Matthew 14-28, Volume 33B (33) (Word Biblical Commentary) 9780310522119, 0310522110

Citation preview

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

Editorial Board O ld Testament Editor: Nancy L . deClaissé-Walford (2011 - ) New Testam ent Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 - )

Past Editors General Editors Ralph P. Martin (2012 - 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 - 2007)

David A. H ubbard (1977 - 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 - 1984)

Old Testament Editors: Jo h n D. W. Watts (1977 - 2011)

Jam es W. Watts (1997 - 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 - 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 - 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a

Genesis 1 - 15 Gordon J. W enham Genesis 16 - 50 Gordon J. W enham Exodus........................ Jo h n I. Durham Leviticus Jo h n E. Hartley Num bers Philip J. B udd D euteronom y 1:1 - 21:9, 2nd ed D uane L. Christensen 6b D euteronom y 21:10 - 34:12 D uane L. Christensen 7a Jo sh u a 1-12, 2nd ed Trent C. Butler 7b Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed. Trent C. Butler 8 Judges Trent C. Butler 9 Ruth - Esther Frederic W. Bush 10 1 Samuel, 2nd ed Ralph W. Klein 11 2 Samuel A. A. A nderson Simon J. Devries 12 1 Kings, 2nd e d .......... 13 2 Kings........................ ..................T. R. Hobbs 14 1 Chronicles Roddy Braun 15 2 Chronicles Raymond B Dillard 16 Ezra, Nehem iah . .H . G. M . Williamson 17 Jo b 1 - 20 David J. A. Clines David J. A. Clines 18a Job 21 - 3 7 .................. 18b Job 38 - 42 .................. David J. A. Clines 19 Psalms 1 - 50, 2nd ed Peter C Craigie, Marvin E. Tate Marvin E. Tate 20 Psalms 51 - 1 0 0 ......... Leslie C Allen 21 Psalms 101 - 150, rev ed R oland E. M urphy 22 Proverbs 23a Ecclesiastes R oland E. M urphy 23b Song o f Songs/L am entations . . . .D uane H. Garrett, Paul R. House Jo h n D. W. Watts 24 Isaiah 1 - 33, rev. ed. . Jo h n D. W. Watts 25 Isaiah 3 4 - 66, rev. e d . Peter C. Craigie, 26 Jerem iah 1 - 25 Page H Kelley, Joel F. D rinkard J r Gerald L. Keown, 27 Jerem iah 26 - 52 Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers *forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

28 Ezekiel 1 - 1 9 ............................ Leslie C. Allen 29 Ezekiel 20 - 4 8 .......................... Leslie C. Allen 30 Daniel Jo h n E. Goldingay 31 H osea - J o n a h * * ....................Douglas Stuart 32 Micah - M alachi**..................Ralph L. Smith 33a Matthew 1 - 13..................Donald A. H agner 33b Matthew 14 - 28............... Donald A. H agner 34a Mark 1 - 8:26** R obert A Guelich 34b Mark 8:27 - 16:20 ................... Craig A. Evans 35a Luke 1 - 9 :2 0 .............................Jo h n Nolland 35b Luke 9:21 - 18:34......................Jo h n Nolland 35c Luke 18:35 - 24:53....................Jo h n Nolland 36 John, 2nd ed. . . . George R. Beasley-Murray 37a Acts 1 - 1 4 * .........................Stephen J. Walton 37b Acts 15 - 28* Stephen J. Walton 38a Rom ans 1 - 8 Jam es D. G. D unn 38b Romans 9 - 1 6 ...................James D. G. D unn 39 1 Corinthians* Andrew D. Clarke 40 2 Corinthians, rev e d Ralph P. Martin 41 Galatians Richard N. Longenecker 42 Ephesians Andrew T. Lincoln 43 Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev by Ralph P Martin 44 Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O'Brien 45 1 & 2 T hessalonians**..................F. F. Bruce 46 Pastoral Epistles William D M ounce 47a Hebrews 1 - 8 .......................... William L. Lane 47b Hebrews 9 - 13........................William L. Lane 48 Jam es Ralph P Martin 49 1 Peter J Ramsey Michaels 50 Jude, 2 P e te r* * ........... Richard J. Bauckham 51 1, 2, 3, Jo h n , rev ed Stephen S Smalley 52a Revelation 1 - 5 David E Aune 52b Revelation 6 - 1 6 .......................David E. Aune 52c Revelation 17 - 2 2 ................... David E. Aune

WORD 33BBIBLICAL COMMENTARY Matthew 14-28

DONALD

a

. HAGNER

General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

0

ZONDERVAN®

ZONDERVAN Matthew 14 - 28, Volume 33B Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as Matthew 14 - 28. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson. Now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52211-9 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

9780310522119_Matt14_28_Vol33B_WBC.indd 4

5/12/15 3:52 PM

To Beverly

Contents Editorial Preface Author's Preface Abbreviations Commentary Bibliography General Bibliography

xiii xiv xv xxxi xxxiii

In t

xxxix xxxix xliii xlvi xlvi i 1 liii lvii lix lxiv lxv lxxi lxxiii lxxv

r o d u c t io n

About the Present Commentary The Papias Tradition concerning Matthew Matthew’s Sources Oral Tradition in the Gospel of Matthew The Structure of Matthew Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament The Genre and Purpose of Matthew Matthew’s Theology The Original Readers of Matthew The Sitz im Leben (“Life Setting”) of Matthew’s Community On Matthew’s “Anti-Judaism” Date and Provenance Authorship TEXT AND COMMENTARY a n d In f a n c y N a r r a t i v e s (1:1— 2:23) The Ancestry of Jesus (1:1-17) The Birth and Naming of Jesus (1:18-25) The Magi Worship the Newborn King (2:1-12) The Massacre of the Innocents and the Flight to Egypt (2:13-23) Th e Pr e pa r a t io n f o r t h e Mi n i s t r y (3:1-4:11) John the Baptist (3:1-12) The Baptism of jesus (3:13-17) The Temptation of jesus (4:1-11) Ga l i l e a n Mi n i s t r y (4:12-25) Jesus Begins His Ministry in Galilee (4:12-17) The Calling of the Disciples (4:18-22) The Ministry of jesus Encapsulated (4:23-25) Th e Fi r s t D i s c o u r s e : Th e Se r m o n o n t h e Mo u n t (5:1-7:29) The Setting of the Sermon (5:1-2) Introduction (5:3-16) The Foundation of Righteous Living: The Beatitudes (5:3-12) The Essence of Discipleship: Salt and Light (5:13-16) The Main Body of the Sermon (5:17-7:12) The Relation between the Old and the New Righteousness (5:17-48) Continuity with the Old (5:17-20)

T h e Bi r t h

1 2 13 22 32 43 43 53 60 71 71 74 78 82 84 87 87 97 102 102 102

viii

Co n t e n t s

The Surpassing of the Old: The Six Antitheses (5:21-48) On Murder (5:21-26) On Adultery (5:27-30) On Divorce (5:31-32) On Oaths (5:33-37) On Retaliation (5:38-42) On Loving O ne’s Enemies (5:43-48) Outward vs. Inward Righteousness (6:1-18) Almsgiving (6:1-4) Prayer and the Lord’s Prayer (6:5-15) The Setting of Prayer (6:5-6) On the Right Way to Pray: “The Lord’s Prayer” (6:7-15) Fasting (6:16-18) Dependence upon God (6:19-34) Serving God Rather Than Wealth (6:19-24) The Disciple and Anxiety (6:25-34) Various Teachings and the Golden Rule (7:1-12) On Not Judging Others (7:1-5) Discernment in Proclaiming the Gospel (7:6) The Answering Father (7:7-11) The Golden Rule (7:12) Conclusion (7:13-27) The Two Ways (7:13-14) The False and the Genuine (7:15-23) Warning concerning False Prophets (7:15-20) The Insufficiency of the Charismata (7:21-23) The Parable of the Two Builders (7:24-27) The Astonishment of the Crowds (7:28-29) T h e Au t h o r it a t iv e D e e d s o f t h e Me s s ia h (8:1-9:38) The Healing of a Leper (8:1-4) The Curing of the Centurion’s Son (8:5-13) The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law and Others (8:14-17) Two Comments on Discipleship (8:18-22) Excursus: Son of Man The Stilling of the Sea (8:23-27) Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs (8:28-34) The Healing of a Paralytic (9:1-8) The Call of Matthew and a Dinner Party with Tax Collectors and Sinners (9:9-13) Combining New and Old (9:14-17) The Healing of the Hemorrhaging Woman and the Raising of the Ruler’s Daughter (9:18-26) The Healing of Two Blind Men (9:27-31) The Healing of the Mute Demoniac (9:32-34) A Summary and the Call for Workers (9:35-38) T h e Se c o n d D is c o u r s e : T h e M is s io n a r y D is c o u r s e (10:1-11:1) The Empowering of the Twelve Apostles (10:1-4) Mission Instructions (10:5-15)

110 113 118 121 126 129 132 136 136 141 141 143 153 155 155 160 167 167 170 172 175 177 177 180 180 184 189 192 195 196 200 207 211 213 219 223 229 235 240 245 251 255 258 262 263 267

Contents

The Experience of Persecution (10:16-23) The Maligning of Both Teacher and Disciples (10:24-25) Have No Fear of Your Persecutors (10:26-31) Confession and Denial (10:32-33) Division and Discipleship (10:34-39) A Concluding Note on Receiving the Servants of Christ (10:40-11:1) Th e N e g a t iv e Re s po n s e t o Je s u s (11:2-12:50) Jesus’ Answer to the Baptist’s Question (11:2-6) Jesus’ Estimate of jo h n the Baptist (11:7-15) The Dissatisfaction of Israel (11:16-19) Oracles of Judgm ent (11:20-24) The Mystery of Election and the Central Significance of the Son (11:25-27) A Renewed Invitation (11:28-30) Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (12:1-8) Healing a Withered Hand on the Sabbath (12:9-14) The Gentle, Healing Servant (12:15-21) Can Beelzebul Be against Himself? (12:22-30) The Question of Unforgivable Sin (12:31-32) Speaking Good and Evil (12:33-37) The Sign of Jonah (12:38-42) The Parable of the Returning Demons (12:43-45) The True Family of Jesus (12:46-50) T h e T h ir d D is c o u r s e : T e a c h in g in Pa r a b l e s (13:1-58) The Parable of the Soils (13:1-9) The Purpose of Parables (13:10-17) The Explanation of the Parable of the Soils (13:18-23) The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (13:24-30) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32) The Parable of the Leavened Loaves and a Further Comment on the Reason for the Parables (13:33-35) The Explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (13:36-43) The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (13:44-46) The Parable of the Dragnet (13:47-50) The Scribe Trained for the Kingdom: The End of the Discourse (13:51-52) The Unbelief of the People of Nazareth (13:53-58) Fu r

t h er t he

Min is t r y a n d C o n f r o n t a t io n w it h Re l ig io u s Au t h o r it ie s (14:1-16:20)

The Fate of jo h n the Baptist (14:1-12) The Feeding of the Five Thousand (14:13-21) Walking on the Water (14:22-33) Healing of the Sick: A Summary Passage (14:34-36) Jesus’ Criticism of the Pharisees (15:1-11) Explanation of the Criticism of the Pharisees (15:12-20) The Faith of the Canaanite Woman (15:21-28) Healings on the Mountain (15:29-31) The Feeding of the Four Thousand (15:32-38)

ix

274 281 283 287 289 294 298 298 302 309 311 315 322 326 331 335 339 345 348 351 355 358 361 365 369 376 381 384 387 391 395 398 400 403 409 409 414 419 425 427 433 438 443 447

Co n t e n t s

X

The Seeking of a Sign (15:39-16:4) The Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5-12) Peter’s Confession and Commissioning (16:13-20) Th e Tu r

n in g

P o i n t : T h e An n o u n c e m e n t

of t he

C r o s s (16:21-17:27)

The First Announcem ent of the Suffering and Death of the Messiah (16:21-23) The Path of Discipleship (16:24-28) The Transfiguration of Jesus (17:1-8) The Coming of Elijah (17:9-13) The Healing of the Epileptic Boy by Jesus after the Disciples’ Failure (17:14-20[21]) The Second Passion Prediction (17:22-23) Paying the Temple Tax (17:24-27) T h e Fo u r

t h D is c o u r s e : Lif e in t h e o f t h e Kin g d o m (18:1-35)

C o m m u n it

452 456 461 476 476 481 488 495 500 506 508

y

Greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven (18:1-4) Warning against Causing Others or Allowing Oneself to Stumble (18:5-9) The Father’s Concern That No Disciple Perish (18:10-14) Handling Matters of Church Discipline (18:15-20) The Necessity of Forgiveness: The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (18:21-35) O n T h e Wa y t o J e r u s a l e m : I n c r e a s in g C o n f r o n t a t io n (19:1-20:34) Beginning the Journey (19:1-2) The Question of Divorce (19:3-12) Jesus and the Little Children (19:13-15) The Rich Young Man (19:16-22) Can the Rich Enter the Kingdom of Heaven? (19:23-26) The Rewards of the Disciples (19:27-30) The Parable of the Vineyard Workers (20:1-16) The Third Prediction of Jesus’ Suffering and Death (20:17-19) A Request for Positions of H onor (20:20-28) Two Blind Men Receive Their Sight (20:29-34) T h e La s t Da y s in J e r u s a l e m (21:1-22:46) The Dramatic Entry into Jerusalem (21:1-11) The Son of David in the Temple (21:12-17) The Cursing of the Fig Tree (21:18-22) The Question about Jesus’ Authority (21:23-27) The Parable of Two Sons (21:28-32) The Parable of the Rented Vineyard (21:33-46) The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (22:1-14) Tribute to Caesar? (22:15-22) Whose Wife Will She Be in the Resurrection (22:23-33) Which Is the Great Commandment of the Law? (22:34-40) David’s Greater Son (22:41-46) Ca s t ig a t io n o f t h e Sc r ib e s a n d P h a r is e e s (23:1-39) The Pharisees’ Pride and the Disciples’ Humility (23:1-12)

514 515 519 524 528 534 542 542 543 551 553 559 562 567 573 576 583 589 589 597 603 607 611 615 624 633 637 643 648 653 655

Contents

XI

The Seven Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees (23:13-33) Appendix to the Seventh Woe (23:34-36) The Lament over Jerusalem (23:37-39) T h e Fif t

h D is c o u r s e : T h e D e s c t r u c t io n o f t h e a n d t h e E n d o f t h e W o r l d (24:1-25:46)

662 673 678

T e m pl e

682 The Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple and the Disciples’ Question (24:1-3) 685 The Beginning of Birth Pangs (24:4-8) 689 Persecution and Proclamation before the End (24:9-14) 692 Instructions to Flee from Jerusalem (24:15-22) 696 The Claims of Pseudo-Christs and False Prophets (24:23-28) 703 The Return of the Son of Man (24:29-36) 708 Excursus: Imminence, Delay, and Matthew s βυθέως 711 Uncertainty concerning the Time of the Return of the Son of Man (24:37-44) 717 The Faithful and Wicked Servants (24:45-51) 721 The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (25:1-13) 725 The Parable about Fulfilling Responsibility (25:14-30) 730 The Last Judgm ent (25:31-46) 737 T h e St o r y o f J e s u s ’ D e a t h a n d Re s u r r e c t io n (26:1-28:20) 748 The Plot to Kill Jesus Gains Momentum (26:1-5) 752 The Anointing of Jesus (26:6-13) 755 The Treachery of Judas (26:14-16) 759 Preparations for the Passover (26:17-19) 762 Disclosure of the Betrayer (26:20-25) 765 Institution of the Eucharist (26:26-30) 768 The Prediction of the Falling away of the Disciples and the Denial of Peter (26:31-35) 775 Jesus’ Struggle in Gethsemane (26:36-46) 778 Jesus Taken into Custody (26:47-56) 786 Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (26:57-68) 791 Peter’s Denial of Jesus (26:69-75) 803 Jesus Is Handed over to Pilate (27:1-2) 808 Judas and the Blood Money (27:3-10) 809 Jesus Arraigned before Pilate (27:11-14) 816 The Decision for Barabbas and against Jesus (27:15-23) 819 The Question of Guilt in the Crucifixion of Jesus (27:24-26) 825 The Mocking of Jesus by the Roman Soldiers (27:27-31) 829 The Crucifixion (27:32-37) 831 Mocking of the Crucified One (27:38-44) 836 The Death of Jesus (27:45-50) 841 Spectacular Events Following the Death of Jesus (27:51-54) 846 The Women at the Cross (27:55-56) 853 The Burial of Jesus (27:57-61) 855 The Posting of the Guard at the Tomb (27:62-66) 860 The Resurrection Narrative (28:1-20) 865 The Announcement of the Resurrection to the Women at the Tomb (28:1-7) 865

xii

CONTENTS

The Appearance of the Risen Jesus to the Women (28:8-10) The Jewish Authorities Concoct a Story (28:11-15) The Appearance of Jesus to the Eleven in Galilee and the Great Commission (28:16-20) Indexes

871 875 878 891

Editorial Preface The launching of the Word Biblical Commentarybrings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to the theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. David A. Hubbard Glenn W. Barker† Old Testament: John D. W. Watts New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

General Editors:

Author’s Preface Since the publication of this second volume occurs nearly two full years after the first volume, a few fresh prefatory remarks are in order. In the preparation of this volume I have severely missed the two major, multivolume Matthew commentaries that were my constant companions and dialogue partners in the final stages of the preparation of the first volume, namely that of Ulrich Luz (chaps. 1-7 were available in English; chaps. 8-17 were available in German) and that of Davies and Allison (chaps. 1-18 were available in two volumes). On the other hand, for the passion narrative I have been grateful to have available the new, masterly two-volume commentary by R. E. Brown, TheDeath of the Messiah. These volumes have enriched my study of Matthew in much the same way that Brown’s comparable commentary on The Birth of the Messiah was an aid in the writing of the early chapters of the first volume. Many of the persons who were thanked in the preface to the first volume deserve thanks again here. Two new names, however, deserve special mention in connection with the second volume: my doctoral student, Steve Wilkinson, for superbly compiling the indexes that appear at the end of this volume, and also doctoral student Max Lee, for research help in the passion and resurrection narratives. Thanks must also be given again specifically to Professor Ralph P. Martin, Dr. Lynn Losie, and Ms. Melanie McQuere for their editorial work. And again I express my admiration and thanks to the staff of the word-processing office at Fuller Seminary, Michael Kennedy, Anne White, and especially Susan Carlson Wood, who patiently and expertly put most of the present volume into its present shape. Finally, again warm thanks are due to my wife, Beverly, to whom this commentary is dedicated. I am deeply grateful for her unfailing love and support, not only during the completion of this project but in all circumstances and at all times. Well, yes, I should also like to offer half-hearted thanks to my colleagues and friends at Fuller Seminary, who in celebration of the completion of the commentary prepared a mock Festschrift for me entitled Did You Not Believe That I Would Complete It?in which essays explored, among other imponderables, the problem of “delay and imminence” in the appearance of the second volume. To them and all other friendly skeptics I now say: “O ye of little faith!” Donald A. Hagner July 1995 Fuller Theological Seminary Pasadena, California

Abbreviations

A. General Abbreviations

A ad Akkad.

ft Ap. Lit. Apoc. Aq. Arab. Aram. B C c. cent. cf. chap(s). cod., codd. contra D dat. DSS ed. e.g. et al. ET EV fem. frag. FS ft. gen. Gr. hap. kg. Heb. Hitt. ibid. id.

Codex Alexandrinus comment on Akkadian Codex Sinaiticus Apocalyptic Literature Apocrypha Aquila’s Greek Translation o f the OT Arabic Aramaic Codex Vaticanus Codex Ephraemi Syri circa, about century confer, compare chapter (s) codex, codices in contrast to Codex Bezae dative Dead Sea Scrolls edited by, editor (s) exempli gratia, for example et alii, and others English translation English Versions of the Bible feminine fragments Festschrift, volume written in honor of foot, feet genitive Greek hapax kgomenon, sole occurrence Hebrew Hittite ibidem, in the same place idem, the same

i.e. impf. infra Jos. lat lit. LXX masc. mg. MS(S) MT n. N.B. n.d. Nestle

no. n.s. NT obs. o.s. OT p., pp. pace / / , par(s). par. passim pi. Pseudep.

Q

q.v. rev. Rom. RVmg Sam. sc. Sem.

id est, that is imperfect below Josephus Latin literally Septuagint masculine margin manuscript (s) Masoretic text (of the Old Testament) note nota bene, note well no date Nestle (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece26, rev. K. and B. Aland number new series New Testament obsolete old series Old Testament page, pages with due respect to, but differing from parallel (s) paragraph elsewhere plural Pseudepigrapha Quelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels) quod vide, which see revised by, reviser, revision Roman Revised Version margin Samaritan recension scilicet, that is to say Semitic

XVI

sing. Sumer. s.v. sy Symm. Tg. T heod. TR tr.

Abbreviations

singular Sum erian sub verbo, u n d er the word Syriac Symmachus Targum T h eodotion Textus Receptus translator, translated by

Ugar. UP u.s.

Ugaritic University Press ut supra, as above verse, verses Vulgate videlicet, nam ely varia lectio, alternative reading volume times (2x = two times, etc.)

v, v

vg viz. v.l. vol. X

For abbreviations o f G reek MSS used in Notes, see Nestle26. B . A b b r e v ia tio n s f o r T ra n s la tio n s a n d P a ra p h r a s e s

AmT

ASV

AV GNB JB JPS KJV Knox

Smith and G oodspeed, The Complete Bible, A n American Translation A m erican S tandard Version, American Revised Version (1901) A uthorized Version = KJV G ood News Bible = Today’s English Version Jerusalem Bible Jewish Publication Society, The Holy Scriptures King Jam es Version (1611) = AV R. A. Knox, The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Original

M offatt NAB NEB NIV NJB NRSV Phillips REB RSV RV W ey Wms

J. Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible (NT 1913) T he New A m erican Bible T he New English Bible T he New Intern atio n al Version (1978) New Jerusalem Bible (1985) New Revised Standard Version (1989) J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English Revised English Bible Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, O T 1952, Apoc. 1957) Revised Version, 1881-85 R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech C. B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People

C . A b b r e v ia tio n s o f C o m m o n ly U s e d P e r io d ic a ls , R e fe r e n c e W o rk s, a n d S e r ia ls

AARSR

AAS AASOR

AB AbrN ACNT

A m erican Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Acta apostolical sedis Annual of the American Schools o f O riental Research A nchor Bible Abr-Nahrain Augsburg C om m entary on the New Testam ent

AcOr ACW a d a j

AER AfO AGJU

Acta orientalia A ncient Christian Writers A nnual of the D epartm ent o f A ntiquities o f Jo rd an American Ecclesiastical Review Archiv fü r Orientforschung A rbeiten zur G eschichte des antiken Judentum s u n d des U rchristentum s

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s AGSU

AH AHW AJA AJAS AJBA AJBI AJP AJSL AJT ALBO ALGHJ

ALUOS AnBib AnBoll ANEP ANESTP

ANET ANF Ang A nnThéol An O r ANQ ANRW ANTF ANTJ

Anton

A rbeiten zur G eschichte des Spätjudentum s u nd U rchristentum s F. Rosenthal, A n Aramaic Handbook W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Arabic Studies Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology A nnual o f the Japanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Philology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature American Journal of Theology A nalecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia A rbeiten zur L iteratur u n d Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentum s A nnual of Leeds University O riental Society A nalecta biblica A nalecta Bollandiana J. B. P ritchard (ed.), Andent Near East in Pictures J. B. P ritchard (ed.), Ancient Near East Supplementary Texts and Pictures J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts T he Ante-Nicene Fathers Angelicum L ’A n n ée theologique A nalecta orientalia Andover Newton Quarterly Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt A rbeiten zur N eutestam entlichen Textforschung A rbeiten zum N euen T estam ent u n d zum Ju d en tu m Antonianum

ANTZ

AOAT AOS AP APOT

ARG ARM ArOr ARW ASB ASNU ASS AsSeign ASSR A STI ATAbh ATANT

ATD ATDan ATR AusBR AUSS

BA BAC BAGD

xvii A rbeiten zur N eutestam entlichen Theologie u n d Zeitgeschichte A lter O rient u n d Altes Testam ent Am erican O riental Series J. M arouzeau (ed.), L ’A n n ée philologique R. H. Charles (ed .), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Archiv fü r Reformationsgeschichte Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientalni Archiv fü r Religionswissenschaft Austin Seminary Bulletin Acta sem inarii neotestam entici upsaliensis Acta sanctae sedis Assemblies du Seigneur Archives des sciences sociales des religions A nnual of the Swedish Theological Institute Alttestam entliche A bhandlungen A bhandlungen zur T heologie des Alten u n d N euen Testaments Das Alte Testam ent Deutsch Acta theologica danica Anglican Theological Review Australian Biblical Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblioteca de autores cristianos W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ET, ed. W. F. A rn d t an d F. W. Gingrich; 2d ed. rev. F. W. Gingrich an d F. W.

xviii

BARev BASOR BASP BBB BBET BCSR BDB

BDF

BDR

BeO BETL

BEvT BFCT BGBE BHH BHK BHS BHT Bib BibB BibLeb BibNot BibOr BibRev BibS(F) BibS(N)

Abbreviations

D anker (University of Chicago, 1979) Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists B onner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese u n d Theologie Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament E Blass, A Debrunner, and R W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the N T F. Blass, A. D ebrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch Bibbia e oriente Bibliotheca ephem eridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Beiträge zur F örderung christlicher T heologie Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Biblisch-Historisches Handwörterbuch R. Kittel, Biblia hebraica Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Beiträge zur historischen T heologie Biblica Biblische Beiträge Bibel und Leben Biblische Notizen Biblica et orientalia Bible Review Biblische Studien (Freiburg, 1895-) Biblische Studien

BIES BJFAO BiTod BJRL

BJS BK BKAT BLE BLit BNTC BO BR BSac BSO(A)S

BSR BT BTB BTS BTZ BU BVC BW BWANT

BZ BZAW BZNW BZRGG CAD

CAH CAT CB

(N eukirchen, 1951-) Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot) Bulletin de l Institut francais d’archeäologie orientale The Bible Today Bulletin of theJohn Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer K om m entar: Altes T estam ent Bulletin de littérature ecclesiastique Bibel und Liturgie Black’s New T estam ent C om m entaries Bibliotheca orientalis Biblical Research Bibliotheca Sacra Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies Bibliothéque de sciences religieuses The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible et terre saint Berliner theologische Zeitschrif t Biblische U ntersuchungen Bible et vie chrétienne Biblical World Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten u n d N euen T estam ent Biblische Zeitschrif t Beihefte zur ZAW Beihefte zur ZNW Beihefte zur ZRGG The Assynan Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Cambridge Ancient History C om m entaire de l’Ancien Testam ent Cultura biblica

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s CBQ CBQMS CCath CChr CE CGTC CGTSC

CH CHR ChrTod CIG CII CIL CIS CJT CNT ConB ConBNT Concil ConNT CQ CQR CRAIBL

CRev CrQ CSCO CSEL CTA

CTJ CTM CTQ

Catholic Biblical (Quarterly CBQ M onograph Series Corpus C atholicorum Corpus Christianorum Cahiers Évangiles Cam bridge G reek Testam ent C om m entary Cam bridge G reek Testam e n t for Schools and Colleges Church History Catholic Historical Review Christianity Today Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Canadian Journal of Theology Com m entaire du Nouveau Testam ent C oniectanea biblica C oniectanea biblica, New T estam ent Concilium Coniectanea neotestamentica Church (Quarterly Church Quarterly Review Comptes rendus de TAcadémie des inscriptions et belleslettres Classical Review Crozier (Quarterly Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latihorum A. H erdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques Calvin TheologicalJournal Concordia Theological Monthly Concordia Theological Quarterly

xix

CTR CurTM

Criswell Theological Review Currents in Theology and Mission

DACL

Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Diakonia C. -F. Jean a n d j. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions semitiques de Touest Discoveries in the Ju d ean D esert J. B. G reen and S. McKnight (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels Doctrine and Life D. W. Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times Downside Review Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum Dictionnaire de théologie catholique Dansk teologisk tidsskrift Dunwoodie Review

DBSup Diak DISO

DJD DJG

DL D O TT

DR DS DTC D TT DunRev TAJT EBib EBT EcR EDNT

EF EHAT EKKNT

EKL EnchBib Encjud EpR ER

East Asia Journal of Theology Etudes bibliques Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology Ecclesiastical Review H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), ExegeticalDictionary of the New Testament Etudes franciscaines Exegetisches H andbuch zum Alten Testam ent Evangelisch-katholischer K om m entar zum N euen Testam ent Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Enchiridion biblicum Encyclopedia judaica (1971) Epworth Review Ecumenical Review

XX

E rß EstBib ETL E TR ETS EV Εν] EvK Ev Q E vT EW NT

Exp ExpTim FB FBBS FC FRLANT

FTS FV

Abbreviations

Eränos Jahrbuch Estudios biblicos Ephemendes theologicae lovanienses Etudes théologiques et religieuses E rfu rter Theologische Studien Esprit et Vie EvangelicalJournal Evangelische K om m entar Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Expositor The Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Facet Books, Biblical Series Fathers o f the C hurch Forschungen zur Religion u n d L iteratur des Alten u n d N euen Testaments F rankfurter theologische Studien Foi et Vie

GRBS Greg GTA GTJ H ALAT

HAT HBT HDR HeyJ HibJ HKAT HKNT HL HNT HNTC HR HSM HTKNT

GAG GCS GKB

GKC

GL GNT GOTR GPM GR

W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik G riechische christliche Schriftsteller Gesenius-KautzschBergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley Geist und Leben G rundrisse zum N euen T estam ent Greek Orthodox Theological Review Göttinger Predigtmeditation Greece and Rome

H TR HTS H TS HUCA HUT

IB IBS ICC IDB

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Gregorianum G öttinger Theologische A rbeiten Grace TheologicalJournal W. B aum gartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament H andbuch zum Alten Testam ent Horizons in Biblical Theology H arvard Dissertations in Religion Heythrop Journal HibbertJournal H andkom m entar zum Alten T estam ent H andkom m entar zum N euen T estam ent Heiliges Land H an d b u ch zum N euen T estam ent H a rp e r’s NT C om m entaries History of Religions H arvard Semitic M onographs H erd ers theologischer K om m entar zum N euen T estam ent Harvard Theological Review H arvard Theological Studies Hervormde Teologiese Studies Hebrew Union College Annual H erm eneutische U ntersuchungen zur T heologie Interpreter’s Bible Irish Biblical Studies International Critical C om m entary G . A . Buttrick ( e d .) , Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s IDBSup m Int ISBE

FTQ JA JAAR JAC JANESCU JAOS JAS JBC JBL JBR JCS JDS JEA JEH JES flT S JH S flB S JlPh JJS JMES JM S ßJE S JPOS JQP JQRMS JR m s JRE

Supplem entary volume to IDB Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation G. W. Bromiley (ed.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed. Irish Theological (Quarterly Journal asiatique Journal of the American Academy of Religion Ja h rb u ch für Antike u n d Christentum Journal of the Ancient NearEastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Asian Studies R. E. Brown et al. (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of Cuneiform Studies Ju d ean D esert Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Journal of Indian Philosophy Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Journal of Mithraic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish (Quarterly Review Jewish Q uarterly Review M onograph Series Journal of Religion Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal of Religious Ethics

JRelS JR H JRS JR T JSJ JSN T JSNTSup JSO T JSOTSup JSS JSSR JTC JThSB JTS Judaica

KAI

KAT KB

KD KIT KNT

LCC LCL LD Les LexTQ LingBib LLAVT LPGL LQ. LQHR

xxi Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT S upplem ent Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSO T Supplem ent Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal for Theology and the Church Jahrbuch der theologischen Schule Bethel Journal of Theological Studies Judaica: Beiträge zum Verständnis. . . H. D onner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische Und aramäische Inschriften K om m entar zum Alten Testam ent L. Koehler and W. Baum gartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros Kerygma und Dogma Kleine Texte K om m entar tili Nya T estam ent Library o f Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Lesonenu Lexington Theological Quarterly Linguistica Biblica E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae t aramaicae Vetens Testamenti G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon Lutheran Quarterly London Quarterly and Holborn Review

Abbreviations

xxii

NCB

LTP

Lutherische Rundschau Louvain Studies Liddell-Scott-Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon Lexikon fü r Theologie und Kirche Laval theologique et Lunds universitets ärsskrift Lumiere et Vie S upplem ent to LumVie Lumen Vitae Lutheran World

NedTTs

LumVie LumVieSup LVit LW

LR LS LSJ LTK

McCQ MDOG MeyerK

MGWJ MHT

MM

MNTC MPAIBL

MScRel MTS M TZ MUSJ

McCormick Quarterly M itteilungen d er deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft H. A. W. Meyer, Kritischexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Monatschrift fü r Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums J. H. M oulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek J. H. M oulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Moffatt NT Com m entary M em oires presentes a l’Académie des inscriptions et belleslettres Melanges de science religieuse M arburger theologische Studien Münchener theologische Zeitschrift Melanges de l’université SaintJoseph asiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft

NABPR NB

National Association of Baptist Professors o f Religion New Blackfriars

NCCHS

NCE

Neot NewDocs

NFT NHS NLDNTT NICNT NIBC NIGTC NKZ NorTT NovT NovTSup NPNF NRF NRT NTA NTAbh NTD NTF NTL NTR N TS NTTS Numen

New C entury Bible (new ed.) R. C. Fuller et al. (eds.), New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture M. R. P. McGuire et al. (eds.), New Catholic Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift Neotestamentica New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, A Review of Greek Inscriptions, etc., ed. G. H. R. Horsley, N o rth Ryde, NSW, Australia New Frontiers in Theology Nag H am m adi Studies New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology New In tern atio n al C om m en-tary on the New Testament New International Biblical C om m entary New International G reek Testam ent C om m entary Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift Norsk Teologisk Tijdsskrift Novum Testamentum S upplem ent to NovT N icene an d Post-Nicene Fathers Nouvelle revue francaise La nouvelle revue theologique New Testament Abstracts N eutestam entliche A bhandlungen Das N eue Testam ent Deutsch Neutestam entliche New T estam ent Library New Theology Review New Testament Studies New T estam ent Tools and Studies Numen: International Review for the History of Religions

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s NZSTR

Neue Zeitschrift fü r systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

OBO ÖBS

Orbis biblicus et orientalis Ö sterreichische biblische Studien Oxford Classical Dictionary Orientalia Christiana periodica W. D ittenberger (ed.), Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae (1903-5) O riental Institute Publications O rientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (Rome) Oriens antiquus Oriens christianus L’orient Syrien O xford Theological M onographs Oudtestamentische Studien

OCD OCP OGI

OIP OLP OLZ Or OrAnt OrChr OrSyr OTM OTS PAAJR PCB

PEFQS PEQ PG PGM PhEW PhRev PJ PEL PO POxy PRS PRU PSTJ

Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research M. Black an d Η. Η. Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible Palestine Exploration Fund, (Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly J. P. Migne, Patrologia graeca K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae Philosophy East and West Philosophical Review Palästinajahrbuch Papers on Language and Literature Patrologia orientalis Oxyrhynchus Papyri Perspectives in Religious Studies Le Palais royal d ’Ugarit Perkins (School of Theology) Journal

PTMS

PTR PVTG PW

PWSup QD QDAP QLP

RA RAC RB RBSn RCB RE

REA RechBib RefRev REg REG REJ RelS RelSoc RelSRev RES ResQ RevExp RevistB RevQ RevScRel RevSem RevSR RevThom

xxiii Pittsburgh (Princeton) Theological M onograph Series Princeton Theological Review Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece Pauly-Wissowa, RealEncyklopädie der classischen AItertumswissenschaft S upplem ent to PW Q uaestiones disputatae Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Questions liturgiques et paroissiales (Leuven) Revue d’assyriologie et d ’archeologie orientale Reallexikon fü r Antike und Christentum Revue biblique Revue benedictine Revista de cultura biblica Realencyklopädie fü r protestantische Theologie und Kirche Revue des etudes anciennes (Bordeaux) R echerches bibliques Reformed Review Revue d ’egyptologie Revue des etudes grecques Revue des etudes juives Religious Studies Religion and Society Religious Studies Review Repertoire d’epigraphie semitique Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revista biblica Revue de Qumrän Revue des sciences religieuses Revue semitique Revue des sciences religieuses (Strasbourg) Revue thomiste

XXIV

RGG RHE RHPR RHR RivB RNT RR RRef RSO RSPT RSR RTL RTP RTR SacPag Sal SANT SAQ

SB SBF SBJ SBLASP

SBLDS SBLMasS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS SBLTT SBM SBS SBT SC ScEccl

Abbreviations

Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revue d ’histoire ecclesiastique Revue d ’histoire et de Philosophie religieuses Revue de Vhistoire des religions Rivista biblica Regensburger Neues Testament Review of Religion Revue Reformee Rivista degli studi orientali Revue des sdences philosophiques et theologiques Recherches de science religieuse Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de Philosophie Reformed Theological Review Sacra Pagina Salmanticensis Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften Sources bibliques Studii biblici franciscani La sainte bible deJerusalem Society o f Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Masoretic Studies SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Texts and Translations Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chretiennes Sciences ecclesiastiques

ScEs SCR Scr SD SE

SEÄ Sef SeinSend Sem SHT SJLA SJT SKK SMSR SNT SNTSMS

SNTU SNTUMS SO SOTSMS SPap SPAW

SPB SR SSS ST STA STDJ StimmZeit STK

Science et espnt Studies in Comparative Religion Scripture Studies and Documents Studia Evangelica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (= TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964],88 [1964], 102 [1968], 103 [1968], 112 [1973]) Svensk exegetisk arsbok Sefarad Sein und Sendung Semitica Studies in Historical Theology Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar Studi e matenali di storia delle religioni Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt SNTU Monograph Series Symbolae osloenses Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studia papyrologica Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Studia postbiblica Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Semitic Study Series Studia theologica Svensk teologisk arsskrift Studies on the Texts of the Desert o f Judah Stimmen der Ztit (Munich) Svensk teologisk kvartalshrift

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s Str-B

StudBib StudN eot STZ SUNT SVTP SWJT SymBU

TantY ΤΑΡΑ TBei Τβ TBÜ TC TCGNT

TD TDNT

TextsS TF TGeg TGI Th THKNT

ThViat TJT TLZ TNTC TP TPQ

[H. Strack and] P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Studia Biblica Studia neo testam entica Schweizerische theologische Zeitschrift Studien zur Umwelt des N euen Testaments Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha Southwestern Journal of Theology Symbolae biblicae upsalienses Tantur Yearbook Transactions of the American Philological Association Theologische Beiträge Theologische Blätter Theologische Bücherei Theological Collection (SPCK) B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Theology Digest G. Kittel an d G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Texts and Studies Theologische Forschung Theologie der Gegenwart Theologie und Glaube Theology Theologischer H andkom m entar zum N euen Testam ent Theologia Viatorum TorontoJournal of Theology Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale New Testam ent Com m entaries Theologie und Philosophie Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift

TQ TEE TRev TRu TS TSK TT TTh TToday TTZ TU TWAT

TW NT

TynB TZ UBSGNT UF UNT USQR UT UUÄ VC VCaro VChr VD VF VKGNT

VS VSpir VT VTSup

XXV

Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Realenzyklopädie Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Theologische Studien und Kritiken Teologisk Tidsskrift Tijdschrift voor theologie Theology Today Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Texte u n d U ntersuchungen G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift U nited Bible Societies Greek New Testament Ugaritische Forschungen U ntersuchungen zum N euen Testam ent Union Seminary (Quarterly Review C. H. G ordon, Ugaritic Textbook U ppsala universitetsärsskrift Vigilae christianae Verbum caro Vigiliae Christianae Verbum domini Verkündigung und Forschung K. A land (ed.), Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament Verbum salutis Vie spirituelle Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testam entum , Supplem ents

Abbreviations

xxvi

WA

WBC WD WDB WHAB WMANT

WO WortWahr WTJ WUNT

ww WZKM WZKSO

ZA ZAW

D.

M. Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (=“W eimar” edition) W ord Biblical Com m entary Wort und Dienst Westminster Dictionary of the Bible Westminster Historical Atlas of the Bible W issenschaftliche M onographien zum Alten u n d N euen T estam ent Die Welt des Orients Wort und Wahrheit Westminster TheologicalJournal Wissenschaftliche U ntersuchungen zum N euen Testam ent Word and World Wiener Zeitschrif t fü r die Kunde des Morgenlandes Wiener Zeitschrif t fü r die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens

ZDMG

Zeitschrift fü r Assyriologie Zeitschrif t fü r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZW T

Zeitschrif t der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrif t des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift fü r evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift fü r historische Theologie Zeitschrift fü r Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrif t fü r katholische Theologie Zeitschrift fü r Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft Zeitschrift fü r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrif t fü r Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fü r Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift fü r systematische Theologie Zeitschrift fü r Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift fü r wissenschaftliche Theologie Zwischen den Zweiten

ZDPV ZEE ZH T ZKG ZKT ZMR ZNW

ZRGG ZSSR ZST ZTK

zz

A b b r e v ia tio n s f o r B o o k s o f th e B ib le , th e A p o c r y p h a , a n d th e P s e u d e p ig r a p h a

NEW TESTAMENT Gen Exod Lev N um D eut Josh Ju d g Ruth 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs 1 C hr

2 C hr Ezra N eh Esth Jo b Ps(s) Prov Eccl C ant Isa Je r Lam Ezek

Dan Hos Joel Arnos O bad Jo n a h Mic Nah H ab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

OLD TESTAMENT Matt Mark Luke Jo h n Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal E ph Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess

1 Tim 2 Tim Titus Philem H eb Jas 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 Jo h n 2 Jo h n 3 Jo h n Ju d e Rev

Ab b r e v i a t i o n s

xxvii

APOCRYPHA 1 Kgdms 2 Kgdms 3 Kgdms 4 Kgdms 1 Esdr 2 Esdr 4 Ezra Jdt

Add Esth Wis Sir Bar

1 Kingdoms 2 Kingdoms 3 Kingdoms 4 Kingdoms 1 Esdras 2 Esdras 4 Ezra Ju d ith Additions to Esther Wisdom o f Solom on Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus the son o f Sirach) Baruch

E pje r SThC h Sus Bel Pr Azar Pr Man 1 Macc 2 Macc 3 Macc 4 Macc Tob

Epistle o f Jerem iah Song of the T h ree Children (or Young Men) Susanna Bel an d the Dragon Prayer of Azar Prayer o f Manasseh 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Tobit

E . A b b re v ia tio n s o f th e N a m e s o f P s e u d e p ig r a p h ic a l a n d E a rly P a tr is tic B o o k s

1-2 Clem. Did. Diogn. Herrn. Man. Sim. Vis. Ign. Eph.

T. Abr. T. Judah T. Levi T. Sol.

Life of Adam and Eve Apocalypse of Abraham (1st to 2nd cent. a .d .) Syriac, G reek Apocalypse of Baruch Apocalypse of Moses (See T. Mos.) Ethiopic, Slavonic, H ebrew Enoch Epistle of A risteas Jubilees Martyrdom of Isaiah Odes of Solomon Psalms of Solomon Sibylline Oracles Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Abraham Testament of Judah Testament of Levi, etc. Testament of Solomon

Gos. Eb. Gos. Heb. Gos. Naass. Gos. Pet. Barn.

Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Naassenes Gospel of Peter Barnabas

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Tertullian, De Praesc. Haer.

Adam and Eve Apoc. Abr. 2 -3 Apoc. Bar. Apoc. Mos. As. Mos. 1 -2 -3 Enoch Ep. A rist. Jub. Mart. Isa. Odes Sol. Pss. Sol. Sib. Or. T. 12 Pair.

Magn. Phil. Pol. Rom. Smyrn. Trail. Mart. Pol. Pol. Phil.

1-2 Clement Didache Diognetus Hermas, Mandates Similitudes Visions Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp Ignatius, Letter to the Romans Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaea,ns Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians Martyrdom of Polycarp Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians Irenaeus, Against All Heresies Tertullian, On the Proscribing of Heretics

Abbreviations

xxviii F.

A b b r e v ia tio n s o f N a m e s o f D e a d S e a S c ro lls a n d R e la te d T e x ts

CD

Hev Mas Mird M ur P

Q IQ , 2Q 3 Q etc.

QL lQ ap G en 1QH

lQ Isaa,b

lQ p H ab

Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Docum ent) N ahal Hever texts Masada texts K hirbet Mird texts Wadi M urabbacat texts Pesher (com m entary) Q um ran N um bered caves o f Q um ran, yielding w ritten material; followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book Q um ran literature Genesis Apocryphon of Q um ran Cave 1 Hödäyöt (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Q um ran Cave 1 First o r second copy of Isaiah from Q um ran Cave 1 Pesher on Habakkuk from Q um ran Cave 1

1QM IQ S

Milhämäh (War Scroll) Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, M anual of Discipline) A ppendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to IQ S A ppendix B (Blessings) to IQS C opper Scroll from Q um ran Cave 3 Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Q um ran Cave 4 Aramaic “Messianic” text from Q um ran Cave 4 Prayer o f N abonidus from Q um ran Cave 4 Testimonia text from Q um ran Cave 4 Testament of Levi from Q um ran Cave 4 Phylacteries from Q um ran Cave 4 Melchizedek text from Q um ran Cave 11 Targum offob from Q um ran Cave 11

lQ S a lQ S b 3 Q 15 4QFlor

4QMess ar 4Q PrN ab 4QTestim 4QTLevi 4QPhyl llQ M e lc h H Q tgJob

G . A b b r e v ia tio n s o f T a r g u m ic M a te r ia l

Tg. Onq. Tg. Neb. T g Ket. Frg. Tg. Sam. Tg. Tg. Isa. Pal. Tgs. Tg. Neof.

Targum Onqelos Targum of the Prophets Targum of the Writings Fragmentary Targum Samaritan Targum Targum of Isaiah Palestinian Targums Targum Neofiti I

Tg. Ps. -J. Tg. Yer. I T g Yer. II Yem. Tg. Tg. Esth I, II

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum Yerusalmi I* Targum Yerusalmi II* Yemenite Targum First or Second Targum of Esther

*optional title

H . A b b r e v ia tio n s o f O t h e r R a b b in ic W o rk s

5Abot R. Nat. *Ag. Ber. Bab. Bar. Der. Er. Rab.

*Abot de Rabbi Nathan 5Aggadat Beresit Babylonian Baraita Derek Eres Rabba

Der. Er. Z u t. Gem. Kalla Mek. Midr.

Derek Eres Zuta Gemara Kalla Mekilta Midras; cited with usual

Ab b r

Pal. Pesiq. R. Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pirqe R El. Rab.

abbreviation for biblical book; b u t Midr. Qoh. = Midras Qohelet Palestinian Pesiqta Rabbati Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Rabbah (following abbreviation for biblical book: Gen. Rab. [with

x x ix

e v ia t io n s

Sem. Sipra Sipre Sop. S. cOlam Rab. Talm. Yal.

periods] = Genesis Rabbah) Semahot Sipra Sipre Soperim Seder cOlam Rabbah Talmud Yalqut

I. A b b re v ia tio n s o f O r d e r s a n d T ra c ta te s in M ish n a ic a n d R e la te d L ite ra tu r e

(Italicized m., t., b., o r y. used before nam e to distinguish am ong tractates in Mishnah, Tosepta, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud.) *Abot cArak. cAbod. Zar. B. Bat. Bek. Ber. Besa Bik. B. Mes. B. Qam. Dem. cEd. cErub. Git. Hag. Hal. H

ot.

Hul. Kelim Ker. Ketub. Kil. M a cas. Mak. Maks. Meg. Mecil. Menah. Mid. Miqw. Moced Moced Qat.

5Abot cArakin cAboda Zara Baba Batra Bekorot Berakot Besa (= Yom Tob) Bikkurim Baba Mesica Baba Qamma Demai cEduyyot cErubin Git tin Hagiga Halla Horayot Hullin Kelim Keritot Ketubot KiPayim M acaserot Makkot Maksirin (=Masqin) Megilla Mecila Menahot Middot Miqwa^ot Moced M oced Qatan

M acas. S. Nasim Nazir Ned. Neg. Nez. Nid. Ohol. c0r. Para Pe^a Pesah. Qinnim Qidd. Qod. Ros. Has. Sank. Sabb. Seb. Sebu. Seqal. Sota Sukk. Tacan. Tamid Tern. Ter. Tohar. T. Yom cUq. Yad. Yebam.

M acaser Sent Nasim Nazir Nedanm Negacim Neziqin Niddah Oholot cOrla Para Pe*a Pesahim Qinnim Qiddusin Qodasin Ros Hassana Sanhedrin Sabbat Sebicit Sebucot Seqalim Sota Sukka Tacanit Tamid Temura Terumot Toharot Tebul Yom cUqsin Yadayim Yebamot

Abbreviations

XXX

Yoma Zabim

Yoma (= Kippunm) Zabim

Zebah. Zer.

Zebahim Zeracim

J. A bbreviations o f Nag H am m adi Tractates Acts Pet. 12 Apost. Allogenes Ap. Jas. Ap. John Apoc. Adam 1 Apoc. Jas. 2 Apoc. Jas. Apoc. Paul Apoc. Pet. Asclepius Auth. Teach. Dial. Sav. Disc. 8 -9 Ep. Pet. Phil. Eugnostos Exeg. Soul Gos. Eg. Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. Gos. Truth Great Pow. Hyp. Arch. Hypsiph. Interp. Know.

Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles Allogenes Apocryphon of James Apocryphon of John Apocalypse of Adam First Apocalypse of James Second Apocalypse of James Apocalypse of Paul Apocalypse of Peter Asclepius 21-29 Authoritative Teaching Dialogue of the Savior Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth Letter of Peter to Philip Eugnostos the Blessed Exegesis on the Soul Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of Philip Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Truth Concept of our Great Power Hypostasis of the Archons Hypsiphrone Interpretation of Knowledge

Marsanes Melch. Norea On Bap. A On Bap. B On Bap. C On Euch. A On Euch. B Orig. World Paraph. Shem Pr. Paul Pr. Thanks. Prot. Jas. Sent. Sextus Soph.Jes. Chr. Steles Seth Teach. Silv. Testim. Truth Thom. Cont. Thund. Treat. Res. Treat. Seth Tri. Trac. Trim. Prot. Val. Exp. Zost.

Marsanes Melchizedek Thought of Norea On Baptism A On Baptism B On Baptism C On the Eucharist A On the Eucharist B On the Origin of the World Paraphrase of Shem Prayer of the Apostle Paul Prayer of Thanksgiving Protevangelium of James Sentences of Sextus Sophia of Jesus Christ Three Steles of Seth Teachings of Silvanus Testimony of Truth Book of Thomas the Contender Thunder, Perfect M ind Treatise on Resurrection Second Treatise of the Great Seth Tripartite Tractate Trimorphic Protennoia A Valentinian Exposition Zostrianos

N ote: T he textual notes and num bers used to indicate individual m anuscripts are those found in the apparatus criticus of Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. E. Nestle and EL A land et al. (Stuttgart: D eutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 197926). This edition o f the G reek New Testam e n t is the basis for the Translation sections.

Commentary Bibliography A lb r ig h t, W . E , and M a n n , C . S . Matthew. AB. G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. A lle n , W . C . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. 3rd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1912. A rg y le , A . W. The Gospel according to Matthew. CBC. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1963. B arcla y , W . The Gospel of Matthew. Rev. ed. 2 vols. T he Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. B e a r e , E W . The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981. B e n g e l, J. A . Gnomon of the New Testament. 7th ed. E dinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1857. 1:71-490. B e n o it, P. L ’Evangile selon saint Matthieu. 3rd ed. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1961. B lo m b e r g , C . L . Matthew. New American Com mentary. Nashville: Broadm an, 1992. B o n n a rd , P. L ’E vangile selon saint Matthieu. 2nd ed. CNT. Neuchätel: D elachaux & Niestle, 1970. B ru n e r, F. D . The Christbook: A HistoH-

cal/Theological Commentary: Matthew 1-12. Waco, TX: Word, 1 987.———. The Churchbook: A Historical/Theological Commentary: Matthew 13-28. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990. C a lv in , J. Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels. 3 vols. R eprint. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1956-57. C a r s o n , D . A . “Matthew.” In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein. G rand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985. 8:1-599. D a h l, N . A . Matteas Evangeliet. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Oslo: U niversitetsforlaget, 1973. D a v ie s , M . Matthew: Readings, a New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. D a v ie s, W . D ., and A llis o n , D . C ., Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 2 vols. (1-7; 8-18). ICC. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1988,1991. F e n to n , J. C . Saint Matthew. Pelican Com m entaries. Baltimore: Penguin, 1964. Filson, F. V. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. BNTC. London: A. & C. Black, 1960. Fornberg, T. Matteusevangeliet 1:1-13:52. KNT 1A. Uppsala: EFS, 1989. F ra n c e , R . T . The Gospel according to Matthew. TNTC 1. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1985. G a e c h te r, P. Das Matthäus-Evangelium. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1963. G a rla n d , D . E . Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1993. Gerhardsson, B. “U r M atteusevangeliet” (chaps. 1-2; 5-7; 26-28). In Ur Nya Testamentet: Kommentar till valda texter, ed. L. H a rtm a n . L u n d : G le e ru p , 1970. G n ilka, J. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. HTKNT. Freiburg: H erder, 1986, 1988. G r e e n , Η . B . The Gospel according to Matthew. New C larendon Bible. Oxford: C larendon, 1975. G ru n d m a n n , W. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968. G u n d r y , R . H . Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.———. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2nd ed. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1994. Hagner, D. A. Matthew 1-13. WBC 33a. Dallas: Word, 1993. H a rrin g to n , D . J. The Gospel of Matthew. SacPag. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Hendricksen, W. The Gospel of Matthew. E dinburgh: B anner o f T ruth, 1974. H ill, D . The Gospel of Matthew. NCB. L ondon: M arshall, M organ, an d Scott, 1972. K lo s te r m a n n , E. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2nd ed. HNT. T übingen: M ohr, 1927. Kvalbein, H. MatteusEvangeliet. 2 vols. Oslo: Nye Luther, 1989, 1990. L a c h s , S . T . A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. H oboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987. Lagrange, M.-J. Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1923. L e n s k i, R . C . H . The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Colum bus, OH: W artburg, 1943. L im b e c k , M . MatthäusEvangelium. SKK NT 1. S tuttgart: K atholisches Bibelw erk, 1986. L o h m e y e r , E . Das Evangelium des Matthäus. 4th ed. Ed. W. Schm auch. MeyerK. G öttingen: V andenhoeck 8c R uprecht, 1967. L u z , U. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Trans. W. C. Linss. C ontinental Comm entaries. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1 9 8 9 .———. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Vol. 2, M att 8 - 1 7 . EKK. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benzinger & N eukirchener, 1990. Maier, G. MatthäusEvangelium. 2 vols. Bibel-Kommentar. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Haussier, 19 7 9 . McNeile, A. H. The Gospel according to St. Matthew. L ondon: Macmillan, 1 9 1 5 . Meier, J. P. Matthew. NT

XXX11

Commentary Bibliography

Message 3. W ilm ington, DE: Glazier, 1981. M o n te fio r e , C . G . The Synoptic Gospels. Vol 2. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1927. M o r ris , L . The Gospel according to Matthew. Pillar Commentary. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1992. M o u n c e , R . H . Matthew. NIBC. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1991. P a tte , D . The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. P lu m m e r, A . A n Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. L ondon: Stock, 1909. R o b in s o n , T . H . The Gospel of Matthew. MNTC. G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1928. S a b o u r in , L . The Gospel according to St Matthew. 2 vols. Bombay: St Paul, 1982. S a n d , A . Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1986. S ch la tte r, A . Der Evangelist Matthäus. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1933. S c h m id , J . Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1965. S c h n a c k e n b u r g , R . M atthäusevangelium. 2 vols. Die n e u e e c h te r Bibel. W ürzburg: E chter, 1985, 1987. S c h n ie w in d , J. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 8th ed. NTD. Göttingen: V andenhoeck Sc R uprecht, 1956. S ch w e izer, E. The Good News according to Matthew. Atlanta: Jo h n Knox, 1975. S m ith , R . H . Matthew. ACNT. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. S te n d a h l, K . “M atthew,” In Peake's Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black and Η. H. Rowley. Rev. ed. New York: Nelson, 1962. 769-98. S tra c k , H . L ., and B ille r b e c k , P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Munich: Beck, 1951-56. T a s k e r, R . V . G . The Gospel according to St. Matthew. TNTC. London: Tyndale, 1961. T rillin g , W . The Gospel according to St. M atthew. New York: H erd er & H erder, 1969. V iv ia n o , B . T . “T he Gospel according to Matthew.” In The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. 630-74. W eiss, B . Das Matthäus-Evangelium. 9th ed. G öttingen: V andenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1898. Z a h n , T . Das Evangelium des Matthäus. 2nd ed. Leipzig: D eichert, 1903.

General Bibliography A b ra h a m s, I. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cam bridge University, 1917, 1924. A lb e r tz , M . Die synoptischen Streitgespräche. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1921. A llis o n , D . C ., Jr. The End of the Ages Has Come: A n Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 198 5. A ls u p , J. E . The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stones of the Gospel Tradition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1 9 7 5 . A re n s , E . The ΗΛΘΟΝ-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historico-Critical Investigation. OBO 10. G ottingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19 7 6 . A u n e , D . E . Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 198 3. B a a r lin k , H . Die Eschatologie der synoptischen Evangelien. BWANT 120. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. B a c o n , B . W. Studies in Matthew. New York: Holt, 1930. B a lc h , D . L ., ed. Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches. M inneapolis: Fortress, 1991. B a lte n sw e ile r, H . Die Verklärung Jesu. ATANT 33, Zürich: Zwingli, 1959. B a n k s, R . Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975. B a rr e tt, C . K . The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. London: SPCK, 1966. ———. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. B a rth , G . “Matthew’s

U nderstanding of the Law.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. G. Bornkam m et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 196 3. 5 8 - 1 6 4 . B a u e r, D . R . The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. JSNTSup 3 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988. B a y e r, H . F. Jesus’Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection. WUNT 2.20. Tübingen: Mohr, 198 6. B ea sle y -M u rra y , G . R . Jesus and the Kingdom of God. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1 9 8 6 .———. Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1993. B e n o it, P. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. New York: H erd er & Herder, 1969. B e r g e r, K . Die Amen-WorteJesu: Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede, BZNW 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.———. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament: Teil I. Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40. NeukirchenVluyn: N eukirchener, 1972. B e tz , O . Jesus: Der Messias Israels. WUNT 42. Tübingen: Mohr, 1987.— — — and G rim m , W . Wesen und Wirklichkeit der WunderJesu. Frankfurt: Lang, 1977. B la c k , M . A n Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Oxford: C larendon, 1967. B la ss, F., D e b ru n n e r, A ., and F u n k , R . W . A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1961. B la ir, E . P. Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon, 1960. B lo m b e r g , C . L . Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990. B ö c h e r, O . Christus Exorcista. BWANT 90. Stuttgart: Kohlham mer, 1972. B o r g e n , P. Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins. Trondheim : Tapir, University of Trondheim , 1983. B o rin g , Μ . E . Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 46. C am bridge: C am b rid g e University, 1982. B o rn k a m m , G . “T he Authority to ‘Bind’ and ‘Loose’ in the C hurch in Matthew’s Gospel.” In The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton. P hiladelphia/L ondon: SPCK/Fortress, 1983. 8 5 -9 7 .———. “End-Expectation and C hurch in Matthew.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. G. Bornkam m et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. 15-51. B o rn k a m m , G ., B a r t h , G ., an d H e ld , H . J . Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. P hiladelphia: Westminster, 1963. B ra n d e n b u rg e r , E . Das Recht des Weltrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25, 31-46. SBS 99. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. B ra tch e r, R . G . A Translator’s Guide to the Gospel of Matthew. New York: U nited Bible Societies, 1981. B ra u n , H . Qumran und das Neue Testament. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. B r o e r , I. Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthäus. SBS 98. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. B r o o k s , S. H . Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material. JSNTSup 16. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. B ro w n , R . E . The Birth of the Messiah. G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.———. The Gospel according toJohn. 2 vols. AB.

XXXIV

General Bibliography

G arden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970.———. New Testament Essays. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965.———. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1973. — — — , K . P. D o n f r ie d , J. A . F itzm y e r, a n d J. R e u m a n n , ed s. Mary in the New Testament. P hiladelphia: Fortress, 1 9 7 8 .———, K . P. D o n f r ie d , a n d j . R e u m a n n , eds. Peter in the New Testament. M inneapolis: Augsburg, 1973. B u ltm a n n , R . History of the Synoptic Tradition. 2nd ed. O xford: Blackwell, 1968. B u r g e r , C . Jesus als Davidssohn. FRLANT 98. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & R uprecht, 1970. B u r n e tt, F. E . The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew. W ashington, DC: University Press o f America, 1979. B u tle r, B . C . The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two Document Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cam bridge University, 1951. C a ir d , G . B . The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. C a r a g o u n is , C . C . Peter and the Rock. BZNW 58. B erlin: de G ruyter, 1989. C a r ls t o n , C . E . The Parables o f the Triple Tradition. P h ilad elp h ia: F ortress, 1975. C h ilt o n , B . D . God in Strength: Jesus’Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTUMS B .l. Freistadt: Plöchl, 1979. C o p e , O . L . Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. CBQMS 5. W ashington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976. C ro ss a n , J. D . In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus. San Francisco: H arp er & Row, 1 9 8 3 .———. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: H arp er & Row, 1973. C u llm a n n , O . Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. D a h l, N . A . Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Ed. D. H. Juel. M inneapolis: Fortress, 1991. D a lm a n , G . Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels. 1929. New York: Ktav, 1 9 7 1 . ———. The Words of Jesus. E d in b u rg h : T. & T. Clark, 19 0 9 . D a n b y , H . The Mishnah. O xford: O xford University, 1933. D a u b e , D . The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. L o n d o n : A th lo n e, 1956. D a v ie s , W . D . The Setting o f the Sermon on the Mount. C am bridge: C am bridge University, 1966. D a v is o n , J . E . “Anomia a n d th e Q u estio n o f an A n tin o m ian Polem ic in Matthew”JBL 104 (1985) 617-35. D e u ts c h , C . Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25-30. JSNTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. D ib e liu s , M . From Tradition to Gospel. New York: Scribner, 1965. D id ie r, M ., ed. L ’E vangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et theologie. BETL 29. G em bloux: D uculot, 1972. D o b s c h ü tz , E . v o n . “Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist.” In The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton. P hiladelphia/L ondon: Fortress/SPCK, 1983. 85-97. D o d d , C . H . The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935/N ew York: Scribners, 1936. D o n a ld s o n , T . L, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985. D u p o n t, J. Les Beatitudes: I. Le probleme litteraire; II. La bonne nouvelle.; III. Les Evangelistes. Paris: Gabalda, 1958, 1969, 1973. E d w a rd s, J. R . “T he Use of ΠΡΟΣΕΡΧΕΣΘΑΙ in the Gospel o f Matthew.” JBL 106 (1987) 65-74. E d w a rd s , R . A . Matthew’s Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. E llis, P. F. Matthew: His M ind and His Message. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1974. F e ld m e ie r, R . Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. W UNT 2.21. T ü b in g e n : M ohr, 1987. F i e d le r , M . J . “G erechtigkeit im M atthäus-Evangelium .” Theologische Versuchet (1977) 63-75. F itzm y e r, J . A . Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. SBLSBS 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. ———. A Wandering Aramean. SBLMS 25. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1981. F o r d , D . The Abomination o f Desolation in Biblical Eschatology. W ashington, DC: U niversity Press of America, 1979. F ra n c e , R . T . Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1971.———. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. G ra n d Rapids: Z o n d erv an , 1989. F r a n k e m ö lle , H . “Amtskritik im Matthäus-Evangelium?” Bib 54 (1973) 2 4 7-62.— — — .Jahwebund und Kirche Christi. NTAbh n.s. 10. Münster: Aschendorff, 19 7 4 . F re y n e , S . Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. F u lle r, R . H . Interpreting the Miracles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1 9 6 3 . ———. The Mission and Achievement o f Jesus. SBT 1 . 1 2 . L o n d o n : SCM, 1 9 6 7 . G a e c h t e r , P. Die literarische Kunst im Matthäusevangelium. SBS 7. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 19 6 5 . G e r h a r d s s o n , B . The Gospel Tradition. ConBNT 15. Malmö: G leerup, 1 9 8 6 .———. “Gottes Sohn als D iener Gottes: Agape u n d Himmelsherrschaft nach dem Matthäusevangelium.” ST 27 (1973) 25-50. — — — . “‘An ih re n F rü c h te n sollt ih r sie e r k e n n e n ’: Die L eg itim itätsfrag e in d e r m atthäischen Christologie.” E v T 42 (1982) 113 -2 6 .———. Memory and Manuscript. Tr. E.

Ge n e r a l Bi b l i o g r a ph y

XXXV

J. Sharpe. ASNU 22. Lund: G leerup, 1961.— — — . The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew. Lund: G leerup, 1979.— — — . Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. C onB N T 20. L und: G leeru p , 1964. G i e s e n , H . Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zum 8LKCLLoa0vry-B egriff im Matthäus-Evangelium. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1982. G o u ld e r , M . D . Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. G rä s s e r, E . Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. 2nd ed. BZNW 22. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1966. G ray , S. W. The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25:31-46: A History of Interpretation. SBLDS 114. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989. G r e e n , J. B . The Death of Jesus. WUNT 2.33. T übingen: Mohr, 1988. G u n d r y , R . H . The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967. H a g n e r, D . A . ‘Apocalyptic Motifs in the Gospel of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity.” H B T 7 (1985) 5 3 -8 2 .———. “Matthew, Gospel according to .” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley et al. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1986. 3:2 8 0 -8 8 .———. “Righteousness in M atthew’s Theology.” In Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. FS R. P. M artin, ed. M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. 1 0 1 -2 0 .———. “T he Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew.” In SBL 1985 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. 243-69.———. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. NovTSup 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973. H a h n , F. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. New York: World, 1969. H a re , D . R . A . The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. SNTSMS 6. Cambridge: Cam bridge University, 1967. H a rrin g to n , D . J . “M atthean Studies Since Joachim R ohde.” HeyJ 16 (1975) 375-88. H a rtm a n , L . Prophecy Interpreted. ConBNT 1. Lund: G leerup, 1966. H a rv e y , A . E . Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. H a sle r, V . Amen. Zürich: Gotthelf, 1969. H e il, J. P. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26-28. M inneapolis: Fortress, 1991. H e ld , H . J . “M atthew as I n te rp re te r o f th e M iracle S to ries.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. G. Bornkam m et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. 165299. H e n g e l, M . The Atonement. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.———. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. New York: C rossroad, 1 9 8 1 .— — — . Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 9 7 7 .———. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 9 8 1 .———. Property and Riches in the Ancient Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.———. The Son of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. H ill, D . New Testament Prophecy. Atlanta: Jo h n Knox, 1979.———. “Some Recent Trends in M atthean Studies.” IBS 1 (1979) 1 3 9-49.———. “Son an d Servant: An Essay on M atthean Christology. ”JSN T 6 (198 0 ) 2 - 1 6 . H o e h n e r, H . Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17 . Cambridge: Cam bridge University, 19 7 2 . H o ffm a n n , P. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. Münster: A schendorf, 1 972.———, ed. Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Freiburg: H erder, 1973. H o u ld e n , J. L . Backward into Light: The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus according to Matthew and Mark. L ondon: SCM, 1987. H u b b a r d , B . J. The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: A n Exegesis of Matthew 28:16-20. SBLDS 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1974. H ü b n e r , H . Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition. W itten: Luther-Verlag, 1973. H u m m e l, R . Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im M atthäusevangelium. 2nd ed. BEvT 33. M unich: Kaiser, 1966. H u m p h re y , Η . M . The Relationship of Structure and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Fordham , 1977. Ie r s e l, B . M . F. v an . “Der Sohn” in den synoptischen Jesusworten. 2nd ed. NovTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964. J e re m ia s , J. Abba. Göttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.———. The Eucharistie Words ofJesus. L ondon: SCM, 1990.— — — .Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 3rd ed. London: SCM, 1 969.— — — Jesus’Promise to the Nations. 2nd ed. SBT 1.24. L ondon: SCM, 1967.———. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1971.— — — . The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner, 1 9 7 2 .———. The Prayers of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. J o h n s o n , M . D . “Reflections on a Wisdom A pproach to Matthew’s Christology.” CBQ36 (1974) 44-64. J u e l, D . Messiah and Temple. SBLDS 31. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. ———. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. J ü lic h e r, A. Die GleichnisredenJesu. 2 vols. 2nd ed. T ü b in g en : M ohr, 1 9 1 1 . K ä s e m a n n , E . New Testament (Questions of Today.

XXXVI

General Bibliography

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Kertelge, K., ed. Der TodJesu. QD 74. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. Kilpatrick, G. D. The Origins o f the Gospel according to St. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1959. Kingsbury, J. D. Jesus Christ in Matthew ; Mark, and Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.———. Matthew. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.———. M atthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.———. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.———. The Parables o f Jesus in Matthew 13. Richmond: John Knox, 1969.———. “The Title ‘Kyrios’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” JB L 94 (1975) 246-55.———. “The Title ‘Son of God’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” B T B 5 (1975) 3-31.———. “The Title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” JB L 95 (1976) 591-602. Klauck, H.-J. Allegorie u n d Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. Münster: Aschendorff, 1978. Kratz, R. A uferw eckung als Befreiung: Eine Studie zur Passions- u n d Auferstehungstheologie des Matthäus. SBS 65. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Kretzer, A. Die Herrschaft der Himmel u n d die Söhne des Reiches. SBM 10. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971. Kruijf, T. de. Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes. AnBib 14. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1962. Kümmel, W. G. Promise and Fulfilment. SBT 23. London: SCM, 1961. Runzel, G. Studien zum Gemeindeverständnis des Matthäus-Evangeliums. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978. Kunzi, M. Das Naherwartungslogion M arkus 9, 1 par. BGBE 21. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977. Kynes, W. L. A Christology o f Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative o f H is People in Matthew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991. Ladd, G. E. The Presence o f the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lange, J. D as Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach M atthäus. Würzburg: Echter, 1973. ———, ed. Das Matthäus-Evangelium. W ege der Forschung 525. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980. Lee, Μ. Y.-H. Jesus u n d die jüdische Autorität. FB 56. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Lentzen-Deis, E Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern. FTS 4. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1970. LeonDufour, X. Etudes d ’E vangde. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965. Levine, A. J. The Social and Ethnic Dimensions o f Matthean Salvation History: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles . . . ” (M att 10:5b). Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1988. Lindars, B. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961. Linnemann, E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. FRLANT 102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Ljungman, H. Das Gesetz erfüllen. Lund: Gleerup, 1954. Lohse, E. H istory o f the Suffering and Death o f Jesus Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Loos, H. van der. The Miracles o f Jesus. NovTSup 8. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Lührmann, D. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. Luz, U. “The Disciples in the Gospel according to Matthew.” In The Interpretation o f Matthew, ed. G. Stanton. Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, 1983. 98-128.———. “Die Erfüllung des Gesetzes bei Matthäus (Mt 5.17-20).” Z T K 75 (1978) 398-435.———. “Die Wundergeschichten von Mt 8-9.” In Tradition a n d Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E. E. Ellis, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Eerdmans/Mohr, 1987. 149-65. Malina, B. J., and Neyrey, J. H. Calling Jesus Names: The Sodal Value o f Labels in Matthew. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988. Manson, T. W. The Sayings o f Jesus. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1949.———. The Servant-Messiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953.———. The Teaching o f Jesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935. Marcus, J. The Mystery o f the Kingdom o f God. SBLDS 90. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Marguerat, D. Le Jugement dans l’Evangile de M atthieu. Geneva: Editions Labor et Fides, 1981. Martin, R. R “St. Matthew’s Gospel in Recent Study.” ExpTim 80 (1968-69) 132-36. Massaux, E. The Influence o f the Gospel o f Saint Matthew in the Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus. Tr. N. J. Belval and S. Hecht. Ed. A. J. Bellinzoni. 2 vols. New Gospel Studies 5.1-2. Leuven/Macon, GA: Peters/ Mercer, 1990, 1992. Matera, F. J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies. New York: Paulist, 1986. McConnell, R. S. Law a nd Prophecy in M atthew ’s Gospel. Basel: Reinhardt, 1969. McGuckin, J. The Transfiguration o f Christ in Saripture and Tradition. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1986. Meier, J. P. Law and History in M atthew ’s Gospel. AnBib 71. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976.’ . The Vision o f Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel New York: Paulist, 1979. Merklein, H. Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft. SBS 11. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testment. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, B. F. The Aim s o f Jesus. London: SCM, 1979.

Ge n e r a l B i b l i o g r a ph y

XXXVll

Minear, P. S. Commands o f Christ. Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1972.— — — . Matthew: The Teacher’s Gospel New York: Pilgrim, 1982. Moffatt, J. A n Introduction to the Literature o f the New Testament. 3rd ed. New York: Scribner’s, 1922. Mohrlang, R. Matthew and Paul: A Comparison o f E thical Perspectives. SNTSMS 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984. Montefiore, C. G. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings. London: Macmillan, 1930. Moo, D. J. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Moore, A. L. T he Parousia in the New Testament. NovTSup 13. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries o f the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 195558. Moore, S. D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale, 1989. Moule, C. F. D. Essays in New Testament Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982.———. The Phenomenon o f the New Testament. SBT 2.1. London: SCM, 1967. Neirynck, F. The M inor Agreements o f Matthew and Luke against Mark. BETL 37. Louvain: Louvain University, 1974. Nepper-Christensen, P. D as M atthäu seva n g eliu m : E in judenchristliches Evangelium? Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1954. Newman, B. M., and Stine, P. C. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel o f Matthew. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Nissen, A. Gott un d der Nächste im antiken Judentum. WUNT 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1974. Nolan, B. The Royal Son o f God: The Christology o f M t 1-2. OBO 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Ogawa, A. L ’histoire deJesus chez Matthieu: L a signification de Thistoire pour la theologie matthéenne. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1979. Orton, D. E. The Understanding Scribe and the Apocalyptic Ideal. JSNTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Overman, J. A. The Gospel o f Matthew and Formative Judaism: A Study o f the Social World o f the M atthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Percy, R. Die Botschaft Jesu. Lund: Gleerup, 1953. Pesch, R. Jesu ureigene Taten? QD 52. Freiburg: Herder, 1970.— — — . Naherwartungen: Tradition u n d Redaktion in M k 13. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968. Piper, J. “Love Your Enemies.” SNTSMS 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979. Piper, R. A. Wisdom in the Q -T radition: The Aphoristic Teaching o f Jesus. SNTSMS 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989. Polag, A. Die Christologie der Logienquelle. WMANT 45. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979.———. Fragmenta Q. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979. Przybylski, B. Righteousness in M atthew and H is World o f Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980. Reumann, J. Righteousness in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.———. The Supper o f the Lord. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Riches, J. Jesus and the Transformation o f Judaism. New York: Seabury, 1980. Ridderbos, H. M atthew ’s Witness toJesus Christ. New York: Association Press, 1958. Riesenfeld, H. The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings. London: Mowbray, 1961. Riesner, R. Jesus als Lehrer. WUNT 2.7. Tübingen: Mohr, 1981. Rigaux, B. The Testimony o f St. Matthew. Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968. Riley, H. The First Gospel. Macon, GA: Mercer, 1992. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar o f the Greek New Testament in Light o f Historical Research. 4th ed. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma u n d der irdische Jesus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Rothfuchs, W. Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus-Evangeliums. BWANT 88. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969. Sand, A. Das Gesetz un d die Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthäus. Biblische Untersuchungen 11. Regensburg: Pustet, 1974.———. Das Matthäus-Evangelium. Erträge der Forschung 275. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991.———. “Propheten, Weise, und Schriftkundige in der Gemeinde des Matthäusevangeliums.” In Die Kirche im Werden, ed. J. Hainz. Munich: Schöningh, 1976. 167-85. Schaberg, J. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19b. SBLDS 19. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982. Schenk, W. Die Sprache des Matthäus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1987. Schenke, L., ed. Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Schlatter, A. Die Kirche des Matthäus. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929. Schmidt, T. E. H ostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Tradition. JSNTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Schnackenburg, R. “Petrus im Matthäusevangelium.” In A cause de l’Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes. FSJ. Dupont, ed. F. Refoule. LD 123. Paris: Cerf, 1985. 107-25.——— Schriften zum Neuen Testament. Munich: Kösel, 1971.——— et al., eds. Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. Schürmann. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. Schottroff, L. “Das geschundene Volk und die

xxxviii

General Bibliography

Arbeit in der Ernte: Gottes Volk nach dem Matthäusevangelium.” In M itarbeiter der Schöpfung: Bibel un d Arbeitswelt, ed. L. and W. Schottroff. Munich: Kaiser, 1983. Schulz, S. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zürich: Theologischer, 1972. ———. Die Stunde der Botschaft. Hamburg: Furche, 1967. Schürer, E. The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ. Rev. ed. Ed. G. Vermes et al. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1973-87. Schürmann, H . Jesu ureigener Tod. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.———. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1968. Schweizer, E. “Gesetz und Enthusiasmus bei Matthäus.” In Beiträge zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. E. Schweizer. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. 49-70.———. M atthäus u n d seine Gemeinde. SBS 71. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974.———. “Matthew’s Church.” In The Interpretation o f Matthew, ed. G. Stanton. Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, 1983. 129-55. Senior, D. Invitation to Matthew. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.———. The Passion o f Jesus in the Gospel o f Matthew. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1985.———. What are they saying about M atthew? New York: Paulist, 1983. Shuler, P. L. A Genre fo r the Gospels: The Biographical Character o f Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Sigal, P. The H alakah o f Jesus o f Nazareth according to the Gospel o f Matthew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986. Soares-Prabhu, G. M. The Formula (Quotations in the Infancy Narrative o f Matthew. AnBib 63. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976. Solages, M. de. L a composition des Evangiles de L uc et de Matthieu et leurs sources. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Stanton, G. N. A Gospel fo r a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1992.———. “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980.” In A N R W 2.25.3 (1983) 1889-1951.———, ed. The Interpretation o f Matthew. Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, 1983. Stendahl, K. The School o f St. Matthew. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Stonehouse, N. B. The Witness o f Matthew and M ark to Christ. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Strauss, D. F. The Life o f Jesus Critically Examined. 1892. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Strecker, G. ‘The Concept of History in Matthew.” In The Interpretation o f Matthew, ed. G. Stanton. Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, 1983. 67-84.———. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. FRLANT 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1962. Stuhlmacher, P. Jesus von Nazareth— Christus des Glaubens. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1988.———, ed. The Gospel and the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Suggs, M. J. Wisdom, Christology a n d L aw in Matthew's Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1970. Suhl, A. “Der Davidssohn im Matthäus-Evangelium.” Z N W 59 (1968) 36-72. Taylor, V. The Historical Evidence fo r the Virgin Birth. Oxford: Clarendon, 1920. Telford, W. R. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree. JSNTSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. Theissen, G. The Miracle Stories o f the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Thompson, W. G. M atthew ’s Advice to a Divided Community: Mt. 17,22-18,35. AnBib 44. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970. Tilborg, S. van. The Jewish Leaders in M atthew. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Trilling, W. “Amt und Amtsverständnis bei Matthäus.” In Melanges bibliques. FS B. Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps. Gembloux: Duculot, 1969. 29-44.———. Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1 9 8 8 .———. D as wahre Israel: Studien zu r Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums. 3rd ed. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1975. Turner, N. A Grammar o f New Testament Greek: Vol. 3. Syntax. Edinburgh: T. 8c T. Clark, 1963. Verseput, D. The Rejection o f the Humble Messianic King: A Study o f the Composition o f Matthew 11-12. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1986. Vögde, A. Das Evangelium u n d die Evangelien. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971. Walker, R. Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten E vangelium . FRLANT 91. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1967. Walter, N. “Zum Kirchenverständnis des Matthäus.” Theologische Versuche 12 (1981) 25-46. Weder, H. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1984. Weiser, A. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. SANT 10. Munich: Kösel, 1971. Westcott, B. W. A n Introduction to the Study o f the Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1875. Westerholm, S. Jesus and Scribal Authority. ConBNT 10. Lund: Gleerup, 1978. White, R. E. O. The M in d o f Matthew. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Wilkins, M. J. The Concept o f Disciple in M atthew ’s Gospel. NovTSup 59. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Wink, W. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

Ge n e r a l Bi b l i o g r a ph y

XXXIX

sity, 1968. Wrede, W. The Messianic Secret. Cambridge, MA: Clarke, 1971. Zeller, D. Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Zumstein, J. L a condition du croyant dans l’Evangile selon M atthieu. OBO 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

Matthew 14:1-28:20

Further M inistry and Confrontation w ith the Religious Authorities (14:1 -16:20) The Fate o f Jo h n the B a p tist

(14:1-12)

Bibliography

Aus, R. Water into Wine and the Beheading o f John the Baptist: Early Jewish-Christian Interpretation o f Esther 1 in John 2:1-11 and Mark 6:17-29. BJS 150. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Cope, O. L. “The Death of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Matthew.” CBQ 38 (1976) 515-19. Derrett, J. D. M. “Herod’s Oath and the Baptist’s Head.” B Z 9 (1965) 49-59, 233-46. Gnilka, J. “Das Martyrium Johannes des Täufers.” In Orientierung an Jesus. FSJ. Schmid, ed. P. Hoffmann. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. 78-92. Hoehner, H. W. Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972. 112-22, 149-65. Meier, J. P. “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel. ” JB L 99 (1980) 383-405. Potterie, I. de la. “Mors Johannis Baptistae.” VD 44 (1966) 142-51. Riesner, R. “Johannes der Täufer auf Machärus.” B K 39 (1984) 176. Schenk, W. “Gefangenschaft und Tod des Täufers.” N T S 29 (1983) 453-83. Schütz, R. Johannes der Täufer. ATANT 50. Zürich: Zwingli, 1967. Trilling, W. “Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus.” B Z 3 (1959) 271-89. Translation 1A t th a t tim e H erod the tetrarch heard o f the fa m e o f Jesus, 2a n d he sa id to his serva n ts: “T h is one i s aJ o h n the B a p tist .b H e has been raised fr o m the dead, a n d because o f this these powers are w o rkin g in him . ” 2F or H e r o d c h a d seized J o h n , b o u n d [ h im ] ,d a n d p u t h im in p rison because o f H erodias the wife o f P h ilip s his brother. 4For J o h n kept sa y in g to him , “I t is n o t la w fu l fo r yo u to ha ve her.” 5A n d although he w a n ted to h a ve h im killed, he was a fra id o f the crowd because they regarded h im as a prophet. 6W hen the birthday o f H erod a rrived, the d a u g h ter o f H erodias danced a m o n g the guests,g a n d she pleased H erod, 7fo r w hich reason he swore w ith a n oath to give to her w hatever she asked. 8A n d she, p u t fo r w a r d by her mother, said: “G ive me here u p o n a p la tter h the head o f John the B aptist.” 9A n d the king, h a v in g become distressed i because o f the oaths he h a d sw orn a n d those reclin in g a t the m eal w ith him , com m anded it to be g iven to her. 10A n d he sen t a n d beheaded J o h n in the prison. 11A n d J o h n ’s j head was brought u p o n a platter, a n d it w as g iven to the girl, a n d she brought it to her mother. 12A n d w hen his disciples came, they took the body,k a n d they buried it ,1 a n d they w ent a n d reported e v e ry th in g m to Jesus.

Notes a D vgmss and a few other witnesses begin the sentence with μήτί, thus forming a question: “Is not this John the Baptist?” (But μήτι expects a negative answer, which is strange in light of the following verse.)

410

Ma t t h e w 14:1-12

b D f f 1vgmss add ονέγώ άπεκίφάλισα, “whom I beheaded” (from Mark 6:16), anticipating the nar rative that follows. c B Θ f 13 sa mae insert τότε, “then.” Despite Matthew’s favoring of τότε, the shorter text is supported by a diversity of text types; the τότε was probably added to alert the reader that vv 3-12 are a flashback. See TCGNT, 34-35. d The critical text has αυτόν, “him,” in brackets because it is omitted by the im portant MSS K* and B, as well as other witnesses. The pronoun is in any event required in English (unlike Gr.). e D and lat omit φιλίππου, “of Philip” (cf. shorter text of Luke 3:19), perhaps to harmonize with the evidence reflected in Jos., A n t 18.5.4 §§136-37. Cf. TCGNT, 35. f A variant reading, “when the birthday was celebrated,” is found in some MSS: γενεσίοιςδε άγομένοις ( f 1); γενεσιών δε άγομένων (Wf 13 TR); and γενεσιών δε γενομένων (C Κ Ν Θ ). s Lit. “in the m iddle/m idst.” h D omits επί πίνακι, “upon a platter.” i A num ber of MSS (K C [L] W Z™1TR lat sy co) read έλνττήθη ό βασιλεύς\ διά δε: “the king was distressed. But on account o f . . . ,” thereby relieving the ambiguity of the syntax as it stands in the critical text, where διά τους όρκους καί τούς συνανακειμένους, “on account of his oaths and the dinner guests,” could be linked with λυπηθείς, “being grieved,” rather than with έκέλευσεν, “he comm anded.” See TCGNT, 35-36. j Lit. “his.” k πτώμα, “body” (in agreement with Mark 6:24). Some witnesses (W TR lat sy11sa bomss) have the more common synonym σώμα. The former is to be preferred on the basis of superior textual evidence. See TCGNT, 36. l The critical Gr. text reads αύτό[ν], “it,” reflecting the divided witnesses. The neuter, although strongly attested, is expected because of πτώμα and thus might be a correction of scribes; αυτόν, on the other hand, is found in K* B ff1 bomss. See TCGNT, 36. m “Everything” is the implied object of the verb, although it does not appear in the Gr. text.

Form /Structure/Setting A. M atthew is now c o n te n t to follow th e o rd e r o f M ark, as h e will d o fo r th e m ost p a rt in th e re m a in d e r o f th e G ospel. O m ittin g th e sen d in g o u t o f th e twelve (M ark 6 :7 -1 3 ), w hich was p re se n te d e a rlier (10:5-23), M atthew follows th e rejectio n o f Jesu s a t N azareth w ith th e fearfu l a n d in c o rre c t estim ate o f Jesu s fro m H e ro d . T his in tu rn leads, as in M ark, to th e retrospective a c c o u n t o f th e d e a th o f J o h n th e Baptist, th u s ro u n d in g o u t th e story o f J o h n . B. M atthew d e p e n d s u p o n M ark (M ark 6:14-24; cf. L uke 9:7-9; 3:19-20, b u t Luke lacks th e narrative c o n c e rn in g J o h n ’s d e a th ). F or M atthew ’s first two verses, th e follow ing differences fro m M ark sh o u ld be n o te d . First, M atthew ’s o p e n in g w ords, ε ν έκείνω τω καιρω, “at th a t tim e ,” are his own tran sitio n to th e p re se n t p e ric o p e . M atthew (with L uke) su b stitutes τετρ α ά ρ χ η ς, “te tra rc h ,” fo r M ark ’s β α σ ιλεύς, “k in g ” (b u t cf. v 9 w here M atthew uses β α σ ιλ εύ ς ), p erh ap s to distinguish him clearly fro m H e ro d th e G reat, w ho fig u re d so largely in chap. 2, a n d H e ro d A g rip p a I (cf. Acts 12). M atthew alo n e has H e ro d speak τ ο ΐς π α ισ ιν αυτού, “to his servants,” th e declarative sen ten ce οντός έ σ τ ιν ’Ιω άννης ο β α π τ ισ τ ή ς , “T his o n e is J o h n th e B aptist.” O th e r ch an g es in w 1-2 are only m in o r re p h ra sin g o f M ark. M atthew om its entirely, however, th e m aterial th a t follows in M ark 6:1516, w ith its alternativ e evaluation o f J o h n as Elijah o r o n e o f th e p ro p h e ts (cf. 16:14; M ark 8:28) a n d H e ro d ’s reassertio n th a t it was J o h n , risen fro m th e d ead . In th e re m a in d e r o f th e p e ric o p e (w 3 -1 2 ), M atthew follows M ark closely b u t abridges th e n arrative q u ite freq u en tly (by m o re th a n o n e th ird ). B eyond this co m m o n p ractice o f M atthew, th e follow ing can be n o ted : w hereas acco rd in g to M ark it was H ero d ias w ho w an ted to kill J o h n (M ark 6:19), M atthew ’s rew riting

Comment

411

m akes H e ro d th e o n e who w anted to d o so (this conflicts with M ark 6:20); w hereas M ark w rites th a t H e ro d “was afraid o f J o h n , know ing h e was a rig h teo u s a n d holy m a n ” (έφοβείτο το ν Ίωάννην, είδώς αύτόν άνδρα δίκαιον καί ά γ ω ν ), M atthew writes th a t έφοβήθη το ν δχλον δ τι ώς προφήτην α ύτό ν εΐχον, “h e was afraid o f th e crow d because they re g a rd e d him as a p r o p h e t” (v 5). T h e re su lt o f these chan g es is a m u c h m o re negative view o f H e ro d th a n in th e M arkan a c c o u n t (cf. to o th e om ission o f M ark 6:20b) as well as an em phasis o n th e m o tif o f th e suffering o f th e p ro p h e ts (cf. 13:57; 23:30-31, 34, 37). A m ong fu rth e r om issions fo r th e sake o f brevity, M atthew lacks th e n o te th a t th e d a u g h te r o f H e ro d pleased H e ro d ’s guests too (καί τ ο ΐς συνανακεμένοις; M ark 6:22) a n d th e offer o f H e ro d to give the girl εω ς ήμίσους* τ η ς β α σ ιλ εία ς μ ο υ, “u p to as m u ch as h a lf my k in g d o m ” (M ark 6:23). Finally to be n o te d is M atthew ’s sub stitu tio n o f και έθαψαν α ύτό [ν] , “a n d they b u rie d him (it),” fo r M ark’s καί εθ η κ α να ύ τό ενμ νη μ είω , “a n d they placed it in a to m b ” (M ark 6:29), a n d the concluding words, u n iq u e to Matthew, th at bridge also to th e o p e n in g o f th e n e x t perico p e: καί έλθ ό ντες ά π ή γ γ ε ιλ α ν τω Ίησοΰ, “a n d they w ent a n d re p o rte d everything to Je su s” (v 12; cf. M ark 6:30, w hich, however, is hardly h e re “m isu n d e rsto o d ” by M atthew [co n tra F e n to n ]). C. T he p ericope as d efin ed h e re has two m ain parts, w hich, because they are closely associated, are treated to g eth er as o n e pericope. T h e first concerns H e ro d ’s reaction to th e rep o rts co n cern in g Jesus; th e second is a flashback describing the m u rd e r o f J o h n th e Baptist. T h e p erico p e may be o u tlin ed as follows: (1) H ero d hears (v 1) a n d reacts to (v 2) the re p o rt co n cern in g Jesus; (2) the fate o f J o h n the Baptist: (a) his arrest, provocation, a n d im p riso n m en t (vv 3 -5 ), (b) th e d ance o f H erodias’ d au g h ter an d the prom ise o f H ero d (vv 6-7 ), (c) the request o f H erodias (v 8), (d) th e fulfillm ent o f th e req u est (vv 9 -1 1 ), an d (e) th e action o f J o h n’s disciples (v 12). T h e re is very little syntactic parallelism in th e p ericope, w hich consists o f a straightforw ard, econom ical narrative prose style. Comment 1-2 εν έκείνω τωκαιρω, “at th at tim e,” is M atthew’s own transitional phrase here an d has n o chronological significance. This pericope is the only place in M atthew w here H ero d Antipas, son o f H ero d the G reat a n d tetrarch (τετρα άρχης, ru ler of p art [originally, a fourth] o f a territory) o f Galilee (cf. Luke 3:1), is m entioned. W hen H ero d h e a rd o f the άκοήν, “fam e” (the same w ord is used in the same sense in 4:24), o f Jesus, his uneasy conscience m ade him fearful th at Jo h n the Baptist h ad com e back from the dead: οΰτός έ σ τιν Ιω άννης δ β α π τισ τή ς, “this one is J o h n the Baptist.” Such a conclusion points b o th to the awe in w hich J o h n was held by him an d also to the com m onness o f the belief th at holy servants o f God, such as prophets (cf. v 5), could retu rn to the earth after their death an d would do so in connection with the approach o f the e n d o f the age. T h at others en tertain ed the same ideas concerning Jo h n the Baptist is indicated by 16:14. T hus ai δυνάμεις ένεργούσιν εν αντω, “these powers are working in h im ,” points n o t only to the invasion o f the present age by the w orld beyond b u t has eschatological intim ations as well. (For αί δυνάμεις, “the powers,” see 13:54; for the idea o f powers w orking in persons, cf. Gal 3:5.) In answering the question o f the source o f Jesus’ pow er (cf. 13:54, 56), H ero d thus gives his own explanation, o n e caused very m uch by his own guilty conscience.

412

Ma t t h e w 14:1—12

3 -4 We are now given th e b a c k g ro u n d to H e ro d ’s fears a b o u t J o h n th e B aptist in a n arrative th at, re tu rn in g to an e a rlie r tim e, provides an acco u n t o f J o h n ’s d e a th by th e h a n d o f H e ro d . E arlier in his G ospel, M atthew h a d b e e n c o n te n t m erely to m e n tio n J o h n ’s a rre st (4:12). H e ro d h a d seized Jo h n , b o u n d him , a n d p u t h im in p rison (the fortress o f M achaerus, according to Jos., Ant. 18.5.1 §§109— 15) for his apparently public oppositio n to H e ro d ’s m arriag e to H erodias, H e ro d ’s n iece b u t m o re im p o rtan tly his b ro th e r P h ilip ’s wife. T h e re is som e u n c e rta in ty a b o u t this P hilip, since th e P hilip we know as H e ro d ’s b ro th e r fro m th e G ospels (i.e., th e te tra rc h o f L uke 3:1) was ap p aren tly m a rrie d n o t to H ero d ias b u t to S alom e h e r d a u g h te r (cf. Jos., Ant. 18.5.4 §136). T h e P hilip m e n tio n e d in o u r p e ric o p e was prob ab ly a h a lf b ro th e r o f A ntipas a n d is re fe rre d to as H e ro d by Jo sep h u s; th e m o th e r o f this H erod-P h ilip was M ariam ne II. H ow ever this p ro b lem is to be solved, J o h n o p p o se d H e ro d ’s m arria g e to his b ro th e r’s wife, n o t sim ply o n th e g ro u n d s o f th e im p ro p riety o f divorce a n d re m a rria g e (cf. 19:9) b u t o n th e basis o f th e O T p ro h ib itio n reflected in Lev 18:16 a n d 20:21 (in th e case o f a childless widow, such a “levirate” m arria g e was obligatory; see D e u t 25:5; cf. M att 22:24). T his lies b e h in d J o h n ’s stro n g statem en t: ούκ έ ξ ε σ τ ίν σοι έ χ ε ιν αύτήν, “it is n o t lawful fo r you to have her.” T h e im p e rfe c t tense o f έ λ ε γ ε ν im plies re p e titio n : “h e k e p t saying.” H e ro d w ould n o t to le ra te J o h n ’s c o n d e m n a tio n a n d so h a d h im arrested . (Josephus, o n th e o th e r h a n d , states th a t J o h n was a rre ste d fo r sed itio n [Ant. 18.5.2 §§118-19]. Any fo rm o f o p p o sitio n fro m an apocalyptic p re a c h e r co u ld easily have b e e n re g a rd e d as seditious.) 5 A cco rd in g to M atthew, H e ro d w an ted to silence J o h n p e rm a n e n tly by killing h im (βέλων is a concessive p articip le, th u s “a lth o u g h w anting to ”) b u t was afraid o f το ν όχλον, “th e cro w d ,” b ecau se they h e ld J o h n to b e a π ρ ο φ ή τη ν, “p r o p h e t” (for M arkan differences, see above Form/Structure/Setting §B; cf. exactly th e sam e fear c o n c e rn in g Jesus, b u t p e rta in in g to his arrest, in 21:46). In 21:21 M atthew again n o tes th a t J o h n was widely h e ld to b e a p ro p h e t (cf. 11:9). J o h n h a d m ad e a g re a t im p act o n th e p o p u lace as a p ro p h e t o r “sp o k esm an ” fo r G od (cf. 3:5 -6 ), a n d a lth o u g h h e h a d b e e n a rre ste d , h e h a d ap p aren tly n o t b e e n forg o tten ; a n d this H e ro d knew. 6 -7 A t a g r e a t b a n q u e t c e le b ra tin g H e r o d ’s b irth d a y , th e d a u g h te r o f H ero d ias (Salom e, th o u g h n o t n a m e d h e re o r in th e M arkan parallel; cf. Jos., Ant. 18.5.4 §136) d a n c e d a n d so d elig h te d H e ro d th a t b efo re everyone h e ra th e r boastfully a n d recklessly p rom ised to give th e girl w hatever she requested. T h o u g h p erh ap s u n u su al, it is n o t im p ro b ab le th a t a girl probably n o t m u ch o ld e r th a n twelve (n o te th e d im inutive fo rm o f κοράσιον in v 11, lit. “little g irl”; cf. M ark 5:42) w ould d a n c e b efo re guests o n a special occasion, th o u g h she was a p rin cess. T h e Sem itism μ ε θ ' όρκου ώ μολόγησεν, “h e swore w ith an o a th ,” indicates th e stre n g th a n d seriousness o f th e p ro m ise a n d th u s H e r o d ’s sense o f obligation. T h e o p e n in g c o n stru c tio n o f th e verse, γενεσίοίς- δε γενο μένο ις, “w hen th e b irth day c eleb ratio n a rriv ed ,” is very u nusual. M atthew ap p aren tly bo rro w ed γενεσίοις' fro m M ark a n d th e n a d d e d th e c o n c o rd a n t p articip le o f γίνεσθαι o n th e m o d el o f M atthew ’s favorite, th e genitive absolute (giving “th e a p p e a ra n ce o f a Lat. ablative a b so lu te ” [W ellhausen, cited by M cN eile]). 8 T h e girl follow ed h e r m o th e r’s p ro m p tin g (προβίβασθεϊσα, “p u t fo rw ard ,” th e only o c c u rre n ce o f th e w ord in th e N T) in m aking th e asto nishing req u est

Explanation

413

fo r J o h n ’s h e a d o n a platter. T h a t th e re q u e st co u ld b e m ad e a n d g ra n te d a t a b a n q u e t u n d e rlin e s th e d eg rad atio n o f th e royal court. H ero d ias is d escrib ed in th e M arkan a c c o u n t as w anting th e d e a th o f J o h n (M ark 6:19). 9-11 T h e “k in g ” (th e title was probably u sed for H e ro d as ru le r b u t was n o t strictly tru e) re g re tte d having m ad e th e foolish prom ise: λυττηθείς, “having b ecom e d istressed .” T h e follow ing accusative p h ra se g o v ern ed by διά, “because o f,” can be taken e ith e r w ith th e p reced in g participle, thus giving th e g ro u n d s for H e ro d ’s grief, o r w ith th e follow ing verb, έκ έλευ σ εν, “h e c o m m a n d e d ,” giving th e g ro u n d s fo r th e com m and. T h e differen ce is slight. It was because h e h a d m ade “th e o a th s” (το ύ ς δρκους, plural, is p e rh a p s to be u n d e rsto o d as o n e oath; cf. BDF §142; cf. th e singular in v 7) befo re “those reclin in g at th e m eal with h im ” ( τούς1 συνανακειμένουςj th a t h e felt obligated, alm ost against his will (cf. v 4 with M ark 6:20), to carry o u t th e request. H e “se n t” ( 7τέμψας) soldiers to d o his dirty work; th e singular verb ά π εκεφ ά λισ εν [τον] Ίω ά ννην ev rrj φυλακή, “h e b e h e a d e d J o h n in th e p riso n ,” places th e responsibility u p o n his shoulders. W h en th e h e a d was b ro u g h t to th e girl, ή ν ε γ κ ε ν rrj μ η τρ ί α ύ τ η ς , “she b ro u g h t it to h e r m o th e r,” H erodias, th e real instigator o f J o h n ’s m u rder. 12 T h e disciples o f J o h n (αυτοί), “h is”) took th e body a n d b u rie d it (cf. 27:5761, for Jesus; Acts 8:2, fo r S tep h en ). H aving fulfilled this duty to th e ir m aster, they re p o rte d his d e a th to Jesus (ά ττή γγείλα ν τ φ Ίησοϋ). T his last piece o f inform atio n , fo u n d only in M atthew, again p o in ts to th e close ties betw een Jesus a n d J o h n (cf. 3:11-16; 11:7-19; 17:12; 21:32). J o h n ’s disciples know th a t because o f th e ir association Jesus m u st im m ediately h e a r a b o u t J o h n ’s d e a th (for previous co n tact betw een J o h n ’s disciples a n d Jesus, see 9:14; 11:2; we have n o way o f knowing w hat J o h n ’s resp o n se was to th e re p o rt o f 11:4-6). Explanation A lthough J o h n th e B aptist cam e in th e eschatological role o f Elijah, “they d id to him w hatever they p leased ” (17:12). As J o h n was reg ard ed as a p ro p h e t, h e suffered the fate o f the p ro p h e ts (cf. this im p o rta n t th em e in 23:31-35). D escribed by Jesus as greater th an any o th e r “b o rn o f w om an” (11:11), h e was m u rd e re d th ro u g h a bizarre sequence o f events, p a rt o f the “e n te rta in m e n t” o f th e evening, by the whim a n d caprice o f the wicked. A h o rre n d o u s crim e o f this kind is self-indicting. Yet G od n o m ore prevents this outrageous d e e d th an h e will the d e a th o f Jesus, o r later o f S tephen a n d the thousands o f m artyrs w ho have followed in his footsteps. J o h n ’s m u rd e r is a foreshadow ing o f th e m u rd e r o f Jesus, a n d M atthew ’s narrative is d esigned to indicate a n u m b e r o f parallels. “So also th e Son o f M an will suffer at th eir h a n d s” (17:12). D eath, th e tem p o rary e n d o f physical life, is n o t the worst enem y o f hum anity. A lienation from G od is. A nd thus those w ho m u rd e re d Jo h n are far m o re pitiable th a n is J o h n him self. In this instance, to be “d e a d ” is m ore blessed th an to be “alive”; fo r th e o n e m u rd e re d truly lives, while those w ho m urd e re d him are in reality th e dead. As Jesus was soon to follow in J o h n ’s p ath, so are his disciples also to be p re p a re d for d e a th (cf. 10:21-22, 39; 24:9).

414

Ma t t h e w 14:13-21

The Feeding o f the Five Thousand

(14:13-21)

Bibliography

Bammel, E. “The Feeding of the Multitude.” In Jesus and the Politics o f H is Day , ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 211-40. Buse, I. “The Gospel Accounts of the Feeding of the Multitudes.” E xpTim 74 (1963) 167-70. Cangh, J. M. van. L a multiplication des pains et l’euchanstie. LD 86. Paris: Cerf, 1975. Cerfaux, L. “La section des pains.” In Recueil L u cien Cerfaux. Gembloux: Duculot, 1954. 1:471-86. Clavier, H. “La multiplication des pains dans le ministère de Jesus.” S E 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 441-57. Cousins, P. E. “The Feeding of the Five Thousand.” E v Q 3 9 (1967) 152-54. Farrer, A. M. “Loaves and Thousands.” JTS 4 (1953) 1-14. Fowler, R. M. Loaves and Fishes: The Function o f the Feeding Stones in the Gospel o f Mark. SBLDS 54. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981. Grant, R. M. The Problem o f Miraculous Feedings in the Greco-Roman World. Berkeley: University of California, 1982. Hebert, A. G. “History in the Feeding of the Five Thousand.” SE 2 [= TU 87] (1964) 65-72. Heising, A. Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung. SBS 15. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966.———. “Exegesis und Theologie der alt- und neutestamentlichen Speisewunder.” Z T K 86 (1964) 80-96. Iersel, B. van. “Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition.” N o v T 7 (1964-65) 167-94. Knackstedt, J. “Die beiden Brotvermehrungen im Evangelien.” N T S 10 (1964) 309-35. Kortner, H. J. “Das Fischmotiv im Speisungswunder.” Z N W 75 (1984) 24-35. Masuda, S. ‘The Good News of the Miracle of the Bread.” N T S 28 (1982) 191-219. Neugebauer, F. “Die wunderbare Speisung (Mark 6.30-44 parr.) und Jesu Identität.” KD 32 (1986) 254-77. Patsch, H. “Abendmahlsterminologie ausserhalb der Einsetzungsberichte.” Z N W 62 (1971) 210-31. Potterie, I. de la. “Le sens primitif de la multiplication des pains.” In Jesus aux ongines de la christologie, ed. J. Dupont. BETL 40. Gembloux: Duculot, 1975. 303-29. Repo, E. “Fünf Brote und zwei Fische.” In Probleme der Forschung, ed. A. Fuchs. SNTU A3. Vienna: Herold, 1978. 99-113. Richardson, A. “The Feeding of the Five Thousand.” In t 9 (1955) 144-49. Schenke, L. Die wunderbare Brotvermehrung. Würzburg: Echter, 1983. Translation 13A n d when Jesus heard this, he went away from there in a boata pnvately to a deserted place. A n d when the crowds heard this, they followed him from the cities by foot. 14A n d when he disembarked,b he saw a huge crowd, and he was moved with compassion fo r them, and he healed their sick. 15B u t when it was evening, his disciples came to him and said: “This is a deserted place, and the d a yc is already gone. Send the crowds away d so that they may return to their villagese and buy food fo r themselves.” 16B ut Jesusf said to them: “There is no need fo r them to go away. You give them something to eat.” 17B ut they said to him: “We have nothing here except fiv e loaves and two fish.” 18A n d he said: “Bring them here to me.” 19A n d having commandedg the crowds to recline on the grass, he took the fiv e loaves and the two fish, looked up into the sky and blessed God, and when he had broken the loaves into pieces, he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave it to the crowds. 20A n d everyone ate and was fu ll, and they took up twelve baskets fu ll o f leftoverfragm ents.21A n d those who ate numbered abouthfiv e thousand, not counting the women and children.

Form /Stru cture/Setting

415

Notes a Γ sys,c and a few other witnesses omit εν πλοίω, “in a boat.” b A few witnesses (a b ff2 sy8*) omit έξελθών, “having disembarked” or “having come out.” c η ώρα, lit. “the hour.” See BAGD, s.v. d K C Z / 1 syhmg samss bo add ovv, “therefore.” c Some MSS (C* Θ syhmg samss) read κύκλω, “surrounding (area),” for κώμας, “villages,” through the influence of the parallel in Mark 6:36. f A number of MSS (K* D Z ^ e k sye,c,p sa bo) omit Ιησούς, ‘Jesus,” with the result that the definite article functions as a pronoun. On the other hand, many MSS include Ιησούς ( ^ B C L W O f 1 . 3TR lat syh sams mae) so that the critical text places the name in the text but encloses it in brackets. g B* reads κελεύσατε, “[you] command (them ).” h A few witnesses (W lat sys,c,p bo) omit ώσεί, “about.”

Form/Structure/Setting A. T h e n a rra tiv e now tu rn s to th e re c o u n tin g o f two d ra m a tic “n a tu r e ” m iracles, th e m ultiplying o f th e loaves a n d fish a n d Je su s’ w alking o n th e water. T hese have th e effect o f sh arp en in g fu rth e r th e qu estio n c o n c e rn in g th e pow er a n d identity o f Jesus. T h e feed in g o f th e five th o u san d , fu rth e rm o re , has un m istakable m essianic im plications. B. In this pericope, w hich is th e only m iracle o f Jesus fo u n d in all fo u r Gospels (cf. J o h n 6:1-15), M atthew is d e p e n d e n t o n M ark (M ark 6:32-44; cf. Luke 9:10b17). Again M atthew ’s clear tendency is to abbreviate M ark’s account b u t n o t by quite as m u ch as elsew here. M atthew ’s o p en in g words, άκούσας δέ ό Ιησούς, “an d w hen Jesus h e a rd this,” are his own transition from the p reced in g p ericope (on the p roblem thereby caused, see Comment). M atthew (so too Luke) om its M ark’s και εΐδον αυτούς υ π ά γο ντα ς, “a n d they saw th em d e p a rtin g ” (M ark 6:33), a n d M ark’s note, και προήλθον αυτούς, “they arrived before th e m ” (M ark 6:33), since M atthew reports only the m ovem ent o f Jesus. M atthew om its M ark’s hyperbolic πασών, “all,” before “the cities” (v 13; M ark 6:33). M atthew (so too Luke) does n o t include M ark’s “because they w ere like sh eep n o t having a s h e p h e rd ” (M ark 6:34), w hich h e has used already in a n o th e r c o n tex t (9:36). H e also om its th e im m ediately following words, “a n d he began to teach th em m any things” (M ark 6:34), adding instead the reference to healing: καί έθεράπευσεν το ύς άρρωστους αύτών, “a n d he h ealed th eir sick” (v 14; cf. Luke 9:11). T h e re follow som e very slight changes, from w hich we n o te only th e om ission o f το ύς κύκλω άγρούς, lit. “th e su rro u n d in g fields (ham le ts ),” o f M ark 6:36 a n d th e su b stitu tio n o f β ρ ώ μ α τα , “fo o d ,” for t l φ άγω σιν, “som eth in g they m ig h t e a t” (v 15; M ark 6:36). In v 16 M atthew inserts ού χ ρ εία ν εχουσ ιν άπελθεΐν, “th ere is n o n e e d for th em to go away.” M atthew (so too Luke) fu rth e r om its M ark’s referen ce to th e disciples’ ex trao rd in ary question w h eth er they sho u ld buy 200 d en arii (a d en ariu s was a day’s wages) w orth o f b read (M ark 6:37) as well as Jesu s’ response, “H ow m any loaves do you have? Go see” (M ark 6:37), thus necessitating th e ad ditio n o f ούκ εχο μ εν ώδε εί μή, “we have n o th in g h e re e x cep t” (v 17; cf. Luke 9:13). M atthew fu rth e r adds ό δέ ε ΐ π ε ν φ έρ ετε μοι ωδε αύτούς, “a n d he said, ‘B ring th em h ere to m e ’” (v 18), thus u n d e rlin in g th e sovereign au th o rity o f Jesus. M atthew (so too L uke) om its th e d etailed in fo rm atio n co n cern in g the crowd sitting in “com panies,” “g ro u p s” o f “h u n d re d s ” a n d “fifties,” as well as th e n o te th a t th e grass was “g re e n ” (M ark 6:39-40).

