In Matthew 15:31, the Updated American Standard Version reads: “So that the crowd marveled as they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.” This verse closes a concentrated healing scene in Matthew 15:29-31, where Jesus heals multitudes near the Sea of Galilee. The wording is vivid and tightly ordered. Matthew does not merely state that cures occurred. He arranges the healed conditions in observable form, showing the crowd watching the immediate reversal of human affliction. The textual issue centers on one participial expression in the sequence, namely whether the text originally described the crowd as seeing “the mute speaking,” “the deaf hearing,” or “the deaf hearing and speaking.”

The Greek Form of the Verse

The central clause in dispute is βλέποντας κωφοὺς λαλούντας, “seeing the mute speaking,” as reflected in the printed NU text and in the UASV rendering. The alternative form βλέποντας κωφοὺς ἀκούοντας would mean “seeing the deaf hearing,” while the conflated reading βλέποντας κωφοὺς ἀκούοντας καὶ λαλούντας would mean “seeing the deaf hearing and speaking.” The context is important. Matthew 15:30 describes great crowds bringing “the lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute, and many others,” and Jesus healed them. Matthew 15:31 then presents the crowd’s reaction by describing visible evidence of those cures. The structure is not random. It is built around witnessed transformation: those formerly unable now visibly perform what their condition had prevented.

This pattern stands in harmony with the prophetic background of Messiah’s works. Isaiah 35:5-6 says, “Then the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.” Jesus Himself points to such works in Matthew 11:4-5: “Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” Luke 7:22 repeats the same cluster of messianic signs. Matthew 15:31 therefore belongs to a larger biblical pattern in which miraculous restorations authenticate the Messiah and direct praise to Jehovah. Yet Matthew’s wording in this verse is not a mere quotation of Isaiah 35:5-6 or Matthew 11:4-5. It is a narrative description of what the onlookers actually saw.

The Variant Readings and Their Documentary Weight

The reading λαλούντας, “speaking,” is supported by a substantial line of Greek witnesses, including C, L, W, Δ, and 0233, and it stands behind the NU text. Another line of transmission, represented by Codex Vaticanus and a smaller group of witnesses, reads ἀκούοντας, “hearing.” A third group preserves the expanded form “hearing and speaking,” which is best understood as a conflation of the two shorter readings. That means the textual problem is not simply a choice between two equal alternatives. It involves a simpler reading, a rival alternative, and a later combination that shows scribes were aware of more than one form of the verse.

The draft you supplied contains a contradiction at precisely this point. It first identifies λαλούντας as the reading of the NU text and then attributes ἀκούοντας to B, yet later says that the first reading has the support of the earliest manuscript, B, and then states that the original was changed to “speaking” in manuscripts supporting the NU text. Those statements cannot all be true at the same time. The evidence must be handled in a cleaner sequence. The earliest and best-known witness named in the draft for the alternative reading is B, not for λαλούντας. Therefore, if one argues for ἀκούοντας, the case must be made openly from B and the smaller supporting group. If one argues for λαλούντας, the case must explain why B’s narrower reading is secondary despite its antiquity.

Documentary method does not mean that one early manuscript automatically settles every variation unit. Early witnesses must be weighed, not merely counted, and their readings must be examined within the full transmission pattern. A reading supported by an early codex may still be secondary when it appears in a narrow stream and when another reading displays wider and more coherent transmission. That is especially true where the rival reading better explains the rise of the other forms. In Matthew 15:31, the broad transmissional presence of λαλούντας and the plainly secondary character of the conflated reading place real pressure on ἀκούοντας. The question is which shorter reading most naturally generated the others.

Why “Speaking” Best Explains the Text

The sequence of Matthew 15:31 favors “the mute speaking.” The verse is framed by what the crowd saw: they saw the mute speaking, the crippled restored, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. Every element in the sequence is outward and immediately perceptible. Speaking can be seen and heard in a public healing scene. Walking can be seen. Sight restored can be shown by behavior. Bodily wholeness can be recognized. But “seeing the deaf hearing” is markedly less natural. Hearing is real, but it is not normally something a crowd visually observes in the same direct way. One may infer that a deaf person now hears from his responses, but the wording becomes less immediate and less vivid.

That point matters because Matthew has composed this sentence as a chain of visible proofs. The participles are not abstract theological labels. They are dramatic evidences. The evangelist is presenting the crowd’s astonishment before concrete, public miracles. In that setting, λαλούντας is not only intelligible. It is precisely the kind of wording expected. The mute, who had been unable to speak, are now seen speaking. That wording also pairs well with the nearby narrative of Matthew 9:32-33, where a mute demoniac is healed and “the mute man spoke.” In Matthew’s Gospel, muteness healed is regularly manifested by speech.

There is also a strong transcriptional explanation for the rise of ἀκούοντας. The adjective κωφός can denote one who is deaf, mute, or deaf-mute. Because of that semantic range, a scribe could easily think in terms of the restoration of hearing rather than speech. Further, Isaiah 35:5 emphasizes that “the ears of the deaf” will be unstopped, and Matthew 11:5 says “the deaf hear.” A copyist shaped by those familiar scriptural and Gospel formulations could replace λαλούντας with ἀκούοντας, not out of malice, but out of interpretive clarification. Once ἀκούοντας entered the tradition, another scribe, unwilling to lose either concept, could expand the line to “hearing and speaking.” That expanded reading wears the marks of secondary combination. It solves the perceived deficiency by preserving both results of the healing.

