​“…  let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).
​
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:1).
 
Although these scriptures might seem to conflict at first sight, we should remember that they record two things said on the same occasion by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. So it is unlikely that they really contradict each other.  As is so often the case, we simply need to look at the context of each scripture.
 
In Matthew 5:16 Jesus’ words were part of an analogy he made of the disciple as reflecting God’s light in a darkened world: 

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).

In this analogy we see that it is the “light” of God’s way that shines in our lives if we are walking according to his will. Notice that people seeing this “light” would glorify not us, but God (vs. 16).

Matthew 6:1, however, records words spoken in a totally different context:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:1-4).

In this case, Jesus was talking about the manner in which we give to others – that we should give discreetly and not for show or personal credit.  So the two scriptures have totally different contexts.   Matthew 5:16 is talking about the importance of good works in our lives, and Matthew 6:1 stresses that we must have a right motivation for our good works.   This means that while we are called to be a light to the world, clearly showing God’s way in our lives, our good works must always be done from a motivation of love and concern for others – not through any selfish motivation such as “looking good” or to appear “religious” or “spiritual.” 
​
While Matthew 5:16 talks about how we appear to others, Matthew 6:1 deals with how we appear to God.

Three accounts in the New Testament tell us how, on different occasions, Jesus healed individuals in what seem to be very strange ways.

In the first case, near Decapolis Jesus healed a man who was deaf and near-mute by putting his fingers into the man’s ears, then spitting and touching the man’s tongue (Mark 7:31-37). Later, in Bethsaida, he healed a blind man by spitting on the man’s eyes and putting his hands on him (Mark 8:22-26). On another occasion, in Jerusalem Jesus healed a man born blind by spitting on the ground, making mud with the saliva, and putting it on the man’s eyes (John 9:6).

Numerous suggestions have been made to explain why Jesus utilized such strange actions in the course of these healings.  Perhaps the most common explanation is that he was “recreating” the person’s hearing or sight using mud as a symbol of the original creation of man from the “dust of the earth” (Genesis 2:7). This might account for the possible reference to creation made by those who witnessed the miracle recorded in John: “Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind” (John 9:32 ESV).  But this may be no more than an expression (Acts 3:21, etc.), and the idea does not explain the use of saliva alone in the two accounts that do not mention mud. 

Another explanation is that just as he rejected human religious traditions in other cases, Jesus used mud in direct contradiction of Jewish traditions that prohibited healing on the Sabbath by mixing mud with spittle. This idea is based on the fact that the Mishnah specifically states  “To heal a blind man on the Sabbath it is prohibited to inject wine in his eyes. It is also prohibited to make mud with spittle and smear it on his eyes” (Shabbat 108:20), but apart from the fact that, again, only one of the three recorded miracles involved making mud, the Mishnah dates to after the time of Jesus.  It is even possible that the prohibition against healing with mud and spittle came about as a result of Christ’s miracle.

A better understanding of these miracles is gained by considering the evidence we find in the Book of  John.  It is important to remember that John’s Gospel does not simply follow the pattern of the other three Gospels which were written much earlier. Instead, John – who doubtless had seen the other Gospels – went to lengths to supplement their accounts with additional information that he remembered, but which the other Gospels did not include.

Keeping this in mind, it is important to note the context of John’s account. In John chapter 8 the apostle carefully records an extended argument between Jesus and the Jews who opposed him.  Throughout this account we see that Jesus repeatedly stressed his Sonship and relationship with the Father: “Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also”( John 8:19),  “They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father” (John 8:27, etc.).  At one point in this chapter the Jews even made a thinly veiled accusation against Jesus “…We are not illegitimate children…” (John 8:41), and Jesus’ response was to stress, once again, his true Sonship: “… If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me … My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me” (John 8:42, 54).

Now, getting back to the mud and spit miracles, we should note that saliva was widely believed to have healing properties in the ancient world. For example, the classical writers Celsus, Galen, and Pliny all mention its medicinal properties – especially the saliva of distinguished persons – and it is even said that the Emperor Vespasian was urged to spit in the eyes of a blind man in order to heal him.  So it is perhaps not surprising that the Jews of the First Century seem to have had a tradition that the saliva of a legitimate, firstborn heir could have healing properties against several infirmities – including blindness (Talmud, Bava Batra 126b).

So given the widespread beliefs in its medicinal properties, it is possible that Jesus used saliva in some of his healings as a physical sign that he was healing the person involved.  But the background  of  Jesus’ legitimacy and Sonship found throughout John chapter 8 suggests that it was this issue that was the specific context for the healing in John 9 – and perhaps the other, related situations.  By using saliva in these healings, Jesus demonstrated not only his ability to perform miracles, but also that he was indeed a legitimate and firstborn son – the Firstborn Son of God.

​“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good … she took some and ate it…”  (Genesis 3:6, emphases added).

And so began the story of human gratification – a pattern that is repeated  over and over in the biblical story:

“The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful  and they took them”  (Genesis 6:2, emphases added).

“When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her …”  (Genesis 34:2, emphases added).

In all of these examples – and many more – we see the same pattern repeated.  The  Hebrew words for “saw” (ra’ah), “good”or “beautiful” (tov), and “took” (laqach) are identical in each case.  We see the same pattern of  stimulus and response, seeing and taking – with essentially nothing between them.

We have expressions for this pattern today –  “impulse buying,”  “see and grab,”  “instant gratification,” and so on.  The very number of such expressions shows how common the pattern is in our society. Yet if we go back to the biblical accounts, we find something interesting. The pattern of see+take  or see+act so often recorded in the narrative books of the Bible is said almost invariably of those who rejected or did not know God.
 
When we look at the accounts of those who followed God, we see stories that just as invariably show a different pattern: “see+consider+act.”  This pattern is often clear in stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, Gideon, and other servants of God.  Look at a single example:

In 1 Samuel 24, we find the story of how David saw an opportunity to kill Saul, who was hunting him, but after brief reflection, did not.   This has everything to do with instant gratification.  David had already been anointed to replace Saul as king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), and it was only a matter of time before David would become king in Saul’s place.  In this instance there was a very rational reason to go along with the drive of “see+take.” Yet David resisted the desire to take Saul’s life, considered the situation, and waited once he saw God’s will in the matter (1 Samuel 24:3-6).
 
In examples like this we see the people of God placing thought and the application of knowledge between seeing and acting – and time and again they are credited for righteousness in doing so.  The nature of the opposite approach is also repeatedly made clear. Take a single example of that also:  “Desire without knowledge is not good— how much more will hasty feet miss the way!” (Proverbs 19:2).  We can see and desire, but if we do not think about what we need to consider – apply knowledge to the situation – then our hasty feet “miss the way” which is so often a synonym for sin throughout the Hebrew Bible.

This pattern of delayed versus instant gratification, of placing thought between seeing and taking or other forms of action, is not just something that applies to wise shopping habits – it is a principle as broad as life itself.  Interestingly, while God doubtless does not need to delay before acting, we find scriptures that indicate that he nevertheless does pause and consider. We see him waiting before acting  in the days of Noah (1 Peter 3:20) and in the days of Lot (Luke 17:28).  And we see God’s way of seeing, considering, and then acting extolled in the Psalms:  “But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted; you consider their grief and take it in hand …” (Psalm 10:14, emphases added).
​
Even God considers between seeing and acting.  How much more should we!