416

Ma t t h e w 14:13-21

By contrast, however, M atthew a n d Luke follow M ark very closely in th e description o f Je su s’ actions at this point, om itting only M ark’s τούς άρτους, “th e loaves” (M ark 6:41). M atthew a n d L uke also a p p e a r u n in te re ste d in th e fish, o m itting M ark’s referen ce to Jesu s’ dividing o f th e fish for everyone (M ark 6:41), as well as th e notice th a t the leftover fragm ents in clu d ed th e fish (M ark 6:43). T h e focus o n th e b read , a n d om ission o f referen ce to th e fish, may be related to a eucharistic u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e passage w herein th e latter h a d n o place (see Comment o n w 18-19). Finally, M atthew adds το περισσεϋον, “th e ab u n d an ce left over” (v 20; cf. L uke 9:14), a n d th e concluding notice th a t th e n u m b e r five th o u san d was χω ρ ίς γυναικών και παιδιών, “w ithout w om en a n d c h ild re n ” (v 21). T h e n u m e ro u s m in o r ag reem en ts betw een M atthew a n d Luke against M ark in this p erico p e are rem ark able. T hey are very probably to be explained th ro u g h the influence o f oral trad ition (thus rightly Luz) a n d d o n o t constitute an insu p erab le obstacle to th e two-source hypothesis a n d M arkan priority, as som etim es claim ed. N ote especially, for exam ple, th e nearly verbatim ag reem en t in the description o f the actions o f Jesus (v 19b; M ark 6:41; Luke 9:16), probably in fluenced by the eucharistic tradition. C. As a “gift m iracle” narrative (thus T heissen, Miracle Stories, 104), th e fo rm o f th e story is a little unusual. In particular, th e re is surprisingly n e ith e r a c o m m e n t o n th e reaction o f th e p eo p le n o r a christological conclusion draw n by th e evangelist. T h e rem ark ab le story is thus left to m ake its own statem ent. T h e following o u tlin e o f th e p erico p e may be suggested: (1) th e setting, consisting o f (a) Jesu s’ w ithdraw al (v 13a) a n d (b) th e following o f th e crow d (v 13b); (2) com passionate healings (v 14); (3) th e p ro b lem (v 15); (4) Jesu s’ incredible suggestion (v 16); (5) th e scanty resources (v 17); an d (6) th e solution, consisting o f (a) th e m iracle itself (vv 18-19), (b) th e a b u n d an ce (v 20), a n d (c) th e n u m b e r fed (v 21). T h ere is only a sm all a m o u n t o f parallel stru ctu re in th e pericope: e.g., v 13a a n d 13b (participles o f άκούειν, “h e a r”; m ain verbs; the datives ε ν πλοίω, “in a b o a t,” πεζή, “on fo o t”; a n d th e statem ents ab o u t ο τό π ο ς, “th e p lace,” a n d ή ώρα, “th e h o u r” [v 15]). V 19 is notew orthy in this respect for the two m ain verbs εύλόγησεν, “h e blessed,” a n d εδωκεν, “h e gave,” to g eth er with the aorist participles su b o rd in ated to them . D. T his p e ric o p e finds a close p arallel a n d possible d o u b le t in th e fe e d in g o f th e fo u r th o u sa n d in 15:32-39 (cf. M ark 8 :1 -1 0 ). See th e discussion o f th e p ro b lem th e re {Form/Structure/Setting § D ). B oth feed in g p erico p es are allu d ed to in 16:5-12 (cf. M ark 8 :14-21). E. T h e qu estio n o f th e historicity o f this m iracle has proved p ro b lem atic fo r m any m o d e rn scholars. T h e h ea lin g m iracles o f Jesu s co n stitu te far less o f a p ro b lem because o f th e well-known p h e n o m e n o n o f psychosom atic healings. T hose such as th e p re se n t o n e a n d th e w alking o n th e w ater in th e n e x t p erico p e (vv 2 2 -3 3 ), however, involve d ire c t c o n tra v e n tio n o f n a tu ra l law. If th e w orld view o f th e in te rp re te r does n o t allow this possibility, im plausible natu ralistic ex p lan ations will b e sought: e.g., Jesus was able to g e t those w ho h a d fo o d in th e crow d to sh are it w ith th e ir n eig h b o rs, o r Jesu s w alked th e b each o r o n stones ju s t below th e surface o f th e water. Such ex p lan atio n s are far fro m th e in te n tio n o f th e evangelists a n d o u t o f line w ith th e G ospel narratives. B ut are such n a tu re m iracles to be autom atically ex clu d ed as im possibilities? If, as th e Bible claim s, G od w orks in h isto ry a n d u n iq u ely a n d suprem ely in Jesu s C hrist, m ay n o t such events have actually h a p p e n e d ? If we d o n o t allow th e tra n sc e n d e n t w ithin history, th e Bible suddenly becom es a very d iffe re n t collection

Comment

417

o f w ritings, a b o o k o f p arab les c o n c e rn in g h u m a n existence ra th e r th a n th e acc o u n t o f salvation w orked o u t in th e historical process. T h e historicity o f m iracles th a t tran scen d th e laws o f n a tu re c a n n o t be established h ere. It is an assum ption o f th e p re se n t c o m m en tary th a t th e m iracles re c o rd e d by M atthew w ere historical events. W ith th e evangelist, we are driven to th e q u estio n o f w ho this Jesu s is (cf. 8:27; 16:13-15), fo r this issue is at th e b o ttom a christological one. Comment 13 M atthew ’s άκούσας, “w hen h e h e a rd ,” ties this passage to th e e n d o f the p rece d in g o n e a b o u t th e d e a th o f J o h n th e Baptist. (In M ark th e p re c e d in g passage [M ark 6:30-31] reco rd s n o t th e d e a th o f J o h n b u t th e re tu rn o f th e apostles from th e ir m issionary jo u rn e y ; th u s Je su s’ going off privately in a b o a t is n o t a response to th e news o f J o h n ’s d e a th , as it is in M atthew.) T h a t is, in M atthew w hen Jesu s h e a rd o f th e d e a th o f J o h n , h e w en t o ff by h im self fo r a while. T h e effect o f this, however, is to ig n o re th e fact th a t th e story o f J o h n ’s d e a th was a flashback a n d so to throw th e e n tire sequ en ce o f narratives th a t follow back to th a t earlier tim e. P erh ap s M atthew re g a rd e d J o h n ’s d eath as having o ccu rred only a few days earlier (thus M cN eile). T h e suggestion that, given th e p aren th etical n a tu re o f w 3-12, th e ob ject o f άκούσας, “having h e a rd ,” is H e ro d ’s evaluation o f J o h n in v 2 (C arson, M orris, B lom berg) ig n o res th e p la c e m e n t o f άκούσας im m ediately following th e re fe re n ce to th e re p o rt o f J o h n ’s d e a th to Jesus (v 22). This verse is a c o u n te rp a rt to 4:12, w hich refers to Je su s’ response to J o h n ’s im p riso n m e n t u sin g th e sam e p a rtic ip le , ά κ ο ύ σ α ς , “h av in g h e a r d ,” a n d m a in verb , άνεχώ ρησεν, “h e w en t away.” Presum ably Jesu s h a d g o n e ε ι ς έρημον τόπον κα τ' ιδία ν, “privately to a d e se rte d p la c e ,” in o rd e r to pray, th e d e a th o f J o h n p erh ap s tu rn in g his m in d to his own ap p ro a c h in g passion (cf. v 23). T h e re is n o indication at all th a t Jesus is a ttem p tin g to flee from H e ro d A ntipas (or, in d eed , th a t Jesu s was now newly th re a te n e d by th e la tte r), despite th e assu m p tio n o f m any co m m en tato rs (cf. to o o n 14:22). T h e crow ds (oi δ χλ o l ), however, follow ed him as always (cf. 4:25; 8:1; 19:2; 20:29). T hey cam e άπό τω ν πόλεων, “from th e cities,” probab ly C a p e rn a u m a n d o th e rs alo n g th e lake, πεζή, “by fo o t,” follow ing th e sho relin e w ith th e ir eyes o n Je su s’ boat. 14 W h en Jesu s g o t o u t o f th e b o a t at a d e se rte d place along th e shore, he was c o n fro n te d w ith πολνν όχλον, “a large crow d,” a n d h e was “m oved w ith com p assion” (έσ π λα γχ ν ίσ θ η ; used in th e sam e sense in 9:36; 15:32). In a sum m ary way, M atthew n o tes (cf. L uke 9:11) th a t έθερά πενσ εν το ύ ς άρρω στους αύτών, “h e h e a le d th e ir sick” (άρρω στος is used in M atthew only h ere; fo r Θεραπεύειν in m iracle sum m aries, see 4:23-24; 8:16; 9:35; 12:15; 15:30; 19:2; 21:14). 15 T h e disciples (oi μ α θ η τα ί), w ho have n o t yet b e e n m e n tio n e d in th e p eric o p e b u t w ho, like th e crowds, m u st have w alked to th e spot, articu late th e p ro b le m p o se d by th e large crow d a n d th e e n d o f th e day. ή ώρα, w hich usually m ean s “th e h o u r,” h e re is to b e u n d e rs to o d as “th e day” (see BAGD, 896a). ή ώρα ήδη π α ρ ή λθ εν, “th e day is already g o n e ,” is th u s th e eq u iv a le n t o f ό φ ία ς δε γεν ο μ έν η ς, “w hen it was ev en in g ,” th e w ords w ith w hich this verse begins. T h e disciples p ro p o se th a t Jesu s dismiss th e crowds so th a t they can go to τ ά ς κώμας, “th e v illag es,” i.e., p ro b a b ly n e a rb y c o m m u n itie s, in o rd e r to a c q u ire fo o d

418

Ma t t h e w 14:13-21

(βρώ ματα; th e only o ccu rren ce o f th e w ord in M atthew ) fo r them selves. U n d e r th e circum stances this clearly seem ed th e b est th in g to do. 16-17 Je su s’ resp o n se to this suggestion m u st have seem ed in c o m p re h e n sible to th e disciples. T h e crow d d id n ’t n e e d to go away, because th e disciples co uld give th em so m eth ing to eat: δ ό τε α υ το ίς υμείς· φ αγεΐυ, “You give th e m (food) to e a t” (em phasis from th e unn ecessary p ro n o u n ). In M atthew ’s ac c o u n t they express th e ir in cred u lity in th e sim ple w ords “we have n o th in g h e re e x c e p t five loaves a n d two fish.” At this p o in t th e story bears som e in te n tio n a l sim ilarity to th e c o m m e n t o f Elisha in th e m iracu lo u s provision o f fo o d fro m twenty loaves o f barley a n d th e resp o n se o f th e m an from B aal-shalishah (2 Kgs 4:42-44; cf. J o h n 6:9, “b u t w hat are those am o n g so m any?”). 18-19 T h e m iracle o f th e m u ltip licatio n o f th e loaves a n d fish is n o t d e scribed— in d e e d , it is n o t even m e n tio n e d as such b u t only first discovered by th e re a d e r th ro u g h its results, m e n tio n e d in v 20. C o n fro n te d with th e pro b lem , Jesus first asks fo r th e five loaves a n d two fish to b e b ro u g h t to h im a n d co m m an d s th e crow ds to sit dow n (άνακλιθηναι, “to re c lin e ,” as at a m eal— in d eed , as at a b a n q u et) o n th e grass. H e th e n takes th e b read , looks u p to heaven, a n d in rab b in ic fash io n blesses G od fo r th e gift o f food. (T h e tra d itio n a l prayer was: “B lessed a rt th o u , O L o rd o u r G od, King o f th e universe, w ho b rin g est fo rth b re a d fro m th e e a rth ”; cf. m. Ber. 8:7; b. Ber. 35a; 46a.) T h e n h e breaks th e b re a d (a n d fish) a n d gives it to his disciples, w ho in tu rn give it to th e crowds. T h e seq u en ce o f verbs o r particip les, i.e., λαμβάυειυ, “ta k e ,” εύ λο γεΐυ , “b less,” κλαυ, “b re a k ,” δίδό να ι, “give,” is th e sam e as in th e a c c o u n t o f th e Last S u p p e r (26:26-27), suggesting an inevitable association o f th e two stories (b u t cf. th e sim ilarity w ith th e descrip tio n o f th e o rd in a ry m eal in Acts 27:35). άυαβλέψ ας ε ις το υ ούραυόν, “having lo o k ed u p in to th e sky,” lacking in 26:26, reflects a co m m o n p ractice in c o n n e c tio n w ith pray er (cf. M ark 7:34; J o h n 11:41; 17:1; fo r O T b ack g ro u n d , Ps 123:1). 20 T h e sta te m e n t o f th e m iracle is really fo u n d in this verse in th e observatio n th a t εφ α γο ν π ά υ τε ς καί έχορτάσθησαυ, “everyone ate a n d was fu ll.” T h e last verb, χ ο ρ τά ζ ε ιυ , has th e n u a n c e o f b ein g “com pletely satisfied”; it has already b e e n u sed w ith clearly eschatological associations in 5:6. T h e m iracle in this sense an ticipates th e m essianic age in w hich th e h u n g ry are to be fed (cf. L uke 1:53; 6:21). M essianic blessing also ap p ears to be in te n d e d in th e o v erab u n d an ce o f food. T h u s th e leftover frag m en ts filled δώδεκα κοφίυονς, “twelve baskets.” T his w ord fo r “b ask et,” κόφινος, “c o n sid e re d typical fo r th e Jew s” (BAGD, 447), is u sed in th e N T only in re fe re n ce to th e leftovers co llected in th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d (16:9; M ark 6:43; 8:19; L uke 9:17; J o h n 6:13). A d ifferen t w ord fo r “bask e t,” σ π ν ρ ίς , a te rm u sed also a m o n g th e G reeks, is u sed in re fe re n c e to th e collection o f th e fragm ents left over from th e feed in g o f th e fo u r th o u san d (15:37; 16:10; M ark 8:8, 20). T h e fact th a t “twelve” baskets are re fe rre d to in this p e ric o p e probably sym bolizes th e twelve tribes o f Israel (c o n tra L uz), i.e., a portrayal o f m essianic fu lfillm en t b ro u g h t to th e Jews. T h e n u m b e r o f baskets in th e two feedings is m ad e im p o rta n t by 16:9-10. T his alo n e en c o u ra g e s th e in te p re te r to th in k o f th e significance o f th e nu m b ers; it does n o t suggest, however, th a t every n u m b e r in th e passage (e.g., five loaves, two fishes, five th o u sa n d m e n ) has symbolic significance. T his m iracle recalls G o d ’s m iracu lo u s, a b u n d a n t provision o f m an n a , “b re a d ,” ά ρ το ς in th e LXX, in th e w ilderness (cf. E xod 16:13-35; N u m

Bibliography

419

11:7-9, 3 1 -3 2 ). T h e eschatological c o n n o ta tio n o f th e m a n n a m iracle is evident in 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:8 (cf. Rev 2:17). 21 T h e n u m b e r o f those w ho w ere m iraculously fed is re c k o n e d as “ab o u t [ώσεί] five th o u sa n d .” M atthew alone am o n g th e fo u r evangelists n o tes th a t this was a c o u n t o f th e m en a n d d id n o t in clu d e th e w om en a n d ch ild ren w ho were fed. N o a tte m p t is m ad e, however, to give a total c o u n t o f those w ho w ere fed. Explanation T he miracle o f the feeding o f the five thousand is m uch m ore than ju st the supernatural provision for the physical hu n g er o f a large crowd on a specific occasion. T here is n o n eed to deny the historicity o f the miracle simply because we have never witnessed a m iraculous multiplication o f food. At the same time, however, the literal, historical miracle o f Jesus on this occasion is full o f ongoing and im portant significance for Matthew’s com m unity an d for us. Indeed, the miracle is a d eed filled with symbolism at m ore than o ne level, which is why M atthew (following Mark) takes the trouble to tell the very similar story o f the feeding o f the four thousand (see Comment on 15:3239). T he prim ary symbolism is that o f messianic provision, which both points to the reality o f present fulfillment an d foreshadows the blessings o f the eschaton (the Fourth Gospel develops this idea, relating the feeding miracle also to the eucharist; Jo h n 6). This provision takes place in the wilderness, ju st as m anna was provided in the wilderness. It is a kind o f messianic banq u et in which the people recline at table (cf. 8:11). Jesus is the messianic provider, the Christ—a point left implicit by Matthew in this passage. T he hungry are filled now as they will also be filled in the future. T he miracle typifies the full an d com plete blessing o f hum anity in the m eeting o f hum an n eed and the experience o f ultim ate well-being, universal shalom. T he feeding o f the m ultitude is thus the harbinger o f good news for M atthew’s church an d for Christians o f every era. At another level and in specific contrast to the feeding o f the four thousand (which, as will be seen, points to the G entiles), the symbolism of the twelve baskets suggests the special significance o f this miracle for Israel. Messianic fulfillment m eans (and especially for Matthew!) that Jesus will provide for Israel before considering the Gentiles. A nd the feeding o f the five thousand is an indication to the Jews that the Messiah is in their midst, offering to them — as in the miracle o f m anna in the wilderness—the reality of salvation, the fulfillment o f the promises.

W alking on the W ater

(14:22-33)

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. “Person and Deed: Jesus and the Storm-Tossed Sea.” Int 16 (1962) 169-76. Berg, W. Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher M otive im Neuen Testament dargestellt an den Seewandelerzählungen. Freiburg: Hochschule, 1979. Braumann, G. “Der sinkende Petrus.” TZ 22 (1966) 403-14. Carlisle, C. R. ‘Jesus’ Walking on the Water: A Note on Matthew 14:22-

420

Ma t t h e w 14:22-33

33.” N T S 31 (1985) 151-55. Denis, A. M. “La marche de Jesus sur les eaux.” In De Jesus aux Evangdes, ed. I. de la Potterie. BETL 35. Gembloux: Duculot, 1967. 233-47. Derrett, J. D. M. “Why and HowJesus Walked on the Sea.” N o v T 23 (1981) 330-48. Heil, J. P. Jesus Walking on the Sea. AnBib 87. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981. Hill, D. E ‘The Walking on the Water.” ExpTim 99 (1988) 267-69. Kratz, R. “Der Seewandel des Petrus.” BibLeb 15 (1974) 86-101. Lövestam, E. “Wunder und Symbolhandlung: Eine Studie über Matthäus 14.28-31.” KD 8 (1962) 124-35. Ritt, H. “Der ‘Seewandel Jesu’ (Mark 6.45-52 par.).” B Z 23 (1979) 71-84. Smit-Sibinga, J. “Matthew 14,22-33: Text and Composition.” In New Testament Textual Oriticism. FS B. M. Metzger, ed. J. E. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. 15-33. Translation 22A n d immediatelya he instructed the disciplesh to get into thec boat and to go before him d to the other side while he dismissed the crowds. 23A n d after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up to the mountain p rivately in order to pray. A n d when evening came, he was there alone. 24B ut the boat was alreadye a long distance1from the land, being tossed about by the waves, fo r the wind was contrary. 2bA n d in the fourth watch o f the night, he came to them, walking across the lake. 26B ut when his disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying: “It is a ghost. ” A n d they cried out in fear. 27B ut immediately [Jesus] g spoke to them, saying: “Be o f good courage. It is I! Do not be afraid. ”28A n d Peter answered him and said: “Lord, i f it is you, command me to come to you on the water. ”^ A n d he said: “Come.”A n d Peter got out o f the boat and walked on the water, and he cameh to Jesus. 30B ut seeing the [strong]1 wind, he was afraid, and when he began to sink, he cried out, saying: “Lord, save me. ”2)1A n d Jesus immediately stretched out his hand and took hold o f him, and he said to him: “You o f little faith, why did you doubt?” 32A n d when they got into the boat, the wind stopped. 33A n d those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying: “Truly you are the Son of God. ” Notes a εύθέως, “immediately,” is omitted in N* C* (ff1) sy8^, an “accidental omission” according to the committee. See TCGNT, 36. b Some MSS (B K P Θ / 13 it vgmss sy) read αυτόν, “his,” after “disciples,” probably from the influence of the parallel in Mark 6:45. See TCGNT, 36. c A few MSS (B Σ / 1 33 boms mae) omit the definite article τό, “the,” thus producing “a boat.” d D it omit αυτόν, “him .” e D lat sy^P co omit ήδη, “already.” f σταδίους πολλούς, lit. “many stadia.” Θ has, in addition to a different word order, σταδίους Ικανούς, with approximately the same meaning; many MSS ( ^ C D L W 084 0106 / 1 syh TR) refer to μέσον της θαλάσσης, “the middle of the lake” (cf. Mark 6:47). Since harmonization with Mark (and not John 6:19) is probable, the committee concludes that the text of B / 13best accounts for the other readings. See TCGNT\ 37. s N* D 084 sy° sa bo omit δ ’Ιησούς, ‘Jesus.” O ther witnesses (C L W Θ 0 1 0 6 /113 TR) place αύτοΐς, “to them ,” before δ ’Ιησούς. Although the shorterjreading may be original, it is also possible that the name dropped out through homoioteleuton (O/C d ’Ιησούς] with ΑΥΤΟΙQ. The committee thus places the name in brackets. See TCGNT, 37. h Some witnesses ( ^ C 2D L W 0 073 0119/ us TR) omit καί, “and,” and have έλθεΐν, “to come,” a scribal softening of the completed action implied by ήλθεν, “he came.” K has both έλθειv and ήλθεν. 1 Some im portant witnesses (K B* 073 33 sa bo) omit ισχυρόν, “strong,” which may have been added to heighten the cause of Peter’s fear (cf. the addition of σφόδρα in W). A majority of the committee, however, regarded the word as necessary to explain Peter’s increased fear. Thus the word is enclosed in brackets. See TCGNT, 38.

Form /Stru cture/Setting

421

Form/Structure/Setting A. As in b o th M ark a n d J o h n , this m iracle occurs im m ediately after the feed ing o f th e five th o u san d . T h e effect o f these successive narratives is pow erful. T h e qu estio n o f th e identity o f this Jesus, w hich has b e e n b efore th e read ers p re viously (cf. 7:28-29; 11:3; 13:54-56; 14:2), especially in 8:27, a n d w hich was left im plicit in th e p re c e d in g n arrative, again cries o u t fo r an answ er th a t is now u n equivocally given in v 33. T his conclu sio n can be said to serve also as a fitting o n e to th e m iracle o f th e feed in g (cf. th e association o f th e passages in M ark 6:52). G reen (141) ap p ro p riately describes th e p e rico p e as “an ep ip h an y o f Jesus to th e disciples, in th e sam e category as th e T ran sfig u ratio n ” (17:1-8). B. In w 22-27 a n d 32-33, M atthew is d e p e n d e n t o n M ark 6:45-52 (cf. J o h n 6:16-21). B eg in n in g w ith this passage dow n th ro u g h 16:12 th e re are n o L ukan parallels. Vv 28-31, o n th e o th e r h a n d , are u n iq u e to M atthew a n d are draw n from his own special source. M atthew again abridges M ark, b u t n o t to th e sam e e x te n t as usual. T h e changes to be n o te d are th e following: in v 22 M atthew om its M ark’s p ro b lem atic προς βηθσαϊδάν, “to B eth said a” (M ark 6:45; cf. J o h n 6:17: “to C a p e rn a u m ”), a n d M ark’s (M ark 6:45) α ύ τό ς, “h e (h im self),” before th e verb “dism issed”; in v 23 h e adds a favorite ph rase, κ α τ'ιδ ία ν , “privately,” in describing Jesu s going u p th e m o u n ta in ; in v 24 h e replaces M ark’s ε ν μέσω τ η ς θαλάσσης, “in th e m id d le o f th e lak e” (M ark 6:47), w ith ήδη σ τα δίο υ ς πολλούς άπό τ ή ς γης, “already m any stadia from th e la n d ” (cf. J o h n 6:19: “twenty five o r thirty stadia”), a n d om its M ark’s καί ίδών αύτούς, “a n d seeing th e m ,” i.e., presum ably from th e la n d (M ark 6:48); in v 25 h e om its M ark’s enigm atic καί ήθελεν παρελθεΐν αύτούς, “a n d h e was ready to pass th e m by” (M ark 6:48), w hich does n o t fit his portrayal o f Jesus. In v 26 h e adds th e w ord μ α θηταί, “disciples,” as well as άπό το ν φόβου, “o u t o f fear,” to stress th e m en tal state o f th e disciples. A t th e very e n d o f th e p e ric o p e (v 33), h e substitutes th e re m a rk a b le προσεκύνησαν αύτω λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς * άληθώς θεού υιός εΐ, “they w orshiped him , saying: ‘Truly you are th e Son o f G o d ,’” fo r M ark’s m u ch w eaker “they w ere exceedingly asto n ish e d ” (M ark 6:51). M atthew fu rth e rm o re om its M ark’s closing sen ten ce, “F or they d id n o t u n d e rs ta n d c o n c e rn in g th e loaves, b u t th e ir h e a rt was h a rd e n e d ” (M ark 6:52). By c o n trast th e disciples in M atthew know th e identity o f Jesus a n d w ith o u t h esitatio n co n fess him to be th e Son o f G od. In this passage M atthew has th u s m o re often altered M ark deliberately r a th e r th a n m erely fo r th e sake o f a b rid g em en t. T h e earlier p eric o p e d escribing Je su s’ stilling o f th e storm a t sea (8:23-27) is parallel in m any respects to th e p re s e n t p e ric o p e (see Form/Structure/Setting D o n th a t p e ric o p e ). C. A lth o u g h th e n arrativ e o f th e events them selves constitutes th e prim ary m a tte r in this p erico p e, th e w ords spoken by Jesus (vv 27, 31), P eter (v 30), a n d th e disciples (v 33) assum e a special im p o rtan ce. T h e passage can be o u tlin ed in th e follow ing way: (1) th e d e p a rtu re o f th e disciples a n d th e dismissal o f th e crowd (vv 22-23a); (2) Jesus prays alone o n th e m o u n ta in (v 23); (3) th e strong w ind o n th e sea (v 24); (4) th e a p p earan ce o f Jesus a n d th e fear o f th e disciples (vv 2 5 26); (5) th e self-revelation o f Jesus a n d a n n o u n c e m e n t o f co m fo rt (v 27); (6) P e te r’s re q u e st a n d his w alking o n th e w ater (vv 28-29); (7) P e te r’s w avering a n d his cry fo r h e lp (v 30) ; (8) th e saving a n d re b u k e o f P e te r (v 31); (9) th e e n d o f th e w ind (v 32); a n d (10) th e disciples’ confession o f faith (v 33). (5) occurs

422

Ma t t h e w 14:22-33

exactly a t th e c e n te r o f th e “d o u b le sto ry ” (G erh ard sso n , Mighty Acts, 57). It is clear fro m th e stru ctu re o f th e p erico p e (as well as fro m com p ariso n w ith M ark) th a t vv 28-31 are a curious p a re n th e tic al in tru sio n in to th e m ain story. In form , th e n arrativ e is th u s sim ilar to th e m iracles o f h ealing: i.e., th e expression o f th e n e e d o f th e disciples (an d P e te r), (P e te r’s re q u e st fo r h e lp ), th e m iracle o f th e calm sea, a n d th e resp o n se o f th e disciples. It is a t th e sam e tim e, however, an e p ip h a n y story. A lth o u g h th e re are som e c o rre sp o n d e n c es in th e stru c tu re o f th e tex t (e.g., “It is a g h o st”— “It is I ”— “if it is y o u ” [vv 26-28]; “L ord, save m e ”— ‘Y ou o f little faith, why did you d o u b t” [vv 3 0 -3 1 ]), th e re is practically n o syntactic p arallelism to b e n o ted . D. O n th e p ro b lem o f th e historicity o f this p eric o p e , see Form/Structure/Setting §E fo r th e p re c e d in g p erico p e (vv 1 3-21). F or (unpersuasive) H ellenistic parallels as well as th e B u d d h ist story (Jätaka 190) o f a disciple w ho w alked o n w ater o r sank d e p e n d in g o n w h e th e r h e focu sed o n th e B u d d h a, see Luz. Comment 22 ευθέως, “im m ediately,” jo in s this passage closely with th e p reced in g o ne, as also in Mark. Jesus ap parently o rd ers th e disciples to re tu rn by b o a t w ithout him (εις το πέραν, “to th e o th e r side,” presum ably to C ap ern au m o n th e west shore o f th e lake [cf. v 13] b u t left vague in M atthew ), n o t simply in o rd e r to dismiss the crowds p ro perly b u t th at h e m ig h t linger in prayer according to his original in te n tion (cf. v 13). It is at least possible th a t th e disciples w ere sen t away in o rd e r to keep th em from possible involvem ent in designs for a m essianic revolt (cf. J o h n 6:15). P erh ap s M atthew ’s om ission o f “h e was ready to pass th em by” (M ark 6:48) indicates th e assum ption o f Jesu s’ deliberate plan to teach th e disciples th ro u g h his m astery o f th e sea. (M atthew seem s oblivious to M ark’s ap parently th e o p h a n ic language [cf. Exod. 33:22].) Since th ere is n o evidence o f im m in e n t d a n g e r from H ero d , a re tu rn to th e w estern shore o f th e lake is n o t at all im possible (cf. J o h n 6:17). T h e b o at with disciples in it suggests th e ch u rch , as also in 8:23. 23 Jesus w en t u p εις τό δρος, “in to th e m o u n ta in ” (cf. 5:1; 15:29; 17:1), o n e o f th e hills alo n g th e n o rth e a s t o r east sh o re o f th e sea o f G alilee, κατ' ιδίαν, “privately,” picks u p again th e sam e p h ra se u sed in v 13 (cf. 17:1), a n d th e p o in t is fu rth e r stre n g th e n e d by μόνος ήν έκεΐ , “h e was th e re a lo n e .” M oses typology h ard ly seem s to b e in te n d e d h e re (c o n tra Davies-Allison), th e re fe re n ce to th e m o u n ta in b e in g m erely b o rro w ed fro m M ark. T h e solitude o f Jesus is th e im p o rta n t m o tif fo r M atthew a t this p o in t. T h e o th e r re fe re n c e s to Je su s p ra y in g (7 τροσεύχεσθαι) in M atthew are in 26:36, 39, 42, 44 (cf. Luke 9:28), all in c o n n e c tio n w ith his own im m in e n t su ffering a n d d e a th . In th e p re s e n t instan ce, th e sam e th o u g h ts m ay b e p re su m e d to b e in Je su s’ m in d , p ro m p te d p e rh a p s by th e r e p o rt o f J o h n th e B aptist’s d e a th (cf. th e initial d e p a rtu re o f Jesus in to th e wild e rn e ss privately in v 13 follow ing th e re p o r t re fe rre d to in v 12). T h e tim e refere n ce όψίας δε γενομένης, “w hen it was ev en in g ,” given th e εύθέως, “im m ed iately,” o f v 22, m ay m e a n sim ply a tim e som ew hat la te r in th e ev en in g th a n th a t re fe rre d to by th e sam e p h rase in v 15 (cf. to o th e re fe re n ce to “th e fo u rth w atch o f th e n ig h t” in v 25). B ut th e p h ra se m ay sim ply b e a relic o f th e sep arate tran sm ission o f th e story in o ral trad itio n .

Comment

423

24 T h e b o at, w hich h a d left som e tim e earlier, was “already m any sta d ia ” (Abot 1:1; cf. Gal. 1:14), w hich was an in terp retatio n o f th e w ritten laws o f the T orah, m e a n t at th e sam e tim e to be a hed g e a ro u n d them . For the Pharisees the m easure o f righteousness a n d thus o f loyalty to the T orah was obed ien ce to this sacred tradition (cf. b. Sukk. 2 0 a). T h e p articu lar instance o f violation th e Pharisees focus u p o n is th a t o f eatin g with unw ashed h an d s (cf. L uke 11:38). T h e referen ce to eatin g “b re a d ” (άρτον), w hich was th e staple o f th e everyday m eal, is a synecdoche for eating food. In view h ere is n o t physical cleanliness b u t ritual purity. T h ere is n o O T co m m a n d m e n t co n cern in g th e cerem onial w ashing o f h ands before th e eating o f o rd in a ry m eals. T h e Pharisees, however, h a d as th e ir m ain p ro je c t th e reapplication o f th e ritual purity re q u ire d o f priests in conn ectio n with th eir tem ple duties to th e table c o n d u c t o f th e o rd in ary family at ho m e. T h e P harisees in this instance h a d taken th e c o m m an d m en t to priests c o n cern in g the w ashing o f h ands (an d feet) b efore p e rfo rm in g th e ir tem ple d uties (cf. E xod 30:17-21; fo r h a n d w ashing as a p ro tectio n against ritual impurity, cf. Lev 15:11) a n d h a d ap plied it to all Jews in th e blessing p reced in g th e eating o f m eals (see m. Ber. 8:2-4; y. Sabb. 1.3d; cf. M ark 7:3-4). This reap p lied ru le o f ritual purity h ad perh ap s already b een

Comment

431

widely a d o p te d by th e gen eral p o pulace (contra Booth; see M ark 7:3). T h e accusation against Jesu s’ disciples is also o f necessity an accusation against the m aster o f the disciples, i.e., Jesus him self (cf. 12:2; D aube). 3 R a th e r th a n d e fe n d in g th e c o n d u c t o f his disciples by answ ering th e P h arisees (an answer, however, is given in v 20b), Jesu s tu rn s to th e offensive by asking th e Pharisees a sim ilar q u estion b u t o n e th a t refers to a m u ch m o re serious infringem en t: “W hy d o you [ύ μ εΐς is em phatic] transgress th e c o m m a n d m e n t o f G od [τη ν εντο λή ν το υ Θεόν] because o f y o u r trad itio n [παράδοσιν]?” T h e very h e a rt o f Pharisaism , th e trad itio n o f th e elders (= “your tra d itio n ”; c o n tra Luz) th a t was su p p o sed to p ro te c t against th e violation o f th e T orah, h a d in fact becom e resp o n sib le fo r (δ ιά , “because o f ’) th e grievous tran sg ressio n o f G o d ’s co m m an d . T his accusation proves to b e m o re devastating th a n th a t o f th e P harisees against Je su s’ disciples (v 2). 4 T h a t th e ch arg e c o n ta in e d in th e p reced in g rh eto rical qu estio n was n o t an em pty o n e is now show n th ro u g h th e evidence ( γάρ, “fo r”) provided in w 4-6. T h e d ire c t citatio n o f th e T orah is set fo rth as th e sta n d a rd o f righteousness. M atthew portrays th e fifth co m m a n d m e n t as b ein g spoken by G od himself: ό γάρ θεός ε ΐπ ε ν , “F or G od said.” N o t m erely h u m a n trad itio n is at stake h e re (cf. w 3, 6, 9 b ). T h e c o m m a n d m e n t is cited in verbatim a g re e m e n t w ith th e LXX o f E xod 20:12 a n d D eu t 5:16, ex c e p t fo r th e om ission o f th e p ro n o u n σου, “y o u r” (o n e occurs after πα τέρα , “fath er,” in th e fo rm e r passage; two o ccu r in th e latter), τίμ α , “h o n o r,” m eans to look after a n d h en ce to s u p p o rt o n e ’s p a re n ts financially a n d n o t simply to revere th em (cf. 1 T im 5:3). T h e c o m m a n d m e n t is q u o te d again in M att 19:19 (cf. E p h 6:2). To th e co m m a n d m e n t itself is a d d e d th e fu rth er, re lated c o m m a n d m e n t reg ard in g “speaking evil” (κακαλογών) against o n e ’s parents. In effect, d en ial o f su p p o rt to o n e ’s p a re n ts was th e sam e as speaking evil against them . T h e LXX o f E xod 21:17 (cf. Lev 20:9; Ezek 22:7a) is cited nearly v erbatim . Θανάτω τελ ευ τά τω , lit. “with d e a th let th a t o n e d ie ,” is a Sem itism (reflecting th e H ebrew infinitive absolute) th a t brings special em phasis to th e suprem e penalty. T h e teach in g o f th e w ritten T o rah is unm istak ab le a n d em phatic: p aren ts are to be cared fo r and, in d eed , with p ro p e r respect. 5 -6 By c o n tra st w ith w hat G od says, however, th e Pharisees ( υ μ είς δ ε, “b u t you,” is em p h atic) p ro m o te d a p ractice (λ έ γ ε τ ε , “you say”) th a t violated th e spirit a n d le tte r o f th e fifth co m m an d m en t. If o n e d esig n ated by a form al vow o n e ’s m aterial w ealth as a “gift” (δώρον, used h e re in a technical sense; cf. th e transliterated H ebrew κορβαν [ ρ Ί ρ , qorbän], “(tem ple)-gift” o r “o fferin g ,” in M ark 7:11, translated δώρον in b o th M atthew a n d th e LXX), i.e., for th e su p p o rt o f the tem ple ritual, o n e was d isch arg ed fro m responsibility to o n e ’s p aren ts, in d e e d — as M atthew m akes explicit w ith th e d o u b le negative ου μ ή , “n o t at all” o r “in n o wise” (cf. M ark’s ούκέτι ά φ ίε τε , “you d o n o t p e rm it”)— th e m oney was n o lo n g e r available fo r th e s u p p o rt o f p aren ts. T h e trad itio n o f v 6a is th e exact o p posite o f th e biblical c o m m a n d m e n t (cf. v 4). T his vow to give o n e ’s w ealth to th e tem ple was re g a rd e d as sacred a n d o n e th a t o n ce m ad e co u ld n o t b e a lte re d (cf. D eu t 23:2123; N um . 30:3-5). F or th e sacredness o f a vow taking p re c e d e n ce over even a biblical p re c e p t, see t. Ned. 1.6.4. A t an ap p aren tly later tim e th e rabbis d id allow for th e reversal o f a C o rb an vow in o rd e r to u p h o ld th e c o m m a n d m e n t to h o n o r o n e ’s p a re n ts (see m. Ned. 9:1). T h u s b έ ά ν έ ξ έ μ ο ϋ ώφεληθης, “w hatever you w ould have b e n e fite d fro m m e ,” th e p a re n ts ’ rig h t to ex p e c t provision fro m a son, was

432

Ma t t h e w 15:1-11

invalidated o r nullified; in this way th e p a re n ts w ere r o b b e d o f th e ir rig h tfu l privilege (cf. Prov 28:24). T h e clear c o m m a n d m e n t o f T o rah was transgressed. A n d so Jesus co n clu d es ήκυρώσατε το ν λόγο ν το υ Θεού διά τη ν πα ρά δοσιν υμών, “you can cel o u t th e w o rd o f G od b ecau se o f y o u r tra d itio n ” (cf. v 3). See Fitzm yer fo r n o n b ib lical parallels to th e C o rb an vow. 7 -9 M atthew adjoins the O T citation (Isa 29:13) at this point, following the p reced in g arg u m en t, in o rd e r to seal th e case against the Pharisees. At b ottom , the issue is o n e o f hypocrisy, i.e., the p reten se o f obeying th e will o f G od while in fact transgressing it. Hypocrisy, th e a rt o f seem ing to be w hat o n e is not, is a particularly im p o rta n t subject in M atthew (see Comment o n 6:2; cf. esp. chap. 23 passim, w here ϋποκρίταί, “hypocrites,” is also ap plied repeatedly to the scribes a n d Pharisees). Isaiah h a d already talked ab o u t such hypocrisy in words th at fit th e p a tte rn o f th e p re se n t situation so well th a t they am o u n t to a prophecy, i.e., in th e sense o f typological co rrespondence betw een Isaiah’s day an d th e tim e o f Jesus. (This perspective accords well with M atthew ’s un d erstan d in g o f the fulfillm ent o f the O T in the events c o n cern in g a n d su rro u n d in g Jesus.) T h e citation o f Isa 29:13 is alm ost verbatim from th e LXX, with only very m in o r changes in th e first a n d last lines (i.e., w 8a a n d 9 b ). T h e co n trast betw een th e lips o r m o u th a n d th e h e a rt in v 8 is fo u n d also in Ps 78:36-37. It is th e last line in particular, however, th a t is so am azingly ap p ro priate to th e Pharisees: διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας εντά λμ α τα άνθρώπων, lit. “teaching doctrines, th e co m m an d m en ts o f h u m a n beings.”Jesu s’ accusation is precisely th a t the Pharisees have su p p lan ted th e co m m an d m en t o f G od with h u m a n co m m an d m en ts (cf. th e allusion to “h u m a n co m m a n d m e n ts” draw n from Isa 29:13 in a sim ilar co n n ectio n in Col 2:22; Titus 1:14). M atthew elsew here provides o th e r exam ples o f th eir practice (cf. chap. 23). 10-11 Jesu s calls th e crow d to g e th e r in o rd e r to m ake an im p o rta n t— in d e e d rev o lu tio n ary — p ro n o u n c e m e n t th a t goes far b ey o n d th e issue o f w ashed o r u n w ashed h a n d s by addressing th e w hole issue o f ritu al purity. T h e im p o rta n c e o f th e p rin c ip le is e m p h a siz e d th ro u g h th e o p e n in g e x h o rta tio n ά κ ο ύ ε τ ε καί σ υ ν ίετε, “h e a r a n d u n d e rs ta n d ” (a fo rm u la u se d in M atthew only h e re ; th e com b in a tio n o f th e two verbs, however, is fo u n d also in 13:23; cf. 13:13-15). A lth o u g h M atthew has dow nplayed th e radicality o f th e M arkan a c c o u n t in th e first h a lf o f th e sta te m e n t o f v 11, especially in his om ission o f M ark 7:19b (see above Form / Structure/Setting §B), th e la tte r h a lf o f th e sta te m e n t in M atthew still co n tain s th e co re o f a revo lu tio n ary u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e law (see th e in te rp re ta tio n in w 18 20). T h e sta te m e n t “w hat goes in to th e m o u th does n o t defile a p e rs o n ” tak en o n its own term s can even h e re b e u n d e rs to o d to ch allen g e th e d ie ta ry restrictio n s o f Lev 11 (cf. v 17), a lth o u g h th a t is far fro m M atthew ’s p u rp o se (cf. v 20b). M atthew ’s use o f σ τό μ α το ς , “m o u th ” (w here M ark has άνθρώπου, “p e rs o n ,” o r th e p erso n a l p ro n o u n αύτόν, “h im ”), is m o re in k e e p in g w ith th e e x p la n a tio n given in v 17 b u t m ay also have b e e n p ro m p te d by its use in 12:34. T h e stress o f v 11, a t least as it stands in M atthew, however, is n o t o n th e first h a lf b u t o n th e seco n d h a lf (cf. th e em p h atic το ύ το , “th is”) o f th e sta te m e n t (cf. v 19). T h e Pharisees, w ho m ig h t have b e e n w ary o f th e way in w hich th e first h a lf o f th e sta te m e n t is expressed, even acco rd in g to M atthew, w ould n o t have disag reed w ith th e p o in t o f th e seco n d h a lf (as ex p lain ed in v 19). D efilem en t h e re refers to b ein g m ad e ritually u n c le a n o r im p u re (th e verb ko l v o l , “defiles,” occurs in M atthew only h e re a n d in vv 18, 20; cf. Acts 10:15; 11:8, w hich re fe r exactly to b ec o m in g u n c le a n

Bibliography

433

th ro u g h w hat goes in to o n e ’s m o u th ; see too Acts 21:28; cf. 1 Macc 1:47, 62). O n th e im p o rta n c e o f w hat com es o u t o f th e m o u th , i.e., o n e ’s speech, see E p h 4:29; Jas 3:6. M atthew h e re is th u s h ardly to be u n d e rsto o d as o verthrow ing th e law, n o t even th e ritu al law (rightly Luz, Davies-Allison; c o n tra M e ie r). Explanation T he e rro r o f the Pharisees an d their scribes as revealed here can only be called a tragic irony. Those who were in principle the m ost deeply com m itted to the practice o f the righteousness o f the Torah, whose very tradition was invented to realize that righteousness, are shown h ere to oppose an d invalidate a co m m an d m en t o f G od throu g h th at tradition. In chap. 23 Jesus will re tu rn to criticism o f the Pharisees. It would be a sad mistake, however, to let these passages dom inate o u r assessment of the Pharisees an d o f Judaism generally. (See fu rth er Comment in chap. 23 on this subject.) A lthough the criticism o f the Pharisees in M atthew goes back to the Jesus of history, it is beyond question th at the degree o f the harshness against them is to some extent heig h ten ed by the evangelist who, in addition to writing a historical narrative, is also addressing his Jewish-Christian com m unity in their own debate with the synagogue, the contem porary m anifestation o f Pharisaic Judaism . Matthew, as we have seen, probably m inim izes the im plicit revolutionary significance o f v 11a because he is writing to Jewish Christians (Mark, on the o th er hand, writing to gentile Christians, maximizes the p o in t an d m akes it quite explicit with th e editorial com m ent: ‘T h u s he declared all foods clean” [Mark 7:19]). Even so, Matthew has n o t totally suppressed the radical tru th th at Jesus’ words o p en the d o o r to a new evaluation o f the dietary restrictions, i.e., to the com m ands o f the w ritten T orah itself. For Matthew, Jesus alone is the tru e in terp reter an d up h o ld e r o f the ultim ate m eaning o f th e Torah. It should be n o surprise th at it took som e tim e for the im plicit teaching o f Jesus to be fully understood an d im plem ented in the early church, especially by Jewish Christians. Thus we see P eter struggling with the issue in Acts 10:10. Yet even Jewish Christians such as P eter (Acts 10:28) an d Paul, him self a form er Pharisee, learn eventually that the distinctions o f ritual purity have b een do n e away with in Christ (Rom 14:14, 20). M atthew’s conservative Jewish-Christian chu rch may well have co ntinued to observe the dietary laws as a m atter o f custom an d to su p p ort their claim vis-a-vis the synagogue th at they were the fulfillm ent o f Judaism , b u t they w ould surely have b een aware that their Christian counterparts in gentile com m unities an d perhaps even o th er Jewish-Christian congregations h ad do n e away with such observances.

E xplanation o f the Criticism o f the Pharisees Bibliography

See B ib lio g r a p h y for 15:1-11.

(15:12-20)

434

Ma t t h e w 15:12-20

Translation 12Then thea disciples came and said to him: “Do you know that when the Pharisees heard the statement, they were scandalized?” 18A n d he answered and said: “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up. 14Let them b be: they are blind guides [of the blind];c but i f a blind person leads a blind personf both will fa ll into a pit. ” 15Peter answered and said to him: “Explain [this]e analogy to us.” 16B ut h ef said: “Are you yourselves even yet also without understanding? 17Are you n o tg aware that everything that goes into the mouth goes into the stomach and passes into the latrine? 18B u t the things that come out o f the mouth come from the heart, and they are the things that defile the person. l9Forfrom the hearth come evil deliberations, murders, adulteries, acts o f fornication, robberies, lies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things that defile the person, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile the person. ” Notes a Many witnesses (C L W 0106 f l TR lat sy) add αύτου, “his.” b D has τούς" τυφλούς, “the blind.” CB D 0237 omit τυφλών, “of the blind,” and the word is thus placed in brackets in the critical text. The shorter reading is not simply preferred over the others, despite the weight of B and D, since the longer reading more easily explains the various variant readings. See TCGNT, 39. d Θ / 13 mae have οδηγών σφαλήσεται καί, for έάν όδηγή, “if he leads,” resulting in the reading “If a blind person causes a blind one of the leaders to slip, also both will fall into the pit.” e K B p sa bo omit ταύτην, “this.” Yet the word could have been deliberately omitted by scribes since the intended “parable” or “analogy” is not that which immediately precedes. Thus the word is placed in the text, but in brackets. See TCGNT, 39. f C L W Θ 0119 f us TR syh insert Ιησούς, “Jesus.” g Λ G L W 0 1 1 9 /1TR syh bo read οϋπω, “not yet,” for ου, “not.” h K* W boms omit εξέρχεται, κάκεΐνα κοινοί τον άνθρωπον, εκ γάρ τής καρδίας, “they come out, and they are the things that defile the person. For from the h e a r t . . . ” This is a clear example of omission due to homoioteleuton (καρδίας—καρδίας) .

Form/Structure/S ettin g A. T his passage ex ten d s th e p re c e d in g p erico p e th ro u g h fu rth e r criticism o f th e P h arisees b u t m ost im p o rtan tly th ro u g h an e x p la n a tio n o f th e p ath -b reak in g sta te m e n t o f v 11. T eaching ra th e r th a n controversy is th e focus o f th e passage. T h e view point o f th e P harisees does n o t reflect th e will o f th e F ath er b u t reflects in stead an u n fo rtu n a te blindness. H e re again th e full a n d h arsh criticism o f chap. 23 is a n ticip ated . B. J u s t as in th e p re c e d in g passage, M atthew follows M ark (7:17-23; L uke has only th e p ara b le o f th e b lin d lead in g th e b lin d [6:39]). T h e significant a lteratio n s to b e n o te d are th e following. M atthew inserts vv 12-14, th e analogies o f th e p la n t a n d th e b lin d leaders, th e fo rm e r p ro b ab ly fro m his own source, th e la tte r p ro b ably fro m Q (cf. Luke 6:39). M atthew om its, ju s t as previously in v 11, M ark’s phraseo lo g y “N o th in g [παν] o u tsid e e n te rin g in to a p erso n is able [δύναταϊ] to d efile” (M ark 7:18), pro b ab ly again b ecause it is too radical fo r his Jew ish-Christian read ers. M atthew p reserves M ark ’s παν, “ev ery th in g ,” b u t applies it to th e fact th a t all fo o d is d ig ested a n d passes o u t o f th e body. Similarly, M atthew will

Comment

435

have n o th in g o f M ark’s editorializing fo r his g en tile read ers, καθαρίζων πά ντα τά βρώ ματα, “d eclarin g all foods c le a n ” (M ark 7:19), w hich h e om its. T h e n at the very e n d o f th e p e ric o p e M atthew adds th e w ords τό δ έ ά ν ίπ το ις χ ε ρ σ ίν φ α γ ε ΐν ού κοινοί το ν άνθρωπον, “b u t eatin g w ith unw ash ed h a n d s does n o t defile th e p e rso n ” (v 20), to c o n clu d e form ally th e controversy w ith th e P harisees in g o o d rab b in ic fashion. A tten tio n is th u s tak en away fro m th e issue o f u n c le a n fo o d a n d d irected to th e orig in al qu estio n (v 2) o f eatin g w ith unw ashed hands.

Among the less significant changes, the following may also be noted. Matthew adds άκμήν, “even yet,” in v 16, thus sharpening the criticism of the disciples. In w 17, 18 Matthew again (cf. v 11) substitutes στόμα , “mouth,” for Mark’s άνθρωπος, “person” (Mark 7:18, 20). In v 18 Matthew adds έκ τηςκαρδίας εξέρχεται, “come from the heart”

(cf. v 19; 12:34; Mark 7:20-21). Matthew, in v 19, abbreviates Mark’s list of vices (Mark 7:21-22) from thirteen to seven (the number reflecting representative completeness). In this list Matthew substitutes the adjective πονηροί (“evil”) for Mark’s κακοί (“evil”), modifying διαλογισμοί, “deliberations,” and includes, as the sixth item, one item not found in Mark, ψενδομαρτυρίαι, “lies” (the word occurs again in the NT only in Matt 26:59; cf. Did. 5.1). Matthew omits six items from Mark’s list simply to abbreviate, as is the case too with the omission (in v 20) of πάντα , “all” (Mark 7:23), and τά πονηρά έσωθεν εκπορεύεται, “the evil things proceed from within.” Matthew thus abbreviates, as usual, but also changes his Markan source for theological reasons. C. As in 13:36, th e disciples, re p re se n te d by Peter, seek a n d are given an explan a tio n o f th e en ig m atic saying o f v 11, called h e re , in th e b ro a d e st sense, a “p a ra b le ” (v 15). B efore th at, th e Pharisees are ch ara c teriz e d th ro u g h two differe n t analogies. T h e passage may b e o u tlin e d as follows: (1) th e disciples’ q u estion co n c e rn in g th e Pharisees (v 12) ; (2) Je su s’ answ er th ro u g h th e analogies o f (a) th e p la n t n o t p la n te d by th e F ath er (v 13) a n d (b) th e b lin d leading th e b lin d (v 14); (3) th e re q u e st fo r an ex p lan atio n (v 15); a n d (4) th e ex p lan atio n o f th e earlier statem en t (v 11) by m eans o f a descrip tio n o f (a) w hat goes in th e m o u th o f a p e rso n (v 17) a n d o f (b) w hat com es o u t o f a p e rso n (vv 18-19) a n d (c) a co n clu d in g sta te m e n t (v 20). A n in terestin g syntactical parallelism is evid en t in th e clause o f v 17 b e g in n in g w ith το είσπορενόμενον, “w hat goes in to ,” a n d the initial clause o f v 18, b e g in n in g τά δέ εκπορευόμενα, “b u t th e things th a t com e o u t,” each having two p arallel p rep o sitio n al phrases. A fu rth e r stru ctu ral featu re is th e fu n c tio n o f v 20 as th e inclusio o f v 18b, so th a t th e list o f seven vices occurs betw een th e two statem en ts th a t those are th e thin gs th a t defile a person. Finally v 20b is itself a k in d o f inclusio with v 2, th u s ro u n d in g o u t th e p erico p e by b rin g ing it back to its starting p oint. D. Gos. Thom. 40 co ntains th e sam e logion as in v 13 b u t probably is d e p e n d e n t o n M atthew (cf. too Ign. Trail. 11.1 a n d Pol. Phil. 3.1). Did. 5.1 appears to q u o te p a rt o f th e vice list o f v 19 (cf. M ark 7:21-22) in th e M atth ean o rd e r a n d h e n c e is p robably d e p e n d e n t o n Matthew. Comment 12 M atthew ’s fam iliar τ ό τ ε , “th e n ,” in tro d u ces th e passage a n d th e qu estio n o f th e d isc ip le s. T h a t th e d is c ip le s w e re d is tu r b e d th a t th e P h a ris e e s έσκανδαλίσθησαν, “w ere scandalized” (see Comment o n 11:6), by th e p re c e d in g

436

Ma t t h e w 15: 12-20

ex ch an g e (vv 1-11) in dicates th a t they too h e ld th e P harisees in h ig h reg ard . If th e pop u larly reco g n ized au th o rities o n th e rig h teo u sn ess o f th e law fo u n d Je s u s ’ teac h in g o b jectio n ab le, was n o t this so m eth in g to be p o n d ered ? το ν λόγον, lit. “th e w o rd ,” is h e re to be u n d e rsto o d m o re broadly as “th e m a tte r” o r “th e statem e n t,” i.e., p resum ably th a t o f v 11. D id Jesus know th a t h e h a d o ffe n d e d th e Pharisees, a n d if so, d id it n o t m a tte r to him ? 13 Jesu s’ two-part answer was u n d o u b ted ly a surprise to th e disciples because o f its strong, u n reserved rejection o f the Pharisees. First Jesus im plies th a t th e P harisees are n o t έφ ύτευ σ εν, “p la n te d ,” by G od, a n d thus G od will pull th em o u t o f th e g ro u n d (έκριζω θήσεται, lit. “Will be u p ro o te d ,” a divine passive), a veiled m e ta p h o r fo r d estru c tio n (cf. 13:29, th e only o th e r o cc u rre n ce o f th e verb in M atthew ). φ υτεία , “p la n t,” occurs only h ere in th e NT; for th e verb φ υτεύειv, “p la n t,” see 21:33, w here th e h o u seh o ld er who plants a vineyard is G od (cf. Isa 60:21; Pss. Sol. 14:3-4). T h e expression ο π α τ ή ρ . . . ό ουράνιος, “heavenly F ather,” is a favorite o f M atthew ’s (see Comment o n 5:48). O nly h ere a n d in 18:35 is this specific phrase m odified n o t by υμών, “your,” b u t by μου, “my” ( b u t cf. 7:21; 10:32-33; 11:27; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10, 19, 35; 20:23; 25:34, 26:29, 39, 42, 53). T his points to th e special relationship betw een Jesus a n d G od th a t enables Jesus to speak with incom parable authority a n d thus to exclude th e view point o f the Pharisees so absolutely. 14 ά φ ε τ ε α υ το ύς, “let th em b e ,” is ap p aren tly Je su s’ response to th e c o n c e rn o f th e disciples reflected in th e ir initial q u estio n . T h a t th e P harisees w ere offe n d e d by Je su s’ c o m m e n t sh o u ld n o t w orry th e disciples. F or th e P harisees are b u t τ υ φ λ ο ί. . . οδηγοί τυφλών, “b lin d g uides o f th e b lin d ” (th e sam e d escrip tio n , “b lin d g u id es,” is u sed o f th e P harisees in 23:16, 24; fo r th e Jew as a “g u id e to th e b lin d ,” see R om 2:19). T hose w ho follow th e lead o f th e Pharisees are them selves d escrib ed as “th e b lin d .” T h e absurdity o f th e situ atio n o f th e P harisees a n d th e ir disciples is set fo rth in th e proverbial im age o f a b lin d p e rso n lead in g a n o th e r b lin d p e rso n , b o th o f th e m falling in to a p it (cf. L uke 6:39). It w ould b e h a rd to fin d a m o re vivid im age o f lostness, hopelessness, a n d futility. 15-16 Peter, d o ubtless as th e spo k esm en o f th e o th e r disciples, asks fo r an ex p la n a tio n o f τη ν παραβολήν [τα ύ τη ν ], lit. “[this] p a ra b le ,” i.e., w hat so u p set th e Pharisees. T h e textually u n c e rta in τα ύ τη ν , “th is,” w ould seem to re fe r to th e analogy ju s t given in v 14, o r possibly v 13. B ut th e e x p la n a tio n shows clearly th a t v 11 is in m in d (with Davies-Allison, c o n tra Schw eizer). In M ark th e re q u e st fo r in te rp re ta tio n o f th e “p a ra b le ” com es im m ediately after th e saying a b o u t w hat does a n d w hat does n o t defile (M ark 7:17). παραβολή (masäl; see Comment o n 13:3) is u sed h e re in th e b ro a d sense o f proverb, rid d le, o r w isdom saying, suitable to th e c o n te n t o f v 11. φράσον, “e x p la in ,” is u sed only h e re in th e N T (cf. th e d iffe re n t w ord in 13:36). T h e resp o n se o f Jesus involves a m ild re b u k e o f th e disciples (u n u su al in M atthew ) co n ta in e d in καί υ μ ε ίς , “you yourselves also,” a n d in άκμήν, “even now ” (th e only N T o c c u rre n ce o f th e w ord). T h e disciples h a d already b e e n in itia te d in to th e secrets o f th e k in g d o m (13:11) ex p ressed th ro u g h p arab les a n d h a d affirm ed th a t they h a d u n d e rs to o d “all these th in g s” (13:51). Yet d esp ite th e fu n d a m e n ta l im p o rta n c e o f u n d e rs ta n d in g (cf. 13:23), they w ere u n a b le to u n d e rsta n d w hat Jesus was saying (cf. th e sam e failure in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e te ach in g o f th e P h arisees in 16:9-12). 17 W h at is in g ested by h u m a n s (τό είσπορευόμενον ε ις το σ τό μ α , “w hat goes in to th e m o u th ”) passes th ro u g h “th e d ietary tra c t” (τή ν κοιλίαν) a n d in to th e

Explanation

437

“la trin e ” (άφεδρώνα). F o o d is accordingly o f little c o n seq u en ce to th e spiritual state o f a perso n . It w ould be possible from this verse to co n clu d e th a t such d efilem en t as may o ccu r in eatin g certain foods is only tem porary, ex cep t for the clear sta te m e n t in v 11 th a t w hat is e a te n “does n o t defile a p e rs o n .” 18-19 By d ire c t contrast, “th e things th a t com e o u t o f th e m o u th ” ( r d δε εκπορευόμενα εκ το ν σ τό μ α το ς ), i.e., th e w ords o n e speaks, d o defile a p erso n (cf. v 11; cf. Jas 3:1-11). T h e w ords com e εκ τ η ς καρδίας, “from th e h e a rt,” a n d thus have to do w ith th e very n a tu re o f a p e rso n (see 12:34-35). A nd “from th e h e a r t” com es a veritable stream o f w ickedness. M atthew provides only a representative list o f seven item s (cf. M ark’s th ir te e n ), w ith o n e item , ψ ευδομαρτυρίαί, “lies,” n o t from M ark’s list, prob ab ly th o u g h t by M atthew to b e particu larly a p p ro p ria te to things from th e h e a rt u tte re d by th e m o u th . It also brings to fo u r th e n u m b e r o f th e seco n d table o f th e te n co m m an d m e n ts th a t are re p re s e n te d (in ad d itio n to m urder, adultery, a n d stealing, w hich M atthew re o rd e rs to agree with th e O T o rder, b o th in th e M T a n d in th e L X X ). B ut if this was a c o n c e rn o f M atthew ’s, why d id h e o m it M ark’s “covetousness,” i.e., th e te n th co m m an d m en t? 20 T h e th o u g h t o f v 18b is now re p e a te d fo r em phasis, τα ΰ τα , “those th in g s,” are w hat truly m ake a p erso n u n clean (cf. το ύ το , “th is” [v 11]). M atthew ’s ad d e d final w ords in v 20b recall in a som ew hat anticlim actic m a n n e r th e initial accusation o f th e P harisees a n d scribes in v 2, a n d at th e sam e tim e divert th e re a d e r’s atte n tio n from th e possible im plications o f Je su s’ w ords fo r th e d ietary law itself. T hus in M atthew ’s portray al (in striking c o n tra st to M ark’s ), Jesus criticizes only th e tra d itio n o f th e Pharisees a n d m akes n o radical re fo rm a tio n o f th e w ritten T orah itself. W h at d oes n o t defile is e a tin g w ith unw ashed hands. For M atthew, Jesus a n d Jesus alo n e is th e tru e in te rp re te r o f th e law. Explanation Above all o th e rs th e Pharisees w ere re sp e c te d a n d a d m ire d for th e ir serious p u rsu it o f rig h teo u sness (cf. 23:2-3). P erh ap s this is exactly why Jesus criticized th e m so harshly. T h e source o f th e ir perspective was n o t G od; they w ere th e m selves b u t b lin d g u id e s o f b lin d disciples. As h a d b e e n p o in te d o u t in th e p re c e d in g passage, they sadly allow ed h u m a n teach in g s to cancel o u t th e very c o m m a n d m e n ts o f G od. T hey so v alued th e item s o f m in o r significance a n d a ritualistic form alism th a t they n eg lected em phasizing w hat truly m akes a p erso n u n cle a n (cf. 23:23). T h e passage th u s stands as a w arning to all those w ho conce rn them selves with th e intensive p u rsu it o f rig hteousness a n d w ho in so d o in g elevate h u m a n tra d itio n a n d form alism to a level eq u al w ith o r even h ig h e r th a n scriptu re itself. T h e tru e p ro b le m o f sin is n o t to be fo u n d in a failure to p e rfo rm correctly som e e x te rn al m in u tiae o f h u m a n m aking; sin is an in te rio r m a tte r th a t co n cern s th e evil th o u g h t, w ords, a n d deed s th a t com e from th e h eart. M oral rig h teo u sn ess is th u s far m o re im p o rta n t th a n ritu al purity. T h e fu n d a m e n ta l p ro b lem o f h u m an ity is m o re basic th a n th e Pharisees d ream ed . T h e Pharisees simply failed to address sin as a radical h u m a n p ro b lem . T h e overcom ing o f sin, however, was essential to th e p u rp o se a n d w ork o f Jesus (cf. 1:21; 26:28).

4S8

Ma t t h e w 15:21-28

The Faith, o f the C anaanite Woman

(15:21-28)

Bibliography

Burkill, T. A. ‘The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman.” N o v T 9 (1967) 161-77. Dermience, A. “La pericope de la Cananeenne (Mt 15,21-28).” E T L 58 (1982) 25-49. Harrisville, R. A. “ T h e Woman of Canaan: A Chapter in the History of Exegesis.” In t 20 (1960) 274-87. Legasse, S. “L’episode de la Cananeenne d ’apres Mt 15,21-28.” BLE 73 (1972) 21-40. Neyrey, J. H. “Decision Making in the Early Church: The Case of the Canaanite Woman.” ScEs 33 (1981) 373-78. Ringe, S. H. “A Gentile Woman’s Story.” In Feminist Interpretation o f the Bible, ed. L. M. Russell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. 65-72. Russell, E. A. T h e Canaanite Woman and the Gospels (Mt 15,21-28; cf. Mark 7,24-30).” In Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: JSOT, 1979. 2:263-300. Schwarz, G. “.ΣΤΡΟΦΟΙN I KIΣΣΛ— X A N A N A I A (Markus 7.26/Matthäus 15.22).” N T S 30 (1984) 626-28. Theissen, G. “Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönikischen Frau (Mk 7,24-30).” ZAW75 (1984) 202-25 [ET in The Gospels in Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. 61-80]. Woschitz, K. M. “Erzählter Glaube: Die Geschichte vom starken Glauben als Geschichte Gottes mit Juden und Heiden (Mt 15,2128 par).” ZKT 107 (1985) 319-32. Translation 21A n d Jesus came away from there and went into the regions o f Tyre and Sidon. 22A n d look, a Canaanite woman from those regions came and was crying out,a saying: “H ave mercy on me, Lord, Son o f David. My daughter suffers severely from being possessed by a demon.” 23B ut he did not answer her with so much a sh a word. A n d his disciples came to him and were asking him as follows: c “Send her away because she keeps houndingd us.” 24A n d he answered and said: “I was sent to no one except to thee lost sheep o f the house o f Israel.” 25B ut she came and began to worshipf him, saying: “Lord, help me.”26B ut he answered and said: “It is not rightg to take the bread o f the children and to throw it to the dogs.” 27B ut she said: “True, Lord, b u th even the dogs do eat the crumbs that fa ll from the table o f their masters. ” 28 Then Jesus1answered and said to her: “O woman, your fa ith is indeedj great. Be it to you as you want.”A n d her daughter was healed from that very hour. Notes a K* Z / 13 have the aorist ίκραζεν, “cried out,” instead of the impf, tense of the same verb; other witnesses ( C L W 0119 TR) have the synonym έκραύγασεν, “cried out.” Some MSS (K L W Γ Δ 0119 TR lat syh) add αύτω, “to him ,” while D has όπίσω αύτοϋ, “after him ,” modeled on όπισθεν ημών, “after us,” in v 23. b Lit. “did not answer a word.” c λέγοντες, lit. “saying.” d κράζεl όπισθεν ήμών, lit. “she keeps crying out after us.” e D adds ταϋτα, “these.” f προσεκύνει, taken as an inceptive impf., “began to worship.” Some witnesses (K2 C L W 0119 TR mae bo), however, have the aorist προσεκύνησεν, “worshiped.” s D it s f s,c have the stronger ονκ όξεστιν, “it is not perm itted.” See TCGNT, 40.

Form/Structure/Setting

439

h γάρ, lit. “for.” B sys,p sa boms omit γάρ, probably by influence from the Markan parallel (Mark 7:28). 1A few witnesses (D Γ samss) omit ό Ιησούς, perhaps through influence of the preceding narrative (i.e., w 23, 24, 26). j “Indeed” is added to the translation to bring out the emphasis on μεγάλη, “great,” apparent from the Gr. word order.

F orm /Structure/Setting A. T h e narrative re tu rn s to the m iraculous deeds o f Jesus, in this instance to a healing from a distance. Yet th e focus h e re is n o t o n th e healing b u t o n th e gentile w om an w ho m akes th e request. This raises th e w hole q uestion o f th e relation between the m inistry o f Jesus a n d th e Gentiles, a question th at has already been raised in th e Gospel (cf. 8:10-12, a n d especially 10:5-6 in th e sen d in g o u t o f th e twelve to e x ten d Jesu s’ m essage a n d m inistry). T h e rem arkable persistence o f th e w om an in this pericope, despite h e r o p en adm ission o f the priority o f Israel in th e saving purposes o f God, wins o u t in the end, a n d h e r faith is praised by Jesus. B. A lthough M atthew is d e p e n d e n t on M ark for the story (M ark 7:24-30; the narrative is lacking in L u k e), he has rew orked it an d has ad d ed im p o rtan t new material. T he insertion o f w 23-24 gives M atthew’s pericope its special character. T here, after his initial silence to th e w om an’s request an d after h e r perseverance, which annoys the disciples to the extent that they ask Jesus to send the w om an away, Jesus announces in a very strong statem ent that his mission is directed only to the house o f Israel (cf. 10:6, in nearly verbatim agreem ent). But the rem arkable w om an is n o t discouraged by this im plicit rejection an d effectively presses h e r case. T h e o th er m ajor change M atthew m akes o f his M arkan source is in introducing direct discourse alm ost at the beginning (i.e., from v 22), whereas M ark begins direct discourse only in v 27. Thus M atthew recasts the earlier M arkan m aterial (Mark 7:25-26).

Among other changes Matthew makes, the following are the most interesting and significant. Matthew’s transitional words are, as usual, his own (cf. his favorite vocabulary, e.g., έζελθών, άνεχώρησεν). Matthew adds καί Σιδώνος, “and Sidon,” to Mark’s simple Tipov, ‘Tyre” (the two names occur in Matthew only together; cf. 11:21-22). Matthew omits Mark 7:24b, 25a, which refers to Jesus going into a house, his desire for anonymity, the impossibility of keeping his presence a secret, and the woman hearing about him. Matthew goes directly to the woman’s request for help in the words έλέησόν με, κύριε νίός Δαυίδ, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David” (v 22). Matthew then alters Mark’s third-person statement that the woman’s daughter had a πνεύμα ακάθαρτον, “unclean spirit” (Mark 7:25), to the direct statement ή θυγάτηρ μου κακώς διαμονίζεται, “my daughter suffers severely from being possessed by a demon” (v 22). Matthew furthermore describes the woman as Χαναναία άπό των ορίων εκείνων, “a Canaanite from those regions” (v 22), in contrast to Mark’s Έλληνίς, ΣυροφοιVLKLσσα τω γένει, “a Greek, Syrophoenician by race” (Mark 7:26). Matthew replaces Mark’s προσέπεσεν προς τούς πόδας αύτοϋ, “fell at his feet” (Mark 7:25), with the stronger 77ροσεκύνει αύτω, “began to worship him” (v 25). Mark’s third-person request that the demon might be cast out of the woman’s daughter (Mark 7:26) is replaced in Matthew with the direct κύριε, βοήθει μοι, “Lord, help me” (v 25). Matthew omits Mark’s άφες πρώτον χορτασθηναι τά τέκνα, “allow the children to be fed first” (Mark 7:21). Although theologically this fits Matthew’s perspective, it takes the edge off the story of the woman’s amazing faith. Matthew replaces Mark’s παιδιών, “children,”with the more appropriate κυρίων, “masters” (v 27). Matthew’s climactic ώ γύναι μεγάλη σου ή πίστις *γενηθήτω σοι ώς θέλεις, Ό

440

Ma t t h e w 15: 21-28

woman, your faith is indeed great. Be it to you as you desire” (v 28), replaces Mark’s “on account of this word, go; the demon has departed from your daughter” (Mark 7:29). Finally Matthew abbreviates Mark’s closing sentence considerably by avoiding the mention of the woman returning home and finding her daughter well (Mark 7:30), instead simply noting that in that hour the girl was healed, without specific reference to the exorcism of the demon (v 28; this last verse is very much patterned after 8:13). Matthew thus again abbreviates Mark in this pericope but more importantly reformulates the story so as to put great emphasis on the exclusivity ofJesus’ mission to the Jews and yet at the same time to recognize the reality of the faith of a Gentile. C. M atthew ’s n arrativ e consists o f d ialo g u e fro m alm ost th e very b e g in n in g . In th e ex ch an g es, w hich are q u ite brief, th e w om an speaks th re e tim es (vv 22, 25, 27), Jesu s th re e tim es (vv 24, 26, 28), a n d th e disciples o n ce (v 23). T his gives th e narrativ e a sense o f m o tio n lead in g to th e final statem en ts in v 28. T h u s th e h e a ling m iracle b eco m es prim arily a fram ew ork a n d vehicle for th e te a c h in g w ith its clim actic ap o th e g m p reced in g th e sh o rt no tice th a t th e girl was h ealed , as th e follow ing o u tlin e indicates: (1) tran sitio n to p re se n t p e ric o p e (v 21); (2) th e w o m a n ’s re q u e s t (v 22); (3) J e su s’ in itial silence (v 23a); (4) th e d iscip les’ p le a (v 23b); (5) th e sta te m e n t c o n c e rn in g Je su s’ m ission (v 24); (6) th e w o m an ’s p ersisten ce (v 25); (7) th e o b jectio n o f Jesus (v 26) ; (8) th e w o m a n ’s r e to r t (v 27); (9) a cclam atio n o f th e w o m a n ’s faith (v 28a); a n d (10) g ra n tin g o f th e w o m a n ’s re q u e st (v 28b). T h e m o st n o ta b le stru ctu ral features are in th e altern a tin g d efin ite articles (ό S e / ή Se) fu n c tio n in g as p ro n o u n s in th e d e sc rip tio n o f th e dialogue (cf. vv 23-27) a n d th e fo u rfo ld use o f ά π ο κρί^σ θ α ι in Je su s’ response (vv 23, 24, 26, 28). W ithin this stru ctu re, th e p lea o f th e apostles (v 23b) is p a re n thetical. In th e c o n te n t o f th e dialogue, th e two appeals o f th e w om an are parallel (έλ έη σ ό ν pe, “have m ercy o n m e ” [v 22], a n d ßoήθeL μ ο ί, “h elp m e ” [v 2 5 ]), a n d it is w o rth n o tin g th a t each o f th e th re e tim es th e w om an speaks she addresses Jesus as w p ie , “L o rd '’ (vv 22, 25, 27). M atthew ’s literary artistry is again a t w ork in th e co n stru c tio n o f this p erico p e. D. T h e sim ilarity betw een this story a n d th a t o f th e c e n tu rio n ’s re q u e st (8 :5 13) deserves special notice. In b o th cases a G entile asks fo r th e h ealin g o f a valued ch ild — respectively, a serv an t (if this is a son, th e sim ilarity is even m o re striking) a n d a dau g h ter, b o th o f w hom lie in b ed s o f to rm e n t. In b o th cases th e stran g eness o f a G en tile ’s com ing to Jesus is a p p a re n t. A nd especially if 8:7 is tak en as a q u estio n , b o th d e m o n stra te a striking persev eran ce. B oth are u ltim ately p ra ise d highly fo r th e ir faith (8:10; 15:28). Finally a n d m ost rem ark ab le o f all are th e nearly verbatim parallel final notices a b o u t th e g ran tin g o f th e respective healings. Comment 21 M atthew ’s tran sitio n h as Jesu s leaving “th e r e ” (with M ark, d elib erately vague). G e n n e sa re t was th e last place m e n tio n e d (14:34), b u t th e re is n o n ecessity to h o ld th a t th e events o f 15:1-20 also o c c u rre d th e re . H e w en t away, o r possibly “w ithdrew ” (dvexcoppaev, a favorite M atth ean w ord; cf. Comment o n 2:12), in to an a re a w h ere h e m ay have b e e n less know n, n am ely Tyre a n d Sidon. T his co uld refer to th e actual gentile towns alo n g th e S yrophoenecian coast (cf. 11:21— 22; b u t also M ark 3:8) o r to th e larg er territo ries know n by those nam es ex ten d in g

Comment

441

far to th e east o f th e towns, in w hich case th e p o p u la tio n co u ld still have b e e n largely Jewish. It is possible, b u t by n o m ean s necessary, to co n clu d e from th e G reek tex t {άνεχώ ρησεν εις, tak en as “to com e u p to th e b o rd e rs o f ”) th a t Jesus d id n o t e n te r these te rrito rie s a n d th a t th e w om an cam e o n to Jew ish soil to m ake h e r re q u e st (άπό τώ ν ορίων εκείνω ν έξελθουσα, “she, co m in g o u t o f those b o u n d aries,” in v 22). Cf. M ark 7:31. 22 M atthew ’s ιδού, “lo o k ,” calls a tte n tio n to th e rem ark ab le o cc u rre n ce o f a gentile w om an ap p ro ach in g Jesus w ith a request. M atthew describes h e r simply as a X avavaia, “C a n a a n ite ” (th e only o c c u rre n ce o f th e w ord in th e N T ), “from those reg io n s.” T h e term “C an a a n ite ” has inevitable O T associations w ith th e pagan in h ab itan ts o f Palestine displaced by th e Jews a n d thus contrasts th e w om an all th e m o re w ith th e p eo p le o f G od (th e term is also used fo r non-Jews in th e rabbin ic literatu re; cf. m. Qidd. 1:3; b. Sota 35a). As M ark ’s d escrip tio n o f h e r as a Έ λληνίς, “G reek ,” suggests, she was H ellen ized to som e ex ten t, a n d alm ost certainly the conversation betw een h e r a n d Jesus w ould have b e e n h e ld in G reek. Yet, as em erg es fro m th e term in o lo g y u sed in h e r initial re q u e st as well as from h e r perspective in v 27, she was ap p aren tly acq u ain te d w ith Ju d aism to som e exten t. T h u s h e r o p e n in g w ords are pro p erly Jewish: έλέησ όν μ ε, κύριε υιός Δαυίδ, “have m ercy o n m e, L ord, Son o f D avid” (cf. th e sam e cry o f th e b lin d m en in 9:27; 20:30-31). T h e title “Son o f D avid” (see Comment o n 9:27) is a Jew ish title for th e M essiah (cf. 1:1; 12:23; 21:9; 22:42). F or κύριε, “L o rd ,” w hich th e w om an uses th re e tim es in succession in appeals fo r h ealin g (cf. w 25, 27), see Comment o n 8:2 (cf. 8:6; 17:15; 20:30-31, 33). T h e verb έλέησ ο ν is com m only used with these ap p ellatio n s (see th e sam e referen ces). T h e verb εκρα ζεν in th e im p e rfe c t tense, “was crying o u t,” suggests th e w om an h a d to w ork h a rd to g et th e atte n tio n o f Jesus, w ho was probably p ro te c te d by his disciples (cf. v 2 3 b ). A lthough h e r cry is for m ercy o n h e rse lf {με, “m e ”), h e r re q u e st actually c o n cern s h e r d a u g h te r w ho suffered severely (κακώς, a w ord u sed o ften by M atthew fo r those w ho suffer; e.g., 4:24; 17:15) because she was “d em o n possessed” (δαιμονίζεται', see 4:24; 9:32; 12:22). See Comment on 4:24 re g ard in g d e m o n possession. 23 Jesus at first ignores th e w o m an ’s re q u e st altogether, speaking n o t a w ord (λόγον) to her. T h e ju stificatio n fo r this su rp rising lack o f response will be given in th e follow ing verse. T h e silence o f Jesus, however, d id n o t dissuade her, an d she ap p aren tly c o n tin u e d crying out, m u ch to th e an n oyance o f th e disciples (ότι κράζει όπισθεν ημών, “because she keeps crying o u t after u s”). T hey re p e a tedly asked Jesu s (ήρώτων, im p e rfe c t tense, “w ere ask in g ”) to “sen d h e r away” {άπόλνσον α ύ τή ν ), p erh ap s im plying th a t Jesus sh o u ld heal h e r (cf. 8:13; th e verb άπόλυσον co u ld be tak en to m ean “set fre e ” [thus L egasse]). B ut Jesu s does n o t h e e d th e ir request. 24 In d e e d h e an n o u n c e s again th e p u rp o se o f his m ission. T hese w ords app e a r to be spo k en to th e disciples, w ho may have e x p e c te d Jesus to g ra n t h e r request. T hey provide a ju stificatio n for sen d in g th e w om an away w ith o u t healing h e r d aughter. T hey co n firm th e lim its h e set u p o n th e ir m ission in 10:5-6. ούκ ά π εστά λη ν, “I was n o t se n t,” refers to b e in g sen t by G od. As G od d id n o t sen d him to th e G entiles b u t to th e Jews, so also h e h a d restricted th e disciples’ mission to th e Jews. T h e expression τά πρόβατα τά άπολωλότα οίκον Ισραήλ, “th e lost sh eep o f th e h o u se o f Israel,” is fo u n d v erbatim in 10:6 (see Comment th ere; cf.

442

Ma t t h e w (15:21-28)

9:36; 18:12 a n d j e r 50:6). Je su s’ m ission to Israel is a m a tte r o f G o d ’s faithfulness to Israel (cf. Rom . 15:8), a p o in t th a t m u st have b e e n extrem ely im p o rta n t to M atthew a n d his re a d e rs in th e ir a rg u m e n t again st th e synagogue. T h e a p p a re n t ab so lu ten ess o f Je su s’ sta te m e n t h e re is c o n d itio n e d im m ediately in this very p eric o p e by his h ealin g o f th e C a n a a n ite ’s d a u g h te r a n d will b e fu rth e r a lte re d as th e G ospel p ro c e ed s (cf. 21:43; 24:14; 28:19). B ut if Jesus was p e rh a p s a b o u t to sen d th e w om an away w ith o u t answ ering h e r req uest, h e r renew ed ap p ro ach , reco rd e d in th e n e x t verse, p e rsu a d e d him otherw ise. 25 T h e rem ark ab le persistence o f th e w om an c o n tin u es even after th e reb u ff c o n ta in e d in th e exclusivism o f th e p re c e d in g statem en t. She is co n v in ced th a t h e is th e Jew ish M essiah a n d th a t h e can h eal h e r d aughter. She th u s “b eg an to w o rsh ip ” (προσεκύνει, im p erfe c t tense) him , a verb used w ith re fe re n ce to Jesus in 8:2; 9:18 (see especially fo r parallels to th e p re se n t story); 14:33; 20:20 (cf. 2 8 :9 ,1 7 ). D riven by a m o th e r’s love fo r h e r child, she again m ad e h e r plea: κύριε, βοηθέ l [th e only o c c u rre n c e o f this verb in M atthew ] μ ο ι, “L ord, h e lp m e ,” a re expression o f th e req u est in v 22 b u t in m o re idiom atic G reek (cf. Ps 109:26). 2 6-27 In th e rem arkable ex change th a t follows, th e Jew ish view o f th e salvation-historical prim acy o f Israel is assum ed by Jesus a n d accep ted w ithout challenge by th e w om an, τον άρτον των τέκνων, “th e b re a d o f th e c h ild re n ,” h e re is a symbol o f th e m essianic fulfillm ent (cf. Luke 14:15; see Comments o n 4:3 a n d 6:11) p ro m ised to a n d now in som e way b ein g m ade actual to Israel (cf. th e symbolism o f the feeding o f th e five th o u san d in 14:15-21). T h e “c h ild re n ” h ere are those w ho belong to th e h o u seh o ld an d thus those whose rig h t it is to receive b read (the ch ild ren are equal to those w ho belong to th e kingdom , ol viol τ ή ς β α σ ιλεία ς, lit. “th e sons o f th e k in g d o m ”; cf. 8:12). It is w rong (ούκ ε σ τ ιν καλόν, lit. “it is n o t g o o d ”) to throw to dogs w hat belongs to th e ch ild ren . T h e Jews universally assum ed th a t eschatological fulfillm ent b elo n g ed to Israel in an exclusive sense. M any also exp ecte d th a t th e overflow o f the a b u n d a n t eschatological blessing o f G od w ould be m ad e available to “rig h teo u s” G entiles (i.e., by keep in g th e N oachic laws [G en 9 :1 17]). T h e w om an seem s to know o f this w idespread id ea a n d thus th a t as a G entile, th o u g h she h a d n o rig h t to th e eschatological b a n q u e t itself, she m ig h t well be allow ed to enjoy som ething o f th e overflow, h e re d escribed in th e im age o f “th e cru m b s” (τω ν ψιχίων, a w ord o ccu rrin g in th e N T only h e re a n d in th e M arkan parallel) th a t fall from the table (cf. Luke 16:21) to th e “house dogs” (κυναρίοις, again in th e N T only in these verses a n d in th e M arkan p a ra lle l). T his w ord, used first by Jesus a n d th e n by th e w om an, recalls th a t G entiles w ere som etim es lik en ed to th e u n clean dogs th a t ro am ed th e streets (cf. 7:6). κυρίων, “m asters,” suggests th e superiority o f Israel as th e p eo p le o f G od over th e Gentiles. T h e disarm ing response o f th e w om an, ναι, κύριε, “tru e, L o rd ,” reflects an acceptance o f h e r position, b u t also a constancy o f faith th a t im presses Jesus. 28 T h e w ords o f Jesus, μ ε γ ά λ η σου ή π ίσ τ ις , lit. “g re a t is your fa ith ,” spoken h e re to a g en tile w om an, recall th e c o m p lim e n t p aid to th e gen tile c e n tu rio n in th e p arallel story in chap. 8 (cf. 8:10, w here a d e lib erate c o n trast w ith Israel is m ad e ). T hey also recall, by con trast, Je s u s ’ re b u k e o f P e te r’s little faith in 14:31 (cf. 16:8), n o t to m e n tio n th e u n b e lie f o f th e Jews (e.g., 13:58). T h e address, ώ γύ να ι, “O w o m an ,” reveals th e d eg ree to w hich Jesus was m oved by this gen tile w o m an ’s faith. T h e rew ard o f faith w ith th e g ra n tin g o f a re q u e st fo r h ealin g is an

Translation

443

im p o rta n t th e m e in M atthew (cf. 8:13; 9:22, 29; see Commenton 21:22). Jesus thus finally resp o n d s to th e w o m an ’s faith w ith th e g o o d news γενηθήτω σοι ώς Θέλεις, “be it to you as you w an t” (cf. a sim ilar fo rm u la in 8:13). T h e sh o rt no tice at the e n d o f th e p erico p e th a t h e r d a u g h te r “was h e a le d ” (ίάθη) from th a t h o u r is exactly p ara lle le d in th e con clu sio n to th e story o f th e h ealin g o f th e c e n tu rio n ’s son (cf. 8:13, with th e only differences b ein g ό π ά ίς α ύτου, “his so n ,” a n d th e use o f ε ν w ith th e dative ra th e r th a n άπό w ith th e genitive, “in th a t h o u r ” for “from th a t h o u r ”; cf. 9:22 a n d 17:18, b o th w ith άπό a n d th e genitive). T h e exorcism itself is n o t d escribed. M atthew, like M ark, lets th e con clusio n o f th e story have its own im p act a n d reco rd s n e ith e r th e jo y o f th e w om an n o r any christological conclusion th a t m ig h t well b e draw n fro m th e story. Explanation T h e eventual answ ering o f th e re q u e st o f th e C an aan ite w om an, as with the h ealin g o f th e c e n tu rio n ’s son (8:5-13), are exceptions in th e m inistry o f Jesus th a t are at th e sam e tim e an ticip atio n s o f th e u ltim ate goal o f th e m ission o f th e C hrist, w hich is to b rin g blessing to h u m a n k in d universally. T h e gentile m ission will b eco m e increasingly clear later in M atthew (e.g., 24:14; 28:19), b u t it is especially im p o rta n t fo r th e evangelist to stress th e faithfulness o f G od initially to Israel, w hich is h e r salvation-historical rig h t (cf. R om 1:16). Jesus strictly lim ited his own m ission, as h e d id th a t o f his disciples, to Israel; b u t th e tim e o f th e blessing o f th e G entiles was in d icated by Jesu s explicitly a n d is foreshadow ed h e re a n d th e re in th e narratives. W hat becom es clear again from th e p re se n t passage is a basic principle: th a t it is ultim ately receptive faith a n d n o t physical Jew ishness th a t d eterm in es th e blessing o f G od. Paul m axim ized this tru th as th e apostle to th e G entiles. T h e la tter can receive th e privilege o f th e Jews th ro u g h faith (cf. esp. Rom 4; Gal 3). A ccordingly, th e privilege o f th e Jews is n o lo n g e r u n iq u e b u t is to be enjoyed by all w ho re sp o n d in faith (cf. 21:43).

H ealings on the M ountain

(15:29-31)

Bibliography

Gerhardsson, B. M ig h t y A c ts . 28. Ryan, T. J. “Matthew 15.29-31: An Overlooked Summary.” 5 (1978) 31-42.

H o r iz o n s

Translation 29A n d passing on from there, Jesus came beside the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up on the mountain, he sat down there. 30A n d largea crowds came to him, having with them those who were lame, blind, deformed, mute,b and many others. A n d they laid them at h iscfeet, and he healed them,d 31with the result that the crowde marveled, seeing the

444

Ma t t h e w 15:29-31

mute speaking,f the deformed whole,6 and the lame walking and the blind seeing. A nd they glorified the God o f Israel. Notes a πολλοί, lit. “many.” b The order of the preceding four groups varies considerably in the textual evidence. See apparatus in Nestle-Aland. The last word, κωφούς-, can mean either “d e a f”or “m ute,” or perhaps both. c Many witnesses ( C K P W T Δf 1TR syPh) have του Ίησοΰ, hence, the feet “of Jesus.” d D it samss boms add πάυτας, “all.” e Many witnesses (B L W TR lat s f c,p,h mae) have the pi. τους όχλους, “the crowds,” in keeping with v 30. f B Φ and a few other witnesses have άκούοντας, “hearing”; others (N Ο Σ have άκούοντας καί λαλοϋντας, “hearing and speaking.” These alterations are caused by the ambiguity of κωφούς. See above, Note b. g A few witnesses (K f 1 lat sy50 bo) omit κυλλούς υγιείς, “the deformed whole,” perhaps because it was thought to be redundant in light of the next clause concerning the lame walking, or because there are no other references to the healing of the deformed in the Gospels. On the other hand, more probably the phrase was added to make the list of those cured more nearly parallel with the four categories of need mentioned in v 30. The broad character of witnesses containing the words favors their retention in the text. See TCGNT, 40.

F orm /Structure/Setting A. As in th e sim ilar sequ en ce in 14:13-14, Jesus heals large n u m b e rs o f p eo p le o f a variety o f m aladies p rio r to th e m iracu lo u s feed in g o f th e m u ltitu d e. T his m iracle su m m ary is th e last o f a series (cf. 4:23-25; 8:16-17; 9:35-36; 14:13-14, 3 4 -3 6 ), e x c e p t fo r th e b rie f n o te in 19:2, p re se n te d in this section o f M atthew a n d re p re se n ts a clim ax in Je su s’ G alilean m in istry (n o te especially th e c o n c lu d in g re fe re n c e in v 31 to th e p e o p le glorifying th e G o d o f Israel). W ith th e m u ltitu d e in place, th e n arrativ e settin g fo r th e m iracle o f th e feed in g o f th e fo u r th o u sa n d (vv 32-39) is established. B. M atthew ’s m iracle sum m ary passage stands h e re in place o f th e story o f a specific h e a lin g o f a d e a f m u te in M ark 7:31-37 (lacking in L uke). Som e sim ilarities su g g est th a t M atth ew ’s su m m ary is to som e e x te n t b ased o n , o r a t least p ro m p te d by, th e M arkan story. T hus, alth o u g h M atthew avoids th e difficulties o f M ark’s g eo g rap h ical notice, b o th evangelists at th e b e g in n in g m ake re fe re n c e to τη ν Θάλασσαν τ η ς Γαλιλαίας, “th e Sea o f G alilee” (v 29; M ark 7:31); b o th re fe r to th e b rin g in g o f th e needy to Jesus, a n d M atthew ’s referen ce to κωφούς, “d e a f ” (o r “m u te ”) co rre sp o n d s to M ark ’s κωφόν (v 30; M ark 7:32); b o th re fe r to h ealin g (v 30; M ark 7:33-37); b o th refer to th e a m azem en t o f th e p e o p le (v 31; M ark 7:37); and, finally, b o th co nclude with a statem en t o f response from the crow d {έδόξασαν το ν Oeov Ισ ρ α ή λ, “they glorified th e G od o f Israel” [v 31]; “h e has d o n e all things w ell” [M ark 7:37]). Yet am o n g all these sim ilarities th e actual w ord in g o f M atth e w is to ta lly d if f e r e n t fro m th a t o f M ark . B e y o n d th e s e a g r e e m e n ts , fu rth e rm o re , are a n u m b e r o f im p o rta n t d ifferences in ad d itio n to th e basic p o in t th a t M ark d escribes a specific in c id e n t w hile M atthew g eneralizes c o n c e rn in g Je su s’ healings, re fe rrin g to fo u r basic types o f malady. M atthew ’s healings o ccu r o n a “m o u n ta in ” b eside th e Sea o f G alilee, M ark’s ap p aren tly in th e reg io n o f th e D ecapolis. W hile in M atthew th e sick are p la c e d at th e fe e t o f th e seated Jesu s

Comment

445

(v 30), in M ark those w ho b rin g th e d e a f m u te b eseech Jesus to lay his h a n d o n him (M ark 7:32). F u rth e rm o re , w hile M ark goes in to co nsiderable detail co n c e rn in g th e te c h n iq u e u sed by Jesu s o n this p a rtic u la r occasion, M atthew simply reco rd s th a t “h e h ealed th e m ” (έθεράπευσεν α υ το ύ ς), i.e., th e sick. F u rth e rm o re , M atthew lacks th e m essianic secret m o tif o f M ark 7:36. T h u s this p erico p e is really M atthew ’s own fo rm u latio n , suggested by M ark’s n arrative m o re th an draw n from it o r even based u p o n it. In M atthew, m o re th a n in M ark, this p erico p e serves as a tran sitio n betw een th e p reach in g narrativ e a n d th e feed in g o f th e m u ltitu d e (th u s o n th e p a tte rn o f 14:13-14). C. T h e p erico p e may be simply o u tlin e d as follows: (1) Jesus goes u p o n the m o u n ta in (v 29); (2) th e sick are b ro u g h t to him (v 3 0 a -b ); (3) h e heals th e m (v 30c); (4) they are visibly re sto re d to h e a lth (v 31a); a n d (5) th e p eo p le re sp o n d (v 3 1 b ). S tru ctu rally , th e m o st in te re s tin g fe a tu re is th e list o f fo u r m alad ies in v 30 a n d th e c o rre sp o n d in g list o f those h e a le d in v 31. T h e la tte r is partly in chiastic relatio n w ith th e form er, ex c e p t fo r th e last two item s, w hich o ccu r in th e w rong o rd e r (th e χω λούς, “lam e,” sh o u ld b e last, a n d th e τυφ λούς, “b lin d ,” n e x t to last for a p e rfe c t c h iasm ). It is a w o n d er th a t am o n g th e several textual variants p e rta in in g to this m aterial, n o n e app ears to be c o n c e rn e d to p ro d u c e th e exact chiasm . Two o th e r item s h in d e r p e rfe c t parallelism : th e lack o f a co rresp o n d in g ele m e n t in v 31 to m atch και ετέρ ο υ ς πολλούς, “a n d m any o th e rs ” (v 30), a n d th e use o f th e adjective υ γ ιείς , “w h o le,” to m odify κυλλούς, th e “d e fo rm e d ,” instead o f a p articip le as in th e o th e r th re e cases (v 31). V 29 reveals parallelism in th e use o f participles (μεταβάς; άναβάς) with th e respective finite verbs. Comment 29 A c c o rd in g to M atthew , Je su s m oves fro m th e S y ro p h o e n ic ia n co a st (έκεΐθευ, “from th e re ”) to th e Sea o f G alilee a n d a “m o u n ta in ” (τό όρος), i.e., a hillside alo n g th e sh o re o f th e lake (παρά, “alo n g sid e”), alth o u g h w hich shore is n o t specified (cf. M ark 7:31, w here th e re fe re n ce to th e D ecapolis necessitates th e eastern sh o re ). M atthew gives n o in d icatio n th a t th e crowds were com posed o f G entiles. Jesu s w ent u p o n th e m o u n ta in a n d “sat th e re ” (έκάθητο εκ εί), very m u c h as th o u g h h e in te n d e d to teach (cf. 5:1) ra th e r th a n to h eal (teach in g ind e e d may generally have p re c e d e d healing, a n d th e fact th a t th e crow d was with Jesus for th re e days suggests th e sam e). T his setting serves in tu rn th e narrative o f th e feed in g o f th e fo u r th o u sa n d (w 32-38; cf. J o h n 6:3). For th e significance o f όρος, “m o u n ta in ,” in M atthew, see Comment o n 5:1. D o naldson (followed by Davies-Allison; d e n ie d by Luz) has a rg u e d th a t th e co m plex o f ideas in 15:29-39, e.g., eschatological g a th e rin g o f th e p eo p le, h ealing, a n d th e m essianic b an q u et, p o in t to th e m o u n ta in as symbolic o f M o u n t Zion a n d Zion eschatology (Jesus on the M ountain, 13 0 -3 1 ). T h ese ideas are in close c o n ju n c tio n h e re a n d m ake D o n a ld so n ’s con clu sio n possible, th o u g h n o t q u ite necessary. 30 As usual, th e crowds flock to Jesus for healing. H ere they b rin g those in n e e d o f healing, a n d they p u t th em at th e feet o f Jesus in a gesture o f obeisance a n d ex p ectation. O f th e fo u r specific categories o f n e e d m en tio n ed , only th e κυλλούς, “th e d e fo rm e d ,” are n o t m e n tio n e d again in M atthew in h ealin g c o n texts (now here else in th e G ospels is th e re m en tio n o f th e h ealin g o f th e κολλούς,

446

Ma t t h e w 15:29-31

a lth o u g h th e h ealin g o f th e w ith ered h a n d [12:10-14] co u ld be in c lu d e d in this category; th e only o th e r o c c u rre n c e o f th e w ord in M atthew is in 18:8). T h e th re e rem a in in g w ords all o c c u r in 11:5, a n d th e re are specific stories o f th e h ealin g o f th e “m u te ” (κωφός) in 9:32-33 a n d o f th e h ealin g o f th e “b lin d ” (τυφλοί) in 9 :2 7 31; 20:29-34. B o th o f these last two w ords o ccu r in 12:22 (a m an w ho was b lin d a n d deaf), w hile in th e sum m ary o f 21:14 th e b lin d a n d th e lam e are m e n tio n e d together. T h e rep resen tativ e c h a ra c ter o f th e list is m ad e clear by th e w ords και ετέρ ο υ ς πολλούς, “a n d m any o th e rs .” T h e h ealings are d escrib ed only in th e brief, d ire c t sta te m e n t a t th e e n d o f th e verse: καί έθερ ά π ευσ εν α υ το ύς, “a n d h e h e a le d th e m ” (cf. sim ilar brevity a n d d irectn ess in o th e r sum m aries: 4:24; 8:16; 12:15; 14:14; 19:2; 21:14). 31 ώ σ τε, “so th a t,” in tro d u ces th e result: th e crow d m arv eled (for θ α υ μ ά ζ ε ι, “m arv el,” cf. 8:27; 9:33). W hat they saw is d escrib ed using th e sam e fo u r specific categories m e n tio n e d in th e p reced in g verse, th o u g h n o t in th e sam e o rd e r (n o te th e sim ilarity w ith 11:5). κωφούς, w hich can m ea n e ith e r d e a f o r m u te, occurs h e re w ith th e p articip le λα λο υντα ς, “sp eak in g ,” a n d thus is u n d e rsto o d in th e latte r sense (cf. M ark 7:37). Seeing th e evidence for these healings befo re th e ir very eyes, th e p eo p le re sp o n d e d by praising th e G od o f Israel. T his ex p ression u n d e rlines G o d ’s faithfulness to his p e o p le a n d th u s inevitably im plies th e fu lfillm en t o f p ro p h e c y (cf. th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e w ith Isa 35:5-6, w here th re e o f th e fo u r m aladies are specifically m e n tio n e d ; cf. to o Isa 2 9:18-19), th o u g h this is n o t m e n tio n e d . It is p articu larly a p p ro p ria te fo r Jew s to glorify G o d in this way (fo r δοξάζειν, “glorify,” in this sense in M atthew, see too 5:16 a n d esp. 9:8). T h e fam iliar O T p h ra se το ν θεόν Ισραήλ, “th e G od o f Israel” (cf. Pss 41:13; 72:18; 106:48; 1 Kgs 1:48), o ccurs again in th e N T only in L uke 1:68 a n d Acts 13:17. C o n tra ry to m any c o m m e n ta to rs (e.g., G undry, C arson, F ran ce) it c a n n o t be insisted th a t this lan g u ag e m u st com e fro m G entiles (cf. Isa 29:19, 23; Pss 41:13; 72:18; 106:48). T h e id ea th a t th e healings o f this p erico p e w ere p e rfo rm e d fo r G entiles m akes 15:24 a n d th e narrative o f th e C an aan ite w om an absurd. H a d th e evangelist inte n d e d G entiles, h e w ould have m ad e th a t clear. T h e re can b e n o d o u b t th a t praising th e G od o f Israel is a p p ro p ria te in th e m o u th s o f Jews (cf. 5:16; 6:9). T h e im plicit C hristology involved w hereby Jesu s is th e c h a n n e l o f such blessing to G o d ’s p eo p le, however, is also inescapably clear to th e read ers o f th e n arrative in th e la rg e r c o n te x t o f th e G ospel. E xplanation Je su s’ h e a lin g m inistry co n tin u es, a lth o u g h as b u t p a rt o f th e larg er p u rp o se o f his m inistry. T h e m iracles p o in t to th e reality of Je su s’ p ro clam atio n o f th e kin g d o m a n d o f his identity as m essianic king (n o te th e resem b lan ce to 11:5 in resp o n se to J o h n th e B aptist’s q u e stio n ). It is th e G od o f Israel w ho is a t w ork in th e m iracles o f Jesus. M atthew ’s em phasis o n fu lfillm ent elsew here is exactly in k eep in g with this assessm ent. T h a t this was particularly m ean in g fu l to M atthew ’s Jew ish-C hristian c h u rc h in its d efen se against th e c o u n te ra rg u m e n ts o f th e synagogue is obvious. If it is th e G od o f Israel w ho is at w ork in th e m inistry o f Jesus, th e n G o d ’s faithfulness to his p eo p le is co n firm ed in th e sam e way th a t th e lim itatio n o f Je su s’ m ission to Israel con firm s it. M atthew ’s Jew ish-C hristian c h u rc h

Notes

447

never ceased giving thanks to th e G od o f Israel, w ho was th e G od o f Jesus a n d o f th e ch u rch .

The Feeding o f the Four Thousand

(15:32-38)

Bibliography

Donaldson, T. L. J e s u s

o n th e M o u n t a i n .

122-35.

See also B ib lio g r a p h y for 14:13-21. Translation 32A n d Jesus, when he had called h isa disciples together, said: “I feel compassion far the crowd, because it is already b three days that they have remained with me and they do not have anything to eat A n d I do not want to dismiss them when they are hungry, lest they should give out on the road.”c 33A n d the d disciples said to him: “Where in this wilderness will we get an adequate supply o f loaves so that such a crowd can befilled?” 34A n d Jesus said to them: “How many loaves do you have?”A n d they said: “Seven and a few small fish. ” 35A n d after he had orderede the crowd to recline upon the ground, 36he tookf the seven loaves and the fish , and g having given thanks, he broke the bread and was g ivin g h it to the1 disciples, and the disciples were giving it to the crowds) 37A n d all ate and were filled, and o f the abundance o f fragments they took up seven baskets full.38A n d the number o f those who ate was fo u r thousand k men, not counting women and children) Notes a A few MSS (K W Θ) omit αύτον, “his.” b B omits ήδη, “already.” c D* omits μήποτε έκλνθώσίν εν τη δδω, “lest they should give out on the road,” probably through homoioteleuton (θέλω—δδω). d Many witnesses ( C D L W 0 f 1TR sy) add αύτον, “his.” e A num ber of MSS (C L W TR syh) have the synonym έκέλενσε, “commanded,” for παραγγείλας, thus conforming the text more to the narrative of the feeding of the five thousand (cf. 14:19). f The witnesses in the preceding note have the participle λαβών, “taking,” conforming the word exactly to the parallel in 14:19 (but cf. too the parallel in Mark 8:6). g Many MSS (C2 L* W TR syh) omit καί, “and,” probably by influence of the parallel in Mark 8:6. h Many MSS ( C L W f 1TR) have the aorist εδωκεν, “he gave,” instead of the impf, έδίδου, “he was giving” (cf. 14:19). i C L W TR lat add αύτον, “his,” in agreement with the parallel in Mark 8:6. j C D W Θ TR lat syh samss mae have the sing, τω δχλω, “the crowd,” again as in the parallel in Mark 8:6. k B Θ f13 (N, ώσεί) add ώς, “about,” through the influence of the parallel in Mark 8:9. l The important witnesses K D lat sy0 sa bo reverse the order, thus reading παιδιών καί γνναικών, “children and women.” Although this is the harder reading (i.e., unlike the usual order and thus

448

Ma t t h e w 15:32-38

perhaps original), the textual evidence in favor of the accepted reading is of a wider variety. See TCGNT, 40-41.

F orm /Structure/Setting A. T h e h ealin g m inistry o f Jesus is h e re follow ed again, as in 14:14-21, by th e m iracu lo u s feed in g o f a m u ltitu d e. T his is th e last narrativ e c o n c e rn in g J e su s’ m iracu lo u s deed s befo re th e decisive confession by P e te r th a t Jesus is th e C hrist a n d th e radically new tu rn tak en by Jesu s in th e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f his suffering a n d d e a th (16:13-21). Q uite probably th e p erico p e, alth o u g h for M atthew it is a fe e d in g o f Jews, also co n tain s sym bolism th a t an ticip ates th e u ltim ate blessing o f th e G entiles— so m eth in g also in view in th e reality o f th e cross. T h e passage is th u s a clim ax to th e first m ain p a rt o f th e G ospel as well as a p re p a ra tio n fo r th e final a n d clim actic p a rt o f th e story o f Jesus. B. M atthew is again d e p e n d e n t o n M ark fo r this p erico p e (M ark 8:1-10; it is lacking in L uke). M atthew follows th e w ording o f M ark ra th e r closely. B eyond sm all ch an g es a n d rew riting, th e follow ing m o re significant d ifferences are to be n o te d . To b eg in with, M atthew om its M ark ’s o p e n in g w ords, w hich seem to suggest a new setting, o n e later th a n th e p re c e d in g narrative: “In those days again th e re was a g re a t crowd, a n d they d id n o t have an y th in g to e a t” (M ark 8:1). M atthew a p p e n d s th e p re se n t n arrativ e directly to th e p re c e d in g healings narrative, w hich provides th e setting. M atthew alters th e in d ire c t statem en t o f M ark 8:3 (εάν, “if . . .”) c o n c e rn in g th e dism issal o f th e crow d to th e d ire c t sta te m e n t ού θέλω, μ ή π ο τ ε , “I d o n o t w ant to . . . , lest” (v 32). M atthew om its M ark’s n o te “a n d som e o f th e m h a d com e from afar” (M ark 8:3; cf. v 32) in characteristic abbreviation o f his source. Similarly, M atthew om its M ark’s sep arate n o tice a b o u t th e fish (i.e., all o f M ark 8:7) a n d places th e referen ce to fish earlier in th e disciples’ response to Je su s’ q u estio n , o n th e m o d el o f th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d (M ark 8:5; v 34; cf. 14:17), as well as in Je su s’ blessing o f th e b re a d (v 36; cf. M ark 8:6). As in th e n arrativ e o f th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d (14:19), M atthew abbreviates M ark by o m ittin g th e verb παρατίθεμαι, “d istrib u te ,” w hich occurs h e re twice (M ark 8:6). In v 37 M atthew adds two w ords to h e ig h te n th e im p act o f th e n a rra tive: π ά ν τες, “all,” ate (cf. 14:20; M ark 6:42) a n d th e seven baskets o f frag m en ts w ere π λ ή ρ εις, “fu ll” (cf. 14:20). T h is em p h asis c o n tin u e s in th e last verse o f M atthew ’s narrativ e, w here ol δε έσ θ ίο ντες, “those w ho a te ,” is a d d e d as well as ά νδρες χω ρ ίς γυναικώ ν και παιδιών, “m en , w ith o u t w om en a n d c h ild re n ,” after th e re fe re n c e to th e n u m b e r “fo u r th o u s a n d ” (cf. th e sam e w ording in 14:21). M atthew th u s has abbreviated M ark, th o u g h n o t as m u ch as usual because M ark’s n arrative is already terse; M atthew has also in ten sified th e re p o rt o f th e m iracle by slight m odifications. C. T h e stru c tu re o f this p erico p e, especially after th e o p e n in g verse, is very sim ilar to th a t o f th e narrative o f th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d (see Form / Structure/ Setting fo r 14:13-21). H e re again th e re is n o co n c lu d in g re fe re n c e to th e crow d’s reactio n , n o r is a christological p o in t draw n. T h e story stands by itself. T h e p e ric o p e may be o u tlin e d as follows: (1) Je s u s ’ com passion u p o n th e h u n g ry p e o p le (v 32); (2) th e p ro b le m (v 33); (3) th e scanty reso u rces (v 34); a n d (4) th e solution, consisting o f (a) th e m iracle (w 3 5 -3 7 a), (b) th e a b u n -

Form /Stru cture/Setting

449

d a n c e (v 37b), a n d (c) th e n u m b e r fed (v 38). N o striking syntactic parallelism is evident in th e p erico p e, w hich consists o f straightforw ard narrative. D. W hy do M ark a n d M atthew have two such rem arkably sim ilar stories o f th e m iraculous feedings o f m u ltitudes (with th e p re se n t p erico p e a n d its M arkan p arallel, cf. 14:13-21 a n d M ark 6 :32-44), a n d w hat is th e re latio n sh ip betw een th e two stories? It is clear th a t b o th M ark a n d M atthew re g a rd th e accounts as d e scrib in g se p a ra te events. B o th evangelists in d e e d d e lib e ra te ly c o m p a re a n d co n trast th e two feedings at a later p o in t (16:5-12; cf. M ark 8:14-21), a n d there, as in th e respective narratives them selves, th e specific details o f the two stories are k e p t carefully distinct.

