Criswell Theological Review 6.1 (1992) 73-89
Copyright © 1992 by The
ON WEALTH AND WORRY:
MATTHEW 6:19-34--MEANING
AND
SIGNIFICANCE
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
Is
it really impossible to serve both God and money (Matt 6:24)? The
lifestyle of most American Christians suggests
that they are not con-
vinced of the truth of this
claim. May believers completely free them-
selves from worry about the basic provisions of life
(v 25)? The
dramatic increase of neuroses and other
psychological afflictions in
our churches makes Christians often
indistinguishable from other
cross-sections of the country's
population. Some disciples have sought
God's
kingdom first (v 33), but how then can we account for the mil-
lions of Christians today and in the past who have
starved to death?
The
Sermon on the Mount is filled with puzzling and challenging say-
ings of Jesus; some of the
most crucial of these come in Matt 6:19-34.
1.
Context
Of the numerous interpretive
approaches to Jesus' great sermon,l
that which interprets it as promoting
"inaugurated eschatology" is surely
the best.2 Matt 5:1-2 provides the context of Jesus'
original audience; the
antecedent of au]tou<j ("them") in v 2 is oi[
maqhtai< ("the disciples") in v 1.
1 For a history of
interpretation, see W. S. Kissinger, The
Sermon on the Mount: A
History of
Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1975). For a de-
lineation of 36 discrete, influential
perspectives, see C. Bauman, The Sermon
on the
Mount: The Modern Quest
for Its Meaning
(Macon: Mercer, 1985).
2 For detailed defense
and exposition, see R A Guelich,
The Sermon on the
Mount (Waco: Word, 1982). For the same perspective but more briefly and popularly, cf.
J.
R W. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1918);
and D. A Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).
74
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Jesus
is addressing primarily those already committed in some way to
following him; other interested
"crowds'" are on the periphery. This ren-
ders less likely
interpretations which see the sermon as "law'" (a call to
repentance and preparation for the gospel), as part
of an offer of the
kingdom to the Jews which was rejected, or as a
social mandate to im-
pose on secular or godless peoples. The fact that he
does not distinguish
his ethic as applying only to a certain group of
his followers precludes
interpretations which understand his
more challenging demands as re-
quirements only for certain
categories of Christians.3 And the observa-
tion that he is speaking to
his disciples as a group, as part of their
itinerant community,
suggests that he is giving instructions not only for
individual but also for corporate Christian living.4
The broader context
of Jesus' teaching on the kingdom strongly
supports this "already-not
yet'" interpretation of his ethic. Jesus does
not expect his followers to be
able fully to implement his commands in this age,
but he holds them
forth as an ideal for which they must ever strive,
through the help of
God's Spirit. In short, proper
interpretation and application of the ser-
mon must avoid the twin
errors of triumphalism and defeatism.5
The sermon falls into several fairly
definable sections.6 Matt 5:3-16
forms the introduction, describing who will be the
recipients of kingdom
blessings (vv 3-12) and calling those people to
live out their counter-
cultural lives in society as preservative agents
(vv 13-16). The thesis para-
graph is provided in 5:17-20--Jesus demands of his
followers a greater
righteousness than that of the Jewish
leaders of his day. Following this,
5:21-7:12
comprises the body of the sermon, which is subdivided as fol-
lows: 5:21-48 begins to unpack the theme of greater
righteousness by
contrasting Jesus' commands with the OT Law; 6:1-18
treats the topic of
purer motives; 6:19-34 continues the motif of seeking
divine rather than
earthly reward, which permeates the previous section
(6:4,6, 18), consid-
ering specifically its
application to material possessions;7 7:1-11 follows
3 For an elaboration of
these views and a brief critique, cf. C. L Blomberg, Mat-
thew (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 94-95. For commentary on
6:19-34, more generally, cf.
pp.
122-27.
4 Cf. esp. R Lischer, “The Sermon on the Mount as Radical Pastoral Care,”
Int 41
(1987)
157-69; C. L Blomberg, "How the Church Can Turn
the Other Cheek and Still Be
Political,"
Southern Baptist Public Affairs 2.1
(1990) 10-12.
