equivocating. There was no quoting or borrowing
from one of the renowned and known teachers or speakers of His day to validate
what He taught. Matthew says He spoke far above the Torah teachers. It is
important to understand who Christ was being compared to. Where our CJB says
"Torah teachers", the Greek is grammateus. It more literally translates to
"scribes". In Yeshua's day "scribes" were the primary teachers in the
Synagogues. Thus most scribes (perhaps all) were Pharisees and while they no
doubt taught God's Word, it was taught within the context of Jewish Tradition.
Yeshua taught within the context of the biblical Torah; not Tradition. While not all
Tradition is to be held suspect, Tradition cannot be compared to God's immutable
Word. When we hear God's Word told in truth, it is transformative.
Let's move on to Matthew chapter 8.
READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 8 all
As usual, we need to ignore the chapter marking and understand that the first
verse of what we call chapter 8 connects with the final verse of chapter 7. So,
immediately following the conclusion of His speech, Yeshua and His Disciples go
5 / 12

down from the hills above the Galilee and journey a few miles to where He was
living at that time: Capernaum. Along the way, as one might expect, large
numbers of people who heard Him speak followed Him. What we read about Him
doing 2000 years ago, they witnessed in person. He miraculously healed 3
people. It could well have been more who were healed (and probably was), but
Matthew liked to record things in threes.
I want to remind you that no doubt the people who followed Him down the
mountain came expecting miracle healings. After all, to this point Jesus was still
seen by the Jews as a Tzadik, a Holy Man, because healing is what a Holy Man
did. Yeshua had not yet revealed that He was the Messiah nor had He plainly
disclosed that He was divine.
During His walk back to his residence He encountered a person with a skin
disease. Nearly all Bible translations will say "leper"; but the CJB has it right
when it says Tzara'at. I don't have to describe to you what a leper is; it is a
dreadful, disfiguring disease that does terrible things to the person who receives
no medical treatment. Tzara'at is a special kind of skin disease that includes a
number of skin maladies. The unique feature about it is its source: it is God-
imposed upon a person as a means of discipline and punishment.
We need to notice how Matthew structured his narrative. We have Yeshua go up
a mountain, and then come back down a mountain, and then we have Him
dealing with a person stricken with a skin disease. We find this same pattern with
Moses, whom Matthew is quite intent on comparing to Christ. Numbers 12 tells
the story Moses' sister Miriam who spoke against her brother, complaining that if
Moses could prophesy then so should she. God struck her with Tzara'at for her
rebellion and apostasy. Moses prayed to God to deliver her from her skin disease
and God said He would, but only after she was separated from her people for 7
days. So now we find Christ, God incarnate, heal a person with skin disease. But
there is more to this story.
Hours earlier Christ had told people that in order to enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven one needs to ask, seek, and knock. So Christ didn't notice this sick
person and go to him; rather the sick person sought out Christ, knelt before Him
(meaning he sort of blocked His path and made himself noticeable) and asked to
be healed. Yeshua said He would heal him. We are meant to notice the
terminology. The word "healed" is not actually used. Instead the afflicted man
asked Yeshua to make him clean. This is because ritual cleanness is the central
6 / 12

issue for a person that has been divinely struck with Tzara'at. That is, generally
speaking, the various skin ailments that one could receive as punishment were
not fatal. Instead they made the person ritually unclean, which meant they had to
be isolated away from all others so that they would not pass their uncleanness to
someone else by touching them. Such a thing was not only devastating from a
social status standpoint, but it could be economically devastating as well
especially if a family man was stricken because it could almost immediately throw
the entire family into poverty.
I find it ironic that even in the 21st century, in the most advanced societies, that
getting a disease that requires isolation (or isolation to keep from the disease)
reveals the tremendous economic impact isolation and separation can have on
people. The Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 has caused millions and millions of
people to be thrown out of work or to lose their businesses mostly because of the
government imposed isolation. So when we read in the Bible about the plight of
people isolated due to ritual impurity, perhaps we have a better idea now of just
what that meant for them in both social and economic terms.
Please pay special attention to what Christ does: He precisely follows the Law of
Moses in dealing with this diseased man. Why would we expect anything else?
Yeshua has just come from teaching for several hours about the need for
following the Torah law, and specifically and unmistakably saying that in no way
did He abolish it or even modify it. Believe me; those many Jews looking on, as
well the man who was stricken, knew exactly what the procedure was during the
period of impurity and then the procedure for emerging from it. So had Yeshua
deviated from it at all, it would have been immediately detected. Thus the terms
clean and cleansed are correctly used several times. The same story is told in
Mark 1 beginning at verse 40, and it is nearly word for word as in Matthew's
narrative.
Some of the skin diseases these Jews contracted were long term; some were life
long. Because they required isolation for as long as the infirmity lasted, there was
little more feared and dreaded than Tzara'at. I say this because one of the
objections to the reliability of this story is that first we are told that great crowds
followed Yeshua down the mountain; and then the diseased man, who is
unclean, approaches Him. After healing the man Yeshua says not to tell anyone
about it. It seems incredulous that a huge crowd witnessed this, but the man is
supposed to keep what is already public, secret. In reality, this man would have
been isolated along with others that had his disease, and would not have been
7 / 12