Thus in particular we may note in the feeding of the five thousand the consistent reference to: the lateness of the hour; five loaves and two fish (ίχθύας); the crowd lying on the grass (χόρτος) , and twelve baskets (κοφίνους) of remainders. By contrast, in the feeding of the four thousand note the consistent reference to: the third day; seven loaves and a few fish (ίχθύδια, diminutive, “little fish” [but also Ιχθύας in v 36]); the crowd lying on the ground (γην); and seven baskets (σπυρίδας) of remainders. A few of these are deliberately emphasized in 16:9-10 (cf. Mark 8:19-20). There are further differences to be noted as well, especially toward the beginning of the pericopes. In the narrative of the feeding of the five thousand, it is the disciples who take the initiative and approach Jesus concerning the need of the people, suggesting that Jesus dismiss the crowds so they can obtain food. Then Jesus says “you give them something to eat” (14:15; cf. Mark 6:37). In the narrative of the feeding of the four thousand, it is Jesus who takes the initiative (so too in the question ofJesus in John 6:5), noting that the crowds have nothing to eat and that he does not want to send them on the road with such hunger. T h e d ifferences betw een th e two n arratives n o te d thus far are im p o rtan t. T hey u n d e rlin e th e fact th a t b o th M ark a n d M atthew believed th e stories described two sep arate events (so especially 16:9-10; M ark 8 :19-20). O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e rem ark ab le sim ilarities betw een th e stories p o in t to th e possibility, o r p e rh ap s probability, th a t th e n arratives d escribe w hat was originally o n e m iraculous feeding.

The similarities to be noted are the following. First, the larger framework of the two narratives is quite parallel: each occurs after an extensive healing ministry (14:14 [cf. Luke 9:11]; 15:29-31 [Mark 7:31-37]); each is followed by a boat trip (14:22-33 [Mark 6:45-51]; 15:39 [Mark 8:10]). Within the narratives themselves are the following similarities: both occur in a deserted area (έρημος". 14:15 [Mark 6:35]; έρημία: 15:33 [Mark 8:4]); both employ ήδη, “already,” though the first relates to the hour, the second to the third day; both take up the question of the dismissal of the crowd; in both Jesus asks concerning the resources (Mark 6:38, repeated verbatim in the second narrative, Matt 15:34); in both the disciples report what is available. What follows in both narratives is the particularly striking common succession, in nearly verbatim language, of the command to recline, taking the food, giving thanks for it, breaking it, giving it to the disciples and thereby then to the crowd, the reference to all eating and being filled, the taking up of the leftover fragments, and finally the report of the number who had eaten. It can h ardly be d e n ie d th a t even if th e feedings o f th e fo u r a n d five th o u sa n d w ere actually d iffe re n t events, th e second narrativ e is p a tte rn e d after th e first a n d th e re has b e e n crossover o r recip ro cal in flu en ce in th e lang u ag e u sed to

450

Ma t t h e w 15:32-38

describ e th em . B ut these sim ilarities may equally well p o in t to th e con clu sio n th a t we have h e re v arian t versions d escrib in g w hat was originally b u t o n e event. W hat inclines o n e to this conclusion m o re th a n an y th in g else is th e e x trem e im probability th a t after exp erien cin g th e feeding o f th e five th o u san d a n d now b ein g c o n fro n te d w ith an alm ost id en tical situation w ith seven loaves o f b re a d a n d a few sm all fish in th e ir baskets, th e disciples sh o u ld ask, “W here are we to g e t b re a d e n o u g h in th e d e se rt to feed so g reat a crow d?” (v 33 [M ark 8:4]; RSV). B ut if these two narratives w ere originally variant versions o f th e sam e m iraculous feeding o f a m ultitude, why does M ark, a n d M atthew following M ark (b u t n o te th a t Luke a n d J o h n include only th e story o f th e feeding o f th e five th o u s a n d ), include b o th a n d deliberately insist o n th eir in d e p e n d e n c e (i.e., in 16:9-10; M ark 8:19-20)? M ark h ad available to him two very sim ilar stories th at were different, however, in im p o rta n t specific details— som e o f w hich h ad probably already assu m ed symbolic im p o rtan ce (see below ). R ath er th an choosing only o n e a cco u n t a n d om itting th e other, M ark in clu d ed bo th , thereby preserving th e im p o rta n t symbolic m ean in g in each, the on e feeding rep resen tin g th e provision for th e Jews, th e o th e r for th e nations. If, as M ark may imply (b u t cf. M ark 8:1, w hich m akes som ew hat o f a break with th e p reced in g narrativ e), th e feeding o f th e fo u r th o u sand took place in th e region o f th e D ecapolis (M ark 7:31), this may also suggest gentile associations, even th o u g h th e re is little h in t from M ark (even less from M atthew) th a t th e fo u r th o u san d were anything o th e r th an Jews. N ote too how th e G entiles are co n sid ered earlier in the chapter, explicitly in w 21-28 a n d p erh ap s implicitly in w 1 1 ,1 7 -2 0 , with th eir critique o f th e cerem onial law th a t divides Jew a n d G entile. It may fu rth e rm o re have b e e n th o u g h t desirable to p reserve th e acco u n ts o f th e two feeding m iracles to m atch th e two o f Moses (Exod 16; N um 11) a n d Elijah (2 Kgs 4:1-7, 38-44), w ho are soon to b e m e n tio n e d in 17:1-8, alth o u g h they are eclipsed in im p o rtan ce by Jesus. A lth o u g h it is o f course n o t im possible th a t th e re w ere two similar, m iracu lo u s feedings, th e d a ta surveyed above seem m o re co n sisten t w ith th e hypothesis o f o n e o riginal event th a t cam e to b e tran sm itted in two d iffe re n t versions, each w ith its own sym bolism. Comment 32 T h e p re se n c e o f th e crow d w ith Jesu s fo r “already th re e days” (ήδη ήμέραί τ ρ ε ι ς “a p a re n th e tic a l n o m in ativ e,” see BDF §144) p resu p p o ses th e setting o f th e p re v io u s p e r ic o p e (cf. w 2 9 - 3 0 ) . J e s u s “calls to g e t h e r ” h is d isc ip le s (προσκαλεσάμενος-, cf. 10:1; 15:10; 20:25) a n d an n o u n c e s σ π λα γχ νίζο μ α ι επ ί το ν όχλον, “I feel com passion fo r th e crow d” (similarly, 9:36; 14:14; cf. 20:34), b ecause they h a d n o th in g to eat. In k eep in g w ith this com passion, M atthew has Jesus assert άπολνσαι αύτούς· νήστεις* ον Θέλω, “I d o n o t w ant to dismiss th e m w hen they are h u n g ry [th e adjective νήσης*, “h u n g ry ,” occurs in th e N T only h e re a n d in th e M arkan p arallel (M ark 8 :3)], “lest they sh o u ld give o u t” (έκλυθώσίν, in th e G ospels only h e re a n d M ark 8:3). T h u s in this p erico p e th e suggestion o f th e disciples in 14:15 seem s to be a n ticip ated a n d answ ered b efo re it is m ad e. Furth e rm o re , h e re Jesu s is th e o n e w ho initially feels c o n c e rn fo r th e p eo p le a n d th u s will n o t sen d th e m away. T h e fear th a t th e p eo p le m ig h t fain t o n th e ro a d is u n iq u e to this p erico p e.

Comment

451

33 M atthew ’s abbreviation o f M ark in the narrative o f the feeding o f the five thousand results in the omission o f the question o r the equivalent o f th e question that is asked h e re (cf. M ark 6:37, which, however, is im plied in the disciples’ rem ark in 14:17). T h e disciples’ question virtually precludes any knowledge o f a previous m iraculous feeding, such as th at o f the five thousand in chap. 14. They ap p a re ntly know o f n o way th at this m ultitude (όχλον τοσοϋτον, “such a crowd”) could be fed short o f dismissing them to make their way hom e, χορτάσαι, “to feed ” o r “to be filled,” is the same verb fo u n d in 14:20 an d in v 37 in the rep o rt th at all were filled. 34 T h e o p e n in g w ords, λ έ γ ε ι α ύ τ ο ις . . . πόσους ά ρ το υς έ χ ε τ ε , “said to them : ‘H ow m any loaves d o you have?”’ agree verbatim with M ark 6:38 in th e narrative co n c e rn in g th e five th o u sa n d (cf. M ark 8:5). T h e answ er o f th e disciples, according to M atthew, is a t o n ce sim ilar a n d dissim ilar to th e answ er o f th e disciples in th e feed in g o f th e five th o u san d . By th e a d d itio n o f ο λίγα ίχθύδια, “a few small fish” (lacking in M ark a t this p o in t [8:6] b u t draw n from 8:7), th e answ er becom es sim ilar to th a t in 14:17. A t th e sam e tim e, th e differen ce is also clear. H ere it is ε π τ ά καί ο λίγα ίχθύδια, “seven (loaves) a n d a few sm all fish,” w hereas in th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d it is π έ ν τε ά ρ το υ ς καί δύο ίχθύας, “five loaves a n d two fish ” (14:17). O n th e n u m b e r “seven” in th e “seven loaves,” see Comment o n v 37. T h e d ifferen ce in th e n u m b e r o f loaves is specifically n o te d in 16:9-10, w here, however, th e n u m b e r o f fish is n o t m e n tio n e d . T h e use o f th e dim inutive ίχθύδια, “small fish,” u sed only h e re a n d in th e M arkan parallel, w ould be m o re im porta n t e x cep t th a t th e o rd in a ry w ord ίχθ ύα ς, “fish,” is u sed in v 36. 35-36 T h e statem en t o f v 35 agrees w ith th a t o f 14:19a, a lth o u g h th e vocabula ry d iffe rs: π α ρ α γ γ ε ί λ α ς is u s e d fo r κ ε λ ε ύ σ α ς (b o th m e a n in g “h a v in g c o m m a n d e d ”); ά ν α π εσ εΐν is u sed fo r άνακλιθηναι (b o th m ea n in g “to re c lin e ”); a n d γην, “g ro u n d ,” is u sed fo r χόρτου, “grass.” A fter this, however, th e vocabulary agrees closely, reflectin g as it does th e c h u rc h ’s liturgical lan guage u sed in celeb ra tin g th e eucharist. T h u s th e fo u r verbal form s, έλαβεv, “h e to o k ” (cf. λαβών, “having ta k e n ” [14:19]), th e seven loaves a n d th e fish, εύ χα ρ ισ τή σ α ς, “having given th an k s” (cf. εύ λό γη σ εν , “h e b lessed ” [14:19]), έκλα σ εν, “h e b ro k e ( th e m )” (cf. κλάσας, “having b ro k e n [th e m ]” [14:19]), a n d έδίδου, “h e b eg an to give” (iέδωκεν, “h e gave” [14:19]), it to th e disciples, all c o rre sp o n d closely to th e sam e verbs used in th e in stitu tio n o f th e L o rd ’s S u p p er in 26:26. If th e re are g en tile associations in th e symbolism o f seven loaves a n d th e seven baskets o f fragm ents left over (see Comment o n v 37; cf. 16:9-10), th e allusions to th e eucharist, with its universal im plications, take o n special m ean in g . O nly o n e e le m e n t o f 14:19 n o t fo u n d h e re , nam ely th e “looking u p in to th e sky,” is also n o t fo u n d in 26:26. T h e close c o rre sp o n d e n c e a m o n g v 3 6 , 14:19, a n d 26:26 is striking. M atthew ’s ίχθ ύα ς, “fish,” is lacking in th e M arkan a c c o u n t a t this p o in t a n d fails to preserve the distin ction betw een th e “fish” o f th e n arrativ e o f th e feed in g o f th e five th o u san d a n d th e “little fish” (ίχθύδια) o f th e p re s e n t n arrative (v 34; M ark 8:7). 37 This verse repeats 14:20 verbatim except for a very slight change in w ord o rd e r in the m iddle o f the verse an d the key words at the e n d o f the verse, ε π τά σπυρίδας, “seven baskets” (cf. δώδεκα κοφίνους, “twelve baskets,” in 14:20). T he imp ortance o f this difference is clear from the notice taken o f it in 16:9-10. T h e type o f b asket re fe rre d to h e re was a m o re flexible b asket th a n th e baskets (probably wicker) re fe rre d to in th e narrative o f th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d (cf. 14:20). T h a t th e re w ere seven loaves a n d seven baskets full o f re m ain in g fragm ents in

452

Ma t t h e w 15:39-16:4

this feeding o f th e m ultitu d e c a n n o t be accidental. T h e n u m b e r seven points to fullness a n d perfection, or, som ew hat less plausibly, to th e “seventy” gen tile nations. M uch less likely is L ohm eyer’s suggestion th a t th e n u m b e r refers to th e seven deacons o f Acts 6:1-6, who after all w ere H ellenistic Jews a n d n o t G entiles. If it is taken in co n ju n ctio n with th e twelve baskets full o f rem ain d ers in th e feed in g o f th e five thousand, w hich alm ost certainly points to th e twelve tribes o f Israel (or th e twelve disciples), i.e., th e Jews, th e n th e sevens— even th o u g h those w ho actually h a d b e e n fed w ere Jews— may well symbolize th e m eeting o f th e needs o f th e G entiles, i.e., the fullness o f m essianic provision for the entire world. “All” ( 7τάντες) ate a n d “were satisfied” (έχορτάσθησαιή, to g eth er with the a b u n d an ce (τό π ερ ισσ ε v o u ) reflected in th e seven baskets o f rem ainders, has h e re as in 14:20 eschatological overtones (see Comment th ere) th a t are consistent with this interp retatio n . 38 T his sta te m e n t is m erely a verbatim re p e titio n o f 14:21, th e only chan g es b ein g obviously th e n u m b e r itself, th e om ission h e re o f ώ σεί, “a b o u t,” th e tran sp o sitio n o f άνδρες, “m e n ,” a n d th e n u m b e r τε τρ α κ ισ χ ίλ ιο ι, “fo u r th o u s a n d .” T h e n u m b e r is re g a rd e d as ap p ro x im ate, d esp ite th e om ission o f ώ σεί, “a b o u t.” If we are c o rre c t in th in k in g th a t th e feed in g o f th e five th o u sa n d is associated w ith th e Jews (twelve baskets o f fragm ents) a n d th a t th e p re se n t feed in g suggests p ro vision fo r th e G entiles (seven loaves a n d seven baskets o f frag m en ts), th e n th e sm aller n u m b e r o f fo u r th o u sa n d in re fe re n ce to th e G entiles may subtly p o in t to Israel’s priority in th e re c e p tio n o f th e a b u n d a n c e o f eschatological blessing. E xplanation At first glance this miracle involving the feeding o f the four thousand seems to be m erely a less impressive repetition o f the m iracle o f the feeding o f the five thousand. B oth stories are clearly stories o f messianic provision foreshadow ing the blessings o f the eschaton, a n d this one, especially in retrospect, intim ates the extension o f messianic blessing even to the Gentiles. T h e fulfillm ent b ro u g h t by je su s is finally to involve the feeding o f the h u n g ry o f the nations. T h e universalism im plicit h ere is im p o rta n t to the evangelist’s u n d erstan d in g o f the m eaning a n d significance o f Jesus’ messianic mission. Theologically, this feeding, like th at o f the five thousand, is closely related to the feeding symbolized in the eucharist, w hich also points in its own way to the experience o f eschatological blessing. T h e feeding o f th e four thousand points to the blessing o f th e Gentiles, who, to g eth er with Israel, will also be the recipients of eschatological blessing th ro u g h the provision o f Jesus.

The Seeking o f a Sign

(15:39-16:4)

Bibliography

Edwards, R. A. T h e S ig n o f J o n a h . SBT 2.18. London: SCM, 1971. Hirunima, T. “Matthew 16,2b-3.” In N e w T e s ta m e n t T e x tu a l C n t i ä s m . FS B. M. Metzger, ed. E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981. 35-45. März, C.-P. “Lk 12,54b-56 par Mt 16,2b.3 und die Akoluthie der Redequelle.” S N T U l l (1986) 83-96.

Form/Structure/Setting

453

Translation 39A n d when he had dismissed the crowd, he got into the boat, and he came to the region o f M agadan.a 16:1A n d the Pharisees and Sadducees came to him, and to testb him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2B ut he, answering, said to them: “[When evening has come, you say: I t will be fa ir weather, fo r the sky is red.’3A n d early in the morning: I t will be stormy today, fo r the skyc is dark and red.’ How, on the one hand, do you know how to discern the face o f the sky, but, on the other, you are not able to discernd the signs of the times?]e 4A n evil and adulterousf generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign o f Jonah. ”s A n d he left them and went away. N otes aMany MSS have Μαγδαλά, “Magdala” (L Θ / U3 TR syh), or Μαγδαλάν, “Magdalan” (C N W 33 mae bo), both of which mean in Aram, and Heb. ‘Tower,” rather than Μαγαδάυ, “Magadan” (thus K* B D). The variants may have in mind the town of Migdal on the west coast of the Sea (cf. Luke 8:2, “Magdalene,” i.e., from Migdal). Magadan is a name not known elsewhere (the same is true of Δαλμανονθά, “Dalmanutha,” from the parallel in Mark 8:10). It is the “harder” reading and contained in the best MSS. bThe translation “to test” takes the participle πειράζοντες, lit. “testing,” as indicating purpose. cIn place of ούραι/os “sky,” D reads άήρ, “air.” d “To discern” is added in the translation. A few MSS add δο κιμ ά ζει (G N) or δοκιμάσαι (W), “to test,” or γνώνοα (1012 lat), “to know,” or for δύνασθε, “able,” substitute συνίετε (S 700), “understand,” or δοκιμάζετε (L), “test,” by influence of the Lukan parallel (Luke 12:56). eThe long passage in brackets (w 2-3) is omitted by im portant witnesses ( Κ Β Χ Γ / 13 sys,c sa mae bopt) . It may have been inserted from Luke 12:54-56 (although the wording is very different) or from some other source; contrariwise, if original, it may have been deliberately omitted by copyists in regions where a red morning sky does not indicate a storm, as, for example, in Egypt. It might, on the other hand, have been omitted because it is not found in the Markan parallel or in the otherwise identical pericope in 12:38-39. The passage is accordingly retained by the UBSGNT committee, but in brackets to indicate the uncertainty of the text. See TCGNT, 4L f D it omit καί μοιχαλίς, “and adulterous.” g Many MSS (C W Θ / 113 TR it vgcl sy mae bo) add τού προφήτου, “the prophet,” through the influence of the earlier parallel in 12:39.

F orm /Structure/Setting A. T h e re is a certain irony in th e seq u en ce o f th e narrative, w hich has this re q u e st for a sign follow th e h ealings a n d th e feed in g o f th e fo u r th o u sa n d in 15:30-39. T h e “signs o f th e tim es” fill Je su s’ m essianic m inistry, yet th e religious lead ersh ip o f Israel, re p re se n te d in th e Pharisees a n d Sadducees, is unw illing to accep t available evidence. It is d o u b tfu l, however, th a t they w ould have fo u n d any sign convincing since Jesus d id n o t fit th e ir p re c o n c e p tio n s a n d fu rth e rm o re criticized th e ir teach in g (cf. th e follow ing p erico p e, w 5 -1 2 ). B. A p art from th e textually questio n ab le m aterial in w 2 b -3 (b rack eted in th e tran slatio n ), this p e rico p e is fo u n d in alm ost id entical fo rm in 12:38-39, w here, however, it is th e scribes a n d Pharisees w ho ask to see a sign. In d e e d , w 2a a n d 4 (ex cep t th e last fo u r words) agree verbatim with 12:39, w hich, however, adds rod προφήτου, “th e p ro p h e t,” after Jo n a h . T h e p re se n t p ericope, like th e fo rm e r one, is draw n from M ark 8:11-13. Lukan parallel m aterial is fo u n d in th re e d iffe re n t places (with v 1, cf. L uke 11:16; with vv 2-3, cf. L uke 12:54-56, w here th e th o u g h t is th e sam e b u t th e exam ples a n d langu ag e differ; w ith v 4, cf. L uke 11:29).

454

Ma t t h e w 15:39-16:4

T h e differences betw een this pericope a n d its M arkan source are m inim al (if we disregard w 2 b -3 ). M atthew adds καί Σαδδουκαΐοι, “a n d Sadducees” (cf. th e addition o f nines' τών γραμματέω ν, “som e o f the scribes,” in 12:38), in v 1, as well as rewriting M ark’s slightly awkward sentence. T h e p rep o sitio n εκ, “fro m ” (with L uke 11:16, against M ark), replaces άπό, “fro m ” (M ark 8:11), in th e phrase “a sign from heaven.” In v 2 M atthew om its M ark’s no te co ncerning the h u m an em otions o f Jesus, καί άναστενάξας τώ πνεύματι αυτόν, “a n d sighing deeply in his spirit” (M ark 8:12). In v 4 h e adds καί μο ιχα λίς, “an d adultero u s” (as also in 12:39), in describing γενεά , “generatio n .” H e again (cf. 12:39) om its M ark’s άμ ήνλέγω νμϊν, “truly I say to you” (M ark 8:12), a n d rephrases the co n ten t o f th e following saying, adding the reference to th e o n e sign th a t will be given, τό σ η μ εΐο ν Ίωνα, “the sign o f J o n a h ” (the same addition is m ade in Luke 11:29; cf. “the sign o f Jo n a h th e p ro p h e t” [τον προφήτου] in 12:39). M atthew ’s final note, καί καταλιπών αυτούς άπηλθεν, “an d he left them an d w ent away,” is close to th e co n ten t o f M ark 8:13, w here, however, th ere is also reference to getting a b o at an d crossing to “the o th er side,” om itted by M atthew (b u t cf. v 5). As for th e b racketed m aterial in vv 2b-3, it appears th a t we have a version o f som ething th a t may have b een in Q o r differen t versions o f Q (cf. Luke 12:54-56). T he Lukan parallel is quite the sam e in concept, with th e cloud in th e west an d th e w ind from th e south b ein g m eteorological observations c o rresp o n d in g to th e re d a n d red-gloom y sky in M atthew . In th e se n te n c e o f th e ap p lic a tio n (v 3b; L uke 12:56), Luke begins with th e ad d itio n ύποκριταί, “hypocrites,” refers to discerning th e face τ ή ς γης, “o f th e e a rth ,” as well as th a t o f th e sky, has οίδατε δοκιμάζειν, “you know how to test,” for M atthew ’s γινώ σ κ ετε διακρίνειν, “you know how to disc e rn ,” an d finally has τον καιρόν δε τούτον, “b u t this age,” for M atthew ’s τά δε σημεία των καιρών, “b u t th e signs o f th e tim es.” Gos. Thom. 91 contains a close parallel to th e statem en t o f v 3b. T h e version o f th e logion o f Jesus given in v 4 is q u o te d by Ju stin M artyr in Dialogue 107.1, b u t in d e p e n d e n c e o n Matthew. C. T his controversy p e rico p e c o n tin u es an ex ch an g e betw een Jesus a n d his enem ies, consisting basically o f a re q u e st a n d a response, in c lu d in g a re b u k e . It m ay b e o u tlin e d as follows (1) tran sitio n (15:39); (2) th e re q u e st o f th e Jew ish lead ers (v 1); (3) th e resp o n se o f Jesus, consisting o f (a) an ack n o w led g em en t o f th e ir ability to “r e a d ” th e sky c o n c e rn in g fu tu re w e a th e r (vv 2 -3 a) a n d (b) a faulting o f th em fo r th e ir inability to re a d signs o f a m o re im p o rta n t k in d (v 3b); (4) re b u k e a n d refusal (v 4 a -b ); a n d (5) tra n sitio n (v 4c). T h e little parallelism in th e passage is fo u n d in th e resp o n se o f Jesu s in vv 2-3 . In w 2 -3 a each w eath er p re d ic tio n is follow ed by a su p p o rtin g clause πυρράζει γάρ ο ουρανός, “th e sky is re d ,” th o u g h in th e seco n d instance, th e p articip le στυγνάζω ν, “b ein g d a rk ,” p re cedes δ ουρανός, “th e sky.” In v 3b, fu rth e rm o re , th e μ ε ν —δε, “o n th e o n e h a n d — b u t o n th e o th e r,” clauses are syntactically p arallel, a lth o u g h th e infinitive δ ια κ ρίνειv, “to d isc e rn ,” o r its c o u n te rp a rt is lacking. T h e o b ject o f th e first, τό μ ε ν πρόσωπον το υ ούρανου, “th e face o f th e sky,” c o rre sp o n d s to th e o b ject o f th e second, τά δε σ η μ εία τω ν καιρών, “th e signs o f th e tim es.” Comment 39 T h e dism issing o f th e crow d (cf. 14:15, 22, 23), w hich p e rh a p s o c c u rre d w ith a form al blessing, is follow ed by a b o a t trip (cf. th e b o a t trip follow ing th e

Comment

455

feeding o f the five thousand [14:22, 32]), which brings Jesus (b u t apparently n o t his disciples according to 16:5; contrast M ark 8:10) ε ις τα δρια Μ αγαδάν; “to the region o f M agadan.” T h e n am e M agadan is unknow n in ancient literature outside this occurrence, as is its location (cf. the textual variants m en tio n ed in the Notes). M ark’s Δαλμανονθά, “D alm anutha,” in the parallel (M ark 8:10) is similarly unknow n. From M atthew alone it is unclear w hether the healings o f 15:29-31 a n d the feeding o f the four thousand occurred o n th e western or the eastern shore o f the Sea o f Galilee. In Mark, o n the o th e r hand, the healings occur o n the eastern shore in the region o f th e Decapolis (M ark 7:31), although the setting for the feeding o f the four thousand is different in tim e a n d p erhaps place too. M atthew ’s substitution o f M agadan for M ark’s D alm anutha may have h elp ed his readers, b u t it does n o t h elp us. If it was o n th e west side o f the lake, th en “the o th e r side” o f 16:5 w ould again be the east side o f the lake. 16:1 M atthew ’s g ro u p in g to g e th e r o f th e Pharisees a n d S adducees (th e single definite article ol, “th e ,” links th em to g eth er) h a p p e n s again in M atthew only in 3:7. It is particularly p ro b lem atic w hen th e two very d ifferen t g ro u p s are linked in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e ir teach in g (as in w 6 ,1 1 ,1 2 ) . T h e S add u cees have n o t b e e n re fe rre d to by M atthew since 3:7. A lth o u g h m em b ers o f b o th g ro u p s sat to g e th e r o n th e S an h ed rin , serving as th e lead ersh ip fo r Israel, they w ere o p p o sed to each o th e r, differing q u ite extensively, especially in th e ir d o c trin e (see discussion in n e x t p e ric o p e ). It is n o t u n u su al, how ever, fo r trad itio n a l en em ies to u n ite against w hat is p erceived to be potentially th re a te n in g to th e status a n d w elfare o f each gro u p . In this instance, Je su s’ teach in g o v e rtu rn e d th a t o f th e Pharisees, a n d the clear m essianic in tim atio n s o f his m inistry co u ld well have suggested th e d a n g e r o f a p o p u la r revolt to th e Sadducees. T h a t th e ir re q u e st fo r a sign was n o t an in n o c e n t o n e, i.e., in o rd e r to have th e m inistry o f Jesu s v alidated fo r th em , is m ade clear by th e p articip le π ειρ ά ζο ντες, “testing (h im ).” T h e ir m inds w ere already m ade u p c o n cern in g Jesus, a n d now they m erely tried to e n tra p him by fin d in g so m ething th a t co u ld be used against him (cf. π ε ιρ ά ζ ε ιν ? ^ 2λτι in 19:3; 2 2 :1 8 , 35). T h e re q u e st fo r a σ ημείο υ εκ το ν ουρανού, “a sign fro m h e a v e n ,” is fo r a display o f pow er fo r its own sake a n d o n e th a t w ould p re se n t p ro o f th a t was irrefu tab le (Luz: “a cosm ic sign”) . “H eav en ” h e re is a circu m lo cu tio n fo r G od; h en ce, th e re q u e st is fo r a sign from G od. B ut w hen Jesus has b e e n p e rfo rm in g a h o st o f signs o f th e kingdom a n d th e resp o n se is unbelief, this is exactly th e k in d o f re q u e st h e will deny. H a d h e p ro d u c e d som e ex trao rd in ary sign, his en em ies w ould d o ubtless have accused h im o f sorcery. F or fu rth e r c o m m e n t p e rtin e n t to this verse, see Comment o n 12:39. 2 -3 T h e resp o n se o f Jesu s to this re q u e st begins w ith a criticism o f these lead ers fo r th e ir inability to in te rp re t th e signs h e has b e e n doing. H e alludes p e rh a p s to a p o p u la r w eath er p ro verb co n c e rn in g signs in th e sky th a t co uld be in te rp re te d to p re d ic t th e w eath er th a t w ould follow (see Notes o n th e textual p ro b le m o f w 2 b - 3 ) . T h e w ords εύδία, “fair w e a th er,” a n d πνρράζει, “is re d ,” occur in th e N T only h e re . A lth o u g h , o n th e o n e h a n d , th e P harisees a n d S adducees co u ld th u s το μ ε ν πρόσωπον το ν ο ύ ρ α ν ο ν ... διακρίνειν, “discern th e face o f th e sky” (p erh a p s h e re is a d e lib erate play o n th e w ord “h e a v e n /sk y ” as it occurs in th e req u est, v 1), fro m th e signs th a t w ere available, they w ere, o n th e o th e r h a n d , u n a b le (ούδύνασθε, “y o u a re n o ta b le ”) sim ilarly to discern τ ά δ ε σ η μ εία των καιρών, “th e signs o f th e tim es,” i.e., th e signs in th e m inistry of je s u s m ark in g th e daw ning o f th e m essianic age (th e expression is u sed in th e N T only h ere; for a sim ilar use o f th e p lu ra l καιροί, “tim es,” cf. Acts 3:20; fo r th e sing u lar in an eschatological sense,

456

Ma t t h e w 16:5-12

cf. 8:29; 13:30; 21:34; 24:34). H ow co u ld such a situ atio n be? 4 F o r this verse, see th e Comment o n th e n early verb atim 12:39. H e re th e w ords το ν προφήτου, “th e p ro p h e t,” are lacking after th e n a m e J o n a h , as is th e fu rth e r e x p la n a tio n given in 12:40. T h e sign o f J o n a h n e e d s n o e x p la n a tio n h e re , since it has b e e n d e fin e d in 12:40. H e re , as th e re , it is th e sign o f Je su s’ re su rre c tio n fro m th e d e a d (see fu rth e r Comment o n 12:40). T h a t is th e o n e sp ectacu lar a n d overw helm ing sign to be given to th a t g e n e ra tio n . T h e final fo u r w ords o f th e p eric o p e , καί κα τα λιπώ ν α ύ το ύς άπηλθβν, “a n d h e left th e m a n d w ent away,” serve as an a b ru p t e n d in g o f th e conversation a n d a tran sitio n , to g e th e r with th e o p e n in g w ords o f v 5, to th e n e x t p e rico p e (cf. M ark 8:13, w h ere th e re fe re n c e to g o ing to “th e o th e r sid e” is in clu d ed ). Explanation See th e Explanation fo r 12:38-42. Given th e new m aterial o f w 2 b -3 , th e follow ing m ay b e ad d ed . It is su rp risin g th a t in a w ide variety o f d iffe re n t fields o f know ledge h u m a n beings can be so know ledgeable a n d perceptive, yet in th e realm o f th e know ledge o f G od exist in such darkness. T h e e x p la n a tio n o f th e la tte r sad state is n o t to be fo u n d in a lack o f in tellectu al ability— n o m o re fo r th e P harisees a n d S adducees th an fo r today. T h e evidence is th ere, ex am in ab le a n d u n d e rs ta n d a b le fo r those w ho are o p e n to it a n d w ho w elcom e it. T h e issue in th e know ledge o f G od is n o t in tellect b u t receptivity. T h e “signs o f th e tim es,” i.e., as n a rra te d in th e gospel o f th e m in istry o f Jesus, are th e re to b e received a n d affirm ed by faith. T h a t is th e key p o in t. A gain th e fu rth e r re q u e st fo r a sign u n d e r th ese circum stances only reveals an a d a m a n t refusal to receive th e tru th . To th o se in this u n fo rtu n a te fram e o f m in d th e tru th is th a t n o sign will suffice.

The Leaven o f the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5-12) Bibliography

Mitton, C. L. “Leaven.” ExpTim 84 (1973) 339-43. Negoitta, A., and Daniel, C. “L’Enigme du levain.” NovT9 (1967) 306-14. Translation 5A n d when the disciplesa came to the other side of the lake,b they had forgotten to bring bread. 6A n d Jesus said to them: “Be on your watchc and beware o f the leaven o f the Pharisees and Sadducees. ” ηB u td they were considering th ise among themselves, saying: “We did not bring bread. ” 8Jesus knew their thoughtsf and said: “O you o f little fa ith , why are you thinking among yourselves that you haves no bread? 9Do you not yet comprehend? Do you not remember the fiv e loaves o f the five thousand and how many baskets you took u p ? 10Or the seven loaves o f the fo u r thousand and how many baskets

Form/Structure/Setting

457

you took up ?11How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread ? B u t bewareh o f the leaven o f the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12Then they understood that he did not say to beware o f the leaven in bread1but o f the teaching o f the Pharisees and Sadducees. Notes a Some MSS (L W f 1TR lat sy) add αύτον, “his” disciples, a natural but unnecessary addition. b “Of the lake,” is added to the translation for clarity. c0päre, lit. “look.” dD it sys have τότε, “then.” e “This” is added to the translation for clarity. f ‘T h eir thoughts” is added to the translation for clarity. g Many MSS ( C L W f 1 TR sy sa) have έλάβετε, “took,” a reading that can be explained by the ούκ έλάβομεν, “we did not take,” in v 7. It is less likely that έλάβετε, “took,” would have been altered to έχετε, “have,” despite its occurrence in the Markan parallel (Mark 8:17). Moreover, the MS evidence in favor of έχ ετε is much superior. See TCGNT, 42. hMany MSS (Dc W TR syh) put the infinitive προσ έχει, “to beware,” immediately after εΐπον ύμΐν, “I said to you,” thus making the last clause of the verse a part of the question rather than a new command (cf. KJV: “concerning bread that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?”). In favor of the critical text as it stands are K B C* L Θ f1 syp co. ‘A few MSS (K* [33] ff1 sy0) have των Φαρισαίων καί Σαδδουκαίων, “of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” in place of των άρτων, lit. “of the loaves,” probably through the influence of the phrase “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” in w 6 and 11. Some other witnesses (D Θ f 13 sy*) have no modifier whatsoever, resulting in “not to beware of leaven, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The modifier “in bread” could be an expansion; on the other hand, if original, it may well have been deleted as superfluous. The UBSGNT committee favors inclusion of the modifier των άρτων, lit. “of the loaves,” based on the im portant witnesses K2 B ( f 1) lat co; Origen. See TCGNT, 42.

F orm /Structure/Setting A. T his p e rico p e is placed h e re u n d o u b te d ly because o f th e referen ce to the P harisees a n d S adducees in th e p rec e d in g passage. T hey h a d th e re re q u e ste d th a t Jesus p ro d u c e a sign fro m heaven, app aren tly n o t in sincere q u est o f th e tru th b u t in o rd e r to e n tra p Jesus. T h e negative view o f th e Jew ish lead ersh ip , re p re se n tin g “an evil a n d a d u ltero u s g e n e ra tio n ,” p ro m p ts a co m m e n t co n c e rn in g th e d a n g e r o f th e ir teaching. So m u c h is clear in th e p re se n t passage. A t th e sam e tim e, how ever, m u c h in this p erico p e, w hich has b e e n called “th e m ost en ig m atic” in th e w hole o f M atthew (G reen, 148), rem ains clo u d ed a n d difficult, even m ysterious. T his passage, c o m b in ed w ith th e o n e th a t p recedes, serves as a k in d o f final in d ic tm e n t o f th e Pharisees (a n d S adducees) in th e first m ain p a rt o f th e G ospel. B. M atthew co n tin u e s h e re to b e d e p e n d e n t o n M ark (M ark 8:14-21; only a p artial p arallel is fo u n d in L uke 12:1). M atthew d ep a rts from his source in m aking c ertain changes, a n d as usual h e also abridges M ark. T h e im p o rta n t d ifferences are as follows. M atthew ’s o p e n in g referen ce to th e disciples having com e to th e o th e r side finds its p arallel in th e last verse o f th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e in M ark (M ark 8:13). A fter these o p e n in g w ords a n d th e n o te th a t th e disciples h a d fo rg o tten to b rin g b re a d , M atthew om its M ark’s re fe re n ce to th e o n e lo af th a t was in th e b o a t (M ark 8:14). In v 6 M atthew softens M ark by substituting εΐπεν, “h e said, ” fo r M ark’s δ ιεσ τέλλετο , “h e o rd e re d ” (M ark 8:15). In th e sam e verse M atthew fu rth e r substitutes th e synonym π ρ ο σ έ χ ε τε , “bew are,” fo r M ark’s β λ έ π ε τε . F or M ark’s

458

Ma t t h e w 16: 5-12

difficult καί τ η ς ζ ύ μ η ς Ήρώδου, “a n d th e leaven o f H e ro d ,” M atthew substitutes th e m o re g e n e ra l καί Σαδδουκαίων, “a n d S add u cees,” in k eep in g w ith th e re p re se n ta tio n o f th e Jew ish le ad ersh ip in v 1. A m ong th e few m in o r ch anges in v 7, we n e e d m e n tio n only M atthew ’s έλάβομεν, “we b ro u g h t,” fo r M ark’s έχ ο μ ε v, “we have.” In v 8 M atthew adds o 7ησονς, “Jesus,” έν α ύ το ΐς , “a m o n g yourselves,” a n d his favorite ο λ ιγό π ισ το ι, lit. “little faiths,” a n d h e d eletes M ark ’s re d u n d a n t ούδέ σ υ ν ίετε, “n o r u n d e rs to o d ” (M ark 8:17). M atthew om its th e re st o f M ark 8:17 a n d m ost o f 8:18, w hich c o n ta in a h arsh re b u k e o f th e disciples fo r b e in g h a rd h e a rte d a n d fo r having eyes th a t d o n o t see a n d ears th a t d o n o t h e a r (in M atthew , th e la tte r criticism is reserv ed fo r th o se u n recep tiv e o f th e k ingdom ; cf. 13:15-16). M atthew ab rid g es th e re m a in d e r o f M ark (M ark 8 :1 8 b -2 1 ), p rim arily by o m ittin g th e re p e a te d re fe re n c e to th e baskets b ein g “filled w ith frag m en ts” as well as th e answ er o f th e disciples in each case, w here they re sp o n d c o n c e rn in g th e n u m b e r o f baskets, i.e., twelve a n d seven. M atthew ap p aren tly assum es these are well know n fro m th e earlier n a rra tives a n d n e e d n o t b e re p e a te d at this p o in t. H e also twice substitutes th e synonym ous verb έλ ά β ετε , “take u p ,” fo r M ark’s ήρατε. Finally, M atthew ad d s w 11 a n d 12 to th e M arkan acco u n t, a p p aren tly to clarify Je su s’ p o in t in th e p eric o p e . T h e re su lt is a re tu rn to th e b e g in n in g o f th e p e ric o p e by th e re p e titio n o f th e w arning c o n c e rn in g th e leaven o f th e Pharisees a n d S adducees to g e th e r w ith th e provision o f th e in te rp re ta tio n th a t th e leaven is τ ή ς δ ιδα χή ς, “th e te a c h in g ,” o f these g ro u p s (v 12). W e can th u s see M atthew ’s special in terests a t w ork in som e o f his alteratio n s o f a n d ad d itio n s to th e M arkan tex t as well as som e o f th e custom ary ten d en cy to abbreviate w hen possible. Above all, it is clear how M atthew has b ro u g h t lig h t to th e m e an in g o f M ark 8:15 by his a d d itio n in w 11-12. C. T h e passage consists basically o f a w arning given by Jesus th a t is m isu n d e rsto o d by th e disciples b ecause o f th e ir own e x a sp eratio n a t having fo rg o tte n to b rin g b re a d w ith th e m to th e ir ap p aren tly isolated d estin atio n . T h e follow ing o u tlin e m a y b e suggested: (1) th e p ro b le m o f th e disciples (v 5 ); (2) Je su s’ w arning (v 6); (3) th e confu sio n o f th e disciples (v 7); (4) J e su s’ reb u k e, consisting o f (a) th e disciples’ lack o f faith (v 8), (b) th e re fe re n c e to th e feedings (w 9 -1 0 ), a n d (c) th e m isu n d e rsta n d in g (v 11a); (5) th e re p e titio n o f th e w arning (v l i b ) ; a n d (6) th e d isciples’ c o m p re h e n sio n (v 12). T h e w arning o f v 6 is re p e a te d verbatim (m inus th e initial ορατέ, “lo o k ”) in v 1 lb , w hich serves th e re fo re as an inclusio (cf. also v 12), lacking in M ark. F u rth e r exact parallelism is to be seen especially in vv 9 a n d 10 in th e d o u b le qu estio n p e rta in in g to th e two m iraculous feedings, a lth o u g h it is to be n o te d th a t th e d ifferen t G reek w ords fo r “baskets” are carefully m a in ta in e d fo r th e respective feedings, as, o f course, are th e respective n u m b ers. O th e r fo rm al c o n n ectio n s can b e seen in th e re p e a te d use o f th e verb δια λογίζεσ θα ι, “reaso n , c o n sid e r,” in vv 7 a n d 8, as well as th e re p e a te d νο είτε, “u n d e rs ta n d ,” in vv 9 a n d 11. T h e p arallel p rep o sitio n al p h rases in v 11 p re s e n t th e distinctive M atth ean in te rp re ta tio n o f th e M arkan p eric o p e , e q u a tin g th e leaven w ith th e teac h in g o f th e Pharisees (a n d S ad d u cees). T h e leaven o f th e Pharisees in Luke, o n th e o th e r h a n d , is id en tified as νπόκρισις, “hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1; cf. M att 23). Comment 5 A cco rd in g to M atthew , th e disciples a p p a re n tly jo in Jesus, w ho has already com e ε ις το πέραν, “to th e o th e r sid e,” o f th e lake. A ccording to M ark, th e

Comment

459

discussion re c o rd e d h e re seem s to have tak en place “in th e b o a t” (M ark 8:14). If M agadan (15:39) was o n th e west side o f th e lake, this a p p ears to b e th e m o re d ese rte d east side o f th e lake, p e rh a p s w ith Jesu s a n d th e disciples o n th e ir way n o rth w a rd tow ard C aesarea P hilip p i (cf. v 13). T h e disciples em barrassingly h a d fo rg o tte n (th e only o c c u rre n ce o f th e verb έιτιλανθάνεσθαι in M atthew ) to b rin g fo o d (basically “b re a d ”) w ith th e m a n d w ere accordingly upset. 6 A t this p o in t Jesu s delivers a stro n g w arning to th e m (n o te th e co m b in atio n o f ορα τέ, “be o n your w atch,” lit. “see,” a n d π ρ ο σ έ χ ε τε , “bew are,” w hich is em phatic) c o n c e rn in g τής- ζύ μ η ς τω ν Φαρισαίων καί Σαδδονκαίων, “th e leaven o f th e Pharisees a n d th e S adducees.” T h e disciples, with only b re a d o n th e ir m inds (cf. v 7), ap p aren tly m isu n d e rsto o d th e im p o rt o f Je su s’ statem en t. W hat Jesus m e a n t by this ra th e r cryptic sta te m e n t will daw n u p o n th e disciples only in v 12. It can only be guessed w h eth er Je su s’ choice o f m e ta p h o r was itself occasioned by th e disciples’ co n cern over th e b read . T h e w arning is re p e a te d verbatim in v 11, a n d its in te rp re ta tio n is given in v 12. T h e dynam ic p o te n tia l o f leaven, b u t in a good sense, has already b e e n used by M atthew in describ in g th e kin g d o m o f G od (13:33, th e only o c c u rre n ce in M atthew o f ζύμη, “leaven,” outside th e p re se n t passage). H e re again th e m e ta p h o r po in ts to th e sp read in g a n d p e rm e a tin g effect o f leaven, b u t in a c o rru p tin g sense (th e m o re n o rm a l use o f th e m e ta p h o r; cf. Str-B 1:72829; 4:469, 474) a n d th e re fo re as so m eth in g to b e wary o f (cf. 1 C or 5:6-8). T h e linking to g e th e r o f th e P harisees a n d th e Sadducees w ith o n e defin ite article is again surprising (see Comment o n v 1), especially w hen th e leaven is d efin ed as τ ή ς διδαχής, “th e te a c h in g ,” o f these groups. See fu rth e r Comment o n v 12. 7 -8 T hese verses show th e p reo ccu p atio n o f th e disciples with b read , w hich causes th e m to miss th e p o in t b e in g m ad e byje su s. T h e re fe re n ce to ζύμ η , “leaven,” has ap p aren tly only th e effect o f ex acerb atin g th e ir anxiety co n cern in g th e lack o f b re a d (cf. v 1 l a ) ; t o ; all else th e disciples w ere oblivious. N o tab le in this co n n e c tio n is th e re p e a te d use o f th e verb διαλογίζεσθαι, “discuss” (a w ord with a negative co n n o ta tio n in M atthew; cf. 21:25 a n d th e co gnate n o u n in 15:19), with έ ν έ α υ το ις , “am ong th em selves/yourselves.” Jesus reb u k es th e m fo r b e in g so ca u g h t u p with this p ro b lem , addressin g th e m w ith th e w ord ο λ ιγό π ισ το ι, “p e o p le o f little fa ith .” In every instan ce o f th e use o f this w ord in M atthew , it is ad d ressed to disciples in a c o n te x t w h ere th e q u estio n co n c e rn s th e ir u ltim ate w elfare a n d th e reality o f G o d ’s provision fo r th e m (cf. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31). T h e im p licatio n h e re seem s to be th a t th e disciples can tru st G o d ’s provision fo r th e ir physical n e e d a n d th a t they o u g h t n o t to be so distracted by th e lack o f b re a d th a t they miss alto g eth er th e p o in t o f an im p o rta n t spiritual w arning Jesu s gives th em . T h e p articiple γνο ύς, “knowin g ,” suggests an u n u su al o r m iracu lo u s ability o f Jesus to know w hat has n o t b e e n told to h im (n o te έ ν έ α υ τ ο ις , “am o n g th em selves/yourselves”; cf. th e sim ilar use o f th e sam e p articip le in 12:15; 22:18; 26:10; cf. 9:4). 9 -1 0 T h e re fe re n ce now to th e two m iracu lo u s feedings is desig n ed to re m in d th e disciples o f how faithful G od is in m eetin g h u m a n n eed , even particularly in the m a tte r o f b re a d . T h e questions, οϋπω νο είτε, ούδέ μ ν η μ ο ν ε ύ ε τε , “Do you n o t yet co m p re h en d ? D o you n o t re m e m b e r? ” have th e effect o f sh arp en in g th e rebuke. M atthew em phasizes th e a b u n d a n c e o f G o d ’s provision in th e specific m en tio n o f th e five loaves a n d th e five th o u sa n d a n d th e seven loaves a n d th e fo u r th o u san d . His d e le tio n o f th e answ er to th e q u estio n o f how m any baskets w ere taken u p in each instan ce (cf. M ark 8:19-20) is an in terestin g tou ch . As in M ark, th e q u estio n

460

Ma t t h e w 16:5-12

o f th e n u m b e r o f baskets (using th e d iffe re n t vocabulary, κοφίνονς a n d σπυρί δας) is raised, b u t th e answ er is left to be su p p lied by th e re a d e r o n th e basis o f th e acco u n ts th a t have b e e n p re se n te d in th e im m ediately p re c e d in g ch ap ters (14:1521; 15:32-38). T his test o f th e m em ory has th e effect o f draw ing a h e ig h te n e d a tte n tio n to th e n u m b e rs involved in e ach case— th e very n u m b e rs th a t are th e key to th e u n d erly in g sym bolism o f th e two feedings, twelve a n d seven respectively, p o in tin g , as we a rg u e d above, to th e provision fo r Israel a n d th e natio n s. T h u s even in this passing m e n tio n o f th e two m iracu lo u s feedings, w h ere th e focus is o n th e divine provision fo r h u m a n n e e d (cf. M ark 6:52), th e n u m b e rs a n d th e ir sym bolism re m a in significant. Jesus m akes th e p o in t th a t th e disciples sh o u ld n o t have b e co m e so c o n c e rn e d a b o u t th e ir m u n d a n e n eeds, fo r w hich they co u ld tru st G od, th a t they lost sight o f things th a t really m a tte re d (cf. 6:33). 11 Jesu s again expresses his d isa p p o in tm e n t (cf. v 8) over th e disciples’ failure to u n d e rs ta n d (νο είτε, as in v 9) his p o in t by m istaking it fo r som e c o m m e n t a b o u t literal b re a d . H e th e n tu rn s to th e truly im p o rta n t issue, re p e a tin g verbatim (ex cep t fo r th e o p e n in g w ord όράτε, “b e o n y o u r w atch ”) th e original w arning given in v 6 c o n c e rn in g th e d a n g e r o f “th e leaven o f th e Pharisees a n d S ad d u cees.” 12 T h e disciples finally u n d e rs ta n d th e ir m istake (co n trast th e disciples in M ark 8:21) in n o t realizing th a t Jesus h a d n o t b e e n talking a b o u t leaven in b re a d b u t a b o u t th e leaven th a t was τ ή ς δ ιδ α χ ή ς τω ν Φαρισαίων καί Σαδδουκαίων, “th e teach in g o f th e Pharisees a n d S add u cees.” H e re we have n o t only th e strangeness o f th e linking o f two such an tith etical g ro u p s b u t th e fu rth e r a n d m o re difficult p ro b le m o f th e re fe re n c e to th e ir tea c h in g (διδαχή) as th o u g h this w ere so m e th in g they h e ld in co m m o n . T h e te ach in g o f th e Pharisees, however, consisted essentially o f th e oral tradition constructed a ro u n d th e w ritten T o ra h so as to insu re o b ed ien ce to it— th e “trad itio n o f the eld ers” (15:2). T h e L ukan version o f this logion (Luke 12:1) ap p ears to have this in m in d to som e e x ten t in th e description o f th e leaven o f th e Pharisees (th ere is n o m en tio n o f the Sadducees) as being “hypocrisy” (cf. 23:1336). T h e teach in g o f th e Sadducees, if o n e may in d e e d re fe r to th e ir views as any k in d o f c o h e re n t teaching, consisted o f a d en ial o f th e auth o rity o f th e Pharisaic trad ition a n d o f any accretions, such as even the p ro p h etic writings, to th e five books o f Moses, w hich were alone re g a rd ed by th em as canonical. M ost n o to rio u s in th e N T is th eir disag reem en t with th e Pharisees over th e question o f the resu rrectio n o f the d ead (n o te d by M atthew in 22:23-33; cf. Acts 23:6-10). In term s o f th eir essential religious perspectives, it thus m akes n o sense to speak o f “th e teach in g o f th e Pharisees a n d th e S adducees” (m oreover, if th e Pharisaic traditio n is in view, the co m m an d stands in som e tension with 23:2-3). B ut if instead we look for a p articu lar “tea c h in g ” h e ld in co m m o n by th e Pharisees a n d Sadducees, k eeping in m in d the im m ediately p reced in g passage (w 1-4) a n d th e unified fro n t o f th e two groups against je su s (cf. 22:34; Acts 5:17), it could b e fo u n d in a prec o n c e p tio n o f th e n a tu re o f th e M essiah a n d m essianic fulfillm ent— a fulfillm ent th a t o f necessity w ould include a nationalpolitical dim en sio n (cf. th e ir inability to re a d th e “signs o f th e tim es” [v 3 ]). T h e “teach in g ” w ould thus b e th a t o f the u n ite d fro n t o f Jewish leadership, w hich was also widely h e ld by th e masses (an d even th e disciples, h e n c e th e ap p ro p riaten ess o f th e w arning h e r e ) . It disqualified Jesu s fro m any claim to b e in g th e a g e n t o f m essianic fulfillm ent. T his “tea c h in g ” was in d e e d like leaven in th a t it affected all else a n d w ould in d e e d ultim ately b rin g Jesus to his d eath.

Bibliography

461

E xp la n a tio n T h e disciples h a d n o t yet le a rn e d th a t they co u ld tru st in G o d ’s provision fo r th e ir needs. T hey th erefo re fell in to th a t very co m m o n e r ro r o f lettin g relatively u n im p o rta n t a n d m u n d a n e co n c e rn s block o u t th e teach in g o f th e ir L ord. T h e p o in t was n o t th a t they sh o u ld ex p ect a n o th e r m iraculous provision o f fo o d b u t ra th e r th a t they sh o u ld n o t have allow ed them selves to b eco m e so d istrau g h t over so m eth in g so relatively m in o r th a t it co n tro lle d th e ir very th in k in g (an d h e a ring). If G od is th e faithful provider, as th e m iraculous feedings dem o n strate, th e n n o disciple sh o u ld b e th re a te n e d by insecurity a n d th u s b eco m e sidetracked from th e truly im p o rta n t o r fall prey to false teaching. O n ce th e k in g d o m is o n e ’s p riority, m u n d a n e m atters sh o u ld n o lo n g er cause u n d u e anxiety (cf. 6:25-33). It was m o re im p o rta n t to b e vigilant against u n tru th fu l o p p o n e n ts.

P eter’s Confession a nd Commissioning

(16:13-20)

Bibliography

Anderson, B. W. “The Messiah as the ‘Son of God’ in the Old Testament.” In Christological Perspectives. FS Η. K. McArthur, ed, R. F. Berkey and S. A. Edwards. New York: Pilgrim, 1982.157-69. Basser, H. W. “Derrett’s ‘Binding’ Reopened.”JBL 104 (1985) 297-300. Betz, O. “Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde.” Z N W 48 (1957) 49-77. Bornkamm, G. “The Authority to ‘Bind’ and ‘Loose’ in the Church in Matthew’s Gospel: The Problem of Sources in Matthew’s Gospel.” Perspective 11 (1970) 37-50.———. Jesus o f Nazareth. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Brown, C. “The Gates of Hell and the Church.” In Church, Ward and Spirit. FS G. W. Bromiley, ed. J. Bradley and R. Muller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. 15-43. Brown, R. E., Donfried, K. P., and Reumann, J. Peter in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973. Büchsei, F. “δ έ ω ( λ ύ ω ) . ” T D N T 2:60-61. Bultmann, R. “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu und das Petrus-Bekenntnis.” In Exegetica., ed. E. Dinkier. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. 1-9. ———. “Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16,17-19.” In Exegetica, ed. E. Dinkier. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. 255-77. Cadbury, H. J. “The Meaning of John 20.23, Matthew 16.19, and Matthew 18.18.” JB L 58 (1939) 251-54. Caragounis, C. C. Peter and the Rock. BZNW 58. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Carroll, K. L. ‘Thou Art Peter.” N o v T 6 (1963) 26876. Claudel, G. L a confession de Pierre: Trajectoire d ’u n e prr i cope evangelique. EBib n.s. 10. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. Cullmann, O. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. Cleveland: Meridian, 1958. ———. “Π έ τ ρ ο ς , Κ η φ α ς . ” T D N T 6 : 100-112. Derrett, J. D. M. “Binding and Loosing (Matthew 16:19; 18:18; and John 20:23). 102 (1983) 112-17.———. “‘Thou A rt the Stone, and upon This Stone . . . .’” D R 106 (1988) 276-85. Duling, D. C. “Binding and Loosing: Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18;John 20:23.” Forum 3/4 (1987) 3-31. Emerton,J. A. “Binding and Loosing—Forgiving and Retaining.”/LS 13 (1962) 325-31. Falk, Z. W. “Binding and Loosing.”JJS 25 (1974) 92-100. Fitzmyer, J. A. “Aramaic Kepha’ a n d Peter’s Name in the New Testament.” In To A dvance the Gospel New York: Crossroad, 1981. 112-24. Fornberg, T. “Peter—The High Priest of the New Covenant?” E A JT 4 (1986) 113-21. Gero, S. “The Gates or the Bars of Hades? A Note on Matthew 16.19.” N T S 27 (1981) 411-14. Grelot, P. “‘Sur cette pierre je bätirai mon Eglise’ (Mt 16.18b).” N R T 109 (1987) 641-59.

462

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

Gundry, R. H. ‘The Narrative Framework of Matthew 16.17-19.” N o v T 7 (1964) 1-9. Hahn, F. “Die Petrusverheissung Mt 16,18f.” In Das kirchliche A m t im Neuen Testament, ed. K. Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. 543-63. Harn ack, A. von. “Der Spruch über Petrus als den Felsen der Kirche.” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen (Deutschen) Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Philosophisch-historische Klasse) 1 (1918) 637-54. Hiers, R. H. “‘Binding and Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations.” JBL 104 (1985) 233-50. Hoffmann, P. “Die Bedeutung des Petrus für die Kirche des Matthäus.” In Dienst an der Einheit, ed. J. Ratzinger. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1978. 9 -26.———. “Der Petrus-Primat im Matthäusevangelium.” In Neues Testament u n d Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. 94-114. Hommel, H. “Die Tore des Hades.” Z N W 80 (1989) 124-25. Howard, G. ‘The Meaning of Petros-Petra.” ResQ 10 (1967) 217-21. Immisch, O. “Matthäus 16.18.” Z N W 17(1916) 18-26. Jeremias, J. “κ λ είς .” TDNT 3:744-53. Kahler, C. “Zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte von Mt 16,17-19.” N T S 23 (1976-77) 36-58. Kahmann, J. “Die Verheissung an Petrus.” In L ’E vangile selon Matthieu , ed. M. Didier. 261-80. Kingsbury, J. D. ‘The Figure of Peter in Matthew as a Theological Problem.” JB L 98 (1979) 67-83. Klein, H. “Das Bekenntniss des Petrus und die Anfänge des Christusglaubens im Urchristentum.” E v T 47 (1987) 176-92. Knight, G. A. F. ‘Thou Art Peter.” Today 17 (1960) 168-80. Körting, G. “Binden oder lösen: Zu Verstockungsund Befreiungstheologie in Mt 16,19; 18,18.21-35 und joh 15,1-17; 20,23.” S N T U 14 (1989) 39-91. Lambrecht, J. “‘Du bist Petrus.’” S N T U 11 (1986) 5-32. Lampe, P. “Das Spiel mit dem Petrus-Namen—Mt 16,18.” N T S 25 (1978-79) 227-45. Luz, U. “Das Primatwort Matthäus 16.17-19 aus wirkungsgeschichtlicher Sicht.” N T S 37 (1991) 415-33 = T h e Primacy Text (Mt. 16:18).” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 12 (1991) 41-55. Mantey, J. R. “Distorted Translations in John 20:23; Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18.” RevExp 78 (1981) 409-16. Marcus, J. ‘The Gates of Hades and the Keys of the Kingdom.” CBQ 50 (1988) 443-55. Menken, M. ‘The References to Jeremiah in the Gospel according to Matthew.” E T L 60 (1984) 5-25. Moule, C. F. D. “Some Reflections on the ‘Stone’ Testimonia in Relation to the Name Peter.” N T S 2 (1955) 56-58. Porter, S. E. “Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matt. 16.19.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 2 (1988) 155-73. Robinson, B. R “Peter and His Successors: Tradition and Redaction in Matthew 16:17-19.” J S N T 21 (1984) 85-104. Schenk, W. “Das ‘Matthäusevangelium’ als Petrusevangelium.” B Z n.s. 27 (1983) 58-80. Schmid, J. “Petrus der ‘Fels’ und die Petrusgestalt der Urgemeinde.” In Evangelienforschung ed. J. B. Bauer. Graz: Styria, 1968.159-75. Schnackenburg, R. “Das Vollmachtswort vom Binden und Lösen, traditionsgeschichtlich gesehen.” In Kontinuität u n d Einheit, ed. P.-G. Müller and W. Stenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1981. 141-57. Stauffer, E. “Z u r Vör- und Frühgeschichte des Primatus Petri.” ZKG 62 (1943-44) 3-34. Vögtle, A. “Das Problem der Herkunft von ‘Matthew 16,1719.’” In Offenbarungsgeschehen u nd Wirkungsgeschichte. Freiburg: Herder, 1985. 109-40. Wall, R. W. “Peter, ‘Son’ of Jonah: The Conversion of Cornelius in the Context of Canon.” JSNT 29 (1987) 79-90. Wilcox, M. “Peter and the Rock: A Fresh Look at Matthew 16:17-19.” N T S 22 (1975) 73-88. Translation 13When Jesus came into the region o f Caesarea Philippi, he began asking his disciples:a “Who do people say b the Son of M an is?” 14They said: “Some,c on the one hand, say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still othersJeremiah or one o f the prophets.”15He said to them: “B ut you yourselves, who do you say I am ?”16Simon Peter answered and said:d “You are the Christ, the Son o f the livin g e God!”17Jesus responded and said to him: “You are blessed, Simon barJonah,^ because flesh and blood are not the source o f this revelation g but my Father who is in heaven. 18A n d I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates o f Hades will not overpower it. 19 Iwill give you the keys o f the kingdom o f heaven and whateverh you bind on earth

Form/Structure/Setting

463

shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever1you set loose upon the earth shall have been set loose in heaven.”20Then he orderedJ thek disciples to tell no one that hel wasm then Christ. N otes aThe translation omits the redundant λέγων, “saying.” bMany witnesses (D L 0 f1,13T R it vgmsssy(s,c),p,h)daζ,άάμε, lit. “m e,”which gives the resultant translation “I, the Son of man, am,” thus making it quite clear that Jesus asks about himself and not another. This addition, however, almost certainly results from its inclusion in the parallels (Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18). Cf. too v 15. See TCGNT, 42. c D W it omit ol μέν, “some, on the one hand.” d D boms add αύτω, “to him .” eD* reads σώζοντος, “saving.” fA few MSS (L Γ f1,13) separate the two parts of the name, thus βάρ ’Ιωνά, “bar Jonah.” g o v k άπεκάλυφέν σοι, lit. “have not revealed to you.” h Some witnesses (Θ/ 1it O r Cyp Eus Cyr) have the pi. δσα dv, “whatever,” in place of the sing., with the corresponding participle δεδεμένα, “bound,” also in the pl. i Same variant as preceding Note, with corresponding pl. participle λελυμένα, “set free.” j B* D syc have έπετίμησεν, “warned sternly,” for διεστείλατο, “ordered,” through influence of the Markan parallel (Mark 8:30). kL W Θ f1,13TR lat sy co insert αύτου, “his.” i D 0 q read οΰτος, “this one,” in place of αυτός, “he.” m iariv, lit. “is.” Cf. preceding Note (i.e., “this one is the Christ”). n Many later MSS (R2C D W TR lat syh mae bo) add 7 ησοϋς, “Jesus,” i.e., ‘Jesus the Christ” (but D, “Jesus Christ”), clearly an expansion.

Form/Structure/Setting A. As it is in M ark a n d Luke, this passage in M atthew is clearly th e clim ax o f th e first m ain p a rt o f th e G ospel, devoted to th e descrip tio n o f th e G alilean m inistry o f Jesus (i.e., 4:17-16:20). It presen ts in a paradigm atic fo rm an unequivocal a n d definitive confession o f Jesu s as th e p ro m ised M essiah. T his is th e only adeq u a te conclusion to th e p reced in g , lengthy d escrip tio n o f th e deed s a n d w ords o f Jesus. A nd w ith o u t question, m u ch in th e p re c e d in g accounts has b e e n anticip a tin g this pow erful confession. T h u s we have rep eated ly h e a rd th e qu estio n asked c o n c e rn in g th e identity o f th e o n e w ho co u ld speak a n d act in this u n iq u e way (cf. 8:27, “W hat so rt o f m an is this?”; 11:2, “A re you h e w ho is to com e, o r shall we look fo r a n o th e r? ”; 12:23, “C an this b e th e Son o f David?”). T h e re have b e e n in tim atio n s o f his iden tity th ro u g h o u t, such as his a u th o rity (7:29; 9:8), his pow er to h eal (cf. 15:31), a n d his u n iq u en ess (9:33, “N ever was anything like this seen in Israel”). T h e d em o n s know his id en tity as th e “Son o f G o d ” (8:29). A nd even th e disciples in th e ex citem en t o f th e m o m e n t have already exclaim ed ‘T ru ly you are th e Son o f G o d ” (14:33). B ut now in a private, peaceful, m editative setting, Jesus for th e first tim e elicits from th e disciples, re p re se n te d by Peter, th e re a so n e d a n d careful co n clu sio n th a t h e is in d e e d th e C hrist, th e M essiah o f prom ise. B. M atthew, w ho has b e e n follow ing M ark’s o rd e r closely since th e b e g in n in g o f chap. 14 (M ark 6:14), om its th e p re c e d in g M arkan p e ric o p e c o n c e rn in g th e h ealin g o f th e b lin d m an at B ethsaida (M ark 8 :22-26). M atthew was p robably n o t im pressed w ith th e M arkan story since it suggests th e use o f m ean s to h eal (cf. his om ission o f th e sim ilar h ealin g in M ark 7:32-35) a n d th a t m o re th an o n e a tte m p t

464

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

was n e e d e d to d o th e jo b right. It does n o t fit well w ith th e C hristology M atthew has b e e n developing, w ith im m ed iate h ealings by a spoken w ord, a n d is th u s om itted, especially ju s t b efo re P e te r’s confession. So far as sou rce criticism o f th e p re s e n t p e ric o p e is c o n c e rn e d , it can b e divided in to two parts. T h e first, vv4 1 3 16, 20, is draw n from M ark 8:27-30 (p a ra lle le d in L uke 9:18-21, w ith a jo h a n n in e c o u n te rp a rt in J o h n 6:67-69). T h e seco n d p a rt is w 17-19, w hich are u n iq u e to M atthew (for v 19, cf. J o h n 20:23).

In the first part, the following alterations of Mark are to be noted. In the introductory verse (v 13), Matthew omits Mark’s καί έν τη δδω, “and on the road” (Mark 8:27), perhaps regarding such an important passage as deserving a setting of its own. He also omits Mark’s “and his disciples,” it being obvious from the following clause that the disciples are with Jesus, and he changes τάς κώμας, “the villages” (Mark 8:27), to τά μέρη, “the region.” In the question asked of the disciples about what others were saying, Matthew replaces Mark’s μ ε , T,” with the common title Jesus used of himself, t o p υιόν τον άνθρωπον, “the Son of Man” (v 13; Mark 8:27). In v 14 Matthew alters Mark’s second άλλοι, “others,” to έτεροι, “others,” for stylistic reasons and inserts immediately after it Ιερεμίαν ή, “Jeremiah or,” perhaps to give an example (cf. Mark 8:28). In v 15 he substitutes λέγει αύτοις, lit. “he says to them,” for Mark’s καί αύτός έπηρώτα αύτούς, “and he asked them” (Mark 8:29), again for reasons of style. In v 16 Matthew adds the name Σιμών, “Simon,” before the name “Peter,” and then in the confession itself adds to Mark’s simple δ Χριστός, “the Christ” (Mark 8:29), the words δ νιος του θεόν τον ζώντος, “the Son of the living God” (cf. Luke’s τον Χριστόν τον θεόν, “the Christ of God” [Luke 9:20], and John’s δ άγιος τον θεόν, “the Holy One of God” [John 6:69]). In v 20 Matthew inserts a characteristic τότε, “then,” and substitutes διεστείλατο τοΐς μαθηταΐς, “ordered his disciples,” for Mark’s stronger έπετίμησεν αύτοις, “he sternly charged them.” Finally, he replaces Mark’s simple περί αύτον, “concerning him” (Mark 8:30; cf. Luke’s τούτο, “this” [Luke 9:21]), with δτι αύτός έστιν δ Χριστός, ‘that he was the Christ”—thus adding emphasis to the point. In his alteratio n s o f M ark, we again see M atthew m aking stylistic changes, b u t little o f th e usual a b rid g m e n t is to be seen. In ste a d M atthew m akes several in te re stin g theo logical ex pansions o f M ark, th e m o st im p o rta n t, o f course, b ein g in th e h ig h p o in t o f th e passage, th e w ords o f th e confession itself (v 16). T o th e m aterial b o rro w ed fro m M ark, M atthew has a d d e d new m aterial fro m his own special sources (vv 17-19). O n this m aterial, see below, §D. C. T his im p o rta n t p e ric o p e is very carefully c o n stru cted . A sim ple o u tlin e is as follows: (1) th e settin g a n d th e q u estio n c o n c e rn in g th e p u b lic ’s estim ate o f Jesu s (v 13); (2) th e answ er to th e first q u estio n (v 14); (3) th e q u estio n asked o f th e disciples (v 15); (4) P e te r’s answ er to th e seco n d q u estio n (v 16); (5) Je su s’ affirm atio n o f th e answ er (v 17); (6) th e com m issioning o f P eter, consisting o f (a) th e saying c o n c e rn in g th e c h u rc h (v 18) a n d (b) th e a u th o rity o f th e keys (v 19); a n d (7) th e c o m m a n d to silence (v 20). A fair a m o u n t o f stru c tu ra l parallelism is to b e fo u n d in th e passage. T hus, th e stru c tu re o f th e two q u estio n s is exactly parallel in fo rm (vv 1 4 , 16), d esp ite th e su b stitu tio n o f τον υιόν τον άνθρωπον, “th e Son o f M an ,” fo r με, “I,” in th e first o n e. T h e answ er to th e first q u estio n p resen ts th e various o p tio n s in p arallel syntax. E ach o f th e th re e verses 17-19 consists o f th re e elem ents: a m ain sta te m e n t follow ed by a c o u p le t (see Jerem ias, T D N T 3:7) . P e te r’s confession σν εΐ ό Χριστός, “You are th e C h rist” (v 16), finds a syntactic parallel in th e resp o n se o f Jesus, σν εΐ Πέτρος, “Y o u a re P e te r” (v 18). A n tith etic

Form/Structure/Setting

465

parallelism c a n be seen in th e co n trast betw een “flesh a n d b lo o d ” a n d “my heavenly F a th e r” in v 17. A striking instance o f sym m etrical parallelism is fo u n d in v 19b a n d c. Finally, M atthew ’s re sta te m e n t o f th e M arkan en d in g , i.e., α υ τό ς έ σ τ ιν ό Χ ριστός, “h e is th e C h rist,” has th e em p h atic effect o f an inclusio with v 16. T h e confession is th ereb y in a sense rep e a te d . M atthew ’s artistry is thus again to be seen in this p erico p e, b o th by m ean s o f certain alteratio n s o f his M arkan source a n d th ro u g h his p re se n ta tio n o f his special m aterial. D. A lth o u g h relatively few scholars d eny th e historicity o f P e te r’s confession itself, th e historicity o f th e special M atth ean m aterial th a t follows (vv 17-19) is widely re g a rd e d as dubious. N o t only is th e la tte r m aterial lacking in th e o th e r G ospels (b u t cf. L uke 22:31-32; J o h n 21:15-23 fo r passages c o n so n a n t w ith th e p re se n t o n e ), b u t it also seem s to be full o f anachronism s, in clu d in g th e referen ce to th e εκκλησία, “c h u rc h ,” th e security o f th e c h u rch , as well as th e au th o rity o f office a n d pow er g ra n te d to P eter. It is certainly th e case th a t th e language o f th e passage as it stands reflects to a co n sid erab le e x te n t th e co n cep tio n s a n d selfconsciousness o f th e later ch u rch . B ut this is a lo n g way fro m necessarily co n clu d in g th a t Jesu s co u ld n o t have said so m eth in g alo n g these lines o r th a t M atthew has simply in v en ted th e m aterial o u t o f th in air.

Davies-Allison correctly resist the conclusion that vv 17-19 are the result of Matthean composition. They also deny that the verses represent a displaced resurrection story (Stauffer; Strecker, W e g , 206-7; C. Kahler) or reflect an incident originally in the context of the Last Supper (Cullmann, P e te r ). Instead, they tentatively propose that the entire narrative is an early account (reflected in scatteredJohannine parallels), earlier than the Markan and Lukan parallels, that may well reflect a historical event. Not all the evidence they provide (e.g., evidence of Peter’s authority in Paul’s letters, Semitisms, parallel ideas at Qumran, criteria of consistency and dissimilarity) is equally strong, as they admit, but they have at least shown that the common negative assessment of historicity is hardly justifiable. Certain frequent objections to the historicity of these verses can be met (vv 18-19 are the bigger problem; see Wilcox). Can Jesus have referred to building “my church”? Luz regards this as the “most important” argument against the authenticity of the words. The word ε κ κ λ η σ ί α , “church,” however, should not be thought to be a problem since Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic and not Greek. Thus he would not have used the word ε κ κ λ η σ ί α but probably an Aramaic equivalent meaning “community” (see C o m m e n t on v 18 for possibilities). But can Jesus have referred to building “my” community? Luz says we should expect “the community of God” since Jesus assembled God’s people and not a holy remnant. The point, however, is that the calling of God’s people demanded a decision for the kingdom of God as announced by and embodied in Jesus himself. It was a decision to be related to Jesus. In this perspective, to become a member of the community of God was to become a member of the community of Jesus (cf. the fate of “the children of the kingdom” in 8:12). A division was inevitable. It should therefore by no means be regarded unthinkable that Jesus could have talked of h is community. Can Jesus have been interested at all in building a f u t u r e community? Although this is often assumed to be impossible because of the apparent imminence of Jesus’ eschatological expectation, certain facts indicate otherwise. The very choice of twelve disciples, the trouble taken to teach them, and the commission given to them point to Jesus’preparation for the future. Thatjesus would himself be active in the future building of the church is not an impossibility if he was able to speak of his own resurrection (cf. v 21) and promise his future presence with the disciples (28:20; cf. 18:20). Davies-

466

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

Allison seem unnecessarily to deny the post-resurrection aspect of the promise ofJesus building his community by taking it as fulfillable in the life ofjesus, translating “from this point on” (2:614). Despite the claims of some who deny the authenticity of the passage, the authority of Peter here is not out of keeping with the picture of him in the rest of the NT (thus, e.g., Beare). Although Peter’s authority as witnessed in Acts or Galatians is not absolute (nor is that part of the promise here), his central position in the early chapters of Acts is quite consonant with the importance granted him here as the rock upon which the church is to be built. Worth indicating are the Semitisms in the passage, which, though they do not prove the point, are consistent with the claim that the material is early. Thus Peter is designated as μ α κ ά ρ ι ο ς , “blessed” or “happy” (3e se r \ ), and referred to as bar-Jonah, “Son of (k e p ä ? ), “rock,” the Jonah.” Further Semitisms are the word play on the Aramaic reference to humans as “flesh and blood,”the expression “the gates of Hades,”and finally and especially the figurative language of “binding and loosing.” Finally we note that much of the language in this passage has its parallels in earlier portions of the Gospel. V 17 contains the language concerning revelation to Peter from “my Father who is in heaven,” and v 19 cites “the kingdom of heaven.”Jesus elsewhere in the Gospel pronounces others “blessed” (5:3-11) and employs the image of building on rock (7:24-25). IfJesus affirmed Peter’s confession of him as the Christ, then he was conscious of his messianic identity and accordingly would have thought in terms of constituting the messianic community. This conclusion is by no means canceled out even if Jesus had expected the parousia to occur within that generation (cf. v 28), a point that is in any event debatable. In support of the historicity of the passage, see further Cullmann, Jeremias. For an overview of the study of the passage up to the 1950s, see Cullmann, P e te r , 163-70. In sh o rt, alth o u g h th e au th en ticity o f th e passage c a n n o t be d e m o n stra te d , th e re is n o convincing reason to d o u b t th a t Jesu s th e M essiah co u ld have co n te m p la te d a n d fo u n d e d a m essianic c o m m u n ity (a “c h u r c h ”), sp o k en o f its security, a n d given P e te r th e ro le o f le a d e rsh ip in th a t com m unity. To b e sure, th is passage gain s in c re a sin g sig n ifican ce fo r th e in creasin g ly self-conscious c h u rc h as it m oves to th e e n d o f th e first c e n tu ry a n d later, b u t th a t surplus o f m ea n in g m u st n o t b e re a d in to th e passage o r p u t in to th e m o u th o f je su s. Comment13 13 W hen Jesu s takes his disciples n o rth o f th e Sea o f G alilee (a b o u t twenty-five m iles) to th e re g io n o f C aesarea P h ilip p i (so n a m e d becau se it was re b u ilt by th e te tra rc h H e ro d Philip in h o n o r o f th e e m p e ro r T iberius; m o d e rn “B aniyas,” form erly “P a n e a s”), a b eau tifu l a re a in th e foothills o f M o u n t H e rm o n , it is ostensibly in o rd e r to re tre a t fro m th e press o f th e crowds. B ut th e re is also a n o th e r special reaso n , fo r w hat tran sp ires h e re is b o th a clim ax a n d a d ram atic tu rn in g p o in t in th e G ospel (as it is also in M ark a n d L u k e ). It is unlikely th a t Jesus chooses C aesarea P h ilippi because o f its p ag an associations, in clu d in g th e sh rin e to P an, in o rd e r to assert his own au th o rity over th e w o rld ’s religions (c o n tra B ru n er, follow ing B arclay). H e takes th e disciples th e re m erely as a p lace o f re tre a t w h ere h e can b e alo n e w ith th em . T h e lo catio n o f C aesarea P h ilip p i may, how ever, have p ro m p te d som e o f th e im agery used (e.g., “ro c k ,” “b u ild in g ” o f c h u rc h , “gates o f

Comment

467

H a d e s”; see Im m isch ). Jesu s takes th e initiative by directly asking th e q u estio n th a t has b e e n in th e m in d s o f th e disciples (a n d th e re a d e rs o f th e G ospel) fro m th e b e g in n in g o f his m inistry. W hat w ere p eo p le saying a b o u t him ? H ow d id they classify him , having seen him heal a n d h e a rd h im teach? M atthew ’s use o f το ν viöv το ν άνθρωπον, “th e Son o f M an,” in th e qu estio n is probably m e a n t as a circum lo cu tio n fo r th e first-person p ro n o u n , “I,” u sed regularly by Jesu s (c o n tra DaviesA llison). T h u s th e q u estio n m eans h ere, as in M ark 8:27, “W ho d o p eo p le say I am ?” See th e re p e titio n o f th e q u estio n u sing “I ” in v 15. Jesu s is hard ly asking h e re fo r th e id entification o f o n e w ho fits th e title “th e Son o f M an ” (c o n tra G u n d ry ), w hich was at b est o f am biguous m ean ing. A t th e sam e tim e, how ever, th e answ er given by P e te r in v 16 is co n so n a n t with th e m ean in g o f th e “Son o f M an ” in its titular sense (for w hich, see Comment o n 8:20), a n d th e read ers can hardly have failed to th in k o f this (cf. 10:23,13:41). T h e re is thus at least an an ticip atio n o f th e answ er in th e q u estio n as p o sed in M atthew . 14 T h e disciples re p o rt th a t th e p e o p le h o ld a variety o f o p in io n s ab o u t Jesus. C o m m o n to th e th re e n am es a n d th e m o re g e n e ra l “o n e o f th e p ro p h e ts ” is th e idea o f o n e w ho ap p ears in co n n e c tio n w ith th e co m in g o f th e e n d tim es, b u t as a p re c u rso r o r a tte n d a n t figure ra th e r th a n th e p ro m ised o n e him self. J o h n th e B aptist seem ed clearly to b e such a figure, w ho in d e e d p o rtra y e d his m inistry as o n e o f p re p a ra tio n fo r an im m in e n t e n d a n d ju s t fo r this reaso n caused such a sensation. Som e a p p aren tly w ere o f th e o p in io n th a t Jesus was th e m artyred J o h n re su rre c te d to life (see especially 14:2 fo r th e articu latio n o f this view by H e ro d ). O th ers th o u g h t o f Jesus as Elijah, a p ro p h e t w ho in th e O T was assigned the p rep a ra to ry ro le o f fo re ru n n e r to th e M essiah (cf. M al 3:1; 4:5-6) a n d w ho fo r ju s t this reason b ecam e id en tified w ith th e w ork o f J o h n th e B aptist (by Jesus already in 1 1 :9 -1 0 , 14; cf. 17:12-13). M atthew ’s a d d itio n o f th e n a m e J e re m ia h (w hich in th e N T occurs only in M atthew; cf. also 2:17; 27:9) suggests th a t Je re m ia h was th o u g h t by som e to be a key O T figure w ho w ould play a ro le in th e co m in g o f th e esch ato n (on J e re m ia h in th e in tertestam en tal p erio d , see 2 M acc 15:13-16 a n d esp. 2 Esdr 2:18, w hich refers to an eschatological ap p e a ra n ce o f Je re m ia h with Isaiah [b u t th e d ate o f this re fe re n ce is d e b a ta b le ]). T h e re are, fu rth e rm o re , a n u m b e r o f obvious parallels b etw een Jesu s a n d J e re m ia h , such as th e p re a c h in g o f ju d g m e n t against th e p eo p le a n d th e tem ple, a n d especially in suffering a n d m artyrdom (see M e n k e n ). T h e g en eral p h rase ή eva τω ν προφητών, “o r o n e o f th e p ro p h e ts ,” p o in ts to th e w idespread view th a t th e g reatest figures o f th e O T w ould re tu rn in a p rep arato ry ro le ju s t b efo re th e e n d o f this age (cf. th e im p o rta n ce o f E n och in th e in tertestam en tal literatu re a n d M elchizedek at Q u m ra n ). We have n o evidence o f J e re m ia h b ein g n a m e d explicitly in such a c o n n e c tio n , a n d it may be th a t J e re m ia h is n a m e d as rep resen tativ e o f th e p ro p h e tic co rpus (Jerem iah ap p ears first in a rab b in ic list o f p ro p h ets; cf. th e baraita in b. B. Bat. 14b). Special O T m e n w ho h a d n o t died , e.g., E n o ch a n d Elijah, w ere ideal candidates for re tu rn in g in th e tim e ju s t p rio r to th e eschatological era. T h e re is n o re c o rd o f th e d e a th o f Je re m ia h in th e Bible. O n th e o th e r h a n d , o th ers, such as th e p ro p h ets, co u ld well be raised fro m th e d e a d in o rd e r to p articip ate in th e events o f th e e n d (cf. L uke 9:19). T h e crow ds also identify Jesu s as a “p r o p h e t” in 21:11. E xalted as these evaluations o f Jesu s are, placin g h im as an im p o rta n t figure c o n n e c te d w ith th e co m in g o f th e eschatological age, they are in a d e q u a te , a lth o u g h partially tru e. 15 Jesu s re p eats th e qu estio n (this tim e in verbatim a g re e m e n t w ith M ark),

468

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

now d ire c tin g it to th e disciples (n o te th e e m p h atic υμείς, “you yourselves”) . T h e first-person p ro n o u n μ ε stands in place o f “Son o f M a n ” in v 13. T h e q u e stio n is asked n o t so m u c h fo r in fo rm a tio n b u t to elicit fro m th e disciples an explicit confession o f his m essianic identity. 16 Sim on P e ter (for th e d o uble nam e, see 4:18; 10:2; c f.v l7 ) answers for him self as well as fo r th e o th e r apostles (see esp. 15:15; cf. 19:27 for P eter as spokesm an for th e o th e rs ). T his was som eth in g they h a d u n d o u b ted ly discussed again a n d again, a n d they h a d already com e to th eir conclusion. W hile it m ust be g ra n te d th a t it is P eter who responds a n d u p o n w hom th e singular p ro n o u n s a n d verbs o f vv 17-19 focus (thus rightly Davies-Allison), P eter is never re g a rd e d as isolated fro m th e twelve. To be sure, he is th eir lead er a n d spokesm an (primus interpares) , b u t h e is also representative, in d e e d th e representative o f th e en tire ch u rch (rightly L u z ). Cf. too th e plural verbs in the sim ilar logion in 18:18, w hich in principle involve th e sam e authority, even if at a local level (cf. Kingsbury, JB L 98 [1979] 67-83). P eter thus boldly declares: σ υ el b Χ ρ ισ τό ς ό υιός του Θεού του ζώ ντος, ‘Y ou are th e C hrist, th e Son o f th e living G od.” This answ er differs categorically from those offered by the p eople. T h a t is, h e re Jesus is n o t identified as o n e o f the figures involved in the com in g o f th e e n d times, b u t as the com ing one, the determ inative perso n w ho brings with him th e m essianic age a n d th e tran sform ation o f th e p re se n t o rd er. Χ ρ ισ τό ς, “Christ,” is th e G reek w ord for “an o in te d o n e ” (H ebrew: ITÖQ [m asiah]). For th e tide, see Comment o n 1:1,16. This is th e first o ccu rren ce o f th e title in direct speech. For th e closely related title “Son o f David,” see 9:27; 12:23; 15:22. In 1 Sam 7:4-16, th e passage th a t gives rise to th e ex p ectatio n o f th e Son o f David, it is said th a t “th e L o r d will m ake you a h o u s e ” a n d th a t th a t h o u se “shall b e m ad e sure forever b efo re m e ” a n d th a t th ro n e “shall be established fo rev er” (2 Sam 7:16). Davies-Allison stress this passage as th e b ac k g ro u n d fo r th e p re s e n t p e ric o p e , w hich serves as its fulfillm ent: “M t 16.13-20 reco rd s th e eschatatological realization o f th e prom ises m ad e to D avid” (Davies-Allison, 2:603; see too A n d erso n fo r Davidic a n d Z ionist links w ith P e te r’s co n fe ssio n ). M atthew ’s in terp retiv e ex p an sio n , b υιός του θεού, “th e Son o f G o d ,” defines th e M essiah as m o re th a n a h u m a n figure, as so m e o n e w ho is u n iq u ely a m an ifestatio n o f G od, th e very a g e n t o f G od w ho som ehow particip ates in G o d ’s b ein g (see G undry, Davies-Allison; o n th e title, see Comment o n 3:17; a n d 4:3; 8:29; 11:27). T h e disciples h a d ea rlie r already confessed Jesu s as th e Son o f G od (14:33). T h e re it was u n d e r pressu re o f ex trao rd in ary circum stances; h e re it is th e re su lt o f calm reflectio n as well as th e p ro d u c t o f divine revelation. A n d to this seco n d confession th e revelation o f Je su s’ call to suffer a n d die is a p p e n d e d . T h e h ig h p riest la te r asks Jesu s w h e th e r h e is “th e C hrist, th e Son o f G o d ” (26:63), th ereb y again b rin g in g to g e th e r th e two titles (for th e sam e ju x ta p o sitio n o f titles, see also J o h n 11:27; 20:31). F or th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th e co n c e p tio n o f th e M essiah as G o d ’s Son, cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:6-8, 12; 4Q Flor 10-14. See also 27:40, 43, 54 fo r th e “Son o f G o d ” title. T h e tid e is, o f course, extrem ely im p o rta n t in th e F o u rth G ospel (besides referen ces above, see 1:34,49; 19:7; cf. 6:69). T h e expressio n το υ θεού το υ ζώ ντος, “th e living G o d ,” is an O T expression (cf. D e u t 5:26; Pss 42:2; 84:2), fo u n d elsew here in M atthew in 26:63 (cf. 22:32) a n d freq u en tly in th e N T (see 1 T im 3:15; 4:10 [w here it fu rth e rm o re m odifies th e n o u n εκκλησία, “c h u rc h ”]; Acts 14:15; R om 9:26; 2 C o r 3:3, 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; H e b 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; 1 P e te r 1:23; Rev 7:2; 15:7; cf. J o h n 6:57; Rev

Comment

469

1:18; 4:9). It describes the true God, as opposed to the gods o f the world who were n o t alive, such as the deities o f the region o f Caesarea Philippi (cf. its use by jew s in pagan contexts, e.g., 2 Macc 7:33; 15:4; 3 Macc 6:28). Im plied in the phrase (but only im plied) is the fact th at G od is uniquely the source o f all life (see Meier, Davies-Allison). 17 In his resp o n se, Jesu s proclaim s P e te r to b e μακάριος*, “b lessed,” i.e., o n e in th e state o f b e in g d eep ly h a p p y th ro u g h th e p ro le p tic e x p e rie n c e o f th e eschatological blessing o f G od. For, in fact, P e te r’s confession is th e tru th . Jesus affirm s it n o t m erely as th e resu lt o f h u m a n effo rt a n d reaso n in g (σάρξ καί αΐμα, “flesh a n d b lo o d ,” is a Sem itic expression fo r h u m a n agency; cf. Gal 1:16), alth o u g h these w ere clearly at w ork in th e process, b u t as a revelation from G od, i.e., divinely certified tru th . In distinctively M atthean language, ό πα τήρ μ ο υ ο έν το ις ούρανοϊς, “my F a th e r w ho is in h e a v e n ,” has rev ealed to Peter th e id en tity o f his Son, Jesus (cf. 11:27, “N o o n e knows th e Son ex cep t th e F a th e r”). Paul can use sim ilar language in d escrib in g G o d ’s revelation o f th e Son to h im (cf. Gal. 1:15-16). T h e verb άπβκάλυψεν, “rev ealed ,” w ith G od as th e acting subject has c o n n o tatio n s o f th e im p a rtin g o f eschatological know ledge (see also Comments o n 11:25, 27). DaviesAllison link this w ith th e n o tio n o f th e unveiling o f a h id d e n M essiah (cf. J o h n 7:27; Ju stin , Dial. 8.4; 100.1). In sho rt, divine revelation has b e e n at w ork in b rin g in g P e te r a n d his disciples to this conclusion a b o u t Jesus. A nd th a t divine authority serves as a g u a ra n te e o f th e co rrectn ess o f th e ir assessm ent. P e te r is ad d ressed h e re by his p ro p e r n am e, Sim on (Σιμών, fro m H ebrew pOTÖ [ S im cdn]; cf. Συμεών, “S im eo n ” [2 P e te r 1:1]), by w hich h e is first in tro d u c e d in 4:18 (cf. 10:2).

The name Β α ρ ι ω ν ά , “bar-jo n ah ,” i.e., the transliterated Aramaic for “son ofJonah,” is quite problematic, since in the best MSS ofJohn 1:42 and 21:15, Simon Peter is called the son of Ί ω ά ν ν ο υ , ‘John.” If we are not faced here with a textual corruption (oddly no textual witnesses have harmonized the present passage to agree more closely with the Johannine references), then we may have simply an Aramaic alternate to the Greek name John. Although the Aramaic b a r - Y ö h a n ä n is quite different, the Lucianic text of the LXX can use 7ω ν ά ν ( Y ö n a n ) fo r‘John” ( Y ö h a n ä n ) \ see, e.g., Neh 6:18; 2 Kgs 25:23; 1 Chr3:24. See Jeremias, T D N T 3:407; cf. Luz, 461, n. 59. On the other hand, it may be that the ascription is a deliberate Matthean redaction (cf. B. P. Robinson), and it is possible that some special meaning is in view through the association of Peter with the prophet Jonah. A number of suggestions have been made. A particularly interesting one is the parallel between the two figures in their common reluctance to preach repentance to the Gentiles (see R. W. Wall). Some have seen the connection in the sign of Jonah. Thus Gundry argues that in the name “barjonah” is “a warning of death by martyrdom and a promise of resurrection.” This seems to read rather too much into the name, however. C. Brown (37) goes even further, nevertheless, in the actual identification ofJesus with Jonah so that “bar-Jonah” means that Peter was spiritually the son ofjesus, who is the new Jonah. Also possible, but unlikely, is the claim that “barjonah” is derived from the word for “terrorist” or “revolutionary” and that Peter was once a Zealot (thus Cullmann; cf. M. Hengel, T h e Z e a lo ts [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989] 55). Davies-Allison regard as more probable the simple solution that “John” was changed to “Jonah” by Matthew to elevate Peter to the status of a prophet; perhaps, on the other hand, “Jonah” was inadvertently changed in the Fourth Gospel to the more popular ‘John.”18 18 T his verse has rightly b e e n d escrib ed as “am o n g th e m o st controversial in all o f S c rip tu re ” (Davies-Allison, 2:623). As P e te r h a d m ad e a d eclaratio n c o n c e rn ing Jesus, now Jesus m akes an im p o rta n t d eclaratio n c o n c e rn in g Peter: συ el

470

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

Π έτρ ο ς, “you a re P e te r,” a n d th a t n a m e is now to take o n special significance becau se P e te r is also th e “ro c k ” u p o n w hich Jesu s th e M essiah will b u ild his com m unity. It is m o re p ro b a b le th a t new significance is given to a n a m e by w hich S im on was already know n (with G undry, c o n tra Davies-Allison) th a n th a t je s u s first a t this p o in t gives h im th e nam e “P e te r” (by w hich h e has rep eated ly b e e n re fe rre d to in th e p re c e d in g n arrativ es). Davies-Allison, how ever, speak o f th e g ain in g o f a new n a m e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e fo u n d in g o f a new p eo p le, n o tin g (with C u llm an n ) th e p arallel w ith A b rah am a n d th e re fe re n c e in Isa 51:1-2, w hich refers to th e “ro ck fro m w hich yo u w ere h ew n .” T h e suggestion is in trig u in g b u t b ased m o re o n sp eculation th a n evidence a n d fu rth e rm o re m u st face th e very d iffe re n t m e ta p h o rs o f b ein g hew n fro m ro ck a n d b e in g b u ilt u p o n rock. T h e w ord play is clear in th e G reek (Π έτρ ος [Petros] , “P e te r [lit. ‘s to n e ’] ”— π έτρ α [petra], “ro c k ”) d esp ite th e shift re q u ire d by th e fem in in e fo rm o f th e n o u n fo r “ro c k .” It is even m o re obvious in th e A ram aic, w here th e n a m e NETS, Kepa?, is exactly th e sam e fo r th e w ord “ro c k .” Since kepa? usually m ean s “sto n e ,” n o t so m e th in g o n e builds u p o n , Luz arg u es fo r th e deriv atio n o f th e w o rd play fro m th e G reek w ords. B ut w ord play d o es n o t d e m a n d th e usual m e a n in g o f w ords, especially in m e tap h o rical ap p licatio n s such as th e p re s e n t o n e. T h e A ram aic w ord play o n th e sam e w ord rem ain s th e m o st convincing ex p la n a tio n . F ortunately, th e play also w o rk ed in G reek. F or evidence th a t kepä? was a n am e in c u rre n t use, co n tra ry to th e claim o f m any scholars, see Fitzmyer. (For Κ ηφ ας [Kephas] , “C e p h a s,” th e G reek fo rm o f th e n am e, see J o h n 1:42; 1 C or 1:12; Gal 1:18).

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from P e tro s to p e tr a required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same v f o r & k e p a * occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullmann [P eter, 207], DaviesAllison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [ P e te r i n th e N T , 92]). The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. Not infrequently these attempts reveal the improper influence of passages such as 1 Cor 3:11 and Eph 2:20. But to allow this passage its natural meaning, that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, is by no means either to affirm the papacy or to deny that the church, like the apostles, rests upon Jesus as the bedrock of its existence. Jesus is after all the builder, and all that the apostles do they do through him. For a similar point, buttressed with OT allusions, see Knight, who refers finally to the rock as “none other than God-in-Christ” (179; cf. Moule). As has often been pointed out, it is none other than the confessing Peter who is in view here as the rock, and it is as the representative of Christ that the authority to be mentioned in the next verse is given to him in his custody of the gospel of Christ. Luz follows the argument of P. Lampe that kepa? meant a round stone rather than rock and would not have been thought of as suitable to build upon. (For this reason Luz regards vv 18-19 as deriving from a Greek-speaking context.) As Davies-Allison (following Fitzmyer) note, however, kepa* can mean rock (as, e.g., at Qumran and in the Targumim). Even if one were to think only of a stone, Davies-Allison point out that the Greek equivalent, λ ί θ ο ς , “stone,”is the word used for the foundation stone for the temple (cf. Isa 28:16). For a possible link with the stone passage of Ps 118:22, see Wilcox (cf. Moule). Cullmann sees a connection with the block of stone in Dan 2:34-35, 44-45, which Judaism associated with the Messiah (P eter, 191-92).

Comment

471

T h e rock im agery im plies b o th stability a n d e n d u ra n c e (cf. 7:24-25), even b efo re th e gates o f H ades (see belo w ). F or Jew ish b a c k g ro u n d c o n c e rn in g a co m m unity b u ilt u p o n a “ro ck ,” see Str-B 1:732-33. “R ock” o f course refers h e re n o t to P e te r’s ch a ra c ter, as will b eco m e clear la te r in th e narrative, b u t to his office a n d fu n c tio n (see to o F rance) as le a d e r o f th e apostles. As arg u ed above, u n d erly in g th e G reek w ord εκκλησία, “c h u rc h ,” is an A ram aic w ord spo k en byje s u s m e a n in g “co m m u n ity ” (*?np [ qähäl]; ΓΤΤΡ, [c eda] = συναγω γή, “synagogue,” in LXX; o r possibly ΚΠΕΓΒ [kenistä*]) . T h e w ord εκκλησία ap p ears often in th e LXX, usually as th e tran slatio n o f bl7j? ( qähäl). Israel can be called *?np miT ( qehäl YH W H ), εκκλησία το ν κυρίου, “com m u n ity o f th e L o r d .” T h e w ord for co m m u n ity in Je su s’ day was TllV (c eda), usually tran slated συναγω γή. If Jesus is th e C hrist, th e n it is n a tu ra l to ex p e c t th a t th e co m m u n ity Jesu s refers to is th e m essianic com m unity o r th e eschatological peo p le o f G od. Jesus says “my com m unity,” w here th e μου, “m y,” is em p h atic by its p osition. It is th e m essianic com m unity o f th e M essiah, a n d th e sta te m e n t is th u s an im plicit m essianic claim (C arson; cf. Brown, 33). N aturally M atthew a n d his read ers u n d e rsto o d by εκκλησία th e ch u rch , a n d they d id so justifiably. (T h e w ord εκκλησία occurs only h e re a n d in 18:17 in th e fo u r Gospels.) T h e p o in t o f th e assertion is th a t Jesus, i.e., th e risen Jesus, will b u ild his new co m m u n ity in th e first instance th ro u g h th e la b o r o f th e apostles (cf. E ph 2:20), a n d P e te r has b e e n d e sig n ated as th e le a d e r o f th e apostles (cf. th e early ch ap ters o f th e b o o k o f A cts). T h e m e ta p h o ric a l use o f “b u ild ” (οικοδομήσω) is a p p ro p ria te to a com m unity conceived o f as a spiritual “h o u se ” o r “te m p le ” (cf. “house o f Israel” a n d n o te th e descrip tio n o f th e c h u rc h as “G o d ’s b u ild in g ” in 1 C or 3:9; cf. E p h 2:19-21). Jesus fu rth e r assures P eter a n d the o th e r disciples th a t πύλαι αδου ού κατισχύσουσιν α υτής, “th e gates o f H ad es will n o t overpow er it.” T h e m e ta p h o r “gates o f H a d e s” is fo u n d in th e O T a n d in tertestam en tal w ritings (w here in H ebrew it is th e “gates o f S h eo l” [*7)KCD sacare s P o l ] ) , e.g., in Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 M acc 5:51; Pss. Sol. 16:2 (in all o f w hich cases th e G reek agrees exactly w ith M atthew ’s p h ra s e ). It is essentially synonym ous w ith “gates o f d e a th ” (as in J o b 38:17; Pss 9:13; 107:18; see too 1Q H 6:24 -2 6 ), H a d e s/S h e o l b ein g u n d e rsto o d to b e th e realm o f th e dead. T h e w ord πύλαι, “gates,” in this stereotyped p h rase has b eco m e symbolic o f “th e pow er o f ’or, as is m o re likely, it is a case o f pars pro toto (th u s Je re m ia s ), w here H ades itself is in view. M arcus (47) reg ard s th e gates o f H ades as an antitype o f th e im plied gates o f heaven (cf. m e ta p h o r o f P e te r’s keys) w ith th e b a c k g ro u n d b ein g o n e o f apocalyptic conflict.

The meaning of this statement has been much debated (summaries are available in C. Brown and Davies-Allison). Almost all the explanations that have been offered focus on or start with the idea of the overcoming of death. Some hypotheses stress the positive side by referring to resurrection, whether general resurrection (Schlatter), the resurrection of Jesus (McNeile), or the immortality of Peter or his office (Harnack and B. P. Robinson, taking π έ τ ρ α , “rock,” rather than ε κ κ λ η σ ί α ν , “church,” as the antecedent of α υ τ ή ς , “it”). Such an understanding also underlies the quite speculative suggestion that the statement refers to Christ’s descent into Hades to bring the righteous dead to life (Bousset, K y n o s , 65). Other hypotheses are content to speak merely of the triumph over death (Schweizer, Hill, Schnackenburg, Gundry [more specifically over martyrdom through persecution]; note r s v : “the powers of death”; but now n r s v returns to the literal: “the gates of Hades”). A key exegetical question is whether one should extend the

472

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

metaphor of “the gates of Hades” to include more than merely death, in other words as having distinctly eschatological overtones. Many do so: the powers of evil (Allen); rulers of Hades, by metonymy (Marcus); the powers of the underworld (Bomkamm , J e s u s o f N a z a r e th , 187; Jeremias, T O N T 6:924-28; Davies-Allison); or the power of Satan (Hiers). There is risk in some of these more adventuresome proposals, yet since the ultimate survival of the church is in view, certainly the ultimate defeat of all evil is at least implied. With the help of his association ofJesus with Jonah in this passage, C. Brown finds in the phrase a passion prediction. That is, for Jesus the gates of Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Ps 118:19-26) will become the gates of Sheol. Jesus will be put to death by the hostile Jewish authorities, but neither Jesus nor his community will ultimately be overcome. If this is a passion prediction, however, it is at very best only implicit, for Matthew has reserved the passion predictions until after v 21 with its formulaic “from that time.” The general point is true enough, however: nothing—not even the death of the Messiah—can prevent the community from arriving victoriously at its eschatological goal. Given th e usual u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e ph rase, it is probably b est tak en as m e a n in g “th e pow er o f d e a th ” o r p e rh a p s sim ply “d e a th ”; it is this th a t shall n o t overpow er {κα τισχύσουσιν) th e c h u rch , α ύ τη ς, “it,” has as its a n te c e d e n t n o t π έ τρ α , “ro c k ,” b u t m o re naturally th e n e a re r a n te c e d e n t εκκλησίαν, “c h u rc h ” (c o n tra B. P. R o b in s o n ). T h a t is, th e c h u rc h as G o d ’s eschatological co m m u n ity will n ev er die o r co m e to e n d — this d esp ite th e even tu al m arty rd o m o f th e apostles a n d even, m o re im m inently, th e d e a th o f its fo u n d e r (soon to be a n n o u n c e d ; cf. v 21). Since d e a th is o n e o f th e w eapons o f Satan a n d his h o rd e , th e “e x te n d e d m e a n in g ” o f th e passage w h e re in th e c h u rc h survives th e attack u p o n it fro m th e realm o f th e evil o n e is n o t far fro m th e m ark, th o u g h it goes b ey o n d w hat th e tex t actually says. If th e c h u rc h escapes d e stru c tio n d esp ite th e d e a th o f its lead ersh ip , so to o will it escape an y th in g th a t th e enem y m ig h t b rin g u p o n it. Im p lied to o is th a t th ose w ho die as a p a rt o f th a t c h u rc h ca n n o t be d efeated by d e a th b u t will be raised at th e e n d tim e. T h e c h u rc h — conceived o f as th e co m m u n ity o f saints a t any p a rtic u la r tim e, o r as th e saints o f every age w ho cum ulatively m ake u p th e c h u rc h in toto— can never b e destroyed. 19 P eter, as th e le a d e r o f th e twelve, is th e “ro c k ” u p o n w hich th e new co m m u n ity will b e built. W ith this com m issioning o f P e te r com es th e au th o rity sym bolized by his possession o f τ ά ς κ λείδ α ς τ η ς β α σ ιλ εία ς τω ν ούρανών, “th e keys o f th e k in g d o m o f h eav en .” F or “k in g d o m o f h eav en ,” see Comment o n 3:2. “Keys” are above all a symbol o f au th o rity an d , h en ce, a symbol o f pow er over som ething. T his m ay b e possessed by m ean s o f know ledge (as in Luke 11:52; cf. M att 23:13; b. Sabb. 3 1 a-b ) or, in th e case o f Jesus, by divine right. In th e c o n te x t o f o u r passage, n o te especially Rev 1:18: “I d ied, a n d b e h o ld I am alive fo r everm ore, a n d I have th e keys o f D eath a n d H a d e s” (cf. Rev 3:7 [cf. Isa 22:22]; 9:1; 20:1). See E m e rto n fo r th e links betw een v 19 a n d Isa 22:22. P e te r’s possession o f th e keys o f th e k in g d o m gran ts h im th e rig h t to a d m it o r deny a d m ittan ce in to th e k ingdom , i.e., in to th e e x p e rie n c e o f th e b eg in n in g blessings o f eschatological salvation, as th e follow ing w ords con firm . T his au th o rity is ex pressed th ro u g h th e distinctive rab b in ic idiom o f “b in d in g a n d lo o sin g ” (see Str-B 1:741-47 for n u m e ro u s referen ces).