The Semantic Range of κωφός and Scribal Clarification

The word κωφός is the hinge on which the variant turns. In Greek usage, it can point to muteness, deafness, or the broader condition of one whose ability to hear and speak is impaired. Because the term itself carries that semantic flexibility, scribes had room to interpret the miracle in different directions. One copyist might think first of speech being restored. Another might think first of hearing being restored. Yet Matthew’s narrative setting narrows the likely intention. He is not defining the medical extent of the disability with technical precision. He is portraying what astonished the crowd. Their amazement arose from what they could directly witness.

That is why “the mute speaking” fits so well. It preserves the sharp dramatic contrast between former incapacity and present ability. Isaiah 35:6 says “the tongue of the mute will shout for joy,” and that language resonates closely with Matthew’s wording. Even though Matthew 11:5 uses “the deaf hear,” Matthew 15:31 does not need to repeat the same formulation. The evangelist is free to present a different, though related, outward sign of messianic restoration. In fact, variation of expression is exactly what one expects in authentic narrative writing. Scribes, by contrast, often prefer familiar biblical formulas. That tendency explains why a reader thinking of Isaiah 35:5 or Matthew 11:5 might adjust the text toward hearing.

The conflated reading confirms that scribes sensed the semantic breadth of κωφός and attempted to resolve it by preserving both outcomes. Such conflations arise when a later copyist encounters two forms of a text and chooses to combine them rather than decide between them. In this verse, “hearing and speaking” reads like an explanatory expansion. It is fuller, smoother in one sense, and more explicit. Yet that very fullness betrays its secondary character. The shorter readings are prior. Among those shorter readings, λαλούντας is the one that best suits the syntax, the visual focus, and the rise of the other forms.

The Narrative Setting and the Praise of the God of Israel

Matthew 15:31 does not stop with amazement. It says the crowd “glorified the God of Israel.” That designation is significant. In Matthew 9:8, after another healing, the crowds “glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” Here the wording is more specific. The title “the God of Israel” strongly suits a setting where the audience included Gentiles or a mixed population. Mark 7:31 places the broader movement of this ministry in the region of the Decapolis, an area with a substantial Gentile presence. In such a setting, the crowd’s response is not a vague religious feeling. It is recognition that the God identified with Israel, Jehovah, is the One acting through Jesus.

This phrase also guards the Christological balance of the scene. The miraculous works performed by Jesus are unmistakably divine in origin, but the text records the crowd directing glory to the God of Israel. That does not diminish the Son. It locates His ministry exactly where Matthew places it throughout the Gospel: Jesus acts in perfect union with His Father’s will, and His mighty works bear witness that Jehovah’s kingdom activity is present among the people. Matthew 12:22 records another exorcistic and healing act involving blindness and muteness. Matthew regularly presents such miracles as signs that the messianic age has arrived. Here, as elsewhere, the response of faith is to glorify the true God who stands behind the work.

The title “God of Israel” also carries covenantal force. It anchors Jesus’ miracles in the history of Jehovah’s dealings with His people. The God who opened the sea, fed Israel in the wilderness, and spoke through the prophets is the same God whose power is now displayed in the ministry of His Son. This is why the allusion to Isaiah 35 is so important. The restoration of sight, mobility, hearing, and speech is not an isolated display of compassion only. It is the fulfillment of what the prophets had promised regarding the age of deliverance. Matthew’s wording, therefore, is both textual and theological. The most probable original reading, “the mute speaking,” serves that theology by portraying an immediately visible fulfillment of Jehovah’s restorative power.

Translation and Exegetical Force in the UASV

The UASV rendering captures the force of the likely original Greek well: “So that the crowd marveled as they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.” The translation preserves the participial rhythm of the Greek and allows the reader to feel the accumulating effect of the healings. One condition after another is overturned before the eyes of the multitude. The crowd is not reacting to rumor or later testimony. They are reacting to direct observation. That is why the wording “the mute speaking” is so strong. It is immediate, public, and undeniable.

This reading also maintains the coherence of Matthew’s literary style. He prefers compact, forceful narrative statements that move from event to reaction with little wasted motion. The verse is almost cinematic. The crowd sees, marvels, and glorifies. The miracles are not recounted as abstractions but as restored human functions. Speech, health, walking, and sight all reappear in living bodies before witnesses. That sequence becomes less pointed if “hearing” replaces “speaking,” because the visual frame is weakened. The UASV is right to preserve the wording that best suits the scene and the manuscript evidence taken as a whole.

At the exegetical level, the verse also reinforces the public nature of Jesus’ ministry. These are not hidden rites or private claims. They are observable acts open to communal verification. That point matters in textual criticism because scribes often altered texts in the direction of familiarity, doctrinal clarity, or harmonization. Here the likely movement was from the narratively sharp “speaking” to the scripturally familiar “hearing,” followed then by an even fuller conflation. The original reading remained the one most rooted in the scene itself. Matthew presents the crowd watching mute persons speak, and that visible restoration contributes to their glorifying the God of Israel.

You May Also Enjoy

Introduction to New Testament Textual Studies

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS