9. Is there any man among you? It is a comparison from the less to the greater. First, our Lord contrasts the malice of men with the boundless goodness of God. Self-love ( φιλαυτία) renders us malicious: for every man is too much devoted to himself, and neglects and disregards others. But this vice yields to the stronger feelings of a father’s love, so that men forget themselves, and give to their children with overflowing liberality. Whence comes this, but because God, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (Eph 3:15,) drops into their hearts a portion of his goodness? But if the little drops produce such an amount of beneficence, what ought we to expect from the inexhaustible ocean? Would God, who thus opens the hearts of men, shut his own? Let us also remember that passage of Isaiah, “Though a mother forget her children,” (Isa 49:15,) yet the Lord will be like himself, (466) and will always show himself to be a Father.

(466) “ Le Seigneur ne changera point;” — “the Lord will not change.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(9) Or what man is there of you.The meaning of the illustrations is obvious enough, yet their homeliness is noticeable as addressed to the peasants of Galilee, who found in fish and bread, as in the miracles of the Five thousand and the Four thousand, the staple of their daily food.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

9, 10. Bread fish The ordinary food of the fishermen of Galilee was bread and fish. Bread and stone, fish and serpent, are in couples, obviously rounded on a degree of resemblance.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

9. Man son An argument from less to greater. How much more beneficent than human father is God to all the sons of God!

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Or what man is there of you,

Who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf,

Will give him a stone;

Or if he will ask for a fish,

Will give him a serpent?

He then gives them examples in order to strengthen their faith and confidence in their Father. God is their heavenly Father, so let them first consider what an earthly father would do. What earthly father, if asked for bread would give a stone to his son? We have already seen how stones can be likened to the small round loaves baked by the Jews (Mat 4:3). What a callous father it would be who would give a stone to his hungry son, pretending that it was bread. Or what earthly father, if asked for a fish would give him a snake that looks at first sight like an edible fish (probably the snake-like catfish of the Sea of Galilee) but is far from being so? The answer in both cases is that such a thing is totally beyond belief. Even more so is it then beyond belief with their heavenly Father.

It may be significant that both the false gifts can be associated with Satan. Perhaps Jesus had in mind here what had been offered to Him when He was praying. It was Satan who offered stones to Jesus instead of bread (Mat 4:3), and it was as the Serpent of old (Rev 12:9) that he came to Him on the high mountain offering Him good things, such gifts as honour, and prestige and power. Such gifts come from Satan not the Father. The Father has only good things to give to His children, not the baubles of the world. Alternately the ‘snake’ may have indicated an eel, which being ‘unclean’ a Jewish son should not eat.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A parable to bring home this truth:

v. 9. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

v. 10. Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

v. 11. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?

He appeals to their love as parents. It is unthinkable that a father who is worthy of the name would substitute a stone for the bread, or a serpent for the fish, which his children ask of him. There is a resemblance, purposely. A father might find it necessary to refuse a child’s petition outright, but he surely would not demean himself by mocking him. The grammatical construction is purposely made difficult in order to set the parent over against and yet beside the son. Such a selfish, grudging, mean spirit is considered unnatural even among men, from whom one might, according to the natural depravity of their heart, possibly expect a behavior of that kind. Natural affection is so strong in the average mother and father that it will not let harshness and heartlessness gain the upper hand; they have the knowledge and the common sense to give only good gifts to their children, if they give any at all. The word here used refers not only to the quality of goodness, but also to the measure in which they are given, generously, in larger amount than the children ask. Now he argues from the less important to the more important. That heavenly Father, whose benevolent power and beneficent kindness has been declared to you, that model of goodness and love toward all His children, will surely not do less! In bountiful measure, above all that we ask and think, Eph 3:20, He will give good gifts. Surely no vestige of doubt can remain with such an assurance.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 7:9. Or what man, &c. Is there any man among you? Blackwall. And indeed what one man is there among you? Doddridge; who observes upon this verse, “Young preachers I hope will remark, how much life and force it adds to these discourses of our Lord, that they are directed so closely through the whole of them, as an immediate address to his hearers; and are not loose and general harangues in the manner of those essays which have of late grown so fashionable in pulpits. If any are become too polite to learn true oratory from Christ, I wish they would at least learn it from Demosthenes, who, I doubt not, would have admired the elegance of this sermon.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1329
GODS READINESS TO GIVE HIS HOLY SPIRIT