Again, the question of the meaning of “binding and loosing” has given rise to much discussion. Among the options that have been offered, the following may be mentioned (see the review in Davies-Allison). “Binding and loosing” can be regarded as the lan-

Comment

473

guage of demon exorcism (cf. Hiers), but this interpretation cannot be made to fit the context. Equally unlikely is the suggestion that the phrase refers to the placing and removing of magical curses (F. C. Conybeare, “Christian Demonology,”JQ R 9 [1897] 444-70). More reasonable, but still unconvincing, is the application of the words to a ban, i.e., of excommunication (Büchsel, T D N T 2:60-61). Most likely the words refer in the first instance to some kind of conduct that one is bound to or released from. One possibility is that they might concern vows (Falk), although this again does not fit the context. The words are better taken in the wider sense of wrong and right conduct, on the rabbinic model of specific, practical interpretation of the Torah, the determination of what was permitted and what was forbidden (so too B. H. Streeter, T he Primitive Church [New York: Macmillan, 1929] 63; Derrett; Zahn; Davies-Allison; Luz), or somewhat more generally “teaching authority” (Bornkamm, Perspective 11 [1970] 37-50). This interpretation may by extension be construed to include the forgiveness or nonforgiveness of sins (Schlatter; Basser) and thus the determination of salvation or damnation (A. Schweitzer, The Quest o f the HistoricalJesus [New York: Macmillan, 1910] 371; Falk). That is, admission or nonadmission to the kingdom is now to be determined by the disciples’ proclamation of what may be called the Jesus tradition—his proclamation and his teaching (see Korting). Cf. the commission of 28:16-20. In its prim ary m ean in g , th e p h rase “b in d in g an d lo o sin g ” refers to th e allowing a n d disallow ing o f c ertain c o n d u ct, b ased o n an in te rp re ta tio n o f th e co m m a n d m ents o f th e T o ra h , a n d th u s it co n cern s th e issue o f w h e th e r o r n o t o n e is in p ro p e r relatio n sh ip to th e will o f G od (co n trast th e re fe re n ce to th e P h arisees’ m isuse o f th e ir auth o rity [n o te im p lied keys!] in 23:13). In M atthew , Jesus is th e tru e in te rp re te r o f T o ra h . H is disciples will pass o n th a t in te rp re ta tio n a n d e x te n d it. T h u s M atthew m ay have in m in d th e teach in g office o f P e te r a n d th e apostles (for w hom th e pow er o f b in d in g a n d loosing is also assum ed in th e p lu ral verbs o f 18:18 in th e discourse o n “c h u rc h d iscip lin e”) . P eter is in this sense the scribe tra in e d for th e kin g d o m o f heaven (13:52). T his w ould be a m o re M atth ean d escrip tio n (cf. 23:8) th a n th e re fe re n ce to P e te r as “c h ie f ra b b i” by B. P. R obinson (98) a n d DaviesAllison (2:639). H e is th e p rim ary cu sto d ian a n d g u a ra n to r o f th e trad itio n o f the teach in g o f Jesu s (th u s rightly B o rnkam m , Perspective 11 [1970] 3 7-50). T his m eans ύ ι έ w ords o f Jesus a n d w ould, o f course, in clu d e th e ethical teach in g o f Jesus— his authoritativ e ex p o sitio n o f th e law. B ut it also inclu des th e kerygm atic u tte ra n c e s o f Jesus c o n c e rn in g th e co m in g o f th e k in g d o m o f G od as well as those th a t p o in t to his own u n iq u e position in th e m ed iatio n o f salvation (e.g., 10:32-33,39; 11:27). T hus, despite th e rab b in ic idiom , m o re is in view th a n halachic ren d erin g s (a lth o u g h M atthew a n d his co m m u n ity w ould have re lish e d this aspect). In co n stru in g th e m e an in g h e re m o re widely so as to in clu d e gospel w ith law, we may ap p eal to th e closely re la te d saying in J o h n 20:23 (in d eed , probably a variant o f th e p re se n t logion [thus E m erto n o n th e basis o f u n d erly in g A ram aic]): “If you [plural] forgive th e sins o f any, they are forgiven; if you [plural] re ta in th e sins o f any, they are re ta in e d .” T h e M atth ean log io n has an e x te n d e d m ea n in g q u ite like this, w hich refers to th e d eclaratio n o f th e forgiveness o f sins, i.e., o f salvation itself (cf. 18:18; F o rn b e rg th u s likens P e te r to th e h ig h p riest o f th e new c o v e n a n t). T h e au th o rity spoken of, th en , is in effect th a t o f b ein g able to declare w h eth er a p erso n b ecom es fully a p a rt o f th e co m m u n ity o f salvation o r n o t, n o lo n g e r simply o n th e basis o f o b ed ien ce to T o ra h b u t o n th e basis o f resp o n se o r lack o f resp o n se to th e g o o d news o f th e kin g d o m (cf. th e practice o f th e disciples in 10:13-15). It is th e

474

Ma t t h e w 16:13-20

conveying o f “th e w ord o f grace a n d ju d g m e n t” (Jerem ias, 7ZW T3:752). T h u s it is n o t w rong to say, as K night does, th a t ultim ately th e pow er o f th e keys is given to th e p e o p le o f G od 21s a w hole (178). M arcus (453) reg ard s this as an apocalyptic ch an g e th a t alters th e cosm os (in clu d in g th e law), involving th e tran sfer o f au th o rity fro m th e scribes a n d P harisees to P eter. T o in d icate th e final au th o rity o f this “b in d in g a n d loosing,” th e u n u su al G reek co n stru ctio n o f th e fu tu re tense a n d th e p e rfe c t particip le is em ployed (εσ τα ι δ ε δ εμ ένο υ ε ν τ ό ίς ούρανόίς, “shall have b e e n b o u n d in h e av en ”; εσ τα ί λελνμ ένο ν ε ν τ ό ίς ούρανόίς, “shall have b e e n loo sed in h e a v e n ”) . T h e m e a n in g o f th ese tenses is n o t a lto g e th e r clear (see P o rte r’s discussion). M any take th e m as re fe rrin g to decisions already taken in heaven, th u s giving a p re d e stin a ria n sense to th e sta te m e n t (e.g., G undry, C arson, M antey, M arcu s). T h a t M atthew has a d o c trin e o f electio n is clear fro m 11:25-27, as we have seen, a n d th u s this in te rp re ta tio n o f th e tenses m u st b e tak en seriously. A t th e sam e tim e, th e th ru st o f th e p re se n t passage (like th a t o f 18:18) has m o re to d o w ith th e estab lish m en t o f th e au th o rity o f P e te r (th e apostles a n d th e ch u rch ) in his m ission to th e w orld. T h e ju d g m e n t o f P eter, a n d by im plication th a t o f th e ch u rc h , reflects w hat is in acco rd w ith w hat is settled in heaven as th e fully d e te rm in e d will o f G od (see M antey, P o rte r). W h e th e r this is already d e c re e d in th e will o f G od o r sub seq u ently ratified as th e will o f G o d is n o t th e issue h ere. P e te r’s authority, in short, is such th a t h e speaks o n b e h a lf o f h eaven (i.e., G od). 20 Jesu s “th e n ” (τό τε) “o rd e re d ” (δ ιε σ τ ε ίλ α τ ο , th e only o c c u rre n ce o f th e verb in M atthew ) th e disciples to k eep q u ie t a b o u t his m essianic identity, i.e., δ τι α υ τό ς έ σ t l v ό Χ ρ ισ τό ς, lit. “th a t h e is th e C h rist,” a re p e titio n o f th e confession o f v 16 fo r em phasis. T his logion is p e rh a p s th e key o n e in establishing th e m otive o f th e “m essianic se c re t” (see fu rth e r Commenton 8:4). H e re th e reaso n fo r th e secrecy is a b o u t to b e c o m e p articularly clear. Jesu s is n o t th e k in d o f M essiah th a t th e m asses have in m in d . Far fro m overpow ering th e evil pow ers o f th e w orld th e re a n d th e n a n d establishing-a n ational-political k in g d o m , Jesu s is now to talk o f a n o th e r, dram atically d ifferen t p a th u p o n w hich his m essianic calling will take him . E xplanation T h e clim ax o f th e first m ain p a rt o f th e G ospel is fo u n d in this re so u n d in g confession o f Jesu s as “th e C hrist, th e Son o f th e living G o d .” It is this to w hich all (b eg in n in g especially w ith 4:17) has led. It is this th a t m u st be established w ith all possible fixity b efo re th e n arrativ e takes th a t startlin g tu rn th a t will d o m in a te th e seco n d h a lf o f th e G ospel a n d th a t seem s alm ost to c o n tra d ic t th e p o in t ju s t esta b lis h e d . W ith th is su p re m e ly im p o r ta n t c o n fe s s io n o f J e s u s as M essiah , c o n firm e d by Je su s’ d eclaratio n o f th e divinely certified tru th o f th e confession (v 17), it is n o t su rp risin g th a t several o th e r im p o rta n t ideas em erg e, i.e., th e ch u rc h , th e a u th o rity o f P e te r (an d th e o th e r apostles), a n d inclusion o r exclusion fro m th e k in g d o m . F o r all o f th e se — as in d e e d C h ristia n ity itse lf—a re d e p e n d e n t o n th e id en tity o f Jesus. It is becau se Jesu s is w ho h e is th a t P e te r a n d th e disciples can fulfill th e ir calling a n d th e c h u rc h can b e “b u ilt.” T h e e x te n d e d m e an in g o f th e logion spoken to P e te r (vv 18-19) coincides with w hat to o k place in th e early h isto ry o f th e c h u rc h acco rd in g to th e b o o k o f Acts. P e te r a n d th e

Explanation

475

apostles w ere th e p roclaim ers o f th e gospel, th e p e rp e tu a to rs o f th e trad itio n , a n d they w ere vitally a p a rt o f each new stage o f a d v an cem en t in th e overcom ing o f tra d itio n a l b arriers. A n d alth o u g h P aul w ould ultim ately b e co m e th e “apostle to th e G en tiles,” it was th ro u g h P e te r’s p re a c h in g th a t th e gospel first cam e to G entiles (Acts 10). It is especially h e re , in a m ajo r tu rn in g p o in t fo r th e history o f th e c h u rch , th a t P e te r m akes th e m ost ex em plary use o f th e “keys” a n d o f his a u th o rity to “lo o se.” (H ad P aul b e e n th e in itia to r o f g en tile evangelization, it perhaps w ould have b e e n forever suspect.) M atthew ’s Jew ish-C hristian read ers w ould have tak en p rid e in th e know ledge th a t C hristianity was Jew ish b efo re th e influx o f th e G entiles a n d th a t th e c h u rc h as a w hole d e p e n d e d u p o n its Jew ish roots in P eter a n d th e apostles.

The Turning Point: The Announcement o f the Cross

(16:21 -17:27)

The F irst Announcem ent o f the Suffering and D eath o f the M essiah (16:21 -2 3 ) Bibliography

Bastin, M. “L’annonce de la passion et les criteres de l’historicite.” R e v S c R e l 50 (1976) 289-329; 51 (1977) 187-213. Black, M. “The ‘Son of Man’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition.” Z N W 60 (1969) 1-8. Feuillet, A. “Les trois grandes propheties de la passion et de la resurrection des evangiles synoptiques.” R e v T h o m 67 (1967) 533-60; 68 (1968) 4174. Neirynck, F. “Ά π ό τ ό τ ε ή ρ ξ α τ ο and the Structure of Matthew.” E T L 64 (1988) 21-59. Schaberg, J. “Daniel 7,12 and the New Testament Passion-Resurrection Predictions.” N T S 31 (1985) 208-22. Vögtle, A. “Todesankündigungen und Todesverständnis Jesu.” In D e r T o d J e s u , ed. K. Kertelge. QD 74. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. 51-113. W illaert, B. “La connexion litteraire entre la premiere prediction de la passion et la confession de Pierre chez les synoptiques.” E T L 32 (1956) 24-45. Translation 21From that timeJesusa began to show his disciples that it was necessary fo r him to go toJerusalem, and to suffer many things at the hands o fh the elders and chiefpriests and scribes,c and to be p u t to death and to be raised to life on the third day.d22A n d Peter took him aside and began to reprove him, saying: “Far be this from you, Lord; this will in no wise happen to you!”23B ut he turned and said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan. You are a cause o f stumbling to me, because you are setting your mind not on the things o f God but on the things o f hum an beings.” Notes aThe im portant witnesses K* and B* (as well as samss mae bo) add Χριστός, “Christ.” The addition is clearly caused by the preceding verse (and pericope). Because of its rarity elsewhere (e.g., in Matthew only in 1:1, 18), the UBSGNT committee regards the addition as made by a scribe rather than the evangelist, although the latter is far from impossible. In favor of the simple 7ησονς, “Jesus,” see S2CL W Θ fus TRlatt sy samsbomss. A few MSS (ft1892) omit both names, probably through accidental omission of both abbreviated names (XC and IC ) in an attempt to correct the reading. See TCGNT, 42-43. b “At the hands o f ’ translates άπό, lit. “from.” CA few witnesses (Θ f1,13 mae) add τον λαόν, “of the people” (cf. 2:4). dD (it) bo have μετά τρεις ημέρας άνοστη ναι, “after three days to rise again,” through the influence of Mark 8:31.

Form/Structure/Setting

477

Form/Structure/Setting A. T h e seco n d m ain p a rt o f th e G ospel b egins a t this p o in t, signaled by th e o p e n in g άπό τ ό τ ε , “fro m th a t tim e,” placing Jesus o n th e ro a d to Je ru sa le m a n d the cross. N o t th a t Je su s’ m inistry o f healings o r his teach in g has com e to an en d . B oth in d e e d c o n tin u e, b u t n o lo n g er as th e m ain focus o f a tten tio n . F rom now o n th e focus is u p o n w hat is to befall Jesu s in Jeru salem . A lth o u g h Je su s’ d e a th has b e e n allu d e d to e a rlie r in th e G ospel (cf. 9:15; 12:40), in th e p re s e n t p e ric o p e it is first a n n o u n c e d openly as th e explicit in te n tio n o f Jesus. T his passage is thus n o less o f key im p o rta n c e in th e G ospel th a n th e p re c e d in g o n e. It can b e n o acc id e n t th a t th e a n n o u n c e m e n t o f Je su s’ im m in e n t d e a th is delayed u n til after P e te r’s b o ld confession at C aesarea P h ilip p i in th e im m ediately p re c e d in g p erico p e. It was im p o rta n t for Je su s’ identity as M essiah to be firm ly fixed in th e m inds o f th e disciples befo re they co u ld be to ld o f Je su s’ d e a th since th e d e a th co u ld well seem to ru le o u t such a conclusion. P e te r’s reactio n in th e p re se n t passage—w hich stands in such b o ld c o n trast to his praisew orthy confession in th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e — shows how in c o n g ru o u s h e re g a rd e d th e ideas. T his passage a n d even m o re so th e closely re la te d follow ing passage seem to c o n tra d ic t everything th a t raced th ro u g h th e disciples’ m inds w hen they th o u g h t o f th e presen ce o f the M essiah a n d th e daw ning o f th e m essianic age. T h e tu rn th e G ospel now takes will necessitate th e rad ical re d e fin in g o f categories fo r th e disciples. T h e narrative now inexorably m oves tow ard th e h e a rt o f th e story o f Jesus th e Christ. T h u s M artin K ahler was theologically co rre c t w hen h e describ ed th e Gospels as “passion narratives with e x te n d e d in tro d u c tio n s” (The So-Called HistoricalJesus and the Histone Biblical Christ [P hiladelphia: Fortress, 1964] 80, n. 11). B. M atthew h e re is d e p e n d e n t o n M ark 8:31-33 (cf. L uke 9:22). T h e changes M atthew m akes at th e b e g in n in g have th e effect o f establishing th e p erico p e as o n e o f p a rtic u la r im p o rtan ce. M atthew ’s own initial άπό τ ό τ ε , “fro m th a t tim e ,” inform s th e re a d e r th a t a m ajor tu rn in g p o in t in th e narrative has b e e n re a c h e d (cf. 4: 17). A m ong fu rth e r changes in v 21 (M ark 8:31), th e follow ing sh o u ld b e n o ted . M atthew adds ο Ιησούς, “Jesu s,” a n d το ΐς μ α θ η τα ΐς αύτοϋ, “to his disciples,” to em phasize th e significance o f th e passage. M atthew ’s δ ε ικ ν ύ ε ι, “to show ,” for M ark ’s δ ιδ ά σ κ ε ι, “to te a c h ,” is m o re a p p ro p ria te to th e n a tu re o f th e m aterial ab o u t to be revealed. M atthew substitutes th e sim ple αύτόρ, “h im ,” for M atthew ’s top vlöp το ν άρθρώπου, “th e Son o f M an ,” p ro b ab ly because th e title, o r even th e circum locution, seem s weak a n d anticlim actic after th e confession o f v 16. M atthew adds th e p h ra se ε ι ς Ιερ ο σ ό λ υ μ α άπελθεΐρ, “to go to Je ru sa le m ” (cf. 20: 18), a n d deletes M ark’s και άποδοκιμασθηραι, “a n d be re je c te d ,” probably because it seem ed r e d u n d a n t in th e context. M atthew is c o n te n t w ith o n e d efin ite article, των, “th e ,” fo r th e th re e g roups, “elders, c h ie f priests, a n d scribes,” th u s linking th em to g e th e r (as does L uke 9:22). Finally, in v 21 M atthew substitutes τη τρ ίτη ήμερα έγερθηρα ί , “o n th e th ird day to b e raised to life” (L uke 9:22 agrees w ith this ch ange, against M ark ), fo r M ark’s less accurate μ ε τ ά τ ρ ε ις η μ έρα ς άνα στηνα ι, “after th re e days to rise a g ain ,” prob ab ly reflecting th e m o re precise language u sed in th e kerygm a a n d liturgy o f th e c h u rc h (cf. 1C or 15:4, in clu d in g th e passive use o f th e v e rb ) . M atthew om its th e o p e n in g w ords o f M ark 8:32, καί παρρησία top λόγορ έλ ά λ ει , “a n d with boldness h e was speaking th e w o rd ,” probably because th e boldness seem ed self-

478

Ma t t h e w 16:21-23

evident. M atthew , ex p a n d in g M ark’s m ere re fe re n ce to P e te r’s re p ro o f o f Jesus, supplies th e c o n te n t o f th e re p ro o f w ith th e a d d e d d ire c t discourse: λ έ γ ω ν ϊλεώ ς σοι, κ ύ ρ ιε 'ο ύ μ ή ε σ τα ι σοι το ύ το , “G od be g racious to you, L ord; this will in n o wise h a p p e n to y o u ” (v 22). In v 23 M atthew om its M ark’s cu rious n o te καί ίδών το ύ ς μ α θ η τά ς αυτού, “a n d looking a t his disciples” (M ark 8:33), w ith th e resu lt th a t th e focus rem ain s o n P eter. M atthew fu rth e r softens M ark’s έ π ιτίμ η σ ε ν , “h e re b u k e d ” (P e te r), to εΐπ εν, “h e said .” Finally to b e n o te d is M atthew ’s a d d itio n o f th e clause σ κά νδα λονεΐ εμού, “you are a cause o f stu m b lin g to m e ,” w hich sh arp en s th e already sh arp re b u k e o f P eter. T h u s in this passage M atthew again follows M ark q u ite closely, w ith only a co u p le o f om issions o f M arkan m aterial a n d w ith a n u m b e r o f significant ad d itio n s d esig n ed to h ig h lig h t th e passage a n d to h e lp th e re a d e r w ith fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n at im p o rta n t points. C. T h e stru c tu re o f this b rie f p e ric o p e can b e seen in this sim ple o u tlin e : (1) a n n o u n c e m e n t o f th e divinely w illed necessity o f J e s u s ’ su fferin g a n d d e a th ( v 21); (2) P e te r’s re p ro o f o f Jesus (v 22); a n d (3) Je su s’ reb u k e o f P e te r (v 23). T h e m ost in terestin g syntactic featu re is w ith o u t q u estio n th a t o f v 21, w here α ύ τό ν, “h e, ” is th e subject o f fo u r parallel infinitives, άπελθεΐν, “go, ” παθεΐν, “suffer, ” άποκτανθηναι, “b e p u t to d e a th ,” a n d έγερθήναι, “b e raised to life”— all o f w hich to g e th e r serve as th e subject c o n tro lle d by th e single verb δ ε ι, “it is necessary,” th u s p o in tin g to divine necessity. T h re e o f th e infinitives have m od ifiers (only άποκτανθηναι, “to b e p u t to d e a th ,” does n o t), a n d παθεΐν is m o d ified by th e th re e fo ld πρεσβυτέρω ν καί άρχιερέω ν καί γρα μμ α τέω ν ( “eld ers a n d c h ie f priests a n d scribes”) . O th e r syntactic parallelism s to b e n o te d are: th e p arallel clauses in P e te r’s re p ro o f (th e first positive, ιλεώ ς σ ο ι, “G od b e gracious to y o u ”; th e seco n d strongly negative, ού μ ή εσ τα ι σοι το ύ το , “this will in n o wise h a p p e n to y o u ” [v 22]) a n d th e parallelism in Je su s’ reb u k e: τά τού θεού, “th e th in g s o f G o d ,” a n d τά τώνάνθρώπων, “th e things o f h u m a n b e in g s” (v 23). T h e c o n tra st b etw een th e two vocatives, κύριε, “L o rd ” (v 22), a n d σ α τα νά , “S atan ” (v 23), is striking. D. This is the first o f three predictions (all ofw hich are fo u n d also in M ark a n d Luke) o f th e suffering a n d d eath o f Jesus (cf. 17:22-23; 20:17-19; cf. 26:2). M atthew d ep en d s o n M ark for all three. O f these, the second is th e shortest while the th ird is th e m ost detailed. C om m on to all th ree are the essential elem ents o f being killed (in th e third, crucified explicitly) a n d being raised o n th e th ird day. Thus, in the passion predictions ofjesu s, we have th e two elem ents th at are o f key im portance in th e kerygm a o f th e early ch u rch (as witnessed in 1 C or 15:3-8; cf. the serm ons in the book o f Acts). This does n o t necessarily m ean th at the historical Jesus could n o t have predicted his own suffering a n d death, an d even his resurrection (see the discussion in Davies-Allison, 2:657-61). O f the th ree passion predictions, the o n e th at m ost bears th e detailed m arks o f being w ritten with the events already in m ind (vaticinia ex eventu) is the third. T h at Jesus’ predictions in these passages line u p with the kerygm a o f the ch u rch is n o t sufficient reason to reject the possibility o f th eir authenticity, o r at least o f an authentic core. A variety o f scripture passages were available to Jesus in u n d erstan d in g w hat lay ahead (e.g., Pss 22; 118:17-18, 22; Isa 53; D an 7; 12; Wis 3). Comment 21 T h e o p e n in g words, άπό τ ό τ ε ήρξατο ό Ί ησούς, “from th at tim e Jesus b e g an ,” re p e a t verbatim th e form ula o f 4:17, thus b ringing th e read ers to th e second m ain

Comment

479

stage o f th e e n tire Gospel narrative, which, as this verse announces, will focus o n the d eath o f Jesus. Im m ediately following th e triu m p h a n t an n o u n c e m e n t o f P eter th at Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus begins “to show” {δεικνύειν; th e verb occurs elsew here in M atthew only in 4:8 a n d 8:4), i.e., to m ake vividly clear, to his disciples som ething th a t at this p o in t is m ysterious a n d com pletely o u t o f th e ir purview. B ut as u n th in k ab le as it w ould seem , w hat Jesus now says will h a p p e n to him is a m atter o f divine necessity (to be distinguished from th e b lin d fate o f th e G reek w orld). T h e verb δεΐ, “it is necessary,” points to n o th in g less th an th e will o f G od (cf. th e use o f δει in co n n ectio n with th e passion a n d th e fulfilling o f scripture in 26:54; cf. Luke 24:26-27). It is thus th e com pulsion o f G o d ’s will th a t lies b e h in d th e following fo u r infinitives, w hich are to g eth er syntactically governed by δεΐ. T h e first o f these is ε ις Ιεροσόλυμα όπελθεΐν, “to go to jeru salem .” This elem en t is also p a rt o f th e th ird passion prediction (20:18). T h e narrative c o n cern in g th e m inistry o f Jesus is to find its clim ax in th e Holy City itself in a final a n d fateful co n fro n tatio n with th e Jew ish leadership (on the association o f Jerusalem with th e d eath o f pro p h ets, see 23:37 a n d Luke 13:33). T h e seco n d infinitive clause, πολλά παθεΐν, “to suffer m any th in g s,” refers generally (cf. too 17:12) to w hat will befall Jesus in Jeru salem , so m eth in g d escribed m o re fully in th e th ird passion p re d ic tio n (in 20:19). T h e th re e groups m e n tio n e d as responsible fo r w hat Jesu s will suffer, των πρεσβυτέρω ν καί άρχιερέω ν καί γρα μμ ατέω ν, “th e eld ers a n d c h ie f priests a n d scribes,” ap p a re n tly re p re se n t th e lead ersh ip o f Israel (w hich m ay a c c o u n t fo r th e single article for th e th r e e ) . T h e elders w ere those w hose age, ex p erien ce, a n d piety acco rd ed to th em th e res p o n sibilities o f lead ersh ip . T h e c h ie f priests w ere th e in te rm e d ia te h ierarch y betw een th e single h ig h priest, th e p resid in g officer o f th e S a n h e d rin (see 26:62-68), a n d th e p rie sth o o d generally (for th e ch ie f priests a n d th e S an h ed rin , see 26:59). T h e scribes w ere th e professional T o rah scholars (cf. 2:4 a n d see Comment o n 13:52). T h e th re e are m e n tio n e d to g e th e r again only in 27:41 (th o u g h in a d iffe re n t o rd e r, i.e., 2, 3, 1), w hich reco rd s th e p artial fulfillm ent o f th e p re se n t p red ictio n (cf. 26:57, w here th e scribes a n d elders are m e n tio n e d to g e th e r w ith th e h ig h priest, C aiap h as). M ost com m only lin k ed in th e passion n arrative itself are th e high priests an d eld ers (cf. 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20; 28:11-12; o u tsid e th e passion n arrative, cf. 21:23). T h e c h ie f priests a n d scribes are lin k ed only in 2:4; in th e th ird passion p red ic tio n , 20:18; a n d in 21:15. T h e th ird infinitive stands u n m o d ified , άποκτανθηναί, “to be p u t to d e a th ,” posing at o n ce th e su p rem e m ystery o f this M essiah a n d an a p p a re n t co n trad ictio n o f w hat th e disciples h a d finally confessed openly in th e p re c e d in g perico p e. T h e sam e verb is u sed in th e seco n d passion p red ictio n (17:23; cf. its use in 14:5; 21:3839; 26:4), w hile th e m o re specific σταυροϋν, “crucify,” is u sed in th e th ird p red ictio n (20:19; cf. its use in 26:?; 27:22-44). T h e fo u rth infinitive g ov ern ed by δ εΐ is u sed in th e clause τη τρ ίτη ημέρα έγερθ ήνα ί, “to b e raised to life o n th e th ird day.” T h e sam e verb (also passive in form , reflectin g divine agency) in th e sam e p h rase is fo u n d in th e second a n d th ird passion p re d ic tio n s (17:23; 20:19; cf. 27:63; 26:32). T hese p red ictio n s fin d th e ir fulfillm en t in 28:1, 6, a n d this affirm ation in tu rn becom es th e cen tral e le m e n t o f th e kerygm a o f th e early c h u rc h (cf. 1 C or 15:4; Acts 2:23-24; 3:15; 4:10, e tc .). T h e related referen ce “th re e days” is fo u n d in 12:40 (to g e th e r with “th re e n ig h ts”) in c o n n ectio n w ith th e sign o f J o n a h a n d in 26:61 a n d 27:40 in co n n ectio n w ith th e m e ta p h o r o f destroying th e tem p le a n d reb u ild in g it in th re e days (cf. John 2:19-

480

Ma t t h e w 16:21-23

22). A fu rth e r possible b a c k g ro u n d to th e p re d ic tio n “o n th e th ird day” is in H os 6:2. “O n th e th ird day” req u ires inclusive reck o n in g (F rid ay -S u n d ay ). T h u s at this m ajor tu rn in g p o in t in th e G ospel, Jesus th ro u g h his p re d ic tio n provides w hat am o u n ts to a p ro g ram m atic p ro sp e c t o f w hat lies a h e a d , d e te rm in e d already in th e will o f G od. 22 Je su s’ sta te m e n t was fully in c o m p reh en sib le to P eter. In n o way d id th e m essianic identity o f Jesus fit th e p ro g ra m now laid o u t by Jesus. T o P e te r a n d th e o th e r disciples w hat Jesus now b eg an to say to th em seem ed flatly co n trad icto ry o f th e ir confession o f him as M essiah (cf. 1 C or 1:23) a n d his u n q u alified a ccep tan ce o f th a t confession. P e te r accordingly to o k Jesu s aside to reprove him . T his was q u ite a rem ark ab le act in itself, given P e te r’s confession o f Jesus as M essiah a n d th a t h e ad dresses Jesus as κύριε, “L o rd ,” b u t it is also in d ire c t evidence th a t fo r P e te r th e deity o f Jesus was hardly yet clear despite his confession. P e te r’s sta te m e n t falls in to two parts. T h e first ϊλεώ ς σοι, is an ab breviated fo rm o f εΐη ό θεός ΐλεώ ς σοι, “May G od b e gracious to y o u ,” w hich in th e c o n te x t m ean s so m eth in g like “May G od m ercifully spare you th is” (BAGD, 376a). B ut cf. BDF §128(5), w hich m o re convincingly takes th e clause as “a S e p tu ag in tism ” m e a n in g m o re directly “far be it fro m ,” th u s m akin g it synonym ous w ith th e seco n d clause (for this use o f ϊλεω ς in th e LXX, see 2 Kgdm s 20:20; 23:17 [= 1 C h r 11:19]; 2 M acc 2:21). T his is follow ed by a very stro n g n eg atio n (th e d o u b le negative, ούμή) o f th e possibility o f th e things ju s t m e n tio n e d by Jesus: ο ύ μ ή εσ τα ι σοι το ύ το , “this will in n o wise h a p p e n to y o u .” P e te r’s c o n fid en ce in this resp o n se d e p e n d s u p o n his faulty c o n c e p t o f th e n a tu re o f th e M essiah a n d his work. H e has yet to u n d e rs ta n d th a t G od has w illed a n o th e r p a th fo r th e M essiah. 23 A lth o u g h n o n e o f th e evangelists tells us o f P e te r’s reactio n to this h a rsh re sp o n se o f Jesus, it is obvious th a t h e w ould have b e e n b ew ild ered a n d cru sh ed . In o p p o sin g th e d e a th o f Jesus, P e te r was g o in g against th e will o f G od a n d h a d unw ittingly taken a position id entical w ith th a t o f Satan, w ho early o n in M atthew ’s narrativ e h a d a tte m p te d to sidetrack Jesu s fro m his F a th e r’s will (see 4 :1-11). F or this reaso n , Jesu s speaks to P e te r ad d ressin g h im as “S a ta n ”; it is as th o u g h P e te r’s resp o n se w ere in sp ired by Satan. Je su s’ reb u k e, ύ π α γε όπίσω μ ο υ, σ α τα ν ά ,"“g et b e h in d m e, S atan ,” is th u s alm ost exactly th e sam e as th a t o f 4:10 (w here only th e όπίσω μου, “b e h in d m e ,” is m issin g ). P eter, “th e ro c k ” (v 17), h a d b eco m e in effect a sto n e o f offense o r a “ro ck o f stu m b lin g ” (Isa 8:14) to Jesu s (as je s u s h im self w ould b eco m e to o th e rs [cf. R om 9:33; 1 P e te r 2 :6 -8 ]), a σκάνδαλον, a “stum bling b lo ck ” (cf. th e co g n ate verb in 11:6 ), in th e p a th to th e acco m p lish m en t o f G o d ’s will (for p arallel testings of je s u s alo n g this line, see 26:36-46, b u t especially 27:40-44). T h e co m m a n d to g e t “b e h in d m e ” (όπίσω μου) refers to th e clearin g o f Je su s’ p a th by th e rem oval o f an obstacle (a n d p e rh a p s h in ts at th e p ro p e r place fo r a disciple follow ing Jesus; cf. esp. v 24; a n d 4:19; 10:38). T h e essence o f P e te r’s m istake was setting his m in d u p o n τά τω ν άνθρώπων, “th e thin gs o f h u m a n b ein g s,” ra th e r th a n u p o n τά το ύ θεού, “th e thin g s o f G o d ” {a very sim ilar p o in t is m a d e in th e im perative, using th e sam e verb, φρονεΐν, in Col 3:2). P e te r’s focus, like th a t o f th e o th e r disciples (cf. 20:21), was o n th e triu m p h a n t aspects o f th e M essiah a n d th e m essianic kin g d o m . B ut if P e te r w ould set his m in d o n th e will o f G od, h e n e e d e d to m ake ro o m fo r th e necessity o f th e suffering a n d d e a th of je su s. A nd as they n e x t will b e told, th e disciples m u st face th a t reality in th e ir own lives.

Notes

481

Explanation If the Messiah was present am ong his people an d the messianic kingdom was already beginning with the prom ise that its full realization lay in the n ear future, then the line betw een prom ise an d fulfillm ent seem ed simple an d direct. Given such a schem e, dom inated by Israel’s national-political hope, it is n o surprise that the disciples were baffled by Jesus’ som ber an n ouncem ent, which seem ed n o t so m uch a serious d e to u r as a b latant contradiction o f th eir hopes (cf. Luke 24:21). Lacking in the disciples’ perspective was a sense o f the gravity o f sin a n d thus o f the necessity o f the cross as the in strum ental m eans to the very possibility o f the experience o f the kingdom . Jesus’ purpose was far greater than the blessing o f Israel with the establishm en t o f political indep en d en ce an d the experience o f m aterial blessing. His purpose was to counteract the effects o f sin universally (cf. Gal 3:13) an d thus to deliver h u manity from a far g reater enem y th an the R om an oppressors. It is this purpose that makes the work o f Jesus the tu rn in g p o in t o f the ages an d th at controls Jesus in the accom plishm ent o f G od’s will. It is this th at drives him to the cross (20:28).

The P ath o f D iscipleship

(16:24-28)

Bibliography

Chilton, B. D. ‘“Not to Taste Death’: A Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Usage.” In Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. 2:29-36. Dautzenberg, G. Sein Leben bewahren. SANT 14. Munich: Kösel, 1966. 68-82. Fletcher, D. R. “Condemned to Die: The Logion on Cross-Bearing: What Does it Mean?” In t 18 (1964) 156-64. Künzi, M. Das Naherwartungslogion M arkus 9,1 par.: Geschichte seiner Auslegung. BGBE 21. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977. Riesenfeld, H. “The Meaning of the Verb άρνβΐσθαι..” C onNT 11 (1947) 20719. Satake, A. “Das Leiden der Jünger ‘um meinetwillen.”’ Z N W 6 7 (1976) 4-19. Translation 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: “I f a n y a desire to come after me, they must practice self-denialh and take their cross and keep following me. 25For those who want to preserve their livesc will lose them; but those who lose their lives on my account will fin d them. 26For what w illd any profit i f they should gain the whole world but lose their lives? Or what will people give in exchange fo r their lives? 27For the Son o f M an is about to come in the glory o f his Father with his angels, and then he will render to all according to what they have done.e 28 Truly I tell you: There are some standing here who will by no means dief before they see the Son o f M an coming in his kingdom.” Notes aVv 24-27, originally in the sing, (e.g., “anyone . . . his [her] recast in the pi. to avoid the masc. pronouns.

“whoever . . . his [her] ”), have been

482

Ma t t h e w 16:24-28

bάπαρνησάσθω έαντόν, lit. “let him deny himself [herself].” c ψνχή, lit. “soul,” but here in the Hebraic sense of life animating the body. dSome witnesses (C D W T R lat) have the present tense ώφελεΐται, “does (profit).” e τήν πραξιν αυτόν, lit. “his [her] deed.” Some MSS (K* f1it vgcl syc,p,h co) have τά έργα αϋτοϋ, “his [her] works,” thus harmonizing with Ps 61:13(LXX). f γεύσωνται θανάτου, lit. “taste of death.”

Form /Structure/Setting A. Jesu s now c o n fro n ts his disciples w ith w hat m u st have b e e n yet a fu rth e r u n se ttlin g revelation. T ru e discipleship m u st en tail a read in ess to accep t a p a th o f self-denial a n d even m artyrdom . T his is a m o tif th a t has b e e n b ro a c h e d earlier in th e G ospel (cf. 10:17-28), a n d in d e e d 10:38-39 c o rresp o n d s closely to vv 24-25. Yet w ith th e p re se n t passage p re c e d e d by th e ja rrin g a n n o u n c e m e n t o f th e necessity o f Je su s’ im m in e n t suffering a n d d e a th , th e sayings h e re lose th e ir th e o re tic a l ch a ra c te r a n d so u n d p ro p o rtio n a te ly m o re o m in ous. If th e slave is n o t above th e m aster a n d may th u s ex p ect sim ilar tre a tm e n t (10:24-25), th e disciples are h e re c o n fro n te d vividly w ith th e cost o f discipleship. B. In this trip le trad itio n passage M atthew d e p e n d s as usual o n M ark (M ark 8 :3 4 9:1; cf. L uke 9:2 3 -27). M atthew d eletes M ark’s o p e n in g w ords “a n d calling th e crow d to g e th e r,” th ereb y restrictin g th e passage to th e h e a rin g o f th e disciples. M atthew begins in stead w ith th e o p e n in g τ ό τ ε ό ’Ι ησούς, “th e n Je su s.” T h e d o m in ical logion th a t follows (i.e., vv 24-25) is in verbatim a g re e m e n t w ith M ark e x ce p t fo r th e follow ing changes.

Matthew’s έλθεΐν, “come,” takes the place of Mark’s άκολουθειν, “follow” (Mark 8:34; cf. ερχεσθαι, “come,”in Luke 9:23); the more proper subjunctive, άπολέση, “lose” (so too Luke 9:24), is used for Mark’s άπολέσει, “lose” (Mark 8:35); Matthew (so too Luke 9:24) omits Mark’s καί τού ευαγγελίου, “and the gospel’s” (Mark 8:35), thereby focusing more on Jesus; and he substitutes εύρήσει, “will find” (thus breaking the symmetrical parallelism; cf. 10:39), for Mark’s σώσει, “will save” (Mark 8:35). Matthew revises the syntax of the next logion (v 26), making use of the future rather than the present tense, but still closely follows the Markan vocabulary. The following logion, Mark 8:38a-b (“whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed o f”) is omitted by Matthew, probably because it is seen as a digression (a similar logion has already been given in 10:33). Matthew takes the final part of the same logion (the subordinate clause “when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels”) and makes an independent statement of it (using μέλλει, “about to,” and omitting the modifier των άγιων, “holy,”with άγγέλων, “angels”), adding an OT quotation concerningjudgment (v 27; Ps 62:12). V 28 omits Mark’s opening “and he said to them” (Mark 9:1), thereby attaching this final logion more closely to the preceding passage. O therw ise, M atthew in this logion follows M ark very closely ex cep t in th e final o b ject clause follow ing ϊδωσιν, “they see,” w here fo r M ark’s τη ν β α σ ιλ εία ν το ν Θεού έληλνθϋίαν ε ν δυνάμει, “th e k in g d o m o f G o d having co m e in pow er” (M ark 9:1), h e has th e m o re specific το ν υιόν το ν άνθρωπον ερχόμενον ε ν τη β α σ ιλεία αντον, “th e Son o f M an co m in g in his k in g d o m ” (cf. in Luke 9:27, th e sim ple τη ν β α σ ιλεία ν το ν Θεού, “th e kin g d o m o f G o d ”) . In this p erico p e, M atthew has th u s follow ed M ark very closely b u t a t th e sam e tim e has p u t his own stam p u p o n th e m aterial. C. T h e passage consists o f an initial m ain saying (v 24), follow ed by th re e

Comment

483

su p p o rtin g logia re m in isc e n t o f w isdom sayings (vv 25, 26, 27, each w ith an initial post-positive γάρ, “fo r”) . V 28 fu n ctio n s as a stress o n th e im m in e n c e o f th e com ing o f th e Son o f M an re fe rre d to in v 27. T h e follow ing o u tlin e m ay b e suggested: (1) th e m ain co n d itio n o f discipleship (v 24); (2) a p aradoxical p rin cip le (v 25); (3) th e su p re m e value o f life (v26); (4) th e reality o f th e p aro u sia a n d fu tu re ju d g m e n t (v 27); a n d (5) th e im m in en ce o f th e p a ro u sia (v 28). Som e parallelism is fo u n d in each o f th e first th re e logia. T h u s v 24 has th re e p arallel th ird -p erso n im peratives; v 25 consists o f two structurally parallel sen ten ces (th e εύρήσει, “will fin d ,” in th e secon d m ain clause b reak s th e exact verbal parallelism o f M ark’s σώ σει, V ill save” (p erh a p s th ro u g h th e in flu en ce o f th e sim ilar saying in 10:39); a n d in v 26 th e re is syntactic parallelism in th e two m ain p arts (in tro d u c e d by τί, “w h at”) as well as in th e c o n tra st in th e su b o rd in a te clause b etw een το ν κόσμον δλον κερδήση, “gain th e w hole w orld,” a n d τη ν δε ψ υχήν αύτοϋ ζημιωθη, “b u t lose his life.” Finally to be n o te d are th e parallel referen ces to th e co m in g o f th e Son o f M an in vv 27 a n d 28. T h e M arkan p e rico p e co ntains m ost o f th e parallelism (w hich is a p a rt o f th e Jesus trad itio n itself in its o ral fo rm ), w hich is th e n tak en over a n d im proved by M atthew. D. T h e exact relatio n sh ip betw een th e sim ilar sayings in 10:38-39, also addressed to th e disciples, a n d w 24-25 is difficult to establish (cf. too Luke 17:33). W e may well have h e re variants o f th e sam e saying, th e fo rm e r com ing to M atthew via Q a n d utilized in th e free com position o f th e discourse in chap. 10 (thereby also acco u n tin g for th e ir anach ro n istic c h aracter th e r e ) , th e la tte r via M ark. O n the o th e r h a n d , it is n o t a t all im possible th a t very sim ilar sayings a b o u t th e essence o f discipleship may have b e e n u tte re d by Jesu s o n d iffe re n t occasions. J o h n 12:25 provides a saying sim ilar to v 25, b u t it is obviously given w ith a clearly J o h a n n in e im p rin t. M atthew ’s u n iq u e citatio n o f th e O T in v 27b is probably allu d ed to in 2 Clem. 11:6. Ju stin M artyr pro b ab ly alludes to v 26 in Apol. 1.15.12 (in th e co n tex t o f a m o n tag e o f M atth ean allu sio n s). Comment 24 T h e initial, typically M atth ean , τ ό τ ε , “th e n ,” in this case links this p erico p e closely with th e p re c e d in g on e. Jesu s now p ro ceed s to in stru ct his disciples a n d th ro u g h th e m th e c h u rc h (note: “if any”) in a discipleship p a tte rn e d o n his own self-denial a n d suffering. T h e disciple m u st b e m o d e le d o n th e exam ple o f th e m aster (cf. 10:24-25). D iscipleship involves a d elib erate decision to follow je su s by denying self a n d p u ttin g o n e ’s life o n th e line, taking u p o n e ’s cross (cf. th e L ukan ad d itio n κ α θ ’ήμέραν, “daily” [L uke 9:23]). έλθεΐν, “to co m e ,” is used referrin g to discipleship only h e re in M atthew ( b u t cf. 4:19, δ ε ύ τ ε , “c o m e ”) . H e re th e self-denial (άπαρνησάσθω, in M atthew only h e re ) is a prelim in ary to th e cen tral im perative to “take u p o n e ’s cross” (άράτω το ν στα υρόν αύτοϋ; cf. 10:38, w h ere how ever th e verb is λα μ βά νει, “ta k e ”). T h e latter m e ta p h o r does n o t m e a n b e a rin g u p u n d e r som e difficulty o r m alady in life b u t a d elib erate dying to o n e se lf (a p o in t co n firm ed by th e follow ing verses). T o deny o n eself—in d e e d to die to o n e se lf—this is w hat it m eans to “follow ” Jesu s (άκολουθείτω; see Comment o n 4:20 fo r th e im p o rta n c e o f this w ord fo r M atthew ). In c o n tra st to th e p re c e d in g aorist im peratives, this verb is in th e p re se n t tense, suggesting th e o n g o in g p ractice o f following. T h u s th e revelation o f Je su s’ own im m in e n t suffering a n d d e a th in th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e is now seen to b e full o f significance fo r th e disciples them selves.

484

Ma t t h e w 16:24-28

25 T h e first reason (yap, “fo r”) fo r this d e a th to self is p re s e n te d in th e artic u latio n o f th e p aradoxical p rin cip le th a t th e a tte m p t to preserve o n e ’s life (σώσαι, lit. “save,” is to be u n d e rsto o d in this sense) results in th e loss o f it (eben, “sto n e ,” o r m o re probably because it sum s u p th e w hole o f th e p re c e d in g clause (th e fem in in e serves as th e p ro n o u n fo r th e g e n e ra l statem en t; cf. BDF §138 [2 ]). Follow ing its use by Jesus, th e early C hristian fo u n d in this cryptic p ro v erb c o n c e rn in g th e re je c te d stone th a t was m ad e th e m ost im p o rta n t o n e a p e rfe c t analogy to th e rejectio n a n d ex altatio n o f C hrist (o n th e v in d icatio n th em e, see Bayer, 9 0 -1 0 9 ). T his o d d tu rn o f events was in d e e d παρά κυρίου, “from th e L o rd ,” a n d som ething Θαυμαστή, “m arv elous,” to b e h o ld . It was in this stran g e way th a t G od b ro u g h t salvation to his p e o p le (see F eld m e ie r). T h e c o n te x t o f this m aterial in Ps 118 is o n e o f salvation (Ps 118:25-26 is q u o te d by M atthew, follow ing M ark, in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e e n try in to Je ru sa le m in v 9). It is possible, th o u g h far fro m certain , th a t th e O T citatio n was a p a rt o f th e o rig in al p arab le u tte re d by Jesu s (in favor o f this co n clu sion, see Snodgrass, Parable; Kim; against it, see F e ld m e ie r).

Comment

623

43 T h e διά το ύ το , “o n ac c o u n t o f th is,” refers back n o t to th e im m ediately p re c e d in g q u o ta tio n b u t to th e parab le itself. T h a t is, because o f th e ir rejectio n o f th e Son sen t by th e Father, ju s t as th e vineyard was let o u t to o th e r ten an ts w ho w ould h a n d over th e fru it o f th e vineyard, so will ή β α σ ιλεία το ν θεόν, “th e kingd o m o f G o d ” (see Comment o n 12:28 fo r this expression in M atthew ), be taken away fro m th e Jew ish lead ers a n d given έθνει ποιοϋντι το ύ ς καρπούς α ύτή ς, “to a p eo p le p ro d u c in g th e fru it o f it [i.e., th e k in g d o m ].” T h e verbs h e re are “divine passives,” reflectin g G od as th e acting subject. T his setting aside o f th e privilege o f Israel as th e u n iq u e p e o p le o f G od in favor o f a n o th e r p eo p le, namely, th e c h u rc h (pace Snodgrass, Parable), is o f course n o th in g sh o rt o f revolutionary. T h e singular έθνος, w hich m ean s “p e o p le ” o r “n a tio n ,” inevitably alludes to th e eventual m ission to th e G entiles, th e έθνοι, p lu ra l o f th e sam e w ord (cf. 12:21; 24:14; 28:19). T h e w ord in th e singular h e re n e e d n o t b e th o u g h t o f as excluding Jews, however, since th e new n atio n , th e c h u rc h (cf. 16:18), consists o f b o th Jews a n d G entiles (an d Jews are in clu d ed in 28:19). M atthew ’s c h u rch , after all, consists mainly, if n o t exclusively, o f Jew ish C hristians. To be sure, as several have p o in te d o u t (e.g., H a rrin g to n ), it is n o t necessary to in te rp re t th e έθνος as m ean in g th e ch u rch . B ut given th e total c o n te x t o f th e G ospel, this is th e m ost n a tu ra l in terp re ta tio n o f th e passage (see G ru n d m a n n ). T h e singular fo rm o f th e w ord is ap p lie d to th e c h u rc h in 1 P e te r 2:9 (also in th e c o n te x t o f th e “sto n e ” passages). T h e em phasis o n this new g ro u p p ro d u c in g th e a p p ro p ria te fru it (cf. v 41) is th o ro u g h ly c o n so n a n t with M atthew ’s fre q u e n t stress o n th e righteousness o f th e k in g d o m (e.g., 5:20; 6:33) th a t Jesus em b o d ies a n d brings. T h e new p e o p le o f G od have a sim ilar responsibility to live in th e righteousness o f th e law (as in terp re te d by Je su s). [44] T his o b scu re proverb-like logion, if a u th e n tic h e re (see Note h ab ove), re tu rn s to th e “sto n e ” m o tif o f v 42. As it stands in th e p re se n t context, it ap p ears to fu n ctio n as w arnin g o f th e ju d g m e n t (so m eth in g n o t m e n tio n e d in v 43) th a t will com e u p o n Israel fo r h e r rejectio n o f th e Son. Snodgrass ap p ro p riately suggests th a t th e p a ra b le s h o u ld b e n a m e d “T h e P a ra b le o f th e R ejected S o n ” (Parable, 109). T h e first p a rt o f th e saying (πεσώ ν επ ί το ν λίθον, “falling o n th e sto n e ”) probably alludes to th e “stone o f th e stu m b lin g ” o f Isa 8:14-15, w hereas th e second half, w here th e stone falls u p o n a n d cru sh es a perso n , may be based o n D an 2:34-35, 44-45. H ere it is th e rejected stone— now th e c o rn e rsto n e (Ps 118:22 in v 42)—w ho becom es to those w ho have rejected h im e ith e r th e stone o f stu m b lin g o r th e sto n e th a t crushes, in b o th cases b rin g in g ru in to them . T his so b er ju d g m e n t oracle may thus b e th o u g h t o f n o t as o u t o f place b u t as supplem e n tin g v 43, w h ich sp o k e o nly o f th e k in g d o m b e in g ta k e n away, a n d as c o rre sp o n d in g to th e ju d g m e n t re fe rre d to in v 41. 45-4 6 M atthew reco rd s th e response o f “th e c h ie f priests a n d th e P h arisees” (οι ά ρ χ ιερ εις καί οί φαρισαΐοί; th e only o th e r linking o f these two gro u p s in M atthew is in 27:62), w ho h e a rd th e parab les (i.e., fro m v 28 to v 44) a n d realized th a t they h a d b e e n d ire c te d against th e m (περί αύτών, “c o n c e rn in g th e m ”). T h e last m e n tio n o f addressees was in vv 23-24, w here th e ch ie f priests w ere lin k ed w ith “th e elders o f th e p e o p le .” T h e re fe re n ce to th e Pharisees (only in M atthew ) seem s to have b e e n a d d e d to intensify th e ir culpability as th e religious leaders o f the Jew ish p eople. T h e self-recognition shows th e effectiveness o f th e parables as

624

Ma t t h e w 22 : 1-14

a m ean s o f disclosure. T h e d esire o f these Jew ish leaders to seize Jesus is th w arted only by th e ir fear o f th e crow ds because they h e ld Jesus β ίς προφήτην, “to be a p r o p h e t.” T his deliberately parallels th e sta te m e n t o f v 26, w here they sim ilarly fe a re d th e crow d because they h e ld J o h n th e B aptist to be a p ro p h e t (cf. 14:5). A lth o u g h th e crow ds w ere w rong in th e ir evaluation o f Jesus (cf. v 11; 16:14; a n d o f J o h n too, cf. 11:9-10), th e ir conviction was e n o u g h to d e te r th e a u th o rities, at least fo r th e m o m en t, in th e ir evil designs (th e reason becom es clear in 26:5). T h e events re la te d in this chapter, a n d h e re at th e e n d o f it, provide th e backg ro u n d fo r th e escalation o f th e c o n fro n ta tio n in th e follow ing chapters. Explanation As in th e p arab les o n e ith e r side o f this o n e, th e em phasis h e re again falls on th e unrecep tiv ity o f th e Jews a n d in p a rtic u la r u p o n th e Jew ish religious establish m en t. T his is h e ig h te n e d by th e m o tif o f th e rejectio n a n d m u rd e r o f th e servants a n d finally th e son. H e re th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e b etw een th e story o f th e p arab le a n d th e historical rejectio n o f th e p ro p h e ts a n d th e Son o f G od is n o th ing less th a n rem arkable. T h e referen ce to th e killing o f th e son (v 39) a n d th e rejec tio n o f th e sto n e (v 42) b eco m e in effect fu rth e r p ro p h e c ie s o f w hat is to befall th e Son (cf. 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19). W h at is m ost astonishing, however, is th e salvation-historical perspective c o n ta in e d in th e re fe re n ce to th e tran sferrin g o f th e vineyard from th e original ten an ts to new ones— spelled o u t specifically as th e tran sferen ce o f th e kin g d o m o f G od to a new p eo p le (v 43). F or M atthew ’s C hristian-Jew ish readers, this served to explain b o th th e p re se n t futility o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry Ju d a ism o f th e synagogue a n d th e e m e rg e n c e o f th e new entity, largely b u t n o t exclusively G entile in com position, th e c h u rch . Finally d e te rm inative fo r this sequ en ce o f events was th e resp o n se given to th e Son sen t by th e Father. T hose w ho reject th e Son, w ho has b eco m e th e c o rn e rsto n e o f th e new reality o f th e c h u rc h , w hich becom es in effect th e new Israel, fo rfeit th e ir favored p o sitio n a n d b rin g them selves in to ju d g m e n t (v 44), w hile those w ho receive th e Son receive w ith h im th e blessed reality o f th e now -daw ning k in g d o m o f G od (for th e decisive im p o rtan ce o f relatio n to th e Son, cf. 10:32-33). T h e n , as now, re latio n sh ip to Jesu s is finally w hat m atters.

The Parable o f the W edding B anquet

(22:1 -1 4 )

Bibliography

Ballard, P. “Reasons for Refusing the Great Supper. ” J T S 23 (1972) 341-50. Beare, F. W. “The Parable of the Guests at the Banquet: A Sketch of the History of Its Interpretation.” In The Joy o f Study: Papers on the New Testament and Related Subjects. FS F. C. Grant, ed. S. E. Johnson. New York: Macmillan, 1951. 1-7. Bergen, P. van. “La parabole des invites qui se derobent.” Lum Vie 49 (1960) 1-9. Boissard, E. “Many Are Called, Few Are Chosen.” TD 3 (1955) 46-50. Cripps, K. R. J. “A Note on Matthew xxii. 12.” E xpTim 69 (1957-58) 30.

Bibliography

625

Dawson, W. S. “The Gate Crasher.” ExpTim 85 (1974) 304-6. D errett, J. D. M. “The Par-

able of the Great Supper.” In Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970. 126-55. D schulnigg, P. “Positionen des Gleichnisverständnisse im 20. Jahrhundert: Kurze Darstellung von fünf wichtigen Positionen der Gleichnistheorie (Jülicher, Jeremias, Weder, Arens, Harnisch).” TZ 45 (1989) 335-51. Eichholz, G. “Vom grossen Abendmahl (Luk. 14, 16-24) und von der königlichen Hochzeit (Matth. 22, 114).” In Gleichnisse der Evangelien. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1971. 126-47. Grimme, H. “Drei Evangelienberichte in neuer Auffassung: I. Mt 22,1 Iff; II. Jo 2,3; III. Mt 19,16ff.” TGl 34 (1942) 83-90. H aacker, K. “Das hochzeitliche Kleid von Mt 22,11-13 und ein palästinisches Märchen.” ZDPV 87 (1971) 895-97. H aenchen, E. “Das Gleichnis vom grossen Mahl.” In Die Bibel u n d wir: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. 2:135-55. H ahn, F. “Das Gleichnis von der Einladung zum Festmahl.” In Verborum Ventas. FS G. Stahlin, ed. O. Bocher and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970. 51-82. Hasler, V. “Die königliche Hochzeit, Matth. 22, 1-14.” T Z 18 (1962) 25-35. Lem cio, E. E. “The Parables of the Great Supper and the Wedding Feast: History, Redaction and Canon.” H B T 8 (1986) 1-26. Lewis, A. S. “Matthew xxii. 4.” ExpTim 24 (1912-13) 427. Linnemann, E. “Überlegungen zur Parabel vom grossen Abendmahl, Lc 14,15-24 Mt, 22 1-14.” Z N W 51 (1960) 246-55. Manns, F. “Une tradition rabbinique reinterprete dans l’evangile de Mt 22,1-10 et en Rm 11,30-32.” A nton 63 (1988) 416-26. M atura, T. “Les invites ä la noce royale (Mt 22, 1-14).” AsSeign 59 (1974) 16-27. M errim an, E. H . “Matthew xxii. 1-14.” ExpTim 66 (1954-55) 61. Meyer, B. E “Many (=A11) Are Called, but Few (=Not All) Are Chosen.” N T S 36 (1990) 89-97. Musurillo, H. “Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen.” TS 7 (1946) 583-89. N avone, J. “The Parable of the Banquet.” BiTod 1 (1964) 923-29. Pedersen, S. “Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu: Eine Analyse von Mt. 21, 33-46 par.; 22, 1-10 par.” S T 19 (1965) 117-88. Pesch, R., and Kratz, R. “Gleichnis vom grossen Gastmahl.” In So liest man synoptisch. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1978. 39-60. Pesch, W. “Berufene und Auserwählte: Homilie zu Matthäus 22,14.” B K 20 (1965) 16-18. Radi, W. “Zur Struktur der eschatologischen Gleichnisse Jesu.” 7TZ92 (1983) 122-33. Reicke, B. “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem.” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature , ed. D. E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 121-34. Rengstorf, K. H . “Die Stadt der Mörder (Mt 22,7).” In Judentum , Urchristentum, Kirche. FSJ. Jeremias, ed. W. Ehester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960. 106-29. Sanders, J. A. “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable.” In Essays in Old Testament Ethics. FSJ. P. Hyatt, ed. J. C. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. 245-71. Schlier, H . “The Call of God.” In The Relevance o f the New Testament. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968. 249-58. Schottroff, L. “Das Gleichnis vom grossen Gastmahl in der Logienquelle.” E v T 47 (1987) 192-211. Selbie, W. B. “The Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matthew xxii. 1-4).” ExpTim 37 (1925-26) 266-69. Sim, D. C. “The Man without the Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:11-13).” HeyJ 31 (1990) 165-78.———. “Matthew 22.13a and 1 Enoch 10.4a: A Case of Literary Dependence?”J S N T 47 (1992) 3-19. Suttcliffe, E. F. “Many Are Called but Few Are Chosen.” IT Q 28 (1961) 126-31. Swaeles, R. “L’orientation ecclesiastique de la parabole du festin nuptial en Mt., XXII, 1-14.”E T L 36 (1960) 655-84.------- .“La parabole du festin nuptial (Mt 2 2 ,1 -1 4 ).” AsSeign 74 (1963) 3 3 -4 9 . T rilling, W. “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Gleichnisse vom Hochzeitsmahl Mt 22, 1-14.” B Z 4 (1960) 251-65. Vaccari, A. “La parabole du festin des noces {Mt., 22,1-14): Notes d’exegese.” In Melanges Jules Lebreton. R SR 39 (1951) 138-45. Via, D. O. “The Relationship of Form to Content in the Parable: The Wedding Feast.” In t 25 (1971) 171-84. Vögtle, A. “Die Einladung zum grossen Gastmahl und zum königlichen Hochzeitsmahl: Ein Paradigma für den Wandel des geschichtlichen Verständnishorizonts.” In Das Evangelium u n d die Evangelien. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971. 171-218. Wainwright, E. “God Wills to Invite All to the Banquet, Matthew 22:1-10.” International Review o f Mission 77 (1988) 185-93. Wainwright, G. “Mt. XXII.11-13: Une controverse primitive sur l’admission ä la Sainte Cene.”

626

M a t t h e w 22 : 1-14

S E 6 [= TU 102] (1973) 595-98. Weder, H. “Die Parabel vom grossen Mahl (Mt 22,1-10; Lk 14,15-24; ThEv 64).” In Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1978. 177-93. Wrembek, C. “Das Gleichnis vom königlichen Hochzeitsmahl und vom Mann ohne hochzeitliches Gewand: Eine geistliche-theologische Erwägung zu Mt 22,1-14.” GL 64 (1991) 17-40.

Translation 1Jesus answered and again spoke to them in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom o f heaven is like the situation o f a man, a king, who held a wedding banquet fo r his son. 3A n d he sent his servants to call those who had been invited to the banquet, but they did not want to come. 4Again he sent other servants, saying: 'Say to those who have been invited: "Look, I have prepared my food, my bulls and fatted cattle have been slaughtered and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet. ”’ 5B ut they paid no attention and went away, this one to his own field, and that one to his business. 6The others, however, seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7B ut the kin g a became angry, and he sent his troops,b and he destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants: ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those who had been invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to where the highways exit from the city and invite as many as you encounter to the wedding banquet. ' 10A n d those servants went out onto the highways and gathered together all whom c they found, both bad and good. A n d the wedding banquetd was filled with guests. 11“B u t when the king entered to survey those who were reclining at the tables, he saw there a man who was not clothed in a garment appropriate to a wedding banquet.e l2A n d he said to him: Friend, how did you enter here without a wedding garment?' B ut he was silent. 13Then the king said to the servants: \Bindf him hand and foot and casts him into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and grinding o f teeth there.' 14For all are called,h but not all are chosen.”h Notes a Some MSS (Θ f ls lat syP mae bopt) insert άκούσας, “having heard”; many other MSS (C [D] W TR syh) read καί άκούσας' ό βασιλεύς' εκείνος, “and when that king heard.” b D / 1it sy° bopt have the sing, το στράτευμα αύτοϋ, “his army.” c οΰς, “whom.” Many MSS (B2 C L W Θ / 1TR it syh) have όσους, “as many as,” probably through the influence of the preceding verse. d γάμος, “wedding banquet.” K B* L have νυμφών, in the sense of “wedding hall,” described by Metzger as “an Alexandrian correction” to avoid the awkwardness of referring to a banquet as “filled.” TCGNT, 58. e ένδυμα γάμου, lit. “a wedding garm ent.” f D it (sy5^) have άρατε αύτόν ποδών καί χειρών καί βάλετε, “take him by the feet and hands and cast (him ).” g Many MSS (C W T R [sy*1]) insert άρατε αύτόν καί, “take him and.” h L / 1sa add the definite article oi before each of the nouns for “called” and “chosen.” Lit., the verse reads “Many are called, but few are chosen.” For a justification of the translation above, see Comment.

Form/Structure/Setting A. T h e final p arab le in this closely in te rre la te d seq u en ce o f th re e parables (beg in n in g in 21:28) speaks again c o n c e rn in g th e lack o f resp o n se am o n g th e Jews

Form/Structure/Setting

627

to Jesu s a n d his m essage. As in th e p re c e d in g a n d p arallel p arab le o f th e w icked te n a n t farm ers, again th e re is re fe re n ce to th e killing o f servants a n d th e loss o n th e p a rt o f those w ho ig n o re th e invitation to th e b a n q u e t, in clu d in g th e loss o f th e ir favored status. T h e invitation to th e m essianic b a n q u e t is o p e n e d u p to all, “b o th b a d a n d g o o d ” (cf. 21:31). A n d th u s th e failure o f th e Jews to re sp o n d to th e invitation o f th e king b ecom es th e o p p o rtu n ity o f all others. Yet th e final se m i-in d e p e n d e n t verses (vv 11-14) in d icate th a t this d oes n o t m ean th a t th e issue o f rig h teo u sn ess b eco m es u n im p o rta n t. B. E xcept fo r vv 11-14, w hich are draw n fro m M atthew ’s special source, th e p arab le is probably deriv ed fro m Q (cf. L uke 14:15-24). A lth o u g h M atthew a n d L uke agree substantially e n o u g h to posit a co m m o n source, th e actual a g re e m e n t in w ording is small, a n d th e re are also a n u m b e r o f im p o rta n t differences b etw een them . T h u s w hereas in L uke th e story co n cern s “th e m aster o f a h o u se ” {ο ικοδεσ πότη ν L uke 14:21) w ho is h o ld in g a “g reat d in n e r” {δ είπ νο υ μ έγα \ Luke 14:16), in M atthew (v 2) it co n cern s a “k in g ” {βασιλεύς) w ho h e ld a “w edding b a n q u e t” { γ ά μ ο ς /γά μ ο ι) “fo r his so n ” (τω υιω αύτοϋ). P robably L uke follows Q m o re closely, a n d M atthew ’s fo rm o f th e story is in flu e n c e d by th e referen ce to th e “so n ” in th e p re c e d in g p arab les ( “w ed d in g b a n q u e t” is also c o n so n a n t with M atthew ’s eschatological perspective in these parab les). In c o n trast to L u k e’s single servant w ho is sen t (Luke 14:17), M atthew uses th e p lu ral το ύ ς δούλους αύτον, “his servants” (v 3), a n d th e n refers to th e sending o f άλλους δούλους, “o th e r servants” (v 4), ch an g es th a t again co n fo rm th e story m o re closely to th a t o f th e p re c e d in g p arab le (cf. 21:36). T h e sam e is tru e o f M atthew ’s ad d itio n o f th e sham eful tre a tm e n t a n d killing o f these servants (v 6; cf. 21:35-36). M atthew ’s statem en t, “Look, I have p re p a re d my fo o d [τό ά ρ ισ τό ν μου], my bulls a n d fatte n e d cattle have b e e n slau g h tered ” (v 4 c ), was e ith e r o m itted by Luke (who refers explicitly to an evening m eal [δείπνου]) o r is an u n u su al a d d itio n to Q by M atthew. In v 5 M atthew ’s “this o n e w ent to his field, th a t o n e to his business,” in c o m p a riso n w ith L u k e ’s lo n g e r d e s c rip tio n (L uke 14:18-20) to g e th e r w ith M atthew ’s om ission o f L u k e’s th ird instance (th e m an w ho h a d ju s t taken a wife), app ears to be characteristic M atth ean abbreviation. Totally m issing in Luke, a n d probably M atth ean add itio n s to Q, are th e sen d in g o f th e soldiers, th e d estru ction o f those w ho h a d killed th e k in g ’s servants, a n d th e b u rn in g o f th e ir city (22:7). L u k e ’s n o te o f ju d g m e n t is fo u n d only a t th e en d : “F or I tell you th a t n o n e o f these p e o p le w ho w ere called will taste o f my b a n q u e t” (12:24, o m itte d by M atth ew ). P robably a n o th e r M atth ean a d d itio n is fo u n d in th e sta te m e n t o f v 8, ol δ ε κεκλημένοι ούκ ησαν άξιοι, “b u t those w ho h a d b e e n invited w ere n o t w orthy.” In v 9 M atthew ’s δσους, “as m any as,” is ap p aren tly an abbreviation o f th e m a te ria l re fle c te d in L u k e ( “th e p o o r, th e c rip p le d , b lin d a n d la m e ”). M atthew ’s em phasis in th e p erico p e is n o t h e re b u t in th e a d d e d w ords πονηρούς τ ε και άγαθούς, “b o th b a d a n d g o o d ” (v 10). Finally, M atthew also om its th e refere n ce to th e r e tu r n o f th e se rv a n t w ith th e re p o rt th a t a fte r h e h a d d o n e as o rd e re d , th e re was yet space, a n d th e seco n d se n d in g o u t o f th e serv an t with in stru ctio n s to “co m p el th em to e n te r ” (L uke 14:22-23). T his m aterial, probably in Q, was n o t p e rtin e n t to his purposes. C o n siderable freed o m is thus seen in M atthew ’s a d ap tatio n o f th e Q m aterial for his own em phasis. Vv 11-14 fin d n o parallels in M ark o r L uke a n d are a p p e n d e d by M atthew from som e source o th e r th a n M ark o r Q. T h e ju d g m e n t oracle o f v 13 finds a

628

Ma t t h e w 22:1-14

close p arallel w ith th a t o f 8:12 in re fe re n ce to “th e sons o f th e k in g d o m ,” ag reein g v e rb a tim w ith th a t passage in th e w ords a b o u t castin g ε ι ς τό σ κ ό τ ο ς το εξ ώ τε ρ ο ν έκ εΐ έσ τα ι ο κλαυθμός και ό β ρ υ γμ ό ς των όδόντων, “in to th e o u te rm o st darkness; th e re th e re will b e w eeping a n d th e g rin d in g o f te e th .” T h e c o n clu d in g lo g io n o f v 14 is f o u n d n e a rly v e rb a tim in Barn. 4.14, b u t w ith o u t th e c o n ju n c tio n a n d th e verb γάρ είσ ιν, “fo r they a re .” C. T h e p arab le o f th e w edding b a n q u e t p robably co n c lu d e d originally with v 10, w ith its referen ce to th e filling u p o f th e hall with guests. M atthew has app e n d e d a fu rth e r b rie f parable to this (vv 11-13), which, despite th e skill with w hich it is jo in e d to th e p reced in g parable, m akes a d ifferen t p o in t altogether. T his is in tu rn follow ed by an originally separate logion (v 14). T h e following o u tline m ay be suggested: (1) th e p arab le o f th e w edding b an q u et, divided fu rth e r in to (a) (i) th e first call to th e b a n q u e t (vv l-3 a ) a n d (ii) th e first refusal (v 3b); (b) (i) th e sec ond call to th e b a n q u e t (v 4) a n d (ii) th e second refusal (v 5); (c) th e killing o f th e servants (v 6); (d) the w rathful response o f th e king (v 7); (e) the extension o f the call to all (vv 8-9) ; a n d (f) th e in-gathering o f b a d a n d g o o d (v 10); (2) th e parable o f th e re q u ire d w edding g arm en t, divided in to (a) th e kin g ’s question (vv 11-12) a n d (b) th e ju d g m e n t o f th e o n e w ith o u t a w edding g a rm e n t (v 13); a n d (3) a final logion (v 14). T h e syntactical stru ctu re o f th e p erico p e provides only a few parallelisms. T h e two sendings o f servants em ploy th e sam e verb, ά π έσ τειλ εν , “h e sen t,” a n d d irect object, δούλους, “servants” (vv 3, 4). T h e th ree clauses in th e M atthean m aterial b eg in n in g with ιδού, “lo o k ,” in v 4c, e n d similarly, in e u p h o n ic if n o t syntactic parallelism : ήτοίμακα . . . τεθυμένα . . . έτοιμα. M atthew has co n stru cted th e clauses o f v 5b a n d c (b eg in n in g δ ς μ ε ν . . . δ ς δέ . . . ) in parallelism . T h e parallel aorist verbs in v 7, άπώλεσεν, “h e d estroyed,” a n d ένέπρησεν, “h e b u rn e d ,” m ay also b e n o te d . T h e lo g io n o f v 8 also displays syntactic p arallelism . T h e p a ra lle l epexegetical πονηρούς τ ε καί άγαθούς, “b o th evil a n d g o o d ” (v 10), should be n oted. A nd finally th e parallelism o f th e co ncluding logion (v 14) is striking. M atthew ’s h a n d is responsible for m any o f these structural features, th o u g h som e m ay have com e to h im already in his special source. D. A cluster o f related questions em erges in th e in te rp re ta tio n o f th e referen ce in 22:7 to th e angry king w ho “sent his soldiers, destroyed those m u rd erers, a n d b u rn e d th e ir city.” Two m ain issues are raised by these words: (1) Do they refer to th e d estru ctio n o f Jeru salem , a n d (2) if so, w hat does this entail for th e d ate o f the Gospel? W ith reg ard to th e first o f these, it m ust b e a d m itted from th e start th a t the details, especially o f the sending o f the soldiers a n d the b u rn in g o f th e city (n o t h ith e rto m e n tio n e d in th e p a ra b le ), seem som ew hat strange in th e c o n tex t o f th e parable. O n th e o th e r h an d , it may be th at these details are in n o c e n t elem ents o f th e p arable— simply a p a rt o f th e story— a n d n o m ore; i.e., they may allude to n o th ing b eyond them selves. R engstorf, for exam ple, has shown th a t th e language u sed h e re is typical o f th a t used in th e an cien t w orld in re fe rrin g to punitive expeditions. If this is stock phraseology, th e re is n o n e e d to see a re fe re n c e to th e destru ctio n o f Jeru salem h e re (indeed , according to Jo sephus, only th e tem ple, a n d n o t th e city, was destroyed by fire). Reicke also shows th a t the language in question does n o t necessarily p o in t to th e destru ctio n o f Jerusalem , as is so often conclu d ed . Even if o n e nevertheless feels com pelled to u n d e rsta n d th e w ords as an allusion to th e d estru ctio n o f Jeru salem , this hardly d em o n strates a post-70 date

Comment

629

for the Gospel. Jesus is shortly to prophesy the fall o f the city (24:2-26), a n d thus th e p re se n t passage cou ld itself be an anticipation o f th e fu tu re ra th e r th an post eventum. G u ndry h en ce concludes th at th e prophecy o f chap. 24 “may have trigg ered M atthew ’s p resen t insertion [v 6 ]” (437). For fu rth e r discussion o f the date o f the Gospel, see Introduction, in H agner, Matthew 1-13, lxxiii-lxxv. E. As w ith th e p reced in g parable, th e qu estio n o f th e au th en ticity o f this p arable is often raised. A gain we have the obvious allegorical ch aracter o f the parable, a perspective th a t seem s to be after th e fact, especially in th e possible allusion to th e fall o f Je ru sa le m , a n d again a p arallel in Gos. Thom. 64. T h e sam e co m m en ts m ad e in co n n e c tio n w ith th e au th en ticity o f 21:33-44 are applicable h e re (see o n th a t perico p e, Form/Structure/Setting § D ). O n allegory in th e parables o f Jesus, see “T h e In te rp re ta tio n o f P arables,” in H agner, Matthew 1-13 , 364-65.

Comment 1-2 T h e in tro d u c to ry καί άποκριθείς, “a n d h e answ ered,” is app aren tly form ulaic ra th e r th a n actually re fe rrin g to a resp o n se o r answ er to those b ein g addressed. T h e p lu ral ε ν παραβολαΐς, “in p arab les” (cf. 13:3, 13, 3 4 -3 5 ), may also be form ulaic, unless it p o in ts to th e orig in al separateness o f vv 11-13 as a second p arab le. Like th o se o f ch ap . 13, this p a ra b le deals again w ith ή β α σ ιλεία τω ν ούρανών, “th e kin g d o m o f h eav en ” (for th e fo rm u la b e g in n in g with ώμοιώθη, “is sim ilar,” cf. 13:24 [in clu d in g άνθρώπω, “to a m a n ”]; 18:33 [verbatim a g re e m e n t w ith v 2 th ro u g h άνθρώπω β α σ ιλ εΐ, “a m an , a k in g ”]; 25:1). T h e “k in g d o m o f h ea v e n ,” th e eschatological reality daw ning in a n d th ro u g h th e m inistry o f Jesus, is p aralleled by th e analogy o f a γάμος, “w edding b a n q u e t” (used alternately in th e p lu ral a n d singular [vv 8, 10, 11-12] w ith n o differen ce in m ean in g ). T h e analogy o f eschatological fulfillm en t a n d a w edding b a n q u e t has already b een e n c o u n te re d in M atthew (see 9:15) a n d is based o n th e e x p ectatio n o f th e socalled m essianic b a n q u e t (see Comment o n 9:15; cf. Rev 19:7, 8 -9 ). As in th e p re c e d in g p arab le, a “s o n ” (υιός), now o f a king, figures in th e story (cf. th e referen c e to th e “b rid e g ro o m ” in 9:15; 25:1; fo r b rid e g ro o m as “M essiah,” see J o h n 3:29). A gain, as in th e p reced in g parab le, th e son rep resen ts Jesus. 3 T h e king ά π έ σ τ ε ιλ ε ν το ύ ς δούλους αυτού, “sen t his serv an ts” (th e w ords are fo u n d verbatim in 21:34, a n d h ere, as th ere, are probably an allusion to th e p ro p h ets), to call to th e b a n q u e t το ύ ς κεκλημένους, “those w ho h a d b e e n in v ited ,” i.e., th e “sons o f th e k in g d o m ,” th e Jew ish p eo p le, καί ούκ ήθελον έλθεΐν, “a n d they w ere n o t willing to c o m e ” (th e im p e rfe c t ten se em p h asizin g re p e a te d unw illingness) , alludes to th e u n responsiveness o f Israel to G o d ’s re p e a te d invitation (cf. καί ούκ ήθελήσατε, “a n d you w ere n o t w illing,” in 23:37; cf. J o h n 5:40). 4 -5 T hese verses re p e a t a n d e x p a n d o n th e p re c e d in g verse. As in th e p re ceding parab le, a seco n d g ro u p o f servants is sen t w ith th e call (π ά λιν ά π έ σ τ ε ίλ ε v άλλους δούλους, “again h e sen t o th e r serv an ts,” agrees verbatim w ith th e b eg in n in g o f 21:36). Now th e em phasis is strongly o n eschatological fulfillm ent: th e anim als ( ταύροι, “b ulls,” occurs in th e G ospels only h ere, a n d σ ιτισ τά , “fatten ed cattle,” occurs in th e N T only h e re ) have b e e n slau g h tered , th e feast (ά ρ ισ τον, “m eal,” occurs in M atthew only here) is p re p a re d (cf. sim ilar im agery in W isdom ’s invitation to h e r b a n q u e t in Prov 9:2, 5), καί πά ντα έτο ιμ α , “a n d everything is

630

Ma t t h e w 22:1-14

ready.” T hus this second g ro u p probably consists in M atthew ’s m in d n o t o f th e latter pro p h ets, as in th e p reced in g parable, b u t o f J o h n the Baptist, Jesus, a n d his disciples, i.e., those w ho b rin g th e m essage o f eschatological readiness. T h e call is issued with all force a n d clarity: δ ε ύ τε ε ις το ύ ς γάμους, “com e to th e w edding b a n q u e t.” Yet th e p eo p le o f Israel w ere largely unresponsive. T hey “p aid n o a tte n tio n ” (ά μ ελήσ α ντες, th e only o ccu rren ce o f th e w ord in th e Gospels; cf. H eb 2:3), they re tu rn e d to th e ir ord in ary pursuits, to th e field a n d to the shop (εμπορίαν, “business,” occurs only h ere in th e N T ), as th o u g h n o such invitation h a d b e e n given o r received. T hey d en ie d th e reality o f w hat was a n n o u n c e d a n d b ein g celebrated. 6 W orse th a n th at, oi λο ιπο ί, “th e o th e rs ,” probably because they re g a rd e d th e servant-m essengers as deceivers, seized them , ύβρισαν καί ά π έκ τεινα ν, “tre a te d th e m sham efully a n d killed (th e m ).” T h e applicability o f th e lan g u ag e to th e fate o f J o h n th e Baptist, Jesu s (th e verb ύβριζεiv, “tre a t sham efully,” o c c u rrin g in M atthew only h e re , is used in th e passion p re d ic tio n o f L uke 18:32; cf. its applicatio n to P aul in 1 T hess 2:2), a n d eventually th e disciples is obvious (they th u s share th e sam e e n d as th e p ro p h ets; cf. 21:35; 23:37). 7 T h e response o f th e king to th e u n g ratefu l a n d unresponsive p eo p le w ho refused his invitation is n o t left to be supplied by th e listeners, as in th e p reced in g p arable (cf. 21:40-41) b u t h e re is given as a p a rt o f th e parable itself. T h e w rathful reactio n o f th e king (in 18:34 όργίζεσθαι, “be w rathful,” is also used in referen ce to a “k in g ” [18:23], to w hom Jesus likens his “heavenly F a th e r”) results in th e send in g o f soldiers, th e d e stru c tio n o f th e guilty a n d treaso n o u s p e o p le ( το ύ ς φ ο ν ε ΐς εκείνους, “those m u rd e re rs,” intensifies th a t guilt; cf. 21:41), a n d th e b u rn in g o f “th e ir city” (τη ν πόλιν αυτών). T hese details, on th e o n e h an d , seem ra th e r farfe tc h e d fo r th e story o f th e p arab le itself an d , o n th e o th e r h a n d , c o rre sp o n d rem arkably to th e d estru ctio n o f Jeru salem in A.D. 70 so th a t it is easy (th o u g h hardly necessary) to see a referen ce to th a t event h ere. H owever th a t may be, it is virtually im possible for post-70 read ers o f th e G ospel n o t to see th e d estru ctio n o f Je ru sa le m allu d ed to in these words. See G u n d ry (436-37) for an a rg u m e n t th a t th e language o f this verse d e p e n d s u p o n Isa 5:24-25. (For fu rth e r discussion o f this verse a n d its m ean in g for the date o f Matthew, see above F orm /Structure/Setting^.) 8 -9 T h e king reiterates to his (rem ain in g ) servants th a t th e w ed d in g b a n q u e t is έ το ιμ ο ς , “read y ” (cf. v 4), a h in t o f realized eschatology, oi δ ε κεκλημένοι ούκ ή σ α ν ά ξιοι, “b u t those w ho h a d b e e n invited w ere n o t w orthy” (cf. th e use o f ά ξιο ς, “w orthy,” in Acts 13:46). T h e servants w ere th e re fo re to go o u t to places o n th e highways w here m any w ere sure to pass (επί τ ά ς διεξόδους τω ν οδών p ro b ably m ean s n o t “street crossings” b u t “o u tlets,” i.e., “th e places w here a street cuts through th e city b o u n d a ry a n d goes out in to th e o p e n c o u n try ”; so BAGD, 194A) a n d to call to th e b a n q u e t δσους, “as m any as,” they fo u n d . T his o p e n invitation serves in this p a ra b le as th e c o u n te rp a rt to th e lettin g o u t o f th e vineyard to o th e r te n a n ts in th e p re c e d in g p arab le (21:41, 43). T h e resu lt in b o th cases is th e loss o f Isra e l’s privileged position, h e re as those w ho h a d initially b e e n invited. 10 T his verse re c o rd s th e fu lfillm en t o f th e c o m m a n d c o n ta in e d in th e p re ced in g verse. T h e servants g a th e re d all they fo u n d , πονηρούς τ ε καί άγαθούς, “b o th b a d a n d g o o d ” (th e em phasis thus falls o n “th e b a d ”; th e sam e two w ords occu r in th e sam e o rd e r in 5:45). T his m ix tu re coin cid es w ith th e p a ra b le o f th e d rag n e t, w h ere th e k in g d o m is lik e n e d to a n e t th a t g a th e re d fish o f every k in d

Comment

631

(13:47-48) p rio r to th e sep aratio n o f g o o d a n d bad. T h e stress th u s is n o t, as o n e m ig h t have ex p ected , o n th e g ath erin g o f G entiles a n d Jews indiscrim inately (alth o u g h this to o is p robably im plied) b u t o n an ea rlie r th em e, th e inclusion o f th e “u n rig h te o u s” with th e “rig h te o u s” (cf. 21:31 with its referen ce to “tax collectors a n d h a rlo ts”; cf. 9:13). T h e resu lt o f th e g ath erin g o f “all w hom they fo u n d ” was th a t th e b a n q u e t έπλήσθη, “was filled ,” w ith guests (άνακει μενών, lit. “those reclin in g a t ta b le ”). T h e m essianic b a n q u e t th u s finds its eschatological fullness in th e in clusion o f such unlikely p e o p le as G entiles (cf. R om 11:25) a n d those widely re g a rd e d as “th e u n rig h te o u s.” 11-12 T h e m aterial ad d e d by M atthew at this p o in t (vv 11-14) ap p aren tly has as its p u rp o se to em phasize th e very g rea t im p o rta n c e o f righteousness for those w ho w ould e n te r th e k ingdom (cf. 5:20) a n d thus to balan ce th e p o in t m ad e in v 10 c o n c e rn in g “b o th b ad a n d g o o d .” T his ad d e d m aterial co rresp o n d s to th e em phasis in th e p reced in g p arab le o n th e giving o f fru it in its season by th e new te n a n t farm ers (21:41, 43). A lth o u g h these verses are carefully jo in e d with w hat p reced es (note: king, those reclin in g at table, w edding g a rm e n t), it is difficult n o t to notice th e awkwardness in th e surprising re q u ire m e n t th a t o n e p erso n called in o ff th e street sh o u ld be clo th ed in a “w edding g a rm e n t.” It is little w ond e r th a t th e p e rso n was left “sp e e c h less” (RSV) u n d e r th e circum stan ces. If, however, M atthew h e re adjoins a parab le, o r p a rt o f a p arab le, originally in d e p e n d e n t o f this context, th e p ro b lem is som ew hat alleviated. T h e king observes at th e m essianic b a n q u e t so m eo n e (n o te Sim ’s conclusion [HeyJ 31 (1990) 16578] th a t th e m an co u ld also re p re s e n t th e Jew ish le a d e rsh ip w ho d eclin e th e invitation in th e first section o f th e p erico p e [vv 3 -6 ]) w ho is n o t p roperly clothed, i.e., does n o t have an ένδυμα γάμου, “w ed d in g g a rm e n t.” F or such a g a rm e n t as a m e ta p h o r for righteousness, cf. Rev 19:8, w here at th e m arriag e o f th e L am b th e B ride is g ra n te d to w ear “fine lin en , b rig h t a n d p u re ,” w h e re u p o n follows th e statem ent: “for th e fine lin en is th e righteous deeds [τά δικαιώ ματα] o f th e saints.” To th e k in g ’s in q u iry (for th e address ετα ίρ ε, “frie n d ,” cf. 20:13; 26:58) as to how h e h a d com e to be th e re w ith o u t th e p ro p e r g arm e n t, n o answ er is given, fo r th e p e rso n was w ith o u t excuse. A lth o u g h it h as b e e n su g g ested by som e (e.g., H aacker, G undry, B lom berg), th e id ea th a t th e h o st p ro v id ed th e p ro p e r garm e n t fo r th e w e d d in g fe a st is b o th d iffic u lt to s u b s ta n tia te a n d m o re o v e r irrelev an t to M atthew ’s p o in t (rightly C arso n ). T h e re is, fu rth e rm o re , n o fu n d a m e n ta l in c o m p a tib ility b e tw e e n a n in v ita tio n to all a n d th e s u b s e q u e n t re q u ire m e n t o f rig h teousness {pace Radi, w ho co n clu d es th a t th e latter em phasis m u st derive from th e early c h u rc h ra th e r th a n from Jesus) . 13 E xcept for th e referen ce to th e b in d in g o f h an d s a n d feet, the k in g ’s severe p ro n o u n c e m e n t o f ju d g m e n t em ploys fo rm u lae u sed several tim es in th e G ospel. T h u s εκβ ά λετε αύτόν ε ι ς το σ κότος το εξώ τερον, “cast h im in to th e o u te r dark n ess,” is fo u n d also in 8:12, in referen ce to “th e sons o f th e k in g d o m ” w ho ex h ib it n o faith, a n d verbatim in 25:30, w here it is spo k en to th e “w orthless serv a n t” w ho is d e sc rib e d as “w icked a n d s lo th fu l” in 25:26. (F or th e possible d e p e n d e n c e o f v 13a o n 1 Enoch 10:4a, see Sim.) T h e se n ten ce o f ju d g m e n t in b o th o f th ese passages (8:12; 25:30) also c o n ta in s th e seco n d fo rm u la fro m M atthew ’s stock o f apocalyptic im agery, έκ εΐ έ σ τα ι ό κλαυθμός καί ό β ρ υ γμ ό ς των όδόντων, “th e re th e n will b e w eeping a n d g rin d in g o f te e th ,” w hich is fo u n d ver-

632

Ma t t h e w 22 : 1-14

b atim also in 13:42, 50; 24:51, w h ere it is a p p lie d to th e u n rig h te o u s o r wicked. T h e severity o f th e ju d g m e n t p ro n o u n c e d u p o n th e p erso n w ith o u t th e w ed d in g g a rm e n t is sim ilarly re la te d to th e p e rs o n ’s failure in righteousness. T h e fu tu re ju d g m e n t o f th e c h u rc h is also to be co n sid ered (cf. W eder, 191-92). 14 T his final logion ties in well w ith th e p re c e d in g a n d especially th e p ara b le o f w 1-10. In πολλοί γάρ β ίσ ιν κ λη το ί, “fo r m any are called ,” th e πολλοί is p ro b ably to b e ta k e n as a universalizing Sem itism , w hich can be tran slated “ev ery o n e” (cf. th e sam e w ord in th e sam e sense in 20:28; see J. Jerem ias, TD N T 6:541-42). T h u s in k e e p in g w ith th e o p e n in g o f th e invitation to all, “as m any as you fin d ” (v 9), th e p o in t is th a t “everyone is in v ited .” C o u n terb alan cin g this, however, is th e seco n d h a lf o f th e logion, ολίγοι δ ε εκ λ εκ το ί, “b u t few are c h o se n .” T h e w o rd ο λ ίγο ι, “few,” is h e re very probably also to be u n d e rs to o d as a Sem itism m e a n in g “few er th a n ” in th e sense o f “n o t a11.” T h e te rm does n o t in d icate th e sm allness o f th e actual n u m b e r o f th e ch o sen b u t m erely th a t in c o n tra st to th e scope o f th e call n o t all are ch o sen (see esp. B. F. M eyer). T h e n o tio n o f electio n h e re works to g e th e r w ith, ra th e r th a n against, th e reality o f h u m a n responsibility constantly befo re th e re a d e r o f Matthew. T h e m ystery o f election has already b e e n p re se n te d in 11:27. T h e w o rd oi εκ λ εκ το ί, “th e elect,” beco m es in 24:22, 24, 31 sh o rth a n d fo r th e disciples o f Christ. T h e sta te m e n t h e re th a t only som e are th e “e le c t” d e scribes fro m th e divine perspective so m e th in g very well know n to M atth ew ’s readers: th a t n o t all are receptive to Jesus a n d his m essage a n d n o t all b rin g fo rth th e rig h teo u sn ess o f th e k in g d o m (cf. 7 :13-14). Tragically, th e p e o p le w ho h a d lo n g b e e n know n by th e adjective “c h o se n ” lose th e ir privilege th ro u g h th e ir u n responsiv en ess to th e invitation. T h e ir ch o sen n e ss was in th e fin al analysis a calling— a calling to w hich finally they w ere n o t tru e. A sim ilar d istin ctio n b etw een th e saved a n d th e lost is fo u n d in 2 E sdr 8:3, 41. Explanation T his final p a ra b le o f th e series o f th re e focuses o n th e g e n e ra l u n responsiveness o f th e p e o p le o f Israel g enerally a n d n o t m erely th e lea d e rsh ip o f Israel. Ironically, th e “ch o sen p e o p le ” show in th e ir refusal o f th e invitation th a t they are not all a m o n g th e “e le c t” b u t only am o n g th e “called .” T h o se initially invited are accordingly desig n ated as “n o t w orthy,” a n d th e invitation is b ro a d e n e d to in clu d e all, th e “b a d ” as well as th e “g o o d ,” a n d by im plication, finally, G entiles as well as Jews. T h o se w ho w ould com e m u st nevertheless re sp o n d appropriately, i.e., in a d iscipleship th a t p ro d u ces th e righ teo u sn ess o f th e kingdom . In th e en d , alth o u g h all are invited, n o t all will show them selves to be truly a m o n g th e “e le c t.” T h e p e ric o p e th u s co n tains n o t only th e g o o d news o f an o p en , ra th e r th a n a restricted , invitation b u t also th e so b erin g re m in d e r o f th e seriousness o f disc ip le sh ip fo r th o se w ho re s p o n d . M atth ew n e v e r tires o f th e th e m e o f th e rig h teo u sn ess o f this discipleship— th a t o f th e k in g d o m o f G od. It co n stitu tes a dividing p o in t fo r all hu m an ity a n d is th e sole d em o n stra tin g c riterio n fo r m em b e rsh ip a m o n g th e elect.

Notes

Tribute to Caesar?

633

(22:15-22)

Bibliography Abel, E. L. ‘Jesus and the Cause of Jewish National Independence.” R E J 128 (1969) 24752. Abraham s, I. “Give unto Caesar.” In Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. Reprint. New York: Ktav, 1967. 1:62-65. B arrett, C. K. “The New Testament Doctrine of Church and State.” In New Testament Essays. London: SPCK, 1972. 1-19. Bruce, F. F. “Render to Cae-

sar.” In Jesus and the Politics o f H is Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984, 249-63. Cuvillier, E. “Marc, Justin, Thomas et les autres: Variations autour de la pericope de denier ä Cesar.” E T R 67 (1992) 329-44. D aube, D. “Four Types of Questions: Mt 22.15-46.” J T S n.s. 2 (1951) 45-48 (= The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956. 158-63). D e rre tt,J. D. M. “‘Render to Caesar . . . .’’’ In Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1970. 313-38. De Surgy, P. “Rendez ä Cesar ce qui est ä Cesar, et ä Dieu ce qui est ä Dieu (Mt 22).” AsSeign 60 (1975) 16-25. Giblin, C. H. “‘The Things of God’ in the Question concerning Tribute to Caesar.” CBQ 33 (1971) 510-27. G oppelt, L. “The Freedom to Pay the Imperial Tax (Mk 12, 17).” SE 2 [= TU 87] (1964) 185-94. H art, H . St. J. “The Coin of ‘Render unto Caesar . . .’ (A Note on Some Aspects of Mark 12:13-17; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26).” In Jesus and the Politics o f H is Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 241-48. Kennard, J. S. Render to God: A Study o f the Tribute Passage. New York: Oxford UP, 1950. Klemm, H. G. “De censu Caesaris: Beobachtungen zu J. Duncan M. Derretts Interpretation der Perikope Mk. 12:13-17 par.” N o v T 24 (1982) 234-54. Loewe, H. M. J. “Render unto Caesar”: Religious and Political Loyalty in Palestine. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1940. Oster, R. E. “‘Show me a denarius’: Symbolism of Roman Coinage and Christian Beliefs.” R esQ 28 (1985-86) 107-15. Stock, A. “Render to Caesar.” B iTod62 (1972) 929-34. Translation 15Then the Pharisees went and plotted concerning how they might trap him on some matter.a 16A n d they sent their disciples together with the Herodians to him, saying:h “Teacher, we know that you are true, and that you teach the way o f God in truth, and that no one matters specially to you, fo r you do not regard th e statusc of persons. 17Tell us, therefore,d what you think: Is it tight to pay tax to Caesar, or not?” 18Jesus, knowing their evil intent,e said: “Why do you test me, hypocrites ? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax. ” A n d they brought him a denarius. 20A n d hef said to them: “Whose image and inscription are these?” 21 They said to him:g “Caesar’s .” Then he said to them: “Give the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar and the things that are God’s to God. ”22A n d when they heard this, they marveled, and leaving him, they departed. Notes a ένλόγω, lit. “in word,” may also be translated “in something.” b λέγοντβς, “saying” (thus C D W Θ / 1,1S and TR), a nominative, has as its subject the Pharisees, who thus speak through their disciples. A few im portant MSS (K B L) have the accusative λέγοντας, which would be translated "who said," i.e., the disciples who had been sent. This, however, is a construction found nowhere else in Matthew. c Lit. “face.” See Comment.

634

Ma t t h e w 22 : 15-22

d D it sy8omit eine ovv ήμϊν, ‘Tell us, therefore.” e “Intent” added to translation for clarity. f D L Z Θ / 13 lat sy5·^ mae bo add b Ι η σ ο ύ ς , “Jesus.” s K B syP omit αύτω, “to him.”

Form/Structure/Setting A. Following the preced in g th ree parables directed largely at Israel’s religious leadership, a succession o f controversies is initiated alternatively by th e Pharisees (w 15-21), Sadducees (w 2 7-31), a n d again th e Pharisees (vv 34-40). In all th re e instances Jesus passes th e difficult tests th a t are set fo r him . T h e first co n cern s th e sticky question o f paying the h e a d tax to Caesar. By catching Jesus o n th e h o rn s o f a dilem m a, th e Pharisees h o p e n o t only to discredit him as a teach er b u t to gain som e in fo rm atio n th a t m ig h t prove useful against him o n som e fu tu re occasion. T h e final passage o f th e c h a p te r (vv 41-4 6 ) involves a fo u rth q u estio n , in this in stance in itiated by Jesus. D aube has fo u n d in th e fo u r questions a g ro u p in g sim ilar to th a t fo u n d in rab b in ic traditio n , consisting o f questions o f th e following fo u r types: (1) hokmäh, “w isdom ” (halakhic in te rp re ta tio n o f legal texts); (2) borut, “vulgarity” (questions rid icu lin g a belief); (3) derek *eres, “th e way o f th e la n d ” (q u estio n s o f m o ral c o n d u c t); a n d (4) haggādāh, “le g e n d ” (in te rp re ta tio n o f biblical texts w ith a p p a re n t c o n tra d ic tio n s). T h e c o rre sp o n d e n c e o f these fo u r types w ith th e n a tu re o f th e fo u r q u estio n s d iscussed in th e re m a in in g fo u r p erico p es o f th e c h a p te r is rem ark ab le. B. M atthew h e re resum es his d e p e n d e n c e o n M ark (M ark 12:13-17; cf. L uke 2 0 :2 0 -2 6 ). T h e re are n o m ajo r d ifferen ces b etw een M atthew a n d M ark, a n d M atthew ’s w ording follows M ark very closely. T h e few differences a m o u n t m ainly to slight dislocations o f M arkan m aterial, as, e.g., th e tran sp o sitio n o f th e clause “you teach th e way o f G od in tr u th ” (v 16) to b efo re th e referen ce to Jesu s n o t resp ectin g perso n s ra th e r th a n after it (cf. M ark 12:14). A p art from these few d ifferences in w ord o rd e r a n d slight variations in vocabulary, only th e follow ing d ifferences are w orth n o tin g . T h e o p e n in g verse (v 15) provides a tran sitio n n o t fo u n d in M ark, ex cep t fo r th e refe re n ce to th e a tte m p t to “e n tra p ” Jesus (M atthew uses π α γιδεύσ ω σιν fo r M ark’s άγρβύσω σιν) , w hich is p u lle d a h e a d o f th e re fe re n ce to th e sen d in g o f th e P h arisees’ d e leg atio n (cf. M ark 12:13). In v 17 M atthew adds th e w ords ε ίπ έ ovv ή μ ΐν τι σοι δοκβΐ, “Tell us, th e re fo re , w hat do you th in k ? ” a n d d eletes M ark’s re d u n d a n t seco n d q u estio n , “Shall we pay o r shall we n o t pay?” (M ark 12:14). In v 18 M atthew su p p lan ts M ark ’s ύπόκρισιν, “hypocrisy,” w ith πονηριάν, “evil,” b u t th e n uses th a t w ord in th e vocative ύποκριταί, “hy p o crites” (cf. M ark 12:15). In v 19 M atthew ’s τό νόμισμα το ν κήνσου, lit. “th e coin o f th e tax ,” replaces M ark’s δηνάριον, “d e n a riu s,” th o u g h this w ord is used in th e n e x t clause (cf. M ark 12:15-16). M atthew ’s a d d e d final tran sitio n clause και ά φ έντβ ς αυτόν άπηλθαν, “a n d leaving h im , they d e p a rte d ,” is ap p aren tly pick ed u p verbatim fro m th e e n d o f th e p arab le o f th e evil te n a n t farm ers acco rd in g to M ark (cf. M ark 12:12b), w here it was originally o m itte d by M atthew. C. In k eep in g with its n a tu re as a controversy o r m o re particularly a “testin g ” perico p e, this passage consists m ainly o f dialogue betw een th e Pharisees a n d Jesus. T h e follow ing m ay b e suggested as an outlin e: (1) th e P h arisees’ a tte m p t to e n trap Jesus, divided in to (a) th e p lo ttin g (v 15), (b) th e hypocritical preface (v

Comment

635

16), a n d (c) th e q u estio n (v 17); (2) Je su s’ response, divided in to (a) th e questio n o f m otive (v 18), (b) th e im ag e o n th e co in (vv 1 9 -2 1 a ), a n d (c) th e d e te rm in in g p rin cip le (v 21b); a n d (3) th e am azem en t a n d d e p a rtu re o f th e delegation (v 22). T h e relatively b rie f exchanges betw een Jesus a n d his o p p o n e n ts provide little o p p o rtu n ity for stru ctu ral parallelism . Som e parallelism may be dete c te d in th e p re fa c e to th e P h a ris e e s ’ q u e s tio n (v 16), w h e re fo u r clauses em ploying p re se n t verbs occur, two re fe rrin g to tru th a n d two with negatives re fe rrin g to th e n o n -resp ect fo r persons. T h e articu latio n o f Je su s’ answ er in v 21 is parallel in stru ctu re, a lth o u g h th e verb άπόδοτε, “re n d e r,” is assum ed ra th e r th a n stated in th e second clause. T h e p e rico p e is n o tab le fo r its conciseness, ex cep t ironically fo r th e re d u n d a n c ie s o f th e preface to th e P harisees’ question (v 16).

Comment 15 T h e Pharisees w ere last re fe rre d to in 21:45, w here it was n o te d th a t they knew Je su s’ p arab le o f th e evil te n a n t farm ers was d ire c te d against them . A lready in 12:14 th e Pharisees “took c o u n se l” (as h ere, συμβούλων ελαβον) against Jesus c o n c e rn in g “how they m ig h t destroy h im ” (fu rth e r parallel syntax excep t for the verb, w hich is h e re παγιδεύσω σιν, “m ig h t e n tra p ,” to w hich is ad d e d εν λόγω, lit. “in a w o rd ” o r “in som e m a tte r”) . O n at least two previous occasions th e P h arisees have com e to Jesus “testin g ” him (πειράζοντες-, 16:1; 19:3; cf. in th e p re se n t c h a p te r w 18, 35). T h e p u rp o se o f th e Pharisees h ere, as o n those occasions, is clear: to “e n tra p ”Jesus by getting him to say so m eth ing th a t m ig h t be used against him in th e ir a tte m p t to g et rid o f him . 16 T h e “disciples” (μαθητάς) o f th e Pharisees are m e n tio n e d only h e re in th e NT. T his d eleg atio n is ap p aren tly sen t to carry o u t th e p u rp o ses o f th e P h arisaic lead ersh ip . T h e “H e ro d ia n s,” w ho are lin k ed w ith th e P harisees again in th e G ospel trad itio n only in M ark 3:6 w here they p lo t to destroy Jesus, w ere ap p arently royalists w ho su p p o rte d th e family o f H e ro d a n d h a d a vested in terest in the m ain ten an ce o f peace a n d th e status q u o in Palestine. T hese H ero d ian s a n d disciples o f th e Pharisees a p p ro a c h Jesus with co m p lim en tary w ords, n o t as a captatio benevolentiae so m u c h as a d elib erate a tte m p t to incline Jesus from th e start to an answ er th a t m ig h t in crim in ate him . διδάσκαλε, “teach er,” is a title o f respect, n o t u n lik e “ra b b i” (cf. 23:8), b u t is u sed regularly in M atthew w hen non-disciples ad dress Jesus (cf. 9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:24, 36). T h e assertions άληθηςεΐ, “you are tr u e ,” a n d την οδόν του θεού εν άληθεία διδάσκεις, “you teach th e way o f G od in tr u th ,” seem d esigned to flatter Jesus in to speaking as boldly as possible. T h e qu estio n ers hardly believed w hat they said at this p o in t o r they w ould have taken Jesu s a n d his m essage m o re seriously th a n they did. F or οΐδαμεν o n , “we know th a t,” u sed similarly, cf. J o h n 3:2. τη ν οδόν του θεού, “th e way o f G o d ,” probably alludes to th e teach in g o f je s u s c o n c e rn in g rig h teousness (cf. G en 18:19; Ps 25:9; M att 3:3; 7:14). T h e follow ing two clauses, “n o o n e m atters to you specially, fo r you d o n o t look o n th e face o f th e p e o p le ” (for th e last clause, cf. 1 Sam 16:7), seem to b e d esig n ed to invite Jesu s to give an in c rim in atin g answ er to th e question th a t follows. If Jesu s was n o re sp ecter o f th e w ealth, position, o r pow er o f a perso n , h e m ig h t well speak critically o f th e e m p e ro r’s taxation o f th e Jews.

636

M a t t h e w 22 : 15-22

17 T h e q u estio n itself was a b rillia n t o n e b ecause e ith e r o f th e alternative answ ers co u ld b e used against Jesus. If h e w ere to answ er th a t it is rig h t to give trib u te to Caesar, h e w ould b e d iscred ited a m o n g th e p eo p le as co m p ro m isin g o n a basic p rin c ip le a n d as th u s n o t b e in g w orthy o f th e n a m e “p ro p h e t.” If, o n th e o th e r h a n d , h e w ere to disallow th e paying o f th e tax to Caesar, th a t c o u ld be u sed again st h im in any later p re se n ta tio n o f Jesu s to th e R om an a u th o ritie s as a d an g e ro u s revolutionary. T h e q u estio n τι δοκεΐ, lit. “w hat does it seem ,” is g e n e rally in th e m o u th o f Jesus (17:25; 18:12; 21:28; 22:42) ra th e r th a n in th a t o f his o p p o n e n ts as h ere, κήνσον, “tax ,” was an a n n u a l h e a d tax (cf. census) p a id by all adults. It was a p ain fu l re m in d e r o f th e R o m an o ccu p atio n . 18 Jesus saw th ro u g h their pretense (for γνούς, “know ing,” in the sense o f Jesus’ special knowledge, cf. 12:15; 16:8; 26:10), referred to h ere as their “evil” (τη ν πονηριάν αυτών, this is the only use o f the n o u n in Matthew, b u t the cognate adjective πονηρός' is applied to the Pharisees in 12:34, 39; 16:4) .Jesus refers to the Pharisees as νποκριταί, “hypocrites,” in 15:7 an d o f course repeatedly in chap. 23. For the verb πειράζειν, “test,” w hich is applied only to Jesus in Matthew, cf. 4:1, 3; 16:1; 19:3; 22:35 (in five o f the seven instances, the subject o f the verb is the Pharisees). 19-20 Jesus asks to see th e coin used to pay th e tax (a R om an coin was req u ire d in this case) in o rd e r to p rovide a visual aid th a t will serve to stre n g th e n his answer. W h en th e d en ariu s is b ro u g h t to him , h e asks his q u e stio n e r to id e n tify th e p ictu re a n d n am e o n th e coin (βίκων, “im age,” a n d επιγραφή, “in scrip tio n ,” b o th o ccu r in M atthew only h e r e ) . T h e reaso n fo r this qu estio n becom es clear in th e follow ing verse. 21 T h e Pharisees a n d H ero d ian s quickly resp o n d th at it is th e pictu re a n d nam e “o f C aesar” (Καίσαρος) . T h e simplicity a n d yet stu n n in g ap p ro p riaten ess o f Jesu s’ n e x t statem ent, w hich nicely resolves the problem , is striking to say th e least. Since th e coin has th e e m p e ro r’s picture a n d nam e o n it (for details, see H a rt), it may be re g a rd e d as b elo n g in g to him , a n d thus it is rig h t a n d p ro p e r to give it to him . In d eed , because o f the offensiveness o f a h u m an im age on a coin, it w ould be m ost ap p ro p riate fo r Jews to be rid o f such a coin (see B ruce). If Jesus was willing to pay th e tem ple tax (17:4), he was equally willing to pay th e tax to th e Rom ans. B ut this concession is b alanced by the com p lem en tary co m m an d to give G od the things th a t are his (τά τον θεόν, “the things o f G o d ”). This way o f expressing G o d ’s claim o n his ch ild ren m akes it practically all inclusive (G iblin suggests an im plied referen ce to th e “im ag e” a n d “in scrip tio n ” o f G od in relation to his creatures). We m ust re n d e r to G od o u r very selves in obed ien ce a n d service, w hich will in tim e to u ch all we have a n d own. Caesar can have his p altry tax if only o n e gives to G od his d u e (cf. B ruce, 261). L ater N T em phasis o n paying taxes an d re n d e rin g h o n o r to secular ru lers (Rom 13:7; 1 P eter 2:17) d ep en d s to n o small ex ten t o n this logion. (See G o ppelt for insightful discussion.) D e rre tt’s n o tio n th a t by obeying Caesar o n e obeys th e co m m an d m en ts o f G od does n o t seem to be the p o in t here. 22 T h e insincere questioners could n o t them selves help ad m iring this answer (άκούσαντες έθαύμασαν, “w hen they heard, they m arveled”; in the o th e r occurrences o f th e w ord in Matthew, it describes th e response to w hat Jesus did, ra th e r th an w hat h e said; cf. 8:27; 9:33; 15:31; 21:20). Jesus has in d e e d shown him self to be o n e w ho teaches “th e way o f G od in tr u th ” (v 16). T hey d e p a rte d w ithout accom plishing th eir p u rp o se (the identical words και ά φ έν τες αύτόν άπηλθαν, “a n d leaving

Bibliography

637

him , they d e p a rte d ,” b orrow ed h ere by M atthew, o ccur in M ark 12:12 w here they describe a sim ilar d ep a rtu re o f Jesu s’ o p p o n en ts in frustration). Explanation T h e design o f th e P harisees to e n tra p Jesus failed because h e was able to tra n scend th e dilem m a they fo rced o n him . A nd in so doing, Jesus was at th e sam e tim e able to articulate a fu n d a m e n ta l p rin cip le by wh ich th e disciples could ch a rt th e ir existence as th e p eo p le o f G o d ’s kin g d o m living in a yet im p erfect w orld gov ern ed by secular authorities. T his logion served as th e b eg in n in g p o in t o f w hat was to be e la b o ra te d c en tu ries later in th e L u th e ra n tw o-kingdom theory. T h e la te r N T w riters re g a rd th e ru lin g pow ers as in stitu te d by G od a n d as w orthy o f honor, faithfulness, su pport, a n d intercession (e.g., R om 13:1-17; 1 P eter 2:1317). It is rig h t to r e n d e r to C aesar w h at is C a e sa r’s. Je su s was n o Z ealo t o r revolutionary w ho advocated th e overthrow o f th e R om an g o vernm ent. B ut n eith e r d id h e p u t priority u p o n loyalty to secular gov ern m en t. If o n e re n d e re d to th e state its restricted d u e, all th e m o re was o n e to re n d e r to G od his u n re stricted d u e — th e totality o f o n e ’s b ein g a n d substance, o n e ’s existence, was to be re n d e re d to G od a n d n o th in g less. Loyalty to C aesar m u st always be set in th e larger co n tex t a n d thus be relativized by th e full subm ission o f th e self to G od. T h e b o tto m line fo r th e disciple o f Jesus is to “re n d e r to G od th e things th a t are h is.”

Whose W ife W ill She Be in the Resurrection? (22:23-33) Bibliography B aum bach, G. “Der sadduzäische Konservativismus.” In L itera tu r u n d Religion des Frühjudentums, ed. J. Maier andj. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1973. 201-13. Blakeney, E. H. “A Note on St. Matthew xxii. 29.” ExpTim 4 (1892-93) 382. Carton, G. “Comme des anges dans le del.” BVC 28 (1959) 46-52. Cohn-Sherbok, D. M. “Jesus’ Defence of the

Resurrection of the Dead.”JSiVT 11 (1981) 64-73. Downing, E G. “The Resurrection of the Dead: Jesus and Philo.”J S N T 1 5 (1982) 42-50. Dreyfus, E “L’argument scripturaire de Jesus en faveur de la resurrection des morts.” R B 66 (1959) 213-24. Ellis, E. E. ‘Jesus, the Sadducees and Qumran.” N T S 10 (1963-64) 274-79. Janzen, J. G. “Resurrection and Hermeneutics: On Exodus 3.6 in Mark 12.26.” JSNT 23 (1985) 43-58. Kilgallen, J. J. “The Sadducees and Resurrection from the Dead: Luke 20, 27-40.” Bib 67 (1986) 478-95. Manns, F. “La technique du ‘Al Tiqra’ dans les evangiles.” RevScRel 64 (1990) 1-7. Müller, K. “Jesus und die Sadduzäer.” In Biblische Randbemerkungen. FS R. Schnackenberg, ed. Η. Merklein and J. Lange. Würzburg: Echter, 1974. 3-79. Reicke, B. “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in New Testament Theology.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology. FS G. E. Ladd, ed. R. A. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 186-94. Rigaux, B. Dieu l’a ressuscite: Exegese et theologie biblique. Gembloux: Duculot, 1973. Schubert, K. “Die Entwicklung der Auferstehungslehre von der nachexilischen bis zur frührabbinischen

638

Ma t t h e w 22:23-33

Zeit.” B Z 6 (1962) 177-214. Schwankt, O.

D ie S a d d u z ä e r fr a g e (M k . 1 2 , 1 8 - 2 7 p a r ) : E i n e

e x e g e tis c h - th e o lo g is c h e S t u d i e z u r A u f e r s t e h u n g s e r w a r t u n g .

BBB 66. Frankfurt am Main:

Athenäum, 1987. Translation 23 On that day Sadducees came to him, assertinga that there is no resurrection, and asked him a question,b 24saying: “Teacher, Moses said: 7f anyone dies not having had children, his brother shall marry his w ifec and shall raise up children4 fo r his brother. ’ 25Now there were seven brothers among us. A n d the first, after he had married, died, and, not having offspring,4 he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened w ith e the second and third brothers/ even to the seventh. 27A n d last o f all the wife diedß 28I n the resurrection, therefore, whose wife o f the seven will she be ?For they all had her as a wife. ”h 29Jesus answered and said to them: “You are misled because you know 1 neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they will· not marry nor will they give a daughter k to be married, but they will be as the angels1 in heaven are.m 3lB u t as to the issue of the resurrection o f the dead, have you not read the word spoken by God to you, saying: 32 I am the God o f Abraham and the n God o f Isaac and the n God of Jacob Ί H e° is not [the]p God o f the dead but o f the living. ” 33A n d when the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. Notes a λέγοντες, lit. “saying.” The reading ol λέγοντες, “who say,” is in fact found in K2KL Θf 13, but the insertion of the article is probably caused by scribal assimilation to the parallels (Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27). The article could have been om itted through hom oioteleuton (cf. the last syllable of Σαδδουκαΐοί), but if it were originally present, “this would be the only place where Matthew has provided an explanation of this sort concerning Jewish affairs” ( TCGNT', 58). b “A question” added to translation. c D omits την γυναίκα αυτόν, “his wife,” probably through homoioteleuton (cf. αύτου following ό άδελφός). d σπέρμα, lit. “seed.” e “The same thing happened with” translates όμοιων καί, lit. “similarly also.” f “Brothers” added to translation for clarity. g Many MSS (D Θf 13 TR lat syp,h samss mae bo) insert καί, “also,” probably through assimilation to the parallels (Mark 12:22; Luke 20:32). h “As a wife” added to translation. i Lit. “not knowing.” See Comment. j All the verbs in this verse are in the present tense. They are translated here with future tenses because the resurrection is a future event. k “A daughter” added to translation for clarity. 1A large num ber of MSS ( K L W f 13 TR) add θεού or του θεού, “of God,” which may well be a “natural expansion.” If, on the other hand, the words were original, it is difficult to know why they would have been omitted from B and D (see TCGNT, 58-59). m “Are” is added to translation. n The definite article o, “the,” is omitted twice by K, perhaps to conform the text more closely to the LXX of Exod 3:6. ° Many MSS ([Θ f 13] TR syh) have δ θεός θεός, “God is (not) a God . . . .” See too the following Note. p δ, “the,” found in B L Γ Δf 1, is omitted by K D W. The UBSGNTcommittee found it difficult to decide whether ό was omitted to conform the text to the parallel in Mark 12:27 or was added to conform to the immediately preceding occurrences of ό θεός. Thus the word is retained in brackets. See TCGNT, 59.