out wandering the streets. Jesus had to have passed along an area where the
isolated unclean lived. While admittedly I'm speculating, it is not imaginable that
when the man with Tzara'at suddenly appeared and approached Yeshua that the
crowd didn't quickly back away in fear. How far back I'm not certain, but you can
bet their "social distancing" was a lot more than 6 feet! Thus when we read that
Christ cleansed him, and then told him not to say anything, the crowd probably
would not only have not overheard the conversation, but perhaps didn't even
know the man was healed. Typically the stricken wore sackcloth as a sign of
mourning and as an outward warning so that the other townspeople should steer
clear.
Some Bible scholars also question this story as not authentic because they say a
proper Jew would never touch a person with Tzara'at as it was against the Law
of Moses; that is not true. There is no Torah law against touching an unclean
person; however there was danger in doing so. It would have brought with it the
contracting of that person's ritual impurity; so people didn't do that. I don't know if
other Holy Men might have done such a thing as touching an unclean person; but
Jesus did. And what is so interesting is that Christ did what only God could do:
He cleansed. What should have happened is that the unclean man passed his
uncleanness to Christ; because a clean person cannot pass along their
cleanness to an unclean person. It is a one way street. And yet, that is exactly
what Yeshua did. His touch passed His own ritual purity along to the impure man
making him clean. I want to repeat; this was not a healing per se. From the
Jewish and biblical viewpoint, this was a cleansing; healing and cleansing are
two different things.
Next Yeshua tells the man to go to the priest AND to offer the sacrifice that
Moses commanded. This is precisely what the Law of Moses says a person who
is potentially cleansed of their Tzara'at is to do. He is to go to a priest to be
inspected. If the priest pronounces the person as cleansed he is released from
his isolation and then usually an altar sacrifice is to follow. If ever there was
continuing proof that Yeshua had not abolished The Law of Moses it is here
because He specifically instructs the man to follow the Law as found in Leviticus
13 and 14. But why is the man not supposed to say anything to anyone about the
cleansing? There's been a few theories put forth about this, but none of them
hold any water. The one with the most consensus is that Jesus didn't want to
divulge who He was just yet. However a Holy Man healing a person afflicted
with Tzara'at, and then the cleansed person telling others about it, would have in
no way unmasked Jesus as the Messiah. Nonetheless, in the hindsight of
8 / 12

Christian history, the many miraculous things Yeshua did definitively add up to
the conclusion that He was the Messiah that Israel had hoped for; but not the one
they expected.
In verse 5 Yeshua finally arrives home in Capernaum. There He is confronted
with a worried Roman soldier; a Centurion. On its face this is kind of a peculiar
story because we have a Roman army officer (no doubt a gentile) approaching a
Jew, hat in hand, and asking for his help. It is interesting that we find a few
stories in the New Testament involving Centurions and it can be generally said
that they are upright men of honor and have respect among the Jewish
community. It seems that this Roman soldier has noticed the authentically
miraculous healings of Yeshua and so trusts Him. He doesn't seem to confess
any belief in the God of Israel, nor does he mention anything resembling a
religious faith in Christ. However clearly the Centurion is both desperate and sold
on Jesus's power to heal..... regardless of how He manages to do it. So the
Roman explains that his orderly is paralyzed and in suffering. More likely this is
not an orderly but rather a house slave. Yeshua offers to go to the Roman's
home and to heal the servant (we don't know whether the house slave is a Jew
or gentile).
Most Bible versions say that the Centurion begins to address Yeshua by calling
Him "Lord". The CJB says "sir". The Greek word being translated is kurios and it
is the equivalent of the Hebrew adon or adonai. It is a word of respect. It can be
translated as sir, Mr., master, and yes, lord. But little "L" lord. However over the
centuries because the word can be translated to "lord", then it is assumed that
the Roman meant it in a religious way because it is so common for Christians to
refer to Jesus as "The Lord". This is not what the Roman army officer was
implying. Saying "lord" was neither an indication that he had converted to the
Hebrew religion nor that He was declaring a religious allegiance to Yeshua. He
was simply being respectful and courteous, especially because he understood
that Yeshua was a miracle healer and He was the best hope for saving the life of
the servant.
The soldier declines Yeshua's offer to go to the officer's home in order to heal the
young man. The officer was of course aware that it was Jewish Tradition that
gentiles were automatically considered unclean, and therefore so were their
homes. The belief was that a Jew entering the house of a gentile would be
rendered ritually impure and thus have to go through the hassle of a period of
time of isolation and purification, then an immersion. Out of an abundance of
9 / 12