5 Cf. further R A. Guelich, "Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount"
(117-30); J. D.
Kingsbury,
“The Place, Structure and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within
Matthew”
(131-43); and L S. Cahill, "The Ethical Implications of the Sermon on the
Mount" (144-56), all in Int 41 (1987).
6 The outline adopted
here is greatly indebted to D. C. Allison, Jr., “The Structure
of the Sermon on the Mount,” JBL 106 (1987) 423-25.
7 There is also an
important "catchword" connection between the uses of a]fani<zw
in 6:16 and 6:19-20. See A
Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus (
1986)
19-21.
Craig Blomberg: ON WEALTH AND WORRY 75
somewhat more loosely, dealing with how to treat
others, but is very sim-
ilarly structured as 6:19-34;
7:12 sums up both vv 1-11 and the entire body
of the sermon with the famous "Golden
Rule." 7:13-27 brings Jesus'
words to a fitting conclusion by calling his audience
to respond in obe-
dience rather than ignoring
his manifesto.
Matt 6:19-34 divides into two major sections:
vv 19-24 (on wealth)
and 25-34 (on worry). These sections are united,
however, by the com-
mon theme that believers
must ruthlessly reject whatever distracts
from full devotion to God in Christ, because God
will make necessary
provisions for those who above all seek the greater
righteousness of his
kingdom.8 Verses 19-24 fall into
three discrete units: vv 19-21 contrast
earthly and heavenly treasures, vv 22-23
contrast people of light with
those of darkness, and v 24 contrasts two masters--God
and mammon.
Together
these three units drive home Jesus' injunction to choose di-
vine rather than worldly priorities, because it is
impossible to do both
simultaneously. Verses 25-34 are less
clearly divisible, combining to
stress the single point that we need not (indeed, must
not) worry about
physical provisions, because God cares enough for
us to supply those
needs if our priorities are correct. Verse 25 gives
the basic command in
three areas-provisions of food, drink and clothing.
Verses 26-30 sup-
ply the rationale in each of these three areas by a
fortiori logic--if God
nourishes and clothes lesser life forms, surely he
will care all the more
for human beings. Verse 31 restates the thesis of
the paragraph as a se-
ries of three rhetorical
questions. Verses 32-33 give further rationale
for why we can trust God. Verse 34 restates the
initial command once
more and appends one further reason for obedience.
Attempts to trace the tradition
history of these various sayings
usually result in complex reconstructions of
tradition and redaction,
authentic and inauthentic materials.9
Matt 6:19-24 is not paralleled in
anyone unified passage elsewhere in the Gospels, but
vv 20b-21 reap-
pear in Luke 12:33b-34; parts of vv 22-23 in Luke
11:34-35; and v 24 in
Luke
16:13. When isolated logia "float" like this among disparate Syn-
optic contexts, it is virtually impossible to know if
the evangelists are
transmitting independent sayings
from discrete contexts in Jesus' min-
istryor variant oral traditions
not attached to anyone context, or if they
are drawing on a common written source which they
have variously
edited.10 Matt 6:25-34, on the other hand, is very closely
paralleled in
8 Cf. B. M. Newman and P.
C. Stine, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of
Matthew (New York: UBS, 1988)
186.
9 The most recent,
detailed analysis is M. G. Steinhauser, "The
Sayings on Anxi-
eties: Matt 6:25-34 and Luke
12:22-32," Forum 6.1 (1990)
67-79.
10 This is true
particularly of double-tradition material found in connected form
in Matthew's sermons of Jesus but broken up into
shorter, separate sayings scattered
throughout Luke's central section. See esp. C. L Blomberg, "Midrash,
Chiasmus, and the
76
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
sequence and wording in Luke 12:22-32, with the
important exception
of the final verse of each of these two passages,
so that some kind of
Q-hypothesis
remains quite probable in accounting for the origin of
this material. Here the unique interests or diction
of Matthew are
occasionally discernible (the
"heavenly" Father in v 32, paralleled by
the birds "of heaven" in v 26 and their
partner, the flowers "of the
field" in v 28,11 and, even more significantly,
the addition of "and its
righteousness" in v 3312).