Form/Structure/Setting

639

Form/Structure/Setting A. T h e Pharisees, having left the scene in frustration (although they will again be o n th e offensive in vv 34-40), are followed n e x t by th e S adducees in th e rapidfire attem p t to challenge a n d overthrow the authority o f Jesus as a teacher. T he clever q uestion they b rin g to Jesus grows d irectly o u t o f th eir denial o f the resurrection. A lthough they th ink they have tra p p e d Jesus by th eir unusual case study, as well as established th eir p o in t o f view in opposition to the Pharisees (who with Jesus believed in the re su rre c tio n ), they instead receive a ra th e r sharp rebuke from Jesus for being ig n o ran t o f b o th th e scripture a n d th e pow er o f G od (v 29). Jesus’ h an dling o f th e q uestion confirm s his au thority as a m ost ex ceptional teacher. B. As in the preced in g pericope, M atthew d ep en d s o n M ark (M ark 12:18-27; cf. Luke 20:27-40), whose w ording is followed ra th e r closely. A m ong differences, the following should be noted: M atthew ’s o p e n in g phrase εν εκείνη τη ήμερα, “o n th at day,” a n d concluding verse, “A nd w hen they h eard, th e crowds were am azed at his teaching,” are his own additions to th e M arkan pericope. In v 23 M atthew om its M ark’s οΐτίνες, “w h o ” (M ark 12:18), thus transform ing th e participial clause into a statem ent o f the Sadducees. In v 24 M atthew shortens M ark’s fo rm ula εγραψ εν ήμΐν ö t l , “w rote to us th a t” (M ark 12:19), to th e sim ple ε ίπ ε ν', “said.” In the words drawn from th e O T in v 24 (cf. M ark 12:19), M atthew m akes a few m in o r changes th at have the effect o f aligning th e w ording a little m ore closely with the O T texts in question. T hus after th e abbreviation o f M ark’s t w o s ' αδελφός, “a b ro th e r o f som eo n e ,” to the sim ple τις , “so m eo n e,” M atthew om its M ark’s καί καταλίπη γυναίκα, “a n d leaves a wife,” a n d iva, “th a t” (which are n o t in th e O T texts alluded to), substitutes έπιγαμβρεύσει, “will m arry ” (cf. γάμβρευσαι in G en 38:8) for M ark’s λάβη, “take,” a n d substitutes άναστήσει (cf. G en 38:8) for έξαναστήση, b o th m eaning “will raise u p .” In v 25 M atthew adds παρ ’ ήμϊν, “am ong u s” (bringing a degree o f realism to the story), and the explanatory clause άφήκεν την γυναίκα αυτού τω άδελφωαυτού, “he left his wife to his b ro th e r” (p o in tin g clearly to the law o f levirate m a rria g e ). V 26 abbreviates M ark 12:21-22a by the sim ple use o f ομοίως, “similarly.” In v 28 Matthew om its M ark’s re d u n d a n t ό τα ν άναστώσιν, “w hen they rise” (if it was originally in M ark’s te x t). In v 29 M atthew recasts M ark’s q uestion in to a m o re forceful statem ent, om itting ου διά τούτο, “is it n o t o n acco u n t o f this?” (M ark 12:24). In v 31 M atthew om its M ark’s εν τη βίβλω Μωϋσέως επί τού βάτου, “in th e b ook o f Moses, co n cern in g th e th o rn b u sh ” (M ark 12:26), p erh ap s reg ard in g it as unnecessary for his readers. M ark follows this with πώς ε ΐπ ε ν αύτω ό θεός, “how G od said to him [M oses],” w hich in M atthew becom es το βηθέν ύμϊν υπό τού Θεού, “w hat was spoken to you by G o d ” (again th e ad ap tatio n may have in m in d M atthew ’s Jewish re a d e rs). M atthew ’s addition o f the verb είμί, “am ,” in th e citation itself (v 32; cf. M ark 12:26) conform s it m ore closely to the LXX o f E xod 3:6. Finally, M atthew om its M ark’s anticlim actic πολύ πλανασθε, “You e rr seriously” (M ark 12:27), thereby en d in g the response o f Jesus with referen ce to th e O T citation. O th e r M atthean changes o f M ark n o t n o te d h ere are m in o r a n d m ainly o f a stylistic n ature. C. T his seco n d “te stin g ” p e ric o p e is very sim ilar in fo rm to th e p re c e d in g pericope. Again th e dialogue betw een Jesus a n d his o p p o n e n ts holds c en ter stage. T h e follow ing o u tlin e may b e suggested: (1) th e qu estio n o f th e Sadducees, divided fu rth e r in to (a) th e initial d en ial o f th e re su rre c tio n (v 23), (b) th e Mosaic

640

M a t t h e w 22 : 23-33

com m and o f levirate m arriage (v 24), an d (c) the specific case o f a w om an w ho h ad had seven b ro thers as h e r husbands (vv 25-28); (2) the response o f Jesus, divided fu rth e r into (a) th e ignorance o f th e Sadducees (v 29), (b) the n atu re o f resurrection life (v 30), an d (c) G od as the G od o f the living (vv 31-32); an d (3) the reaction o f the crowds (v 33). T he dialogical character o f the passage a n d the citation o f the O T do n o t p resen t m uch opportunity for structural symmetry o r parallelism. W hat is to be fo u n d interestingly occurs in the words o f Jesus, w here we may n o te the parallel direct objects γραφάς, “scriptures,” an d δύναμιν, “pow er” (v 29), the parallel verbs γαμονσιν, “m arry,” an d γα μ ίζο ντα ι, “give in m arriage” (v 30), a n d the tru n cated parallelism in v 32 betw een νεκρών, “o f the d e a d ,” a n d £ώντων, “o f th e living.” T h e threefold form ula “the G od o f A braham , the G od o f Isaac, an d the G od o f Ja c o b ” (v 31), alth o u g h drawn from Exod 3:6, also bears noting. D. T h e story o f th e w om an m a rrie d (necessarily) to seven b ro th e rs b ears a striking sim ilarity to th a t o f Sarah in th e b o o k o f Tobit, w ho m a rrie d seven h u sb an d s only to see each o f th em die w ithout brin g in g to h e r th e b e n e fit o f ch ild re n (Tob 3 :7 -8 ). A lth o u g h it is n o t m e n tio n e d in Tobit, it m ay be assum ed that, follow ing th e law o f levirate m arriag e, som e o f h e r seven h u sb an d s w ere b ro th ers. T h e m ain d ifferen ce b etw een th e two stories is th a t n o n e o f S arah ’s m arriag es was c o n su m m a te d since each h u sb a n d d ied o n th e w edding n ig h t, b e in g slain by th e d e m o n A sm odeus “b efore h e h a d b een w ith h e r as his wife” (Tob 3:8), w hereas in th e S ad d u cees’ story all o f th e seven b ro th e rs h a d h e r as wife, yet w ith o u t success in p ro d u c in g c h ild ren . T h e S a d d u ce e s’ story seem s to have a le g e n d a ry ch aracter (despite M atthew ’s πα ρ' ήμΐν, “am o n g u s”), a n d if based in reality ra th e r th a n b e in g sim ply an e la b o ra tio n o f th e T o b it story, it seem s at least to have b e e n in flu e n c e d by T obit (e.g., p erh ap s in th e n u m b e r “seven”). Comment 23 M atthew ’s b rid g e from th e p re c e d in g passage, εν εκείνη τη ήμερα, “on th a t day” (cf. 13:1), to th e p re se n t passage may b e a way o f linking sim ilar passages ra th e r th a n a strictly chro n o lo g ical n o te. A lth o u g h n o in d icatio n is given by M atthew, it is clear th a t th e S adducees, like th e Pharisees, have com e to “test” Jesu s as a teacher. In th e p re s e n t instance, if Jesu s co u ld b e m ad e to side w ith th e S adducees against th e Pharisees o n th e q u estio n o f th e re su rre c tio n , Jesus w ould lose face, they w ould be vindicated, a n d th e ir p o sitio n w ith th e p e o p le m ig h t be s tre n g th e n e d . T h e S adducees com e insisting o n th e ir p o sitio n fro m th e start, λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς μ ή είναι άνά στα σιν, “saying th e re is n o re s u rre c tio n .” T h e S adducees h e ld only th e five books o f Moses as in sp ired a n d fo u n d n o evidence th e re fo r believing in th e re su rre c tio n (th e d isbelief in th e re su rre c tio n re fe rre d to in 1 C or 15:12 stem s fro m q u ite d iffe re n t causes). T h e ir d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e P h a risees o n th e q u estio n was n o to rio u s (cf. Acts 23:8). Since th e re su rre c tio n o f Jesus a n d h e n c e o f all th e d e a d was to b eco m e so critically im p o rta n t in th e c h u rc h (cf. Acts 4:2), m u c h is at stake in th e p re se n t ex ch ange. 24 T h e Sadducees, like th e Pharisees in th e p re c e d in g p ericope, address Jesus as διδάσκαλε, “te a c h e r” (see Comment o n v 16; cf. v 36). T h e ir q u estio n is p refaced by th e q u o ta tio n o f th e w ords o f Moses, establishing th e practice o f levirate m arriage. T h e w ords are a ra th e r free q u o ta tio n draw n from two passages, D eu t 25:5

Comment

641

a n d G en 38:8. In th e έά ν, “if,” clause only th e w ords έά ν, “if,” a n d άποθάνη, “d ies,” agree exactly w ith th e LXX o f D eu t 25:5; τις , “an y o n e,” a n d μ ή έχω ν τέκ να , “n o t having c h ild re n ,” are parap h rases o f th e LXX text. T h e re m a in d e r o f th e q u o te d w ords, b e g in n in g w ith th e verb έιπ γα μ β ρεύσ εί, “shall m a rry ” (LXX: γάμ βρευσα ι), closely resem ble th e LXX o f G en 38:8, especially th e last clause καί ά να σ τήσ εί [LXX: άνάστησον] σ πέρμ α τω άδελφω αυτόν [LXX: σ ο υ \, “a n d h e shall raise u p seed fo r his b ro th e r,” w hich agrees nearly verbatim . T his p re se n ta tio n o f th e Mosaic legislation serves as th e prem ise exp lain in g th e u n u su al story th a t follows. 25-28 M atthew ’s ad d itio n o f π α ρ ’ ήμΐν, “am o n g u s,” m akes th e case m o re th a n simply a h y pothetical one. S om eth in g o f th e k in d m u st n o t have b een th a t u n u su al given th e levirate practices (even if “seven” b ro th e rs rep resen ts an extrem e exam ple; cf. above Form/Structure/Setting %D ). T h e p ro b le m raised by th e S addu cees exists even w here two b ro th e rs m ay have b e e n c o n c e rn e d . In th e S ad d u cees’ story, n o n e o f th e six b ro th e rs was able to fulfill th e raising u p o f ch ild re n to th e first b ro th er. F or ύστερον, lit. “afterw ards” (v 27), in th e sense o f “last,” see BAGD, 849b, a n d cf. 21:37; 26:60. W ith th e d e a th o f th e wife, th e p ro b lem is fully set: w hose wife will she be έ ν τη ά ν α σ τά σ εί, “in th e re s u rre c tio n ”? T h e final clause, follow ing th e qu estio n , π ά ν τε ς γάρ έσ χο ν αύτήν, “fo r all h a d h e r,” m akes clear th a t each h a d truly b e e n h e r h u sb a n d in th e sense o f having co n su m m ated th e m arriag e sexually (unlike th e parallel in Tob 3 :7-8). 29 T h e e rro r o f th e Sadducees was th e ir den ial o f th e resu rrectio n . Jesus attrib u tes this e rro r to th e ir ig n o ran ce (μή ε ίδ ό τε ς may be tran slated as a causal particip le, i.e., “because you d o n o t know ”) o f th e scriptures a n d th e pow er o f G od. τ ά ς γρα φ ά ς, “th e scrip tu res,” w ould norm ally refer to approxim ately o u r O T can o n , b u t h e re th e im plication may be th a t th e Sadducees d id n o t even know th e ir own can o n ical scriptures, i.e., th e five books o f Moses, as th e citation o f E xod 3:6 in v 32 seem s to confirm , τη ν δύνα μιν του θεοϋ, “th e pow er o f G o d ,” obviously refers to th e ability o f G od to raise th e d e a d in a final, eschatological resu rre c tio n (cf. 1 C or 6:14). T h e scriptural a rg u m e n t is p u rsu e d fu rth e r in vv 31-32, b u t th e a rg u m e n t c o n c e rn in g G o d ’s pow er is left at this point. 30 T he p roblem raised by the S adducees’ story is in fact an im agined one, based o n an in c o rre c t extrapolation from life in the p re se n t age to th a t o f the future. T h e life o f th e re su rrectio n order, w hile presum ably in m any respects in continuity with p resen t experience, is at least d ifferent from th e p resen t in th at th ere will be n o m arriage, ούτε γαμοίκπν ούτε γα μ ίζο ντα ι, “n e ith e r m arry n o r give in m arriag e,” are m utually reinforcing b u t m ake th e sam e point: th ere will be n o m arriage in th e resu rrectio n order. Jesu s’ answ er m ust h e re d e p e n d on su p e rn a tu ral know ledge. T h e concluding clause άλλ’ώς ά γγελο ί έν τω ούρανω είσιν, “b u t they will be like th e angels in heav en ,” m ust n o t be generalized to m ean alto g eth er o r in every respect. T h e only p o in t m ade h ere is th a t so far as m arriage (and sex?) is co n cern ed , h u m a n beings will be like th e angels, i.e., n o t m arrying. 31-32 H aving th u s solved th e S ad d u cees’ p ro b lem case w ith an authoritative p ro n o u n c e m e n t o n th e subject, Jesus re tu rn s to th e basic issue o f th e reality o f th e re su rre c tio n itself, περί δε τ η ς άνα σ τά σεω ς τω ν νεκρών, lit. “b u t co n c e rn in g th e re su rre c tio n o f th e d e a d ,” m ean s in effect “to re tu rn to th e initial p ro b le m .” T h ese w ords are n o t to b e ap p lie d to th e O T citatio n o f v 32, from w hich only an in feren ce is draw n c o n c e rn in g th e reality o f th e resu rrectio n . T h e form ulaic ques-

642

Ma t t h e w 22:23-33

tio n ούκ άνέγνωτε, “have you n o t re a d ? ” is u sed o ften by Jesu s in M atthew in resp o n d in g to his o p p o n e n ts (cf. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42). In all o f M atth ew ’s in tro d u c to ry fo rm u lae to his O T q u o tatio n s, only h e re d o we fin d ύμϊν, “to y o u ” (to th e Jew ish peo p le, in clu d in g th e S adducees), a n d το ρηθεν . . . ύπο τον θεόν, “w hat was sp o k en by G o d ” (cf. ύπο κυρίου, “by th e L o rd ,” in 1:22; 2:15). T h e la tte r is p ro b ab ly o ccasio n ed by th e fact th a t G od speaks in th e cited m aterial. T h e passage cited in v 32, draw n from m aterial accep ted as can o n ical by th e S adducees, agrees v erbatim w ith th e LX X o f E xod 3:6 ex c e p t fo r th e om ission o f του πατρός σου θεός', “your father, G o d ,” a n d th e in sertio n o f th e d efin ite articles b efo re θεός', “G o d ,” in its seco n d a n d th ird o ccu rren ces (cf. th e sam e fo rm u la “th e G od o f A braham , a n d th e G od o f Isaac, a n d th e G od o f J a c o b ” in E xod 3:15, 16). L ong after th e d e a th o f A braham , Isaac, a n d Jaco b , G od revealed h im self to M oses as th e G od o f th e patriarch s. T his im plies th a t they are still alive since it w ould m ean little to say th a t G od “is” (είμί, p re s e n t tense) th e G od o f d e a d m en. T h e c o n c lu d in g e x p lan ato ry w ords follow ing th e q u o ta tio n m ake ju s t this point: ούκ εστιν [ό] θεός- νεκρών άλλά ζώντων, “h e is n o t th e G od o f th e d e a d b u t o f th e living.” T h e p o in t th a t A braham , Isaac, a n d Jaco b , a lth o u g h having d ied, “are alive in G o d ” (ζώσιν τω θεω) is also m ad e in 4 M acc 7:19; 16:25. If G od is th e G od o f th e p atriarch s, they are by im p licatio n alive after th e ir d e a th (w h eth er in Sheol [thu s Ellis] o r otherw ise is o f n o co n seq u en ce to th e a rg u m e n t), a n d th u s th e g ro u n d is p re p a re d fo r th e reality o f th e fu tu re re su rre c tio n . F o r this reaso n , in 8:11 M atthew can e a rlie r re fe r to th e co m in g tim e w hen “m any fro m east a n d west will co m e a n d reclin e a t table w ith A b rah am a n d Isaac a n d Ja c o b in th e kingd o m o f h e a v e n .’’Je su s’ a rg u m e n t is distinctive a n d does n o t follow th e com m only u sed ru les o f rab b in ic a rg u m e n t from scrip tu re (see C ohn-Sherbok; fo r a p arallel w ith P h ilo ’s a rg u m e n t from th e sam e E xodus passage, see D o w n in g ). 33 οι όχλοι, “th e crow ds,” hav in g o v e rh e a rd th e e x c h a n g e b etw e e n th e S adducees a n d Jesus, έξεπλήσσοντο επί τη διδαχή αυτού, “w ere am azed at his teachin g ,” as is said v e rb a tim (e x c e p t fo r w o rd o r d e r ) in 7:28, a fte r M a tth e w ’s p re se n ta tio n o f th e S erm o n o n th e M o u n t (cf. to o th e a m azem en t re c o rd e d in 13:54; 19:25). T h e w isdom o f Jesus th e te a c h e r is th u s v in d icated a seco n d tim e u n d e r th e fire o f his o p p o n e n ts (cf. v 22 a n d especially v 46). Explanation T h e S ad ducees d e n ie d th e re su rre c tio n becau se they d id n o t fin d it explicitly ta u g h t in th e five books o f Moses. L im iting h im self to th e ir ab b rev iated can o n , Jesus shows th a t th e reality o f th e fu tu re re su rre c tio n is clearly im p lied in th e sim ple affirm atio n o f E xod 3:6. T h e specific p ro b le m they raised, m oreover, was b ased o n th e failure to realize th e new ness th a t th e re su rre c tio n age will bring. M o d ern disbelief in th e fu tu re re su rre c tio n o f th e d e a d is th e resu lt o f an e n tirely d iffe re n t set o f circum stances, especially th e n atu ralism o f m o d e rn science. Such a view point, however, is n o t dissim ilar to th a t o f th e S adducees, especially in th e u n d e re stim a tin g o f th e pow er o f G od a n d th e m isu n d e rsta n d in g o f th e N T view o f th e re su rre c tio n a n d th e w orld to com e. If G od is truly G od, th e n th e raising o f th e d e a d can be n o p ro b lem fo r him . T h e pow er to revivify c a n n o t be d e n ie d to th e O n e w ho c re a te d life in th e first place. F u rth e rm o re , re su rre c tio n

Bibliography

643

bodies a n d th e w orld o f th e esch ato n are n e ith e r to be m isu n d ersto o d as “spiritu a l” o r im m aterial, in tan g ib le realities com pletely d isco n tin u o u s w ith life as we know it nor, o n th e o th e r h a n d , as flesh a n d blo o d , m aterial realities com pletely c o n tin u o u s w ith th e w orld we know. A lth o u g h we know little c o n c e rn in g th e n a tu re o f th e w orld to com e a n d o u r own existence in it, th a t fu tu re reality will be b o th co n tin u o u s in som e ways a n d d isco n tin u o u s in o th e r ways with w hat we have know n. For o n e th in g , we will have bodies, a n d thus we will n o t be disem b o d ied spirits, yet those b odies will n o t be o f flesh a n d b lo o d b u t bodies o f a new k in d th a t we have yet to ex p e rien ce ( the N T discussion o f this subject is, o f course, 1 C or 15:35-50). T h e n th e creatio n will have b eco m e th e new creatio n o f God.

W hich Is the G reat C om m andm ent o f the Law ? (22:34^40) Bibliography

Berger, K. “Die Schriftauslegung in Mt 22, 34-40.” In D ie G e s e tz e s a u s le g u n g J e s u . 202-8. Bockmuehl, K. “The Great Commandment.” C r u x 23.3 (1987) 10-20. Bornkamm, G. “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe.” In N e u te s ta m e n tlic h e S tu d ie n . FS R. Bultmann, ed. W. Ehester. BZNW 21. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1954. 85-93 (reprinted in G e sc h ic h te u n d G la u b e . G e sa m m e lte A u f s ä tz e II I. BEvT 48. Munich: Kaiser, 1968. 37-45). Burchard, C. “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frühen christlichen Überlieferung.” In D e r R u f J e s u u n d d ie A n t w o r t d e r G e m e in d e . FS J. Jeremias, ed. E. Lohse and B. Schaller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1970. 39-62. Derrett, J. D. M. “‘Love Thy Neighbor as a Man Like Thyself?” E x p T i m 83 (1971) 55-56. Diezinger, W. “Zum Liebesgebot Mk xii, 28-34 und Parr.” N o v T 20 (1978) 81-83. Donaldson, T. L. “The Law That ‘Hangs’ (Mt 22:40): Rabbinic Formulation and Matthean Social World.” In S o d e ty o f B ib lic a l L ite r a tu r e 1 9 9 0 S e m in a r P a p e rs, ed. D. J. Lull. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. 14-33. Ernst, J. “Die Einheit von Gottes—und Nächstenliebe in der Verkündigung Jesu.” T G l 60 (1970) 3-14. Fuchs, E. “Was heisst: ‘Du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben wie dich selbst’?” T B l 11 (1932) 129-40 (reprinted in Z u r F r a g e n a c h d e m h is to n s c h e n J e s u s . Tübingen: Mohr, 1960. 1-20). Fuller, R. H., ed. E s s a y s o n th e L o v e C o m m a n d m e n t. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Furnish, V. P. T h e L o v e C o m m a n d i n th e N e w T e s ta m e n t. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Gerhardsson, B. “The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew 22:37-40.” In J e w s , G reeks a n d C h r is tia n s . FS W. D. Davies, ed. R. HamertonKelly and R. Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976. 129-50. Grundmann, W. “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe.” Z Z 11 (1957) 449-55. Hultgren, A. J. ‘The Double Commandment of Love in Mt 22:34-40.” C B Q 3 6 (1974) 373-78. Iersel, B. van. “Les lignes fondamentales de notre vie chretienne (Mt. 22,34-36).” A s S d g n 71 (1963) 27-44. Kiilunen, J. D e r D o p p e lg eb o t d e r L ie b e i n s y n o p tis c h e r S ic h t: E i n r e d a k tio n s k r itis c h e r V e rsu c h ü b e r M k 1 2 , 2 8 - 3 4 u n d d ie P a r a lle le n .

Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakademia, 1989. Lohfink, N. “Das Hauptgebot.” In D a s S ie g e slie d a m S c h ilfm e e r: C h r is tlic h e A u s d n a n d e r s e t z u n g e n m it d e m A l t e n T e s ta m e n t. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1965.19-50. Michel, O. “Das Gebot der Nächstenliebe in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Z u r s o z ia le n E n t s c h eid u n g : V ie r V orträge, ed. N. Koch. Tübingen: Mohr, 1947. 53— 101. Miller, J. S. “The Neighbor.” E x p T i m 96 (1984-85) 337-39. Montefiore, H. “T h o u Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.” N o v T 5 (1962) 157-70. Nissen, A. G o tt u n d d e r N ä c h s te

644

Ma t t h e w 22: 34-40

im antiken Judentum . WUNT 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1974. Osborn, E. “The Love Command in 2nd-Century Christian Writing: Mt 22.36-79.” Second Century 1 (1981) 223-43. Perkins, P. Love Commands in the New Testament. New York: Paulist, 1982. Schneider, G. “Die Neuheit der christlichen Nächstenliebe.” 7TZ82 (1973) 257-75. Stern, J. B. “Jesus’ Citation of Dt 6,5 and Lv 19,18 in Light of Jewish Tradition.” CBQ 28 (1966) 312-16. Strecker, G. “Gottesund Menschenliebe in Neuen Testament.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. FS E. E. Ellis, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids/Tübingen: Eerdmans/ Mohr, 1987. 53-67. Wolpert, W. “Die Liebe zum Nächsten, zum Feind und zum Sünder.” TGl 74 (1984) 262-82.

Translation S4Now the Pharisees, when they heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together in one place,a 35and one o f them [— an expert in the law— ],b testing him,c asked: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? ”37A n d he d said to him: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with the whole o f your heart and with the whole o f your life and with the whole o f your m ind. ’e 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39A n d f the second is similar to it.g ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’40 On these two commandments hang the whole h law and the prophets.” Notes a A few witnesses (D it sy50 mae?) have έ π ’αύτόν, “against him ,” for έπι το αυτό, “in one place.” b νομικός', lit. “lawyer,” is omitted byf 1sys. This together with its omission also in “widely scattered versional and patristic witnesses” suggests the possibility that the word (not used elsewhere by Matthew) was introduced early through the influence of the parallel in Luke 10:25. However, because of the weight of all the remaining textual evidence, the word is retained, but in brackets. Cf. TCGNT, 50. F G H have νομικός τις, “a certain lawyer.” c Many MSS (D W Θ f 1,13 TR it sy(s,c)h samss mae) insert και λέγων, “and saying.” d Many MSS (D W Θ f 1,13 TR lat syP,h mae) insert ό Ιησούς, ‘Jesus.” e A few witnesses (c sys,c Clement of Alexandria) substitute ίσχύϊ, “strength,” perhaps thereby bringing a degree of conformity to the LXX text of Deut 6:5 (which has δυνάμβως), while rather more (Θ f 13 [syp] bomss) substitute ίσχύϊ σου και έν όλη τη διανοία σου, “with your strength and with the whole of your m ind,” probably through the influence of the parallels (Luke 10:27; cf. Mark 12:30). f δέ, lit. “but,” is omitted by K* B sams bomss. g K Γ f 13 sa mae have αύτη, “this," while D QQ‹ bo have ταύτη, “this.” B has the simple ομοίως, “similarly. ” h δλος, “whole,” is omitted by N* syscp sa bopt.

Form /Structure/Setting A. T h e th ird a n d last o f this series o f co n fro n tatio n s o f Jesus by his o p p o n e n ts brings a n o th e r test qu estio n from th e Pharisees. T h e qu estio n is o n e o f fu n d a m en ta l im p o rta n c e , fo r th e answ er to it will establish w h e th e r Jesus belongs to som e rad ical frin g e g ro u p o r w ithin th e piety o f m ain stream Ju d aism . M atthew ’s a b ru p t e n d in g suggests th a t th e Pharisees h a d n o p articu lar p ro b le m w ith his answ er (cf. M ark 12:32-34). B. M atthew co n tin u es to d e p e n d o n M ark (M ark 12:28-34; cf. th e seco n d ary parallel in L uke 10:25-28), b u t less closely th a n in th e p re c e d in g p erico p e. M atthew m akes several substantial om issions, th e lo n g est o f these b ein g th e om ission

Form/Structure/Setting

645

o f th e en tirety o f M ark 12:32-34. T h e reaso n fo r this om ission seem s obvious: th e friendly discourse b etw een th e scribe a n d Jesus, e n d in g w ith th e re m a rk o f Jesus, ‘Y ou are n o t far fro m th e k ingdom o f G o d ,” does n o t fit well with th e p a tte rn o f increasin g hostility th a t M atthew has b e e n b u ild in g u p in his n arrativ e (cf. th e clim actic d e n u n c ia tio n o f th e P harisees in chap. 23). M atthew has tu rn e d M ark’s d idactic story (Schulgespräch) in to a conflict story (Streitgespräch). Cf. B ornkam m , “Das D o p p e lg e b o t.” T h e last statem en t o f M ark 12:34, “a n d n o o n e d a re d to question h im any m o re ,” is delayed u n til th e e n d o f th e follow ing p e ric o p e (v 46), th e last in this section o f th e G ospel. A second, a n d p e rh a p s surprising, om ission is th a t o f th e o p e n in g w ords o f th e S hem a in v 37: “H ear, Israel, th e L o rd o u r G od is o n e L o rd ” (M ark 12:29). It is unlikely th a t this om ission has anything to d o w ith tensions betw een M atthew ’s c h u rc h a n d th e synagogue. M ore likely M atthew om its it because it is n o t essential to th e a rg u m e n t a n d because h e can assum e th e re a d e rs ’ association o f th e g o o d c o m m a n d m e n t w ith th e Shem a, w hich his co m m u n ity pro b ab ly c o n tin u e d to say twice a day. T h e final om ission to b e n o te d is o f M ark’s fo u rth p h rase, m odifying th e love c o m m a n d m e n t (v 37), “a n d with th e w hole o f your stre n g th ” (M ark 12:30). It is surprising th a t M atthew om its this p h rase, w hich is fo u n d in th e H eb rew Bible, ra th e r th a n καί έ ξ όλης τ η ς διάνοια ς σου, “a n d w ith th e w hole o f your m in d ,” w hich is an ad ditio n o f th e LXX to th e H ebrew text. Still, by m erely re d u c in g th e n u m b e r o f qualifying phrases to th re e , M atthew brin g s a b o u t m o re resem b lan ce to th e H ebrew form u la o f D eu t 6:5, w hich also co n tain s th re e phrases. It sh o u ld also be n o te d th a t M atthew (v 37) has altered M ark’s G reek (M ark 12:30) in these phrases, ch an g ing έξ, “fro m ,” a n d th e genitive (as also in LXX) to th e b e tte r G reek o f έ ν , “w ith,” a n d th e dative (cf. th e m ix ed co n stru ctio n s in L uke 10:27). M atthew also m akes som e ad d itio n s to his M arkan source. T h e en tirety o f v 34 is ad d ed , in w hich M atthew focuses o n th e a lte rn a te a ttem p ts o f Sadducees a n d Pharisees to find fault w ith his teaching. M atthew ’s “o n e o f th e m ,” i.e., o f th e Pharisees, takes the place o f M ark’s “o n e o f th e scribes.” M atthew ’s νομικός, “lawyer” (v 35), if original, is also an ad d itio n . M atthew substitutes πειράζω ν αυτόν, “testing h im ” (v 35), for th e appreciative a ttitu d e reflected in M ark’s “seeing th a t h e answ ered th em w ell” (Luke 10:25 agrees w ith M atthew against M ark in his έκπειράζω ν, “testin g ”). M atthew inserts at th e b e g in n in g o f v 36 th e address διδάσκαλε, “te a c h e r” (so too L uke 10:25). In th e sam e verse M atthew substitutes μ ε γ ά λ η , “g re a t,” fo r πρώτη, “first,” a n d adds έν τω νόμω, “in th e law.” M atthew also adds v 38: α υ τή έ σ τ ίν ή μ ε γ ά λ η και πρώτη έντολή, “this is th e g re a t a n d first c o m m a n d m e n t,” giving em phasis to th e p o in t (cf. M ark 12:31b). In v 39 M atthew adds όμοια α ύ τη , “sim ilar to it.” Finally, M atthew adds a distinctive co n clu d in g sta te m e n t to M ark’s account: “O n these two co m m an d m en ts h a n g th e w hole o f th e law a n d th e p ro p h e ts” (v 4 0 ). T h e a g re e m e n ts b e tw e e n M a tth e w a n d L u k e a g a in s t M ark (ν ο μ ικ ό ς , [έκ] πειράζων, διδάσκαλε) are th o u g h t by som e scholars (e.g., Berger, H u ltg ren ) to p o in t to th e existence o f a fo rm o f th e p e ric o p e p arallel to th e M arkan fo rm th a t was u sed by M atthew a n d Luke. C. T h e th ird c o n fro n ta tio n story is sim ilar in fo rm to th e two p re c e d in g n a rra tives, a lth o u g h it lacks any re fe re n ce to a resp o n se e ith e r o f th e Pharisees o r of th e crowds. T h e passage may be o u tlin e d as follows: (1) a n o th e r qu estio n from th e Pharisees, divided in to (a) th e g ath erin g o f th e Pharisees (v 34) a n d (b) th e

646

M a t t h e w 22 : 34-40

law e x p e rt’s p re se n ta tio n o f th e q u estio n (vv 3 5 -3 6 ); a n d (2) Je su s’ definitive answer, divided in to (a) th e first c o m m a n d m e n t (vv 3 7 -3 8 ), (b) th e seco n d com m a n d m e n t (v 39), a n d (c) th e c o m m an d m en ts as th e h e a rt o f th e law a n d th e p ro p h e ts (v 40). A gain th e d ialo g u e d o m in ate s th e actual stru c tu re o f th e passage. T h e only n o ticeable stru ctu ral featu re, bey o n d th e th re e p arallel p h rases o f v 37 draw n fro m M ark (a n d in tu rn th e LX X ), is th e syntactic p arallel in th e p re s e n ta tio n o f th e two c o m m a n d m e n ts (vv 37 a n d 39), b o th w ith th e verb άγαττήσβίς, “you shall love,” acco m p an ied by a d irect object a n d a verbal m o d ifier. A c h ia s m o c c u rs in w 3 7 -3 9 , w h e re a fte r th e c ita tio n o f th e firs t c o m m a n d m e n t th e no tice “this is th e first a n d g re a t c o m m a n d m e n t” is given a n d th e n th e no tice “th e seco n d is sim ilar to it” is follow ed by th e citation o f th e seco n d c o m m a n d m e n t. T h e lack o f any w ord c o n c e rn in g th e resp o n se o f tho se w ho h e a rd Je su s’ answ er is u n d o u b te d ly caused by M atthew ’s close jo in in g o f this passage to th a t w hich follows. T h e resu lt is th a t th e resp o n se o f v 46 is also relev an t to th e p re se n t passage. Comment 34 W hile th e Pharisees may inw ardly have rejo iced in th e re p o rt c o n c e rn in g Je su s’ refu ta tio n o f th e Sadducees (in p artic u la r th e ir d en ial o f th e re su rre c tio n ), they m u st also have b e e n fru stra te d in yet a n o th e r triu m p h o f Jesus th e teacher. σννήχθησαν επ ί το α υτό , “w ere g a th e re d to g e th e r in th e sam e p la c e ” (th e id en tical p h ra se occurs in th e LXX o f Ps 2:2 in a c o n te x t o f o p p o sitio n against th e L o rd ’s “a n o in te d ” [τον χ ρ ισ τ ό ν ] ), suggests th e c o n c e rte d action o f a g ro u p o f P h arisees fo r w hom th e spokesm an o f th e follow ing verse acts as a rep resen tativ e (cf. th e se n d in g o f disciples o f th e P h arisees in v 16). T his g a th e rin g o f th e P h arisees serves also as th e c o n te x t fo r th e follow ing p e ric o p e (cf. v 41). 3 5 -3 6 T h e νομικός, “law e x p e rt” (used in M atthew only h ere, alth o u g h th e te x t is q u e s tio n a b le ; see Note b a b o v e ), c a n n o t b e d is tin g u is h e d fro m th e γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ίς , “scrib e,” o f th e p arallel in M ark 12:28. In this case th e law e x p e rt was clearly o f th e p arty o f th e P harisees. A gain th e q u estio n in M atthew is n o t a sincere o n e b u t is asked w ith th e m otive o f πειράζων, “testin g ” (cf. v 18 w here this attitu d e receives a reb u k e; cf. 16:1; 19:3), in th e h o p e o f catch in g h im in som e fu n d a m e n ta l erro r. F o r th e th ird tim e in th ese successive perico p es, Je su s’ o p p o n e n ts address h im as διδάσκαλε, “te a c h e r” (cf. w 16, 24; see Comment o n 9:11). T h e re is evidence th a t th e q u estion c o n c e rn in g th e m ost im p o rta n t c o m m an d m e n t (μ εγά λη , “g re a t,” is a Sem itism fo r “g re a te st”) was o f co n sid erab le in te re st in rab b in ic discussions (cf. fo r O T b a c k g ro u n d esp. Mic 6:8; H illel sum m arized th e law in th e negative fo rm o f th e G o ld en R ule [ b. §abb. 31a]; R. Sim lai [b. Mak. 24a; Midr. Tanhuma B o n J u d g §10 (16b)] refers to th e re d u c tio n o f th e 613 com m a n d m e n ts o f M oses to 11 by David [Ps 15], 6 by Isaiah [Isa 3 3:15-16], 3 by M icah [Mic 6:8], 2 by Isaiah again [Isa 56:1], 1 by A m os [Amos 5:4], a n d 1 again by H abak k u k [H ab 2:4]; fo r specific re fe re n ce to Lev 19:18 u sed sim ilarly to th e p re se n t passage, cf. Sifra Lev. 19:18 [R abbi A kiba]; Gen. Rob. 24 [16b]; cf. to o m. yAbot 1:2). N evertheless, th e w rong answ er— i.e., o th e r th a n th a t given by Jesus, w hich co u ld be c o n stru e d as in clu d in g w ithin it all th e o th e r c o m m an d m en ts— co u ld have p roved useful to th e P harisees in th e ir a tte m p t to g e t rid o f Jesus.

Comment

647

37 -3 8 Jesu s draws his answ er fro m th e S hem a, w hich was re c ite d twice daily by the Jews. A fter th e o p en in g words, “H ear, Israel, th e L ord o u r G od is o n e L o rd ,” w hich are in c lu d e d in M ark 12:29, com es th e c o m m a n d m e n t q u o te d by Jesus. T h e w ording o f th e citation itself agrees nearly verbatim w ith th e LXX o f D eu t 6:5, ex c e p t fo r M atthew ’s use o f ε ν a n d th e dative fo r εκ a n d th e genitive (no d o u b t reflectin g th e H eb rew prep o sitio n 3, be, “w ith,” o f th e H ebrew text o f D eu t 6:5) a n d th e alteratio n o f th e th ird n o u n from δννάμεως, “stre n g th ,” to διανοία, “m in d ” (th e latter, however, occurs in a cognate passage in th e LXX o f Jo sh 22:5). διανοία is derived fro m M atthew ’s source, M ark 12:30 (w hich, however, has fo u r m odifying n o u n s; cf. above Form/Structure/Setting §B ). T h e first a n d g reat com m a n d m e n t is to love G o d w ith all o n e ’s b eing: w ith h e a rt, soul, m in d , a n d w hatever else o n e m ig h t care to add. T his c o m m a n d m e n t from D eu t 6:5 can easily b e reco g n iz e d as a k in d o f e la b o ra tio n o n th e first c o m m a n d m e n t o f th e D ecalogue: “I am th e L o rd y our G od . . . you shall have n o o th e r gods besides m e .” In its fu n d a m e n ta l character, this is clearly ή μ ε γ ά λ η [cf. v 36] καί πρώτη εντο λή , “th e g re a t a n d first c o m m a n d m e n t.” In c lu d e d w ithin it is th e duty o f obedien ce to th e o th e r c o m m an d m en ts given by G od, a n d thus th e answ er w ould have b e e n a g o o d o n e in th e eyes o f th e Pharisees. 39 Jesus adds a second, com panion (όμοια aim %“similar to it”) co m m an d m en t to his answer, linked with the first by th e co m m o n w ord ά γα π ή σ εις, “you shall love” (reflecting the rabbinic practice know n as gezerä säwä, “equal category,” nam ely th e association o f scripture passages o n th e basis o f a co m m o n w o rd ), as a way o f p re senting a com prehensive picture o f o n e ’s duty to G od a n d to bro th ers an d sisters o f th e h u m a n family (cf. T Iss. 5:2; T. Dan. 5:3). ά γα π ή σ εις τον πλησίον σου ώς σ ε αυτόν, “you shall love your n eig h b o r as yourself,” agrees verbatim with the LXX o f Lev 19:18 (cf. too Lev 19:34). M atthew has already cited th e co m m an d m en t in 5:43 (partially) a n d 19:19, b o th citations bein g u n iq u e to Matthew. It is q u o ted by Paul in R om 13:9 as th e sum m ing u p o f “th e co m m an d m en ts,” in Gal 5:14 as the fulfillm ent o f th e “w hole law,” a n d it is cited in Jas 2:8 as “th e royal law according to scripture.” Its high significance in all these instances traces back to Jesus’ teaching in the p re se n t passage. It is also clearly th e fu n d am en tal g ro u n d u p o n w hich the ethical teaching o f th e N T ch u rch is built. (Strecker relates this passage to the statem e n t in 1 J o h n 4:8 th a t “G od is love.”) T h e Pharisees w ould clearly accept the im portance o f this additional com m an d m en t, even if they may n o t have given it quite the sam e degree o f p ro m inence. See Comment o n 19:19 fo r fu rth e r exegesis o f th e co m m a n d m en t itself. 40 So im p o rta n t are these two co m m an d m en ts, in d eed , th a t Jesu s can co n clude th a t o n these two c o m m an d m en ts δλος δ νόμος κρέμα τα ι και οι προφήται, “h a n g th e w hole law a n d th e p ro p h e ts .” T his is a way o f saying th a t th e com m an d m en ts o f th e law a n d th e teach in g o f th e p ro p h e ts c a n n o t be fulfilled a p a rt from th e tw ofold love c o m m a n d m e n t. T his is p u t conversely in 7:12, w here th e G olden R ule is said “to b e ,” i.e. “to fulfill,” th e law a n d th e pro p h ets: “F or this is th e law a n d th e p ro p h e ts ” (cf. R om 13:10: “Love is th e fulfilling o f th e law”). G. B e rtra m rig h tly c o n c lu d e s: “κ ρ έ μ α τ α ι , ά ν α κ ε φ α λ α ιο ϋ τ α ι [R om 13:9] a n d πεπλήρω ται [Gal 5:14] are exact m aterial parallels w hich have the sam e fact in view” (T D N T 3:920-21). Jesus, in M atthew ’s view, d o es n o t cancel th e co m m a n d m en ts o f th e law th ro u g h his teach in g c o n c e rn in g th e critical im p o rta n ce o f love

648

Ma t t h e w 22 : 41-46

b u t in stead reg ard s th e la tte r as th e tru e fu lfillm en t o f th e h e a rt o f th e fo rm e r (cf. too, 9:13; 12:7; esp. 23:23). T h e tw ofold c o m m a n d m e n t as set fo rth in this passage m ay ap p ro p riately be th o u g h t o f as n o th in g less th a n a “h e rm e n e u tic p ro g ra m ” fo r th e u n d e rsta n d in g a n d ap p licatio n o f th e law a n d th e p ro p h e ts (th u s G erh ard sso n ). Explanation T h e two love co m m an d m en ts b elo n g together, covering th e vertical (relatio n ship w ith G od) a n d th e h o rizo n tal (relatio n sh ip w ith o thers) dim ensions. T h e first entails th e second; th e seco n d p resu p p o ses a n d d e p e n d s o n th e first. It is obvious, however, th a t th e use o f th e verb ά γα π ή σ β ις , “you shall love,” does n o t m e a n th e sam e th in g in b o th places. In n e ith e r case is love c o n stru e d as an em o tion. Love fo r o n e ’s n e ig h b o r m ean s actin g tow ard o th e rs w ith th e ir good, th e ir w ell-being, th e ir fulfillm ent, as th e p rim ary m otivation a n d goal o f o u r deeds. Such love is c o n sta n t a n d takes n o re g a rd o f th e perceived m e rit o r w orth o f th e o th e r p erso n . Love o f G od, o n th e o th e r h a n d , is to be u n d e rsto o d as a m a tte r o f rev eren ce, co m m itm en t, a n d o b ed ien ce. It is at o n ce an ack n o w led g m en t o f his id en tity as C re a to r a n d R e d e e m e r a n d a reflectio n o f th a t reality in th e o rd e rin g o f o u r lives. W ith this o rie n ta tio n tow ard G od a n d o th ers, th e law a n d th e p ro p h ets have re a c h e d th e ir u ltim a te goal. F u rth e r c o n c e rn w ith co m m a n d m e n ts, fu rth e r e la b o ra tio n o f ethical stip u latio n s— th ese all d e p e n d u p o n th e real m a n ifestation o f th e love c o m m a n d m e n ts fo r th e ir legitimacy.

D a vid ’s Greater Son

(22:41 -4 6 )

B ib lio g r a p h y

B urger, C. Jesus als D avidssohn. C hilton, B. D. “Jesus ben D a vid : Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage.”J S N T 14 (1982) 88-112. D aube, D. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. 158-69. Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Son of David Tradition and Mt 22:41-46 and Parallels.” In Essays on the Semitic Background o f the New Testament. 113-26. Friedrich, G. “Messianische Hohepriesterwartung in den Synoptikern.” Z T K 53 (1956) 265-311. Gagg, R. P. “Jesus und die Davidssohnfrage.” T Z (1951) 18-30. G ibbs, J. M. “Purpose and Pattern in Matthew’s Use of the Title ‘Son of David.’” N T S 10 (1963-64) 446-64. Gourgues, M. “Marc 12:36 et paralleles (Mt 22:44; Lc 20:42).” In A la droite de Dieu. EBib. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1978. 127-43. Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right H and: Psalm 110 in Early Christian Literature.

SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hays, D., and Suhl, A. “Der Davidssohn in MatthäusEvangelium.” Z N W 5 9 (1968) 57-81. Iersel, B. M. F. van. “Der Sohn ” in den synoptischen Jesusworten. J o h n s o n , S. E. “The Davidic-Royal Motif in the Gospels. ” JB L 87 (1968) 13650. Lövestam, E. “Die Davidssohnfrage.” SEA 27 (1962) 77-82. Lohse, E. “Der König aus Davids Geschlecht: Bemerkungen zur messianischen Erwartung der Synagoge.” In Abraham unser Vater. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz et al. AGSU 5. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 337-45. Michaelis, W. “Die Davidssohnschaft Jesu als historisches und kerygmatisches Problem.” In Der

Form/Structure/Setting

649

historische Jesus u n d der kerygmatische Christus, ed. H. Ristow and K. Matthiae. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962. 317-30. Neugebauer, F. “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mark xii. 35-7 parr.) und der Menschensohn.” N T S 21 (1974-75) 81-108. Schneider, G. “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12, 35-37).” Bib 53 (1972) 65-90.———. “Zum Vorgeschichte des christologischen Prädikats ‘Sohn Davids.’” 7TZ 80 (1971) 247-53. Wrede, W. ‘Jesus als Davidssohn.” In Vorträge u n d Studien. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907. 147-77.

Translation 41 While the Pharisees were gathered, Jesus asked them a question,a 42saying: “What do you think concerning the Messiah ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “D avid's!” 42He b said to them: “How therefore does D avid by the Spirit call him lord,c saying: 44T hed Lord said to my lord: Sit at my tight hand Until I p u t your enemies Belowe your feet? 45I f therefore D a vid f calls him lord, how is he his son?”46A n d no one was able to answer him with even a word, nor did anyone dare from that day g to question him any longer.

Notes a “A question” added to translation. b L Z f1 vgmss mae bo add b ’Ιησούς, “Jesus.” c In B*, αυτόν, “his,” follows κύριου, i.e., “his lord.” d Although K B D Z lack the definite article before κύριος, “Lord,” it must nevertheless be translated as definite. The LXX includes the article, and thus scribes were inclined to insert it here. e Many MSS (Wf 1TR lat mae) read υποποδίου, “a footstool,” a conforming of the citation to the LXX of Ps 110:1. f D K Δ Θ f 13 it vgmss syh** mae bopt add έυ πυβύματι, “by the Spirit,” through the influence of v 43. s D W / 1 sys>cboms read ώρας, “hour.”

Form/Structure/Setting A. T his p erico p e com es as th e clim ax to th e p re c e d in g series o f testings o f Jesus by his o p p o n e n ts, each o n e o f w hich Jesu s has brilliantly passed, d e m o n strating fu rth e r his auth o rity as a teacher. Now, however, he takes th e initiative against his o p p o n e n ts, h e re again th e Pharisees, by p u ttin g a difficult question b efo re th em . T his q u estio n is n o t o n e d esig n ed fo r its cleverness b u t o n e th a t has to d o w ith Je su s’ own identity a n d calling. T h e P harisees are u n ab le to draw th e re q u ire d co nclusion, ju s t as they have b e e n earlie r u n a b le to accept Jesus, his m essage, o r his p e rso n a l claims. W hereas h e has passed th e tests they p u t to him , they fail in th e test h e p u ts to them . B. M atthew co n tin u e s to d e p e n d o n M ark fo r this p e ric o p e (M ark 12:35-37a; cf. Luke 20:41-44), b u t h e co n n ects it m u ch m o re closely with th e p reced in g n arrative. M ark m akes a b reak w ith w hat p reced es by re fe rrin g to a new teach in g context: διδάσκων έν τω ίερω , “teach in g in th e te m p le ” (M ark 12:35), w ords om itte d by M atthew. F u rth e rm o re , M atthew has Jesu s ad dress th e q u estio n to th e “g a th e re d ” P harisees directly, ra th e r th a n rhetorically to th e crow d as in M ark.

650

M a t t h e w 22 : 41-46

T h e re su lta n t d ire c t discourse betw een Jesu s a n d his o p p o n e n ts in w 4 2 -4 3 is th u s m issing in M ark. T h e o th e r m ajo r d ifferen ce fro m his M arkan source is M atthew ’s a d d itio n o f v 46, w hich is, however, partly b o rro w ed from M ark’s e n d ing to th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e (M ark 12:34b). M atthew om its M ark 12:37b, “a n d th e larg e crow d h e a rd h im gladly,” since it d oes n o t fit well w ith his p u rp o se, i.e., show ing th e failure o f Je su s’ o p p o n e n ts. T his p rep ares th e way fo r th e sh arp criticism o f th e Pharisees in chap. 23. T h e q u o ta tio n o f Ps 110:1 in v 44 agrees exactly w ith its fo rm in M ark 12:36 (n o te especially υποκάτω , “below ,” fo r th e LX X ’s υποποδίου, “fo o tsto o l”). A fu rth e r slight c h a n g e to n o te is M atthew ’s el ουυ, “if th e re fo re ” (v 45; cf. M ark 12:37), w hich adds a little m o re sh arp n ess to th e q uestio n th a t follows, a n d th e substitution o f th e m o re usual πώς fo r πόθβυ, “how ” (cf. L uke 20:44). Finally, M atthew ’s om ission o f τω άγίω , “th e H oly” (M ark 12:36), as a m o d ifier o f τω πυβύματί, “th e S p irit,” is probably simply an abbreviation. C. T h e b eg in n in g o f th e p erico p e is ch aracterized by th e sim ple syntax o f d irect discourse. As in th e two p reced in g passages, th e citation o f the O T plays a central role. T h e seco n d question o f Jesus, however, is left unansw ered. M atthew ’s readers are left to supply the answer themselves, d e p e n d in g o n the C hristology o f th e early church. As an outline, the following is suggested: (1) Je su s’ q uestion (vv 41-42b); (2) th e Pharisees’ answer (v 42c); (3) Jesu s’ second question (vv 43-45); a n d (4) th e final silence o f his o p p o n e n ts (v 46). T h e only structural featu re th a t bears n o tin g is th e rep etitio n o f th e clause Δ αυίδ καλβϊ αυτόν κύριου, “David calls h im lo rd ,” in v 45a, ju s t after th e citatio n o f Ps 110:1 (th e id en tical clause w ith έ υ πυβύμα τί, “by th e Spirit,” occurs in v 43 im m ediately before th e q u o tatio n ). D. Ps 110:1, w hich is cited in v 44, b ecam e a particularly im p o rta n t O T text in th e early c h u rch (see H ay). It generally is used in referrin g to the re s u rre c tio n / ascension a n d heavenly ru le o f C hrist (cf. 26:64; Acts 2:34-35; 1 C or 15:25; E ph 1:20; Col 3:1; H e b 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13). O nly in the p resen t instance is th e focus o n the in tro d u cto ry “th e L ord said to my lo rd .” T h e use o f this p ericope by B am . 12.10-11 m isunderstands the sonship question alto g eth er (as does m u ch m o d ern critical scholarship) by u n d e rsta n d in g it as denying th a t Jesus is th e Son o f David. Comment 4 1 -4 2 By co n n ec tin g this p e ric o p e so closely w ith th e p re c e d in g th ro u g h th e use o f th e genitive absolute, συυηγμβυω υ δέ τώ υ φαρισαίωυ, “w hile th e Pharisees w ere g a th e re d to g e th e r,” M atthew has Je su s’ q u estio n d ire c te d a t th e Pharisees, his q u estio n ers also in w 15-22 a n d 34-40. T h e q u estio n asked by Jesus m u st have seem ed very easy to th e Pharisees. It was co m m o n know ledge th a t th e p ro m ised M essiah (ό Χ ρ ίσ το ς, “th e C h rist,” i.e., “th e a n o in te d O n e ”) was to b e o f th e lineage o f David (cf. J o h n 7:42; fo r O T b ac k g ro u n d , see 2 Sam 7:12-13; Ps 89:4; J e r 23:5; cf. Ps. Sol. 17:21). Conversely, th ro u g h o u t th e G ospel th e re feren ces to Jesus as th e Son o f David (e.g., 1:1, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9) a m o u n t to assertions o f his m essianic identity. 4 3 -4 4 Jesu s now p o in ts th e Pharisees to Ps 110:1 (LXX 109:1), w here David έ υ π υ β ύ μ α τί, “by th e S p irit,” th a t is, by divine in sp iratio n (cf. 2 Sam 23:2), refers to th e co m in g m essianic ruler, a n d h e n c e his son, as κύριου, “lo rd .” T h e citation agrees verb atim w ith th e LXX ex cep t fo r th e om ission o f th e article b efo re th e

Explanation

651

first o c c u rre n ce o f κύριος, “L o rd ,” a n d th e substitution o f th e adverb υποκάτω, “b e n e a th ,” fo r th e n o u n υποποδίου, “ fo o tsto o l.” U nderlying th e two uses o f κύριος are two d iffe re n t H eb rew words: th e first is th e te tra g ra m m ato n ΠΤΡ (th e p ersonal n am e “Y ahw eh,” w hich was n o t spoken by th e Jews, w ho su b stituted th e w ord 3adonay, i.e., a w ord virtually id entical to th e second w ord); th e second is *TT$ (*adorn, “my lo rd ”) . David calls his son n o t Yahweh b u t *adoni, “my lo rd ”: “Yahweh [the L ord] said to my lo rd .” B ut it is astonishing th a t David sh o u ld call his son “my lo rd ”; by Jew ish stan d ard s o f fam ilial respect, it is ra th e r th e son w ho m ig h t re fe r to his fa th e r as “my lo rd .” 45 T h e q u estion is re p e a te d for em phasis. How can it be th a t David calls his son κύριος, “lo rd ”? T his q u estio n , w hich goes u n an sw ered e ith e r by th e Pharisees o r by Jesus, m u st n o t be taken as an im plicit d en ial th a t th e M essiah is in fact th e Son o f David (pace C h ilto n ), an ascription th a t th e evangelist rep eated ly uses in re fe rrin g to Jesus a n d th a t Jesus him self willingly accepts (see Comment o n vv 4 1 42). T h e p o in t o f th e qu estio n ad d ressed to th e P harisees is ap p aren tly to elevate th e co n cep t o f M essiah from th a t o f a special h u m a n b ein g to o n e w ho uniquely m anifests th e p re se n c e o f G od— a n d th u s o n e w hom David has also to address as his lord. T his p e rico p e serves thus in o n e sense as a k in d o f ju stification fo r th e extrav ag an t claim s m ad e by Jesus, o r c o n c e rn in g him , e a rlie r in th e G ospel (e.g., 10:32-33, 40; 11:27; 14:33; 16:16). As in P e te r’s confession, so h ere, th e Christ, th e Son o f David, is to be recognized as un iq u ely “th e Son o f th e living G o d ” (cf. Gibbs, 46 0 -6 4 ). H e is th e living L o rd o f th e ch u rc h (B urger, 88-89) w ho sits at G o d ’s rig h t h a n d . T h e Pharisees accordingly reject Jesus at th e ir very g re a t peril. T hey have rejected n o t m erely a h u m a n m essianic claim an t b u t th e u n iq u e em issary o f G od, w hom even David h a d called “my lo rd .” κύριος, “lo rd ,” in referen ce to Jesus h ere, as Fitzm yer p o in ts out, suggested to th e evangelist a n d his com m unity th a t Jesus “was som ehow o n a p a r with Yahweh o f th e O ld T estam en t” (125). O n th e usefulness o ? seeing th e p re se n t p erico p e in relatio n to such passages as Acts 2:29-35; 13:23-39; H eb 1:5-13, see Lövestam. 46 M atthew ro u n d s o u t this m ajor section o f his narrative by m aking th e p o in t th a t Je su s’ o p p o n e n ts h a d to give u p trying to o u tsm art Jesus o r to trap him in his words. T h e w isdom o f Jesus th e tea c h e r has b e e n vindicated. H is o p p o n e n ts cann o t so m u ch as answ er a λόγου, “w o rd ,” a n d n o n e d a re d to en g ag e him in such d eb ates again. T oo easily th e ir attem p ts h a d b e e n tu rn e d against th em . T h e p ro cess against Jesus, w hich com es to its culm in atio n in chaps. 26-28, m ust th erefo re fin d som e o th e r basis b efo re it can p ro ceed . Explanation T h e P harisees assum ed they h a d sufficient know ledge co n c e rn in g th e p ro m ised Messiah. T hey saw n o p ro b lem in th e question Jesus p u t to them . T he Messiah was to b e a d e sc e n d a n t o f David. Yet they co u ld n o t explain why David re fe rre d to his son as “my lo rd .” T hey h a d n o t c o n fro n te d th e m ystery o f a h u m a n b ein g w ho was also th e divine ag en t o f G od, th e u n iq u e Son o f G od. It was because G od un iq u ely m an ifested h im self in his M essiah fo r th e gracious fulfillm ent o f his prom ises to Israel th a t David re fe rre d to his d e sc e n d a n t as “my lo rd .” So too today re p e a te d a tte m p ts a re b e in g m a d e to e x p la in Je su s in strictly h u m a n

652

Ma t t h e w 22 : 41-46

categories. Yet if we lim it o u r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f Jesu s to analogies th a t fro m th e b e g in n in g ru le o u t th e su p e rn a tu ra l a n d th e divine, we will never arrive at an a d e q u a te view o f Jesus. This is th e very p o in t th e G ospel desires to press h o m e to its read ers. Je su s’ qu estio n to th e P harisees— H ow th e n does David call him “my lo rd ”?— m u st also b e asked o f those m o d e rn scholars w ho allow Jesu s to b e n o m o re th a n a h u m a n teacher. T h e b u rn in g q u e stio n “W ho d o you say I am ?” (16:15) has only o n e a d e q u a te answer.

In tro d u ctio n

Castigation o f the Scribes and Pharisees (23:1-39) Bibliography ‘Jesus u n d die Pharisäer.” B L it 41 (1968) 112-31. F a r b s te in , D . “Waren die Pharisäer u n d die Schriftgelehrten Heuchler? "Judaica 8 (1952) 193-207. F lu s s e r, D . ‘Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew.” Im m anuel5 (1975) 37-45. F ra n k e m ö lle , H . “‘Pharisäismus’ in Judentum und Kirche.” In Gottesverächter un d Menschenfeinde ?ed. H. Goldstein. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1979.123-89. G a r la n d , D . E . The Intention o f Matthew 23. NovTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1979. G la s s o n , T . F. “Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew. ”JQR 51 (1960-61) 316-20. H a e n c h e n , E . “M atthäus 23.” Z T K 48 (1951) 38-63. H a g n e r, D . A . “Pharisees.” In Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia o f the Bible, ed. M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. 4:745-52. J o h n s o n , L . T . “The New Testam ent’s Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of A ncient Rhetoric.” 1 0 8 (1 9 8 9 ) 4 1 9 - 4 1 . L e g a s s e , S . “‘L’antijudäism e’ dans l’Evangile selon M atthieu.” In L ’E vangile selon Matthieu, ed. M. Didier. BETL 29. Gembloux: Duculot, 1972. 417-28.———. “Scribes et disciples de Jesus.” R B 6S (1 9 6 1 ) 3 2 1 -4 5 . M c K n ig h t, S . “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective.” In Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues o f Polemic and Faith, ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 3 . 5 5 7 9 . M ic h e l, O . “Polemik u nd Scheidung. ” Judaica 15 (1 9 5 9 ) 1 9 3 -2 1 2 . M in e a r, P . S . “False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the Gospel of Matthew.” In Neues Testament un d Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1 9 7 4 . 7 6 -9 3 . N e w p o rt, K . G . C . “The Pharisees in Judaism Prior to A.D. 7 0 .” A U S S 2 9 (1 9 9 1 ) 1 2 7 -3 7 . N ie d n e r , E A . “Rereading Matthew on Jerusalem and Judaism .” B T B 19 (1 9 8 9 ) 4 3 -4 7 . P e s c h , W . “Drohweissagungen.” In Der Lohngedanke in der LehreJesu. Munich: Zink, 1955. 40 -5 0 .———. ‘Theologische Aussagen der Redaktion von Matthäus 23.” In Orientierung an Jesus. FSJ. Schmid, ed. P. Hoffm ann et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. 286-99. R u s s e ll, E . A . “‘Antisemitism’ in the Gospel of Matthew.” IB S 8 (1986) 183-96.— — — . “The Image of the Jew in Matthew’s Gospel.” Proceedings o f the Irish Biblical Association 12 (1989) 37-57. S c h ü rm a n n , H . “Die Redekomposition wider ‘dieses G eschlecht’ un d seine F ührung in d er Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1-39 par Lk 11,37-54): Bestand—Akoluthie—Kompositionsformen.” S N T U l l (1986) 33-81. S z a h o , A . “Anfänge einer judenchristliche Theologie bei Matthäus. ”Judaica 16 (1960) 193-206. T ilb o r g , S . v a n . The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: Brill, 1972. V iv ia n o , B . T . “The Pharisees in Matthew 23.” BiTod 27 (1989) 338-44. W e s te rh o lm , S .Jesus and Saribai Authority. ConBNT 10. Lund: Gleerup, 1978. W ild , R . A . “The Encounter between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism: Some Early Gospel Evidence.” N o v T 2 7 (1985) 105-24. B aum bach, G .

Introduction

Chap. 23 forms a distinct discourse within the Gospel, one that has become notorious for its vitriolic condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees. It is not itself, however, exactly comparable to the five major discourses of Matthew (see Intro d u ctio n , in Hagner, M a tth e w 1 -1 3 , li). Unlike the other discourses, its content is largely negative and condemnatory, being aimed at the criticism of a specific group. In keeping with these distinctions, it does not have an ending like the formulaic ending of the five discourses. But, like them, it is a composition of the evangelist using a variety of traditional materials.

654

M a t t h e w 23:1-39

Some (e.g., Bacon, Studies in M atthew ; Gundry; Blomberg) have argued, however, that this chapter should be considered as a part of the fifth and final discourse of the Gospel, found in the two chapters that follow. The strength of this suggestion is that it recognizes the close relation between the material of chap. 23 and that of chaps. 24-25. Chap. 23 can thus be seen as the formal indictment for the judgment that is described in chaps. 24-25. Y e t this function of chap. 23 and its natural relatedness to chaps. 24-25 can be affirmed without the insistence that structurally the three chapters should be thought of as forming a single discourse (rightly Gnilka, Carson). In both content and form chap. 23 is distinct from chaps. 24—25. There is, furthermore, a very clear break between the two discourses: Jesus was in the process of departing from the scene of his previous remarks (24:1: έπ ο ρ β ύβ το , “he departed”) when the disciples, by posing their question, initiated a new and independent discourse. This break, when combined with the new subject matter of chaps. 24—25, is a far more significant break than that of 13:36 (sometimes referred to in defense of the unity of chaps. 23 and 24—25), where the same discussion is in fact continued but now in the requisite privacy, with the disciples alone. The discourse of chap. 23 is somewhat puzzling because of its mixed form and the change of addressees beginning in v 13. In order, the discourse consists of (1) an exhortation (vv 2-12); (2) seven woes pronounced upon the Pharisees (vv 13-33; for structural analysis of these, see Farm /S tr u c tu re /Setting %C for that pericope); (3) a prophecy (vv 34-36); and (4) a lament (vv 37-39). The woes are undoubtedly the centerpiece of the chapter, and the material that follows them coheres much more readily with them than does the material that precedes. This agrees with the understanding that ostensibly the addressees are the scribes and the Pharisees, beginning with v 13 (note the plural pronoun ϋ μ ίν , ‘"you”) through to the end of the discourse. The first part of the discourse, on the other hand, is addressed specifically “to the crowds and to his disciples” (v 1). This has led some (e.g., Frankemölle) to conclude that the entire discourse is addressed to the church and that the hypocrisy being criticized in the woes is that of the church and not that of the Pharisees. Such a conclusion allows one to sidestep the difficult anti-Judaism of the woes. It is true that the church must guard against the danger of hypocrisy and that it can read the woes and find material relevant to itself. But that is at best a secondary application of the passage. Historically there can be little question that the evangelist means to present a polemic against the scribes and Pharisees. Furtherm ore, we must face the fact that Jesus is portrayed as castigating the religious leadership of Israel in the harshest language. We must first account for this and then raise an appeal against the anti-Semitic use of this passage. When Jesus refers to the Pharisees positively in 23:2-3a, he indicates that in principle Pharisaism’s quest for righteousness is worthy and admirable. We can, therefore, with the best recent scholarship affirm Pharisaism as something to be held in high esteem (see Farbstein). The problem Jesus focuses on is not Pharisaism but those Pharisees whose practice contradicted their professed quest for righteousness. The Pharisees themselves were sensitive to the danger of hypocrisy. A well-known passage (b. S o ta 22b) denounces six types of hypocritical Pharisees, focusing on some of the same elements of hypocrisy denounced by Jesus (cf. too y. Ber. 9:5). Presumably many Pharisees would have agreed with Jesus’ criticism of hypocrisy, and therefore his criticism is not to be construed as falling

Bibliography

655

upon all Pharisees. How tragic, therefore, that in common parlance “Pharisee” is often regarded as synonymous with “hypocrite.” Two further points need to be made. First, the language of the woes, so harsh to m odern ears, reflects the conventions of ancient polemic (see esp. Johnson). Thus the severe language is not as exceptional as it may seem to us. Second, the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees is to be understood as in some respects an intram ural one (see McKnight). Certainly for Matthew the issue concerns who is the more reliable interpreter of Torah: the Pharisees or Jesus? Beneath that question, however, lies the matter of Christology. Jesus is sovereign in the m atter of the interpretation of righteousness because of who he is. It is this matter that underlies the growing hostility between the synagogue and church that has undoubtedly left its impact upon the material presented here. Finally, in light of what has been said above, it is unthinkable that chap. 23 be used to portray the Pharisees or Judaism negatively. This passage has a very specific historical context (see Glasson), and therefore it is totally improper to attempt to apply it to Jews or Judaism today. Even in its historical setting, as we have seen, the bitter rhetoric of chap. 23 must yield to an adequate and fair understanding of Pharisaic Judaism. Thus this chapter provides no basis whatsoever for anti-Semitic attitudes or actions (see Michel). And the same must be said of all the “anti-Judaistic” passages in the Gospel (see further In tro d u ctio n , in Hagner, M a tth e w 1 -1 3 , lxxi-lxxiii).

The Pharisees ’ P ride a nd the

Disciples’Humility

(23:1-12)

Bibliography B a r b o u r , R . S . “U ncom fortable Words: VIII. Status and Titles.” E xpT im 82 (1970-71) 13742. B e c k e r, H .-J . A u f der Kathedra des Mose: Rabbinisch-theologisches Denken u n d anti-rabbinische Polemik in M atthäus 23, 1 - 1 2 . ANTZ 4. Berlin: Institut Kirche u n d Ju d en tu m , 1990. B o w m a n , J . “Phylacteries.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 523-38. B y rs k o g , S . Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in A ncient Israel, A ncient Judaism and the M atthean Community. ConBNT 24. Stockholm: Almquist 8c Wiksell, 1994. D e r r e tt, J . D . M . “Mt 23,8-10: A Midrash on Is 54,13 and Je r 31,33-34.” Bib 62 (1981) 372-86. D o n a ld s o n , J . “The Title Rabbi in the Gospels. ” J Q R 63 (1972-73) 287-91. F a s c h e r, E . “Jesus d er L ehrer.” T L Z 79 (1954) 325-42. F o x , G . G . “T he M atthean M isrepresentation o f tephillin.” JN E S 1 (1942) 373-77. F u lle r , R . C . “Call N one Your Father in E arth.” S er 5 (1952) 103-4. G o m a C iv it, I . “F ra tern ite et service pastoral (Mt. 2 3 ,1 -1 2 ).” A sSeign 62 (1970) 21-32. H e n g e l, M .

“P roseuche u n d Synagoge: Jüdische G em einde, G otteshaus u n d G ottesdienst in d e r D iaspora u n d in Palästina.” In Tradition u n d Glaube: D as frü h e Christentum in seiner Umwelt, ed. G. Jerem ias et al. G öttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1971.157-86. H o e t, R . “Omnes autem vos fratres estis”: Etude de concept ecclesiologique des “freres” selon M t 2 3 ,8 -1 2 . A nalecta G regoriana 232. Rome: Universita G regoriana Editrice, 1982. K o h le r, K . “Abba, Father: Title of Spiritual Leader and Saint.’’JQR 13 (1900-1901) 567-80. L im b e c k , M . “Die nichts

656

Ma t t h e w 23:1-12

bewegen wollen! Zum Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus.” T Q 168 (1988) 299300. M a rq u e t, C . “Ne vous faites pas appeler ‘m aitre’: Matthieu 23,8-12.” C H R 30 (1983) 88102. M a s o n , S . “Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3).” H T R 83 (1990) 363-81. M ic h a e ls , J . R . “Christian Prophecy and Matthew 23:8-12: A Test Exegesis.” In Society o f Biblical Literature, 1 9 7 6 Seminar Papers. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976. 305-10. N e s tle , E . ‘T hey Enlarge the Borders of Their Garments.” ExpTim 20 (1908-1909) 188. N e w p o rt, K . G . C . “A Note on the ‘Seat of Moses’ (Matthew 23:2).” A U SS 28 (1990) 5358. R a h m a n i, L . Y. “Stone Synagogue Chairs: Their Identification, Use and Significance.” IE] 40 (1990) 192-214. R e illy , W . S . ‘Titles in Mt 23,8-12.” C B Q 1 (1939) 249-50. R o th , C . ‘T h e ‘Chair of Moses’ and Its Survivals.” P E Q 8 1 (1949) 100-111. S a g g in , L . “Magister vester unus est, Christus.” VD 30 (1952) 205-13. S h a n k s , H . “Is the Title ‘Rabbi’ Anachronistic in the Gospels?” J Q R 53 (1962-63) 337-45. S p ic q , C . “Une allusion au Docteur de Justice in Matthieu, XXIII, 10?” R B 66 (1959) 387-96. S u k e n ik , E . L . Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford UP, 1934. T ig ay , J . H . “O n the Term Phylacteries (Matt 23:5).” H T R 72 (1979) 45-52. T o w n s e n d , J . T . “Matthew XXIII. 9.” JTS 12 (1961) 56-59. V iv ia n o , B . T . “Social World and Community Leadership: T he Case of Matthew 23.1-12, 34.” JSAT 39 (1990) 3-21. W e lc h , A . “Scribes and Pharisees in Moses’ Seat.” ExpTim 7 (1895-96) 522-26. W in te r, B . W . ‘T h e Messiah as Tutor: The Meaning of καθηγητής· in Matthew 23:10.” TynB 42 (1991) 151-57. Z in u n e rm a n n , A . F. Die urchristlichen Lehrer. WUNT 2.12. Tübingen: Mohr, 1984.

Translation

1T hen Jesus spoke to the crowds a n d to his disciples, 2saying: “The scribes a n d the P h a risees sit u p o n the seat o f Moses . 3Therefore do a n d keep a everything which they say to you,b but do not im ita te c their deeds. For they say one th in g a n d do another.;d 4A n d they tie u p heavy [a n d d ifficult to bear]c burdens a n d place them u p o n the shoulders o f others,f a n d they themselves g are not w illing to move them even w ith their finger. 5B u t they do a ll their deeds to be seen by others. For they m ake their phylacteries large, a n d they m ake their tassels h long. 6A n d they love the seat o f honor a t banquets a n d the im portant seats in the synagogues Ίa n d the salutations o f respect in the marketplaces a n d to be called ‘R a b b i’1 by others) 8 “You, however, are n o t to be called k ‘R abbi. ’F or there is one w ho is y o u r teacher,l m b u t y o u a ll are brothers a n d sisters .n 9A n d do n o t call an yo n e on earth y o u r ° father. ’For there is one w ho is y o u r fa th e r — y o u r heavenly p Father. 10N o r are yo u to be called ‘tu tors, ’ because there is one q who is y o u r tutor, the Christ. 11B u t the one w ho is the greatest a m o n g y o u m u st be y o u r serva n t. 12A n d th o se r w ho exalt them selves s w ill be hum bled, a n d th o se 1w ho hu m ble themselves u w ill be exalted. ” Notes

a W / 13 TR lat syp,h reverse the order of the verbs, changing the aorist to the present ποιείτε, “continue to do” (Df l also change the tense); s f has άκούετε και ποιείτε, “hear and do”; ft* (Γ) sy8? have simply ποιήσατε, “do”; Φ has simply τηρείτε, “keep.” These changes were made either to bring about the same tense in both verbs or to avoid the problem of two verbs with the same meaning. b Many MSS (W /13TR syph) add τηρείς “to keep”; Γ adds ποιεί v, “to do.” cκατά δε τά έργα αυτώνμή ποιείτε, lit. “do not do according to their deeds.” dλέγουσιν γάρ και οϋ ποιοϋσιν, lit. “for they say and do not do.” e και δυσβάστακτα, “and difficult to bear,” is lacking in L f l it sys’c,pbo; after φορτία, “burdens,” ft has simply μεγάλα βαρέα, “very heavy.” The omission can have been caused by homoioteleuton, i.e., the skipping of the eye from the καί to the καί following the adjective. Favoring the text are B D W Θ / 13TR lat syh sa (mae). Because the word δυσβάστακτα may have been imported from the parallel in Luke 11:46, however, it is placed in brackets. Metzger appends his opinion that the words are an

Form/Structure/Setting

657

interpolation from Luke 11:46 and should not be considered a part of the original text. If they were original, he asks, why are they omitted “from such a rich variety of witnesses”? TCGNT, 59-60. f ανθρώπων, lit. “men.” g αυτοί, “themselves,” is omitted by many MSS (vv Θ/ us TR lat syh). h Many MSS (L W /13TR it sy bo) add των ίματίων αύτών (the last word is lacking in L), “of their garments.” 1Many MSS (D W/ 13TR sy*0,11) repeat the word ραββί, “Rabbi,”which is probably a scribal heightening. TCGNT, 60. J ανθρώπων, lit. “men.” kΘ (sys,c) have the active imperative μηδένα καλέσητε, “call no one.” 1διδάσκαλος, “teacher.”K*’2D L W Θ/ us TR, however, have the synonym καθηγητής' (cf. v 10). mMany MSS (K Γ Δ TR sy0***) insert b Χριστός, “the Christ,” probably through conformity with v 10.

n “And sisters” added to translation. ° D Θ lat s f ’c'p sa bo read ύμϊν, “for you,” possibly reflecting a “Semitic ethical dative.” Cf. TCGNT, 60. The odd placement of the genitive υμών could account for scribes altering it to the dative. PD WΔ Θ /1read έν ούρανοΐς, while TR syhread έν τοΐς ούρανοΐς, both meaning “in the heavens.” ^ εις, “one,” is omitted by Θ/ U3 s f >c. r δστις, lit. “whoever.” s εαυτόν, lit. “himself.” 1δστις, lit. “whoever.” u εαυτόν, lit. “himself.” Form/Structure/Setting

A. This pericope begins a rather lengthy and sharp denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees that takes up most of the chapter in preparation for the judgm ent announced in chap. 24. It begins, however, with an appreciation of the Pharisees and their desire to interpret the law. This appreciation is one in principle only; that is, it regards their task and intent, not their accomplishment. Thereafter the tone quickly turns to criticism of the pride of the Pharisees with a lesson concerning the humility m eant to prevail among the disciples. B. Only in three shorter sections within the pericope do Matthew’s sources seem apparent. The logion (v 4) referring to the loading up of persons with heavy burdens and not moving the latter with a finger is apparently a Q saying, being found also in Luke 11:46 (where “woe” is pronounced upon ro ts ' ν ο μ ικ ο ΐς , “the lawyers”) . The form and wording are similar but not the same (common words: φ ο ρ τ ία [“burdens”], τ ο υ ς ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς [“m en”], δ υ σ β ά σ τ α κ τ α [“difficult to bear”], α ύ τ ο ί [“themselves”], and δ α κ τ ύ λ ω ν [“fingers”]). Luke probably reflects Q m ore closely, whereas Matthew has worked the material into his larger pericope. The logion of v 12 also appears to be a Q saying, with only slightly different wording (cf. Luke 14:11 = Luke 18:14b). Finally, the references to τ η ν π ρ ω τ ο κ λ ισ ία ν έ ν r o ts ' ÖeinvoLS', “the place of honor at banquets,” τ ά ς π ρ ω τ ο κ α θ ε δ ρ ία ς έ ν r a ts ' σ υ ν α γ ω γ α ΐ$ *, “the chief seats in the synagogues,” and Toys' ά σ π α σ μ ο ν ς έ ν r a ts ' ά γ ο ρ α ΐς , “the salutations in the marketplaces” (vv 6-7a), are found very nearly verbatim in Mark 12:38c-39 (where the clauses are, however, in reverse order) and in Luke 20:46 and 11:43 (where they are part of a “woe” saying). Mark 12:38b also contains a clause not included by Matthew: τ ω ν Θ ε λ ό ν τ ω ν έ ν σ τ ο λ α ΐ ς π ε ρ ι π α τ ε ί ν , “the ones who want to walk about in long robes.” The Markan logia are introduced with κ α ί έ ν τ η δ ιδ α χ ή α ύ τ ο ΰ έ λ ε γ ε ν β λ έ π ε τ ε α π ό τ ω ν γ ρ α μ μ α τ έ ω ν , “and in his teaching he was saying: ‘Beware of the scribes.’” Matthew’s material,

658

Ma t t h e w 23:1-12

by contrast, addressed specifically to the crowds and Jesus’ disciples, refers to the scribes and the Pharisees and begins with a positive statement about them. The logion in v 11 (“the greatest of you will be your servant”) is very similar to Mark 10:43b (“whoever wants to be great among you will be your servant”), a saying found also in 20:26, where it is dependent on this Markan passage. Matthew’s reflection of Markan material is the last until the Olivet Discourse, beginning in chap. 24. For the remainder of the pericope Matthew uses his own special source, as is the case for the remainder of the chapter, except for occasional possibilities of the use of Q material. C. This first part of the extended discourse ofjesus divides into two major sections: the first a description of the Pharisees and the second a closely related exhortation to the disciples concerning humility. The following outline maybe suggested: (1) the Pharisees, subdivided into (a) appreciation of the Pharisees as interpreters of Moses (w l-3 a ), (b) the failure of their deeds to match their words (v 3b-c), (c) the heavy burdens they impose (v 4), and (d) their love of the praise of others (vv 5-7); and (2) the disciples ofjesus, subdivided into (a) the need to avoid titles, (i) “rabbi” (v8), (ii) “father” (v 9), and (iii) “teacher” (v 10), (b) greatness in service (v 11), and (c) eschatological reversal (v 12). Vv 8-12 can accordingly be thought of as a kind of small “community rule” (Haenchen, Z T K 48 [1951] 38-63). Having returned to an extended teaching discourse ofjesus, the evangelist provides again a large amount of parallel or symmetrical syntax. Pairs of parallel verbs occur in v 3 ( λ έ γ ο υ σ ιν — π ο ίο ϊκ η ν , “say”—“do”) and in v 4 (δ εσ μ εύ ο υ σ ιν —έ π ιτ ε θ έ α σ ίν , “tie”—“put upon”), and v 5 contains parallel clauses: π λ α τ ύ ν ο υ σ ιν τά φ υ λα κ τή ρ ια α υτώ ν και μ ε γ α λ ύ ν ο υ σ ιν τά κ ρ ά σ π εδ α , “they make their phylacteries large, and they make their tassels long.” The parallelism in the first three direct objects of the verb φ ίλ ο ύ σ ίν , “they love,” in w 6-7 is striking; each is modified by a prepositional phrase beginning with έ ν : τ η ν π ρ ω τ ο κ λισ ία ν έ ν τ ο ΐς δ ε ίπ ν ο ις και τ ά ς πρω τοκαθεδρίας' ε ν τ α ΐς σ υ ν α γ ω γ α ΐς καί τ ο ύ ς ά σ π α σ μ ο ύ ς έ ν τ α ΐς ά γ ο ρ α ΐς, “the seat of honor at banquets and the important seats

in the synagogues and the salutations in the marketplaces.” The fourth object clause (καί κ α λεισ θ α ι υπό τω ν άνθρώ πω νραββί, “and to be called ‘rabbi’ by people”) breaks the parallelism. The symmetrical syntax ofw 8-10 is striking: three imperative clauses (the first and third passive [κ λη θ ή τε , “be called”], the second active \κ α λ έ σ η τ ε , “call”] ) are each followed directly by words concerning “the one”: in the first two instances, ε ΐ ς γά ρ έ σ τ ίν υμών , “for one is your” (vv 8, 9), in the third, δ τι κ α θ η γη τ ή ς υμώ ν έ σ τ ίν ε ΐ ς , “because your tutor is one” (v 10). This basic structure is broken only by the parenthetical insertion in v 8c, π ά ν τ ε ς δ ε υ μ ε ίς ά δ ελφ ό ί ε σ τ ε , “but all of you are brothers.” The only other slight, but significant, variation is the conclusion of v 10 with its identification of the one tutor as b Χ ρ ίσ τ ο ς , “the Christ.” Finally, note the exactly symmetrical parallelism of the two logia in v 12. The structural parallelism of parts of this pericope is impressive. Again it may point to the probability that the sayings of Jesus were deliberately transmitted so as to enable easy memorization, although the activity of the evangelist in this regard also should not be minimized. Comment l-3 a Matthew’s τ ό τ ε , “then,” is again only a connective rather than a strict chronological note (cf. 4:1; the word occurs in Matthew ninety times, compared to six times in Mark and fifteen in Luke). As also in the Sermon on the Mount (chaps.

Comment

659

5-7), Jesus addresses τ ο ΐ ς δ χ λ ο ις κα ί τ ο ΐ ς μ α θ η τ α ΐς α ύ τ ο ϋ , “the crowds and his disciples” (cf. w 8-12). The crowds will hear the nature of Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees; the disciples will in addition learn more of the righteousness required of them, that which exceeds the scribes’ and Pharisees’ righteousness (5:20), as well as something of the dangers that confront those who pursue righteousness. Down to the end of the chapter, no mention is made of the Pharisees being among the hearers, although they are addressed (at least rhetorically) in w 13-34 and perhaps as part of the Jewish leadership. To begin with, Jesus makes a positive statement concerning the Pharisees that applauds them in principle for being those who occupy themselves with the important task of interpretation of the teaching of Moses. The statement up through v 3a could almost be put in quotation marks since it reflects the widely held view of the Pharisees. Jesus too shares this view, although he is soon to qualify it. The Pharisees, together with their professional Torah scholars, oi γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ίς , “the scribes” (cf. the same combination in 5:20; 12:38; 15:1 and in the “woes” beginning in v 13), are said to “sit upon Moses’ seat” ( ε π ί τ ή ς Μ ω ν σ έω ς κ α θ έδ ρ α ς έκ ά θ ισ α ν ) . This means that as the custodians of Moses’ teaching they share in his authority and are accordingly to be respected. Although the term may be metaphorical here, there was in fact somewhat later a special chair of Moses in synagogues in which sat the one who expounded the Torah to the congregation (see Sukenik, 57-61; Newport). Because (or as it soon must be qualified, “insofar as”) the Pharisees expound the Mosaic Torah, one is to follow their teaching. This is put absolutely and quite emphatically by the combination of π ά ν τ α and όσα, lit. “everything whatsoever,” and the use of two nearly synonymous verbs, π ο ιή σ α τ ε καί τ η ρ ε ίτ ε , “do and keep.” That their strong assertion is an approval in principle rather than fact, despite its emphasis, becomes clear from w 13-33, and especially w 16^22, where Jesus explicitly rejects what the Pharisees say (cf. v 4). This interpretation is more consonant with Matthew’s concern to affirmjesus’ loyalty to the righteousness of Torah than is the conclusion that the statement is ironic or sarcastic ( pace Carson). Furthermore, Jesus has on several occasions earlier in Matthew distanced himself markedly from the teaching of the Pharisees (cf. 9: ΙΟΙ 1, 14; 12:1-2, 10-14; 15:1-20; 19:3-9) and at one point actually warned his disciples to “beware of the leaven [i.e., the teaching] of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (16:6, 11-12). On the historical question of the dominance of the Pharisees as the authoritative interpreters of the law before a .d . 70, see Mason. 3b The initial criticism of the Pharisees involves a discrepancy between their words and their deeds. Thus though one is to follow what they say, one is not necessarily to follow the example of their deeds: κ α τ ά δ ε τά έ ρ γ α α ύ τ ώ ν μ ή π ο ιε ίτ ε , “do not do according to their works.” They “say,” i.e., speak concerning righteousness (presumably here, as in v 3a, correct statements concerning the righteousness of Torah), but they do not “do” or act in accordance with their own teaching (cf. Rom 2:21-24). Specific instances of this hypocrisy will be m entioned in the “woes” beginning in v 13, where repeatedly the scribes and Pharisees are addressed as “hypocrites” (cf. too esp. 15:6-7). 4 This statement involves criticism of the teaching of the Pharisees for its burdensome character and of the insensitivity of the Pharisees in this regard. The reference to the tying up of φ ο ρ τ ία β α ρ έα [και δ υ σ β ά σ τ α κ τ α ] , “heavy [and difficult to bear] burdens,” and placing them on people’s shoulders (the burdensomeness

660

Ma t t h e w 23:1-12

of the law referred to in Acts 15:10, 28 refers to the commands of the written Torah itself, apart from the Pharisaic elaborations of those commands) points clearly to the Pharisees’ distinctive oral Torah with its difficult and complicated casuistry {pace Gundry; cf. w 16-18, 23, 25). The Pharisees, in a well-motivated but misled attempt to protect the obedience of the written Torah, had built up an elaborate fence around the Torah through the detailed stipulations of their special tradition (which in tragic irony had the effect of canceling out what it had been intended to explicate; cf. 15:3, 6). This they firmly imposed on others, without being willing to make adjustments to the burden, not even by so slight an exertion as the moving of a finger. Cf. 11:28 and Com m ent there. 5 A major flaw among the Pharisees now emerges: their love of the praise and admiration of others. They perform their righteous deeds in order “to be seen by others” {π ρ ο ς τ ο Θεαθήναι τ ο ϊ ς ά νθρώ ποίς; see the criticism of this in 6:1, 5, 16). Examples supporting this conclusion are next provided. The Pharisees make the badges of their piety conspicuously large, τ ά φ υ λ α κ τ ή ρ ια α ύ τ ώ ν , “their phylacteries” (the word occurs in the NT only h ere), refers to the boxes, usually leather, that contained written passages of scripture and were strapped to their foreheads and arms in literal obedience to Exod 13:9 and Deut 6:8; 11:18. The κ ρ ά σ π ε δ α , “tassels” (Heb., rWX, sisit), each with a cord of blue, were attached to the four corners of a garment, corresponding to the commandment of Num 15:37-39 and Deut 22:12, as a rem inder to obey God’s commandments (Jesus also wore such tassels; cf. 9:20; 14:36). The Pharisees called attention to their piety by the size of these items ( 7τ λ α τ ύ ν ε ιν , “make large,’’occurs in the Gospels only here)—a symbolism ironically in keeping with the great burdens they imposed (vv 3-4). 6-7 As further indications of the inordinate pride of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus points out how “they love” {φ ιλ ο ν σ ιν ) being shown deference and honor. Four items are mentioned in this connection. The first two have to do with seating at banquets and in the synagogue, τ η ν π ρ ω τ ο κ λ ισ ία ν ε ν τ ο ΐ ς δ ε ίπ ν ο ις , “the seat of honor at banquets,” refers to being seated at the right hand of the host or master of the house (cf. Luke 14:7-8). τ ά ς π ρω το κ α θ εδ ρ ία ς έ ν τ α ΐς σ ν ν α γ ω γ α ΐς , “the places of honor in the synagogues,” refers presumably to those seats at the front of the synagogue in full view of the congregation (cf. Jas 2:1-4). τ ο ύ ς ά σ π α σ μ ο ν ς έ ν τ α ΐς ά γ ο ρ α ΐς , “salutations in the marketplaces,” are the respectful and deferential formalities that would have been offered to eminent religious authorities. One title of honor included in these words was that of “rabbi” (lit. “my great one,” in the sense of “master”), a designation loved by the Pharisees (in Matthew, besides v 8, the word occurs again only in 26:25,49, where Judas uses it to address Jesus; but cf. Mark 9:5; 11:21; John 1:49; 3:2; etc.). The term is synonymous with “teacher,” as the following verse shows (cf. too John 1:38). As spoken by Jesus, the word used here and in v 8 probably does not mean “rabbi” in the later, technical sense of the word. In relation to that meaning of the word, we are here to understand “proto-rabbi.” See Shanks for arguments against “rabbi” as an anachronism in the Gospels. The scribes and the Pharisees were motivated not so much by the claimed concern to obey God as by the ego-satisfying praise and honor of others. 8 Jesus’ disciples, by contrast (emphatic υ μ ε ίς , “you”), should not allow themselves to be called “rabbi.” This is all the more remarkable since the disciple of Jesus has in fact earlier been likened to a “scribe trained for the kingdom of

Comment

661

heaven” (13:52). But the disciples have only one real “teacher” (δ ιδ ά σ κ α λ ο ς ) , who is to be set apart from others as “rabbi” (for the equivalence of “rabbi” and “teacher,” see John 1:38). Although the “one teacher” is not specified here, there can be no doubt that he is the same as the one tutor ofv 10, i.e., the Christ. The point here is not to deny that the Christian community has teachers but rather to put up a barrier against the elevation of some above others and the pride that so naturally accompanies such differentiation. The stress thus falls on the egalitarian statement “all [ π ά ν τ ε ς ] of you are brothers and sisters.” All are equally dependent upon the single authoritative teacher of the community, Jesus (for the ramifications of this, see Byrskog). Behind this emphasis lies a polemic against the de facto authority of the Pharisees and scribes. Possible eschatological overtones, in the context of the announcem ent of the new covenant, are found in Jerem iah’s declaration that no one will need teaching because they will all know the Lord directly (Jer 31:34). 9 The disciples of Jesus should also avoid referring to anyone as “father” in an honorary or reverential sense (for an example of this use, see Acts 7:2; 22:1). The grammatical ambiguities of the Greek syntax (esp. υμών, “your”) are to be decided upon in light of the preceding and following statements: i.e., “call no one your father.” In the present context the word “father” is probably to be understood as connoting “teacher” (see Byrskog, 299-300) and does not constitute a reference to being descended from the patriarchs (p a ce Townsend, Michaels). Cf. the mishnaic tractate Sayings oftheF athers (*A bot ); Gal 1:14; Jos., A n t. 13.10.6 §297; 13.16.2 §408. Besides one’s earthly father (for whom the title is not in question), only one other may be referred to as “Father,” i.e., God himself, who, as here, is so often referred to in Matthew as our “heavenly Father” (for ό π α τή ρ ό ο ύ ρ ά ν ιο ς , “heavenly Father,” cf. 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35). Cf. Mai 2:10 (the sense of spiritual “father” in 1 Cor 4:14-15 is rather different from what is entailed here). 10 A further title the disciples should avoid is that of κ α θ η γ η τ ή ς , “tutor. ” This word occurs only here in the NT and not at all in the LXX. It does occur in other Greek sources (see Spicq), where it generally means “teacher” or “master.” B. W. W inter’s study of the terms in POxy 2190 (c. a .d . 70-90) points to the more specific meaning “tutor,” in the sense of one who provides private instruction to a student outside the framework of a formal school. The argument is the same as in the two preceding instances: only one is worthy to be called “Teacher ” or “Master, ” and now that one is at last explicitly and climactically identified as ό Χ ρ ισ τ ό ς , “the Christ (= Messiah).” The three occurrences of ε ι ς , “one,” in w 8-10 constitute an “implicit didactic christology” and at the same time may involve an allusion to the Shema, with the implication that “adherence to Jesus as teacher relates to the confession of the one and only God” (Byrskog, 300). The immediately underlying lesson, however, continues to be the humility of the disciple, as the final logia make clear. 11 As in the important close parallel in 20:26-27, the future ε σ τ α ι lit. “will be,” is to be understood as an imperative, “must be.” The one who would be “great” (μ ε ίζ ω ν ) must become a “servant” (δ ιά κ ο ν ο ς ). The final position of δ ιά κ ο ν ο ς , “servant,” is emphatic in both passages. 12 The reversal described in this saying happens not in this life but in connection with the enjoyment of eschatological rewards. Exaltation of oneself in the present will mean a humbling in the eschaton, while the humbling of oneself now will mean an exaltation in the future (cf. 18:4). Such a reversal is already

,

662

Ma t t h e w 23:13-33

anticipated in the OT (cf. Prov 29:23; Job 22:29; Ezek 17:24; 21:26) and is taken up in the NT, probably in dependence upon the teaching of Jesus (cf. Jas 4:10; 2 Cor 11:7; the pattern is seen even in Jesus’ own mission as described in Phil 2:8-9). The very close parallels in Luke 14:11;18:14, although slightly different in form, reflect the same symmetrical parallelism of Matthew’s logion (note especially the same future passive forms in all three passages). The call of the disciple in the present is not to the pride of exalted status but to humility and servanthood. Only such dem eanor can lead to eschatological exaltation (see further, Viviano). Explanation

Jesus respects the position of the scribes and Pharisees as interpreters of the law of Moses. Although he seems at first glance to give an unqualified approval to their teaching, it is clear in light of his criticism of their teaching elsewhere that his words are not to be taken in this sense. They are a way, instead, of emphasizing the importance of the law and must be understood with the strong qualification “insofar as their teachings are appropriate interpretations of Moses.” Another way of putting this from the evangelist’s perspective would be “insofar as their interpretation of the law overlaps with Jesus’ interpretation,” which may in actuality have been to no small extent. Yet for Matthew Jesus alone is the true interpreter of Moses, and he is therefore the one rabbi, teacher, and tutor. He, not the Pharisaic rabbis, gives authoritative interpretation of Torah. And the scribes and Pharisees come under harsh criticism for both their teaching and their deeds in the material that follows. Jesus faults them particularly for their desire to impress others and their love of prestige and position. Such dangers also threaten Christians, and Jesus thus warns his disciples. They are to avoid titles that would set them apart from, and above, others in the community of faith, not because the particular titles are reprehensible but because of the assumption of superiority and elitism that so often goes with them. The demeanor of the disciples is to be characterized above all by the virtues of service and humility. Christians of every era and every circumstance, especially those in leadership roles, must learn again that true greatness consists in service and that self-humbling now is the path to exaltation in the eschaton. Only by such a radical departure from the values and priorities of the world will Christians in authority be the disciples of the one Teacher and Lord.

The Seven Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees

(23:13-33) Bibliography B ran d t, W . Jüdische Reinheitslehre und ihre Beschreibung in den Evangelien.” ZAW19 (1910) 162. D errett, J . D . M . “Receptacles and Tombs (Mt 23,24-30).” ZNW11 (1986) 255-66.--------- .

Translation

663

‘You Build the Tombs of the Prophets (Lk. 11,47-51, Mt 23,29-31).” SE4 [= TU 102)] (1968) 187-93. F low ers, H . J . “Matthew xxiii. 15.” ExpTim 73 (1961-62) 67-69. H o a d , J . O n Matthew xxiii. 15: A Rejoinder.” ExpTim 73 (1961-62) 211-12. J erem ia s, J . Häligmgräber inJesu Umwelt (Mt. 23,29; Lk. 11,47). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. K inniburgh, E . ‘Hard Sayings III [Mt 23.33].” 77*66 (1963) 414. K lein , G . “Rein und unrein: Mt 23,25; Lc 11,37.42.” ZNW7 (1906) 252-54. K ü m m el, W . G . “Die Weherufe über die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäer: Matthäus 23,1336.” In Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?ed. W. Eckert et al. Munich: Kaiser, 1967.135-47. L ach s, S . T “On Matthew 23:27-28.” HTR 68 (1975) 385-^88. L u d in J a n so n , H . “Existait-il ä l’epoque hellenistique des predicateurs itinerantsjuifs?” RHPR 18 (1938) 242-54. M accoby, H . ‘The Washing of Cups.”JNTS 14 (1982) 3-15. M cK night, S . A light among the Gentiles:Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. M iller, R. J . ‘The Inside Is (Not) the Outside: Q 11:39-41 and GThom 8 9 .” F o n m 5 (1989) 92-105. M inear, P. S . ‘Yes or No: The Demand for Honesty in the Early Church.” NovTIS (1971) 1-13. N eu sn er,J . “‘First Cleanse the Inside’: The ‘Halakhic’ Background of a Controversy-Saying.” NTS 22 (1976) 486-95. P e m o t, H . ‘Matthieu XXIII, 29-36; Luc XI, 47-51.”RHPR13 (1933) 262-67. Schw artz, D. R. ‘Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V,840).” N TS 32 (1986) 153-59.

Translation

13 “B u t* woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you sh u t the kingdom o f heaven to people. For you yourselves are n ot entering in to it, n or do you p erm it those who w ould en ter b it to do so.cA 15“Woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you travel about on the sea a n d the dry la n d to m ake one proselyte, a n d when you succeed in d oin g so,e you make th at person an offspring o f Gehenna twice as bad as you are. l ° “Woe to you, blind leaders, who say: I f a person sw ears f by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold o f the temple is bound by the oath . ,g 17Foolish a n d blind people! For w h at is greater, the gold or the temple th at sanctified h the gold ? lsA n d you say, I f a person sw ears 1by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift th at is on it is bound by the oath. 19B lin d k people! For w h a t is greater, the g ift or the a lta r th at sanctifies the gift? 20The one, therefore, who swears by the a lta r swears by it a n d everything upon it. 21A n d whoever swears by the temple swears by it a n d by the O ne who dwells in it. 22A n d the person who swears by heaven swears by the throne o f God a n d by the O ne who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you tithe m in t a n d d ill a n d cum m in, a n d you h ave neglected the weightier m atters o f the law: justice, mercy, a n d faithfu lness. [ B u t]1 these things you ought to h ave done while n ot neglecting the others. 24You a r e m blin d guides, you who strain ou t the g n a t bu t sw allow the camel! 25 “Woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you clean the outside o f the cup a n d the dish, bu t in side they are fille d w ith greediness a n d self-indulgence .n26B lin d Phansees! Clean the in side o f the cup ° f ir s t in order th a t its p outside may also be clean. 27 “Woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you are like whitewashed tombs, which q on the outside appear beautiful but in side are fille d w ith the bones o f the dead a n d a ll sorts o f im punty. *s T hus too you yourselves on the outside appear nghteous to people, but on the in side you are f u ll o f hypocrisy a n d iniquity. 29 “Woe to you, scribes a n d Phansees, hypocrites, because you bu ild the tombs o f the prophets a n d you beautify the m onum ents o f the nghteous ™ and you say: I f we h ad lived in the days o f our fathers, we w ould n ot h ave shared w ith them in k illin g the

664

Ma t t h e w

2 3 :1 3 - 3 3

prophets!’r 31 So th a t yo u bear witness a g a in st yourselves th a t yo u are the childrens o f those who m urdered the prophets. 32A n d you yourselves.t B rin g to the f u l l u the m easure o f y o u r fathers!3 3Serpents, offspring o f vipers! H o w w ill you escapefro m the ju d g m e n t o f G ehenna?” N o tes a A num ber of MSS (8* K W T Δ syc,p,h sams bopt) omit δέ, “but.” b τους εισερχόμενους, lit. “those who are entering.” c The words “it to do so” are added to the translation for clarity. d An additional verse is added here, as v 14, by f 13 it vgcl syc bopt; a majority of late MSS (vv TR syp,h bomss) also add the verse but place it after v 12. In all these witnesses, the verse runs as follows: Oval δέ ύμίν, γραμματείς καί Φαρισαίοι ύποκριταί, δτι κατεσθίετε τά ς οικίας των χηρών και προφάσει μακρά προσευχόμενοι *διά τούτο λήμψεσθε περισσότερον κρίμα, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the households of the widows, and for appearance’s sake you pray at length. On account of this, you will receive greater judgm ent.” These words, not found in the earliest MSS of Alexandrian, Western, or Caesarean traditions (K B D L Z Θ f 1vg sy8 sa mae bo p t), are apparently drawn from the parallel in Mark 12:40 (cf. Luke 20:47) and structured according to the Matthean pattern, including the introductory “woe.” Its different position in the later MSS also testifies to its later insertion.-TCGAT, 60. e δταν γένηται, lit. “when it happens.” f δς αν όμόση, lit. “whoever swears.” g “By the oath” added to translation. h Most later MSS (C L W Θ f1,13 TR co) have the present participle άγιάζων, “sanctifies.” i δς αν όμόση, lit. “whoever swears.” j “By the oath” added to translation. k Many MSS (B C W f13TR syp,h co) insert μωροί καί, “foolish and,” before τυφλοί, “blind,” probably in imitation of the words at the beginning of v 17. TCGNT, 61. l δέ, “but,” is lacking in K D Γ Θ f1.13 lat sams mae bo but present in B C KL W Δ sy samss. This division of the witnesses causes the editors to put the word in brackets. m ‘You are” added to translation. n A few MSS ( C R T syp) have άδικίας, “unrighteousness”; W (syh) has άκρασίας άδικίας, “unrighteous self-indulgence”; Σ lat sys co have άκαθαρσίας, “uncleanness”; and M has πλεονεξίας, “covetousness.” The MS evidence favoring άκρασίας, “self-indulgence,” is extremely strong by comparison. o Many MSS ( K B C L W f 13 TR lat syP,h co) add και τη ς παροψίδος, “and the dish,” perhaps influenced by the words in the preceding verse. Omitting the words are D Θ f1 sys. Despite the relatively weak attestation of the shorter text, the editors favor it because of the instances supporting the singular αύτοϋ, “its,” in the following clause. See next Note and TCGNT, 61. P Many MSS (K B2 C L W TR syp,h) have the plural αυτών, “their,” to agree with an immediately preceding reference to both the cup and the dish (X lat mae lack any pronoun). In favor of the singular αύτοϋ, “its,” are B * D Θf1,13 sys. See preceding Note. q D (mae) has έξωθεν ό τάφος φαίνεται ώραίος, έσωθεν δέ γέμει, “on the outside the tomb appears beautiful, but inside it is filled”; the important cursive 33 has οϊτινες έξωθενμέν φαίνεσθε τοίς άνθρώποις δίκαιοι, “you who on the outside appear righteous to people,” thus anticipating the words of v 28. r ούκ αν ήμεθα αυτών κοινωνοϊ εν τώ αϊματι τών προφητών, lit. “we would not have been sharers with them in the blood of the prophets.” Many MSS (P77 K C L W TR) reverse the unusual order of αύτώνκοινωνοί, “sharers with them .” Θ omits αύτών, “with them ,” altogether. s υιοί, lit. “sons.” t και υμείς can also be taken with the preceding sentence, resulting in the added emphasis “even you.” u D reads έπληρώσατε, “you have fulfilled.” F o r m /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g A. S e v e n w o e s a g a in s t th e s c rib e s a n d th e P h a r is e e s m a k e u p th e c e n tr a l s e c tio n o f c h a p . 23. F o r th e firs t tim e in th e c h a p t e r th e P h a ris e e s a r e a d d r e s s e d d irectly . T h e h y p o c risy m e n t i o n e d g e n e r a lly in v 3c ( “th e y say, b u t th e y d o n o t d o ”) is n o w

Form/Stru cture/Setting

665

illustrated through specific examples. The first two woes (vv 13-15) are furthermore related to the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees already articulated in v 4, while the fifth and sixth (vv 25-28) are related to vv 5-7. The final woe (vv 29-33) serves as a biting climax to the seven with its indictment of the scribes and Pharisees as those who stand solidly in line with the murderers of the prophets. As their fathers did, so also will they persecute those sent to Israel by God. The very positioning of this material at the end of the account of the ministry of Jesus, just prior to the eschatological discourse with its reference to the destruction of Jerusalem as the judgm ent of God (cf. the earlier position of the parallel material in Luke 11), also lends a climactic note to the entire chapter. B. Matthew’s seven woes are shaped by the evangelist to some extent on the model of, and utilizing elements of, traditional material available to him. In this pericope, the only parallel to Mark is in the textually doubtful v 14 (see above N ote d), which appears to be a later insertion of the Markan material (Mark 12:40) prefaced by Matthew’s woe formula. Matthew’s pericope apparently depends on a combination of logia drawn from Q (cf. Luke 11:39-52, which contains six woe sayings, corresponding to Matthew’s as follows: 1 = 4; [2 = 23:6-7]; 3 = 6; [4 = 23:4]; 5 = 7) and from Matthew’s special source, all of which is then put into its present form by the evangelist and put in its parallel form by the repeated introductory woe formulae. T he first woe (v 13) accordingly finds a parallel in the woe saying o f Luke 11:52. T he latter, however, is addressed to το ΐς νομίκοΐς, “the lawyers,” rath er than to the scribes and Pharisees (and no n e of the Lukan woe sayings employs ϋπ οκριτα ί , “hypocrites,” as in M atthew ). Luke also refers to the lawyers as taking away τη ν κλείδα τ η ς γνώσεως, “the key of know ledge” (contrast Matthew’s positive statem ent in vv 2-3a; Matthew uses the word κ λείς, “key,” only in connection with the authority given to Peter in 16:19). A lthough the w ording is rath e r different, there can be no d o u b t th at Matthew and Luke record the same logion: M atthew’s κ λ ε ίε τ ε , “shut u p ,” corresponds to Luke’s κ λ ε ίδ α , “key”; b o th evangelists re fe r to a failu re to e n te r in; an d L u k e’s τ ο ύ ς εισ ερ χό μ εν ο υ ς έκω λύσατε, “you prevent those who (would) en ter in ,” is the equivalent of M atthew’s ούδέ το ύ ς εισ ερ χό μ ενο υ ς ά φ ίε τ ε είσ ελθεΐν, “n o r do you perm it to en ter those who (would) en ter in .” Matthew appears to have reworked the logion of Q, which Luke probably presents m ore accurately. T here are no Lukan parallels to the second and third woe sayings (vv 15-22). T he fourth woe (vv 23-24), however, finds a parallel in Luke 11:42, which is addressed to the Pharisees. In the first p art Luke agrees nearly verbatim except in the reference to the second an d th ird items th at were tithed: thus for M atthew ’s τό άνηθον, “dill,” Luke has το π ή γα ν ο ν , “r u e ,” an d for το κ ύμ ιν ο ν, “cum m in,” Luke has π α ν λά χα νο ν , “every h e rb ” (a Lukan m odification of Q?). According to Luke, w hat has been neglected (only Matthew refers to τά β αρύτερα του νόμου, “the weightier things o f the law”) are τή ν κ ρ ίσ ιν , Justice,” as in Matthew, and τή ν α γά π η ν του θεού, “the love of G od,” which takes the place of M atthew’s second and third items, τό ε λ ε ο ς κ α ί τ η ν π ίσ τιν , “mercy and faithfulness.” Both evangelists agree almost exactly in the following sentence: τα ϋ τα δε εδ ει ποιήσαι κάκεϊνα μ η ά φ ιένα ι (Luke: πάρει vat), “these things you ought to have done w ithout neglecting the others.” Luke has no parallel to v 24. M atthew’s fifth woe (vv 25-26) finds parallel m aterial in Luke 11:39-40, which, however, although addressed to the Pharisees, is n o t in the form of a woe saying. V 25 agrees closely with Luke 11:39, except for M atthew’s τ η ς παροψίδος for L uke’s του πίνακος, b oth m eaning “dish” (the form er occurs only h ere in the NT; Matthew uses the latter only in 14:8, 11) and M atthew’s άκρασίας, “self-indulgence” (in the Gospels only h ere), for L uke’s πονηριάς, “evil.” V 26, on the o th er hand, differs markedly

666

M a t t h e w 23:13-33

from Luke 11:40-41. M atthew’s φ α ρισαίε τυφ λέ , “blind Pharisee,” corresponds to L uke’s άφρονες, “fools.” Matthew does n o t contain L uke’s rhetorical question, “Did n o t the m aker make b oth the outside an d the inside?” M atthew’s καθάρισον πρώ τον το ε ν τ ό ς το ν ποτηριού, “cleanse first the inside of the cup,” takes the place o f L uke’s π λή ν τά έν ό ν τα δ ό τε ελεημοσύνην, “b u t give the in n e r things for alms”; M atthew lacks L uke’s καί Ιδού π ά ν τα καθαρά ν μ ΐν έ σ τ ιν , “and behold everything is clean for you” (which probably was in Q) , concluding rath e r with ϊνα γ έ ν η τα l καί τό έ κ το ς α υ τό ν καθαρόν, “in o rd er th at the outside may also becom e clean.” T he sixth woe (vv 27-28) finds a partial parallel in the woe saying of Luke 11:44 (the address to the Pharisees is assum ed from Luke 11:43), which, however, is parallel m ore in th o u g h t than in words: “For you are like graves [τά μνημεία ; cf. M atthew’s τά φ ο ις, “tom bs”] which are n o t seen, an d m en walk over them w ithout knowing it.” Matthew has probably rewritten the logion to make it accord m ore with his em phasis on hypocrisy, i.e., som ething seem ing to be w hat it is n o t (cf. the application in v 28, lacking altogether in Luke). T he seventh woe (vv 2 9 33) is paralleled in Luke 11:47 (the address “lawyers” is assumed from th e preceding verse), where the opening words are almost exactly the same: ö t l οίκοδομεΐτε τά μ ν η μ εία [Matthew: το ύς τάφους \ των προφητών, “because you build the m onum ents o f the p ro p h ets.” To this Matthew has added “an d you ad o rn the m onum ents [τά μ ν η μ ε ία ] o f the righteous [δικαίω ν] .” T he tho u g h t that follows in both M atthew and Luke is the same, b u t Matthew has it in considerably ex panded form by referring to a claim o f the scribes and Pharisees that they would n o t have killed the prophets as did their fathers. Thus they bear witness against themselves that they are the sons o f those who m u rd ered the prophets (cf. L uke’s simple “b u t your fathers killed th e m ”). Luke concludes th e saying with the com m ent that by building the tombs of the prophets they give im plicit consent to the deeds of their fathers (Luke 11:48). Matthew, on the o th e r h and, bitterly exhorts the scribes and Pharisees to “fill up the m easure o f your fathers,” presum ably referring to their opposition to Jesus and his disciples (cf. vv 34-36). This note is heightened by the caustic rhetorical question of v 33, which is again lacking in Luke.