Mat 7:9-11. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

TO argue from ourselves to the Deity, and to conclude that, because we should do, or forbear any particular thing, he would do the same, is, in many cases, extremely fallacious; because many things may be proper as a rule of our conduct towards others, which can in no respect be applied to the moral Governor of the universe. There are, however, some instances wherein such an argument may be urged, not only with propriety, but with great effect. Such an instance occurs in the passage we have now read; in considering which, we shall,

I.

Point out the force of our Lords appeal

Our Lord addresses himself both to our feelings and our judgment

[Men who cannot understand a logical deduction, may comprehend, without any difficulty, the argument before us. Every one, whether he be a parent or not, knows sufficiently the feelings of a parent, to answer the question here put to him. We can scarcely conceive that any father should so divest himself of all the sensibilities of his nature, as to refuse a piece of bread to his child. Much less can we imagine, that he should mock his child, by offering him a stone; or give him, instead of necessary food, a serpent or scorpion to destroy him. Who then would think of ascribing such a disposition to God? God is the common parent of all his creatures; and he well knows that his Spirit is as necessary for the imparting and maintaining of spiritual life, as bread is for the support of our natural life. Will he then refuse that blessing to us, when we ask it at his hands; and leave us to perish without affording us the needful succour? It may happen, that an earthly parent may be indisposed, by passion or caprice, to do what is right; or he may be disabled through poverty: but there are no such impediments on the part of God, since he is subject to no infirmities; nor is there any thing impossible with him. We may be sure therefore that he will at all times act worthy of the relation which lie bears to his creatures.]
But the force of the appeal lies in the contrast between God and us
[At first sight the appeal may seem inconclusive, since our children have a claim upon us, but we have none on God; and the gift of a piece of bread bears no proportion whatever to the unspeakable gift of Gods Spirit. But it must be considered that we are evil, so evil as to be capable of the greatest cruelties even towards our own children. Instances have occurred, wherein parents have not only murdered, but even eaten, their own offspring [Note: 2Ki 6:28-29.]; and the treating of them with extreme harshness and severity is no uncommon failing. Yet, with all our proneness to evil, and our readiness, under the influence of passion or temptation, to commit the greatest enormities, there cannot be found a person on earth so depraved, as to act towards his children, in the general tenour of his conduct, in the manner stated by our Lord. But God, on the contrary, is good, supremely, and only good, and therefore incapable of doing any thing, which may in the smallest degree impeach his character. Besides, he has manifested his goodness in that most unparalleled act of mercy, the gift of his own Son; the gift of his own Son to die for us; and that too unasked; and at a time when we were in rebellion against him; and when he knew the treatment which his Son would meet with from an ungrateful world: will he then refuse us any thing? Will he not give us his holy Spirit, when we ask it at his hands [Note: What in the text is called good things, in the parallel passage in Luk 11:13. is called the Holy Spirit.]; and when he knows that the bestowing of that gift will infallibly terminate in his own eternal glory? It is in this very light that an inspired Apostle states the same argument [Note: Rom 8:32.]; and therefore we may be well assured, that it is unanswerably conclusive.]

That we may not however rest in a mere acknowledgment of this truth, we shall,

II.

Suggest a suitable improvement of it

Though the great scope of the text relates only to the prospect which we have of receiving answers to prayer,

We may learn from it,
1.

In what light we are to regard God, when we come to a throne of grace

[Men in general either think of God as a Being that has no concern about this lower world, or as a harsh master, and a severe judge. Accordingly their prayers are either a mere lip-service, in which they themselves feel no interest; or the supplications of a slave under the apprehension of the lash. But we should rather go to him as a Father; we should consider him as a Being able and willing to succour us, yea, infinitely more willing to give than we are to ask. How endearing is that address which we are taught to use, Our Father, which art in heaven! If we could approach him with the familiarity, and confidence, of dutiful and beloved children, how sweet would be our fellowship with him, and how successful our petitions! Then, nothing would appear too much to ask, nothing too trifling to lay before him. We should spread before him our every want; and experience, on all occasions, his condescension and grace.]

2.

What we ought principally to desire in all our addresses to him

[The leading subjects of mens petitions usually are; that their sins may be pardoned, and their ways reformed: and certainly these are important subjects for our supplications. But the offices of the Holy Spirit are very much overlooked even by the saints themselves: and though God will not altogether withhold his blessings, because we do not ask for them in the best manner, yet certainly it is of importance that we should feel our need of his Spirit, and express those feelings in our petitions to him. We cannot repent or pray, unless God, pour out upon us a Spirit of grace and of supplication. We cannot know either our disease or our remedy, unless the Spirit be given to us to convince us of our in-dwelling sin, and of the Saviours righteousness. It is the Spirits office to glorify Christ, and to take of the things that are his, and shew them unto us. If we would mortify the deeds of the body, it must be through the Spirits influence: if we would bring forth the fruits of righteousness, it must be through the operation of the same Spirit, whose fruits they are. Every act of the spiritual life must be performed by the intervention and agency of Gods Spirit. As Christ is all in procuring salvation for us, so the Holy Spirit is all in imparting salvation to us. Our illumination and strength, our sanctification and comfort, are all his gifts; and therefore we should continually acknowledge our dependence upon him, and ask of God the communications we stand in need of. The importance of this is strongly marked by St. Matthew, who, relating the substance of our Lords discourse, says, How much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him? but St. Luke sums up all good things in this, the gift of the Holy Spirit; because, without that gift, all that we possess is of no value; and with it, we cannot want any thing that is good.]

3.

The efficacy and importance of prayer

[Since God has so strongly declared his readiness to give us his Spirit, we may be well assured, that he will not refuse us any thing else: we may ask what we will, and it shall be done unto us. But, on the other hand, we can expect nothing without prayer: God will be inquired of by us [Note: ver. 10.], even for those things which he has promised to give us; nor will he give, if we neglect to ask. This also is intimated in the text itself; his favours are limited to them that ask him. It is true indeed, that the first desire after what is good is inspired by him; and, as far as relates to that, he is found of them that sought him not, and known to them that inquired not after him: but when he has once communicated this desire, he expects that it should be cultivated and improved at a throne of grace; nor will he open the gate of heaven to any, who do not knock at it with importunate and believing prayer. And can we think hardly of this condition? What if we ourselves had invited a child to come and ask of us the richest gifts we could possibly bestow upon him, and had done every thing in our power to assure him of our unalterable determination to grant his request; could he reasonably blame us for suspending our grant upon his performance of so easy a condition? or is there a parent in the world who would not say, If you are too proud to ask for it, you shall not have it? Surely then if, through pride, or indolence, or unbelief, we will not make our supplications to God, we may well, yea, we must inevitably, be left to perish.

If this appear awful in one view, in another view it is most encouraging. Many are ready to say, Such an appeal as this affords no comfort to me: were I a child of God, I could not doubt, but that he would give me all that I could ask, with greater readiness than I would give a piece of bread to my beloved offspring: but am I his child? and, if not, what is this assurance to me? But behold, as though he had intended to cut off all occasion for such a doubt, our Lord has here dropped the parallel, and says, How much more will God give his Spirit, (not to his children, but) to them that ask him? So then we have no occasion to inquire, Am I a child? We must go immediately to God and implore his best and choicest blessings, with a full assurance of success.