But for the most part Matthew and Luke fol-
low their sources very closely, thereby commending
a view which sees
them as remaining faithful to the traditions they
inherited13 The pos-
sibility of independent
traditions behind vv 19-24, combined with this
fidelity to common traditions where they are
demonstrable, suggests
that a canonical interpretation of Matt 6:19-34 is
the best approach. We
will exegete this unit as it stands without
postulating earlier, notice-
ably divergent forms of the material. The carefully
knit structure
which emerges reinforces the validity of this method.
2.
Exegesis
19
Stop storing up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth
and rust14
destroy them, and where thieves dig through and steal. 20 But
keep on
storing up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither
moth nor
rust destroy, and where thieves neither dig through nor steal.
21
For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.
Verses 19-20 set up the contrast
between treasure on earth and
treasure in heaven in two clauses which
demonstrate close anti-
thetical parallelism. Verse 21
closes this short paragraph with the rea-
son why one should seek heavenly rather than
earthly treasures. The
two present tense commands with qhsauri<zete
suggest but do not re-
quire the translation "stop storing up" and
"keep on storing up." Given
the universal human propensity to run after
material possessions,
Outline
of Luke's Central Section," in Gospel
Perspectives, ed. R T. France and D. Wen-
ham (6 vols.;
11 E.g., Matthew is the
only NT writer to use the expression "kingdom of heaven,"
and he uses it 33 times.
12 On Matthew's
distinctive interest in dikaiosu<nh, see esp. B. Przybylski,
Righ-
teousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (Cambridge: University
Press, 1980).
13 See esp. the
reconstruction of the Q form of the second half of this passage by
R
J. Dillon, "Ravens, Lilies and the
CBQ 53 (1991) 605-27.
14 "Rust" is
literally "eating," as perhaps in the corrosion of metal, but also in
the
gnawing of clothing by vermin. R H. Mounce, Matthew (
1985)
56, states that the rendering "rust" was introduced into the English
by William
Tyndale.
Craig Blomberg: ON WEALTH AND WORRY 77
these more nuanced translations seem appropriate.
"Treasure" may be
seen most simply as anything treasured--that to
which great value
and affection are ascribed, and hence that which is
carefully pro-
tected.15
1n the context of vv 24-25, it is clear that material posses-
sions are primarily the
treasure in view here.
How can we know when we are
inappropriately "treasuring" pos-
sessions? Verse 19b suggests one key answer--when
we accumulate
that which is not being used and hence in danger of
becoming moth-
eaten (as with garments) or corroded (as with
precious metals). Gold,
silver, and costly clothing were common signs of
wealth in antiquity
(cf.
1 Tim 2:9). Jesus' parable of the rich fool comes to mind here--those
who simply amass goods without taking thought of God
and his priori-
ties will one day discover that they are not
immortal. All will be lost,
both in this life and in the life to come (Luke
12:15-21).16 A second an-
swer emerges from v 21. Even
when one does not amass unused sur-
plus, one's material possessions may be considered
"earthly treasures"
if they gain one's steadfast allegiance.17
Any object which humans
value, regardless of its inherent worth, may become
the target of
thieves. The imagery of digging through suggests
the typical Palestin-
ian mud or adobe--like
house walls, which would--be burglars might
find easier to penetrate than locked doors or
windows (cf. Matt 24:43).
Instead, Jesus' followers must set
their affections on and strive af-
ter spiritual treasures.
Again, the term must be defined broadly to em-
brace all that persists beyond the grave--godly
character, souls won
and nurtured for Christ, faithful exercise of
spiritual gifts, and obedi-
ence to the whole counsel of
God's word throughout every area of
life-in short what v 33 summarizes as "the
righteousness." Spiritual
treasure neither requires nor precludes the
concept of unique degrees of reward in heaven;
how one understands
Scripture's
teaching elsewhere on that topic can be made to fit natu-
rally into this context.18 But the focus
here centers primarily on what
one should be doing in this life, with a person's
loyalties firmly
15 Cf.
J. P. Louw and E. A Nida,
eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament
Based on Semantic
Domains,
vol. 1 (New York: UBS, 1988) 621: “that which is of excep-
tional value and kept safe.”
16 Cf. F. W. Beare, The Gospel
according to Matthew (San -Francisco: Harper &
Row,
1981) 182: “The words assume that the treasures are hoarded; they are prized
for
their own sake, not put to work to create jobs and
produce goods.”
17 Cf. O. S. Brooks, The Sermon on the Mount: Authentic Human Values
(Lanham:
UPA,
1985) 75: the "outward expression of a disciple's inner devotion.
18 On which, see esp. C.
L Blomberg, "Are There Degrees of Reward in the
King-
dom of Heaven?,” JETS 35 (1992) forthcoming; W. D. Davies
and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Crit-
ical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew
(2 vols.;
78
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
attached to goals and activities of eternal
significance, immune from
the transience of worldly wealth. Verse 21
underlines the importance
of Jesus' words. One's entire life will become
dominated by that
which one seeks and treasures.
22
The eye is the light of the body. So if your eye is undivided and gen-
erous, your whole body will be illuminated. 23 But if your eye is evil,
your whole
body will be dark. If, therefore, the light which is in you is
darkness,
how great that darkness!
Verses 22-23 closely parallel vv
19-20 in structure. Verses 22b-
23a
again set up an antithetical parallelism, making the same point as
v 21, only by shifting the metaphor from
treasure/heart to eye/body
(v 21a) and by substituting indicative for imperative verbs.19
Instead of
commanding people to seek heavenly rather than
earthly treasures,
Jesus
expands on the observation that the treasure affects the heart by
stating that what one does with one's eyes (a
common vehicle by
which desires enter into one's life) colors one's
entire self. Verse 23b
adds a concluding inference, lamenting how tragic it
is if the eye and
body are bad rather than good (cf. the parallel
sense of 5:13b). Use of
the "evil eye" was well known in ancient
paganism as a magical device
to do bad and in Judaism as the equivalent of
"niggardliness.”20
The language of Jesus' metaphor must
not be pressed into the ser-
vice of scientific precision. Today we would not say
that the eye is the
light of the body but an aperture to let light into the
body.21 "If the light
which is in you is darkness. . ." also reflects
a scientific impossibility.
But
Jesus is employing irony to say, in essence, "If that which is sup-
posed to provide light for the body actually provides
darkness. . . ," how
perverted things have become!22 Whether
literally or mentally gazing,
Christians
must focus on all that is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, well-
spoken of, virtuous and praiseworthy (Phil 4:8) rather
than succumbing
to worldly "lust of the eyes" (1 John
2:16). The word a]plou?j
in v 22 can
mean either "undivided" in attention or
"generous"; quite likely both
concepts are in view here.23 Verse 24
proves that God requires whole-
hearted allegiance; the larger context of vv
19-34, on stewardship of
one's wealth, makes generosity equally apposite.
19 Cf. H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1987) 138.
20 S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary
on the New Testament: The Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV,
1987) 127.
21 R G. Bratcher, A Translator's Guide to the Gospel of Matthew
(
1981)
65, offers as possible translations, "Your eyes provide/let in light for
the body/
whole person."
22 D.
A Carson, "Matthew," in Expositor's
Bible Commentary (ed. F. E. Gaebelein,
12
vols.;
23 R T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 139.
Craig Blomberg: ON WEALTH AND WORRY 79
24 No one can serve two lords. For
either he will hate the one and love
the other,
or he will remain loyal24 to the one and despise the other. You
cannot
serve God and mammon.
Verse 24 rounds out vv 19-24 with
yet a third antithetical paral-
lelism. This time the point is
made twice and the opposite options are
presented within each independent clause. There is
also a small chi-
asmus (A-B-B1-A1)
with "hate-Iove-loyal-despise," placing
greater
weight on the desirable option in the central position
of B-B1. Verse
24a
and d bracket this chiasmus with the main proposition of the
verse; vv band c supply the rationale. Today, of
course, many people
do serve several masters, but ku<rioj; is used here in its
absolute sense
of a lord who owns his slaves or servants.