In summary, it may be said that Matthew has used the Q tradition creatively, by bringing material together into seven parallel woe sayings, each of which is restated and sometimes expanded with Matthew’s own material, so that together they enable Matthew to make the emphasis he desires at this climactic point in the Gospel. C. The seven woes that make up the centerpiece of the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees are constructed by Matthew for maximal impact. The fact that there are seven woes (cf. six woes in Luke 11:42-52) is itself significant symbolism, pointing to a fullness of corruption. Each of these begins with the identical formula, o v a l ύ μ ΐν , γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ί ς κ α ί φ α ρ ισ α ΐο ι ν π ο κ ρ ιτ α ί, δ τ ι, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because . . . ,” except for the third (v 16), which begins ο ύ α ί ν μ ΐν , ο δ η γ ο ί τ υ φ λ ο ί οι λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς , “woe to you, blind guides, who say . . . ” (the variation is probably more than stylistic, being related to the content of the woe saying; see C o m m en t) . Several of the woe sayings include further vocative insertions: thus the third has two (v 17, μω ρ ο ί κ α ί τ υ φ λ ο ί , “fools and blind people,” and v 19, τ υ φ λ ο ί, “blind people”), the fourth and fifth each have one (v 24, ο δ η γ ο ί τυ φ λ ο ί, “blind guides” [cf. v 16], and v 26, φ α ρ ισ α ίε τ υ φ λ έ , “blind Pharisee”), and the seventh has one, the last words being epexegetical (v 33, δ φ ε ις , γ ε ν ν ή μ α τ α έ χ ιδ ν ώ ν , “serpents, offspring of vipers”) . The first six woes appear to be linked in pairs, with the seventh serving as a climax: the first and second (vv 13-15) concern the effect of the scribes and Pharisees on their disciples; the third and fourth (vv 16-24) concern their teaching; the fifth and sixth (vv 25-28) con-

Form/Structure/Setting

667

cern the problem of externalism; the seventh the rejection of those sent by God. The woes may be outlined as follows: (1) for shutting out others from the kingdom (v 13); (2) for bringing condemnation to proselytes (v 15); (3) for a casuistic approach to oaths (vv 16-22); (4) for letting minutiae eclipse what is important (vv 23-24); (5) for letting external cleanness hide the need for inner cleanness (vv 25-26); (6) for letting outward piety hide inner uncleanness (vv 27-28); and (7) for rejection of God’s messengers (vv 29-33). The content of the first two woe sayings, which are about the same length, exhibits little structural parallelism. By contrast, the third (vv 16-22) is much longer and is filled with structural parallelism. Its length and structural complexity, together with its distinctive form ula, may argue for its in d ep en d en t formulation prior to being incorporated into the present collection. Two examples of casuistry in oath taking are given, the first concerning the temple and the gold of the temple and the second concerning the altar and the gift on the altar. In each instance the Pharisees’ teaching is given (vv 16, 18, in exactly parallel syntax), and in each instance a rhetorical question is asked (vv 17, 19, again in exactly parallel syntax, the first introduced with μω ροί καί τ υ φ λ ο ί , “fools and blind people,” the second with simply τ υ φ λ ο ί , “blind people”). The implied answer in each case condemns the casuistic practice of the scribes and Pharisees. A threefold concluding (οΰν, “therefore”) statement (vv 20-22, again with each element in exactly parallel syntax) is then provided, which refers to altar and temple (in that order, and thus chiastically), followed by a third element concerning swearing έ ν τώ ούρανώ , “by heaven,” hitherto not mentioned in the woe saying but parallel to the immediately preceding references to the altar and the temple. Again this material (vv 16-22) looks very much as if it has been designed for transmission by memory. The fourth woe (vv 23-24) also reveals symmetrical parallelism in its syntax. Structurally, the three herbs tithed by the Pharisees are matched by the three “weightier matters of the law” that they neglect. There is parallelism in the infinitive clauses of v 23, τ α ϋ τ α . . . π ο ιη σ α ι, “to have done these things,” and κ ά κ ε ΐν α μ ή ά φ ιέ ν α ι, “and not to have neglected those.” Further parallelism is found in the participles and objects in the logion of v 24. The fifth woe (vv 25-26) consists of parallel syntax heightened by the contrast between έξω θεν, “outer,” and έσ ω θ εν, “inner.” The double τ ο υ π ο τ η ρ ιο ύ καί τ η ς π α ρ ο φ ίδ ο ς, “cup and dish,” is paralleled by the double ά ρ π α γ η ς καί ά κ ρ α σ ία ς, “greediness and self-indulgence.” The exhortation of v 26 places “clean” chiastically at the beginning and the end in relation to the inside and outside of the cup. The sixth woe (vv 27-28) contains two parallel contrasts (each employing μ ε ν . . . δ ε ), again with respect to matters έξω θεν, “outwardly,” and έσω θ εν, “inwardly.” V 28 thus essentially repeats the preceding two clauses of v 27 but moves from the analogy of the tombs to the more direct address of the second person. Thus δ ίκ α ι ο ι, “righteous,” corresponds to ω ρ α ίο ι, “beautiful,” and ύ π ο κ ρ ίσ εω ς κα ί ά ν ο μ ία ς , “hypocrisy and iniquity,” correspond to ό σ τ έ ω ν νεκ ρ ώ ν κ α ί π ά σ η ς άκ α θ α ρ σ ία ς, “bones of the dead and all sorts of uncleanness.” The final woe (vv 29-33) contains less syntactic parallelism, although it begins (v 29) with exactly parallel sentences, ο ίκ ο δ ο μ εΐτε, “build,” corresponding to κ ο σ μ ε ίτ ε , “beautify,” and τ ο ύ ς τ ά φ ο υ ς τω ν προφ ητώ ν, “the tombs of the prophets,” corresponding to τά μ ν η μ ε ία τώ ν δικα ίω ν, “the monuments of the righteous.” The seven woes

668

Ma t t h e w 23:13-33

thus give clear and abundant evidence of Matthew’s literary artistry. Taking up traditional elements, the evangelist has put them together to produce a powerful critique of the main opponents of Jesus in the Gospel. D. Justin Martyr shows a knowledge of Matthew in his allusion to vv 27 and 24 in D ia l 112.4 (for v 27, cf. also the Gos. N a a ss. [= Gospel o f the E g yp tia n s? See E. H ennecke, N e w T esta m e n t A p o c ry p h a , ed. W. Schneem elcher (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 1:169-70; citing Hippolytus, R efu t. om n. haer. 5.7.8- 9]). Comment 13 The woe saying is a painful statement of displeasure involving an implied judgm ent (see the helpful discussion of Garland, T he In te n tio n o f M a tth e w 2 3 , 6490)—hence it serves as the opposite of the beatitude. Woe sayings are found elsewhere in Matthew (11:21; 18:7; 24:19; 26:24), but the seven woes of the present pericope form a distinctive set (all are identical with the present formula [cf. vv 15, 23, 25, 27, 29] except for v 16). Woe sayings are not uncommon in the OT, and a piling up of a succession of woe oracles is occasionally also found (cf. Isa 5:8-22 for a series of six; Hab 2:6-20 for five). See C om m ent on v 2 for the combination of γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ίς 'κ α ί φ α ρ ισ α ϊο ι, “scribes and Pharisees.” Here the woe sayings condemn the perspective and practice of the Pharisees and those Torah scholars who were responsible for the articulation of this viewpoint, υ π ο κ ρ ιτα ί, “hypocrites” (five further occurrences in this passage: w 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), which elsewhere in Matthew is generally used in reference to the Pharisees (cf. 6:2, 5,16; 7:5; 15:7 [explicitly]; 22:18 [explicitly]; 24:51), describes those who “play-act” or who want to appear to be something they are not (see C om m ent on 6:2). The issue, therefore, is deception of others rather than self-deception, as claimed by Via (see “Appendix: A Dialogue with Dan O. Via, Jr., on Hypocrisy in Matthew,” in the second edition of Gundry’s commentary [1994]). The Pharisees, as those who sit in Moses’ seat (v 2), made claim to being the true interpreters of the righteousness of the Torah; in actuality, however, their teaching and practice were false and thus misled others. The statement that they “shut up the kingdom of heaven to people” ( κ λ ε ί ε τ ε τ η ν β α σ ι λ ε ία ν τω ν ο ύ ρ α νώ ν έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν τω ν ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν ) , implies that their teaching of Torah should have been the key (cf. the cognate noun κ λ ε ίς , “key,” and its use in 16:19) that opened the door for others to enjoy the rule of God (for τ η ν β α σ ι λ ε ί α ν τω ν ο ύ ρ α νώ ν , “the kingdom of heaven,” see Comm en t on 3:2). The Pharisees and their scribes were not themselves ( υ μ ε ίς , “you,” is emphatic) entering that rule, but worse than that, their false teaching did not perm it those who followed them in the hope of entering the kingdom to do so. The failure of the Pharisees is a failure of responsibility. By implication—but it is only implication—the true interpreter of Torah is Jesus, whose teaching and work alone provide the possibility of entering the kingdom. 15 The second woe, which begins with the identical opening formula, follows closely upon the concluding point of the first woe. Inasm uch as the misconceived teaching and practice of the Pharisees and their scribes actually prevent their disciples from arriving at their goal, the effect is disastrous: a proselyte is so misled that he becomes “twice as much a child of G ehenna” ( υ ιό ν γ ε έ ν ν η ς δ ιπ λ ό τ ε ρ ο ν υ μ ώ ν ) , i.e., destined for divine judgm ent (cf. v 33). This state-

Comment

669

m ent (esp. “twice as m uch”), without denying its seriousness, is hyperbolic rhetoric that need not be taken literally. The extent of the Pharisees’ dedication to making “a proselyte” ( π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς the word elsewhere in the NT always refers to gentile proselytes to Judaism; cf. Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43), is underlined by the reference to crossing sea and dry land to gain just ε ν α , “one.” T he question o f the extent of the missionary activity o f first-century Jews is a difficult one. Most scholars have concluded that there was a flourishing Jewish mission am ong the Gentiles (see esp. J. Jerem ias, Jesus’Promise to the Nations, SBT 24 [London: SCM, 1958] 11-19). S. McKnight, however, has recently called attention to the tenuous nature of the evidence for this conclusion. It may well be the case, therefore, that the present verse has in m ind n o t the conversion of pagan Gentiles to Judaism b u t the conversion of the God-fearing Gentiles (i.e., those already partial converts to Judaism ) to full proselytes adhering in particular to the Pharisaic understanding of the righteousness of Torah (see McKnight, 106-8).

16-19 The formula common to all the other woe sayings of this pericope is lacking here in the third woe. The unique formula ο ύ α ί ύ μ ΐν , ο δ η γ ο ί τ υ φ λ ο ί οι λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς , “Woe to you, blind guides, who say,” may reflect the prior, independent existence of this material (vv 16-22). But if the material with its opening formula already existed as it is when the evangelist took it up, there is no reason why he could not have altered the formula to agree with his own in the other six woes. It seems more likely, however, that Matthew deliberately varies the opening formula here in keeping with the content of what follows. Thus “blind guides” (the same expression has been used in describing the Pharisees in 15:14; it is used again in v 24 below) is particularly appropriate to describe those who teach in the casuistic m anner of the examples that follow (cf. too the inserted vocatives in v 17, μ ω ρ ο ί κ α ί τ υ φ λ ο ί , “fools and blind people,” and v 19, τ υ φ λ ο ί , “blind people”). In the two matters now mentioned, the Pharisees made distinctions between oaths taken έ ν τω ναω, “in [the name of] the temple,” and έ ν τω χ ρ υ σ ω τ ο υ ν α ο ύ , “by the gold of the temple,” on the one hand, and έ ν τω θ υ σ ια σ τ η ρ ίω , “by the altar,” and έ ν τω δώρω τω ε π ά ν ω α ύ τ ο ϋ , “by the gift upon it” (this is also referred to in 5:23), on the other. In each case the former is regarded as not binding (ο ύ δ έ ν ε σ τ ι ν , “it is nothing”) while the latter is taken as binding (ο φ ε ί λ ε ι , “he is obligated”). In each case, after the repeated address, “blind people” (the first also referring to “fools”), the point is made via a rhetorical question that the temple that makes the gold holy (ά γ ιά σ α ς ) and the altar that makes the gift holy (ά γ ιά ζ ο ν ; cf. Exod 29:37) are greater than that which they made holy. The point is not that the Pharisees simply had matters reversed but that an oath must in every case be regarded as binding (for a similar perspective, see m. Ned. 1:1). The supposed exceptions allowed by the Pharisees were deceiving and as such were disallowed by Jesus. 20-21 This point is reaffirmed by these two statements. In swearing by the altar or temple, one swears by all that is associated with them, including above all the very presence of God. Thus the subtle distinctions of the Pharisees were indefensible. Jesus here argues minimally, and on the ground of the Pharisees themselves, for loyalty to all oaths (cf. 5:33). In his own view, however, oaths were altogether unnecessary: a yes or a no was good enough (see C om m ent on 5:34-37).

670

Ma t t h e w 23 : 13-33

22 Oddly, a third summarizing statement on exactly the same pattern as those of vv 20-21 is added, although this particular oath has not been mentioned earlier (i.e., in vv 16-19). The principle is the same. Working backwards, we can conclude that the Pharisees said “if one swears by heaven or by the throne of God, it is nothing; but if one swears by the one who sits upon the throne, he is bound by the oath.” Since in vv 20 and 21 ο μ ν ύ ε ι, “swears,” is followed by ε ν α ύ τω , which refers to the antecedent preceding the verb, so here ε ν τω Θρόνω τ ο ν θεόν, “by the throne of God,” is probably equivalent to the preceding έ ν τω ούρανω, “by heaven” (as it is in 5:34). To swear “by heaven” or “by the throne of God” is tantamount to swearing by the O n e sitting upon the throne”—God himself. (It is difficult here to imagine the counterpart to vv 17 and 19, since nothing, not even heaven itself, could be greater than the One who sits upon the throne.) The conclusion is again clear: the implied distinctions are unjustified, and thus all oaths must be honored. Oath taking is always in effect an agreement in God’s presence. 23 The fourth woe indicates the preoccupation of the Pharisees with minutiae and the resultant neglect of things that really mattered. The Pharisees took the principle of tithing one’s crops, which is firmly fixed among the commandments of the OT (cf. Lev 27:30; Deut 14:22-23), to include even such herbs as t o ή δ ύ ο σ μ ο ν κ α ί τ ο ά ν η θ ο ν κ α ί τ ο κ ύ μ ιν ο ν , “mint, dill, and cummin.” This scrupulosity in tithing (cf. too Luke 11:42, which refers also to “ru e ” and π α ν λ ά χ α ν ο ν , “every garden herb,” and Luke 18:12) went beyond the requirem ent of the law, which, referring to “the seed of the land,” “grain,” and “the fruit of the trees,” had in mind proper crops rather than garden herbs used for flavoring foods, (cf. m. Š eb. 9:1, which exempts certain herbs from tithing). The Pharisees were going the extra mile, to change the metaphor. Their fault, however, was that they had failed ( ά φ ή κ α τ ε , “you have neglected”) to give heed to the more important things ( τ ά β α ρ ύ τ ε ρ α , lit. “the weightier things”) of the law, enumerated here as τ ή ν κ ρ ί σ ι ν κ α ί τ ό ε λ ε ο ς κ α ί τ η ν π ί σ τ ι ν , “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” The call to these virtues is clear in the OT (for examples, cf. ju stice: Isa 1:17; Jer 22:3; mercy: Hos 6:6; Zech 7:9-10; and the combination of them in Mic 6:8; fa ith fu ln e ss: Hab 2:4). The context here favors translating τ η ν π ί σ τ ι ν as “faithfulness” rather than “faith” ( pace G undry), despite the fact that Matthew does not otherwise use the word in this sense (but cf. the cognate adjective in 24:45). These three matters are at the heart of the OT, and their close affinity to the love commandment, the summary of the law (cf. 22:37-40), is thus readily apparent. These things ( τ α ν τ α ) especially, i.e., the more important matters of the law, they ought to have done, insists Jesus, adding κ ά κ ε ΐν α μ η ά φ ιέ ν α ι, “and not forsaking the others,” i.e., the practice of tithing herbs already m entioned. Jesus accordingly sanctions the OT command to tithe, even the Pharisees’ extension of it to include garden herbs. His reasoning appears to be: If the Pharisees wish to tithe even the smallest herbs, well and good—let them, as long as they give attention at the same time to the most im portant items of the law, items that bear directly on the welfare of others around them. Here Jesus strikingly resembles the OT prophets. 24 For ο δ η γο ί τυ φ λ ο ί, “blind guides,” see v 16 (cf. 15:14). The point of the preceding is brought home by a humorous analogy that was perhaps already a proverbial saying (the underlying Aramaic probably contained a pun through similar-sounding words: tfrfpp, q a lm ä * [or possibly even tra p , qam ta>; cf. the inscription Sefirei.A.31 for

Comment

671

this order of the consonants], for “gnat” and 8*752, gamtä?, for “camel”; see M. Black, 175-76). By dwelling on minutiae and neglecting the more important matters of the law, the Pharisees show themselves to be like those who carefully filter out τ ο ν κώνωπα, “the gnat,” from their drink, in attempting to obey Lev 11:23, 41, only to swallow τ η ν κάμηλον, “the camel.” Since the law also designates the camel as unclean and hence disallows it as food (Lev 11:4), the point becomes perhaps even sharper. Concern for the small and relatively insignificant is accompanied by the ignoring of something enormous in size or importance. This appears to be precisely the Pharisees’ problem, as the preceding verse has dramatically shown. 25-26 The fifth woe, which begins with the same opening formula, turns the reader’s attention to another weakness that characterized the Pharisees: their concern for outward cleanness at the expense of equal attention to inner cleanness. At first glance, the woe saying seems to be addressing the strict ritual cleanness practiced by the Pharisees in their use of various cups, vessels, and containers: κ α θ α ρ ίζ ε τ ε το έξω θ εν τ ο ν π ο τη ρ ιο ύ καί της* π α ροψ ίδος, “you cleanse the outside of the cup and the plate” (cf. Mark 7:4). But when the inside (έσ ω θ εν) is said to be “filled with greediness and self-indulgence” ( γ έ μ ο υ σ ιν έ ξ ά ρ π α γ η ς καί ά κ ρ α σ ία ς) it becomes clear that the ritual cleanness (or perhaps only hygienic cleanness; thus Maccoby against Neusner) of objects is being used only as an analogy for moral cleanness. It is possible to appear righteous outwardly (cf. v 5) while in fact that appearance covers an inward uncleanness. Since the root cause of unrighteousness is internal (cf. 15:11,19-20), it is useless to be overly concerned with external cleanness (for a somewhat similar critique of the Pharisees, see As. Mos. 7.7-10). The Pharisees should begin with what is important; internal purity must precede ( π ρώ το ν , “first”) external purity. Φ α ρ ισ α ίε τ υ φ λ έ, “blind Pharisee,” is addressed in the style of debate as to a hypothetical opponent (the phrase occurs only here in the NT; cf. vv 16, 17, 19, 24; 15:14; John 9:40). 27-28 The sixth woe makes the same point using other imagery. This time, following the identical opening formula, the verb π α ρ ο μ ο ιά ζ ε τ ε , “you are like” (only here in the NT), makes the presence of an analogy clear from the start. Tombs were often “whitewashed” (κ ε κ ο ν ια μ έ ν ο ις *; the only other NT occurrence of the word is in Acts 23:3, where it receives the same application), in order to make them conspicuous so that Jews might not inadvertently come into contact with them thereby rendering themselves unclean for seven days (Num 19:16; cf. Luke 11:44). This was done especially before Passover with its massive influx of pilgrims (see Str-B 1:936-37). The paradoxical result was that tombs γ έ μ ο ν σ ιν ό σ τέω ν νεκρώ ν καί π ά σ η ς ακαθαρσίας, “filled with bones of the dead and all sorts of uncleanness,” were in this way actually έξω θεν, “outwardly,” rendered ώραΐοι, “beautiful.” The latter word is used here, in sharp irony, precisely because it is so incongruous when applied to a place that hides the corruption of death. So, too, the Pharisees who “outwardly appear righteous to people” (έξω θ εν μ ε ν φ α ίνεσ θ ε τ ο ϊς άνθρώ π οις δ ίκ α ιο ι ; cf. Luke 16:15; for a similar use of φ α ίν ε ιν , see 6:5, 16, 18), were in truth έσω θεν, “inwardly,” filled with νπ ο κ ρ ίσ εω ς κ α ί ά ν ο μ ία ς, “hypocrisy and iniquity” (the former noun occurs in Matthew only here; cf. Luke 12:1; for the latter noun, cf. 7:23; 13:41; 24:12). The fundamental flaw of the Pharisees, their hypocrisy, was in their concerted attempt to appear to be what they unfortunately were not. While they wanted to appear righteous, in fact they were unrighteous. A ram aic Approach,

672

Ma t t h e w 23:13-33

29-30 The final, seventh woe, after the usual formula, faults the Pharisees for constructing το ύ ς τά φ ο υς τω ν προφητώ ν , “the tombs of the prophets,” and for beautifying τά μ ν η μ ε ία τω ν δικαίω ν , “the monuments of the righteous.” The graves of such ancient worthies were often still known (cf. Acts 2:29), and they could be the object of such late attention (see esp. Jeremias). “Prophets” and “righteous persons” are linked several times in Matthew (cf. 10:41; 13:17). The Pharisees thereby give the impression that they honor these persons and regard themselves as champions of the principles they represented. Furthermore, they attempt explicitly to dissociate themselves from those responsible for killing the prophets: they would not have been κοινω νοί ε ν τώ α ϊμ α τ ι τω ν προφητώ ν , lit. “sharers in the blood of the prophets.” 31-32 All of this, however, was again but a facade covering an endemic lack of receptivity to the messengers sent to Israel by God. It is an irony that the very claim that they would not have participated with their (“your”) fathers (cf. τώ ν π α τ έ ρ ω ν ημώ ν, “our fathers,” in v 30) in killing the prophets (cf. 5:12) does establish them as the vio l, “sons,” of τώ ν φ ο ν ευ σ ά ν τ ω ν , “those who m urdered,” the prophets. The implication is that the sons are, at least in the present instance, inescapably like their fathers. In making their disclaimer, they inadvertently also bear witness against themselves (ώ σ τ ε μ α ρ τ υ ρ ε ίτ ε έ α υ τ ο ΐς , “so that you bear witness against yourselves”) . For the sons, by their hostile rejection of Jesus and his disciples, are repeating what their fathers had done in rejecting the prophets. There is a certain bitter and ironic inevitability in this—hence the sharp exhortation π λη ρ ώ σ α τε τό μ έ τ ρ ο ν τώ ν π α τέρ ω ν υμών, “Fill up the measure of your fathers.” What the fathers began will be completed by their sons (cf. v 34; and the fulfillm ent in Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15-16 [with ά να πλη ρ ώ σα ι α ύτώ ν τ ά ς ά μ α ρ τ ία ς , “filling up of their sins”]). And no rejection of God’s messengers is more grievous than the Pharisees’ rejection of God’s supreme messenger, Jesus. 33 The rising crescendo of bitterness in the preceding lines reaches its climax in a rhetorical question that is at the same time a condemnation. The words are similar to those of John the Baptist in 3:7 ( γ ε ν ν ή μ α τ α έ χ ίδ ν ώ ν , “offspring of vipers,” is found there verbatim [so too in 12:34], as well as the notion of fleeing [ φ ε ύ γ ε ι ν in both instances]; “coming wrath” in 3:7 is the equivalent of κ ρ ίσ εω ς τ η ς γ ε έ ν ν η ς , ‘judgm ent of Gehenna”). “Vipers” refers here to poisonous snakes. The condemnatory use of the virtual synonym ο φ ε ις , “serpents,” occurs in Matthew only here. The application of this kind of language to the representatives of Israel is shocking in the highest degree. Those who turn against Jesus and his disciples will not escape the eschatological judgm ent. For ‘judgm ent” (κ ρ ίσ ις ), see Com m ent on 5:21 (cf. 5:22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36, 41, 42). For “G ehenna” ( γ έ ε ν ν α ) , see Com ment on 5:22 (cf. v 15; 5:29-30; 10:28; 18:9). Explanation

This passage is certainly one of the most, if not the most, painful in the NT—and even worse, it is from the mouth of Jesus (pace Haenchen, Z T K 48 [1951] 38-63, who attributes the passage to the pre-70Jewish-Christian church). At the same time, modern scholarship has become increasingly sensitive to the positive, admirable character of the Pharisees (see Introduction to chap. 23). This hardly means, however, that the content of this pericope must automatically be dismissed as

Bibliography

673

u n h isto ric a l. If th e P h arisee s a n d Je su s d iffe re d o n so m e f u n d a m e n ta l issues, as th ey u n d o u b te d ly d id (a n d especially o n th e c e n tra l im p o rta n c e Je su s assigned h im self in his p ro c la m a tio n o f th e k in g d o m , p re s e n t a n d fu tu r e ) , it is ex tre m ely unlikely th a t th e re was n o hostility b etw e en th e m o r th a t Je su s c o u ld n o t have criticized th e m very sh a rp ly o n occasion. In d e e d , it ca n b e e x p e c te d th a t it was ju s t b ec au se th ey sat o n M oses’ seat a n d w ere th em selv es o fte n so close to th e tr u th th a t Je s u s ’ criticism o f th e m was as h a rs h as th e G o sp els re c o rd it. T h e clash b etw e en J e su s a n d th e P h arisee s was u n av o id ab le , a n d th u s a c o n c re te h isto ric al c o n te x t exists fo r w oe sayings su c h as th e o n e s in this p e ric o p e . A t th e sam e tim e, how ever, th e follow ing p o in ts sh o u ld b e n o te d : (1) it is h a rd ly th e case th a t all P h arisee s w ere like th o se d e s c rib e d h e re ; (2) th e p re s e n t p e ric o p e , p ro b a b ly a special c o n s tru c tio n o f th e evangelist, g a th e rs to g e th e r in o n e p la ce w oe sayings sp o k e n by Je su s a t differe n t tim es (cf. th e ir sc a tte re d o c c u rre n c e in L u k e ) , th e re b y giving th e m a special im p act; (3) th e p e ric o p e lacks any w o rd o f g race, a lth o u g h th e P h arisee s w ere n o t e x c lu d e d fro m J e s u s ’ in v itatio n (cf. A cts 15:15); a n d finally (4) very p ro b ab ly th e in te n sity o f th e w oe sayings to so m e e x te n t reflects th e g ro w in g hostility b etw e en th e c h u rc h a n d sy n a g o g u e in M a tth e w ’s day, a n d th u s th e sayings m ay w ell have b e e n s h a rp e n e d in th e ir b itte r to n e . T h e r e is to d ay o nly o n e p r o p e r C h ristian use o f th e w oe sayings o f th is p e ric o p e . I t is f o u n d n o t p rim a rily in th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e p assage to th e h isto ric al P h arisees, a n d ev en less to m o d e r n Ju d a ism as a relig io n , b u t in th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e passag e to m e m b e rs o f th e c h u r ch. H ypocrisy is th e rea l e n e m y o f this p e ric o p e , n o t th e scribes, th e P h arisees, o r th e Jews. If, o n th e m o d e l o f this p e ric o p e , a b itte r w oe is to b e p r o n o u n c e d ag a in st an y o n e today, it m u st b e d ire c te d solely ag a in st hypocrisy in th e c h u rc h (cf. 1 P e te r 2:1).

A p p e n d i x to th e S e v e n th

W oe

( 2 3 : 3 4 —3 6 )

B ibliography Blank, S. H. “T he D eath o f Zechariah in Rabbinic L iterature.” HUCA 12-13 (1937-38) 327-46. Boring, Μ. E. “Christian Prophecy and Matthew 23:34-36: A Test Exegesis.” In Society of Biblical Literature, 1977 Seminar Papers. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. 117-26. Chapm an, J. “Zacharias Slain between Tem ple and Altar: Mt 23.35.” JTS 13 (1912) 398410. Christ, E “Das Weisheitswort.” In Jesus Sophia. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970.120-35. Kennard, J. S. “T he L am ent over Jerusalem : A Restudy of the Zacharias Passage.” ATR 29 (1947) 173-79. Legasse, S. “L’oracle contre cette gén ération (Mt 23,34-36 par. Lc 11,49-51) et la polém ique ju d éo-chrétinne dans la Source des Logia.” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus. FS J. C oppens, ed. J. D elobel. BETL 59. Leuven: P eeters, 1982. 237-56. M cN am ara, M. “Zechariah the Son of Barachiah: Mt. 23:35 and Tg. Lam. 2,20.” In The New Testament and Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966.160-63. Miller, R. J. “T he Rejection of the Prophets in Q .” JBL 107 (1988) 225-40. N estle, Eb. “Between Tem ple and Altar.” ExpTim 13 (1901-2) 562. P ernot, H . “M atthieu XXIII, 29-36; Luc XI, 47-51.” RHPR 13 (1933) 262-67. Ross, J. M. “W hich Zachariah?” IBS 9 (1987) 70-73. Seitz, O . J. F. “T he Commission of Prophets and ‘Apostles’: A R eexam ination of Matthew 23,34

6 74

Ma

t t h ew

2 3 :3 4 -3 6

with Luke 11,49.” SE 4 [= TU 102] (1968) 236-40. Steck, Ο. H . Israel und die gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. WMANT 23. N eukirchen: N eukirchener, 1967. Winkle, R. E. “T he Jerem iah M odel for Jesus in the Tem ple.” A U SS 24 (1986) 155-72. Translation 34 “In keeping with this, look, I am sending prophets a n d wise men a n d scribes to you. Som ea o f them you will kill a nd crucify, a n d b others o f them you will scourge in your synagogues a n d persecute fro m city to city, 35so that all the innocent blood poured out upon the earthc shall be laid to your account,d even fro m the blood o f Abel the righteous to the blood o f Zechar i h son o f Barachiah,e whom you murdered between the temple a nd the altar.36 Truly I tell you, all these things will happen i n f this generation. ” Notes a Many MSS (C D L TR it vgwwsyh bo) begin this sentence with καί, “and,” probably through the influence of the parallel in Luke 11:49. b D a omit καί, “and.” c τής γης is possibly to be translated “the land” (i.e., Israel). d £λ&η έφ ’υμάς, lit. “will come upon you.” e K* omits υιόν βαραχίον, “son of Barachiah,” through homoioteleuton or, more probably, the influence of the parallel in Luke 11:51, together with its historical difficulty. See Comment. f ήξβί ... έπί, lit. “will come upon.” F o rm /Structure/Setting A. T h e su b ject o f th e p re c e d in g w oe (vv 2 9 -3 3 ), th e m u rd e rin g o f th e p ro p h e ts to g e th e r w ith th e lik e n in g o f th e sons to th e fath ers, lead s to a n a p p e n d ix p ro p h esy in g th e p e rse c u tio n a n d killing o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry g e n e ra tio n o f G o d ’s m essengers, i.e., th e disciples o f Jesus. T h e P h arisees will in this way “fill u p th e m e a su re ” o f th e ir fa th e rs (v 32). T h e final sta te m e n t o f th e p e ric o p e in d icates th e relative im m in e n c e o f this o u tb re a k o f hostility. G n ilk a reg a rd s vv 3 2 -3 9 as a u n ity reflec tin g th e re p e a te d th re e fo ld stru c tu re o f invective (vv 34, 37), th re a t (vv 35, 38), a n d c o n firm a tio n (vv 36, 39) o n th e p ro p h e tic m o d e l, fo r ex a m p le , o f 1 Kgs 1:3-4. B. M a tth e w draw s th e p e r ic o p e fro m Q (cf. L u k e 1 1 :4 9 -5 1 ). In L u k e , how ever, it is ή σ ο φ ία το υ Θεόν, “th e W isd o m o f G o d ,” w h o sp e ak s a n d se n d s th e m e sse n g e rs (L u k e 11:49). M a tth e w h a s p ro b a b ly a lte r e d Q a t th is p o in t, in tr o d u c in g h is fav o rite Ιδού, “lo o k ,” a n d , m o r e im p o rta n tly , id e n tify in g J e s u s w ith W isd o m a n d m a k in g h im th e s p e a k e r a n d se n d e r: ιδο ύ εγώ ά π ο σ τέλλω , “lo o k , I a m s e n d in g .” M a tth e w is also p ro b a b ly re sp o n sib le fo r th e a lte ra tio n o f th e m a te ria l fro m L u k e ’s ( a n d Q ’s) th ird -p e rs o n s ta te m e n t to th e m o r e d ir e c t a d d re s s in th e s e c o n d p e r so n , “y o u ” ( th e re b y also m a k in g th e m a te ria l p a r t o f th e p r e c e d in g p e r ic o p e ) . F o r th o s e se n t, L u k e h a s “p r o p h e ts a n d a p o s tle s [ά π ο σ τό λ ο ν ς] ,” w h ic h se em s to b e a n a lte r a tio n o f w h a t is p ro b a b ly M a tth e w ’s clo se r fo llo w in g o f Q : “p r o p h e ts a n d w ise m e n [σ ο φ ο ύ s'] a n d s c rib e s [ γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ί ς ] ”— th is in k e e p in g w ith M a tth e w ’s a b ility to r e f e r to th e fo llo w e rs o f J e s u s in Je w ish v o c a b u la ry (fo r “sc rib e s,” cf. 1 3 :52). M a tth e w p ro b a b ly e x p a n d s Q by th e in s e rtio n o f “a n d c r u cify, a n d so m e o f th e m y o u w ill sc o u rg e in y o u r sy n a g o g u e s ,” w h ic h p e r h a p s

Comment

675

reflects the reality known to Matthew and his church (cf. 10:17). Matthew also inserts ά π ό π ό λ ε ω ς ε ι ς π ό λ ιν , “from city to city,” after the reference to persecution (cf. 10:23). Matthew’s emphatic indictment έλθ η έ φ ’ ϋ μ ά ς , “may come upon you” (v 35), is more primitive than Luke’s technical έκ ζη τη θ η . . . ά π ό τ ή ς γ ε ν ε ά ς τα ύτη ς, “may be required from this generation” (Luke 11:50). On the other hand, it may be that Luke’s τ ο α ίμ α π ά ν τ ω ν τω ν π ρο φ η τώ ν , “the blood of all the prophets,” is more primitive, and thus reflects Q, than Matthew’s π ά ν α ΐμ α δ ίκ α ιο ν , “all innocent blood.” Matthew’s lack of ά π ό κ α τ α β ο λ ή ς κ ό σ μ ο ν , “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50), is probably an abbreviation of Q. Matthew adds the descriptive genitives τ ο υ δ ικ α ίο υ , “the righteous” (cf. the same word in v 29), following Abel, and υίο ϋ Β α ρ α χίο υ , “son of Barachiah,” after Zechariah, which may not have been in Q (cf. Luke 11:51). M atthew substitutes the em phatic έ φ ο ν ε ύ σ α τ ε , “you m urdered” (cf. the same verb in v 31), for Luke’s, and probably Q ’s, το υ ά π ο λ ο μ έ ν ο υ , “who perished.” Matthew’s να ο ύ , “temple,” replaces Luke’s ο ίκ ο υ , “house,” and the order of temple and altar is reversed. Finally, in v 36 Matthew’s characteristic ά μ ή ν , “truly,” replaces v a i, “yes” (Luke 11:51), and ή ξ ει τ α ϋ τ α π ά ν τ α , “all these things will come,” probably preserves Q, where Luke has έ κ ζ η τ η θ ή σ ε τ α ι , “will be required (of).” The agreement between Matthew and Luke is significant, yet Matthew has probably taken more freedom in adapting the Q material, while Luke follows Q rather more closely. C. The pericope is a prophecy of things to come. Its form, especially that of the final sentence (v 36), is appropriate to prophecy. The following is an outline: (1) the sending of messengers (v 34a); (2) the maltreatment of the messengers (v 34b); (3) the guilt of the Pharisees (v 35); and (4) the imminence of persecution and judgm ent (v 36). The structure of the pericope reveals some symmetrical parallelism. V 34a has the threefold direct object of the verb “send.” The remainder of the verse has four parallel future verbs; the first and third of these are prefaced with the words ε ξ α ν τ ώ ν , “(some) of these.” Also note a further parallelism in the άπό, “from,” and έω ς, “until,” phrases of v 35, as well as the appositional genitives modifying the names Abel and Zechariah. The final prophecy (v 36) is given emphasis by the formulaic ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ΐν, “Truly I tell you.” Comment 34 Δ ιά το ύ το , “on account of this,” relates not just to the preceding verse but to the whole of the preceding woe saying and, indeed, to the entire pericope. It is probably to be understood in the sense of “accordingly” or “in keeping with this” rather than meaning strictly “for that reason” (pace Blomberg). The ιδού, “look,” as usual in Matthew introduces som ething particularly noteworthy. Matthew’s εγώ , “I,” is emphatic: it is Jesus who now sends his messengers as God had previously sent his. As in 11:19 Matthew thus identifies Jesus as the Wisdom of God (cf. Luke 11:49). The present tense is futuristic enough to include at least that generation (cf. v 36). Given the future tenses that follow, π ρ ο φ ή τα ς και σ ο φ ούς κα ί γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ίς must refer to Christian “prophets and wise men and scribes” (the model of the sending of God’s messengers and their rejection is, to be sure, the same as in the OT; cf. Jer 7:25-26; 25:4 among many passages). In view are those “sent” by Jesus to carry on his work, that is, his “apostles” and their associates, the

676

M a t t h e w 23:34-36

leadership of the new community (although some bear the title “prophet” in that community [see 10:41; cf. 7:22], it is unclear whether the word here is m eant in the technical sense [as in 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 3:5; D id. 11.3] or in a more general sense as those who speak for God; cf. Seitz). (For the background of the persecution of the prophets and the fate of Israel under God’s judgm ent, according to the deuteronomistic perspective of history, see Steck.) The prophets intended here, therefore, are those responsible for the community’s instruction in the way of righteousness (this is probably also the sense of “wise m en” and “scribes” [cf. 13:52]). This is fully congruent with the emphasis upon teaching in Matthew. Some of these leaders will be killed (for ά π ο κ τ β ίν β ιν , “kill,” in reference to the followers of Jesus, cf. 10:28; 24:9) or crucified (cf. the need for the disciple to take up his or her cross [σ τ α υ ρ ό ς ] in 10:38; 16:24, although literal crucifixion is the subject here). Since crucifixion was a Roman and not Jewish form of execution, the passage probably refers to Jewish instigation of Roman authorities against Christians, examples of which we have in Acts. It is unlikely ( pace Garland, T he In te n tio n o f M a tth e w 23, 177) that the crucifixion of Jesus is intended since it is those sent by Jesus who are crucified. The prophecy that the followers of Jesus would be scourged ( μ α σ τ ι γ ο ν ν ) in “their” synagogues has already been m ade in 10:17; again the evangelist distances him self and his community from the Jews by the pronoun “your” synagogues. The reference to being persecuted ά π ό π ό λ ε ω ς e l ? 7τό λιν, “from city to city,” echoes the language of 10:23. Here, as in chap. 10, the mention of being scourged, crucified, and killed puts the disciples directly in the footsteps of Jesus (cf. the same verbs applied to Jesus in 16:21; 17:23 [cf. 21:39]; 20:19; 26:2). The three-stage pattern is complete: as the prophets were killed (vv 29-31), so too will Jesus (cf. 1 Thess 2:15) and those sent by him be killed. 35 The Jewish leadership’s treatm ent of these Christian messengers will confirm the extent to which, despite their disclaimer (v 30), they are one with their fathers in killing those sent by God. This is the sense of the purposive δ π ω ς , “so that.” The Jewish religious leadership, represented by the scribes and Pharisees, will not only be guilty of the blood of Jesus and those whom he sends but will also be considered in principle guilty of the blood of the OT prophets m urdered by their fathers. Because of their solidarity with their fathers’ evil deeds, they become guilty of π α ν α ίμ α δ ίκ α ιο ν , “all innocent blood,” from that of the first person m urdered in the OT to the last. For the expression of blood coming “upon” someone, cf. 27:25; Acts 5:28; 18:6 (for its OT background, see 2 Sam 1:16; Jer 51:35). α ίμ α δ ίκ α ιο ν is lit. “righteous blood” in the sense of “innocent blood” (cf. Joel 4:19; Jonah 1:14; Prov 6:17). The first m urder recorded in the OT refers to the crying out of Abel’s blood from the ground (i.e., innocent blood crying out for vengeance [Gen 4:8, 10]). For the description of Abel as δ ίκ α ιο ς , “righteous,” cf. Keb 11:4; 1 John 3:12. The question of the identity of the Zechariah m entioned here is a difficult one (it was already discussed by the time of Origen, M a tt. 23.35). Although Matthew designates Zechariah as viov Βαραχίον, “the son of B arachiah” (in an apparent addition to his source [Q ], unless it was in Q and deleted by Luke [Luke 11:51]) , there is no evidence that the Zechariah so designated, i.e., apparently one of the twelve m inor prophets (Zech 1:1), died an unnatural death. Two questions arise: Who

Comment

677

was the m urdered Zechariah that was in Jesus’ or Matthew’s mind? How did this Zechariah come to be identified as “the son of Barachiah”? Among the m ore than thirty Zechariahs known to us from the OT, only three em erge as possible candidates: a son of the high priest Jehoiada, who was m urdered in the court of the tem ple (2 Chr 24:20-22); the son of Jeberechiah (which becomes Barachiah in the LXX), one of Isaiah’s two witnesses in Isa 8:1-2; and the son of Berechiah (Barachiah in the LXX) son of Iddo (Zech 1:1, 7). A fourth Zechariah, known to us only from Josephus (J. W. 4.5.4 §§334-43), the son o f Bareis (or, according to other MSS of Josephus, Bariscaeus or B aruch), was a wealthy m an m urdered by the Zealots “in the midst of the tem ple” in about A.D. 69, ju st before the destruction of Jerusalem . We may om it the second and third of these because of the lack of any tradition of a violent death for either of them . The lack of this absolutely crucial elem ent is far m ore im portant than the m ere presence of the p roper patronymic. O pting for the fourth would m ean that the saying could n o t derive from Jesus b ut was the creation of the evangelist, assuming a post-70 date for the Gospel. This is by no m eans an impossibility. The passage then would involve a reference to the very first m urder and to the most recent m urder known to the evangelist (see esp. Kennard; Gnilka; H arrington). But this conclusion involves no less than three suppositions: that the evangelist knew of the story recounted in Josephus, that the Gospel was written after A.D. 70, and that the saying does n o t derive from Jesus. Far m ore likely is the conclusion held by the majority of com m entators (see too esp. Chapm an) that the Zechariah in view is that o f 2 C hr 24. Although his m urder took place in the ninth century, in the reign of Joash, it is the last recorded m urder of a messenger of God in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible (although Uriah was m urdered several centuries later [Jer 26:23]). Since 2 Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Bible (the last of the division known as the kĕṯû bim, the Writings), the statem ent “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” means in effect from the beginning to the end of the Bible, thus including the first to the last of the righteous martyrs of the OT, as well as all between. To be sure, a question has been raised about w hether the order of the canonical books was fixed as early as the time of the evangelist so that 2 Chronicles could have been thought of as the last book of the Bible (see Kennard; Ross). This point has been vigorously defended, however, by R. Beckwith ( The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament and Its Background in Early Judaism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985] 211-22; cf. Str-B 4.1:422-23). A further significant similarity exists between Abel and Zechariah the son of Jehoiada in that ju st as Abel’s blood cries out from the ground (for vengeance) in Gen 4:10 so too the dying Zechariah cries out “May the Lord see and avenge” (2 Chr 24:22); in both instances “righteous blood” is shed (cf. v 35 of our passage). Furtherm ore, this Zechariah was a priest who was m urdered “in the court of the house of the L ord” (2 Chr 24:21), and this corresponds with Matthew’s “between the tem ple [ναού] and the altar [Θυσιαστηρίου]”We are still left with the question of Matthew’s identification of Zechariah as the son of Barachiah. To suppose that this verse refers to yet another Zechariah, who was the son of Barachiah, who was also m urdered in the temple, one altogether unknown to us but known to the evangelist (thus esp. Ross), is needlessly to grasp at a straw. Already in ancient tradition there was a tendency to conflate the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles and the canonical prophet, as we can see from the Tg. to Lam 2:20 (see McNamara, 160-63; Nestle; and Blank, who traces the death of Zechariah in the rabbinic literature). T he best conclusion concerning our passage, then, is that probably sometime early in the transmission of this material, or perhaps by the evangelist himself, Zechariah was identified as the p ro p h et (cf. the reference to prophets in the preceding verse), i.e., the son of Barachiah.

Since the blood poured out concerns the biblical history, possibly τ η ς γ η ς means “the land,” but more likely that history of martyrdom is understood as

678

M a t t h e w 23:37-39

prototypical of the shedding of innocent blood in all the earth (cf. Gen 4:10). The Pharisees’ imminent persecution of the messengers sent by Jesus demonstrates that they are no different from their fathers. Thus they, as murderers of the righteous, may be said to stand with their fathers in what the latter did: referring to Zechariah, Jesus says ο ν έ φ ο ν ε ύ σ α τ ε , “whom you m urdered.” They with their fathers are guilty of “all innocent blood” of God’s messengers. 36 The ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ΐν , “truly I tell you,” formula (see C om m ent on 5:18) lends gravity to the concluding sentence, τ α υ τ α π ά ν τ α , “all these things,” refers to the persecutions prophesied in v 34 and τ η ν γ ε ν ε ά ν τ α ύ τ η ν , “this generation,” to the lifetime of those listening to Jesus’ words (see C om m ent on 11:16). The statement is in this sense very similar to those of 12:45 and 24:34 (cf. 10:23). Now Jesus refers not to the religious leadership of Israel, as in the preceding, but to the populace as a whole. The passage serves as a triple warning: first, to the scribes and Pharisees, whose hostile actions against those sent by Jesus will inescapably bring them into judgm ent (cf. v 33); second, to the masses who have not accepted Jesus; but also, third, to the followers of Jesus, who must prepare themselves for the reality of imminent suffering in the name of their Lord. Explanation

The work of Jesus was to be carried on by his followers. But as he has informed them on more than one occasion (cf. 10:16-23,28; 16:24-25; 21:22-23), they must expect to be treated no differently than he was to be. Their lot was not immediate triumph and the unalloyed blessing and glory of the kingdom here and now but the experience of hatred, persecution, and death for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. The members of Matthew’s church must have known the reality of this suffering and have drawn comfort from knowing that Jesus had foretold it. The words of Jesus spoke not merely to the situation and needs of the first Christian generation but to them and to those who would follow them. The Jewish religious leadership, on the other hand, paid no heed to Jesus’ words. Solidly aligned with those of previous generations, they filled to the full the measure of their fathers (v 32) and so inescapably brought themselves into the judgment that was to be theirs. Already in that generation they were to experience a foreshadowing of eschatological judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple (see 2 Chr 36:15-16 for the same rationale as in our passage). This pericope thus leads naturally to the eschatological discourse of chaps. 24-25. But before that, one final allusion will be made to the grace that was being offered them.

The L am ent over Jerusalem

(23:37-39)

Bibliography A llison, D. C., Jr. “Matt. 23:39 - Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy.”JSN T 18 (1983) 7584. C hrist, F. “Das Jerusalemwort. ” In Jesus Sophia. ATANT 57. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970.136-52.

Form/Structure/Setting

679

Kwaak, H . van der. “Die Klage über Jerusalem (Matth, xxiii 37-39).” N ovT 8 (1966) 156-70. Plath, M. “Der neutestam entlichen W ehruf über Jerusalem .” TSK78 (1905) 455-60. Translation 37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets a n d stones those who have been sent to her,a how often I have wanted to gather your children, in the same way as a bird gathers herb young under her wings, a n d you would not have it.c 88Look, your house is left to you desolate.d 39For I tell you, you will in no wise see me again from now u n til the time when you say: Blessed is the One who comes in the nam e o f the Lord.e ” N otes a D lat sy have σε, “you,” probably through the influence of the direct second-person address in the material that follows. b αυτής, “her.” Many MSS (K2 C L Θ/ U3TR) have έαυτής, “her own,” perhaps through the influence of the parallel in Luke 13:34; B* lacks a modifier here. c καί o vk ήθελήσατε, lit. “and you did not want (it).” d A few MSS (B L sy* sa bopt) omit έρημος, “desolate,” perhaps through the Influence of the parallel in Luke 13:35 or because the word was thought redundant following άφίεται, “abandoned.” It is possible, but less likely, that έρημος was added to produce agreement with Jer 22:5; the external evidence overwhelmingly supports the presence of the word. TCGNT, 61. e D has θεόν, “God.” F orm /Structure/Settin g A. A fter th e p re c e d in g in te n se a n d b itte r criticism , th is p e ric o p e b eg in s w ith a b u rs t o f w arm su n sh in e . I f it d o e s n o t c a n ce l o u t th e c h a ra c te r o f th e e a rlie r c o n te n ts o f c h a p . 23, it a t least in d ic ates th a t th e relig io u s le a d e rs o f J e ru s a le m , J e s u s ’ o p p o n e n ts fro m a lm o st th e b e g in n in g , w ere n o t o u tsid e th e sco p e o f G o d ’s love a n d g race. In a m o st te n d e r m e ta p h o r, J e su s in d ic a te s h is r e p e a te d d esire to re ceive th e m in to h is fold. T h e y h a d n o t b e e n p re ju d g e d ; th e y h a d n o t b e e n r u le d o u t o f G o d ’s saving p u rp o se s. B u t th e y h a d r u le d them selves o u t by th e ir re je c tio n o f Je su s a n d h is m essage. T h e re su lt was to b e c a ta stro p h ic . A n d th u s M atth ew im m e d iately ad jo in s to th is p e ric o p e th e last o f th e five d isc o u rses (chaps. 2 4 -2 5 ), th a t c o n c e r n in g esch a to lo g ic al ju d g m e n t. \fet M a tth e w ’s last w o rd in this c h a p te r (v 39) is to b e u n d e r s to o d u ltim ately as a positive n o te o f g ra c e a n d th u s h o p e . B. T h is p e r ic o p e is a p p a re n tly d ra w n fro m Q , b e in g f o u n d in n e a rly v e rb a tim a g r e e m e n t in L u k e 1 3 :3 4 -3 5 . T h e d iffe re n c e s w ith th e L u k a n p a ra lle l a re o n ly slig h t. T h e m o s t sig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e is M a tth e w ’s έρημος·, “d e s o la te ” (v 3 8 ), w h ich is la c k in g in L u k e 13:35 (w h e re it m ay h av e b e e n o m itte d as su p e rflu o u s ). M a tth e w ’s p lu ra l τ ά ν ο σ σ ία α υ τή ς , “h e r y o u n g ,” is p ro b a b ly a n a lte ra tio n o f Q (w ith th e p lu r a l a d d re ss o f th e e a rlie r m a te ria l o f c h a p . 23 in m in d ) , w h ic h m ay m o r e a c c u ra te ly b e r e fle c te d in L u k e ’s τ η ν έ α υ τ ή ς νοσ σ ιά ν, “h e r ow n b r o o d .” T h e re m a in in g d iffe re n c e s, a p a r t fro m so m e v a ria tio n s in w o rd o rd e r, a re M a tth e w ’s s e c o n d a o ris t in fin itiv e έ π ισ υ ν α γ α γ ε ΐν (v 37) fo r L u k e ’s first a o ris t έιη σ υ ν ά ξ α ι, “to g a th e r to g e th e r ”; M a tth e w ’s in s e rtio n o f έ π ίσ υ ν ά γ ε ι, “g a th e r s ” (v 37, p ro b -

680

M a t t h e w 23:37-39

ably added for emphasis); and in v 39 Matthew’s γ ά ρ , “for,” for Luke’s δ ε, “but,” his insertion of ά π ’ά ρ τ ι , “from now,” and his omission of the rough but textually suspect ή ξ ε ι o r e , “it will come when,” of Luke 13:35. Again, for the most part, Luke rather than Matthew appears to follow Q more closely. C. The lament is signaled by the opening repetition, ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem .” It is followed by two concluding remarks. The following oudine may be suggested: (1) lam ent (v 37); (2) judgm ent (v 38); and (3) promise (v 39). The pericope reveals little structural distinctiveness. The only parallelism, apart from the analogy employing the two occurrences of έ π ι σ υ ν ά γ ε ι ν , “gather together,” in v 37, is in the feminine participles ά π ο κ τ ε ίν ο υ σ α , “killing,” and λ ιθ ο β ο λ ο ύ σ α , “stoning,” also in v 37, each with a direct object, τ ο ύ ς π ρ ο φ ή τ α ς , “the prophets,” and τ ο ύ ς ά π ε σ τ α λ μ έ ν ο υ ς π ρ ο ς α ύ τ ή ι /, “those sent to her.” The LXX quotation that closes the pericope and chapter, drawn from Ps 118:21, contains an elem ent of hope. Comment 37 In the opening of the lament, the poignant repetition “Jerusalem, Jerusalem ” is directed primarily to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (cf. Luke 19:41-44), represented especially by the religious leadership criticized earlier in the chapter. By extension the lament may point also to Jerusalem as representative of the Jewish nation. Only here does Matthew use the Hebraic form Ι ε ρ ο υ σ α λ ή μ (cf. y e r ü s ä le m ); elsewhere in the Gospel he prefers the Hellenized Heb. form Ί ρ ο σ ό λ υ μ α (e.g., 2:1; 3:5; 4:25; 5:35; 21:1). The personified Jerusalem is the subject of the two participial clauses that follow. The first, ά π ο κ τ ε ίν ο υ σ α τ ο ύ ς π ρ ο φ ή τ α ς , “killing the prophets,” picks up the language of v 31 (cf. v 34; 5:12; Acts 7:52). The second, λ ιθ ο β ο λ ο ύ σ α τ ο ύ ς ά π ε σ τ α λ μ έ ν ο υ ς π ρ ο ς α ύ τ ή ν , “stoning those sent to her,” is a motif found elsewhere in Matthew only in the parable of the wicked tenants (21:35). The reference to stoning has an appropriateness here, given that this was the m ethod used in the killing of Zechariah, who is referred to in v 35 (it was also the way in which the first Christian martyr was killed, as the evangelist doubtless knew [Acts 7:59]). Jerusalem had become heir to a tragic tradition wherein God’s messengers were persecuted and killed (cf. the ironical remark in Luke 13:33). This was true of the past, and it was to be true of the future. Yet Jesus had often longed to gather its people tenderly, indeed, as τ έ κ ν α , “children.” The image of a m othering bird who gathers her young under her wings suggests such things as security, nurture, and well-being (cf. Ruth 2:12; Pss 17:8; 36:7; Isa 31:5 among many OT examples). It points to the experience of fulfillment and salvation. In the message of the dawning of the kingdom, this salvation had been offered repeatedly to the Jews, π ο σ ά κ ις , “how often,” may hint at an earlier Judean ministry not recorded in the Synoptics (cf. the early chapters of John), although a larger perspective may be intended. Despite the invitation to receive what Jesus was bringing, the Jews refused it: κ α ι ο ύ κ ή θ ε λ ή σ α τ ε , “and you would not have it” (cf. 22:3; Luke 19:14; John 1:11; 5:40). 38 ιδού, “look,” here introduces an emphatic statement of judgment, b ο ίκ ο ς υμών , “your house,” refers in the first instance to the temple (for “house” meaning the temple, cf. 1 Kgs 9:7-8; Isa 64:10-11; John 12:7) as the center of the people’s religious faith but may also allude to the city (cf. Tob 14:4) and the nation, i.e., the

Explanation

681

people themselves. The statement is based on OT models (see esp. Jer 22:5 [cf. Jer 12:7], with its references to the house becoming a “desolation”; LXX uses the cognate noun έ ρ ή μ ω σ ιν ). The passive verb ά φ ί ε τ α ί , “left (to you),” both connotes abandonment by God and alludes to the future destruction of the temple. Very similar language occurs in Ezekiel anticipating the destruction of the first temple (e.g., Ezek 8:6, 12; 9:3,9; 11:23; cf. Bar 4:12). The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple becomes a major subject in the discourse that follows (cf. 24:2, 15; Acts 6:14). 39 This is Jesus’ last public appearance in the narrative. The discourse of chaps. 24-25 is given “privately” to the disciples, and chap. 26 leads quickly to the arrest of Jesus. A major point in the narrative has been reached. He thus solemnly and emphatically (“I tell you”) informs his opponents that they will not see him again (cf. John 14:19) until his eschatological revelation as the glorious Son of Man (cf. 24:30). At that time there will be no alternative for them but to acknowledge him for who he is and to count him as the blessed one who comes in the name of the Lord (for ό ε ρ χ ό μ ε ν ο ς , “the coming one,” cf. 3:11; 11:3; John 11:27; Heb 10:37). It is possible, if only remotely, that the statement describes a welcoming reception of Jesus in faith (for understanding the passage as a conditional promise of salvation, see Allison). Ps 118:26 is quoted here in verbatim agreement with the LXX. The same words were again cited exactly in 21:9 when Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem as the messianic Son of David—this a foreshadowing of the eschatological appearance anticipated here. When Jesus returns in the parousia of the last days, even those who had rejected him will of necessity affirm him as “the coming one” (cf. Rev 1:4), the crucified, risen Messiah (cf. Phil 2:10-11), whether in gladness or remorse (cf. 1 E n o ch 62:5-6, 9-10). Explanation

The scribes and Pharisees had become the enemies of Jesus set upon destroying him; nevertheless, they too were invited to the new reality of the dawning kingdom. Despite Jesus’ stern criticism of them, he has longed for them to receive him and his message so that he could bring them into the fold of those who enjoy his benefits. If they had only allowed him, he would have gathered them with the tenderness of a bird gathering her young—thus his lam ent over Jerusalem, its inhabitants, and especially its religious leadership. But as it is, only tragedy awaits the capital city. Judgment is soon to come upon the temple, and the Jews would not again see their Messiah until the coming of the eschaton. Again all turns upon the reaction to Jesus. Acceptance means salvation; rejection of him means inevitable judgm ent (cf. 10:32-33, 40; 12:41). It is possible to link the future acceptance of Christ implied in the words of Ps 118:26 to the eschatological salvation o f Israel referred to by Paul in Rom 11:26, 31, but this probably goes well beyond what Matthew and his readers understood by this concluding statement.

Ma

682

T h e F ifth

t t hew

2 4 :1 -2 5 :4 6

D is c o u r s e :

T h e D e s tr u c tio n th e E n d

o f th e

o f th e

W o r ld

T e m p le a n d (2 4 :1 -2 5 :4 6 )

B ibliography A gbanou, V. K. Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24-25: Tradition et rédaction. EBib n.s. 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1983. Barclay, W. “G reat Them es of the New Testament: VI. M atthew xxiv.” ExpTim 70 (1958-59) 326-30; 71 (1959-60) 376-79. Bauckham, R. J. ‘T h e Delay of the Parousia.” TynB 31 (1980) 3-33. Beare, E W. ‘T h e Synoptic Apocalypse: M atthean Version.” In Understanding the Sacred Text. FS M. S. Enslin, ed. J. Reum ann. Valley Forge, PA: Ju d so n , 1972. 115-33. Beasley-Murray, G. R. “T he Eschatological Discourse o f Jesus.” RevExp 57 (1960) 153—6 6 .— — . Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Peabody, MA: H endrickson, 1993. Beibitz, J. H . “T he E nd of the Age: Some Critical N otes on St. Matthew, Chap, xxiv.” ExpTim 13 (1901-2) 443-50. Blenkinsopp, J. “T he H idd en Messiah an d His Entry into Jeru salem .” Scr 13 (1961) 51-56, 81-87. B randon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. L o n d o n : SPCK, 1951. B ro er, I. “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Mt. 24:1-28.” NovT 35 (1993) 209-33. Brown, S. ‘T h e M atthean Apocalypse.” JSNT 4 (1979) 2-27. B urnett, F. W. “Prolegom enon to Reading M atthew’s Eschatological Discourse: R edundancy and the Education o f the R eader in Matthew.” Semeia 31 (1985) 9 1 -1 0 9 .— — . The Testament ofJesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew. Lanham , MD: University Press o f America, 1981. Cotter, A. E. “T he Eschatological Discourse.” CBQ1 (1939) 125-32, 204-13. D upont, J. Les trots apocalypses synoptiques: Marc 13; Matthieu 24-25; Luc 21. LD 121. Paris: Cerf, 1985. Feuillet, A. “Le sens du m ot Parousie dans l’Évangile de M atthieu: Com paraison entre M atth, xxiv et Jac. v. 1-11.” In The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. FS C. H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1956. 261-80.— — . “La synthèse eschatologique de saint M atthieu (24-25).” RB 56 (1949) 340-64; 57 (1950) 62-91, 180-211. Fuller, G. C. “T he Olivet Discourse: An Apocalyptic T im etable.” WTJ 28 (1966) 157-63. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall ofJerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Grässer, E. Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 22. 2nd ed. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1960. H agner, D. A. “Apocalyptic Motifs in the Gospel o f Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity.” HBT 7 (1985) 5 3 - 8 2 .— — . “Im m inence and Parousia in the Gospel o f Matthew.” In Texts and Contexts. FS L. H artm an, ed. T. F ornberg an d D. H ellholm . O slo/Boston: Scandinavian UP, 1995. 7 7 -9 2 .— — . “M atthew’s Eschatology.” In To Tell the Mystery. FS R. H. Gundry, ed. M. Silva and T. E. Schmidt. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. 49-71. H ahn, F. “Die eschatologische Rede M atthäus 24 u n d 25.” In Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. FS W. Pesch, ed. L. Schenke. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. 107-26. H arnisch, W. Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte. FRLANT 97. G öttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. H arrington, D. J. “Polemical Parables in M atthew 24-25.” USQR 44 (1991) 287-98. H artm an, L. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. ConBNT 1. Lund: G leerup, 1966. Kik, J. M. Matthew Twenty-Four. 1948. Reprint, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reform ed, 1961. K nockaert, A. “A Fresh Look at the Eschatological Discourse (Mt 2 4 -2 5 ).” LVit40 (1985) 167-79. Knox, D. B. “T he Five Comings o f Jesus, Matthew 24 and 25.” R TR 34 (1975) 44-54. Kümmel, W.

Introduction

683

G. Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message ofJesus. SBT 23. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957. Lagrange, M.-J. “L’Avènem en t du Fils de l’H om m e.” R B n.s. 3 (1906) 382-411, 56174. Lam brecht, J. “T he Parousia Discourse: Com position and C ontent in Mt. XXIV-XXV.” In L ’Évangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et théologie, ed. M. Didier. BETL 29. Paris: Gembloux, 1972. 309-42. Loisy, A. “L’apocalypse synoptique.” RB5 (1896) 173-98; 335-59. Marguerat, D. Lejugement dans l ’evangile de Matthieu. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981. 479-561. Martin, F. “Le signe du fils de Phom m e: Analyse de chapitres 24 et 25 de l’evangile de M atthieu.” LumVie 160 (1982) 61-77. M onsarrat, V. “M atthieu 24-25.” F V 5 (1977) 67-80. M oore, A. L. The Parousia in the New Testament. NovTSup 13. Leiden: Brill, 1966. O ’Flynn, J. S. “The E schatological D iscourse.” ITQ 18 (1951) 277-81. P e rro t, C. “Essai sur le discours eschatologique (Me XIII, 1-37; Mt XXIV, 1-36; Lc XXI, 5 -3 6 ).” RSR47 (1959) 481-514. Pesch, R. “Eschatologie u n d Ethik: Auslegung von Mt 24,1-36.” BibLebW (1970) 223-38. Puig i T ärrech, A. “Temps i historia en Mt 24-25.” Revista Catalana de Teologia 6 (1981) 299-335. Reicke, B. “Synoptic Prophecies on the D estruction o f Jerusalem .” In Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972.121-34. Rigaux, B. “La seconde venue du Messie.” In La venue du Messie: Messianisme et eschatologie. RechBib 6. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962. 177-216. Roark, D. M. ‘T h e G reat Eschatological Discourse.” ΝονΤΊ (1964-65) 123-27. Shaw, R. H . “A Conjecture on the Signs of the E nd.” ATRA7 (1965) 96-102. Sibinga, J. S. “T he Structure of Apocalypti^ Discourse: Matthew 24 an d 25.” S T 29 (1975) 71-79. Spitta, F. “Die grosse eschatologische R e d ejesu .” TSK82 (1909) 348-401. Summers, R. “Matthew 24-25: An Exposition.” RevExp 59 (1962) 501-11. Thom pson, W. G. “An Historical Perspective in the Gospel of Matthew.” JBL 93 (1974) 243-62. Turner, D. L. “T he Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: In te ra c tio n w ith E vangelical T re a tm e n ts.” GTJ 10 (1989) 3 -2 7 . V ölter, D. “Die eschatologische R e d ejesu u n d seine Weissagung von d er Z erstörung Jerusalem s.” STZ31 (1915) 180-202. Vorster, W. S. “A Reader-Response A pproach to Matthew 24:3-28.” HTS 47 (1991) 1099-1108. Walter, N. “T em pelzerstörung u n d synoptische Apokalypse.” ZNW 57 (1966) 38-49. Walvoord, J. F. “Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the Time of the End: P rophecies Fulfilled in the Present Age.” BSac 128 (1971) 206-14. Wenham, D. The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Dii course. Gospel Perspectives 4. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984. Wurzinger, A. “Die eschatologischen Reden Je su .” In Bibel und Zeitgemässer Glaube. K losterneuburger: Buch- u n d Kunstverlag, 1967. 37-67. Introduction T h e fifth a n d fin a l d isc o u rse in th e G o sp e l (ch a p s. 2 4 -2 5 ), m a rk e d o u t by th e c u s to m a ry c o n c lu d in g f o rm u la o f 26:1, is d e v o te d to th e p ro p h e c y o f f u tu re cala m ities, in c lu d in g esp ecially th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e te m p le a n d th e h o ly city o f J e ru s a le m , a n d to th e p ro p h e c y o f th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n a n d th e e n d o f th e p r e s e n t age. B e ca u se o f th e d ra m a tic c lim a x in th e p ro p h e c y o f th e p a ro u s ia a n d th e c e n tr a l im p o r ta n c e o f th e th e m e o f th e fin a l ju d g m e n t, th e d isc o u rse is o fte n c a lle d th e “a p o c a ly p tic ” d isc o u rse . T h e s e c h a p te rs a re also k n o w n as “th e O liv e t d is c o u rs e ,” in d ic a tin g th e lo c a tio n w h e re th e te a c h in g w as g iven as w ell as a llu d in g to th e ap o c aly p tic asso cia tio n s o f th e M o u n t o f O lives (Z e ch 14:4). T h is d e s c rip tio n o f th e d isc o u rse as ap o caly p tic is o f co u rse a p p ro p ria te . M u ch o f th e G o sp el, in d e e d , h a s a n ap o c aly p tic to n e , im p lic itly if n o t ex p licitly (see H a g n e r, H B T 7 [1985] 5 3 -8 2 ). It s h o u ld b e re m e m b e re d , how ever, th a t m u c h o f th e d isc o u rse re fe rs to p h e n o m e n a o f th e in te rim p e r io d p r e c e d in g th e p a ro u sia — if on ly to in d ic a te th a t th e su fferin g s o f th e p r e s e n t a re n o t them selves th e e n d n o r even n ecessarily th e h a rb in g e rs o f th e e n d . F o r all th e sim ilarities th is d isc o u rse h as

684

Ma t t h e w 24:1-25:46

to apocalyptic writings, there are at the same time some striking differences. Most important, the discourse does not attempt to provide a timetable for the end time. Information concerning the time of the parousia is conspicuously absent, denied even to Matthew’s central figure, the Son of Man himself (24:36). Indeed, the thrust of the material is in quite another direction. The discourse does not intend to inflame the expectation of an imminent end, or even a predictable end. If anything, it cools such ideas. Tribulations that might have been thought to indicate an imminent end are described as “but the beginning of the birth pangs” (24:8). All that is assured in the discourse is the fa c t of the end. The time is deliberately left indeterminate, thus focusing on the need to be ready at any time. Consequently, the discourse retains its relevance in every Christian generation. It is addressed as much to the church as to the disciples. The one exception to this general indeterminacy is the significant time marker “immediately” {βύθέω ς) of v 29, a redactional insertion of the evangelist, which along with the redaction of the disciples’ question in v 3 clearly indicates that the evangelist shared the undoubtedly common view that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would mean the end of the age and the coming of the Son of Man. As with the other discourses, the evangelist has constructed this discourse using traditions available to him. Clearly Mark 13 is the major source for chap. 24. There are, however, also sections apparently drawn from Q (e.g., the two parables with which chap. 24 ends [w 37-44, 45-51] and the parable in 25:14-30). The discourse undoubtedly makes use of other material from oral tradition available to the evangelist (e.g., 25:31-46). As a construction of the evangelist using a variety of sources—sayings of Jesus spoken at different times in reference to different matters—it is easily conceivable that the discourse fails to separate this material clearly, thereby causing the problems of interpretation for which it is notorious. In particular, it is at least possible that material that originally referred to the fall of Jerusalem was applied to the end of the age and vice versa. As we have already noted, the evangelist could not separate the two. There is the further complicating factor that the horror of the fall of Jerusalem and the extraordinary suffering of that time apparently served as a type of the final judgment. It is difficult to discern the structure of the discourse. Clearly we have basically two main types of material: exposition in 24:4-36 and parables of exhortation in the remainder of the discourse (24:37-25:46). The challenge is to identify the organization and chronological sequence, if any, of the material in 24:4-36. This is not possible apart from the interpretation of this section. In anticipation of the commentary that follows, however, we may suggest the following general divisions of the discourse: (1) 24:4-14: a time of suffering and of the proclamation of the gospel, referring in the first instance to the period before the destruction of Jerusalem but applicable also to the entire time period preceding the parousia; (2) 24:15-28: the fall of Jerusalem, not itself the end of the age, and the unmistakable character of the parousia, applicable also to the entire period preceding the parousia; (3) 24:29-36: the parousia of the Son of Man, inseparable from the fall of Jerusalem. Beginning already in v 36, the predom inant note of the parables that follow (through 25:13) is the unknowable time of the parousia. In the last two parables this motif recedes into the background, although not entirely, in favor of a more general hortatory emphasis on the importance of faithful discipleship.

Bibliography

685

This understanding of the discourse is based on the conviction that, in keeping with the question of v 3, the exposition section speaks both of the fall of Jerusalem and of the parousia of the Son of Man. Exactly here lies the main difficulty of interpreting this section of the discourse (24:4-36). Several possibilities lie open to the interpreter. A strictly futurist interpretation denies any reference here to events of the first century, including the fall of Jerusalem (e.g., Schlatter, Schniewind, Zahn, Gnilka, Agbanou, Dupont, Harrington). Dispensationalism also takes this view, asserting that everything in the passage lies yet in the future even for us (cf. Walvoord; for a refutation, see Carson, 494-95). Diametrically opposed is the preterist view, which regards the material up to v 35 as referring exclusively to the fall of Jerusalem (thus, e.g., Kik, Tasker, France, S. Brown, Garland) . There are mediating views that find reference here both to the fall of Jerusalem and to the parousia of the Son of Man. As described in Turner’s useful discussion, the “traditional preterist-futurist” view regards vv 4-14 as referring to the present age, vv 15-28 to the fall of Jerusalem, involving a double reference also to the end of the age, vv 29-31 to the parousia, and vv 32-41 to the certainty of the fulfillment of prophecy. With a variety of mutations (but with rejection by many of the idea of double reference), the preterist-futurist view is widely held (e.g., Barclay, Lambrecht, Gundry, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Blomberg; see esp. Appendix A to Wenham’s discussion [“‘This Generation Will Not Pass . . see B ibliography for 24:29-36]). A familiar, basic tension in the discourse, apparent also from the outline just given, is the stress on the imminence of the parousia together with the stress on the unknowable time of the parousia. In particular, the arguments for the exclusively futurist and exclusively preterist explanations of the material center on the meaning of Matthew’s redactional “immediately” (βύθέω ς j in v 29, described by Grässer as “the puzzle of Matthew” {D as Problem der Parusieverzögerung, 218). For a hypothesis that explains this difficulty and our interpretation of the pertinent passages, see “Excursus: Imminence, Delay, and Matthew’s ε ύ θ ε ω ς ” in the C om m ent o n 24:29.

The Prophecy o f the D estruction o f the Temple a nd the D isciples ’ Question (24:1—3) Bibliography B o c k m u e h l, Μ . N . A . “Why Did Jesus Predict the D estruction of the Tem ple?” Crux 25 (1989) 11-18. D u p o n t, J. “II n ’en sera pas laissé pierre sur p ie rre .” B ib 52 (1971) 301-20. F a s ch e r, E . “Jerusalem s U ntergang in d er u rchristlichen u n d altkirchlichen Ü berliefe ru n g .” T L Z 89 (1964) 81-98. G a s to n L . No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance o f the F a ll o f Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. M e in e rtz , M . “Die Tragweite d er Weissagung Jesu von der Z erstörung des Tem pels.” T G l 35 (1943) 135-41. R e ic k e , B . “Synoptic Prophecies on the D estruction o f Jeru salem .” In Studies in New Testament and Early C hristian Literature, ed. D. E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 121-

686

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :1 -3

34. Schlosser, J. “La parole de Jesus sur le fin du Tem ple.” NTS 36 (1990) 398-414. Vielhauer, P. “Die Weissagungen von der Zerstörung u n d dem W iederaufbau des Tempels.” In Oikodome: Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Klein. TBü 65. Munich: Kaiser, 1979. 2:59—66. Translation 1 A n d Jesus departed a n d was going away fr o m a the temple, a n d his disciples came to him to show him the buildings o f the temple. 2B u t he answered a n d said to them: “You see all o f these things, d o n ’t you?h Truly I tell you, not even a stone will be left here upon a stone; there is not o n ec that will not be broken down. ” 3W hile he was sitting on the M o u n t o f Olives, the disciples came to him p rivately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things happen a nd w hat will be the sign o f your coming a n d the d consumm ation o f the age f ” N otes a B has εκ, “out of,” for άπό, “from,” probably through the influence of the parallel in Mark 13:1. b ον βλέπετε ταϋτα πάντα, begins with a negative that expects an affirmative answer. c “There is not one” added for clarity. d Many MSS (D W / 13 TR) insert the definite article της, thereby suggesting a clear distinction between the coming of Jesus and the end of the age. (Even without the article, συντέλειας, “consummation,” must be translated as a definite noun in English.) F o rm /Structure/Setting A . T h is b r ie f p e ric o p e in tro d u c e s th e fifth a n d fin al d isc o u rse o f Je su s, w h ich is fittingly d e v o te d to eschatology. T h e d isc o u rse is given in re s p o n se to th e d isc ip le s’ d ire c t q u e s tio n , w h ich was in tu r n e lic ite d by J e s u s ’ re m a rk th a t a tim e was c o m in g w h e n th e te m p le w o u ld b e d estro y e d . T h e d isc ip le s’ asso cia tio n o f th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e te m p le w ith th e e n d o f th e ag e b e c o m e s a key p ro b le m in th e in te r p re ta tio n o f th e d isc o u rse th a t follows. T h e c e n tra l im p o rta n c e o f th e th e m e o f ju d g m e n t in th e se c h a p te rs, especially as se e n in th e d e s tru c tio n o f Je ru s a le m , receives e m p h a sis by M a tth e w ’s o m issio n o f th e M a rk a n a c c o u n t o f th e w id o w ’s m ite (M ark 1 2 :4 1 -4 4 ), th u s c o n n e c tin g th e d isc o u rse m o re closely w ith th e w oes o f c h a p . 23. B. M a tth e w ’s s e ttin g o f th e c o n te x t o f th e d isc o u rs e follow s M a rk closely (M ark 1 3 :1 -4 ; cf. L u k e 2 1 :5 -7 ). H e rew rites th e o p e n in g s e n te n c e , av o id in g th e o p e n in g g e n itiv e a b s o lu te a n d th e d ir e c t d isc o u rs e o f M a rk 13:1 (w h ich c o n ta in s th e a d d re s s διδ ά σ κ α λ ε, “te a c h e r ”). In p la c e o f M a rk ’s “o n e o f th e d isc ip le s,” M a tth e w h a s “h is d isc ip le s c a m e [προσήλθον].” T o th is M a tth e w a d d s th e p u rp o siv e in fin itive c la u se έ π ιδ ε ιζ α ι α ύτω τ ά ς ο ικ ο δο μ ά ς τ ο ν iepov, “to sh o w h im th e b u ild in g s o f th e te m p le .” In v 2 M a tth e w a lte rs M a rk ’s q u e s tio n by a d d in g th e n e g a tiv e ού a n d th e a d jec tiv e π ά ν τα , “a ll,” th e re b y b rin g in g a d d itio n a l e m p h a sis to th e q u e s tio n : “You see all th e s e th in g s, d o n ’t y o u ? ” τ α ν τ α π ά ν τα , “all th e se th in g s ,” a b b re v ia te s M a rk ’s τ α ύ τ α ς τ ά ς μ ε γ ά λ α ς ο ικ ο δ ο μ ά ς, “th e s e g r e a t b u ild in g s ” (M a rk 1 3 :2 ). M a tth e w ’s in s e rtio n o f ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω νμ ΐν, “tru ly I tell y o u ,” b rin g s a n o te o f a u th o r ity as w ell as grav ity to th e fo llo w in g lo g io n . T h e lo g io n its e lf (v 2 b ) a g re e s v e rb a tim w ith its f o rm in M a rk 13:2b e x c e p t fo r M a tth e w ’s o m issio n o f th e μ ή in th e s e c o n d d o u b le n e g a tiv e ju s t b e fo re th e fin a l v erb , w h ic h b e c o m e s th e f u tu re

Comment

687

p assiv e κ α τ α λ υ θ ή σ β τ α ι, “sh a ll b e d e s tr o y e d ,” in p la c e o f M a rk ’s su b ju n c tiv e κα τα λυθη. L u k e (21:6) a g re e s w ith M a tth e w in th e se tw o d iffe re n c e s w ith M ark , p e r h a p s as th e r e s u lt o f th e c o m m o n in flu e n c e o f Q o r o ra l tra d itio n . In v 3 M atth e w su b stitu te s β π ί fo r M a rk ’s m o re u n u s u a l β ίς (b o th m e a n in g “o n ”) in th e r e f e r e n c e to J e su s sittin g o n th e M o u n t o f Olives. M a tth e w o m its M a rk ’s κ α τ έ ν α ν τ ι τ ο ν Ιβροϋ, “o p p o s ite th e te m p le ,” p e r h a p s b eliev in g th is in f o rm a tio n to b e obvio u s o r u n n e c e ssa ry . H e f u r th e r m o r e su b stitu te s h is fav o rite προσήλθον α ντω ol μ α θ η τ α ί, “h is d isc ip le s c a m e to h im ,” in p la c e o f th e n a m e s o f th e f o u r d iscip les in M a rk 13:3 (L u k e also o m its th e f o u r n a m e s [L u k e 2 1 :7 ]), a g a in re g a rd in g th is in f o rm a tio n as u n n e c e ssa ry . T h e first p a r t o f th e q u e s tio n a sk e d by th e d iscip les a g re e s v e rb a tim w ith M a rk 13:4a, b u t fo r M a rk ’s clau se m o d ify in g σ η μ β ΐο ν, “sig n ,” i.e., ό τ α ν μ β λ λ η τ α ϋ τ α σ υ ντβ λβ ΐσ θ α ι π ά ν τ α , “w h e n all th e se th in g s a re a b o u t to b e a c c o m p lis h e d ,” M a tth e w w rites τ η ς σ ή ς π α ρ ο υ σ ία ς καί σ υ ν τβ λ β ία ς το υ αίώ νος, “o f y o u r c o m in g a n d c o n s u m m a tio n o f th e a g e .” M atthew , p ro b a b ly w ith th e c o n te n t o f th e fo llo w in g d isc o u rs e in m in d , h a s th u s b r o u g h t m o r e sp ecificity to M a rk ’s τ α ϋ τ α . . . π ά ν τ α , “all th e se th in g s .” (L u k e ’s sim p le ό τ α ν μ β λ λ η τ α ϋ τ α γίνβσ θ α ι, “w h e n th e s e th in g s a r e a b o u t to h a p p e n , ” c le a rly sh ifts th e a t te n t io n fro m esc h a to lo g y to th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m .) C. S e rv in g as a n in tr o d u c tio n to th e d isc o u rs e itself, th e s e v erses p r e s e n t th e f u n d a m e n ta lly im p o r ta n t q u e s tio n o f th e d isc ip le s a b o u t th e fu tu re . O u tlin e : (1) th e o b se rv a tio n o f th e te m p le b u ild in g s (v 1); (2) th e ju d g m e n t o ra c le (v 2); a n d (3) th e d isc ip le s’ q u e s tio n (v 3 ). A m o n g s tr u c tu ra l fe a tu re s o f th is s h o r t s e g m e n t o f d ia lo g u e esp ecially to b e n o te d a re th e p a ra lle l g en itiv e p h ra s e s th a t m o d ify t o σ η μ β ιο ν , “th e sig n ,” a t th e e n d o f v 3, as w ell as th e p a ra lle l q u e s tio n s c o n c e r n in g “w h e n th e se th in g s will b e ” a n d “w h a t will b e th e s ig n ” (v 3). C om m ent 1 -2 T h e d e p a r tu r e o f Je su s ά π ό το υ ιβροϋ, “fro m th e te m p le ,” is a p p a re n tly n o t to b e c o r r e la te d w ith a p rev io u sly sp e c ifie d visit; th e last re f e r e n c e to Je su s e n te r in g th e te m p le is in 21:23, a n d th e in te r v e n in g m a te ria l p re s u p p o s e s th e p assag e o f c o n s id e ra b le tim e. T h e d iscip les, a p p a re n tly fille d w ith w o n d e r a t th e sig h t o f τ ά ς ο ικ ο δο μ ά ς το υ ιβροϋ, “th e b u ild in g s o f th e te m p le ,” w a n te d Je su s to sh a re in th e ir e x c ite m e n t, a n d th e y c a lle d h is a tte n tio n to th e sig h t (έπ ιδ β ΐξ α ι α ύ τω , “to show h im ”), p ro b a b ly lo o k in g b a c k a n d d o w n as th e y w ere p a r t way u p th e M o u n t o f O lives (cf. v 3) o n th e way b a c k to B e th a n y (cf. 2 6 :6 ). H e r o d ’s new ly o r n a m e n te d te m p le was fa m o u s fo r its g le a m in g b e a u ty (see J o s .,/ .W 6.4.8. §267: “th e m o s t m a rv e lo u s e d ific e w h ic h w e h av e ev e r s e e n o r h e a r d of, w h e th e r o n e c o n s id e rs its s tr u c tu re , its m a g n itu d e , th e ric h n e s s o f its ev ery d e ta il”; cf. A n t. 15.11.3 §393; b. B. Bat. 4 a). T h e d isc ip le s m u s t h av e b e e n a s to u n d e d a t th e r e sp o n se o f Je su s. A tim e w as c o m in g w h e n th e s e g lo rio u s s tr u c tu re s w o u ld b e lev eled , w h e n n o t a s to n e w o u ld b e le ft u p o n a sto n e . T h is p ro p h e c y will later, in d is to rte d fo rm , b e d ir e c te d a g a in st J e su s by h is o p p o n e n ts (cf. 26:61; 2 7:40). T h e d isc ip le s w ere n o t slow in re c o g n iz in g th e a p o c aly p tic to n e o f th e a n n o u n c e m e n t, as th e ir q u e s tio n in v 3 in d ic a te s. W h ile th e y w ere fa m ilia r w ith J e r e m ia h ’s p r o p h ecies c o n c e r n in g th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e first te m p le (cf. J e r 9:14; 9:11; M ic 3 :12), w h ich o c c u r r e d in 5 8 6 B.C., th e th o u g h t o f th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e se c o n d te m p le

688

Ma t t h e w 24:1-3

could, so they believed, only signal the time of final judgment, the end of the age. The statement that there will not be left λ ίθ ο ς ε π ί λ ί θ ο ι “a stone upon a stone,” a m etaphor for total destruction (and one that reverses the building process [Hag 2:15]), is found again (besides in the synoptic parallels) in Luke 19:44, where it also refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (for the historical fulfillment, see J o s.,/. W. 7.1.1 §§1-4). Jesus’ statement receives added emphasis from the formulaic ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ϊν, “truly I tell you,” which prefaces it. 3 As Jesus sat down on the mountain to deliver the first Matthean discourse (cf. 5:1), so again he sits on a mountain, this time the Mount of Olives, while giving the fifth and last discourse. Thus Jesus delivers the eschatological discourse from the very place where the eschatological events were prophesied to begin (cf. Zech 14:4). The disciples, no doubt troubled by Jesus’ prophecy, come to him privately for some privileged information (cf. the coming of the disciples κ α τ ’ ιδ ία ν , “privately,” in 17:19). That the two parts of the question are asked in one breath indicates that the disciples could not dissociate the destruction of the temple from the end of the age. The misleading manner in which the questions are juxtaposed thus reflects the mindset of the disciples (including the evangelist, as may be determined by his redaction of Mark). The generalizing plural r a v r a , “these things,” apparently includes not only the leveling of the temple but events that had to accompany it, such as the fall of the city of Jerusalem. Remarkably, the first question, concerning “when” {π ό τ ε ) these things were to occur, is not answered in the discourse. Although Jesus does not answer directly, however, v 34, insofar as it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, would intimate that that event was to occur within that generation. The second question concerns το σ η μ ε ΐο ν , “the sign,” that will point to the eschatological denouement, indicating τ η ς σ η ς π α ρ ο υ σ ία ς , “your coming,” and σ υ ν τ έ λ ε ια ς τ ο υ α ίώ νος, “the consummation of the age.” The conceptual unity of the parousia and the end of the age is indicated by the single Greek article governing both (Granville Sharp’s Rule [see S. E. Porter, Idiom s o f the Greek N ew Testament, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994) 110-11]). The disciples thus were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton. In the discourse Jesus will three times refer to ή π α ρουσία το υ υίοϋ το υ άνθρώπου, “the coming of the Son of Man” (vv 27, 37, 39; the word “coming” does not occur in the other Gospels). “Parousia” now refers not to the visit or presence of an earthly king, as in the Hellenistic world, but is used technically to refer to the return of Jesus. The “consummation of the age” is not found in the remainder of the discourse (it is found, however, in 28:20, as well as in 13:39-40, 49; the only other occurrence in the NT is in Heb 9:26, where, however, the plural “ages” is used; cf. T. L evi 10; 2 A poc. Bar. 59:8; LXX Dan 11:35; 12:4, 13). Questions similar to those of the disciples are common in apocalyptic literature (cf. Dan 8:13; 12:6; 2 Esdr 4:33, 35; 6:7, 11-12; 2 Apoc. Bar. 21:18-19). A similar concern is found in the rabbinic literature {b. Sank. 98a; 99a; Pesiq. R. 1 [46]). Explanation

As far as the apostles were concerned, the ominous words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the temple could point in only one direction: to the experienc-

Form/Structure/Setting

689

in g o f th e esch a to lo g ic al ju d g m e n t. T h is was a su b je ct to w h ich Je su s h a d o fte n a llu d e d in his te a c h in g m in istry a n d th e re fo re s o m e th in g th ey m ay well have exp e c te d h im to in d ic ate. T h ey w ere acco rd in g ly e a g e r to k n o w h ow so o n th is m ig h t o c c u r a n d w h a t sign th ey m ig h t a n tic ip a te to in d ic a te its a p p ro a c h . T h e ir c o n c e rn was n o t o n e o f id le curiosity, fo r m e re in f o rm a tio n ’s sake, b u t c o n c e r n th a t th ey m ig h t b e p ro p e rly p r e p a re d fo r th e tim e o f ju d g m e n t. F ro m th e ir p ersp ectiv e, th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e te m p le m u st have m e a n t th e c o m in g ag a in o f Jesu s, n o t as h e n ow was w ith th e m w h e n h is g lo ry was v eiled b u t as th e clearly re v e ale d S on o f G o d fo r all to see. Je su s h a d n o w to in s tru c t th e m m o re closely a b o u t th e se m a tte rs, a b o u t th e f u tu re h e h a d in tim a te d in h is d ra m a tic o ra c le o f ju d g m e n t.

T h e B e g in n in g o f B ir th P a n g s

(2 4 :4 -8 )

B ibliography See Bibliography for Introduction to 24:1-25:46. Translation 4A n d Jesus answered and said to them: “Be careful lest anyone deceive you. bFor m any will come in my name, saying: Ί am the Messiah. ’ A n d they will deceive many. 6A n d you will soon hear o f wars a n d rumors o f wars. See to it that you are not frig h tened. For these th in g sa m ust happen, but the end is not yet. 7For nation will rise up against nation a n d kingdom against kingdom, a n d there will be fa m in es h a n d earthquakes in place after place. 8B u t all these things are the beginning o f birth pangs. ” N otes a “These things” added to translation for clarity (ταντα, “these things,” is added to the text in lat sf; cf. Luke 21:9). Many MSS (C W/ 13TR syph) add πάντα, “all (these things),” perhaps by the influence of v 8. The shortest reading, the simple δει γάρ γενέσθαι, “for [they] must be” or “happen,” is to be preferred. See TCGNT, 61. b Many MSS (C Θ / U3 TR syp,h mae) insert καί λοιμοί, “and plagues,” before καί σεισμοί, “and earthquakes”; some other MSS (L W 33 lat) make λοιμοί, “plagues,” the first of the three items. This insertion is a harmonization with the text of Luke 21:11 (followed most closely by the former group of MSS). F o rm /Structure/Settin g A. T h e e s c h a to lo g ic a l d isc o u rse , given in r e s p o n s e to th e d isc ip le s’ q u e s tio n , b e g in s w ith th e a s se rtio n th a t th e w o rld will y et e x p e r ie n c e m u c h tr o u b le b e fo re th e c o m in g o f th e fin a l o r e s c h a to lo g ic a l ju d g m e n t. T h e e ffe c t o f th is e m p h asis, a lth o u g h le ft im p licit, is to m a k e p o ssib le a s e p a ra tio n o f th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e te m p le fro m th e e x p e r ie n c in g o f th e e n d o f th e ag e. In c o n n e c tio n w ith th e

690

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :4 -8

tro u b le s to b e e x p e r ie n c e d , m e ssia n ic c la im a n ts will a p p e a r. B u t n o n e o f th e m is th e M essiah; it is n o t y e t th e e n d o f th e age. T h is e m p h a sis o c c u rs r e p e a te d ly in th is c h a p te r as a k in d o f le itm o tif (cf. w 11, 2 3 -3 6 ). B. M a tth e w follow s M a rk closely, o f te n v e rb a tim , in th is p e r ic o p e . In v 4 h e d e le te s M a rk ’s ή ρ ζ α το , “b e g a n ” (M ark 13:5), a n d in se rts th e fo rm u la ic ά π ο κ ρ ιθ είς, “a n s w e re d ” (w h ich is c o m m o n ly u s e d w ith ε ΐπ ε ν , “sa id ,” in M a tth e w ). M a tth e w ’s in s e rte d γ ά ρ , “fo r,” a t th e b e g in n in g o f v 5 (cf. L u k e 21:8) ties th e s e n te n c e s m o r e closely to g e th e r. M a tth e w ’s in s e rte d ο Χ ρ ισ τό ς , “th e C h ris t,” c o m p le te s th e έ γ ώ ε ίμ ι, “I a m ,” o f M a rk 13:6 (cf. L u k e 21:8). In v 6 M a tth e w rew rites M a rk by a d d in g M a rk ’s ό τ α ν δ έ ά κ ο ύ σ η τε , “w h e n e v e r y o u h e a r ,” to μ ε λ λ ή σ ε τ ε δ έ άκ ούειν, “y o u a re a b o u t to h e a r ,” th u s h e ig h te n in g th e im m in e n c e o f th e e x p e c te d tro u b le s. In th e sa m e v erse, M a tth e w in s e rts ο ρ α τέ, “s e e ” ( p e r h a p s o n th e m o d e l o f β λ έ π ε τ ε , “b e w a re ,” in v 4 ), a n d γά ρ , “fo r,” a fte r δ ει, “it [they] m u s t,” a n d su p p lie s th e c o p u la έ σ τ ίν , “is,” b e fo re τό τ έ λ ο ς , “th e e n d .” M a tth e w in v 7 s m o o th s o u t M a rk ’s syntax, a n d in v 8 a d d s π ά ν τα , “a ll,” to M a rk ’s τα ν τα , “th e se (th in g s) ” (cf. th e sa m e p h ra s e in v 2; 4:9; 6 :2 3 -2 4 ; 13:34, 51, 56; 19:20; a n d esp. 2 4 :3 3 -3 4 ). C. D isastro u s events w ere to o c c u r in th e f u tu re — events th a t w o u ld tu r n o n e ’s th o u g h ts to eschatology. Yet th e d iscip les w ere n o t to allow them selv es to b e d e ceived by th e se events. O u tlin e : (1) w a rn in g n o t to b e d eceiv ed (v 4); (2) th e c o m in g o f false m essiah s w h o will d eceive m a n y (v 5); (3) re p o rts o f w ar (v 6 a - b ) ; (4) th e d elay o f th e e n d (v 6c); (5) f u tu re w ars (v 7 a); (6) f u tu re c a ta stro p h e s (v 7 b ); a n d (7) th e b e g in n in g o f w oes (v 8). T h e p assage consists o f a strin g o f s h o r t s e n te n c e s w ith n o t m u c h syntactic p arallelism . S o m e stru c tu ra l p ara llelism c a n b e se e n b e tw e e n β λ έ π ε τ ε a n d ο ρ α τ έ , “s e e ,” in vv 4 a n d 6, b o th fo llo w ed by μ ή w ith th e p ro h ib itiv e su b ju n ctiv e. T h e two o b jects o f άκούειν, “h e a r,” in v 6 a re p ara llel; v 7 f u r th e r m o r e h a s p a ra lle lism in th e έθ ν ο ς, “n a t io n ,” a n d β α σ ιλ ε ία , “k in g d o m ,” clauses, λ ιμ ο ί, “fa m in e s,” a n d σ ε ισ μ ο ί, “e a r th q u a k e s ,” a re p u t in p a ra lle l by M atthew. T h e τ α ν τ α π ά ν τα , “all th e se th in g s ,” o f v 8 is rec ap itu lativ e in fo rce. D. V 4 b is q u o te d in Did. 6.1, b u t w ith th e s in g u la r p r o n o u n σ ε, “y o u ,” in s te a d o f th e p lu r a l υμά ς. C om m ent 4 - 5 Je su s b e g in s h is answ er to th e d isc ip le s’ q u e s tio n s by w a rn in g th e m n o t to b e d e c e iv e d by p r e m a tu r e claim s o f th e M essiah ’s p re se n c e , even w h e n in c o n ju n c tio n w ith ev en ts th a t sug g est th e c o m in g o f th e e s c h a to n . T h e p o te n tia l d e c e p tio n a p p e a rs to b e tw ofold: th a t th e M essiah h as c o m e a n d th a t th e e sch a to lo g ic al ju d g m e n t h a s b e g u n . F irst, th e a t t e n t i o n is u p o n th e π ο λ λ ο ί, “m a n y ,” w h o w ill claim — p re su m a b ly n o t a t o n c e , b u t o v er a p e r io d o f tim e— έγώ ε ίμ ι ό Χ ρ ισ τό ς , “I a m th e C h rist [= M e ssia h ].” T h e s ta te m e n t th a t su c h p e rs o n s will c o m e έ π ι τω ό ν ό μ α τί μου, “in m y n a m e ,” m e a n s e ith e r th a t th e y will c o m e u sin g th e n a m e o f Je su s (see BAGD, 573a) o r th a t th ey will c o m e assu m in g th e m essian ic office o f Je su s (fo r ό νό μ α τι as “o ffic e,” see BAGD, 5 7 3 b ), as is sp e lle d o u t in th e e x p lic it claim th a t follow s. T h e claim to b e th e C h rist m e a n s h e r e th e claim to b e th e esch a to lo g ic al M essiah. (O n th e title, see Comment o n 1:16.) R e v o lu tio n a ry le a d e rs su c h as J u d a s th e G alilean (Acts 5:37), T h e u d a s (Acts 5:36), a n d th e a n o n y m o u s “E g y p tia n ” (Acts 21:38), w hose en d e av o rs h a d c lea r esch a to lo g ic al o v erto n e s, m ig h t

Explanation

691

w ell qualify as th e k in d o f p se u d o -m essiah s in view h e re , a lth o u g h n o t u n til B ar K o k h b a in A.D. 135 d o we have ev id en c e o f th e claim o f th e tid e M essiah. F o r re fe re n c e to su c h re v o lu tio n a ry le ad e rs, see J o s e p h u s (e.g.,J.W . 2.13.4 §259, 2 .1 7 .8 -1 0 §§4 3 3-56; 6.5.2 § § 28 5-87; A nt. 17.1 0 .5 -8 § § 2 7 1 -8 5 ). T h e p ro p h e c y th a t th e se m essianic p r e te n d e r s πολλούς πλανήσουσιν, “will le a d m a n y astray,” is in view also in v 24, w h e re ψ β υ δ ό χ ρ ισ τ ο ι, “p se u d o -m e ssia h s,” a re lin k e d w ith ψ ε υ δ ο π ρ ο φ ή τ α ι, “p s e u d o -p ro p h e ts .” F o r th e latter, w h o ‘V ili d eceive m an y ,” cf. v 11. T h e self-claim s o f false m essiahs, o r th e claim s o f o th e rs o n th e ir b e h a lf, sta n d in c o n tra st w ith w h a t will b e th e u n m ista k a b le ev id en c e o f th e p a ro u sia o f th e S on o f M an (v 27). 6 T h e disciples will, in th e n o t d ista n t fu tu re , h e a r o f π ο λέμ ο υς, ‘V a rs,” a n d o f ά κο ά ς πολέμων, “r u m o rs o f w ars,” i.e., o f re p o rts o f w ars m o re d istan t. T h e la n g u ag e is fro m th e stock o f apocaly p tic lite ra tu re (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 4 8 :3 0 -4 1 ; 70:2-3; Sib. Or 2 :1 5 4 -7 3 ). T h e h o r r o r a n d h u m a n su ffe rin g c o n n e c te d w ith w ar a re b o u n d to raise esch a to lo g ic al th o u g h ts — a n d th ey h av e in d e e d th r o u g h o u t h isto ry —yet th e d iscip les m u st realize th a t th e se te rrib le ev en ts (a n d th o se m e n tio n e d in v 7) d o n o t in th em selv es signal th e e n d (cf. w 7 -8 ). A ccordingly, th e disciples s h o u ld n o t b e u n d u ly “d is tu rb e d ” (θροεΐσθε) by th e se events. B e h in d S ei γά ρ γβνέσθα ι, “it is n ec essary fo r [th e se th in g s] to h a p p e n ,” lies th e Jew ish c o n c e p t o f th e ab so lu te sovereignty o f G o d in th e affairs o f this w o rld (cf. th e sim ilar fo rm u la [δβϊ γβνέσθαι] in Rev 1:1; 4:1; 22:6; D an 2 :28-29, 45 [T h e o d .] in re fe re n c e to w h at “m u s t” o c c u r in th e fu tu re ). D esp ite w h a t a p p e a rs to p o in t to th e reality o f esch a to lo g ic al ju d g m e n t, ουπω έ σ τ ίν το τ έ λ ο ς , “th e e n d is n o t y et.” It is n o t y et th e tim e o f th e p r o p e r eschatological w ork o f th e M essiah, a n d th e re fo re th e M essiah will n o t y et b e p re se n t (cf. v 5). I t is n o t y et th e tra n sitio n fro m “this a g e ” (ΠΤΠ D*7to, colam hazzeh) to “th a t a g e ,” i.e., “th e age to c o m e ” (Κ3Π 0*7iy, cötam habba>). F o r th e ab so lu te u se o f t o τ έ λ ο ς , “th e e n d ,” as it is u se d h e re , cf. w 13-14; 10:22. 7 - 8 T h e first h a lf o f v 7 refers ag a in to w ars b u t n o w u sin g th e m o re specific im a g e ry o f έθνος, “n a tio n ,” a n d β α σ ιλ εία , “k in g d o m ,” risin g u p ag a in st th e ir c o u n te rp a rts (cf. th e la n g u a g e o f 2 C h r 15:16; Isa 19:2). In a d d itio n to th e se events, n o t ev en λιμ ο ί και σ εισ μ ο ί, “fam in es a n d e a rth q u a k e s ,” in κ α τ ά τό πο υς, “various p la ce s,” p o in t to th e e n d o f th e age. M u c h o f th e la n g u a g e o f th e se verses ag ain reflects s ta n d a rd ap o caly p tic im a g e ry (fo r war, e a rth q u a k e s, a n d fa m in e , sim ilarly lin k e d , cf. 2 Apoc. B ar 70:8; 2 E sd r 9 :3 -4 ). All th e se te rrify in g events, a n d p resu m a b ly o th ers like th e m , a re in d e e d b u t ά ρ χή ώδίνων, “th e b e g in n in g o f b ir th p a n g s .” T h e im a g e ry o f “b ir th p a n g s ” (1 Enoch 62:4; 2 E sd r 4:42; cf. T D N T 9 :6 7 2 -4 ) p o in ts to th e c o m m o n ly e x p e c te d p e r io d o f su ffe rin g (th e “w oes o f th e M essiah ”; cf. Mek. Exod. 16:29; b. Sabb. 118a; b. Sank. 9 6 b -9 7 a ; cf. Str-B 4 .2 :9 7 7 -8 6 ) th a t w o u ld im m e d iately p re c e d e th e b ir th o f th e m essianic ag e (cf. th e im a g e ry o f Isa 26:17; 6 6 :7 -8 ; J e r 22:23; M ic 4:9; a n d in th e NT, 1 T h ess 5:3). O n ly su c h a n e x te n d e d p e r io d o f travail in b ir th c o u ld b rin g f o rth th e “n ew b ir th ” o f th e c re a te d o r d e r (cf. 19:28). T h e su fferin g s aw aiting th e d isciples w ere b u t th e b e g in n in g o f th a t travail. E xplanation B e g in n in g in th e O T a n d c o m in g to its fu lle st e x p re ssio n in th e a p o c aly p tic lite r a tu r e o f th e in te r te s ta m e n ta l p e r io d , th e e x p e r ie n c e o f c e rta in signs, p r e e m in e n tly o f h u m a n su ffe rin g , was u n d e r s to o d as p o in tin g to th e im m in e n c e o f th e

692

Ma t

t hew

2 4 :9 -1 4

tu r n in g o f th e ages. T h e se sufferings w ere as closely lin k e d w ith th e d aw n in g o f a new reality as w ere th e la b o r pains o f a w o m an giving b irth . T h e m essianic w oes w o u ld le ad directly to th e m essianic age. Je su s accepts th e basic c o rrec tn ess o f th e view point b u t plays do w n th e id e a o f im m in e n c e . D e e p h u m a n suffering, terrifying in p ro s p ect, c a n b e called b u t “th e b e g in n in g ” o f th e w oes th a t will p re c e d e th e c o m in g o f th e M essiah a n d th e e n d o f th e age. T h is suggests th a t this p e rio d o f h u m a n sufferin g m ay b e a n e x te n d e d o n e. T h e sufferings, th e n , c a n n o t them selves b e signs o f th e im m in e n c e o f th e e n d . It is clea r in d e e d th a t th e very th in g s m e n tio n e d h e r e have c h a ra c te riz e d th e e n tire c h u rc h age, th e in te rv e n in g p e rio d b etw e en th e first co m in g o f Je su s a n d his r e tu rn . T h e signs p o in t to a n d w arn o f th e reality o f fu tu re ju d g m e n t, b u t n o t its tim e. D espite th e em p h asis o f this passage, w ell-m ean in g b u t m isled a n d m islead in g te ac h ers have n o t resisted th e te m p ta tio n to in te r p re t c o n te m p o ra ry c a ta stro p h es as in d ic ato rs o f th e im m in e n c e o f th e e n d . T h e ap o stle P au l h a d alread y to g u a rd ag ain st this p ro b le m (2 T h ess 2 :2 -3 ). ‘T h e godly a re always p r o n e to th in k th a t evils have re a c h e d th e ir u tm o s t lim it” (B e n g e l). T h in g s th a t m ay fo r th e m o m e n t lo o k o u t o f c o n tro l a re n ev erth eless w ithin G o d ’s p u rp o se s a n d provid e n c e . T h e tim e o f th e e n d is in G o d ’s h a n d s alo n e.