Some perhaps may reply, I have tried these means, and found them ineffectual. But we are sure either that God has already answered in a way that was not expected, or that he will answer in due time. He is a God that cannot lie; and therefore we have nothing to do but to wait his time. Only let us continue instant in prayer, and heaven, with all its glory, shall be ours.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Ver. 9,10. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, &c. ] By an argument from the less to the greater. Our Saviour sweetly confirmeth what he had said, that we may “ask in faith, nothing wavering,” or being at an uncertainty, or at variance with himself, doubting whether he should believe or not. a This is no less unpleasing to God than unprofitable to us. God is the Father of all mercies, and loveth his far more than any natural father doth his own child; than Abraham did Isaac, or David Absalom. And according to his affections such are his expressions; for as he knoweth their needs, so he gives them all things richly to enjoy, 1Ti 6:18 . He giveth them not as he doth the wicked, panem lapidosum, a stone for bread; he feeds them not (as we say) with a bit and a knock. b He puts not into their hands (as the Greek proverb hath it, whereunto our Saviour here alludeth), for a fish a scorpion; no, he feeds them with the finest wheat, Psa 81:16 ; “and filleth them with fat things full of marrow,” Isa 25:6 . He nourisheth them with the best, as Joseph did his father’s household in Egypt, according to the mouth of the little ones, or as so many little ones (saith the original), c tenderly and lovingly, without their care or labour. And whereas some natural parents have (monstrously) proven to be unnatural, Psa 27:10 ; as Saul to Jonathan, and those , Rom 1:31 ; not so God: as himself is an everlasting Father, Isa 9:6 , so is his love, Isa 49:14 ; Joh 13:1 . Men may hate their children whom they loved, but he “rests in his love,” Zep 3:17 ; they may cast out their babes, but he gathers them. Father Abraham may forget us and Israel disown us, Isa 63:16 ; “but thou, O Lord, art our never failing Father, our Redeemer,” &c. The fathers and governors of the Church may (out of an overflow of their misguided zeal) cast us out, and for a pretence say, “Let the Lord be glorified. But then shall he appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed,” Isa 66:5 . The fathers of our flesh chasten their children after their own pleasure, but “he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness,” Heb 12:10 . He feeds his people sometimes with “the bread of adversity and the water of affliction,” Jer 30:20 ; or gives them (as it were) a thump on the back with a stone to drive them downwards, and makes them eat ashes for bread, as David, Psa 102:9 ; their bread with quaking, as Ezekiel did; Eze 12:18 holds them to hard meat (some of the martyrs were fed with bread made, most part, with sawdust, and Ezekiel with bread prepared with cow dung, Eze 4:15 ). He chasteneth them also otherwise, not only with the rods of men, but with the severe discipline of scorpions, and this “seemeth not for the present to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that are thereby exercised,” Heb 12:11 . They shall sit down with Abraham, yea, in Abraham’s bosom (as they used to lean at feasts), in the kingdom of heaven, Mat 8:11 ; and shall have (not a Benjamin’s mess only, but) a royal diet, as Jeconiah had, every day a portion, Jer 52:34 . Then shall the Lord stand forth and say to those men of his hand, who had their portion here, and whose bellies he filled with his hidden treasure (the innkeeper gives the best bits to his guests, but reserves the patrimony for his children), “Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,” &c.,Isa 65:13Isa 65:13 .

a Jas 1:6 , . Alternantibus sententiis secum disceptans. Budaeus.

b Altera manu fert lapidem, altera panem ostentat. Plaut.

c Gen 47:12 . , say the Septuagint; whereunto our Saviour seems to allude, Luk 12:42 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