"Love" and "hate" reflect the
Semitic
idiom of "choose" and "not choose" (or "accept"
and "reject")
and imply that one master will inevitably be
favored over the other.25
Mammon
includes all manner of material possessions and resources.
In
and of itself, it is neutral--not necessarily bad and potentially put
to good use for God (Luke 16:9).26 But
all too easily it seduces those
who possess it and becomes a powerfully destructive
tool.27
25
For this reason I say to you, stop being anxious for your life--what you
will eat or
what you will drink,28 nor even with what you will clothe your
body. Life
is more than nourishment and the body more than clothing,
aren't
they?29
Verse 25 introduces the second major
section of this passage
(vv 25-34). The inferential connective dia> tou?to demonstrates that
here begin the logical implications of serving God
rather than mam-
mon (v 24). The command
which forms the central thrust of the entire
paragraph comes right at the outset--do not worry
over basic provi-
sions for life, such as food,
drink and clothing. The reason is because
24 In Greek, a]nte<xomai can mean "to join
with," "maintain loyalty," and "adhere to"
(Louw and Nida, Lexicon, vol. 1, 449).
25 E. Schweizer,
The Good News according to Matthew
(Richmond: Knox, 1975)
163-64.
D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew
(London: Oliphants, 1972) 143, adds that "to
hate" means "to be indifferent to, or
unconcerned for."
26
Newman and Stine, Matthew, 191.
27 See esp. J. Ellul, Money and
Power (Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press,
1984).
28 Numerous manuscripts
have "and" instead of "or," but the meaning is little
changed. Several important early witnesses omit
"or what you will drink," but the
clause has probably dropped out by homoioteleuton—fa<ghte ("you will
eat") and pi<hte
("you will drink") end identically. The parallelism with
v 31 further suggests that the
clause originally stood in the text Cf. further B. M
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 1971) 17.
29 The Greek ou]xi< with the interrogative
suggests that an emphatically affirmative
answer is required.
80
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
true (spiritual) life far transcends these bodily
needs. The contrast be-
tween earthly and heavenly
treasures continues. The command not to
wony is again appropriately
understood as a command to stop an ac-
tion in progress. The KJV
translation "take no thought" is inaccurate
and misleading. As the example of the birds (v 26)
will highlight,
Jesus
is not precluding planning or working to provide for oneself.30
The
basic meaning of merimna<w is "to have an
anxious concern, based
on apprehension about possible danger or
misfortune."31 If we really
trust God, we will not worry. The most we can lose is
our physical
lives, but our eternal lives, which make all the
suffering or depriva-
tion of this present age
pale into insignificance (Rom 8:18), will re-
main secure.
26
Consider the birds of heaven: they neither sow nor harvest nor gather
into barns,
and your heavenly father nourishes them. You matter more
than they,
don't you?32 27 Moreover,
which of you by being anxious33 can
add the
smallest amount to one's age? 28 And
why are you anxious con-
cerning clothing? Learn from the flowers of the
field, how they grow:
they
neither labor nor spin.34 29
Yet I say to you that not even Solomon
in all his
glory was being clothed as one of these. 30
Now if God so
clothes the
grass of the field, even though it exists35 today and tomorrow
is thrown
into the oven,36 how much more you of little faith?
Jesus now further explains why his
people can dare to be so free
from worry. Conceptually, he gives four reasons: worry
is unnecessary
(v 26), it is useless (v 27), it is blind (vv 28-29), and it
demonstrates a
lack of faith (v 30).37 Grammatically,
however, these verses comprise
three illustrations--one about birds (v 26), one about
human life-span
(v 27) and one about plants (vv 28-30a). Verses 26b and 30b
spell out
30
France, Matthew, 140.
31 Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 1, 313.
32 Again the
interrogative is negated by ou](x), implying an
affirmative answer,
though without the emphasis present in v 25.
33 Merimnw?n is best taken as an
instrumental participle.
34 Among a nest of
textual variants, the only other widely attested option is to
change "labor" and "spin" from
plural to singular verbs, inasmuch as neuter plural sub-
jects (kri<na) often take singular
verbs. Other options perhaps reflect a loss of an original
Aramaic word play between "labor" (‘amal) and
"spin" (‘azal)--Hill,
Matthew, 144. Cf.
further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 18.