P e r s e c u tio n a n d P r o c la m a tio n b e fo r e th e E n d (2 4 :9 -1 4 )

B ibliography D avison, J. E. “Anomia and the Q uestion o f an A ntinom ian Polemic in Matthew. ”JBL 104 (1985) 617-35. D u p o n t,J. “L apersecution com m e situation missionaire (Marc 13, 9 -1 1 ).” In Die Kirche des Anfangs. FS H. Schürm ann, ed. R. Schnackenburg et al. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977. 97-114. G rassi, J . A. “Matthew as a Second Testam ent Deuteronom y.” B TB 19 (1989) 23-29. L egasse, S. “Le refroidissem ent de l’am our avant la fin (Mt 24,12).” SNTU8 (1983) 91-102. L üthi, W. “Missions as Promise an d Com m ission.” Int 8 (1954) 280-87. R eicke, B. “A Test o f Synoptic Relationships: M atthew 10:17-23 and 24:9-14 with Parallels.” In New Synoptic Studies, ed. W. R. Farmer. Macon, GA: M ercer UP, 1983. 209-29. Taylor, J. “‘T he Love o f Many Will Grow Cold’: Matt 24:9-13 and the N eronian Persecution.” RB 96 (1989) 352-57. T hom pson, J. W. “T he G entile Mission as an Eschatological Necessity.” ResQ 14 (1971) 18-27. W enham , D. “A Note on Matthew 24:10-12.” TynB 31 (1980) 155-62. Translation 9 “Then they will h an d you over to tribulation, a n d they will kill you, a n d you will he hated by a lla the nations because o f my n a m e .10A n d then m any m il fa ll away, a n d they will betray one another, b a n d they will hate each other. 11A n d m any fa lse prophets will arise, a n d they will deceive many. l^A n d because o f the proliferation o f iniquity the love o f m any will grow cold. lsB u t the one who endures to the end— this is the one who will be saved. 14A n d this good news o f the kin g d o m c will be preached throughout the whole world fo r a witness to all the nations, a n d then the end w ill come. ”

Form/Structure/Setting

693

Notes a πάντων, “all,” is omitted by K*, perhaps to soften the statement. Other MSS (C f l 1 [sf] boms) have only πάντων, “all,” omitting των εθνών, “the nations,” through the influence of Mark 13:13 (cf. the same form of the saying in 10:22). b K omits the last clause, adding here els' θλΐφιν, “to tribulation,” through the influence of v 9. Φ inserts εις θάνατον, “to death” (cf. v 9; Mark 13:12). c A few MSS (1424 g1 [1] Cyr) omit τής βασιλείας, “of the kingdom.” F o rm /Structure/Settin g A. T h is section o f th e discourse indicates fu rth e r suffering— specifically in th e fo rm o f p e rse c u tio n — th a t m u st b e e n d u r e d b e fo re th e e n d com es. A gain allusion is m a d e to false p ro p h e ts w ho will m islead m any, a n d now Je su s also w arns o f th e in crease o f in iquity a n d th e co o lin g o f religious fervor. In th e face o f w h at m u st yet occur, only e n d u ra n c e to th e e n d will b rin g salvation. V 14 in tro d u c e s a new fac to r u p o n w hich th e co m in g o f th e e n d is c o n tin g e n t— o n e th a t p o in ts to q u ite a n e x te n d e d tim e b efo re th e e n d . T h e g ospel m u st b e p re a c h e d th ro u g h o u t th e w orld b e fo re th e e n d can com e. B. M atth ew c o n tin u e s to follow M ark, h e r e b e in g so m e w h at d e p e n d e n t o n M ark 1 3 :9-13, a p e ric o p e alre ad y u se d by M atth ew in n ea rly its e n tire ty in 10:17-22. T h e d e p e n d e n c e h e r e is th e re fo re n o t very g re a t, a lth o u g h M atth ew h as n o t h e s ita te d to u se sim ilar m a te ria l a se c o n d tim e. E ven in so m e o f th e n ew m a te ria l in tr o d u c e d by M atth ew (vv 1 0 -1 2 ) M a rk a n in flu e n c e is to b e seen . T h e first p a r t o f v 9 picks u p th e v erb παραδώσουσιν, “th e y will b e tra y ,” fro m M ark 13:9; M a tth e w ’s a d d e d ε ις θλΐφιν, “to trib u la tio n ,” serves to su m m arize th e M a rk a n m a teria l. T h e se c o n d verb, άποκτενοϋσιν, “th ey will kill,” m ay w ell re fle c t th e synonym θανατώσουσιv a t th e e n d o f M ark 13:12, especially since v 9 b is clearly d e p e n d e n t o n M ark 13:13, w h ich M atth ew follow s v erb a tim e x c e p t fo r th e in s e rte d των εθνών, “th e G en tiles,” afte r πάντων, “all” (cf. v 14). V 10 seem s to re fle c t M ark 13:12, w ith άλλήλονς, “o n e a n o th e r ,”c o rre sp o n d in g to αδελφόςάδελφόν, “b r o th e r [willbetray] b r o th e r .’’M atthew ’s μ ισή σουσιν, “th ey will h a te ,” is p ro b a b ly r e p e a te d fro m th e p re c e d in g verse (cf. 10:22). Vv 1 1 -1 2 a re distinctive to M atth ew (fo r ψευδοπροφήται, “false p r o p h e ts ,” le a d in g m a n y astray, cf. w 5 , 24). V I 3 re p e a ts M ark 13:13 b v erb a tim , w h ile v 14 (w hich was o m itte d in th e u se o f M ark 13:9 -1 3 in ch a p . 10) is b o rro w e d fro m M ark 13:10 (M atthew a d d s τούτο, “th is,” b e fo re “g o sp e l” a n d th e f u r th e r m o d ifie r τή ς βασιλείας', “o f th e k in g d o m ” [cf. 4:23; 9:35], as w ell as th e e m p h a siz in g w o rd s έ ν όλη τή οικουμένη ε ις μαρτύρω ν, “in all th e w o rld as a w itn ess”). M a rk ’s πρώτον, “first,” is re p la c e d by M a tth e w ’s c o n c lu d in g clause καί τό τε ήξει το τέλος, “a n d th e n th e e n d will c o m e .” C. I f w 4 - 8 d e s c rib e w h a t c a n b e c a lle d “th e b e g in n in g o f b ir th p a n g s ” o f th e fu ll c o m in g o f th e m e ssia n ic age, th e p r e s e n t verses d e s c rib e m o r e o f th o se w oes th a t will o c c u r p r io r to th e b ir th o f th e n ew age. B u t th e p assag e e n d s o n th e a n n o u n c e m e n t th a t th e g o sp e l m u s t b e p r e a c h e d u n iv ersally . O n ly th e n will th e e n d c o m e . O u tlin e : (1) th e e x p e r ie n c e o f p e r s e c u tio n ( w 9 - 1 0 ) ; (2) th e c o m in g o f false p r o p h e ts (v 11); (3) th e e ffe c t o f in c re a s e d in iq u ity (v 12); (4) salvation th r o u g h e n d u r a n c e (v 13); a n d (5) th e u n iv e rsa l p r e a c h in g o f th e g o sp e l b e fo re th e e n d (v 14). N o te th a t stru c tu ra lly th e p assag e co n sists o f a se ries o f s h o r t in d e p e n d e n t s e n te n c e s lin k e d m a in ly by καί, “a n d ,” p ro b a b ly re fle c tin g th e S em itic su b s tra tu m o f J e s u s ’ w o rd s. S o m e p a ra lle lism o f fo rm is f o u n d in v 9 a a n d v 10,

694

Ma t t h e w 24:9-14

where chiasm is also present (ά λ λή λ ο νς ·, “one another,” plus verb, followed by verb plus ά λ λ ή λ ο ν ς ) . Also worth noting are the repeated π α ρα δ ώ σ ουοιν, “they will betray” ( w 9 ,10), μ ισ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ι, “hated,” and μ ισ ή σ ο ν σ ιν , “they will hate ( w 9 ,10). Indeed, v 10 is essentially a repetition of v 9. τ έ λ ο ς , “end,” is also repeated in the pericope (w 13, 14). “All the nations” are referred to in both v 9 and v 14 (inclusio). D. The content of these verses is alluded to or cited frequently by the early church, which was often concerned with the danger of false prophets (see especially Apocalypse ofPeter\'.% D id . 16:3; Justin Martyr, D ia l. 35.3; 82.1). D id . 16:35 follows the present pericope very closely, including most of its major elements. In addition to the passages mentioned, cf. B a m . 4:9. E. The close similarity between this pericope and 10:17-22 suggests that the mission described in chap. 10 will extend even to the end of the age. Thus the tribulation described in chap. 10 is essentially the same as that described here (cf. esp. w 9 -1 0 ,13 with 10:17,22). And as the distress in chap. 10 occurs in connection with the proclamation of the kingdom (10:7), so too the references to anticipated sufferings in the present passage conclude with the note that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached throughout the world before the end comes. The frame of reference is fundamentally the same in the two passages, and only now (and in 28:19) does the reference to the Gentiles in 10:18 (where the mission had been explicitly limited to Israel; see 10:5-6) become clear. Persecution will be the lot of those who proclaim the gospel throughout the interim period before the coming of the Son of Man (cf. 10:23; 24:14, 30). Comment 9-10 τ ό τ ε is not to be taken in the sense of chronological sequence in either of its occurrences in these verses. Instead it points generally to the time of the messianic “birth pangs” m entioned in v 8, which are further described in the present pericope. The disciples must be prepared to face being handed over to tribulation (for π α ρ α δ ώ σ ο νσ ιν , “they will hand you over,” which occurs twice in these verses, cf. 10:17,19,21; for θ λ ΐψ ίς, “tribulation,” cf. w 21,29; 13:21) and even death (ά π ο κ τ ε ν ο ϋ σ ιν υμ ά ς, “they will kill you”; cf. 10:21, 28; John 16:2). The persecutors are presumably the ones who reject the message of the disciples. Those who proclaim the kingdom will furtherm ore be hated by the Gentiles because of the name of Jesus. The identical periphrastic construction έ σ ε σ θ ε μ ισ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ι, “you will be hated” (cf. v 10), together with the following words in verbatim agreement (except for the lack of τω ν εθνώ ν, “the Gentiles”), is found in 10:22a. Here τω ν εθνώ ν, “the Gentiles,” can be included since the gentile mission is announced with all clarity in v 14. The reference to the experience of persecution from “all the Gentiles” here stands in poignant relationship to the same phrase in v 14, for it is just “all the Gentiles” to whom the disciples are sent “for a witness. ” δ ιά τό ό νο μ ά μ ο υ , “because of my nam e” (cf. 10:22), means because of the disciples’ identification with Jesus. But there will also be disloyalty and treachery among those who are Jesus’ disciples, σ κ α ν δ α λ ίσ θ η σ ο ν τ α ί π ο λλ ο ί, “many will fall away” (cf. 13:21, 57; for the same verb form used similarly, see LXX Dan 11:41 [88 Sy]), undoubtedly because of the pressure of the persecution referred to in v 9. It will be a time of testing, but not all the disciples will survive it (cf. v 13). The repeated reciprocal

Comment

695

ά λλή λους, “o n e a n o t h e r ,” th u s re fe rs to b e tra y a l ( παραδώ σουσιυ, “th e y will b e tra y ”; cf. v 9) a n d h o stility {μ ισ ή σ ο υ σ ιυ , “th e y will h a t e ”; cf. v 9) w ith in th e ra n k s o f th e fo llo w ers o f Je su s. 11 In th is e x te n d e d tim e o f w oes b e fo re th e e n d c o m es, πολλοί ψ ευδο π ρ ο φ ή το υ, “m a n y false p r o p h e ts ,” will arise a n d π λ α υ ή σ ο ν σ ιυ π ο λ λο ύς, “th e y w ill le a d m a n y astray. ” T h e re f e r e n c e to “le a d in g m a n y astra y ” h a s a lre a d y b e e n m a d e in v 5 (w h e re th e s u b je c t o f th e v erb , h o w ev er, is false m essiah s; cf. v 4) a n d will a g a in o c c u r (w ith o u t th e “m a n y ”) in v 24, w h e re false m essia h s a n d false p r o p h e ts (w ho will d o g r e a t signs a n d w o n d e rs) a re m e n tio n e d to g e th e r. In every in s ta n c e it is c le a r th a t th e e n d is n o t yet. 12 T h e tim e o f trib u la tio n a n d p e rs e c u tio n will b rin g w ith it th e in c re a se o f ά υο μ ία υ, “in iq u ity ,” w h ich will in tu r n b e re sp o n sib le fo r a fa ilu re in th e fu n d a m e n ta l C h ristian e th ic o f ά γά π η , “love. ” T h e v erb u n d e rly in g “p ro life ra tio n , ” lit. “b e b r o u g h t to th e fu ll” (πληθυυθήυαι) , p e rh a p s ec h o e s th e sam e v e rb in 23:32. T h e e x a c t n a tu re o f th e in iq u ity o r “law lessness” th a t will a b o u n d is n o t sp ecified (see D av iso n ), b u t fo r M atth ew tiie re is n o m o re f u n d a m e n ta l fa ilu re th a n th is (cf. 7 :1 5 -2 7 , esp. v 23; 13:41). F o r th e e x p e c ta tio n in th e apocalyptic lite ra tu re , cf. 1 E noch91:7; 2 E sd r 5:2 ,1 0 ; a n d D an 12:4 (see W e n h a m ) . A lso u n c le a r is th e e x a c t sen se in w h ich th e love p ra c tic e d by “m a n y ” {τω ν πολλώυ) “will g ro w c o ld ” (ψ υ γ ή σ ε τ α ί). T h e la tte r v erb is also u se d figuratively in Jo s e p h u s, J. W. 5.11.4 §472, re fe rrin g to th e c o o lin g o f h o p e . T h e failu re o f love re fe rs m o re likely to love fo r o th e rs (h e n c e , c a n c e le d by th e tre a c h e ry a n d h a tre d m e n tio n e d in th e p re c e d in g verses) r a th e r th a n a failu re o f love in re la tio n to th e tr u th (as in 2 T h ess 2:10) o r G o d ( a s in 2 T im 3:4; cf. Rev 2:4), a lth o u g h th e se c o n te x ts to o re fe r to th e in c re a se o f iniquity. O n e m u s t r e m e m b e r th a t love, fo r M atthew , is th e su m m ary o f th e law (cf. 2 2 :3 6 -4 0 ). T a y lo r’s su g g estio n th a t th e su b je ct o f th e se verses is specifically th e N e ro n ia n p e rs e c u tio n o f C h ristian s in R o m e in a .d . 64, w hile n o t im possible, is n o t con v in cin g . 13 T h e lo g io n o f this verse is fo u n d v erb atim in 10:22b (see Comment th e r e ) . A gain in a c o n te x t o f trib u la tio n a n d p e rse c u tio n th e p ro m ise o f u ltim a te salvation is given to th e o n e w ho e n d u re s ε ι ς τέ λ ο ς , “to th e e n d .” Indirectly, th e p o in t is u n d e rlin e d th a t severe trib u la tio n will b e e x p e rie n c e d b e fo re th e c o m in g o f th e e n d o f th e age. 14 A n o th e r c h a ra c te ristic o f th e tim e th a t p r e c e d e s th e e n d is th e u n iv e rsa l p ro c la m a tio n o f το ύ τ ο το ε υ α γ γ ε λ ίο υ τ ή ς β α σ ιλ ε ία ς , “th is g o sp e l o f th e k in g d o m ” (cf. 4:23; 9 :3 5 ). T h is e r a is o bviously to b e sh a rp ly d is tin g u is h e d fro m th e tim e o f Je s u s h im self, w h e n th e m issio n o f th e tw elve w as ex p licitly r e s tric te d to Isra e l (1 0 :5 -6 ). T h is n ew tim e fra m e is in a u g u r a te d in th e rise n J e s u s ’ c o m m issio n in g o f h is d isc ip le s in 28:19 (cf. L u k e 24:47; a n d th e a p o c a ly p tic u n iv e rsa lism o f R ev 14:6). T h e v e rb κ η ρ ύ σ σ ε ιυ , “p r o c la im ,” o c c u rs re g u la rly , as it d o e s h e r e , w ith ε ύ α γ γ έ λ ιο υ , “g o s p e l” (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 10:7; 26:1 3 ). Q u ite p ossibly M a tth e w ’s u n iq u e e x p re ssio n “this gospel o f th e k in g d o m ” (so to o in 26:13) is a d e lib e r a te p a ra lle lin g o f J e s u s ’ te a c h in g as r e c o r d e d in h is G o sp el to D e u te r o n o m y ’s re f e r e n c e to this book o f th e law, th e S e c o n d T e s ta m e n t th u s c o r r e s p o n d in g to th e F irst T e s ta m e n t (th u s G ra ssi). T h e u n iv e rsa lity o f th e p ro c la m a tio n is stre s se d by th e w o rd s ε υ όλτ) τ ή οίκουμέυτ), “in th e w h o le w o rld ” ( th e la st w o rd o c c u rs in M a tth e w o n ly h e r e ) . T h e p ro c la m a tio n involves th e p ro v id in g o f a μ α ρ τύ ρ ιο υ , “w itn e ss” (cf. 8:4; 1 0 :18), i.e., th e r e c o u n tin g o f th e ev e n ts th a t c o n s titu te th e g o sp e l o r “k ery g m a. ” F o r π α σ ιυ τ ο ΐ ς έ θ υ ε σ ιυ , “all th e G e n tile s ,” cf. v 9 a n d 28:19. T h e c o n c lu d in g s ta te m e n t καί τ ό τ ε ή ξ ει

696

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :1 5 -2 2

τό τ έ λ ο ς ·, “a n d th e n th e e n d will c o m e ,” sta n d s as th e c o u n te r p a r t to th e c a u tio n a ry s ta te m e n t th a t “n o t y e t is th e e n d ” in v 6 (cf. v 13; 1 0:22). T h e e n d o f th e p r e s e n t ag e, c o n c e r n in g w h ic h th e d isc ip le s in q u ir e in th e q u e s tio n o f v 3, c a n n o t c o m e im m e d ia te ly b u t m u s t b e p r e c e d e d by a p e r io d o f u n iv e rsa l e v a n g e liz a tio n (see T h o m p s o n ) . T h e p a r o u s ia m u s t th e r e f o r e b e d elay e d . E xplanation T h e u n a v o id a b le tim e o f trib u la tio n a n d p e r s e c u tio n th a t m u s t c o m e will h av e sev eral effects: th e c o m m itm e n t o f m a n y will g row co ld ; o th e rs will fall away a n d b e tra y th o s e w ith w h o m th e y fo rm e rly sto o d ; a n d in iq u ity will a b o u n d . I t w ill b e a tim e th a t calls f o r g r e a t e n d u r a n c e fro m th e faith fu l. A t th e sa m e tim e , how ever, th e p e r io d b e f o r e th e e n d will b e m a rk e d by th e p ro c la m a tio n o f th e g o o d new s th a t J e s u s h a s b e e n a n n o u n c in g in h is m in istry — th e g o o d new s o f th e k in g d o m . B u t n o w th a t p r o c la m a tio n w ill g o n o t ju s t to th e Jew s b u t to “all th e n a tio n s .” T h is in d e e d a p p e a r s to b e th e m a in re a s o n fo r th e d elay o f th e p a r o u s ia (cf. th e sim ila r lo g ic o f 2 P e te r 3:9). T h is is n o t to say, how ever, th a t th e c o m in g o f th e e n d re m a in s c o n tin g e n t o n th e e v a n g e liz in g o f ev e ry last trib e o n th e e a r th , as th o u g h it is in th e p o w e r o f th e d isc ip le s to h a s te n o r d elay th e c o m in g o f th e e n d by th e ir o b e d ie n c e o r lack o f o b e d ie n c e to th e c o m m a n d to ev a n g elize. In view, ra th e r, is th e w id e s p re a d p ro c la m a tio n o f th e m e ssag e o f th e k in g d o m w ith o u t g e o g r a p h ic a l o r ra c ia l re s tric tio n . In th is r e g a rd , f o r e x a m p le , e v e n th o u g h P a u l h a d n o t r e a c h e d th e u n e v a n g e liz e d te r r ito r y o f S p a in (cf. R o m 1 5 :2 0 -2 4 ), h e c a n sp e a k o f th e s p r e a d o f th e g o sp e l in th e m o s t c o m p re h e n s iv e la n g u a g e (cf. R o m 10:18, w h e re Ps 19:4 is q u o te d by an a lo g y ). T h r o u g h th e m is sio n a ry w o rk o f th e ap o stle s, th e g o sp e l h a s “g o n e o u t to all th e e a r th .” T h is c o n c lu s io n o f c o u rs e in n o way w e a k e n s th e c o n tin u in g fo rc e o f th e m is sio n a ry m a n d a te th r o u g h o u t th e in te r im p e r io d . B u t “th e e n d ” could a lre a d y h av e c o m e in th e first c e n tu ry . T h e r e q u ir e d c o n d itio n s w ere all p r e s e n t. A ll th e su ffe rin g s in vv 5 - 1 2 w ere e x p e r ie n c e d in th e y ea rs p r io r to A.D. 70 a n d th e fall o f J e ru s a le m , a n d in v a ry in g d e g r e e th e y h av e b e e n signs e x p e r ie n c e d by th e c h u r c h d o w n to th e p r e s e n t e ra . T h e signs o f th e e n d h av e b e e n p r e s e n t to ev e ry C h ristia n g e n e r a tio n .

I n s tr u c tio n s to F le e f r o m J e r u s a le m

( 2 4 : 1 5 —2 2 )

Bibliography Colunga, A. “La abom ination de la deso latio n .” CB 17 (1960) 183-85. Connell, F. J. “An Exegetical Problem (on Mt. 24:21).” AER 113 (1945) 222-23. Dodd, C. H. “T he Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘A bom ination of Desolation. ”’/R S 37 (1947) 47-54. Ford, D. The Abomination ofDesolation in Biblical Eschatology. Washington, DC: University Press o f America, 1979. Koester, C. R. ‘T h e O rigin and Significance of the Flight to Pella T radition.” CBQ 51 (1989) 90-106. Lüdemann, G. ‘T h e Successors of Earliest Jerusalem Christianity: An Analysis o f the Pella T radition.” In Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, tr. Μ. E. Boring. Min-

Form/Structure/Setting

697

neapolis: Fortress, 1989. 200-213. Rigaux, B. “ΒΔΕΑΥΓΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΡΗΜΩΣΕΩΣ (Me 13, 14; Mt. 24, 15).” Bib 40 (1959) 675-83. Sowers, S. “T he Circumstances an d Recollection of the Pella Flight.” TZ 26 (1970) 305-20. Stanton, G. N. ‘“Pray T h at Your Flight May N ot Be in W inter or on a Sabbath’ (Matthew 24.20).’’/SiVT 37 (1989) 17-30 (rep rin ted in A Gospel for a New People, 192-206). Thibaut, R. “La grande tribulation.” N R T 55 (1928) 373-76. Wong, E. K.-C. “T he M atthean U n d erstan d in g o f the Sabbath: A Response to G. N. S tanton.”JXA/T 44 (1991) 3-18. T ranslation 15 “When therefore you see ‘the abom ination o f desolation, ’ which was spoken o f by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy placea— let the reader understand— ™then let those who are in Judea flee to h the m ountains. 17Let the one who is on the rooftop not come down to take the th in g s0from his or herd house, 18a n d let the one who is in the field not tu rn back to get his or her° garm ent.f 19B u t woe to those women who are pregnant and those who are nursing in those days. 20 “B u t pray that your flig h t may not be in winter or on a sabbath. 21For then there will be great tribulation, o f a kin d that has not happened since the beginning o f the world u n til the present, nor ever will be. 22A n d i f those days were not cut short, no h u m an being g would be saved. B u t fo r the sake o f the elect those days will be shortened. ” Notes a ιστός* έν τόπω άγίω, “standing in the holy place,” is omitted in the minuscule MS 1010 and sys. b Many MSS (K K L W Z Γ / 13) have έπί, lit. “upon,” for εις, “to.” c D 0 / ] latt have t l , “anything,” instead of τά, “the (things),” probably by the influence of the parallel passage in Mark 13:15. K* has ro, lit. “the (thing).” d “or her” added in translation. e “or her” added in translation. f A few MSS (vv Γ Δ f syh) have the pi. τά [μάτια, “garments.” s πάσα adp^with the preceding ούκ means lit. “no flesh.” F o rm /Structure/Setting A. A m o n g th e ev e n ts to o c c u r b e fo re th e τ έ λ ο ς , “e n d , ” sp o k e n o f in v 14 is th e “g r e a t tr ib u la tio n ” (v 21) s p o k e n o f in th is p e ric o p e . As L u k e m a k es v ery c le a r in th e p a ra lle l p assag e (L u k e 21:2 0 ), also d e p e n d e n t u p o n M a rk 13, th e p r e s e n t p assag e re fe rs to th e im m in e n t d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m , w h ic h was to ta k e p la c e in A.D. 70. T h is is m a rk e d v e ry clearly by th e o p e n in g r e f e r e n c e in M a tth e w to “th e a b o m in a tio n o f d e s o la tio n .” T h is p assag e p ro v id e s p ra c tic a l in s tru c tio n s c o n c e r n in g th e flig h t fro m th e city to g e th e r w ith in d ic a tio n s o f th e h o rrific s u ffe rin g th a t is to b e e x p e r ie n c e d . I n d e e d , so te rr ib le will th is trib u la tio n b e th a t it c a n b e r e f e r r e d to in h y p e rb o lic la n g u a g e b e fittin g th e e s c h a to lo g ic a l ju d g m e n t itself, o f w h ich in a way it b e c o m e s a p ro to ty p e . V 22 m o s t n a tu ra lly b e lo n g s to th e p r e c e d in g v erses {pace C a rs o n ) r a th e r th a n w ith th o se th a t follow. M a tth e w ’s fa m ilia r m a rk e r Tore, “th e n ,” is th e first w o rd in v 23. B. M a tth e w c o n tin u e s to b e d e p e n d e n t u p o n M ark , fo llo w in g th e o r d e r o f th e m a te ria l in th e M a rk a n d isc o u rs e (M ark 1 3 :1 4 -2 0 ). M a tth e w closely follow s th e M a rk a n w o rd in g , m a k in g o n ly th e fo llo w in g sig n ific a n t a lte ra tio n s. In v 15, a fte r

698

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :1 5 -2 2

th e te c h n ic a l e x p re ssio n τ ο β δ έ λ υ γ μ α τ ή ς έρημώ σεω ς, “th e a b o m in a tio n o f d e s o la tio n ” (M ark 13:14), M atth ew ad d s τ ο ρ η θ έ ν δ ιά Δ α ν ιή λ το υ προφήτου, “th a t sp o k e n o f th r o u g h th e p r o p h e t D a n ie l,” th e re b y p o in tin g th e r e a d e r to th e O T b a c k g r o u n d o f th e e x p re ssio n , u sin g M a tth e w ’s fa v o rite fo rm u la . In th e sa m e v erse M a tth e w re p la c e s M a rk ’s m a sc u lin e p a rtic ip le έ σ τ η κ ό τα , “s ta n d in g ,” w ith th e n e u te r έ σ τ ό ς , a g ra m m a tic a l im p ro v e m e n t b r in g in g a b o u t a g r e e m e n t w ith th e n e u t e r n o u n β δ έ λ υ γ μ α , “a b o m in a tio n .” M a tth e w also re p la c e s οπού ου δει, “w h e re it o u g h t n o t to ,” w ith th e sp ecific id e n tific a tio n e v τό π ω ά γίω , “in th e h o ly p la c e ,” i.e., in th e te m p le (cf. D a n 11:31). In v 17 M a tth e w a b b re v ia te s M a rk by o m ittin g th e r e d u n d a n t μ η δ έ είσελΘ άτω , “n o r le t h im g o i n ” (M a rk 1 3 :1 5 ), a n d c h a n g e s M a rk ’s 77, “a n y th in g ,” to τά , “th in g s .” In v 20 M a tth e w su p p lie s th e m issin g su b je c t ή φ υ γ ή υμώ ν, ‘^ o u r flig h t,” fo r th e v e rb μ ή γ έ ν η τ α ι, “m ay n o t b e ” (M ark 13:18), a n d a d d s μ η δ έ σ α β β ά τω , “n o r o n a s a b b a th ,” as a m a tte r o f sp e cia l c o n c e r n f o r h is Je w ish re a d e rs . M a tth e w ’s sy n tax in v 21 im p ro v e s th e aw k w ard n ess o f M a rk ’s G re e k (M ark 13:19) by m a k in g Θλϊψις, “tr ib u la tio n ,” th e su b je c t o f th e o p e n in g v e rb , su b stitu tin g h is fav o rite τ ό τ ε , “t h e n ,” fo r ai ήμ έραι έ κ ε ΐν α ι, “th o se days” (a d d in g th e e x p re ssio n tw ice in v 2 2 ), a n d o m ittin g M a rk ’s u n n e c e s s a ry τ ο ια ύ τ η , “su c h a k in d .” M a tth e w also a d d s μ ε γ ά λ η , “g r e a t,” to m o d ify Θλϊψις, “tr ib u la tio n .” In th e sa m e v erse M a tth e w a lte rs M a rk ’s κ τίσ ε ω ς , “c r e a tio n ,” to κόσμου, “w o rld ,” a n d o m its M a rk ’s r e d u n d a n t ή ν έ κ τ ι σ ε ν ό Θεός, “w h ic h G o d c r e a te d ” (M ark 13:19). In v 22 M a tth e w re p la c e s M a rk ’s ε ί μ ή έκο λό β ω σεν κ ύ ρ ιο ς τ ά ς ή μ έρ α ς, “u n le ss th e L o rd s h o r te n e d th e d ay s” (M ark 1 3 :2 0 ), w ith th e S em itically m o r e a p p r o p r ia te d iv in e passive, el μ ή έκολοβώ θησαν a i ήμ έρα ι έ κ εΐν α ι, “u n le ss th o se days w ere s h o r te n e d .” T h e p h ra s e ai ήμέραι έκ εΐνα ι, “th o se days,” also re p la c e s M a rk ’s τ ά ς ή μ έρας, “th e d ay s,” a t th e e n d o f th e verse. Finally, M a tth e w o m its M a rk ’s r e d u n d a n t ο υ ς έ ξ ε λ έ ξ α τ ο , “w h o m h e e le c te d ,” fo llo w in g th e n o u n ε κ λ ε κ το ύ ς , “e le c t.” C. T h e se verses, r e fe rrin g to th e d e s tru c tio n o f Je ru s a le m , c o r r e s p o n d specifically to th e in itial p ro p h e c y o f v 2, a n d to th e q u e s tio n , o r a t le ast p a r t o f th e q u e s tio n , o f v 3. T h e fo cu s o f th e first p a r t is o n th e flig h t fro m J e ru s a le m a n d J u d e a , a n d in th e se c o n d p a r t o n th e h o r r o r o f th e im p e n d in g trib u la tio n . O u tlin e : (1) th e e x h o rta tio n to flee (v v 1 5 -1 6 ); (2) th e u rg e n c y o f fle e in g (v v 1 7 -1 8 ); (3) th e d ifficu lty o f th e flig h t (vv 1 9 -2 0 ); (4) th e h o r r o r o f th e trib u la tio n (v 21); a n d (5) th e d iv in e s h o rte n in g o f th e trib u la tio n (v 2 2). V ery o b v io u s s tru c tu ra l p a ra lle lism c a n b e se en b etw e en w 17 a n d 18: th e d e fin ite article ό fu n c tio n s as th e p r o n o u n su b je c t in e a c h se n te n c e , b o th have n eg ativ e im p e rativ e verbs, a n d in e a c h in sta n c e th e c o m p le m e n ta ry infinitive clause b e g in s w ith apai, “to ta k e .” T h e a d d e d su b je c t φ υ γ ή , “flig h t,” pick s u p th e r o o t o f th e first m a in v e rb {φ ευγέτω σ α ν, “le t th e m f le e ” [v 1 6 ]). T h e tw ofold ai ήμέραι έκεΐνα ι, “th o se days,” in v 22 picks u p th e sam e p h ra se in v 19. P arallelism m ay also b e se en in v 22 b e tw e e n th e o p e n in g ε ί μ ή , “u n le ss,” clau se a n d th e fin al clau se w ith th e sa m e su b je c t a n d sa m e v erb. D. D id. 16.4, in r e f e r r in g to a c o m in g tim e o f tro u b le su c h as h a s n e v e r b e e n se e n b e fo re , a p p e a r s to a llu d e tß v 20 o f th e p r e s e n t p assag e. P a u l’s r e f e r e n c e in 2 T h e ss 2 :3 -4 to “th e so n o f p e r d it io n ” w h o ta k es h is s e a t in th e te m p le m ay also d e p e n d u p o n th is m a te ria l in o ra l f o rm (v 15; see D. W e n h a m , The Rediscovery o f Jesu syEschatological Discourse) . E. T h e la rg e r sectio n o f M atthew th a t b eg in s h e re a n d r u n s th ro u g h v 28 h as b e e n in te r p re te d in a variety o f ways. T h e re a p p e a r to b e several rea so n s fo r th e difficulty

Comment

699

o f in te rp re tin g this m a teria l, th e m o st im p o r ta n t b e in g th e n e e d to p r e p a re fo r M atthew ’s “im m ed iately afte r th e trib u la tio n o f th o se days” in v 29, w hich, a c co rd in g to th e m ajority o f co m m en tato rs, in tro d u c e s th e p aro u sia. T h e re fo re , it w o u ld seem th a t w h at is re fe rre d to in th e verses p re c e d in g v 29 m u st c o n c e rn a n en d -tim e trib u la tio n th a t yet lies in th e fu tu re ju s t p rio r to th e p arousia. F u rth e rm o re , th e re fe re n c e h e re to a “g re a t trib u la tio n [ΘΧίψις μ ε γ ά λ η ], o f a k in d th a t h as n o t h a p p e n e d since th e b e g in n in g o f th e w orld u n til th e p rese n t, n o r ever will b e ” (v 21), so u n d s like an eschatological trib u la tio n (cf. Rev 7:14: τής' Θλίψεως τ η ς μ ε γ ά λ η ς , "th e g re a t trib u latio n ”), a n d th u s m a n y in te r p r e te r s h av e b e e n u n a b le to re sist id e n tify in g th e “ab o m in a tio n o f d e so la tio n ” (v 15) w ith th e eschatological A n tich rist w ho “takes his seat in th e te m p le o f G od, p ro cla im in g h im self to b e G o d ,” re fe rre d to in 2 T hess 2:3-10 (c f .R e v ll:7 ; 12:9). T h e b a c k g ro u n d fo r these im ages is fo u n d in c ertain apocalyptic passages o f D aniel, e.g., 7:20-21, 24-25; 11:40-45; 12:1. O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e s ta te m e n t o f v 21 is a fa m ilia r to p o s th a t c a n in d e e d hav e b e e n u s e d to r e f e r to th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m in A.D. 70 (see Comment th e r e ) , a n d th e m e a n in g o f th e ap o c aly p tic im a g es o f D a n ie l, 2 T h e ssa lo n ia n s, a n d R e v elatio n is d e b a ta b le , to say th e least. M an y c o m m e n ta to r s th e re fo r e h av e c o n c lu d e d th a t vv 1 5 -2 2 r e f e r to th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m , a lth o u g h a g o o d p o r tio n o f th e m n e v e rth e le ss fee l c o n s tra in e d to se p a ra te vv 2 3 -2 8 fro m vv 1 5 -2 2 a n d to u n d e r s ta n d th e m as r e f e r rin g to e v e n ts r e la te d to th e e n d o f tim e, ag a in b e c a u s e o f th e in flu e n c e o f M a tth e w ’s “im m e d ia te ly ” in r e f e r e n c e to th e p a ro u s ia (v 29 ). T h e r e is n o th in g in th e c o n te n t o f vv 2 3 -2 8 , how ever, th a t re q u ire s a n e sc h a to lo g ic a l u n d e r s ta n d in g ; in d e e d , th e s e verses ta lk n o t a b o u t the A n tic h rist b u t a b o u t a n tic h rists (v 2 4 ), a n d th e y r e p e a t m a te ria l a lre a d y e n c o u n te r e d in vv 4 -5 , e n d in g m o re o v e r w ith a r e f e r e n c e to th is b e in g not th e tim e o f th e e n d (v 6; cf. vv 2 7 -2 8 ). T h e view o f th is c o m m e n ta r y is th a t vv 2 3 -2 8 to o r e fe r m o st n a tu rally to th e tim e o f th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m . F e e lin g th e fo rc e o f th e a rg u m e n ts fo r b o th in te r p re ta tio n s , so m e c o m m e n ta to rs hav e o p te d h e r e fo r a d o u b le re f e r e n c e , i.e., th a t th e p assag e re fe rs to b o th th e d e s tr u c tio n o f J e r u s a le m a n d th e e s c h a to lo g ic a l tr ib u la tio n (e .g ., H ill; B r u n e r ) . I t c a n n o t b e d e n ie d th a t th e s e ap o c a ly p tic im a g e s by th e ir n a tu r e c a n b e u s e d to r e f e r to a n u m b e r o f in te r r e la te d p iv o ta l ev en ts, as w e alre a d y see in th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e D a n ie lic im a g e o f th e a b o m in a tio n o f d e s o la tio n , w h ich r e f e r r e d in th e first in s ta n c e to A n tio c h u s E p ip h a n e s in th e s e c o n d c e n tu r y B.C. a n d is n o w a p p lie d to a n o th e r p a ra lle l ev e n t. N e v e rth e le ss, th is d o e s n o t ju stify se e in g a n a c tu a l d o u b le r e f e r e n c e h e r e — a t le a st if w e re s tric t o u rselv es to th e e v a n g e list’s in te n tio n . We m ay p e r h a p s see a f u r th e r in tim a tio n o f e s c h a to lo g ic a l e v e n ts a n d r e la te th e im a g es h e r e to th e a p o c a ly p tic m a te ria l in 2 T h e ss a lo n ia n s 2 a n d R e v e la tio n c o n c e r n in g th e A n tic h rist, b u t ex eg esis re q u ir e s us to lim it o u r selves to th e in te n tio n o f M atthew . Com m ent 51 15 τ ό β δ ε λ ν γ μ α τ η ς έρημώ σεω ς, lit. “th e a b o m in a tio n o f th e d e s o la tio n ,” is la n g u ag e ta k e n directly fro m th e L X X o f D an ie l (exactly in D an 12:11; w ith o u t d efin ite article s in 11:31; a n d w ith th e p lu ra l τω ν έρημώ σεω ν, “o f th e d e s o la tio n s,” in 9:27), w h e re it re fe rs to a n im a g e se t u p o n th e a lta r o f th e te m p le in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e

700

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :1 5 -2 2

d e s tru c tio n o f th e city. It fu n c tio n s h e re , th e re fo re , as a te c h n ic a l e x p re ssio n fo r a n id o la tro u s “a b o m in a tio n ” ( ppCÖ, siqqüs, “d e te s te d ,” i.e., by G o d ). T h e g en itiv e c o n s tru c tio n is to b e u n d e r s to o d as m e a n in g “th e a b o m in a tio n th a t m a k es d e s o la te ,” a n allu sio n to th e a c c o m p a n y in g d ev a sta tio n o f th e sacrilege. T he phrase “abom ination of desolation” or “desolating abom ination,” already a technical term before the time o f the evangelist, derives from the Hebrew DDE? 'pp®, siqqüs sömem (cf. Dan 9:27). The expression in a slightly different form, as found in Dan 8:13, is JflÖSn, happescf sömem, m eaning “desolating rebellion” (cf. NRSV: “the transgression that makes desolate”). The phrase is apparently a pun on the nam e Bacal Sämem, “Lord of H eaven,” because of the similarity of the words “desolating” and “heaven.” Baal is the “abom ination” or “sacrilege” described in the other passages of Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11) by the word šiqqûs , which has a num erical value of 490 and which is associated often with the word “desolating” in Je r 4; 7; 44; Ezek 5-7. See J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas: Word, 1989) 212-13, 263. T h e p r o fa n a tio n o f th e te m p le r e f e r r e d to by D a n ie l to o k p la c e in 168 B.C., a c c o m p lis h e d by A n tio c h u s E p ip h a n e s as a p a r t o f h is a tte m p t to w ip e o u t J u d a ism ( th e e x a c t p h r a s e β δ έ λ ν γ μ α έρ η μ ώ σ εω ς is u s e d to r e f e r to th e im a g e se t u p o n th e a lta r in th e d e s c rip tio n o f th is e v e n t in 1 M acc 1:54; cf. to o 2 M acc 8:17; fo r p a r a lle l in s ta n c e s c o n c e r n in g im a g e s, see J o s ., A n t. 18.3.1 § § 5 5 -5 9 ; 1 8 .8 .2 -9 § § 2 6 1 -3 0 9 ). Je s u s a d o p ts th e sa m e la n g u a g e to in d ic a te th a t a sim ila r d e s e c ra tio n o f th e te m p le w ill occu r. M a tth e w p o in ts specifically to th e so u rc e o f th e e x p re s s io n in h is a d d e d w o rd s τό ρ η θ έν δ ιά Δ α ν ιή λ το υ π ρ ο φ ή το υ , “w h ic h w as sp o k e n o f by th e p r o p h e t D a n ie l” (fo r th is fo rm u la , see Comment o n 1:22). D a n ie l, th o u g h in c lu d e d w ith th e w ritin g s r a th e r th a n th e p r o p h e ts in th e H e b re w c a n o n (in c o n tra s t to its p o s itio n in th e L X X ), is r e f e r r e d to as a p r o p h e t in th e se n se o f a v e h ic le o f re v e la tio n (cf. 13:35). A lth o u g h M a tth e w ’s έ ν τ ό πω ά γ ίω , “in th e h o ly p la c e ,” i.e., in th e te m p le (cf. 2 M acc 8:17; A cts 6:13; 2 1 :2 8 ), c larifies M a rk ’s “w h e re it o u g h t n o t (to b e ) , ” M a tth e w n e v e rth e le s s r e ta in s M a rk ’s ό ά να γινώ σ κ ω ν νοείτω , “le t th e r e a d e r u n d e r s ta n d .” T h e w o rd s as th e y s ta n d in M a tth e w a p p a r e n tly r e f e r to th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f a n ap o c a ly p tic m y stery (cf. D a n 8 :1 5 -1 7 ). T h e D a n ie lic im a g e ry w as fa m ilia r to th e re a d e rs . N ow th e y w ere to k n o w th a t w h a t D a n ie l o n c e r e f e r r e d to, fu lfille d in th e h isto ric a l ev e n ts o f 167 B.C., w as p r o p h e s ie d a g a in b y J e s u s . T h is is th u s p r iv ile g e d i n f o r m a ti o n a b o u t th e f u tu r e . Ironically, th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f “a b o m in a tio n o f d e s o la tio n ” is m u c h d is p u te d . In D an 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 the expression “abom ination o f desolation” (i.e., “th at m akes d eso late”) apparently refers to a specific historical event: th e erectio n by A ntiochus IV (“E piphanes” = “[god] m anifest”) o f an altar o f Zeus u p o n the altar o f Yahweh in the tem ple in 167 B.C. when A ntiochus conquered Jerusalem . This is explicitly confirm ed by the use of the same expression in 1 Macc f:54 (cf. 1:59). So horrific was this event, however, th at it becam e a convenient an d elastic symbol for the great evils th at were to engulf the people in the future, evils th at could p o in t to the struggles p rio r to the eschatological era itself. Thus, w hen in A.D. 40 the Rom an em peror Caligula proposed setting u p his own image in the tem ple, the Danielic language cam e im m ediately to m ind. W hen Jesus prophesied the destruction o f Jerusalem , he used the same symbolic language. So too in 2 Thess 2:4 Paul depends on the prophecy o f Jesus, em ploying the same Danielic symbol, w hen he refers to the antichrist to come.

Comment

701

As we have already n oted (Form,/Structure/Setting §E), many interpreters have u n d erstood the desolating abom ination in the present passage to refer to the eschatological antichrist of 2 Thess 2:4. Paul, like Matthew, thus associated the Danielic imagery with the end of the world. T he fall of Jerusalem and the accom panying desecration of the tem ple could n o t help b u t bring with them the eschatological age. M atthew probably m eans by the words “let the reader u n d erstan d ” that the event referred to implies the end of the age b ro u g h t about by the deed o f a Rom an (hence the im portance o f veiled language) invader—an event th at vividly parallels the desecrating act o f Antiochus. T he words όταν ουν ϊδητε, “w hen you see, ” correspond to the first part of the question of v 3, which in turn is directly p ro m p ted by the prophecy o f v 2. Initially in view therefore is the destruction ofjerusalem and the concom itant setting up of the desolating abom ination in the tem ple th at occurred in a .d . 70. It is w rong to reject this conclusion by pressing the letter of the text (v 16) and insisting that only after the image was set up in the tem ple was the flight to take place (which would in fact have been too la te). T he m eaning is m ore general, i.e., th at the disciples should flee when events indicated th at the desecration o f the tem ple was inevitable. Matthew writes about this before a .d . 70 in my opinion. T he lack of exact, detailed correspondence with the actual events makes difficult the conclusion th at Matthew’s prophecy is a vaticinium ex eventu (see Reicke, “Synoptic Prophecies”) . If Matthew m eans by the “abom ination that desolates” som ething to be accom plished by the Romans in a .d . 70, th at does n o t prevent the elastic symbol from also being applied to som ething lying in the future. But that possibility is n o t in the evangelist’s m ind. 16 T h a t th e d e s tru c tio n o f Je ru s a le m (cf. L u k e 21:20) is lin k e d w ith th e p r o fa n a tio n o f th e te m p le b e c o m e s c le a r in th is a n d th e fo llo w in g verses. A tim e o f te rr ib le s u ffe rin g was a b o u t to co m e. T h o s e w h o a re in J u d e a τ ό τ ε , “a t th a t tim e ,” a re e x h o r te d to flee ε ι ς τ ά όρη, “to th e m o u n ta in s .” P e rh a p s in r e s p o n s e to th is r e m e m b e r e d lo g io n , m u c h o f th e C h ristia n c o m m u n ity fle d J u d e a fo r th e m o u n ta in s o r fo o th ills o f th e T ra n s jo rd a n ia n m o u n ta in s (m a n y s e ttle d ev e n tu a lly in P e lla in th e n o r th e r n re g io n ; cf. E u seb iu s, H istoria Ecclesiastica 3 .5 .3 ). T h e h ills w o u ld p ro v id e safety as th e y d id in th e tim e o f th e M a c c a b e a n re v o lt (1 M acc 2:28). A lth o u g h th e id e n tific a tio n o f th is flig h t w ith th a t r e f e r r e d to in th e P e lla tra d itio n h a s b e e n c h a lle n g e d (cf. B r a n d o n , The Fall o f Jerusalem; L ü d e m a n n ) , it h as also b e e n d e f e n d e d by Sow ers a n d C. R. K o e ste r (th e la tte r w ith re f e r e n c e o n ly to th e L u k a n p a ra lle l [L u k e 2 1 :2 0 -2 2 ]). 1 7 -1 8 T h e severity o f th e im p e n d in g d istre ss is f u r th e r u n d e r lin e d by th e u rg e n c y o f th e n e e d to d e p a r t (cf. G e n 19:17). T h e flig h t s h o u ld b e im m e d ia te , a n d th u s th e r e will b e n o tim e to re trie v e p o sse ssio n s o r c lo th in g . T h e o n e o n th e h o u s e to p (th e fla t r o o f o f th e P a le stin ia n h o u s e w as a p o p u la r p la c e to re la x in th e e v e n in g ) , as w ell as th e o n e w o rk in g in th e field , m u s t flee w ith o u t d elay (cf. L u k e 17:31). F lig h t w o u ld also b e e a sie r w ith o u t b a g g a g e . 19 -2 0 S pecial circu m stan ces— p regnancy, th e necessity o f n u rsin g in fan ts (cf. L uke 23:29), a n d possibly w in te r o r th e sa b b ath — will m a k e th e jo u r n e y p articu larly difficult. S ince th e first two a re n o t to b e avoided, th e se w o m en can only b e p itied (ούαί, “w oe [to th e m ] ”). T h e o th e r two, having to d o w ith tim ing, m ay b e avoidable, b u t th e disciples a re e x h o rte d to pray th a t th e n ecessary flig h t d o es n o t have to o cc u r o n th e sa b b ath o r in th e w inter, w h en flo o d in g w adis a n d m u d d y hillsides co u ld b e d a n g e ro u s (le t a lo n e a fo rd in g o f th e sw ollen J o r d a n ) a n d b itte r co ld n ig h ts u n c o m fo rtab le. W hile th e p o in t o f th e re fe re n c e to th e sa b b ath is h ard ly clear, p ro b ab ly

702

Mat

t h ew

2 4 :1 5 -2 2

w h at is m e a n t is th a t a n u r g e n t flig h t o n th e sa b b ath w o u ld m ak e any sa b b ath o b serv an c e im p o ssib le (cf. E x o d 16:29; A cts 1:12; a n d ra b b in ic e la b o ra tio n lim itin g m o v e m e n t to “2000 cu b its” in m. cErub. 4:3, 5:7). T h is a p p a re n tly w o u ld still have b e e n a serio us m a tte r fo r th e Jew ish-C hristian m e m b e rsh ip o f M atth ew ’s c h u rc h . For a review of the possible ways o f in terpreting the sabbath reference, see S tanton’s thorough discussion. S tanton’s own proposal is th at these verses refer n o t to any specific flight b u t generally to the n eed to flee from persecution, an d in this case from the Jews (cf. 10:17, 23). T he reference to the possible n eed to flee on the sabbath he then takes as som ething th at would fu rth er antagonize th e Jewish persecutors o f M atthew’s com m unity. Stanton, however, too quickly rules out the traditional interpretation (taken above) by concluding that 12:1-14 m ust indicate that the sabbath was no longer an im portant issue for th e M atthean com munity. But M atthew th ere om itted the logion o f Mark 2:27 (a p o in t m ade also in W ong’s critique of S tanton’s view), revealing his concern to tone down M ark’s radicalism on the sabbath law. Every statem ent im pinging u p o n the law in M atthew m ust be considered in the light o f the conservative statem ent o f 5:17-19. N othing in the present context, furtherm ore, indicates that Jewish persecutors are in M atthew’s purview. Rather, the context points to the im m inent Rom an invasion o f Jerusalem . Although it is apparently true that already in the time of the Maccabees some Jews could bring themselves to fight on the sabbath, if necessary, rath er than die (1 Macc 2:41 ;Jos., Ant. 12.6.2 §277), the view was hardly unanim ous (cf. Jub. 50:12-13; 2 Macc 6:11; 15:1; and the qualification in Jos., Ant. 14.4.2 §63). If the Jews were not of a com m on m ind on the subject in the time o f th e Jewish war (see M. H engel, The Zealots [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989] 287-90), it rings true to conclude with W ong that “at least some o f the m em bers o f the M atthean com munity (probably some of the conservative Jewish Christians who still behave according to their tradition) would hesitate to flee on a Sabbath” (17). A flight on the sabbath could have divided m em bers of the com munity with disastrous consequences. See too Comment on vv 15 and 16. France (following R. Banks) refers to the difficulties of gates being shut and provisions being unobtainable on the sabbath. T he first m ight constitute a problem , bu t vv 17-18 prohibit the idea of acquiring provisions. 2 1 -2 2 T h e re a so n fo r th e u rg en c y o f th e flig h t is n o w finally stated. T h e r e will b e a Θ Χίφις'μεγάλη, “g re a t trib u la tio n .” T o em p h asize th e h o r r o r o f th e sufferings to b e e x p e rie n c e d , it is stated th a t n o suffering, e ith e r b e fo re o r after, will c o m p a re w ith th e su fferin g o f th is trib u la tio n . T h is is w ith o u t q u e stio n also th e fo rm u laic la n g u ag e o f esch ato lo g ical ju d g m e n t (cf. D an 12:1; J o e l 2:2). In th e p re s e n t passage, w e m u st c o n c lu d e o n e o f th e follow ing: th e la n g u ag e (1) is u se d hyperbolically in re fe re n c e to th e fall o f J e ru sa le m (th e re is n o q u e stio n c o n c e rn in g th e h o rrib le e x te n t o f th e suffering; cf. J o s .,/.W 5.10.1 §§420-23; 5 .1 1 .3 -4 § § 4 6 0 -7 2 ), (2) refers literally to th e eschato lo g ical ju d g m e n t o f th e e n d o f th e age, o r (3) uses th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a lem as a type o f fo resh ad o w in g o f th e last ju d g m e n t, th e re b y ap p ly in g to th e fo rm e r la n g u ag e strictly p ro p e r to th e la tte r (see “Excursus: Im m in e n ce , Delay, a n d M atthew ’s eWecosr” a t 24:29). T h e a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f such h y p erb o lic la n g u ag e in re fe re n c e to th e fin al six-m onth siege o f Je ru sa le m in A.D. 70 is ev id en t fro m th e historical in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d by J o se p h u s (J.W. 5.12.3 §§51 2 -1 8 ). W ell c o u ld it b e said th a t w orse su fferin g h a d n ev e r b e e n se en n o r w o u ld ag ain b e seen. See B easley-M urray (Jesus and the Last Days, 419) fo r a d efe n se o f th e la n g u ag e as fo rm u laic a n d n o t literal (cf. passages c ite d by him : E x o d 9:18; 10:14; 11:16; a n d esp. D an 12:1; see to o , J o s .,/. W. P ro e m 4 § § 9 -1 2 ). T h e assertio n o f v 22 rests u p o n G o d ’s sovereign c o n tro l o f history, w h ereb y h e “cu rta ils” (κολοβοί'v o ccu rs in th e N T o nly h e r e a n d in M ark 13:20) th e

Bibliography

703

tim e o f suffering. T h is sta te m e n t ag ain h as th e effect o f u n d e rlin in g th e gravity o f th e suffering. H a d th e tim e n o t b e e n c u t sh o rt, n o o n e (this is th e m e a n in g o f πάσα σάρζ, lit. “all flesh ”) w o u ld have survived (εσώθη, “saved” o r “p re se rv e d ,” refers h e re to physical safety). T h e tim e o f su fferin g will b e s h o rte n e d “fo r th e sake o f th e e le c t” (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 20:1-2; 83.1; 2 T im 2:10). εκλεκτούς, “ele c t,” is u se d elsew here in M atthew only in vv 24, 31 a n d in 22:14. It m u st re fe r to th o se w ho have follow ed Jesus, i.e., C hristians. B u t if th e C h ristian s have fled Je ru sa le m a n d th e re fe re n c e is to th o se in Je ru sa le m , it m ay in c lu d e th o se w ho are elec t in th e sense o f th o se w ho will yet co m e to faith in Jesus. T h e re p e a te d ex p ressio n ai ήμέραι έκεϊναι, “th o se days,” takes o n th e significance o f a sem i-technical p h ra se re fe rrin g to a u n iq u e p e rio d o f su ffering (cf. vv 19, 29). A problem sometim es m entioned concerning understanding vv 15-22 as referring to the fall of Jerusalem is the lack of exact correspondence between w hat is described h ere and what actually occurred. It is hardly likely, for example, th at Titus erected a statue of him self on the site of the destroyed tem ple. As Beasley-Murray points out, “there is n o t a syllable which reflects knowledge of events which took place in the Jewish War, still less o f the actual destruction o f the city an d tem p le” (Jesus and the Last Days, 407). This may provide confirm ation that the passage reflects genuine prophecy o f the events o f A.D. 70 rath e r than having been written ex eventu. E xplanation T h e p ro p h e c y o f th e d eso latio n o f th e te m p le p o in te d to a m a jo r tu rn in g p o in t in th e history o f Israel. W h a t h a d h a p p e n e d o n c e by th e h a n d o f A n tio c h u s a m e re two h u n d r e d years e a rlie r w o u ld h a p p e n again, this tim e, how ever, in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e d es tru c tio n o f th e te m p le itself. S u ch a ca ta stro p h e c o u ld only b e in te rp re te d as an eschatological event, a re p e titio n a n d final fu lfillm en t o f th e p ro p h e c y o f D aniel. It w o u ld cause a d e g re e o f su fferin g th a t was b e y o n d w ords. Je su s accordingly in structs his disciples to flee fro m Je ru sa le m . T h e ir survival is m o re im p o rta n t th a n any n a tio n a l loyalties th a t m ig h t m otivate th e m to fig h t again st th e R om ans. G o d in d e e d will n o t allow th e su ffering o f th a t tim e to b e p ro lo n g e d so as to cause u ltim ate h a rm to his elect. E schatological ju d g m e n t is c o m in g u p o n Je ru sa le m in advance o f th e fin al ju d g m e n t o f th e esch a to n . A n d b e y o n d th e ir im m e d ia te fu lfillm en t th e w ords o f th e p ro p h e c y also fo resh ad o w a m o re d ista n t a n d final fulfillm ent.

T h e C la im s o f P s e u d o - C h r is ts a n d F a ls e P r o p h e ts (2 4 :2 3 -2 8 )

B ibliography Black, M. “T he Aramaic Dim ension in Q w ith Notes on Luke 17.22 and Matthew 24.26 (Luke 17.23).” J S N T 40 (1990) 33-41. G uenther, H . O. “W hen ‘Eagles’ Draw Together.”

704

Ma t

t h ew

2 4 :2 3 -2 8

Forum 5 (1989) 140-50. Jonge, M. de. “Jewish Expectations about the ‘Messiah’ according to the F ourth Gospel.” N TS 19 (1972-73) 246-70. Translation 23 “Then i f anyone says to you, ‘B ehold, the Christ is here!’ or ‘H e i s a there/ ’ do not believe that person.b 24For pseudo-christs a n d false prophets will arise, a n d they w ill perfo rm g reatc signs a nd wonders, so that, i f possible, they m ight deceive even the elect. 25 Take note, I have told you in advance. 26If, therefore, they say to you, ‘L ook, he is in the wilderness.!’ do not bother to d go there.e Or i f they say,f ‘Look, he i s g in the inner rooms!’ do not believe them.h 27For ju s t as the lightning comes fro m the east a n d flashes to the west, thus will be the coming o f the Son o f M an. 28 Whereveri the corpse is, the vultures will be gathered together there. ” Notes a “He is” added. b ‘T hat person” added. c A few MSS (N W* f f 1r1 boms) lack μεγάλα, “great,” probably by the influence of the parallel in Mark 13:22. d “Bother to” added. e “There” added. f “Or if they say” added. g “He is” added. h “Them” added. 1Many MSS (W /13 TR c ff2 q syh mae) add γάρ, “for,” thereby linking the proverb more closely with the preceding context. F o rm /Structure/Setting A . T h e d isc o u rs e c o n tin u e s w ith th e m o tif w ith w h ic h it b e g a n in v 4, n am ely , th e c o m in g o f m e ssia n ic p r e te n d e r s w h o will a tte m p t to m is le a d th e c o m m u n ity o f th e fa ith fu l (cf. to o v 11). T h e r e p e titio n o f th is th e m e h e r e h a s th e e ffe c t o f e m p h a s iz in g th a t th e d e s e c ra tio n o f th e te m p le ju s t r e f e r r e d to d o e s n o t e n ta il th e im m e d ia te d a w n in g o f th e e s c h a to n . T h is c a ta s tro p h ic e v e n t to g e th e r w ith th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m , a lth o u g h a ty p o lo g ical a n tic ip a tio n o f th e fin a l ju d g m e n t, is m e re ly o n e e v e n t a m o n g m a n y th a t m u s t y et h a p p e n b e fo re th e e n d o f th e ag e. T h o u g h th e ir m ira c u lo u s d e e d s a n d s tu p e n d o u s claim s m ay b e s p e c ta c u lar, th e c o m in g o f p se u d o -m e ssia h s a n d false p r o p h e ts m u s t n o t b e c o n fu s e d w ith th e p a r o u s ia o f th e S o n o f M an , w h ic h will h a p p e n in a s u d d e n a n d d ra m a tic way in c a p a b le o f b e in g m issed . B. F o r vv 23 -2 5 M atthew follows M ark; v 26 is u n iq u e to M atthew ; a n d w 2 7 -2 8 are p ro b ab ly draw n fro m Q (cf. L uke 17:24, 37b). M atth e w ’s c h a n g es o f th e M ark a n te x t a re m in o r: in v 24 h e inserts μ ε γ ά λ α , “g re a t,” afte r σημ εία , “signs” (cf. M ark 13:22), th e re b y h e ig h te n in g th e im p a c t o f th e false m essiahs a n d p ro p h e ts; in th e sam e verse M atthew inserts καί, “ev e n ,” b efo re το ύ ς εκλεκ τούς, “th e e le c t,” ag ain fo r em phasis; M atthew (v 25) om its M a rk ’s se n te n c e υ μ ε ίς δ ε β λ έ π ε τ ε , “b u t y o u b ew a re” (M ark 13:23), p ro b ab ly re g a rd in g it as su p erflu o u s; a n d finally M atthew in serts ιδού, “lo o k ,” a t th e b e g in n in g o f v 25 a n d om its M a rk ’s πάντα, “e v e ry th in g ” (M ark 13:23), th e

Comment

705

o b ject o f προείρηκα, “I have to ld you b e fo re h a n d ,” p ro b ab ly re g a rd in g it as to o co m p reh e n siv e in th e p re s e n t co n tex t. In v 27 M atthew p ro b ab ly d e p a rts fro m Q in re p la c in g ά σ τρ ά π το νσ α . . . λά μ π ει, “flash in g . . . sh in e s” (L uke 17:24), w ith th e less Sem itic ε ξ έ ρ χ ε τ α ι. . . και φ α ίνετα ι, “c o m e s . . . a n d sh in e s.” So to o M atthew p ro b ab ly alters εκ τ η ς υπό το ν ούρανόν ε ι ς τ η ν ϋ π ’ουρανόν, “fro m o n e p a r t o f th e sky to a n o th e r p a r t o f th e sky” (L uke 17:24), to th e sm o o th e r άπό άνατολώ ν . . . έω ς δυσμών, “fro m th e east to th e w est” (v 27). In th e sam e verse M atthew also h as p ro b ab ly in se rte d ή παρουσία, “th e p a ro u sia ,” p e rh a p s u sin g it in place o f ε ν τ η ήμερα αϋτοϋ, “in his day,” if this was in th e L u k an te x t (L uke 17:24) a n d in Q . T h e only significant c h a n g e in v 28 is th e p ro b a b le su b stitu tio n o f πτώ μα, “c o rp se ,” fo r σώμα, “b o d y ” (L uke 17:37b), as m o re a p p ro p ria te to th e M a tth e a n co n tex t. C. T h e r e p e a te d w a rn in g s d o m in a te th e p assag e , g iv in g th e p e r ic o p e th e c h a ra c te r o f a n a d m o n ito r y e x h o r ta tio n . T h e s u p p o r tin g s ta te m e n ts a re d e s ig n e d to s tr e n g th e n th e m a in a ffirm a tio n fro m th e b e g in n in g o f th e d isc o u rse in v 4 th a t th e e n d o f th e ag e is r e a c h e d n e ith e r in th e te rr ib le su ffe rin g s to b e e x p e r ie n c e d n o r in th e d e c e p tiv e claim s o f w o n d e r w o rk ers. As a n o u tlin e , th e fo llo w in g m ay b e su g g e sted : (1) e x h o r ta tio n n o t to b eliev e false claim s (v 23 ); (2) th e im p a c t o f false m e ssia h s a n d p r o p h e ts (vv 2 4 -2 5 ); (3) r e p e titio n o f th e e x h o r ta tio n (v 2 6); (4) th e u n m is ta k a b le c h a r a c te r o f th e p a ro u s ia o f th e S o n o f M an (v 27); a n d (5) a n a p p e n d e d lo g io n (v 28 ). T h e m a in s tr u c tu ra l f e a tu re o f th e p e ric o p e is th e th r e e p r o h ib ito r y su b ju n c tiv e s o f w 23 a n d 26. T h e s e a re p a ra lle l in th e first two in sta n c e s, w ith ε ά ν clau se s ( th o u g h th e s e c o n d involves a p lu r a l έ ά ν . . . εΐπ ω σ ιν, “if th e y say” [v 2 6 ]). In th e th ir d in s ta n c e th e ε ά ν clau se is im p lie d r a th e r th a n sta te d . In all th r e e in sta n c e s a n o b je c t clau se is in tr o d u c e d by ιδού, “lo o k ,” th o u g h o n ly th e first h as a su b je ct, ό Χ ρ ισ τό ς , “th e C h ris t,” a n d o n ly th e se c o n d h as a v erb , έ σ τ ί ν , “h e is,” w h ile th e th ir d h a s n e ith e r. T h e p a ra lle l b e tw e e n th e first a n d th ir d is h e ig h te n e d by th e c o m m o n v e rb μ ή π ισ τ ε ύ σ η τ ε , “d o n o t b e lie v e .” E ac h o f th e th r e e p r o h ib itio n s h a s a d if fe r e n t lo c a tio n in view, th e first ώδε, “h e r e ” (tw ice), th e se c o n d ε ν τ η έρήμω , “in th e w ild e rn e s s ” (as a p p r o p r ia te to th e v erb , μ ή έ ξ έ λ θ η τε , “d o n o t g o o u t ”), a n d th e th ir d ε ν τ ο ΐς τ α μ ε ίο ις , “in th e p riv ate r o o m s .” V 24 c o n ta in s th r e e p a irs o f p a ra lle l e le m e n ts w o rth n o tin g : tw o subjects, tw o verbs, a n d tw o o b je c ts fo r th e se c o n d o f th e verbs. D. T h e sayings tra d itio n h e r e (cf. to o w 4 -5 , 11) p ro b a b ly serv es in o ra l fo rm as th e so u rc e o f P a u l’s s ta te m e n t, a n d ev en te rm in o lo g y to so m e e x te n t, in 2 T h ess 2 :8 -1 0 (see D. W e n h a m , The Rediscovery o f Jesus' Eschatological Discourse). So to o , th e u n d e rly in g tr a d itio n is p ro b a b ly r e fle c te d in Did. 16:4, a n d th e G o sp el itse lf in J u s tin M artyr, D ia l 35.3 (cf. 3 2 .1 -2 ). Com m ent 23 T h e w a rn in g n o t to believe in m essianic claim an ts resu m e s th e m a in th e m e o f th e first p a r t o f th e discourse, i.e., th a t d esp ite g re a t sufferings, in c lu d in g even th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e te m p le a n d th e d e s tru c tio n o f Je ru sa le m , th e e n d o f th e age re m ain s in th e fu tu re . T h e p re s e n t sta te m e n t re p e a ts in slightly d iffe re n t fo rm (th ird p e rso n , r a th e r th a n first p e rso n ) th e w arn in g s o f vv 4 -5 a n d 11 (see Comment o n th o se verses). H e re th e claim is m a d e in th e th ird p e rso n o n b e h a lf o f a n o th e r: “H e re is th e C h rist” (fo r a sim ilar claim w ith re g a rd to th e k in g d o m , see L u k e 17:21).

706

Ma t

t h ew

24:23-28

2 4 -2 5 W h ile th is is th e o n ly o c c u r r e n c e o f ψ ε υ δ ό χ ρ ισ τ ο ς , “false m e s s ia h ,” in M a tth e w ( th e M a rk a n p a ra lle l p ro v id e s th e o n ly o th e r N T o c c u r re n c e ; cf. th e e q u iv a le n t, ά ν τ ί χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς , “a n t i c h r i s t , ” in 1 J o h n 2 :1 8 , 22; 4 :3; 2 J o h n 7 ), ψ ε υ δ ο π ρ ο φ ή τη ς , “false p r o p h e t,” o c c u rs also in v 11 a n d e a r lie r in 7:15. T h e r e is n o c le a r d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e w o rd s in th is c h a p te r: in e a c h in s ta n c e th e v e rb π λα νά ν, “le a d astray ,” is u s e d (vv 5 ,1 1 , 2 4 ). So to o in 1 J o h n 4:1 false p r o p h e ts a re n o t d is tin g u is h e d fro m a n tic h rists. In R ev 13:13 signs a re p e r f o r m e d by a s e c o n d b e a s t w h o le a d s astray th e in h a b ita n ts o f th e e a r th . P e rh a p s th e false p r o p h e ts a r e to b e u n d e r s to o d as th o se w h o p ro c la im o th e rs as th e M essiah (as fo r ex a m p le th e s p e a k e rs in v 2 6 ). B o th n o u n s a re to b e u n d e r s to o d as th e su b je c ts o f th e v erbs, i.e., έγερ θ ή σ ο ν τα ι, “will a rise ,” a n d δώ σουσιν, “will d o ” (διδόναι, lit. “give,” c a n h av e th is se n se as w ell as π ο ιε ί v ) . O n e c le a r way in w h ic h th e s e p e r s o n s a tte m p t to le a d o th e rs astray is th r o u g h th e σ η μ ε ία μ ε γ ά λ α καί τ έ ρ α τ α , “g r e a t sig n s a n d w o n d e r s ,” th e y p e r f o rm . T h e e x a c t n a tu r e o f th e s e is n o t sp e c ifie d , τ έ ρ α τ α , “w o n d e r s ,” o c c u rs in M a tth e w o n ly h e r e ; σ η μ ε ία , “sig n s,” se ld o m h a s a p o sitiv e m e a n in g in M a tth e w a n d in th e N T is m o d ifie d by μ ε γ ά λ α o n ly in L u k e 21:11; A cts 6:8; 8:13; Rev 12:1; 13:13; 15:1 (cf. R ev 19:20, w h e re th e false p r o p h e t d o e s s ig n s ). T h e p u r p o s e o f th e se m ig h ty d e e d s is to le a d astray th e e le c t (ώ σ τ ε , “so th a t,” a n d th e in fin itiv e h e r e e x p re ss p u r p o s e ) , if it w ere p o ssib le to d o so. T h e im p lic a tio n o f th e ε ί δυνα τό ν, “if p o s s ib le ,” is th a t th e έ κ λ ε κ τ ο ί, “e le c t” o r “c h o s e n ” (e lse w h e re in M a tt 22:14; 24:22, 3 1 ), a re in th e c a re o f th e ir F a th e r (cf. 1 0 :2 9 -3 1 ) a n d th a t it is th e re fo r e n o t w ith in th e p o w e r o f th e se e n e m ie s to acc o m p lis h th e ir p u rp o s e . T h e w a rn in g s in th is p assag e a g a in st false p r o p h e ts fin d a n O T b a c k g r o u n d in D e u t 1 3 :2 -4 . T h e d isc ip le s a r e n o t to b e s u rp ris e d by th e se d e v e lo p m e n ts : J e s u s h a s f o r e t o l d th e m (cf. J o h n 1 3 :1 9 w h e r e , h o w e v e r, a c h risto lo g ic a l p o in t is m a d e o f su c h fo re k n o w le d g e ). 26 T h e w a rn in g o f v 23 is n ow r e p e a te d in a tw ofold p ro h ib itio n . T h e first claim , th a t th e M essiah is έ ν τ η έρήμω, “in th e d e s e r t,” resu lts in th e a lte ra tio n o f th e n eg a tiv e fo rm u la fro m “d o n o t b e lie v e ” to μ ή έξ έλ θ η τε, “d o n o t g o o u t.” T h a t m e ssia n ic d e liv e ra n c e w o u ld c o m e fro m th e d e s e rt was a w idely s h a re d e x p e c ta tio n , w h ic h p ro b a b ly e x p la in s w hy J o h n th e B a p tist b e g a n h is m in is try in th e w ild e rn e ss (cf. Comment o n 3:1-12; see to o 11:7; IQ S 8 :12-14; J o s .,/.W 2.13.5 §261). T h e s e c o n d claim , in m u c h a b b re v ia te d syntax, is th a t th e M essiah is έ ν τ ο ΐ ς τα μ είο ις, “in th e p rivate (o r secret) ro o m s.” T h is so m e w h at p e c u lia r s ta te m e n t c o u ld h av e re s u lte d fro m a m is u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e u n d e rly in g A ram aic, as B lack sp e c u la te s, w h ic h m a y h av e b e e n b fidrayya, “in th e A s s e m b lie s /S a n h e d r in .” M o re p ro bably, how ever, th e s ta te m e n t in te n d s o n ly a c o n tra s t w ith a fully p u b lic a p p e a ra n c e in th e d e s e rt (M atth ew u ses τ α μ ε ϊο ν in 6:6, r e f e r rin g to a p riv ate p la c e o f p ray er; th e o n ly o th e r N T o c c u rre n c e s o f th e w o rd a re in L u k e 12:3, 24). Possibly u n d e rly in g th is w a rn in g is th e n o tio n th a t th e M essiah w o u ld a t first b e o n ly secre d y p r e s e n t (cf. J o h n 7:27; Str-B 1:86-87; see d e J o n g e ). T h e d iscip les a re n o t to b eliev e (μ ή π ισ τ ε ύ σ η τ ε , “d o n o t b eliev e”; cf. v 23) su c h a claim in sp ite o f w h ate v er trib u la tio n th e y m ay e x p e rie n c e o r w h ate v er m ira c u lo u s signs th e y m ay o b se rv e . As th e ev an g elist n e x t in d ic ates, th e r e tu r n o f th e S o n o f M an will n e e d n o h u m a n h e ra ld s a n d will re st o n n o d o u b tfu l h u m a n claim s. 27 W ith th e u n m is ta k a b le clarity a n d s u d d e n n e s s o f ά σ τρ α π ή , “lig h tn in g ” (th e o n ly o th e r o c c u r r e n c e in M a tth e w is in 2 8 :3 ), fla sh in g fro m o n e e n d o f th e sky to th e o th e r (cf. L u k e 17:24; Z ec h 9:14; 2 Apoc. Bar. 5 3 :8 -1 0 ), ή π α ρ ο υσ ία το υ υιοϋ

Explanation

707

τ ο υ άνθρω πον, “th e p a ro u s ia o f th e S o n o f M a n ,” will occu r. H e r e finally is a n an sw e r to o n e o f th e q u e s tio n s a sk e d by th e d iscip les in v 3, n am ely , “W h a t will b e th e sign o f y o u r p a ro u s ia ? ” In a d d itio n to th e se tw o o c c u r re n c e s o f th e w o rd π α ρ ο υ σ ία (lit. “c o m in g ” o r “p r e s e n c e ”), it o c c u rs tw ice a g a in in th is c h a p te r in p rec isely th e sa m e clau se , ο ύ τω ς β σ τα ι ή π α ρ ο υσ ία τ ο υ υιού το υ άνθρω πον, “th u s will b e th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n ” (vv 37, 3 9 ), w h ic h th e re b y b e c o m e s a k in d o f re fra in in r e s p o n s e to th e in itia l q u e s tio n , π αρουσ ία, “p a r o u s ia ,” w h ich d o e s n o t o c c u r e lse w h e re in th e G ospels, b e c o m e s a n im p o r ta n t w o rd in th e P a u lin e v o c a b u la ry (e.g., 1 C o r 15:23; 1 T h e ss 2:19; 3:13; a n d else w h e re ) a n d also o c c u rs in o th e r N T w ritin g s (e.g ., J a s 5 :7 -8 :2 ; 2 P e te r 3:4; 1 J o h n 2 :2 8 ). T h e r e is n o sp e cial sig n ific a n c e to M a tth e w ’s r e f e r e n c e to e a s t a n d w est o th e r th a n p e r h a p s a s m o o th in g o u t o f Q (cf. L u k e 17:24), a lth o u g h th e la n g u a g e d o e s c o n n o te c o m p r e h e n s iv e n e s s fo r M a tth e w (cf. 8 :1 1 ). As th e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t a b o u t th e p e r c e p tio n o f lig h tn in g , th e r e will b e n o d o u b t c o n c e r n in g th e a p p e a r a n c e o f th e M essiah, h e r e r e f e r r e d to as th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an. 28 T h is p ro v e rb , r a th e r m o r e e n ig m a tic th a n o th e rs in th e G o sp els, o c c u rs also in L u k e 17:37b, w h e re it is sp o k e n in re s p o n s e to th e q u e s tio n “W h e re, L o rd ? ” a p p a re n tly c o n c e r n in g th e lo c a tio n e ith e r o f th e o n e “ta k e n ” o r th e o n e “le ft.” T h e im a g e ry o f fle sh -e a tin g b ird s is f o u n d e lse w h e re in th e O T (Job 3 9 :2 7 -3 0 ; H a b 1:8) a n d N T (R ev 1 9 :1 7 -2 1 ). T h e m o s t n a tu ra l a p p lic a tio n o f th e im a g e ry is to ju d g m e n t, w h ic h m ay b e th e p o in t o f th e p ro v e rb h e r e . W h e n th e S o n o f M an c o m es, th e ju d g m e n t o f th e w o rld w ill ta k e p la c e (cf. vv 30, 39, 51; 25:30, 4 6 ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , sin c e th e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e to ju d g m e n t in th e im m e d ia te c o n te x t, it m ay b e th a t th e p ro v e rb p o in ts p rim a rily to th e u n m is ta k a b le c h a r a c te r o f th e p a ro u sia . T h u s, as su rely as y o u k n o w th a t w h e re y o u see v u ltu re s g a th e r e d th e r e is a carcass, so y o u will n o t b e a b le to m iss th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an. T h is in te r p r e ta tio n h a s th e a d v a n ta g e o f b e in g fully c o n s o n a n t w ith th e c o n te x t o f th e im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g verses. W h e th e r oi ά β το ί re fe rs to “e a g le s” o r “vultu r e s ” d o e s n o t m a tte r ( th e tw o w ere o fte n classed to g e th e r ) , b u t a re f e r e n c e to th e R o m a n s d o e s n o t m a k e sen se h e re , as it m ig h t hav e in th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e ; n o r d o e s th e c a r rio n sy m b o lize a n y th in g in p a rtic u la r. As te m p tin g as it a p p e a rs to m a n y c o m m e n ta to rs , th e p ro v e rb n e e d n o t b e a lle g o riz e d . E xplanation Je su s te a c h e s his d isciples n o t to b e o v e re a g e r in th e ir a c c e p ta n c e o f m essianic claim an ts n o m a tte r w h a t im pressive m ira c u lo u s d e e d s m ay a c c o m p a n y th e m a n d d e s p ite w h a t m ay se em like a n u n w a rra n te d delay in th e a p p e a ra n c e o f th e M essiah, a g g ra v ate d by th e o n g o in g e x p e rie n c e o f sufferin g . T h e r e is only o n e tr u e an sw er to th e c h u r c h ’s ag o n y a n d lo n g in g in th e p r e s e n t in te rim p e rio d : th e re a l c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an, w hose a d v e n t will b e as c o n s p ic u o u s as lig h tn in g in th e sky. All th o se w h o o ffe r ea sie r altern ativ es in th e p re s e n t, w h o seem to o ffe r a way o u t o f su fferin g s a n d th e p ro m ise o f esch a to lo g ic al blessings b e fo re th e e s c h a to n , a re p re te n d e rs : false p r o p h e ts a n d false m essiahs. T h e d iscip les a re n o t to b e ta k e n in by th e ir claim s. T h e r e is in th e c h u rc h , o f co u rse , a d e g re e o f esch ato lo g y alr e a d y r e a liz e d th r o u g h th e m in is tr y o f th e H o ly S p irit. T h a t e x p e r ie n c e o f fu lfillm e n t, how ever, always sta n d s in te n sio n w ith th e c o n tin u in g fallen n ess o f th e

Ma

708

t t h ew

2 4 :2 9 -3 6

w o rld a n d o u r ow n u n r e d e e m e d b o d ie s. E very a tte m p t to b re a k th a t te n sio n by g r e a te r claim s o f fu lfillm e n t, to fo rc e th e k in g d o m by g r e a te r d e e d s o f p o w e r o r by m e ssia n ic claim s, m u st b e r e g a rd e d as false a n d d a n g e ro u s. T h e p a ro u s ia o f th e S o n o f M a n b ro o k s n o rivals. It a n d it a lo n e re m a in s th e h o p e o f G o d ’s p e o p le . A n d by its v ery n a tu re th e re is n o way in w h ich it c a n possibly b e m issed.

T h e R e tu r n

o f th e S o n o f M a n

(2 4 :2 9 -3 6 )

B ibliography Burkitt, E C. O n Immediately in Mt 24.29.”/E S 12 (1911) 460-61. Dupont, J. “La parable de figuier qui bourgeonne (Me 13, 28-29 et p ar).” RB 75 (1968) 462-63. Fascher, E. ‘“Von dem Tage aber u nd von d er Stunde weiss n ie m an d . . . ’: Der Anstoss in Mark. 13, 32 (Matth. 24, 36): Eine exegetische Skizze zum Verhältnis von historisch-kritischer un d christologischer Interpretation.” In R u f und Antwort. FS E. Fuchs. Leipzig: Koehler u n d Amelang, 1964. 475-83. Glasson, T. F. ‘T h e Ensign of the Son of Man ( Matt. xxiv. 30) 3 JTS 15 (1964) 299-300. Grässer, E. Die NaherwartungJesu. SBS 61. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Higgins, A J. B. ‘T h e Sign of the Son of Man (Matt. xxiv. 30 ).” NTS 9 (1962-63) 380-82. Holman, C. L. ‘T h e Idea of an Im m inent Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 3 (1973) 15-31. Joüon,P. “Les forces des cieux seront ébranlées (M t 24,29; Me 13,25; Lc 21,26)3 RSR29 (1939) 114-15. Kidder, S. J. “‘This G eneration’ in Matthew 24:34.” AUSS21 (1983) 203-9. Kümmel, W. G. “Die Naherw artung in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Zeit und Geschichte. FS R. Bultmann, ed. E. Dinkier. Tübingen: Mohr, 1964. 31-46. Künzi, M. Das Naherwartungslogion Mk 9.1 par: Geschichte seiner Auslegung, mit einem Nachwort zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Markus 13.30 par. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977. 213-24. Lövestam, E. ‘T h e ή γενεά αυτή Eschatology in Mk 13, 30 parr.” In L’apocalypse johannique et L’apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht. BETL 53. Gembloux: Duculot, 1980. 403-13.— — .Jesus and ‘this Generation. ’ ConBNT 25. Stockholm: Almqvist 8c Wiksell, 1995. Malvy, A “Cette generation ne passera pas.” RSR 14 (1924) 539-44. Meinertz, M. “‘Dieses Geschlecht’ im N euen Testament.” BZ 1 (1957) 283-89. Merklein, H. “U n terg a n g u n d N euschöpfung: Z ur theologischen B ed eu tu n g n eu testam e n tlic h er Texte vom ‘E n d e ’ d e r W elt.” In Biblische Randbemerkungen. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. H. Merklein and J. Lange. Würzburg: Echter, 1974. 349-60. Oberlinner, L. “Die Stellung der ‘Terminworte’ in der eschatologischen Verkündigung des N euen Testam ents.” In Gegenwart und kommendes Reich. FS A. Vögtle, ed. P. Fiedler and D. Zeller. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. 51-66. Schnackenburg, R. “Kirche und Parusie.” In Gott in Welt. FS K. Rahner, ed. J. B. Metz et al. Freiburg: H erder, 1964. 1:551-78. Schütz, R. “Das Feigengleichnis der Synoptikern.” ZNW10 (1909) 333-34. Wenham, D. “‘This Generation Will Not Pass. . . ’: A Study of Jesus’ Future Expectation in Mark 13.” In Christ the Lord. FS D. Guthrie, ed. Η. H. Rowdon. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1982.127-50. Winandy, J. “Le logion de l’ignorance (Mc, xiii, 32; Mt, xxiv, 36).” RB 75 (1968) 63-79. Zeller, D. “Prophetisches Wissen um die Zukunft in synoptischen Jesusworten.” TP 52 (1977) 258-71. Translation 29 “A n d immediately after the tribulation o f those days, the su n will be made dark

Form/Structure/Setting

709

a n d the moon will not give its light a n d the stars will fa ll fro m the s k y a a n d the powers o f heaver/ will be shaken. S0A n d then the sign o f the Son o f M a n will appear in the sky/ a n d thend all the tribes o f the earth will m ourn, a nd they will see the Son o f M a n coming on the clouds o f heaven with power a nd great glory. 3lA n d he will send his angels with a great trum pet call,e a n d they will gather together his chosen ones from the fo u r winds, from one end o f heaven to the other.f 32Learn the m eaning o f the parable concerning the fig tree: Ju st when its branch becomes tender and it sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Thus also you, when you see all these things, know that h eg is near, at the doors. 34Truly I tell you that this generation will by no means pass away before all these thingsh happen. 35H eaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away} S6B u t concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels o f heaven, nor the Sonj but thek Father alone.” Notes a του ούρανοΰ, lit. “the heaven.” b των ούρανών, lit. “the heavens.” c Or, “in heaven.” To ούρανω many MSS add the definite article τω ( W /1,1S TR). D has the pi. ούρανοΐς. d A few MSS (K* e mae) omit τότε, “then,” which has already occurred at the beginning of the verse. e σάλπιγγος μεγάλης, lit. “great trumpet”; many MSS ( B /13 TR sa) add φωνής, “sound (of),” or τής φωνής, “the sound (of)” (D lat), perhaps through the influence of Exod 19:16. See TCGNT, 6162. f D it add: “When the beginning of these things happens, look up and lift your heads because your redemption draws near,” taken from the parallel in Luke 21:28, with which it agrees verbatim except for άναβλέψατε, “look up,” for άνακύφατε, “stand up.” s Since the subject is included in the verb form, possibly “it.” h A few MSS (1424 aur b f ff1vgmss) omit ταϋτα, “these things,” perhaps to soften the difficulty of the verse. 1K* omits v 35 in its entirety, perhaps judging it alien to the context. j Many MSS (K1 L W 0133 p TR g1 1 vg sy co) omit ουδέ b νϊός, “neither the Son,” clearly for christological reasons. Including the phrase are K*2 B D Θ / 13 28 it vgmss. Metzger notes that “the presence of μόνος [‘only’ or ‘alone’] and the cast of the sentence as a whole” favor the originality of the phrase (TCGNT, 62). k K W Γ f insert μου, “my.” F o rm /Structure/Settin g A. A fter th e e x te n d e d d isc u ssio n in w 4 -2 8 o f th e e r a p r e c e d in g th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an, w ith its fu ll c o m p le m e n t o f tria l a n d su ffe rin g le a d in g th e u n k n o w le d g e a b le to th e hasty a n d m is ta k e n c o n c lu s io n th a t th e s e ev e n ts th em selv es m a rk e d th e e n d , th e d isc o u rse fin ally tu r n s to th e clim a ctic e v e n t th a t alone sign als th e e n d o f th e age: th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an o n th e c lo u d s o f h ea v en . T h is is d e s c rib e d u s in g ap o c aly p tic im a g e ry th a t e m p h a siz e s th e g a th e r in g o f th e elec t, w h ile th e c o n c o m ita n t ju d g m e n t is le ft im p lic it (v 3 0 ). T h e p e ric o p e c o n ta in s a s tr ik in g ju x ta p o s it io n o f stre ss o n im m in e n c e a n d r e f e r e n c e to th e in d e te r m in a c y o f th e tim e o f th e p a ro u s ia o f th e S o n o f M an . B. F o r th is p e ric o p e M atth ew c o n tin u e s to follow M ark v ery closely ( h e re 1 3 :2 4 3 2 ). O n ly in th e first h a lf o f v 30 d o w e fin d a su b sta n tia l d e p a r tu r e fro m M ark, in

710

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :2 9 -3 6

m a te ria l th a t is u n iq u e to M atthew , w h o p ro b a b ly h a s c r e a te d th e r e f e r e n c e to “th e sign o f th e S o n o f M a n ” to c o r r e s p o n d to th e q u e s tio n o f v 3. T h e r e f e r e n c e to th e “trib e s o f th e e a r t h ” m o u r n in g se em s to b e d ra w n fro m s ta n d a r d ap o c a ly p tic im ag ery . As fo r c h a n g e s o f th e M a rk a n te x t, th e fo llo w in g s h o u ld b e n o te d . In v 29 M a tth e w a d d s (see B u rk itt) th e v ery p r o b le m a tic in itia l εύθέω ς, “im m e d iately,” se e m in g ly to tie th is p e r ic o p e m o r e closely w ith w h a t p re c e d e s . In v 30 M a tth e w c o n fo rm s th e la n g u a g e m o r e closely to th e la n g u a g e o f D a n 7:13 by c h a n g in g M a rk ’s ε ν νε φ έ λ α ις , “in ( th e ) c lo u d s ” (M ark 1 3 :26), to ε π ί τω ν ν εφ ελ ώ ν το υ ούρανου, “o n th e c lo u d s o f h e a v e n .” In th e sa m e v erse M a tth e w sh ifts π ο λ λ ή ς , “m u c h ” o r “g r e a t,” to a fte r δ ό ξης, “g lo ry ,” so th a t it also m o d ifie s th e latte r. In v 31 M a tth e w a d d s μ ε τ ά σ ά λ π ιγ γ ο ς μ ε γ ά λ η ς , “w ith a g r e a t tr u m p e t,” a g a in fro m s ta n d a r d a p o c a ly p tic v o ca b u la ry , a n d s u b stitu te s ουρανών, “h e a v e n s ,” fo r M a rk ’s γ η ς , “e a r t h ” (M ark 13:27), th e re b y m a k in g th e te r m in i th e e n d s o f h e a v e n r a th e r th a n M a rk ’s m ix tu re o f “th e e n d s o f th e e a r th to th e e n d s o f h e a v e n .” M a tth e w ’s c h a n g e s o f th e M a rk a n te x t in th e p a r a b le o f th e fig tr e e a n d th e fo llo w in g lo g ia a r e v e ry m in o r. W e m ay n o te o n ly th e a d d itio n in v 33 o f π ά ν τ α , “a ll,” to M a rk ’s sim p le τ α υ τ α , “th e se th in g s ” (M ark 13:29; b u t cf. M a rk 13:30); th e o m issio n o f M a rk ’s r e d u n d a n t γιν ό μ εν α , “h a p p e n in g ,” in th e sa m e clau se; a n d fin ally th e a d d itio n o f th e c o n c lu d in g μ ό ν ο ς, “o n ly ” (v 3 6 ), w h ic h a d d s fo rc e to th e p r e c e d in g n e g a tio n s . F orm ally, v 34 is strik in g ly sim ila r to th e sy n tax o f 5:18. C. T h is p e ric o p e fin d s m o re u n ity in c o n te n t th a n o f fo rm , w h ich consists o f a q u o ta tio n o f O T m a teria l (v 29), a re fe re n c e to th e c o m in g o f th e S on o f M an (vv SOS I, w ith ag ain allusion to th e O T ), a p a ra b le a n d its ap p lica tio n (vv 3 2 -3 3 ), a w arn in g to th e p re s e n t g e n e ra tio n (v 34), a n in d e p e n d e n t lo g io n (v 35), a n d finally a lo g io n c o n c e rn in g k n o w led g e o f th e tim e o f th e e n d (v 36). T h e follow ing o u tlin e m ay b e suggested: (1) th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an (v v 2 9 -3 0 ); (2) th e g a th e rin g o f th e ele c t (v 31); (3) th e lesson o f th e fig tre e (v v 3 2 -3 3 ); (4) fu lfillm e n t to th e p re s e n t g e n e ra tio n (v 34); (5) th e lasting c h a ra c te r o f J e su s’ w o rd s (v 35); a n d (6) th e tim e k n o w n only to th e F a th e r (v 36). P arallelism is f o u n d a t two p o in ts in th e p e ric o p e : in th e fo u r clauses o f th e O T m a teria l in v 29 (M atth ew seem s resp o n sib le fo r th is p a ra llelism , co nsisting o f fo u r subjects a n d fo u r fu tu re verbs c o n n e c te d by καί) a n d in th e p a ra b le a n d its ap p lica tio n in w 32 a n d 33, w h ere syntactically th e p arallelism is nearly ex a ct (ό τα ν clauses; γινώ σκετε; o b je c t clauses in tro d u c e d by ö n ) . Also n o te th e d e lib erately rh y m in g κόψονται, “th ey will m o u r n ,” a n d δψ ονται, “th ey will se e,” o f v 30, p ro b ab ly reflec tin g th e in flu e n c e o f o ral trad itio n . D. Vv 3 0 -3 1 in p re-sy n o p tic o ra l f o rm a r e p ro b a b ly b e h in d P a u l’s r e f e r e n c e to th e p a r o u s ia o f C h ris t in 1 T h e ss 4:16; ev e n m o re ex te n siv e re fle c tio n o f th is sa m e m a te ria l is f o u n d in Did. 1 6 :6-8; 10.5. A r e f e r e n c e to th e “c h a n g in g ” o f su n , m o o n , a n d stars, p ro b a b ly d e p e n d e n t u p o n th is m a te ria l (v 2 9 ), o c c u rs in B a m . 15:5, w h ile 1 Clem. 2 3 :3 -4 ( a n d 2 Clem. 1 1 :2 -3 ) m ay re f le c t th e tr a d itio n u n d e rly in g th e fig -tre e an a lo g y (vv 3 2 -3 3 ), u s e d th e r e in a d isc u ssio n o f th e p r o b le m o f th e d e la y o f th e p a ro u sia . C om m ent29 29 T h e m e a n in g o f τ η ν Θλίψιν τω ν ήμερων εκείνων, “th e trib u la tio n o f th o se days, ” is m u c h d e b a te d . Tw o m a jo r possibilities p re s e n t them selves: (1) th e w ords re fe r to

Excursus

711

th e d e se c ra tio n o f th e te m p le a n d th e d es tru c tio n o f Je ru sa le m p ro p h e s ie d in v 2 a n d p ro b ab ly re fe rre d to in vv 15-22 if n o t also vv 2 3 -2 8 (see Comment for th e se two passages) o r (2) a y et fu tu re e x p e rie n c e o f g re a t suffering, a n in ten sificatio n o f th e su ffering o f th e in te rim era, to b e e x p e rie n c e d ju s t p rio r to th e parousia, o f w h ich th e ju d g m e n t o f Je ru sa le m is only a foresh ad o w in g . T h e first in te rp re ta tio n w o u ld seem to have th e clea r ad vantage, given th e co n tex t, w ere it n o t fo r th e d ecid ed ly co m p lic atin g p re se n c e o f M atth ew ’s a d d e d ευθέως, “im m ediately.” Excursus: Imm inence, Delay, a n d M atthew's ευθ έω ς R unning through the the prophecies o f eschatological or quasi-eschatological events in the Gospel of Matthew are strands o f im m inence an d delay. O ne o f the greatest challenges for the interp reter is to bring these diverse strands together, and that is also the particular challenge of the present discourse. In regard to the length o f time itself, several o f the im m inence sayings in Matthew fit the fall of Jerusalem particularly well. Thus the references to “this generation” n o t passing before some predicted event takes place (23:36; 24:34) an d also the reference to “some standing here who will n o t taste death before . . . ” (16:28) make especially good sense if they refer to the approxim ately forty years between the time o f Jesus and the fall o f Jerusalem . Possibly also 10:23 is to be und ersto o d in the same way. References to the parousia and the accom panying final judgm ent, on the other hand, contain a consistent note o f delay. We may point, for example, to 24:6, 8 b ut particularly to the parables o f chaps. 24 and 25 (see esp. 24:48: “my m aster is delayed”; 25:5: “the bridegroom was delayed”; and 25:19: “after a long tim e”). In agreem ent with this m otif o f delay are such things as the choosing o f the twelve (4:19), the building of the church (16:18-19; 18:18), the n eed to proclaim the gospel to the nations (24:14; 28:19), and Jesus’ prom ise to be with his people to the end of the age (28:20). These verses presuppose an interim period of unspecified length between the death of Jesus and the parousia, although the evangelist may well have believed that the period of forty years satisfied the various requirem ents, including the preaching o f the gospel to the nations (cf. P aul’s view in Rom 10:18). H e also may have regarded the interim as sufficiently long to account for the delay passages. Two key facts provide the basis for understanding these com plex data. T he first of these is the statem ent of Jesus in 24:32 (= Mark 13:32) that “about th at day and h our no one knows, n eith er the angels of heaven, n o r the Son, b u t only the F ather”—a statem en t th at the early church can hardly have created. This overt statem ent concerning Jesus’ own ignorance o f the tim e of the parousia makes it virtually impossible th at he ever him self spoke o f the im m inence o f that event. T he second key fact is th at the disciples were unable to conceive o f the fall o f Jerusalem ap art from the occurrence of the parousia an d the en d o f the age (as the question o f 24:3 indicates). In light o f these two facts, the following conclusion becom es plausible. A lthough Jesus taught the immin e n t fall o f Jerusalem , he did n o t teach the im m inence of the parousia, leaving the latter to the und eterm in ed future (cf. the sayings about the impossibility o f knowing the tim e o f the parousia and about the consequent n eed for being constantly ready: e.g., 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13). T he disciples, however, upo n hearing the prophecy of the destruction of the tem ple, tho u g h t imm ediately o f the parousia and the end of the age. Knowing th at Jesus had taught the im m inence o f the fall o f the temple, they naturally assumed the im m inence of the parousia. In their minds, the two were inseparable. Consequently, the im m inence that was a p art o f the destruction o f the tem ple p ro p h ecy now becam e attached to the parousia itself, and they began to speak of both as im m inent.

712

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :2 9 -3 6

We are now in a position to u nderstand M atthew’s redactional insertion of εύθεως, “imm ediately,” in v 29. H e m eans th at im m ediately (not simply “very soon after” as B runer argues) after the destruction and desecration of the tem ple the parousia is to be expected. This, as we have argued, is only conceivable if the evangelist writes before and n o t after A.D. 70. To be sure, the material concerning the uncertainty o f the time of the parousia noted above has n o t been integrated into the statem ent m ade by the evangelist here. No hypothesis, however, is able to dissolve completely the tensions that lie in the m aterial of the discourse. In my opinion the evangelist uses m aterial from Jesus that is n o t finally com patible with the association o f the parousia with the fall of Jerusalem . It n ee d hardly be said th at the words μ ε τ ά τη ν Θλΐψιν των ήμερων εκείνων, “after the suffering o f those days,” governed by M atthew’s “im m ediately,” have been u n d ersto o d very differently. T he futurist interp retatio n is the m ain rival to the view taken here. A priori convictions concerning a late, post A.D. 70 date together with the inserted “imm ediately” necessitate seeing the in ten d ed tribulation as a yet future one. T hus com m only w 15-28 are taken, as we have seen, to refer to an eschatological tribulation and the com ing o f the Antichrist, as in 2 Thess 2:3-4 (as, e.g., McNeile, G rundm ann, Hill, Schweizer, G undry, Patte, and H arrington; cf. B urnett, B roer [who tries to soften M atthew ’s “im m ediately” to m ean “still within this g en eratio n ” (218)]). This conclusion m eans, however, th at no answer is given in the discourse to the initial question co ncerning th e fall o f Jerusalem and th at the discourse therefore has no relevance to the original readers of the Gospel. T he setting up of the desolating abom ination in the tem ple m ust also on this view either anticipate the rebuilding of the tem ple (referred to specifically in M atthew’s redaction) or be taken metaphorically, and unnaturally, as referring to som ething such as the Holy L and o r the com m unity o f God. It is fu rth erm ore hardly legitim ate to read the passage in the light of 2 Thess 2:3-4, a passage th at is based on the present m aterial in oral form . O th er scholars, while allowing th at vv 15-22 refer to the fall of Jerusalem , in o rd er to accom m odate the “im m ediately” o f v 29 take w 23-28 as referring to some other, la te r tim e ju s t p rio r to th e eschaton (cf. M orris; B lom berg; Carson: “th e en tire interadvent p eriod of thlipsis”) . It is clear, however, th at the co n ten t o f vv 23-28 co rresponds closely to th at o f w 4-14. These verses, which speak only vaguely o f the d anger of pseudo-messiahs and false prophets, effectively fram e the only reference to a specific event in the whole o f w 4-28, namely, vv 15-22 with th eir reference to the desecration of the tem ple an d the accom panying instructions ab o u t fleeing. It is very difficult to believe th at the words “imm ediately after the tribulation o f those days” refer only to som ething general in the ind eterm in ate future. R ather th an something vague, the words seem to require a specific antecedent (note both the definite article τή ν and the dem onstrative p ro n o u n εκείνων). T he only specific item in the p receding context th at could correspond to “the suffering o f those days” is the desecration o f th e tem ple referred to in v 15. Finally, m ention should be m ade o f those who find a deliberate double reference in vv 15-28, both to the fall of Jerusalem and to the sufferings o f the en d tim e an d the A ntichrist (e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St Mark [Cam bridge: Camb ridge UP, 1966] 402); Ford, The Abomination of Desolation; A gbanou, Le discours eschatologique; Meier; B ru n er). While it is indeed true th at from ou r perspective we may see a double reference in the m aterial, it is extremely unlikely that the evangelist had any such thing in m ind. T he “im m ediately” of v 29, however, leaves no tim e for a secondary reference to som ething in the future that m ust precede the parousia. But ju st as Jesus and the evangelist had no trouble applying the symbolism of Daniel to the fall of Jerusalem yet to occur, so may we perceive the fall of Jerusalem as an anticipation of the final judgm ent. T he desolating sacrilege of 24:15 and a tim e of indescribable suffering th at is cut short only for the sake o f the elect can easily suggest to us a tim e of

Comment

713

future crisis that truly brings us to the brink of the eschaton. W ith Paul we can see the im agery as pointing ultimately to the Antichrist of the en d of tim e (2 Thess 2:3-4). M atthew’s “im m ediately,” however, indicates that he th o u g h t o f the e n d as im m inent, as the concluding com ponent of the destruction of Jerusalem . (For a fuller treatm en t of this subject, see Hagner, “Im m inence and Parousia in the Gospel of Matthew.”) For solid refutation of the Dispensationalist u nderstanding o f this m aterial, see C arson’s and B ru n er’s perceptive remarks. T h e lin e s u s e d to d e s c rib e th e c h a n g e s in th e su n , m o o n a n d stars a re d raw n fro m th e la n g u a g e o f th e LX X . T h u s th e r e f e r e n c e to th e su n b e in g d a r k e n e d a n d th e m o o n n o t g iving its lig h t is ta k e n fro m th e ap o c a ly p tic m a te ria l o f Isa 13:10 (th e o n ly sig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e is M a tth e w ’s sy nonym φ έ γ γ ο ς [cf. J o e l 2:10 a n d 4:15] fo r φ ω ς, “lig h t”). A lth o u g h Isa 13:10 also m e n tio n s th e stars n o t giv in g th e ir lig h t, M a tth e w n e x t a llu d e s to th e L X X o f Isa 34:4: “all th e stars will fall [ π ε σ ε ΐτ α ι] lik e leaves fro m a v in e a n d as leaves fall fro m a fig tre e [άπό συκής] ” (w ith th is last p o in t, cf. th e fig tre e p a r a b le o f w 3 2 -3 3 ). O n ly M a tth e w ’s ά π ό τ ο ν ούρανοϋ, “fro m th e sky,” a d d e d to c o m p le te th e sen se, is n o t v erb ally p a r a lle le d in th e se L X X passages. T h e f o u r th lin e , καί at δ υ ν ά μ ε ις τω ν ούρανώ ν σ α λ ευ θ ή σ ο ν τα ι, “a n d th e p o w ers o f h e a v e n will b e s h a k e n ,” fin d s n o d ir e c t p a ra lle l in th e O T b u t is sim ila r to th e s ta te m e n t in J o e l 2:10: “th e h e a v e n will b e s h a k e n ” (σ ε ισ θ ή σ ε τ α ι); cf. Isa 34:4: “th e h e a v e n will b e r o lle d u p lik e a sc ro ll” (cf. Isa 13:13; H a g 2:6; 2:21: “I will sh a k e [σείω] th e h e a v e n s ”). M a tth e w ’s r e f e r e n c e to a i δ υ ν ά μ ε ις , “th e p o w e rs,” o f h e a v e n is p ro b a b ly n o t a r e f e r e n c e to sp iritu a l b e in g s (as is p ro b a b ly th e case in R o m 8:38; E p h 1:21; 1 P e te r 3:22) b u t, in k e e p in g w ith th e first th r e e lin es, a f u r th e r re f e r e n c e to th e o b je cts o f th e sky. As G. R. B easley-M urray (A Commentary on M ark Thirteen [L o n d o n : M a cm illan , 1957] 87) p o in ts o u t, in so m e w itnesses to th e L X X te x t (B L) o f Isa 34:4 th e sam e H e b re w e x p re ssio n , k o l - s e b ä is a lte rn a te ly tra n s la te d π ά σ α ι a i δ υ ν ά μ ε ις , “all th e p o w e rs,” a n d π ά ν τα τ ά ά σ τ ε pa, “all th e sta rs .” T h e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an , in sh o rt, will b e a tte n d e d by u n u s u a l p h e n o m e n a in th e sky. A pocalyptic im a g e ry o f this s o rt b e c a m e c o m m o n ly u s e d in d e p ic tin g th e c o m in g o f e s c h a to lo g ic a l ju d g m e n t (in a d d itio n to p assag es a lre a d y c ite d , see A m o s 8:9; E zek 3 2 :7 -8 ; 1 Enoch 8 0 :2 -8 ; 102:2; 2 E sd r 5 :4 -5 ; see H a g n e r, N ID N T T 3 :7 3 0 -3 7 ). 30 W h e n M a tth e w in tr o d u c e s th e re f e r e n c e to th e a p p e a r a n c e o f το σ η μ ε ΐο ν το υ υίου το υ άνθρω πον ε ν ούρανω , “th e sign o f th e S o n o f M an in h e a v e n ,” w ith τ ό τ ε , “th e n ,” a n d in tr o d u c e s th e fo llo w in g r e f e r e n c e to th e a c tu a l c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an w ith a n o th e r τ ό τ ε , h e m a k es it im p o ssib le to ta k e th e sign as e ith e r th e p h e n o m e n a in th e sky o f v 29 o r as itse lf (as a n a p p o s itio n a l g en itiv e ) th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an m e n tio n e d in th e last h a lf o f th e p r e s e n t v erse (c o n tr a G u n d ry ; B r u n e r ) . M a tth e w th u s a p p a re n tly r e g a rd s th e a p p e a r in g o f th e sign o f th e S o n o f M an as s o m e th in g in d e p e n d e n t o f b o th , b u t if so, it is v ery d iffic u lt to k n o w w h a t h e h a d in m in d . It is obviously so m e f u r th e r s p e c ta c u la r e v e n t th a t w ill by its c o n s p ic u o u s n e s s a l e r t th e w o rld to w h a t im m e d ia te ly follow s, th e p a ro u s ia its e lf (cf. th e q u e s tio n o f v 3). P ossibly th e “s ig n ” is th e se ttin g u p o f an “e n s ig n ,” w h ic h is o fte n m e n tio n e d (see, e.g ., Isa 18:3; 49:22; J e r 4:21; 1Q M 2:15— 4:17) to g e th e r w ith a tr u m p e t call ( th u s G lasso n , S chw eizer, H ill). T h e ea rly c h u r c h ev e n tu a lly id e n tifie d th e sig n as th e cro ss (see Apocalypse o f Peter 1; Epistula Apostolorum 16; so to o H ig g in s), n a tu ra lly id e n tify in g its sym bol w ith th e sign o f

714

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :2 9 -3 6

th e S o n o f M an , b u t its view lik e ev e ry o th e r m u s t r e m a in sp e c u la tiv e (fo r d isc u ssio n see K. H . R e n g sto rf, T D N T 7 :2 3 6 -3 8 ). F o llo w in g th e s e c o n d τ ό τ ε , “th e n ,” is th e re f e r e n c e to th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n , b u t th is is p r e c e d e d , p ro b a b ly fo r e m p h a sis, by th e r e f e r e n c e to th e m o u r n in g o f “all th e trib e s o f th e e a r t h ” ( π α σ α ι αί φ νλα ΐ τ ή ς γ η ς ) , u n iq u e to M atthew . T h is la n g u a g e is virtually th e sa m e as th a t o f Z ec h 1 2 :1 0 -1 4 (w h e re b o th th e sa m e v e rb as in M atthew , κ ό φ ε τα ι, “m o u r n ,” a n d th e p h r a s e π α σ α ι a l φ υλα ί, “all th e trib e s ,” as w ell as ή γη , h e r e m e a n t as “th e la n d [o f I s r a e l] ,” o c c u r— th is in c o n n e c tio n w ith lo o k in g o n “m e w h o m th e y h av e p ie r c e d ” [LX X : “m o c k e d ”] ). I n k e e p in g w ith M a tth e w ’s u n iv e rsa l p e rsp e c tiv e , th e trib e s o f th e e a r th , w h ic h in th e O T o rig in a lly m e a n t th e trib e s o f Isra el, a re to b e u n d e r s to o d as all th e n a tio n s o f th e e a r th (cf. 2 5 :3 2 ). T h e sa m e c o m b in a tio n o f Z e c h 1 2 :1 0 -1 4 a n d th e D a n 7:13 r e f e r e n c e to th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n is f o u n d in R ev 1:7, w h ic h su g g ests th a t th e c o m b in a tio n d e p e n d s u p o n early C h ristia n tr a d itio n r a th e r th a n u p o n a c o m m o n so u rc e . T h e a c tu a l a s se rtio n c o n c e r n in g th e p a r o u s ia is m a d e u sin g th e w o rd s fro m D a n 7:13, q u o te d a g a in in th e G o sp e l in 26:64 a n d a llu d e d to e a r lie r in 10:23. C a rs o n is q u ite c o r r e c t in d e n y in g an y o b sta c le to u n d e r s ta n d in g D a n 7 :1 3 -1 4 as a r e f e r e n c e to th e p a ro u s ia , i.e., C h ris t’s r e tu r n to th e e a r th . H e r e a lo n e is m e n tio n m a d e o f μ ε τ ά δ ν ν ά μ εω ς καί δ ό ξ η ς π ο λλή ς, “w ith p o w e r a n d g r e a t g lo ry ,” w h ic h is im p lie d a lre a d y in th e w o rd s o f D a n ie l, ε π ί τω ν νεφ ελώ ν τ ο ν ουρανού, “u p o n th e c lo u d s o f h e a v e n .” T h e a tte m p t o f T asker, S. B ro w n ( ‘T h e M a tth e a n A p o c a ly p se ”), F ra n c e , a n d G a rla n d to u n d e r s ta n d th e s e w o rd s as re fe rr in g n o t to th e p a ro u s ia b u t to th e fall o f J e ru s a le m in A.D. 70 is h a rd ly co n v in cin g . I t is a p p a r e n tly fo rc e d by M a tth e w ’s “im m e d ia te ly ” b u t g o e s a g a in st th e n o r m a l u se o f th e la n g u a g e (see W e n h a m ’s c ritiq u e ) . T h e p a r o u s ia o f th e S o n o f M an h a s th e m a rk s o f a th e o p h a n y , h e r e h e ig h te n e d by th e e s c h a to lo g ic a l a n d th u s c o n s u m m a tiv e c h a r a c te r o f th is ev e n t. T h e m o u r n in g o f h u m a n ity b e f o r e th e p r o s p e c t o f th e im m in e n t ju d g m e n t th a t m u s t a c c o m p a n y th is e v e n t is re a d ily c o m p re h e n s ib le (cf. 16:27, w h e re th e g lo ry o f th e r e tu r n o f th e S o n o f M an is also c o n n e c te d w ith ju d g m e n t; see to o 2 T h e ss 1 :7 -8 ). 31 A p a r t o f th e e n d -tim e e x p e c ta tio n o f Isra e l w as th e g a th e r in g o f th e d isp e r s e d p e o p le o f G o d fro m th e f o u r c o r n e rs o f th e e a r th (see, e.g ., D e u t 30:4; Isa 60:4; J e r 32:37; E zek 34:13; 3 6 :2 4 ). M a tth e w ’s la n g u a g e ( ε κ τω ν τεσ σ ά ρ ω ν ά ν εμ ω ν ά π ’ άκρω ν ουρανώ ν έω ς [των] άκρω ν αυτώ ν, lit. “fro m th e f o u r w inds, fro m th e e n d s o f h e a v e n to its e n d s ”) is close to th a t o f th e L X X o f Z e c h 2:10: ε κ τώ ν τεσ σ ά ρ ω ν ά ν εμ ω ν το ύ ουρανού συνάξω υμ ά ς, λ έ γ ε ι κ ύ ρ ιο ς, “fro m th e f o u r w in d s o f h e a v e n I w ill g a th e r y o u , says th e L o r d .” T h e p o in t o f M a tth e w ’s (lik e M a rk ’s) s ta te m e n t is th e c o m p re h e n s iv e n e s s o r u n iv e rsa lity o f th e g a th e r in g o f th e saints. T h e in v o lv e m e n t o f th e a n g e ls in th is e s c h a to lo g ic a l g a th e r in g o f th e p e o p le is r e f e r r e d to also in 13:41; 16:27; 2 5 :3 1 -3 2 , w h e re , how ever, in e a c h case th e g a th e r in g c o n c e r n s th e ju d g m e n t o f th e w ick e d (a tw o fo ld g a th e r in g , fo r ju d g m e n t a n d b le ssin g , is f o u n d in 13:30, b u t th e g a th e r in g o f th e rig h te o u s re m a in s im p lic it in 13:41; cf. J o h n 11:52). T h e g a th e r in g o f th e ε κ λ ε κ το ύ ς , “e le c t” (see to o 22:14; 24:22, 2 4 ), re fe rs h e r e n o t sim ply to th e g a th e r in g o f Isra e l b u t to th e g a th e r in g o f C h ris tia n d isc ip le s, b o th Jew s a n d G en tiles. T h e re f e r e n c e to th e b lo w in g o f a g r e a t σ ά λ π ιγ γ ο ς , “tr u m p e t” ( th e w o rd o c c u rs in M a tth e w o n ly h e r e ) , in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e g a th e r in g o f th e r ig h te o u s is f o u n d in Isa 27:13 (in th e N T a

Comment

715

r e f e r e n c e to th e e sc h a to lo g ic a l tr u m p e t o c c u rs in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e d e s c e n t o f th e L o rd fro m h e a v e n in 1 T h e ss 4:16; th e r e as in 1 C o r 15:52 th e tr u m p e t is a s so c ia te d w ith th e re s u r re c tio n o f th e d e a d , w h ic h M a tth e w m a k e s n o m e n tio n o f h e r e ) . W ith th e g lo rio u s c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an will b e th e g a th e r in g o f th e rig h te o u s a n d th e ir s u b s e q u e n t v in d ic a tio n a n d re w a rd (cf. 2 5:34). 3 2 -3 3 T h e p o in t o f th e p a ra b le o f th e fig tre e is a sim p le o n e . W h e n a fig tre e b eg in s to s p ro u t leaves, o n e know s th a t s u m m e r is n ear. In th e sam e way, w h en c e rta in ev en ts tak e p la ce , o n e m ay k n o w th a t th e e n d is n ear. Yet th e c o m p o n e n ts o f th e an alo g y (v 33) a re d ifficu lt to u n d e rs ta n d . M a tth e w ’s π ά ν τα ra v ra , “all th e se th in g s ” (cf. M a rk ’s sim p le ravra,, “th e se th in g s”), sh o u ld p ro b a b ly b e ta k en to in c lu d e ev e ry th in g sp o k e n o f in w 4 -2 8 , th a t is, all th e signs p r io r to th e p aro u sia , in c lu d in g th e fall o f Je ru sa le m . T h e exegesis o f th is p h ra s e c a n n o t b e se p a ra te d fro m th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e fin al clau se o f v 33, ε γ γ ύ ς έ σ τ ι ν έ π ί θύραις, “h e [possibly: ‘i t ’] is n e a r , a t th e d o o r s , ” w h ic h in t u r n m a y b e g o v e r n e d b y th e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f v 34. W ith th e im m ed ia te ly p re c e d in g c o n te x t o f th is p a ra b le re fe rrin g so u n m istak a b ly to th e p a ro u sia o f th e S o n o f M an, th e m o st n a tu ra l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f “h e (it) is n ear, a t th e d o o rs ” (fo r th is e x p re ssio n , re fe rrin g to th e esch a to lo g ic al J u d g e , cf. Ja s 5:9) is th a t it refers to th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an. B u t ju s t as th e sp ro u tin g fig tre e in d ic a te s th a t su m m e r is n e a r b u t n o t y et p re se n t, so th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an is n e a r b u t n o t y et p re se n t. T h e π ά ν τα r a v r a , “all th e se th in g s ,” c a n n o t in c lu d e th e p a ro u sia itself; th e y m e a n m e re ly th a t all is in rea d in ess. T h e c o m in g o f th e S on o f M an m ay o c c u r a t an y tim e. 34 T h e π ά ν τ α r a v r a , “all th e se th in g s ,” o f th is v erse c a n in c lu d e n o m o re th a n th e sam e p h r a s e in th e p r e c e d in g verse a n d th u s c a n n o t in c lu d e th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n (so to o B lo m b e rg ). T h e p h r a s e re fe rs n o t o n ly to g e n e ra l m a rk s o f th e in te r im p e r io d su c h as tr ib u la tio n , d istress, p se u d o -m e ssia h s, a n d false p r o p h e ts b u t specifically, a n d d ram atically , to th e d e s e c ra tio n o f th e te m p le a n d th e d e s tru c tio n o f J e ru s a le m (cf. vv 1 5 -2 2 ). As in th e o th e r im m in e n c e sayin g s (cf. 16:28; 10:23, 23:3 6 ), all o f w h ic h like th e p r e s e n t lo g io n a re p r e f a c e d by th e e m p h a tic ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ϊν , “tru ly I tell y o u ,” fo rm u la , th e m a in p o in t is th a t th e fall o f J e ru s a le m was to b e e x p e r ie n c e d by that g e n e r a tio n {pace K id d e r), th o se lis te n in g th e r e a n d th e n to th e te a c h in g o f Je s u s ( ή γ ε ν ε ά α ϋ τ η , “th is g e n e r a tio n ,” is u s e d c o n siste n tly in th e G o sp el to r e f e r to J e s u s ’ c o n te m p o ra rie s ; cf. 11:16; 1 2 :4 1 -4 2 , 45; 23:3 6 ). T h e a tte m p t to e x p la in ή γ ε ν ε ά α ν τη , “th is g e n e r a tio n ,” as th e g e n e r a tio n alive a t th e tim e o f th e p a ro u s ia o r m o r e g e n e ra lly as th e h u m a n ra c e o r p e o p le o f G o d g o e s a g a in st th e n a tu ra l m e a n in g o f th e p h ra s e a n d m a k es th e w o rd s ir re le v a n t b o th to J e s u s ’ lis te n e rs a n d to M a tth e w ’s re a d e rs. T h e fac t th a t, as L ö v estam h a s sh o w n , th e e x p re ssio n clearly a llu d e s to a sin fu l g e n e ra tio n , o n e rip e fo r ju d g m e n t, fits th e fall o f J e ru s a le m ( a n d n o t m e re ly th e e n d o f th e ag e, w h ich is L ö v e sta m ’s c o n c lu s io n ). 35 T h is v erse is p a r e n th e tic a l, p e r h a p s h a v in g b e e n in itially su g g e ste d to th e ev a n g elist by th e p re v io u s r e f e r e n c e to th e p a ssin g o f “th is g e n e r a tio n .” H e a v e n a n d e a r th , se em in g ly so p e r m a n e n t, a re tra n s ito ry a n d a re d e s tin e d to pass away in th e ir p r e s e n t fo rm w ith th e d a w n in g o f th e e s c h a to n (cf. Isa 51:6; 2 P e te r 3:7, 1 1 -1 2 ). By c o n tra s t, th e w o rd s o f J e su s (ol δ ε λό γο ι μ ο ν, “b u t m y w o rd s”) will e n d u r e forever. T h e y a re th e re b y m a d e th e e q u iv a le n t o f th e w o rd o f G o d , w h ich is th e u su a l c o n tra s tin g e le m e n t in su c h s ta te m e n ts (e.g., Isa 40:8). In th e p r e s e n t

716

Ma t

t hew

2 4 :2 9 -3 6

c o n te x t, th e e m p h a sis falls n o t o n th e te a c h in g o f J e su s g e n e ra lly (as, e.g., in 7:24, 26) b u t o n th e a u th o rity a n d re lia b ility o f h is w o rd s c o n c e r n in g th e f u tu r e . T h o u g h all else o f th e p r e s e n t o r d e r w ill pass away, th e w o rd s o f J e su s will n o t fail. 36 In v ery stro n g c o n tra s t to th e em p h a sis in v 33 c o n c e r n in g w h a t can b e k n o w n — nam ely, th e e x p e rie n c e d signs o f th e in te rim u p to th e p o in t o f th e n e a rn ess o f th e p a ro u sia o f th e S o n o f M a n — th e p r e s e n t verse clearly in d ic a te s th e impossibility o f k n o w in g th e tim e o f th e S on o f M a n ’s c o m in g a n d th e e n d o f th e ag e in ad v a n ce o f th e ir a c tu a l o c c u rre n c e (cf. th e q u e s tio n o f v 3 c o n c e r n in g πότε, “w h e n ,” th e se ev en ts w o u ld o c c u r). T h is stress o n o u r ig n o ra n c e o f th e a c tu a l tim e o f th e p a ro u s ia c o n tin u e s th r o u g h th e n e x t several p e ric o p e s (cf. vv 39, 42, 44, 50; 25:13). τη ς ημέρας εκ είνη ς καί ώρας, “o f th a t day a n d h o u r ,” re fe rs to l e v e n t , th e clim actic r e tu r n o f th e S on o f M an, w h ich by th is fo rm u la (fo r “day a n d h o u r ,” see v 50; 25:13; “day a n d h o u r ” a re split in w 42, 44) is said to b e b e y o n d h u m a n d e te rm in a tio n alto g e th e r, a n d n o t ju s t partially, e.g., so th a t, say, th e m o n th o r y ea r could, b e k n o w n (rig h tly M e in ertz, L övestam , C a rso n , B lo m b e rg ). W h a t is so re m a rk a b le in th e p r e s e n t verse is th e s ta te m e n t th a t “n e ith e r th e an g e ls o f h e a v e n n o r th e S on [ουδέ ό υιός] ” k n o w th e tim e o f th e p a ro u sia . I t is little w o n d e r th a t m a n y copyists (h e re , as in th e M a rk a n p ara llel) o m itte d th is re fe re n c e to th e ig n o ra n c e o f th e S o n as se em in g ly in c o m p a tib le w ith th e C h risto lo g y o f th e early c h u rc h . T h e o m n is c ie n c e o f th e S o n , h o w e v e r, is n o t a r e q u i r e m e n t o f M a tth e w ’s v e ry h ig h C hristology, a n d th e ig n o ra n c e o f th e S on o n a m a tte r su c h as this is c o m p a tib le w ith th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f a k en o sis d o c trin e (i.e., a n “e m p ty in g ” o f d ivine p re r o g a tives) su c h as P a u l (P h il 2 :6 -8 ) a n d his p re d e c e s so rs h a d alre ad y d e v e lo p e d — a n d w ith w h ich M atthew , w ith his e m b ra c in g o f th e full h u m a n ity o f Je su s, w o u ld n o d o u b t h av e b e e n q u ite c o m fo rta b le . T h e tim e o f th e c o m in g o f th e S on o f M an is in th e k e e p in g o f “th e F a th e r a lo n e ” (ό πατήρ μόνος-, cf. A cts 1:7; fo r O T b ac k g r o u n d , see th e L X X o f Z ech 14:7: “th e re will b e o n e day, a n d th a t day is k n o w n to th e L o rd [γνω στή τω κυρίω]”; cf. 2Apoc. Bar. 21:8). Explanation H isto ry will b e full o f su ffe rin g a n d evil, in c lu d in g th e c a ta stro p h e o f th e fall o f J e ru s a le m , th a t will se em to h e r a ld th e e s c h a to n a n d th e c o m in g o f th e p ro m is e d o n e . B u t th e c o m in g o f th e S on o f M an, w h e n it o cc u rs, will b e so sta rtlin g a n d co n sp ic u o u s, so g lo rio u s a n d g rea t, th a t it will n e e d n o p ro c la im e rs a n d n o in te rp r e ta tio n . In a g r e e m e n t w ith ap o c a ly p tic e x p e c ta tio n o f th e first c e n tu ry , th e n a tio n s will m o u r n th e p ro s p e c t o f th e ir ju d g m e n t w h ile th e e le c t will b e g a th e r e d to g e th e r in jo y fu l a n tic ip a tio n o f e n te r in g in to th e ir in h e rita n c e . W h a t m u s t b e d iffe re n tia te d , how ever, a re th e signs o f th e a p p r o a c h o f th e e s c h a to n a n d th e e s c h a to n itself. T h e f o rm e r c a n b e k n o w n w ith all ce rtain ty ; th e tim e o f th e la tte r re m a in s h id d e n . C o n seq u en tly , every g e n e ra tio n since th e tim e o f Je su s h as b e e n c o n f r o n te d w ith th e reality o f signs p o in tin g to th e e n d , a n d th e S o n o f M an c o u ld have c o m e to any o f th o se g e n e ra tio n s , in c lu d in g th e p r e s e n t g e n e ra tio n . B u t th e a c tu a l tim e o f th e p a ro u s ia a n d th e e n d o f th e ag e is k n o w n o n ly to G o d . U n c e rtain ty c o n c e r n in g th e tim e is in a sen se a non-issue; th e fact o f th e f u tu re r e tu r n o f th e S o n o f M an is w h a t c o u n ts. T h e in fo rm a tio n th a t is available to u s is in te n d e d n o t fo r its ow n sake, o r to satisfy o u r cu riosity a b o u t th e fu tu re , o r to e n a b le us to

Notes

717

re la x u n til ju s t b e fo re th e event. In ste a d , w h a t we ca n know, th e signs th a t we can d isc e rn — e v e ry th in g th a t p o in ts to th e a p p a r e n t im m in e n c e o f th e e n d — all o f this is m e a n t, as th e follow ing p e ric o p e s will show, to m o tiv ate u s to a p p ro p ria te c o n d u c t in th e p re se n t. N T te a c h in g a b o u t esch ato lo g y fin d s its p r o p e r o u tc o m e in e th ic a l living r a th e r th a n in th e sp e c u la tio n s o f so-called p ro p h e c y co n fe re n c e s.