politeness, rather than ask Yeshua to go against His culture and religious
Traditions, the soldier says that it is not necessary for Him to actually be present
with the house slave to heal him; all that has to be done is for Yeshua to order it
and it will occur. And he thinks this is so because as a soldier, he is a man under
the authority of one over him, and so whatever he is ordered to do it is dutifully
carried out. And further, since he has 100 men under him, he is confident that if
he issues an order, it will be carried out whether he is present or not. For all the
wrong reasons, the Centurion was actually on the right track.
Yeshua is astonished and says that He has not known anyone in Israel with as
much trust as this gentile; a soldier who actually represents oppression to most
Jews. Bible translations will more often than not say faith instead of trust.
Regardless, let's not get carried away. This is NOT a religious trust or faith that
the Centurion holds in Jesus. However Yeshua's response about the lesser trust
present among the Israelites is meant in a religious context. The Centurion holds
a kind of deep, confident, unequivocal conviction that this Jewish Holy Man can
heal his very ill house slave, and Yeshua sees it as an excellent model for the
kind of deep, confident, unequivocal trust that His followers ought to have in the
God of Israel and His Son. What we have found so far is that even as concerns
His 12 Disciples, whatever trust they have in their Master amounts to "seeing is
believing". So the kind of trust that is based on an invisible promise and the
uttering of a word (instead of visible proof or a sign) is what Yeshua wants to see
from His followers. The sad reality is that Israel, those who were elected by God
to be the natural inheritors of His Kingdom, have not lived up to their calling.
Ironically, this gentile Roman soldier (an enemy) better expresses what a healthy
faith looks like than does Israel.
Verse 11 says something that on the surface feels out of place. Some Bible
scholars use it as proof that all that Yeshua has been teaching has being
concerning the End Times, and not the present. Actually, while this statement is
indeed speaking of a future time, likely it is also Christ expanding on the matter of
Israel and their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He says that many will come
from the east and the west (presumably traveling to the Land of Israel) in order to
take their place at a banquet in the Kingdom of Heaven. And strangely that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will also be present. First: while it is not across the
board, generally speaking in the Bible when the compound term east and west is
used, it applies to the exiles and dispersed of Israel. Second: when north and
south are used together, in general it applies to gentiles (again, this is not
universal in the Bible but it does seem to be a pattern). Considering the context
10 / 12

of Yeshua's statement, then I think He is speaking about the return of the 10
Israelite tribes (the so-called 10 Lost Tribes) that were dispersed to the east and
west by Assyria in the 8th century B.C. This is a prophesied event, most
famously recorded by Ezekiel chapters 36, 37, and 38. Assuming that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob are there in the flesh so to speak, then this must be occurring
after the general resurrection that is to come. But it also moderates Yeshua's
negative comment about this Roman soldier having more faith than any one in
Israel to indicate that despite a general unfaithfulness in Israel, the descendants
of the Israelite exiles will be welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven.
And yet He says in verse 12 that those born for the Kingdom will not be allowed
in but rather they will be rejected to the live in the darkness that is the condition
that all who are excluded will experience. So who are these that are born for the
Kingdom, but excluded? Let me first say that in no way should we read-in the
word "all".... that is "all" who are born for the Kingdom. Rather it is that among
those born for the Kingdom some (perhaps the majority) will be excluded. The
Greek word being translated as "born for the Kingdom" is huios, and it more
literally means "sons of the Kingdom". Again, the subject's context seems to be
Israel, so these sons are apparently those of Israel who are indeed born as God's
people, yet most will not be allowed into the Kingdom. Why? Judging from
Christ's statement in 7:23, it is because these are natural born Israelites that
refuse to sincerely trust Yeshua as God's Son, Lord, and Savior. The idea is that
not all Israelites will automatically be granted citizenship in God's Kingdom. This
would have been a startling pronouncement because the Jews of that day
believed that being born as Jews guaranteed them a place in the eternal
Kingdom; it was, and remains, not so. Clearly Christ taught the Apostle Peter this
reality about Israel as well. Open your Bibles to 2Peter chapter 2.
READ 2PETER CHAPTER 2:1 - 17
All whom Peter said would be cast into darkness is specifically about certain
members of Israel, thus I have little doubt that Matthew 8:10 - 12 is also speaking
about certain members of Israel.
This episode concerning the Centurion concludes with Yeshua confirming that
because of the officer's trust that Yeshua can do what He says He can do,
Yeshua has already done it. The house servant was already healed before the
Centurion went home. Indeed, the soldier was correct; merely Yeshua's word
could heal.
11 / 12

We'll continue with Matthew chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
12 / 12