35 @Onta is
not naturally taken as an adjectival participle (as implied by the NIV-
"which is here"), because it is anarthrous,
while xo<rton ("grass"),
which it would modify,
is articular. Better
therefore to take it as adverbial; more specifically, I would suggest, as
concessive.
36 "Oven" is
better than NIV "fire." People often picked plants and used them as
fuel for the ovens in which they baked bread
(Bratcher, Matthew, 68).
37 M. Green, Matthew for Today (Dallas: Word, 1989)
35-36. Mounce, Matthew,
58,
refers to worry as "practical atheism and an affront to God."
Craig Blomberg: ON WEALTH AND WORRY 81
the point of the first and third of these
illustrations; the logic is from
the lesser to the greater. If God cares this much
for birds and plants,
how much more will he not care for his own people?
In fact, vv 26
and 28-30 parallel each other closely. Each begins
with a command to
consider an example from the world of nature,
comments on the rela-
tive powerlessness of the
plant and animal world, reminds us never-
theless of God's concern for
them, and concludes with a rhetorical
question underlining the greater value of human
life. Verse 26 makes
the point concerning nourishment (combining the
concerns of what to
eat and drink); vv 28-30, concerning clothing.
The examples of birds and vegetation
parallel each other, too, be-
cause each is wild.38 Domestic animals and
cultivated plants do not
need to rely as directly on God as do their
counterparts in the wild.
The
contrast with humans is thus heightened; God takes care even of
those forms of life whose existence is most fragile
and tenuous.39
Birds
differ from plants, however, in that they do work industriously
to find food, build nests, and provide for
themselves, even if they can-
not entirely imitate human agricultural practices. As
noted above,
Jesus
is not enjoining a lackadaisical, lazy or carefree attitude toward
provisions. Still, wild fowl depend considerably on
the vagaries of na-
ture, over which God rules,
reminding Christians that they dare not
try to secure their lives against every conceivable
calamity.40 Such
foolproof security does not exist in this life;
those who nevertheless
pursue it will be consumed in the process and unable
to serve God.
Verse 27 gives a slightly different
kind of reason for not being
anxious. Not only does worry fail to recognize
God's great love for us,
it simply does not work. At best it accomplishes
nothing; at worst it
actually shortens our lives, as modem medicine
recognizes. The
phrase e]pi> th>n h[li<an au]tou? ph?xun
e!na is somewhat ambiguous.
Ph?xuj normally means a "cubit" (about 18 inches), while
h[liki<a can
mean either a length of time or unit of size. The
more natural render-
ing of the Greek would be
"one cubit to one's height." But to add this
amount would scarcely be the trifling quantity
apparently demanded
by the context.41 Although the terms
are less commonly used this way,
38 Bratcher, Matthew, 67, takes the expression
"birds of heaven" to indicate that
they are wild birds. Kpiva
(NIV "lilies") is more likely a generic term for wild flowers
(France,
Matthew, 14-41).
39 Schweizer, Matthew,
164.
40 Cf.
esp. Dillon, "Ravens," 625-26: "'Seeking the kingdom' is the way
of life in
which the compulsion to 'manage' the future for
oneself and others has been replaced
by a self-sacrificial trust in the saving plan of
God, of which we can know only that it is
advanced by any and all faithful following of
Christ."
41 Ridderbos, Matthew,
140.
82
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the better translation remains "the smallest
amount to one's age" (cf.
NIV--"a
single hour to his life").42
Verses 28-30 are substantially
longer than their parallel in v 26
because of Jesus' additional reference to
Solomon. Instead of a simple
comparison between plants and humans, Jesus sets up
a three-stage ar-
gument. First, he points out
God's care for the wild flowers or grasses,
despite their relative impotence and
evanescence. But instead of mov-
ing immediately to God's
greater concern for humans, he next marvels
at the beauty of these flowers, which he believes
surpasses that of the
one king in
glories. So if the flowers are that much more
wonderfully "clothed"
than even Solomon, and if we are that much more
cared for than the
flowers, then God loves those in Christ in
certain ways inestimably