9. ] There are two questions here, the first of which is broken off, after an anacoluthon. See ch. Mat 12:11 . The similitude of and also appears in ch. Mat 4:3 . Luke ( Luk 11:12 ) adds the egg and the scorpion.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 7:9 . answers to a state of mind which doubts whether God gives in answer to prayer at all, or at least gives what we desire. .: argument from analogy, from the human to the divine. The construction is broken. Instead of going on to say what the man of the parable will do, the sentence changes into a statement of what he will not do. Well indicated in W.H.’ [47] text by a after . The anacolouthon could be avoided by omitting the of T. R. after and before , when the sentence would stand: ., , . But the broken sentence, if worse grammar, is better rhetoric. . , he will not give him a stone, will he? Bread, stone; fish, serpent. Resemblance is implied, and the idea is that a father may refuse his child’s request but certainly will not mock him. Grotius quotes from Plautus: “Altera manu fert lapidem, panem ostentat altera”. Furrer suggests that by is meant not a literal serpent, but a scale-less fish, therefore prohibited to be eaten (Lev 11:12 ); serpent-like, found in the Sea of Galilee, three feet long, often caught in the nets, and of course thrown away like the dogfish of our waters.

[47] Westcott and Hort.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

if. See App-118.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

9.] There are two questions here, the first of which is broken off, after an anacoluthon. See ch. Mat 12:11. The similitude of and also appears in ch. Mat 4:3. Luke (Luk 11:12) adds the egg and the scorpion.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 7:9. , An interrogative particle, corresponding to the Latin an.[308]- , of you) Parables are especially popular, when they are addressed ad hominem.-, a man) One, that is, who is not clearly devoid of humanity.[309]-, bread) A stone, which is useless for food, resembles outwardly a loaf or roll. A snake, which is noxious, resembles a fish. A child can more easily do without fish than bread, and yet he obtains even a fish by asking for it. Fishes were given then to children, as apples are now.- a stone?) Lat. num lapidem, [such must be the force of [310] in this place]; for the parent, when asked, will not refuse to give either bread or a stone.

[308] The second part of a disjunctive interrogation.-ED.

[309] The arrangement of the words in the original brings this idea strongly out.-(I. B.)

[310] The interrogative particle, which expects a negative answer.-He will not give a stone, will he?-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Luk 11:11-13

Reciprocal: Deu 28:54 – his children Lam 3:16 – gravel Lam 4:4 – the young Mat 6:26 – your

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7:9

A humane father would not answer a son’s request for bread with a stone.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

[Will he give him a stone?] here that of Seneca comes into my mind; “Verrucosus called a benefit roughly given from a hard man, panem lapidosum, ‘stony bread.’ ”

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 7:9. Or, to view the matter in another light, comparing Gods willingness with that of a human father.

What man is there of you, more exactly, who is there among you, a man, a mere man.

Of whom, etc. In the Greek there are two questions, one broken off: Whom his son shall ask for bread (and who shallno), he will not give him a stone. The loaves or cakes, used in the East, resembled somewhat a smooth, flat stone. A deceptive answer is meant.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

In Mat 7:9-10 Jesus put the matter of Mat 7:7-8 in two other ways. Even though parents are evil (i.e., self-centered sinners) they do not typically give their children disappointing or dangerous counterfeits in response to requests for what is wholesome and nutritious. Much more will the heavenly Father who is pure goodness give gifts that are truly good to His children who request them (cf. Jer 29:13; Luk 11:11-13; Jas 1:5-8). This is another a fortiori argument (cf. Mat 6:26). Jesus’ disciples are in view as the children praying here (cf. Mat 5:45). The good things they request have direct connection with the kingdom, things such as ability to follow God faithfully in spite of opposition (cf. Act 4:29). God has ordained that we ask for the good gifts we need because this is the way He trains us, not because He is unaware or unconcerned about our needs (cf. Mat 6:8).

"What is fundamentally at stake is man’s picture of God. God must not be thought of as a reluctant stranger who can be cajoled or bullied into bestowing his gifts (Mat 6:7-8), as a malicious tyrant who takes vicious glee in the tricks he plays (Mat 7:9-10), or even as an indulgent grandfather who provides everything requested of him. He is the heavenly Father, the God of the kingdom, who graciously and willingly bestows the good gifts of the kingdom in answer to prayer." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 187.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)