U n c e r ta in ly c o n c e r n in g th e T im e o f th e R e tu r n o f th e S o n o f M a n

(2 4 :3 7 -4 4 )

B ibliography Bauckham, R. “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” N TS 23 (1977) 165-69. Falke, J. “‘Bei der W iederkunft des M enschensohnes’: Eine M editation zu Mt 24,36-42.” BibLeb 6 (1965) 208-12. Geoltrain, P. “Dans l’ignorance d u jour, veillez.” AsSeign b (1969) 17-29. Gollinger, H. ‘“Ih r wisst nicht, an welchem Tag euer H err kom m t’: Auslegung von Mt 24,37-51.” BibLeb11 (1970) 238-47. Lövestam, E. ‘T h e Parable of the T hief at N ight.” In Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. LUA n.s. 1.55.3. Lund: G leerup, 1963. 95-107. Strobel, A. “Das Gleichnis vom nächtlichen E inbrecher (Mt 24,43f).” In Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. Leiden: Brill, 1961. 207-15. Walvoord, J. F. “Is Posttribulational Rapture Revealed in Matt 24?” GTJ6 (1985) 257-66. Translation 37“For ju s t as the days o f Noah were, thus it will bea in the time o fb the parousia o f the Son o f M an. 38For as they were in [those]c days before the flood, eating and drinking, m arrying a n d g iv in g their children in marriage, u n til the day N oah entered the ark— 39and they did not know u n til the flood came a nd destroyede all o f them— thus will be [also] f the parousia o f the Son o f M a n . 40 Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken a nd one will be left. 41 Two women will be grin d in g at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.g 42Watch, therefore, because you do not know on w hat d a y h your Lord is coming. 43B u t know this: that i f the master o f the house had know n in which night-watch the thief was coming; he would have watched a n d would not have permitted him to break into his house. 44Because o f this you yourselves m ust also be ready, because in an hour you do not expect, the Son o f M a n is coming. ” N otes a Many MSS, perhaps influenced by the καί in v 39b, add καί, “also” (D W Θ / us TR lat syh). b “In the time o f’ added for clarity. c έκ€ίναι.ς, “those,” is omitted by N L W Θ / 1,13 TR lat mae bo, resulting in the reading “the days.” Including έκζίναις are B D it sa, and thus the word is retained by the UBSGNT, but in brackets. d “Their children” added. e Tjpev, lit. “swept away.”

718

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :3 7 -4 4

f Some MSS omit καί, “also,” here (B D it vgmss sy8?11co), perhaps by the influence of v 37 (see Note a). Including the καί are K L W Θ / us TR lat sy\ The UBSGNTindicates the difficulty of deciding the question by including the word in brackets. s D f u it vg8add “two will be in one bed; one will be taken and one will be left,” which is taken nearly verbatim from the parallel in Luke 17:34. h Many MSS (KL Γ TR lat sy8* sams bopt) have ώρα, “hour,” instead of “day,” perhaps by harmonization with v 44. F o rm /Structure/Settin g A. D e p a rtin g fro m M ark, M atth ew n o w a d d s th r e e p e ric o p e s (vv 3 7 -4 4 ; 4 5 -5 1 ; 2 5 :1 -1 3 ) th a t serv e to illu strate th e tr u th o f th e ce n trally im p o r ta n t lo g io n o f v 36. T h e m o tif th r o u g h o u t th e se passages is th e u n c e rta in ty o f th e tim e o f th e p a ro u sia a n d th e ac c o m p a n y in g e n d o f th e age. As B lo m b e rg astu tely o b serv es, in th e first p a ra b le (vv 3 7 -4 1 ) th e r e tu r n o f C h rist is c o m p le te ly u n e x p e c te d , w h ile in th e seco n d (vv 4 5 -5 1 ) th e r e tu r n is s o o n e r th a n e x p e c te d a n d in th e th ir d (2 5 :1 -1 3 ) it is la te r th a n e x p e c te d . S ince th e tim e o f th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an c a n n o t b e k n o w n , C h ristian s a re ca lle d to b e in a sta te o f c o n tin u o u s rea d in ess. T h u s th e b u rd e n o f th e e sc h a to lo g ic a l d isc o u rse b e c o m e s th e m o tiv a tio n o f th e C h r is tia n ’s c o n d u c t. T h is eth ic a l em p h a sis d o m in a te s to th e e n d o f th e d isco u rse. B. E x c e p t fo r th e lo g io n o f v 42, w h ich is d raw n fro m M ark 13:35, M a tth e w a p p a re n tly draw s o n Q fo r this p assage (cf. L u k e 17:26-35; 1 2 :3 9 -4 0 ). F o r w 3 7 -3 9 th e follow ing re d a c tio n a l c h a n g e s m ay b e n o te d . F o r Q ’s “in th e day(s) o f ’ th e c o m in g o r rev e latio n o f th e S on o f M an (L u k e 17:26, 30) M a tth e w tw ice su b stitu te s th e te c h n ic a l ex p re ssio n παρουσία, “p a ro u s ia ” (vv 37, 39; alre ad y u s e d in vv 3 a n d 2 7 ), o f th e S o n o f M an. M a tth e w ’s r e fe re n c e a t th e b e g in n in g o f v 38 to “as th ey w ere in [th o se] days b e fo re th e flo o d ,” w h ich w ith th e follow ing p r e s e n t p a rtic ip le s fo rm s a p e rip h ra s tic c o n s tru c tio n , m ay w ell b e a M a tth e a n a d d itio n to Q ( r a th e r th a n re fle c tin g a L u k a n d e le tio n o f th e m a te r ia l) , p e rh a p s to e m p h a siz e th e c o n tin u in g a c tio n a n d th u s th e u n e x p e c te d c a ta stro p h e o f th e flo o d , th e m e n tio n o f w h ich reflec ts M a tth e w ’s sp ecial e m p h a sis o n th e esch a to lo g ic al ju d g m e n t. O n e f u r th e r M a tth e a n a d d itio n seem s a p p a re n t, th e p a re n th e tic a l a n d aw kw ard καί ούκ εγνω σ α ν, “a n d th e y d id n o t k n o w ,” w h ich re p e a ts exactly th e m a in p o in t th a t M atth e w w an ts to e m p h a siz e in th e s e a n d th e fo llo w in g verses. M a tth e w p ro b a b ly ab b re v iate s Q b y o m ittin g th e m a te ria l in L u k e 1 7 :2 8 -2 9 c o n c e r n in g th e p a ra lle l in sta n c e o f L o t as w ell as th a t in L u k e 17:31-33, so m e o f w h ich h e h a s a lre ad y u s e d (cf. 2 4 :1 7 -1 8 , fo r w hich, how ever, h e is d e p e n d e n t o n M ark; cf. also 10:39). In vv 4 0 -4 1 M a tth e w follow s Q q u ite closely (cf. L u k e 1 7 :3 4 -3 5 ), c h a n g in g έ π ί κ λίνη ς, “in b e d ,” to έ ν τω άγρω, “in th e fie ld ,” a n d έπ ί τό αυτό, “to g e th e r,” to έ ν τω μύλω , “a t th e m ill,” a n d ab b re v iatin g Q slightly b u t p re se rv in g th e sy m m etrical p arallelism . In v 42, w h ich a p p e a rs to b e d e p e n d e n t o n M ark 13:35, M atth ew su b stitu te s th e n o n sp e c ific ποια ημέρα, “w h at day,” fo r M a rk ’s π ό τε, “w h e n ,” a n d υμών, “y o u r,” fo r τ η ς ο ικίας, “o f th e h o u s e ,” as th e m o d ifie r o f κύριος, “L o rd ,” since th e la tte r m ak es n o sen se a p a r t fro m th e M a rk a n c o n te x t. M atth ew o m its th e re m a in d e r o f M a rk ’s se n te n c e , “in th e ev e n in g , o r a t m id n ig h t, o r a t cockcrow , o r a t d a w n ,” a p p a re n tly re g a rd in g it as r e d u n d a n t a fte r “Wh a t day,” w h ich fo r M a tth ew is th e im p o r ta n t issue. Vv 43 a n d 44 a g a in follow Q fairly closely (in a d iffe re n t c o n te x t in L u k e; cf. L u k e 1 2 :3 9 -4 0 ). T h e fo llow ing a lte ra tio n s m ay b e n o te d . In v 43 M a tth ew p ro b a b ly

Comment

719

changes ώ ρα, “hour” (cf. Luke 12:39), to φ υλα κ ή , “watch” (given Luke 12:38, it is unlikely that Luke changed φ υ λ α κ ή to ώ ρα). In the same verse, Matthew inserts έ γ ρ η γ ό ρ η σ ε ν αν, “he would have watched,” picking up the verb in the exhortation of v 42. Finally, at the beginning of v 44 Matthew adds 8 ιά τ ο ύ τ ο , lit. “because of this,” in order to emphasize the concluding application. C. The basic components of the pericope are two analogies (vv 37-39, 43) and two exhortations (vv 42, 44), all related to the central point of the uncertainty of the time of the coming of the Son of Man. The following may be suggested as an outline: (1) the analogy with the days of Noah (vv 37-39); (2) the sudden separation (vv 40-41); (3) the key exhortation to “watch” (v 42); (4) the analogy of the thief (v 43); and (5) the concluding application (v 44). The first analogy consists of two parallel sentences that have exactly parallel main clauses, “thus will be the Parousia of the Son of Man,” and corresponding subordinate clauses (introduced by ώ σ π ε ρ /ώ ς , “as”), the second providing much fuller information to make the analogy understandable. Matthew has broken up the structure somewhat by his insertion of the parenthetical κ α ί ο ύ κ ε γ ν ω σ α ν , “and they did not know” (v 39), which is then awkwardly linked with the following εω ς, “until,” clause (which goes with the periphrastic construction more naturally). Within the subordinate clause of the second sentence, the four parallel present participles should be noted. Vv 40 and 41 present nearly exact symmetry, broken only by the feminine participle ά λ ή θ ο υ σ α ι, “grinding,” for the verb ε σ ο ν τ α ι , “will be.” D. Several motifs of this pericope are picked up in early Christian writings. Thus the coming of the Son “as a thief in the night” can be found in 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev 16:15; Gos. Thom . 21, 103. The exhortation to “watch” is found in 1 Thess 5:6; Rev 3:3; D id. 16:1; Gos. Thom . 21. The stress on the impossibility of knowing the time of the parousia is also found in Rev 3:3; D id . 16:1. Comment 37-39 The parousia of the Son of Man is likened to the suddenness with which Noah’s contemporaries were overwhelmed by the flood (see Gen 6:5-24). The judgm ent motif, though left implicit, is obviously also pertinent, for the coming of the Son of Man will mean judgm ent for the wicked. The term π α ρ ο υ σ ία , “parousia,” found only in Matthew in the Gospels, first occurs in the disciples’ question (v 3) and then in the clause ο ύ τω ς ε σ τ α ί ή π α ρ ο υ σ ία τ ο υ υ ιο ύ τ ο ύ άνθρώπου, “thus will be the coming of the Son of Man,” which becomes like a refrain, occurring in v 27 and twice here (vv 37, 39). Noah is referred to in Matthew only here (for the flood as a warning to later generations, see 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6). The periphrastic construction ( ε ί μ ί + present participle) stresses the ongoing activity mentioned in the four participles (all with the euphony of the same endings): τ ρ ώ γ ο ν τ ε ς κ α ί π ί ν ο ν τ ε ς , γ a μ ο υ ν τ έ ς κ α ί γ α μ ί ζ ο ν τ ε ς , “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in m arriage.” No special significance is to be read into these particular participles. They stand merely as indicators of the living of everyday, ordinary life. The people of Noah’s day were oblivious to all else than their own pleasurable living. And they had no inkling of the judgm ent that was to come upon them until it was too late: “they did not know [ο ύκ έ γ ν ω σ α ν (i.e., the imminent danger)] until the flood [κ α τ α κ λ υ σ μ ό ς ] came and swept them away.” The

720

Ma t t h e w 24:37-44

reference to Noah entering the ark in v 38 is very close to the language of the LXX of Gen 7:7. The parousia of the Son of Man will in a similar way come suddenly upon an unsuspecting generation that is carrying on its ordinary activities. This fact leads to the main exhortation of the passage in v 42. 40-41 At the time of the coming of the Son of Man there will be a division of humanity; some will be taken, some left behind. This is put very vividly in the reference to two men working in a field and two women grinding at the mill (the repeated μ ί α is fem inine). They are going about their normal activities, unaware of what is about to befall them, when suddenly one of them is taken and the other is left. Presumably those who are “taken” are among the elect whom the angels of the Son of Man are to gather at his coming (v 31), while those who are left await the prospect of judgment. The application of these verses is made clear in the exhortation that follows (note the ο ΰ ν , “therefore,” in the next verse). 42 The main purpose of this section of the discourse, from the present pericope (i.e., v 37) down to 25:13, which is a repetition of the exhortation of this verse, is to impress upon the disciples and the church the importance of being ready for the parousia when it occurs. Because the time of the event must remain unknown (cf. w 36, 44, 50; 25:13), the followers of Christ are to remain in a state of constant readiness, γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ϊ τ ε , “watch,” connotes not simply looking for but being prepared for the coming of the Son of Man. Thus the watching involves an active dimension, namely, the faithful, righteous conduct of the disciples (cf. v 46) that becomes the focus of the end of the discourse (cf. 25:14-46). For this sense of spiritual vigilance, cf. the use of γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ ν in 1 Cor 16:13; 1 Thess 5:6; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev 3:2-3; 16:15 (see esp. Lövestam). Reference to uncertainty concerning the η μ έ ρ α , “day,” is made also in vv 36, 50; 25:13. In the present passage the second element, the “hour,” is m entioned in v 44. This is the only place in Matthew where the expression κ ύ ρ ιο ς υμώ ν, “your Lord,” is used. 43 The further, simple analogy is drawn with the reference to the householder who would have watched had he known the time when the thief was going to break into his house. But since Christians cannot know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, it is implied that they must continuously watch, i.e., be always prepared, for his coming. From this logion of Jesus is drawn the image of his return as a thief in the night, where the point of comparison is, of course, only the sudden unexpectedness of his coming (cf. 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15). The language of the thief breaking in (same noun, κ λ έ π τ η ς , “thief,” and verb, δ ίο ρ ύ σ σ ε ιν , lit. “to dig through [a house wall of dried mud] ”) has been used earlier by Matthew in 6:19-20. The ο ικ ο δ ε σ π ό τ η ς , “master of a house,” also provides a num ber of analogies in Matthew (cf. 10:25; 13:27, 52; 20:1, 11; 21:33). Matthew’s noun φ υ λ α κ ή , “watch” (cf. 14:25), fits particularly well with the verb έ γ ρ η γ ό ρ η σ ε ν α ν, “he would have watched.” 44 A concluding application is made here, introduced by δ ιά τ ο ύ τ ο , “therefore” or lit. “on account of this.” Inasmuch as the situation of Christians is similar to that of the housemaster, who did not know the time in which the thief would come, they (the υ μ ε ί ς , “you,” is emphatic) are to be έ τ ο ιμ ο ί , “ready” (the word is used in the very same sense, but as a noun, in 25:10; the only other occurrences of the word in Matthew are in 22:4, 8). The reason for the necessity of this readiness is stipulated once again in the ö t l , “because,” clause, which reaffirms the

Bibliography

721

point already made in vv 36 and 42: the time of the parousia of the Son of Man cannot be known in advance. He is coming fj ο ύ δ ο κ ε ΐ τ ε ώ ρα , “in an hour you do not expect.” This is the only reference of this kind to ώ ρα , “hour,” alone and not to “day” too, probably because of the context provided by the preceding verse, where it is in an hour of the night that the thief breaks in. The “day” has been mentioned in v 42. Being “ready” here, as in the exhortation to “watch” in v 42 (and 25:13), means to be living righteously. Explanation

Although the world will have seen and experienced much that hints at the proximity of the eschaton, and perhaps precisely because of the pervasiveness of and the consequent inurem ent to, such “signs,” there will be no time to prepare for the parousia of the Son of Man. In fact, since the time of this event cannot be known in advance, it will catch many by surprise, and they will consequently not be “ready.” The exhortation to the disciples and the church, however, is to maintain themselves in a state of constant readiness. That is, disciples should be acting as disciples are supposed to act. Spiritual wakefulness, as Lövestam points out, means the living of life “in communion with the Lord and in faithfulness to him ” (106). They must not be embarrassed at the time of the parousia, whenever it may occur. And thus in Jesus’ eschatological discourse, at the beginning of the stream of eschatology in the the NT, eschatology and ethics are brought together. The NT writers, to their credit, never allow this connection to be broken. Eschatology is never presented for the sake of mere information but always and consistently as the motivation for ethical living. Again, the fact of the parousia, not the time of the parousia, is what matters. The evangelist stresses the need to be prepared for that coming reality.

The Faithfu l a nd W icked Servants

(24:45-51)

Bibliography B a u c k h a m , R . “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” N T S 23 (1977) 165-69. B e tz , O . “T he Dichotom ized Servant and the E nd of Judas Iscariot.” R e v Q 5 (1964) 43-58. D e w ey , A . J. “A P rophetic Pronouncem ent: Q 12:42-46.” Forum 5 (1989) 99-108. D u B u it, E M . “Les paraboles de l’A ttente et de la Miséricorde (Mt 24,43-44; 24,45-48; 25,14-30).” É vangile: Cahiers bibliques 49 (1968) 5-57. P e s c h , R ., and K ra tz , R . “Gleichnis vom guten u n d vom bösen K necht.” In So liest M a n synoptisch. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1978. 5:56166. S ch w a rz, G . “ τ η ν τροφ ήν ( [ τ ο] σ ιτ ο μ έ τ ρ ω ν ) έ ν καιρφ} Mt 24,45/L k 12,42.” BibNot 59 (1991) 44. S tro b e l, Α . “Das Gleichnis vom heim kehrenden H ausherrn u n d seinem K necht (Mt 24,45-51).” In Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961. 215-22. W eiser, A . “Das Gleichnis vom treu en u n d u n treu en Knecht: Mt 24,45-51 par Lk 12,42-46,47f.” In D ie Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. SANT

29. M unich: Kösel, 1971. 178-225.

722

Ma

t t h ew

2 4 :4 5 -5 1

Translation 45 “Who then are the fa ith fu l a n d wise serva n tsa whom theb master appointed over his household serva n tsc to give them their food at the right time? 46Blessed are those servants whom their master comes a n d fin d s doing thus. 47Truly I tell you that he will appoint them over all his possessions. 48B u t i f thosed evil servantse should say in their heart, ‘M y master delays his return, ,f 49a n d begin to beat their fellow servants, a n d eat a n d drin k with drunkards, 50the master o f those servants will come on a day which they do not expect a n d in an hour which they do not know, a n d he will cut them to pieces a n d p u t their inheritance am ong the hypocrites, where there will be weeping a n d the g rinding o f teeth. ” N otes a The sing, “servant” has been changed to the pl. (affecting also pronouns and related verbs) in order to avoid the masc. language. b Many MSS (W Θ f 13TR lat syh) add αύτον, “his.” c K q read οικίας, “house”; D f 1 TR e sy5read θεραπείας, “servant,” probably by influence of the parallel in Luke 12:42. The word here, οίκετείας, is “household,” by metonymy, “household servants.” d K* Γ Θ sys sa mae omit εκείνος, “that,” resulting in the reading “the (evil) servant.” e Sing, in the Gr. See Note a above. f “His return” added for clarity. Thus too, many MSS (W f [1]13TR latt sy mae bomss; and with slightly different word order, C D L Θ) add ό κύριός μου έλθεΐν, lit. “my master [delays] to come,” to complete the sense of the clause. Cf. the ερχεσθαι, “to come,” in the Lukan parallel (Luke 12:45). F o rm /Structure/Setting A. T h is is th e first o f a su c ce ssio n o f th r e e p assag es th a t h av e to d o w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f a p p r o p r ia te c o n d u c t (= w a tc h fu ln e ss) in th e p e r io d p r io r to th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an. T h e e m p h a sis in th is a n d th e s e c o n d p a r a b le (25:1— 13) re m a in s o n th e u n k n o w n a n d u n k n o w a b le tim e o f th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n (cf. v 50; 2 5 :1 3 ), w h e re a s th e g r e a t th ir d a p o c a ly p tic p assag e fo cu se s o n th e fin a l ju d g m e n t. B. M a tth e w p ro b a b ly draw s th e p e r ic o p e fro m Q (cf. L u k e 1 2 :4 2 -4 6 ), p r e f e r r in g it to th e o m itte d b r ie f p a ra b le o f M a rk 1 3 :3 4 -3 6 . T h e a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n M a tth e w a n d L u k e is q u ite close. T h e s e ttin g o f th e p a r a b le in L u k e 12:41 a n d th e in tr o d u c to r y f o rm u la καί ε ιπ ε ν ό κύριος, “a n d th e m a s te r s a id ” (L u k e 1 2 :4 2 ), w ere p ro b a b ly n o t a p a r t o f Q . T h e fo llo w in g m o re s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s b e tw ee n M a tth e w a n d L u k e m ay b e n o te d . In v 45 M a tth e w h as δούλος, “slave,” w h e re L u k e h a s οικονόμος, “ste w a rd ” (L u k e 12:42; b u t cf. δ ο ύλο ς in L u k e 12:45). I t is d iffic u lt to k n o w h e r e a n d in M a tth e w ’s ο ίκ ε τ β ία ς , “h o u s e h o ld se rv a n ts ” (L u k e: θ ερ α π εία ς, “s e rv a n ts ”), a n d τ η ν τροφήν, “f o o d ” (L u k e: [τό ] σ ιτ ο μ έ τ ρ ω ν , lit. “m e a s u re o f g r a in ”) , w h e th e r M a tth e w o r L u k e re fle c ts w h a t w as a c tu a lly in Q . In v 47, o n th e o th e r h a n d , M a tth e w ’s ά μ ή ν, lit. “a m e n ,” is p ro b a b ly a n a lte r a tio n o f Q ’s άληθώς, “tru ly ” (L u k e 12:44), to th e m o r e u su a l f o rm u la ic e x p re ssio n . In v 48 M a tth e w p ro b a b ly a lte rs Q in o r d e r to r e f e r to a s e c o n d s e rv a n t (cf. th e ε κ ε ίν ο ς in v 46) as th e κακός, “b a d ( o n e ) ,” as th e so m e w h a t clu m sy r e te n tio n o f ε κ ε ίν ο ς, “th a t o n e ,” se em s to b e tra y (in c o n tra s t to L u k e ’s sin g le s e rv a n t [L u k e 1 2 :4 5 ]).

Comment

723

Luke’s ε ρ χ ε σ θ α ι , “to come” (Luke 12:45), is probably an addition to Q and therefore is not found in Matthew. In v 49, Matthew’s τ ο ύ ς σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ο υ ς α ύ τ ο ϋ , “his fellow servants,” may well be a condensing of Luke’s τ ο υ ς π α ΐ δ α ς κ α ί τ ά ς π α ιδ ίσ κ α ς , “the m enservants and the m aidservants” (Luke 12:45). In the same verse, Matthew’s μ ε τ ά τ ω ν μ εθ υ ό μ τω μ , “with the drunkards,” is probably original to Q, with Luke’s κ α ί μ ε θ ύ σ κ ε σ θ α ι, “and to become drunk” (Luke 12:45), being an alteration of Q (cf. the tension concerning Jesus’ association with the outcasts in Luke). Matthew’s ύ π ο κ ρ ιτώ μ , “hypocrites,” in v 51 is almost certainly an alteration of Q (Luke 12:46: ά π ίσ τ ω μ , “unfaithful”) in the direction of his favorite vocabulary. And finally, the concluding clause, ε κ ε ί ε σ τ α ι ό κ λ α υ θ μ ό ς κ α ί δ β ρ υ γ μ ό ς τώ μ όδόμτω μ, “where there will be weeping and the grinding of teeth,” is an obviously Matthean addition to Q (cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 25:30). C. The opening question (v 45) concerning a hypothetical servant who is given certain responsibilities indicates the parabolic character of this pericope (cf. Luke 12:41: τ ή μ π α ρ α β ο λ ή μ τ α ύ τ η μ , “this parable”). Its point is to illustrate the importance of faithful conduct during the era prior to the unknown time of the return of the Son of Man (cf. v 50). Its didactic character leads Dewey to conclude that it represents “a prophetic pronouncem ent of Wisdom” (103). A suggested outline: (1) the faithful servant (vv 45-47), further divided into (a) the question (v 45), (b) the identification (v 46), and (c) the reward (v 47); and (2) the wicked servant (vv 48-51), further divided into (a) the identification (vv 48-49), (b) the unexpected return of the master (v 50), and (c) the punishm ent (v 51). As the outline shows, there is some general parallelism between the two halves of the pericope. Syntactical parallelism may be seen in the two sentences composing v 45 and the beatitude of v 46, both with the subject δ ο ύ λ ο ς , “slave,” and relative clauses beginning with δ μ , “whom.” In vv 48-5la we encounter one of the most complex sentences in Matthew, with three parallel main verbs in the future tense, ή ξ ε ι, “he will come,” δ ι χ ο τ ο μ ή σ ε ι , “he will cut,” and θ ή σ ε ι, “he will put,” as well as an extended ε ά μ , “if,” clause with four parallel verbs, ε ΐπ η , “say,” ά ρ ξ η τ α ι , “begin,” έσθίΐ), “eat,” and πίμ η , “drink.” V 50 contains the striking parallel construction έ μ ή μ ε ρ α fj ο υ π ρ ο σ δ ο κ ά κ α ί έ μ ώ ρα ή ο ύ γ ιμ ώ σ κ ε ι, “in a day he does not expect and in an hour he does not know.” V 51b contains a common Matthean formula. The passage (esp. v 49) is alluded to in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Eusebius, T h eo p h a n ia [P G 24.685]). Comment 45-47 The rhetorical question with which the passage begins concerns the identification of ο π ι σ τ ό ς δ ο ύ λ ο ς κ α ί φ ρ ό μ ιμ ο ς , “the faithful and wise servant.” Close to this is the “good [ά γ α θ έ ] and faithful servant” spoken of in 25:21, 23 (these verses contain the only other reference to π ι σ τ ό ς , “faithful,” in Matthew). φ ρ ό μ ιμ ο ς , “wise,” is used elsewhere in Matthew to describe appropriate discipleship in 7:24; 10:16, and most conspicuously in the parable of the “wise virgins” (25:2, 4, 8, 9). The idea of delegated authority is not uncommon in the Bible (cf. Gen 39:4-5) and is also used by Matthew in 25:21, 23 in an illustration making a point similar to that of the present passage (cf. Mark 13:34). The giving of food in due season is common biblical imagery for provision of needs (cf. Pss 104:27

724

M a t t h e w 24:45-51

[LXX 103:27, where the language is close to Matthew’s]; 145:15 [LXX 144:15]). V 46 characterizes as μ α κ ά ρ ιο ς , “blessed” (cf. esp. 5:3-11; the word is used also in 11:6; 13:16; 16:17), i.e., truly and deeply happy, that servant who is found faithfully doing what had been assigned to him or her (cf. Luke 12:38). The clause έλθ ώ ν b κ ύ ρ ιο ς α ύ το ν , “when his master comes,” alludes, of course, to the coming of the Son of Man referred to in the preceding passage (cf. esp. v 42, ο κ ύ ρ ιο ς there meaning “Lord” and echoed in the present passage, and v 44). The servant who is found faithfully fulfilling the master’s commission is rewarded by being delegated greater responsibility, indeed over π ά σ ιν , “all,” the master’s possessions (cf. 25:21, 23, where the good and faithful servant is granted authority ε π ί πολλώ ν, “over m uch”). The ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ν μ ΐν , “truly I tell you,” formula adds weight to the promised reward. 48-49 Matthew’s insertion of κ α κ ό ς , “bad,” before δ ο ύ λ ο ς ε κ ε ίν ο ς , “that servant,” directs the reader to another contrasting servant rather than, as in Luke, the same servant who is thought of as entertaining an altogether different train of thought and engaging in a very different behavior (Luke 12:45). The “bad” servant (κ α κ ό ς is used to refer to persons elsewhere in Matthew only in 21:41) begins to act shamefully. Rather than providing for the needs of his fellow servants, the bad servant beats them (for other mistreatment of σ ύ ν δ ο υ λ ο ι, “fellow servants,” in Matthew, see 18:28-33) and begins to eat and drink with profligates ( μ ε θ υ ό ν τω ν , lit. “drunkards”). Cf. 1 Thess 5:7, where the “drunk” are contrasted with the sober and watchful (in a context stressing the sudden coming of the L ord). The reason for this shameful conduct is all important in the context. This servant says “in his or her heart” (for which, cf. LXX Deut 8:17; Isa 47:8), “My master delays” (for χ ρ ο ν ίζ ε ιν , “to delay,” see 25:5; on the problem of the delay, see 2 Peter 3:4). Since the master is delayed, the wicked servant takes advantage of his absence, violates the commands of his master, and acts irresponsibly. What the present passage says through a parable, Luke 21:34-36, ending the Lukan eschatological discourse, says in a straightforward admonitory exhortation. 50 The reason one ought not to fall into such shameful conduct is that despite the present apparent delay of the coming of the master (i.e., the Son of Man), he will return, and that return will be ε ν ή μ ε ρ α fj ο ύ π ρ ο σ δ ο κ ά κ α ί ε ν ώ ρα ή ο ύ γ ιν ώ σ κ ε ι, “on a day which you do not expect and in an hour which you do not know.” Matthew returns here to the central point of this section of the discourse: the unknown time of the parousia of the Son of Man (cf. vv 36, 39, 42, 44; 25:13). That the time remains unknown should have motivational power for ethical living in the present. 51 The wicked servant faces a dreadful punishment: dismembering and a future place (for this meaning of μ έ ρ ο ς , lit. “share,” see BAGD, 506b) among the hypocrites in the eschatological judgm ent, δ ιχ ο τ ο μ ή σ ε ι , lit. “will cut in two,” is found in the NT only here and in the Lukan parallel (it is used similarly in 3 Apoc. Bar. 16:3 [tr. Η. E. Gaylord, Jr., as “punish them with the sword and death” in T h e O ld T estam ent P seudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 1:677]; cf. Heb 11:37; for other references cf. BAGD, 200b). Q uite possibly this verb is the result o f a m istranslation o f the underlying Aramaic. According to Jerem ias’ reconstruction, the original verb (3*pS, palle^) m eant to “distribu te ” (blows) as pu nishm ent (Parables of Jesus, 57, n. 31). More recently O. Betz has p ro -

Bibliography

725

posed (qss), “to cut,” as the underlying verb. In view, then, would be the cutting off of the wicked servant from the people of God in eschatological ju d g m e n t (cf. the parable at Q um ran in lQ ap G en 19:15-16). In Matthew, according to Betz, the verb shifts to th e dram atic d e a th (cf. Ju d a s Iscariot, A nanias an d S apphira) th a t p reced es eschatological torm ent. F o r M a tth e w th e r e is n o w o rse g r o u p th a n th e “h y p o c rite s ” ( υποκριτώ ν; cf. 6 :2 18; 15:7; a n d esp. c h a p . 23), a n d th e w ick ed se rv a n t o f th e p a ra b le was, if an y th in g , a h y p o c rite . T h e M a tth e a n fo rm u la έκ β ϊ β σ τα ι ο κ λ α υ θ μ ό ς καί ο β ρ υ γ μ ό ς τω ν όδόυτω υ, “th e r e will b e w e e p in g a n d g rin d in g o f te e th t h e r e ,” is f o u n d v e rb a tim in 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 25:30. E xplanation A faith fu l a n d wise se rv a n t will by his o r h e r e th ic a l b e h a v io r b e read y fo r th e co m in g o f th e m aster, th e S o n o f M an, a t w h ate v er tim e it m ay occur. T h e L o rd m ay n o t c o m e as so o n as h e is e x p e c te d — h e seem s to b e d elay ed . B u t th a t c a n b e n o re a so n to lessen o n e ’s c o m m itm e n t to o b ey in g th e te a c h in g h e h as given. O n ly th o se w ho re m a in fa ith fu l in th e ir living a n d o b e d ie n t to th e ir co m m issio n will b e u n e m b a rra s s e d by his s u d d e n co m in g . A gain, th e fact o f th a t c o m in g — n o t th e tim e o f it— is to b e fo re m o st in th e m in d s o f th e disciples. T h e k n o w led g e o f that fact m u st g o v ern th e lives o f th e disciples in w h ate v er tim e th e y fin d them selves.

T h e P a r a b l e o f tik e W i s e a n d F o o l i s h

V ir s in s

(2 5 :1 -1 3 )

B ibliography Argyle, A. W. “W edding Customs at the Time of Jesus.” ExpTim 86 (1974-75) 214-15. Batey, R. A. New Testament Nuptial Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Blinzler, J. “Bereitschaft für das Kommen des H e rrn .” BLit 37 (1963-64) 89-100. Bornkam m , G. “Die V erzögerung der Parusie: Exegetische B em erkungen zu zwei synoptischen T exten.” In Geschichte und Glaube I. BEVT 48. (= Gesammelte Aufsätze. Vol. 3.) M unich: Kaiser, 1968. 1:46-55. Burkitt, F. C. “T he Parable of the Ten Virgins: Mt 25.1-13.” JTS30 (1929) 267-70. Deiss, L. “La parabole des dix vierges (Mt 25, 1-13).” AsSeign 63 (1971) 20-32. D errett, J. D. M. “La parabola delle vergini stolte.” In Studies in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1977.1:128-42. D onfried, K. P. “T he Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) as a Summary of M atthean T heology.” JBL 93 (1974) 415-28. D upont, J. “Le royaume des cieux est semblable à . . . .” BeO6 (1964) 247-53. Feuillet, A. “Les éspousailles messianiques et les références au Cantique des Cantiques dans les évangiles synoptiques.” RevThom 84 (1984) 3 9 9 -4 2 4 .— — . “La parabole des vierges.” VSpir 75 (1946) 667-77. Ford, J. M. “T he Parable of the Foolish Scholars (Matt, xxv 1 -13).” NovT9 (1967) 107-23. G oudge, H. L. “T he Parable o f the Ten Virgins: Mt 25.1-13.” JTS 30 (1929) 399-401. Granqvist, Η. M. Marriage Conditions in a

726

Ma

t t h ew

2 5 :1 -1 3

Palestinian Village, 2 vols. Helsingfors: Centraltryckeriet, 1931,1935. Jeremias, J. “Lam pades in Matthew 25:1-13,” In Soli Deo Gloria. FS W. C. Robinson, ed. J. M. Richards. Richmond, VA: Jo h n Knox, 1968. 83-87. Kretzer, A. “Das m t Basileiaverständnis in Ausblick auf Parusie u n d G ericht nach den eschatologischen Gleichnissen Mt 25.” In Die Herrschafl der Himmel und die Söhne des Reiches. SBM 10. Würzburg: Echter, 1971.187-224. Lambrecht, J. ‘T h e Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13).” In Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad, 1981. 146-66. Lövestam, E. ‘T h e Parable o f the Ten Virgins.” In Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. LUÅ n.s. 1.55.3. Lund: Gleerup, 1963. 108-22. Maisch, I. “Das Gleichnis von den klugen u nd törichten Jungfrauen: Auslegung von Mt 25,1-13.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 247-59. Meinertz, M. “Die Tragweite des Gleichnisses von den zehn Ju n g frau en .” In Synoptische Studien. FS A. Wikenhauser. Munich: Kösel, 1954. 94-106. Neuhäusler, E. Anspruch und Antwort Gottes. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962. 226-34. Puig i T àrrech, A. La parabole des dix merges (Mt 25, 1-13). AnBib 102. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1984. Rosaz, M. “Passer sur l’autre rive.” CHR 26 (1979) 323-32. Schenk, W. “Auferweckung d er Toten o der G ericht nach den Werken: Tradition u nd Redaktion in Matthäus xxv 1-13.” N o vT 20 (1978) 278-99. Schwarz, G. “Zum Vokabular von M atthäus XXV. 1-12.” N TS 27 (1981) 270-76. Sheniff, J. M. “Matthew 25:1-13: A Summary of M atthean Eschatology?” Studia Biblia 1978, II. Papers on the Gospels, ed. E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. 301-5. Staats, R. “Die törichten Jungfrauen von M atthäus 25 in gnostischer u n d antignostischer Literatur.” In Christentum und Gnosis. Berlin: T öpelm ann, 1969. 98-115. Strobel, A. “Das Gleichnis von den zehn Ju n g fraugen (Mt 25, 1—13).” In Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. NovTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1961. 233-54.— — . “Zum Verständnis von Mt 25,1-13.” N o vT 2 (1958) 199-227. Walvoord, J. F. “Christ’s Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age: T he Parable o f the Ten Virgins.” BibSac 129 (1972) 99-105. Weder, H. “Die Parabel von den zehn Jungfrauen (Mt 25,1-13).” In Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. 239-49. Zumstein, J. La condition du croyant dans l’évangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16. Göttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. 271-81. Translation 1 “Then the kingdom o f heaven will be like the story o f a the ten virgins who took their torches a n d went out to m eetb the bridegroom.c 2A n d fiv e o f them were foolish a n d fiv e wise. 3For the foolish ones, although they took their torches, did not take oil with them.d 4B u t the wise ones took oil in flasks together with their torches. 5A n d when the bridegroom delayed his coming, e they all became drowsy a n d fe ll asleep. 6B u t in the middle o f the night there was a cry: ‘Look, the bridegroom! Come o u tf to m eetg [him]h !’7 Then all those virgins arose, a n d they tnm m ed the w icksi o f their torches. 8A n d the foolish ones said to the wise: ‘Give us some o f your oil, because our torches are going out. ’9B u t the wise answered, saying: ‘T here would by no meansj be enough fo r both us a n d you. Go instead to the shopsk a n d buy m ore1fo r yourselves. ’ 10B u t when they had gone to buy more oil,m the bridegroom came, a n d the ones who were ready went in with him into the w edding banquet, a nd the door was shut. 11A n d later the other virgins also came and said: ‘Lord, lord, open the doornfo r u s . ,12B u t he answered a n d said: T ‘ ru ly I tell you, I do not know you. 13W ’ atch, therefore, because you do not know the day or the hour. ”0 N otes a T h e story o f”added to translation. b wτάι^τησίν, “meeting.” Many MSS (D L W Θ f 13 TR) have άπάι^τησα/ (same meaning), perhaps through the influence of v 6.

Form/Structure/Setting

727

c Some MSS (D Θ f 1 latt sy mae) add καί τής νύμφης, “and the bride,” perhaps because copyists had in mind the bridegroom bringing the bride to his home for the wedding (see TCGNT, 62). See Burkitt for a defense of the longer reading. d D and a few other witnesses add εν τοΐς άγγείοις αυτών, “in their flasks,” perhaps by the influence of v 4. e “His coming” added to translation. f A few MSS (Θ f 1) read έγείρεσθε, “rise up,” probably a change prompted by the end of v 5. g άπάντησιν, “meeting.” Z Θ have the synonym ύπάντησιν (cf. v 1); C has συνάντησιν αύτω, “meeting with him.” h Some important MSS (K B Z) omit the pronoun αυτού, “him” (C has the dative αύτω). Favoring the inclusion of αύτουare A D L W f 1,13TR. 1εκόσμησαν, “they put in order.” ‘The wicks of” added to translation. j The very strong ούμη, “by no means,” is contained in B C D K W Δ f1. Other MSS ( BALZ [Θ] / 13) have the simple and softer negative ούκ, “not.” k τούς πωλοϋντας, lit. “the sellers.” 1“More” added to translation. m “More oil” added to translation. n “The door” added to translation. ° Many MSS (C3f 13 TR vgmss) add εν ή ό υιός τού άνθρώπου έρχεται, “in which the Son of Man is coming,” an obvious conforming of the text to 24:44. See TCGNT, 63. F orm /Structure/Setting

A. In this seco n d consecutive p arab le o f th e apocalyptic discourse (cf. Tore, “th e n ”) M atthew c o n tin u e s to address th e im p o rta n c e o f read in ess fo r th e com ing o f th e Son o f M an. T h e com ing o f th e b rid eg ro o m a n d th e w edding b a n q u e t have m essianic associations (cf. 2 2:1-14), w hich m ake th e parab le particularly effective. T his is th e final p erico p e th a t stresses th e n e e d fo r co n stan t p re p a re d ness, p articu larly because th e tim e o f th e re tu rn o f th e Son o f M an rem ain s unkno w n a n d m ay involve a lo n ger-than-expected delay. B. A lth o u g h th e re are stories in M ark a n d L uke c e n te rin g o n th e necessity o f “w atching” (M ark 13:33-37; L uke 12:35-38) with m otifs re la te d to th e p re se n t p eric o p e (M ark: sleeping; Luke: b u rn in g to rch es a n d a w ed d in g b a n q u e t) a n d a fu rth e r passage in L uke 13:25-28 with o th e r m otifs c o m m o n to o u r passage (sh u t door; th e cry “L ord, o p e n to u s”; a n d th e response ούκ οΐδα υμάς*, “I do n o t know you”) , M atthew ap p ears to b e d e p e n d e n t o n his own special source for th e parable. For a full literary analysis, see A. Puig i T àrrec h . C. T h e parab le begins w ith a typical in tro d u c to ry fo rm u la a n d en d s with an a d m o n itio n th a t applies th e p arab le to th e read ers (v 13). T h e follow ing o u tlin e may be suggested: (1) th e virgins’ g o in g o u t to m e e t th e b rid e g ro o m (v v 1-5 ), w ith subdivisions (a) in tro d u c tio n (v v 1 -2 ), (b) ta k in g /n o t taking oil (vv 3 -4 ), a n d (c) th e b rid e g ro o m ’s delay (v 5); (2) th e com ing o f th e b rid eg ro o m (vv 67); (3) th e difficulty o f th e foolish virgins (v v 8 -9 ); (4) th e e n tra n c e in to th e w ed d in g b a n q u e t (v 10); (5) th e re tu rn o f th e foolish virgins (vv 11-12); a n d (6) final ad m o n itio n (v 13). T h e ch a ra c ter o f th e passage is such th a t syntactic p arallelism is lim ited to th e con trastin g statem ents in w 2 a n d 3-4. Did. 16:1 probably alludes to this passage o r its un d erly in g tradition: “Be w atchful [γρή γορεt] fo r your life. L et n o t y o u r lam ps [oi λύχνοι] be q u e n c h e d [μή σβεσθήτω σαν], a n d let n o t your loins b e u n g ird e d , b u t be ready [γίνεσ θ ε έτο ιμ ο ι] , fo r you d o n o t know th e h o u r [ού γάρ ο ιδ α τε τη ν ώραν] in w hich your L o rd co m es.”

728

Ma t t h e w 25:1-13

D. While the main point of the parable has to do with the importance of preparedness, various specific elements carry obvious allegorical significance (see Lambrecht). Thus the bridegroom is Christ, his coming is the delayed parousia, the wise and foolish virgins are faithful and unfaithful disciples, and the final scene symbolizes the eschatological judgment. On the other hand, one almost certainly goes too far in concluding that torches symbolize good works and that this provides the “interpretive key” to the parable, as Donfried argues. J. M. Ford’s hypothesis that the parable is directed against the hypocrisy of the Jewish teachers is possible only by an excessive allegorizing approach that regards the marriage feast as the symbol of the completion of Torah study with the torches as symbolic of Torah. On the issue of allegorical elements in the parables, see Hagner, M atthew 1 - 1 3 , 364-65. Comment 1-2 The introductory formula, ό μ ο ιω θ ή σ ετα ι ή β α σ ιλ ε ία τω ν ούρ α νώ ν , “the kingdom of heaven shall be like,” is similar to that of 13:24; 18:23; 22:2 but employs the future tense because of its eschatological orientation (cf. 7:24, 26). The kingdom of heaven is likened not to the virgins but to the story of what happens to them: when the sudden arrival of the Son of Man occurs, some are ready and some are not. The π α ρ θ έν ο ι , “virgins” (used elsewhere in Matthew only in 1:23), here understood in the general sense of unm arried maidens attending the bride, coming out in the night with their torches to meet the bridegroom probably reflects actual historical practice (pace Bornkamm; see Jeremias, Parables o f Jesus, 171-174, who also refers to similar practices in m odern Palestine; cf. Argyle, and the detailed discussion in Granqvist) rather than being a story with artificial details concocted for the purpose of teaching. All the same, it is difficult to know precisely where the bridesmaids were (i.e., at the home of the bride, or her family, or that of the bridegroom?). This point of information, however, is hardly crucial to the interpretation of the parable. The only other occurrence of ν υ μ φ ίο ς , “bridegroom,” in Matthew, outside of this passage, is in 9:15, which is im portant for its identification of Jesus as the “bridegroom ” (cf. John 3:29). The careful reader cannot miss the allusion to Jesus here (cf. esp. the application in v 13). For ύ π ά ν τ η σ ιν , “m eeting,” cf. 8:34, also in reference to Jesus. The mention in v 2 of the μ ω ρ α ί , “foolish” (elsewhere in Matthew: 5:22; 7:26; 23:17), virgins first indicates that they will become the focus of attention as the parable proceeds. For φ ρ ό νιμ ο ι, “wise,” in reference to disciples, see also 7:24 (opposite “foolish” in a judgm ent context and thus parallel to our passage); 10:16; 24:45. 3-4 The wise virgins took extra oil ( ε ν τ ο ΐς ά γ γ ε ί ο ι ς , “in the flasks”) for their λα μ π ά δ α ς , “lamps” (i.e., torches [so Jeremias]; only here in the Synoptics; cf. John 18:3), having considered the eventuality of a delay of the bridegroom and in determination not to be caught unprepared. The foolish, on the other hand, again m entioned first, did not have the foresight to be prepared in the event of a delay of the bridegroom. The parable should not be allegorized to the extent that an equivalent to the oil is pursued (contra Garland, who follows Donfried in understanding the oil as referring to good works). The focus of the parable is the simple matter of preparedness versus unpreparedness and the tragic character of the latter.

Comment

729

5 Although the idea of the bridegroom’s delay is introduced as a particularly important element in the parable (cf. 24:48; 25:19; see Sherriff), it is far from unknown in rabbinic and current accounts of the Near Eastern wedding (see Jeremias, Parables o f Jesus, 172, who suggests the delay resulted from negotiations concerning financial arrangements). When the bridegroom was delayed and as the hours of the night wore on, the virgins ένύσταξαν, “began to nod o ff” (in the Gospels only here), and πάσαι, “all,” of them έκάθευδον, “fell asleep” (cf. 8:24; 9:24; 13:25; and esp. 26:40-46). The reference to sleep here and rising in v 7 are literal, not metaphors for death and resurrection (contra Schenk). No fault is attached to the wise for falling asleep (elsewhere “sleep” stands in obvious tension with “watching”; cf. 26:38-41; Mark 13:36; 1 Thess 5:6, but note v 10). Their preparedness lies in their having brought sufficient oil for their lamps. The delay of the bridegroom, like the delay of the master in 24:48, is directly linked to uncertainty concerning the time of the return of the Son of Man (cf. v 13; 24:48, 50; 25:19; see Bornkamm). 6-7 μ έ σ η ς ' δ έ ν υ κ τ ό ς , “in the middle of the night,” means that several hours have passed, apparently enough time for the oil in the lamps to have become rather low. Suddenly the κραυγή, “cry” (only here in Matthew), comes that the bridegroom has arrived and that the wedding attendants should come out to “meet” him (there is no discernible difference in meaning between ύπάνηησιν, “meeting,” of v 1 and ά π ά υ τη σ ιυ here; for the latter, cf. Acts 28:15; 1 Thess 4:17). The virgins arise and “trim” (έκ ό σ μ η σ α ν ) their torches, i.e., clean and oil them so that they will burn brightly. 8-9 The foolish virgins see that their oil is practically gone and that their torches σ β έ ν ν υ ν τ α ι, “are going out” (elsewhere in Matthew only in 12:20), rather than burning brightly to hail the arrival of the bridegroom. Their torches apparently consisted of oil lamps tied atop poles. The image of the lamps of the wicked going out (where the same verb is used) is found in Prov 13:9 and Job 18:5 and may lie behind the imagery of the parable at this point. The wise virgins do not comply with the request of the foolish virgins to share their oil (i.e., from their reserve flasks) with them. They instead direct them to go and buy some more for themselves. Buying oil late in the night likely would not have been difficult in a little village in full celebration of a wedding. That they eventually succeeded in buying more oil is suggested by v 11. V 9 teaches not an example of Christian ethics (or violation thereof) but the importance of single-mindedness in being prepared with burning torches for the meeting of the bridegroom and the subsequent entry into the wedding banquet. 10 At the coming of the bridegroom (i.e., the parousia of the Son of M an), it is a i έ τ ο ιμ ο ί , “the ready” (for the word in this sense, see 24:44), who go in with him into the wedding (i.e., messianic) banquet. The γ ά μ ο ν ς , “wedding banquet,” has been used with the same messianic associations in 22:1-14 (the same reality is described with different language in 8:11; see there for OT background). The symbolism of the shut door points to the time when it is too late to alter the division between the saved and the lost (cf. Isa 22:22; Luke 13:25; Rev 3:7; see Jeremias, T D N T 3 :1 7 8 ). This point emerges clearly in the following two verses. 11-12 The foolish virgins, now identified as α ί λ ο ι π α ί , “the others” (in contrast to α ί έ τ ο ιμ ο ί , “the ready,” in v 1 0 ), return, presumably with a new supply of oil, only to find a locked door. Their cry, κ ύ ρ ιε , κ ύ ρ ιε , “sir, sir,” becomes in application the empty “Lord, Lord” of 7:21-22. After the coming of the Son of Man, it

730

M a t t h e w 25:14-30

is too late for the knocking to which the door w ill open (cf. 7:7-8). Instead they hear the dreadful words ά μ η ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ΐν , ο ύ κ ο ΐδ α υ μ ά ς , “Truly I tell you, I do not know you” (cf. 7:23 and C om m ent above, together with the obviously related Luke 13:25). The foolish virgins, by being unprepared for the coming of the bridegroom with its unanticipated delay, are shut out from enjoying the wedding banquet, and no appeal can change that reality. 13 The final exhortation, introduced with the strong o u p, “therefore,” indicates the main point to be drawn from the parable. One must γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ τ ε , “watch.” The point here is not the avoidance of literal sleep (creating an unnecessary tension with the preceding verses— the wise virgins d id sleep) b u t spiritual wakefulness (see Lövestam), that is, keeping oneself in a state of constant readiness for the coming of the Son of Man (cf. 24:42-43). This vigilance is required because the time of the parousia, the day, the hour, cannot be known in advance (cf. 24:36, 42, 44, 50). Explanation

This parable makes yet once again, and in a most sobering way, the point that preparedness for the unexpected time of the coming of the Son of Man is of the utmost importance. That is, how one lives in the lengthening interim period between the first and second appearances of the Messiah must be consistent with one’s claim to be a disciple. What matters is that one not be embarrassed by an “inopportune” coming of the Son of Man. The difference between the foolish and the wise is that the latter do all within their power to be ready for the parousia. They will join the Son of Man in the eschatological reward of the messianic banquet while the foolish will find themselves excluded and without recourse. The bottom line of the eschatological discourse is the importance of preparedness, which looms larger and larger toward the end of the discourse.

The Parable about F ulfilling Responsibility

(25:14-30) Bibliography ‘T h e Pounds and the Talents.” ExpTim 23 (1911-12) 136-37. D e rre tt, J. D . M . “Law in the New Testament: The Parable of the Talents and Two Logia.” Z N W 56 (1965) 184-95 (reprinted in Law in the New Testament. London: Longm an and Todd, 1970. 17-31). D id ie r, M . “La parabole des talents (Mt 25,14-30).” AsSeign 93 (1965) 3 2 -4 4 .— — . “La parabole des talents et des mines.” In D e Jésus a u x Évangiks. FSJ. Coppens, ed. I. de la Potterie. BETL 25. Gembloux: Duculot, 1967. 248-71. D ie tz fe lb in g e r , C. “Das Gleichnis von den anvertrauten G eldern.” B T Z 6 (1989) 222-33. D u B u it, M . “Les paraboles de l’A ttente et de la Miséricorde (Mt 24,43-44; 24,45-48; 25,14-30).” Évangik: Cahiers bibliques49 (1968) 5-57. D u p o n t, J. “La parabole des talents (Mt 25,14-30) ou des mines (Luc 19, 12-27).” R T P 49 C a n d lish , R .

Translation

731

(1969) 37 6 -9 1 .— — . “La parabole des talents (Mt 25, 14-30).” AsSeign 64 (1969) 18-28. E llu l, J . “La parabole des talents (du texte au sermon, 18).” E T R 48 (1973) 125-38. F ie d le r, P . “Die übergegebenen Talente: Auslegung von Mt 25,14-30.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 259-73. F o e r s te r , W . “Das Gleichnis von den anvertrauten P funden.” In Verbum D ei manet in aeternum. FS O. Schmitz, ed. W. Foerster. Witten: Luther, 1953. 37-56. G a n n e , P . “La parabole des talents.” BVC 45 (1962) 44-53. J o ü o n , P . “La parabole des mines (Lc 19,12-27) et la parabole des talents (Mt 25,14-30).” R SR 29 (1939) 489-93. K a m la h , E . “Kritik und Interpretation der Parabel von den anvertrauten Geldern: Mt. 25, 14ff.; Lk. 1 9 , 12ff.” K D 14 (1968) 28-38. L a m b re c h t, J . ‘T h e Talents and the Pounds (Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27).” In Once More Astonished: The Parables o f Jesus. New York: Crossroad, 1983.167-95. L in d e s k o g , G . “Logia Studien.” S T 4 (1951) 129-89. L y ss, D . “C ontre le salut par les oeuvres dans la pred ication des talents.” E T R 64 (1989) 331-40. M a n n s , F. “La parabole des talents: Wirkungsgeschichte e t racinesjuives.” RevScRel 65 (1991) 343-62. M a rc e l, P . “La parabole des talents (M atthieu 25:14-30).” R R éf 34 (1983) 49-54. M c C u llo c h , W . “The Pounds and the Talents.” ExpTim 23 (1911-12) 382-83. M c G a u g h y , L . C . ‘T h e Fear of Yahweh and the Mission o f Judaism: A Postexilic Maxim and Its Early Christian Expansion in the Parable of the T a l e n t s . ”JB L 94 (1975) 235-45. M u tc h , J . ‘T h e Man with the O ne Talent.” ExpTim 42 (193031) 332-34. N a e g e le , J . ‘Translation of talanton ‘talent.’” B T 37 (1986) 441-43. N e u h ä u s le r, E . “Mit welchem Massstab misst Gott die Menschen? D eutung zweier Jesussprüche.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 104-13. P e s c h , R ., and K ra tz , R . “Gleichnis von den Talenten oder M inen.” In So liest M a n synoptisch. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1978. 5:67-73. P u ig i T à r r e c h , A . “La parabole des talents (Mt 25,14-30) ou des mines (Lc 19,11-28).” Revista Catalana Teologia 10 (1985) 269-317. R e s e n h ö f f t, R . W . ‘Jesu Gleichnis von den Talenten, ergänzt durch die Lukas-Fassung.” NTS 26 (1979-80) 318-31. R o s s , J . M . ‘T alents.” ExpTim 89 (1978) 307-9. S p ic q , C . “Le chrétien doit porter du fruit.” VSpir 84 (1951) 605-15. S te in m e tz , D . C . “Matthew 25:14-30.” I n t 34 (1980) 172-76. W e d e r, H . “Die Parabel von den anvertrauten Geldern (Mt 25,14-30; Lk 19,11-27; HebEv fr 15).” In D ie GleichnisseJesu als Metaphern. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. 193-210. W e ise r, A . “Das Gleichnis von den anvertrauten Geldern: Mt 25,14-30 par Lk 19,12-27.” In D ie Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. Munich: Kösel, 1971. 226-72.

Translation

14 “F or the situ a tio n i s a like w hen a m a n who w as g o in g on a jo u rn e y called together his se rva n ts a n d g a ve over to them his money .b 15A n d to one he ga ve fiv e talents , to another two, a n d to yet an o th er one,c to each according to his ow n ability, a n d he w ent o f f on his jo u rn ey.d Im m ediately 16the one w ho received the f iv e talents w ent a n d worked w ith them, a n d he g a in e d e an o th er f i v e .f 17Sim ilarly , the one w ho h a d been e n tru ste d g two g a in ed h a nother two. 18B u t the one w ho h a d received one w en t a n d d u g a hole in i the g round, a n d h id the money o f his master. 19A n d after a lo n g tim e the m aster o f those se rva n ts came a n d settled accounts w ith them. 20A n d the one w ho h a d received the f i v e talents came fo rw a rd a n d brought a nother f iv e talents, saying: ‘Master, yo u entrusted me w ith f iv e talents. Look, I ha ve earned another f i v e talents .,j 21H is m aster sa id to him : ‘Well done, good a n d f a it h fu l servant. Youk were fa it h fu l over a little; I w ill p u t yo u in charge o f m uch. E n te r in to the jo y o f y o u r m aster.2 2 [ A n d ] 1 the one w ho h a d received m the two talents also came fo rw a rd a n d said: M aster, yo u entrusted me w ith two talents. Look, I h a ve earned a nother two ta len ts .,n 23H is m aster sa id to him : ‘Well done, good a n d f a it h fu l servant. You° were fa it h fu l over a little; I w ill p u t yo u in charge o f m uch. E n te r in to the jo y o f y o u r master. ’ 24B u t the one w ho h a d received the one ta le n t also came fo rw a rd a n d said: M aster, I knew y o u p th a t y o u were a h a rd m a n , rea p in g where

732

Ma

t t h ew

2 5 :1 4 -3 0

you did not sow a nd gathering where you did not scatter, 25a n d being afraid, I went a n d hid your talent in the ground. Look, you have w hat is yours. ’ 26A n d his master a n swered a n d said: ‘Eν il a n d lazy servant, did you know that I harvested where I did not sow a n d I gathered where I did not scatter ? 27You ought therefore to have p u t my money in the bank,q an d when I came, I could have received w hat is m ine with interest. 28Take therefore the talent from him a nd give it to the one h a vin g the tenr talents. 29For to a ll s who have, it shall be given a n d it shall be multiplied, but as fo r they1 who do not have, even w hat they haveu shall be taken from them.y 30A n d cast the useless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping a n d g n a sh in g o f teeth.’” N otes a “The situation is” added for clarity. b τά υπάρχοντα αυτού, lit. “his possessions.” c “Yet another” added to translation. d Many MSS (K2 A C D L W / 13 TR aur 1vg syp,h) insert the connective δέ, “but,” after πορευθείς, “having gone,” thereby indicating a full stop after εύθέως, “immediately,” so that it modifies the preceding άπεδήμησεν, thus “he immediately went away.” Θ f1it sa mae have δέ after ευθέως, indicating that it initiates a new sentence. The accepted text (without δέ altogether) is found in K* B b g1. Its ambiguity accounts for the various scribal insertions of δέ. See TCGNT, 63. e έκέρδησεν, “gained” or “earned.” Many MSS (K* AcW TR syh) have έ ποίησεv, “made.” f Many MSS (K A C D W /U3 TR syh) add τάλαντα, “talents.” g “Who had been entrusted” added to translation. h Many MSS (A C3W Θ/ U3 TR syh and D, but before the verb) add after έκέρδησεν, “he earned,” the words καί αυτός, “even he himself.” 1“In” added for clarity. Many MSS (A [C2] D W Θ f1,13 TR) alter the simple γην, “earth,” to εν τη γη, “in the ground.” Cf. v 25. j Many MSS (A C W f 1,13TR syp,h) read έκέρδησα έ π ’αύτοΐς, “I have earned in addition to them.” k D lat co begin with έπεί, “since.” 1The connective δέ, “and,” is omitted by the important MSS K* B as well as by sa. m “Who had received” added to translation. Many MSS (K D TR latt samss) include λαβών, “having received,” here. n Many MSS (A C W f 1,13TR syph) add έ π ’αύτοΐς, “in addition to them.” Cf. Notej above. o D latt co begin with έπεί, “since.” Cf. Note k above. P D Θ lat sa mae omit a redundant σε, “you,” of the Gr. text (not reflected in the translation above). q τοΐς τραπεζίταις, lit. “to the bankers.” r D reads πέντε, “five.” s D W syPomit παντί, “everyone.” t The Gr. has a sing., which here and in the remainder of the verse is changed to a pl. to avoid masc. language. u A few MSS (L A 33 lat syh mae) read δοκεΐ εχειν, “he seems to have” (cf. Luke 8:18). vA few MSS (C3H; after v 30 [Γ] f 13) add ταύτα λέγων έφώνει b έχων ώτα άκούειν άκουέτω, “saying these things, he cried: ‘The one who has ears to hear, let that person hear.’” F o rm /Structure/Setting A . T h is th ir d successive p a ra b le , lik e th e n e x t a n d fin a l p e r ic o p e in th e disc o u rse , fo c u se s o n th e re sp o n sib ility o f s e rv a n ts (d iscip les) to b e a b o u t th e ir m a s te r ’s w o rk w h ile h e is “away.” H e re , a lth o u g h th e p a r a b le a llu d e s to a d elay in th e m a s te r ’s r e t u r n (cf. v 1 9 ), h e n c e r e la tin g th is p a r a b le to th e p r e c e d in g p a ra b le s, th e a tte n tio n o f th e r e a d e r is d ir e c te d n o t to th e s u rp rise o f h is s u d d e n

Form/Structure/Setting

733

return but more directly to the servants’ conduct during the time he has been away. The parable sets the responsibility of the servants in terms of money (“talents”), but the symbolism points to something obviously more comprehensive. B. It is difficult to know the source of Matthew’s parable. A hint of the parable is given in Mark 13:34, to which the opening of our parable is similar. There are very significant parallels with Luke 19:11-27. Among these are the following: the going of a man (but in Luke a “noble”) on a journey (but in Luke “to acquire a kingdom”); the calling together of his servants (but in Luke “ten,” although only three report [Luke 19:16-21]); the entrusting to them of money (but in Luke a μ να , “mina,” a much smaller amount than a talent [one sixtieth of a talent]); the settling of accounts with the servants; the coming of three servants before the master, with the first two being rewarded for their industry (but the first earned ten times what he had been given and the second five times); the approbation of the first (but not the second) with the words ε ύ γ ε , ά γ α θ έ δ ο ύλε , “well done, good servant”; the granting of authority over more (but ten and five cities, respectively); the failure of the third to invest the money (but wrapped in a handkerchief); the statement of the third that he knew his master to be a stern man who “takes what you do not deposit” and “reaps what you do not sow”; the condemnation of that servant, addressed as π ονη ρέ δ ο ύλε , “wicked servant”; the repetition of the servant’s statement in the form of a question; the reference to depositing the money in the bank where it would have earned interest (but in the form of a second question); the command to take the mina (not talent) and give it to the one who had ten; and the logion about giving to everyone who has but taking away from the one who does not have. There is not a great amount of verbatim agreement, but, more importantly, there are a number of Lukan distinctives, perhaps drawn from a second parable, that give the Lukan passage a different cast from the one in Matthew (cf. esp. Luke 19:12, 14, 15a, 25, 27). Despite the strong similarities, therefore, it is by no means certain that Matthew’s and Luke’s source is Q. Unfortunately, one can only speculate about sources here, but it is difficult to explain either Matthew or Luke as a wholesale redaction of Q. It seems only plausible to argue that, unless Jesus spoke two similar parables, both passages go back originally to the same parable and that early in the process of transmission the parable assumed something like the two forms we encounter in Matthew and Luke and thus that there is no direct literary dependence upon Q here (see the discussions in Weiser, Lambrecht). C. The parable lacks the typical introductory formula (its rem nant is found in the initial ώ σ π ερ , lit. “just as,” and near its end includes an inserted logion (v 29; cf. 13:12). It ends with the Matthean formula concerning “the outer darkness” (cf. 8:12; 22:13). The passage may be outlined as follows: (1) the entrusting of money to the servants (vv 14-15); (2) the work of the three servants (vv 16-18); (3) the settling of accounts (vv 19-27), subdivided into (a) the first servant (vv 20-21), (b) the second servant (vv 22-23), and (c) the third servant (vv 24-27); (4) giving to those who have (vv 28-29); and (5) the judgm ent of the wicked servant (v 30). By its nature the passage lends itself to syntactical parallelism. The similarity between the first two servants causes the verbatim repetition (except of course for the num ber referring to the talents) of larger blocks of material. Thus v 20b is repeated in v 22b, and the entirety of v 21 is repeated exactly in v 23. Syntactic parallelism may be noted in v 15 in the giving of the money to the three

734

M a t t h e w 25:14-30

servants but even more conspicuously in vv 16-18 where the work of the three is described. Here all three sentences have a parallel subject clause, and the first and third sentences (vv 16, 18) have adverbial participles and compound predicate clauses. Similarly, the report of the three is initiated by three parallel sentence forms (vv 20, 22, 24, each with the adverbial participle π ρ ο σ ε λ θ ώ ν , “having come forward”). Note also the repeated reference to reaping/sowing and gathering/ scattering in the statement of the third servant (v 24) and the question of his master (v 26). Syntactic parallelism is also apparent in the imperative clauses of v 28 and the future passive clauses of v 29. The explanation for all of this parallelism probably goes back to the formulation of the material in oral tradition and the facilitating of memorization of the words of Jesus. D. Aspects of the pericope, or the underlying tradition, can be detected in the Gospel o f the Hebrews (Eusebius, T heophania [P G 24.685]), which refers to three servants and specifically one who “hid the talent.” In the Gos. Thom. 41 the logion of v 29 is reflected (but cf. 13:12). 2 Clem. 8:5-6 refers to the one who is faithful in little being given much. Justin Martyr (D ial. 125.1-2) refers to the coming of the Lord and the time of settling of accounts in such a way as to reflect the present passage. Comment

14-15 The underlying theme of the parable is introduced at the outset: the absence of the master (the Son of Man) and the interim responsibility of the servants (disciples). The άνθρω πος, “m an,” is about to “take a journey” (ά π ο δ η μ ώ ν ); cf. κ α ί ά π ε δ ή μ η σ ε ν , “and he departed on a journey,” at the end of v 15. He calls his servants together to put them in charge of his money ( τ ά υ π ά ρ χ ο ν τ α α ύ τ ο υ , lit. “what belonged to him ”). This is parallel to the commission in 24:45. Here, however, the responsibility is expressed in terms of money. It is difficult to know the value of the τ ά λ α ν τ ο ν , “talent” (originally a measure of weight), but it was a very large am ount of money, here probably silver coinage (cf. w 18, 27): one talent equaled 6 , 0 0 0 denarii (one denarius was the equivalent of a day’s wages for a common laborer). The talent was thus analogous to the m odern “million” (so E D N T 3:332; cf. Naegele). Of course, the issue really at stake is not money but the stewardship of what has been given to individual disciples. Since this stewardship involves different “am ounts” entrusted to the disciples (five, two, one talent[s]), the “talents” probably symbolize personal gifts and abilities rather than the gospel itself. This is supported by the phrase έ κ ά σ τ ω κ α τ ά τ η ν ι δ ία ν δ ύ ν α μ ιν , “to each according to his own ability” (perhaps picked up by Paul in Rom 12:3, 6-7). As at the present time for Matthew’s readers, the master has “gone on a journey,” and the stewardship of his servants is on trial. 16-18 The εύθ έω ς, “immediately,” goes with the sentence that follows (cf. N ote d) and indicates the proper urgency with which the first disciple goes about his business. The parable does not describe how the one who received the five talents ή ρ γ ά σ α τ ο έ ν α ύ τ ο ΐ ς , “worked with them,” and doubled what had been given to him, but this is unimportant. It is important to the parable that he made good and effective use of what had initially been given him. The same is true of the second servant, who was also able to double the two talents that were entrusted to him. By contrast, the third servant, rather than using the money entrusted to him, took it and bur-

Comment

735

ied it (ώ ρ υξεν, “dug,” elsewhere in Matthew only in 21:33) in the ground for safekeeping (cf. 13:44 for treasure hidden in the ground). The word for “money” here, ά ρ γ ύ ρ ιο ν , lit. “silver,” shows that the talent was in the form of silver coinage. It is important to note the absence in v 18 of έ κ έ ρ δ η σ ε ν , “gained,” in contrast to w 16, 17. There is no gain here but mere preservation. 19-23 μ ε τ ά δ ε π ο λ ν ν χ ρ ό ν ο ν, “and after a long time,” gives the servants sufficient time to work with the money but also reflects the delay of the parousia of the Son of Man, also the topic of 24:48; 25:5. Matthew’s readers, if they received the Gospel in the late sixties, could only have taken comfort from the acknowledgment of the length of time. When b κ ύριο ς, “the master,” returns (the present tense in Greek is deliberate in Matthew), as with the return of the Son of Man, there is the unavoidable “settling of accounts” (σ υ ν α ιρ ε ί λ ό γ ο ν μ ε τ ' α υτώ ν, lit. “he settl es account with them”; cf. 18:23 where the same expression is used). This is obviously a figure for the eschatological judgment. Beginning in v 20, one by one the servants “come before” ( προσελθώ ν) the master (cf. vv 20, 22, 24). The words spoken by the first two agree verbatim (vv 20b, 22b) except for the number of talents gained. There is a report of the amount “entrusted” ( π α ρ έδ ω κ α ς ; for similar use of the verb, see v 14; cf. 11:27), and then of the amount “gained” (έ κ έ ρ δ η σ α ; cf. 16:26; Jas 4:13). The entire response of the master (v 21) is repeated verbatim to the second servant (v 23), even including the introductory έ φ η α ύ τω ο κ ύ ρ ιο ς α υτο ύ, “his master said to him.” ευ, lit. ‘Veil,” is found in Matthew only here. Matthew refers to a “faithful [ π ισ τ έ ] servant” who is also “wise” in 24:45; ά γα θ έ, “good,” modifies servant only here in Matthew (cf. “good man” in 12:35). The accolade is followed by the statement “you were faithful over little, I will appoint you over much,” which echoes the policy stated in 24:45-47 (cf. w 28-29 and the articulation of a similar principle in Luke 16:10a). ο λ ίγα , “little,” here is ironic, given the large sums of money in question, but it also emphasizes the contrasting greatness of the divine generosity in eschatological blessing. Indeed, the parable of 24:45-51 makes very nearly the same point as the present parable. The μ α κ ά ρ ιο ς, “blessed,” servant there (24:46) is the same as the “good and faithful” servant here. The invitation to enter into τ η ν χ α ρ ά ν τ ο ύ κ υ ρ ίο υ σου, “the joy of your master,” may refer to the happiness of a like prosperity. For Christian readers (both in the first century and in the present), however, the language cannot fail to connote the joy of eschatological blessing (cf. Heb 12:2), just as the judgment of the wicked servant (v 30) points to eschatological judgment. 24-25 Unlike the first and second servants, the third servant does not begin with a reference to the amount with which he had been entrusted. He begins, rather, with an attempted justification of what he did with his one talent. He knew, he says, that his master was a σ κ λ η ρ ό ς , “hard,” man (the only use of the word in Matthew), reaping where he did not sow (the conjunction of reaping and sowing is found in 6:26) and gathering where he did not scatter (for σ υ ν ά γ ε ι ν in the sense of “harvesting,” cf. 3:12; 6:26; 13:30; δ ια σ κ ό ρ π ιζ ε iv , “sow,” occurs in this sense only here in Matthew; but cf. 12:30). These two clauses seem to be equivalents, an example of synonymous parallelism (reap = gather; sow = scatter). The reader may surmise that by virtue of his position the master properly expected a profit from the labor of his servants. This understanding is confirmed when the servant’s statement is turned against him in vv 26-27. Fear had motivated this servant, the fear of failure and losing the talent he had been given. And so he hid

736

M a t t h e w 25:14-30

the talent in the ground (cf. 13:44). The result, announced by ISe, “look” (as in w 2 0 , 2 2 ), was that nothing had been gained (unlike the preceding two instances) except that the talent had been preserved and not lost: έ χ β ι ς τ ο σ ό ν, “you have what is yours.” McGaughy speculates that in the parable as Jesus first taught it the answer of the third servant reflected popular bitterness concerning Yahweh’s relation to his people, who had been entrusted with the traditions of the fathers. But this treats the parable too much as an allegory—one that moreover detracts from the main point of the parable as Matthew presents it. 26-27 Only here in Matthew is a “servant” described as π ο ν η ρ έ, “wicked” (but elsewhere in Matthew the adjective can be applied to a man [13:35; cf. 7:11; 22:10] and, of course, frequently to a “generation”). The servant was wicked because of his bad stewardship, which the second adjective ο κ ν η ρ έ, “lazy” (the only occurrence in Matthew), makes plain (cf. ά χ ρ ε ΐο ν , “useless,” in v 30). The servant’s culpability, rather than being lessened, is all the greater since he knew that his master expected a profit (cf. v 24). Therefore, he should have at least put the m oney in a bank where it could have ea rn e d some interest. The words τ ρ α π ε ζ ίτ α ίς ', “bankers,” and τόκω , “interest” (the latter is also found in the Lukan parallel), occur only here in the NT. There is no need to allegorize these or other details in the parable. H arrington’s attempt to see the third servant as symbolic of Matthew’s Jewish opponents, who failed to maintain an apocalyptic spirit, is not convincing. The parable’s three servants are a problem for this view, but more significant is the fact that such an interpretation must impose a perspective upon the parable that detracts from its main and obvious point (Jeremias, P arables o f Jesus, 60: “a P a ro u sia -p a ra b le ”) . 28- 29 As the beginning of judgm ent (cf. v 30), the talent of the wicked and lazy servant is taken away from him and given to the good and faithful servant who had initially been given five but now had ten. This feature of the story gives rise to the articulation of the general principle in v 29, which captures both the positive and negative sides: positive, “to everyone who has, it shall be given and it shall abound” (cf. Prov. 9:9); negative, “from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him .” The future passive verbs imply God as the acting subject. The logion (on which see Lindeskog) is the same as that of 13:12 (cf. Mark 4:25), and the wording of the two is very close (see C om m ent on 13:12). Faithfulness provides more blessing; unfaithfulness results in loss even of one’s initial blessings. (For similar rabbinic ideas, cf. Str-B 1:660-61.) 30 A further word of judgm ent is spoken against the “wicked” and “lazy” servant (v 26), who is now referred to as ά χ ρ β ϊο ν , “useless” (in the NT only here and in Luke 17:10), i.e., one who does not further the interests of the master. Two Matthean formulas come into play in the reference to the servant’s condemnation: “cast into the outer darkness” (see 8 :1 2 ; 22:13) and “there will be weeping and the grinding of teeth” (see 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51). These are Matthew’s favorite metaphors for the final lot of the wicked (see C om m ent on 8:12), and they stand in sharp contrast to the words of blessing spoken to the first two servants (w 21, 23). For a refutation of the interpretation of the parable as teaching salvation by works, see D. Lyss. Lambrecht rightly characterizes the parable as stressing “gift” as well as involving “task.”

Bibliography

737

Explanation Matthew, still build in g u p o n his assertion in 24:36 th a t th e tim e o f th e com ing o f the Son o f M an rem ains unknow n, again addresses th e im p o rtan ce o f the disciples’ co n d u c t in th e lengthy tim e th a t th e Son o f M an is “away.” T h e im agery o f the parable centers u p o n money. It is fitting, however, th a t the m o n etary u n it referred to is th e “talen t,” the G reek w ord th at is the ro o t o f the com m on English w ord “ta le n t,” i.e., in the sense o f “special a p titu d e ” o r “gift.” Som ething like this (cf. the “spiritual gifts” o f passages such as Rom 12:6-7; 1 C or 7:7; 12:4-31) is p ro b ably in view h e re ra th e r th an literal money. N ot everybody has b een e n tru ste d with the sam e “a m o u n t” (gift), b u t on e m ust be faithful with w hat o n e has b een given. T hus the two-talent perso n is given precisely the same accolade as the five-talent p erso n (as w ould be th e one-talent person, if only th a t talen t h a d b e e n u se d ). T he disciple w ho uses th a t with w hich he o r she has b een e n tru ste d will receive the w onderful praise, ‘W ell d one, good a n d faithful servant,” a n d will e n te r into the full joy o f eschatological blessing. T h e disciple who, o n th e o th e r h and, fails to m ake productive use o f w hat has b e e n given faces the terrifying prospect o f ultim ate loss. T h e faithful will be fu rth e r blessed; the unfaithful will lose all. T he p o in t ca n n o t be missed: b efore th e Son o f M an com es a n d u ntil th a t tim e w henever it may be, disciples are called to faithful a n d steady service o f th e kingdom .

T h e L a s tJ u d g m e n t

(2 5 :3 1 - 4 6 )

Bibliography Bligh, P. H. “Eternal Fire, Eternal Punishment, Eternal Life (Mt 25,41-46).” ExpTim 83 (1971-72) 9-11. Bonnard, P. “Matthieu 25,31-46: Questions de lecture et d ’interprétation.” FV 76.5 (1977) 81-87. Brändle, R. “Zur Interpretation von Mt 25,31-46 im Matthäuskomm entar des Origenes.” TZ 36 (1980) 17-25. — — . Matth. 25,31-46 im Werk des Johannes Chrysostomos. BGBE 22. Tübingen: Mohr, 1979. Brandenburger, E. Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25,31-46.” SBS 99. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Brandt, W. “Die geringsten Brüder. ”JThSB 8 (1937) 1-28. Broer, I. “Das Gericht des Menschensohnes über die Völker: Auslegung von Mt 25,31-46.” BibLeb 11 (1970) 273-95. Brown, S. “Faith, the Poor and the Gentiles: A Tradition-Historical Reflection on Matthew 25:31-46.” TJT 6 (1990) 171-81.— — . “The Matthean Apocalypse.” JSNT 4 (1979) 2-27. Burney, C. E “Mt 25.31-46 as a Hebrew Poem.”JTS 14 (1913) 41424. Cadoux, A. T. “The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.” ExpTim 41 (1929-30) 55962. Catchpole, D. R. “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew XXV.31-46.” BJRL 61 (1979) 355-97. Christian, P. Jesus und seine geringsten Brüder: Mt 25,31-46 redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht. ETS 12. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1975. Cope, O. L. “Matthew xxv:31-46—‘The Sheep and the Goats’ Reinterpreted.” NovT 11 (1969) 32-44. Court, J. M. “Right and Left: The Implications for Matthew 25.31-46.” NTS 31 (1985) 223-33. C ranfield, C. E. B. “Diakonia: Mt 25,31-46.” LQHR 30 (1961) 275-81. Donahue, J. R. “The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats: A Challenge to Christians Ethics.” TS 47 (1986) 3-31. D uprez,A. “Le jug em en t dernier (M t 25).” AsSdgn65 (1973) 17-28.Farahian,

738

Ma

t t h ew

2 5 :3 1 -4 6

E. “Relire M atthieu 25,31-46.” Greg 72 (1991) 437-57. F euillet, A. “La caractère universel d u ju g e m en t et la charité sans frontières en Mt 25,31-46.” N R T 102 (1980) 179-96. F orrest, R . G . “J u d g m e n t.” ExpTim 91 (1979) 4 8 -4 9 . F rie d ric h , J . Gott irrt Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25,31-46. Calwer theologische M onographien A.7. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977. Gay, G. “T h e Ju d g m en t o f th e Gentiles in M atthew’s Theology.” In Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation. FS E. F. H arrison, ed. W. W. Gasque and W. S. LaSor. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1978. 199-215. G ew alt, D. “M atthaus 25,31-46 im E rw artungshorizont heutiger Exegese.” LingBib 25-26 (1973) 9-21. G oppelt, L. “Leben fü r die B arm herzigen.” Calwer Predigthilfen 11 (1972) 221-28. G rassi, J . A. “T Was H ungry and You Gave Me to E at’ (Matt. 25:35ff.): T he Divine Identification Ethic in Matthew.” BTB 11 (1981) 81-84. Gray, S. W. The Least ofMy Brothers: Matthew 25:31-46: A History of Interpretation. SBLDS 114. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989. G ross, G. “Die ‘g erin g sten B rü d e r’ Jesu in M t 25,40 in A u sein an d ersetzu n g m it d e r n e u e re n Exegese.” BibLeb 5 (1964) 172-80. H aufe, G. ‘“Soviel ih r getan h ab t einem dieser m ein er geringsten B rüder.’” In Ruf und Antwort. FS E. Fuchs. Leipzig: K oehler & Amelang, 1964. 484-93. H errm an n , V. “A nm erkungen zum Verständnis einiger Paralleltexts zu Mt 25,31ff aus d e r altägyptischen R eligion.” BibNot 59 (1991) 17-22. H ülsbusch, W. “W enn d e r M enschensohn in seiner H errlichkeit kommt: Predigtvorschlag für das Christkönigsfest nach Mt 25,31-46.” BibLeb 13 (1972) 207-14. H u tter, M. “Mt 25:31-46 in d er D eutung M anis.” NovT 33 (1991) 276-82. In g elaere, J.-C . “La ‘p ara b o le’ du ju g e m e n t d e rn ie r (M atthieu 2 5 /3 1 -4 6 ).” RHPR 50 (1970) 23-60. K lein, L. “Who Are the ‘Least o f the Brethre n ’?” Dialog21 (1982) 139-42. K noch, O . “G ott als Anwalt des M enschen: Die Bildrede vom W eltgericht: Mt 2 5 /3 1 -4 6 .” BK 24 (1969) 82-84. L add, G. E. ‘T h e Parable o f the Sheep an d the Goats in Recent In terp retatio n .” In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N. L o ngenecker an d M. C. Tenney. G ran d Rapids: E erdm ans, 1974. 191-99. L am brecht, J . “T he Last Ju d g m e n t (Matthew 25:31-46).” In Once More Astonished: The Parables ofJesus. New York: Crossroad, 1983. 196-235. L ap o o rta, J . ‘“ . . . whatever you did for one of the least o f these . . . you did for m e ’ (Matt. 25:31-46).” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 68 (1989) 103-9. Legasse, S. “La parabole d u ju g e m en t d ern ie r (Mt., xxv, 3 6 -4 6 ).” In Jésus et l’enfant. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969. 85-100. M addox, R. “W ho Are the ‘S h eep ’ an d the ‘G oats’? A Study o f the Purpose an d M eaning o f Mt. 25,31-46.” AusBR 13 (1965) 19-28. Mánek, J. “Mit wem identifiziert sich Jesus? Eine exegetische Rekonstruction ad Matt. 25:31-46.” In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars an d S. S. Smalley. C am bridge: C am bridge UP, 1973. 15-25. M arguerat, D. Le jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981. M artin, F. “T he Im age o f the S hepherd in the Gospel o f St. M atthew.” ScEs 27 (1975) 261-301. M ichaels, J. R. “Apostolic H ardships an d Righteous Gentiles: A Study of Matthew 25, 31-46.” JBL 84 (1965) 27-37. M itton, C. L. “Expository Problems: Present Justification and Final Ju d g m e n t—A Discussion o f the Parable o f the Sheep and the Goats.” ExpTim 68 (1956-57) 46-50. O udersluys, R . C. “T he Parable o f the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46): Eschatology an d Mission, T h en an d Now.” RefRev 26 (1973) 151-61. P am m ent, M. “Singleness and M atthew’s A ttitude to the T orah. ”JSNT 17 (1983) 73-86. P esch, W. Der Lohngedanke in der LehreJesu verglichen mit der religiösen Lohnlehre des Spätjudentums. MTS 1. M unich: Zink, 1955. P uzicha, M. Christus peregrinus: Die Fremdenaufnahme (Mt 25,35) als Werk der privaten Wohltätigkeit im Urteil der Alten Kirche. M ünsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 47. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980. R ennes, J . “À propos de M atthieu 25,31-46.” ETR 44 (1969) 233-34. R o b in so n ,J. A. T. ‘T h e ‘Parable’ o f the Sheep and the Goats.” NTS 2 (1955-56) 225-37. Roy, M. “ju g e m e n t et sanction: M atthieu 25,31-46; Luc 16,19-31.” CHR 28 (1981) 440-49. Sayer, J . “‘Ich hatte Durst, u n d ih r g a b t m ir zu tr in k e n ’: Zum A nsatz e in e r T h e o lo g ie d e r m e n sc h lic h e n G rundbedürfnisse nach Mt 25,31ff im Rahm en der Pastoral d er Befreiung.” M TZ 42 (1991) 151-67. S chillebeeckx, E. “A Glass o f W ater for a Fellow H um an Being (Matt. 25,31-46).” In God among Us. L o ndon/N ew York: SCM /Crossroad, 1983. 59-62. S teidle, B. “Ich war

Notes

739

krank u n d ih r h abt m ich besucht.” Erbe und Auftrag 40 (1964) 443-58; 41 (1965) 36-52, 99-113, 189-206. T urner, H . E. W. “E xpounding the Parables—T he Parable o f the Sheep an d the Goats (Mt 25:31-46).” ExpTim77 (1965-66) 243-46. V ia, D. O . “Ethical Responsibility and H um an W holeness in Matthew 25:31-46.” H TR 80 (1987) 79-100. W ikenhauser, A. “Die Liebeswerke im G erichtsgem älde.” BZ 20 (1932) 366-77. W ilckens, U. “Gottes geringste B rüder—zu Mt 25,31-46.” In Jesus und Paulus. FS W. G. Kümmel, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 363-83. W inandy, J. “La scène d u ju g e m en t d ern ie r (Mt.25,31-46).” SE 18 (1966) 169-86. Z um stein, J. La condition du croyant dans l’évangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16. Göttingen: V andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Translation 31 “When the Son o f M a n comes in his glory a n d all his angelsa with him , then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32A n d all the nations will be gathered together before him , a n d he will separate them from one another, ju s t as a shepherd separates the sheep fro m the goats. 33A n d he w ill place the sheep at his tight h a n d a n d the goats at his left. 34Then the kin g will say to those at his tight hand: ‘Come, blessed ones o f my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared fo r you from the fo u n d a tio n o f the world. 35For I was h u n gry a nd you gave me food bto eat; I was thirsty a nd you gave me som ethingc to drink; I was a stranger a n d you received me as a guest; 36naked a n d you clothed me; I was sick a n d you looked after me; I was in prison a n d you visited me. ,37 Then the righteous w ill respond to him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry a n d fe d you, or thirsty and gave you a drink? 38When did we see you a stranger a nd took you in as a guest, or naked a n d clothed you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison a n d came to y o u ? 40A n d the kin g will answer a n d say to them: ‘Truly I tell you, insofar as you did these things dto one o f the least o f these my brotherse or sisters,f you did them g to me. ’ 41 Then he will say also to those on his left side: ‘D epart fro m me, cursed ones, into the eternalfire which is prepared hfo r the devil an d his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty a n d you gave me nothing to drink; 43 Iwas a stranger a nd you did not treat me as a guest; n a k e d i a n d you did not clothe me; sick a n d in prison a n d you did not look after me. ’ 44Then they themselves also will answer a n d say: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, a n d did not m inister to yo u ? ’45 Then he will answer an d say to them: ‘Truly I tell you, inasmuch as you did not do these thingsj to one o f the least o f these, you did not do them k to me. ’46A n d these w illgo away to eternal punishm ent,1but the righteous to eternal life. ” Notes a Many MSS (A W f 13 TR syP,h bopt) read άγιοι, “saints,” perhaps by the influence of the LXX of Zech 14:5. Supporting άγγελοι, “angels,” are K B D L Θ f 1lat sa mae bopt. Cf. Mark 8:38b; Luke 9:26b. b “Food” added to translation, supplying a direct object. c “Something” added to translation, supplying a direct object. d ‘These things” added to translation, supplying a direct object. e A few witnesses (B* 1424 ff1 ff2) omit των άδελφών μου, “my brothers,” perhaps by the influence of v 45, where the phrase is not found. f “Or sisters” added. hT “ h em ” added to translation, supplying a direct object. h A few MSS (D f 1it mae) read ο ήτοίμασεν ό πατήρ μου, “which my Father prepared,” instead of το ήτοιμασμένον, “which is prepared.” This may be to parallel the του πατρόςμου, “my Father,” in v 34. On the other hand, if the former reading was the original, scribes may have been tempted to

740

Ma

t t h ew

2 5 :3 1 -4 6

soften the statement by the shorter one. The external evidence, however, strongly supports the shorter reading. See TCGNT, 63-64. 1p45 h add ήμηκ “I was,” on the model of v 35. J “These things” added to translation, supplying direct object. k “Them” added to translation, supplying direct object. l One witness (it) reads ignem, “fire,” by the influence of v 41. F o rm /Structure/Setting A. T h e fin a l se c tio n o f th e e s c h a to lo g ic a l d isc o u rs e e n d s fittin g ly in a g r e a t j u d g m e n t sc en e . T h is p e r ic o p e also e n d s th e f o rm a l te a c h in g o f Je s u s in th e G osp el. T h e p assag e is a g a in c o n c e r n e d w ith th e r e tu r n o f th e S o n o f M a n (v 31) a n d th e im m e d ia te ly s u b s e q u e n t ju d g m e n t, w ith th e b le ssin g o f th e rig h te o u s a n d th e p u n is h m e n t o f th e w icked. It is a tim e o f a c c o u n tin g a n d a tim e o f division. T h e p assag e c o n c lu d e s w ith n o f u r th e r e x h o r ta tio n s o r a d d e d logia; it is le ft to sp e a k fo r itself. A n d th e m e ssag e c o n c e r n in g th e im p o r ta n c e o f th e d is c ip le s ’ c o n d u c t to w a rd o th e rs c a n h a rd ly h av e b e e n m a d e m o re p o ig n a n tly . B. T h e p a s s a g e is u n iq u e to M a tth e w , b e in g a p p a r e n tly d ra w n f r o m th e e v a n g e list’s sp e cia l so u rc e . T h e o n ly p a rtia l p a ra lle ls a re to its o p e n in g a n d close. T h u s M a rk 8 :3 8 b a n d L u k e 9 :2 6 b b o th r e f e r to th e c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n in g lo ry (M ark: o f h is F a th e r; L u k e: h is a n d h is F a th e r ’s) w ith h is h o ly an g e ls. J o h n 5:29, w ith its d iv isio n b e tw e e n d o e rs o f g o o d a n d o f evil, is clo se to M a tth e w ’s c o n c lu d in g s e n te n c e b u t m o r e in c o n t e n t th a n w o rd in g . L u k e 1 3 :2 7 -2 8 , “d e p a r t fro m m e all w o rk e rs o f in iq u ity ,” is clo se to v 4 1 Tw o p re v io u s p assag e s in M atth e w a n tic ip a te p a rts o f th e p r e s e n t p e ric o p e . T h e c o n te n t o f th e o p e n in g v erses is s ta te d co n c ise ly in 16:27, a n d in 7:23 o n e fin d s th e c o m m a n d to “w o rk e rs o f in iq u ity ” to “d e p a r t fro m m e ” (cf. v 41 ). C. T h e p e r ic o p e is artistically c o n s tr u c te d a n d m a k e s d e lib e r a te u se o f e x te n sive r e p e titio n f o r e ffe c t a n d p e r h a p s f o r ea se in m e m o r iz a tio n . U n lik e th e p r e c e d in g p a ra b le s, how ever, th is n a rra tiv e is b a s e d n o t o n a fic titio u s sto ry b u t o n th e d e s c r ip tio n o f a v ery re a l, th o u g h f u tu re , ev e n t. D e sp ite so m e c le a r p a r a b o lic e l e m e n ts , th e p a s s a g e w ith its f u t u r e te n s e f o r m s is m o r e p r o p e r l y c a te g o riz e d as a n a p o c a ly p tic re v e la tio n d isc o u rs e ( th u s F rie d ric h ; cf. G n ilk a ). T h e fo llo w in g o u tlin e re fle c ts th e p a ra lle l s tr u c tu re w ith in th e passag e: (1) th e g lo rio u s c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M a n (v 3 1 ); (2) th e g r e a t s e p a r a tio n (v v 3 2 -3 3 ); (3) th e re w a rd o f th e rig h te o u s (vv 3 4 - 4 0 ), s u b d iv id e d in to (a) th e re w a rd (v 3 4 ), (b) its g r o u n d s (v v 3 5 -3 6 ), (c) th e p r o te s t (v v 3 7 - 3 9 ), a n d (d ) th e p r in c ip le (v 4 0 ); (4) th e ju d g m e n t o f th e w ick e d ( v v 4 1 - 4 5 ), su b d iv id e d in to (a) th e ju d g m e n t (v 4 1 ), (b ) its g r o u n d s ( v v 4 2 - 4 3 ), (c) th e p r o te s t (v 4 4 ), a n d (d ) th e p r in c ip le (v 4 5 ); a n d (5) th e fin a l d iv isio n (v 4 6 ). T h e m o s t s trik in g s tr u c tu ra l f e a tu re o f th e p assag e is th e list o f six n e e d s , w h ic h o c c u rs n o less th a n f o u r tim es (th e f o u r th so m e w h a t a b b re v ia te d ), th r e e tim e s w ith c o r r e s p o n d in g lists o f r e m e d ie s ( v v 3 5 - 3 6 ; 3 7 - 3 9 ; 4 2 - 4 3 ) a n d o n c e w ith th e s u m m a r iz i n g r e m e d y δ ιη κ ο ν ή σ α μ έ ν σ ο ι, “w e m in is te re d to y o u .” In all f o u r lists th e w o rd s a n d th e ir o r d e r d o n o t c h a n g e : h u n g ry , thirsty, stra n g e r, n a k e d , sick, in p ris o n . T h e first r e p e titio n o f th e in itia l list, in th e m o u th s o f th e r ig h te o u s (v v 3 7 -3 9 ), o c c u rs as th r e e q u e s tio n s, e a c h p a ir b e in g in tr o d u c e d by π ό τ ε σ ε ε ϊδ ο μ ε ν , “w h e n d id w e se e y o u ? ” T h e v o c a b u la r y o f th is lis t r e m a in s e x a c tly th e s a m e e x c e p t f o r

Comment

741

“we nourished” (v 37), for “gave you to eat” (vv 35, 42). The second and third lists (vv 37-39; 42-43) agree in coalescing the fifth and sixth items so that only one remedy is given ( ή λ θ ο μ ε ν , “we came,” in v 39, which in the first list is the remedy to the sixth item, “in prison”; and έ π ε σ κ έ ψ α σ θ ε , “look after,” in v 43, which in the first list is the remedy to the fifth item, “sick”) . The third list, addressed to the wicked, is, of course, further distinguished by the negatives before the remedies, “you did n o t.” The fourth list (v 44) finally abbreviates drastically, simply listing the six items following the single π ό τ ε σ ε ε ιδ ο μ ε ν , “when did we see you,” and at the end offering the one comprehensive remedy δ ιη κ ο ν ή σ α μ έ ν σ ο ι, “did we (not) minister to you?” Several other parallels should be noted. The articulation of the principle in vv 40 and 45, both beginning with the ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ν μ ΐν , “truly I tell you,” is verbatim, except for the two negatives in the second one and the omission in the second one of the phrase τω ν ά δ ε λ φ ώ ν μ ο υ , “my brothers.” A further parallel construction occurs in vv 34 and 41, involving the description of the kingdom / the fire as ή τ ο ι μ α σ μ έ ν η ν / ov, “prepared,” and their respective modifiers, and in the same verses the oppositions in oi ε υ λ ο γ η μ έ ν ο ι , “the blessed,” and [o i ] κ α τ η ρ α μ έ ν ο ι, “[the] accursed” (cf. δ ε ύ τ ε , “come”; π ο ρ ε ύ ε σ θ ε , “depart”). Finally, note the parallel clauses in vv 33 and 46, involving the separation of the two groups. D. Besides its influence upon other writings of the NT (see C om m ent), this passage is probably alluded to in 2 Clem. 6:7 (“eternal punishm ent”; cf. v 46); Justin Martyr, D ial. 76.5 (“depart into the outer darkness which the Father has prepared for Satan and his angels”; cf. v 41), and Herrn. Vis. 3.9.2 (“look after one another and help one another . . . give to those who lack”) . On the authenticity of the passage as going back to Jesus himself, see I. Broer (cf. J. A. T. Robinson; H. E. W. Turner). For a comparison of the passage with 1 E noch 62-63, see D. R. Catchpole. έθρέψ αμεν,

Comment 31 For the last time in this discourse, the coming of the Son of Man takes center stage. Again the initial question of the disciples concerning the time of Jesus’ parousia and the end of the age comes to mind (24:3). But here as in previous references to the coming of the Son of Man (cf. 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44), the real issue is not the time but the significance of his coming and the consequent need to be prepared. For the coming of the Son of Man will mean judgment, as every pericope since 24:36 has emphasized. But the closest parallel to the present verse comes from 16:27, which also refers to the coming of the Son of Man but έ ν rr) δ ό ζ η τ ο ν π α τ ρ ό ς , “in the glory of his Father,” rather than ε ν rr) δ ό ξ η α ύ το ϋ , “in his glory,” as here. That Matthew can alter this language so naturally is an indicator of his high Christology. The remainder of 16:27, “and then he will render to each according to his work,” is, of course, the point of the present parable concerning the sheep and the goats. A second closely parallel verse is Matt 19:28, which speaks of the sitting of “the Son of Man on his glorious throne [ ε π ί θρόνου δ ό ζ η ς α ύ τ ο υ ],” giving rewards to his disciples. 24:30 has also referred to the coming of the Son of Man “on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory [ μ ε τ ά δ υ ν ά μ ε ω ν κ α ί δ ό ξ η ς π ο λ λ ή ς ·].” So also 19:28 refers to the end of the age “when the

742

Ma t t h e w 25:31-46

Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory,” in a context that refers to judgment. The accompanying angels have previously been m entioned in 13:41; 16:27; 24:31 (cf. 2 Thess 1:7; and for OT background, Zech 14:5 [see N ote a] and LXX of Deut 32:43; 33:2). The background to this reference to the coming of the Son of Man is, as in the other references, primarily Dan 7:13-14. The language of this verse is also close to the following passages in 1 Enoch: “the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory” (62:5; cf. 62:2-3); “he placed the Elect One on the throne of glory” (61:8). In both of these passages, the Son of Man brings about apocalyptic blessing for the righteous and judgm ent of the wicked (cf. 69:27-29; 1:9). Matthew again makes use of apocalyptic imagery for the coming of the Son of Man to his judgm ent throne (cf. 2 Thess 1:7-10; John 5:27). This event signals the great judgm ent scene that follows, in which Jesus as the Son of Man functions as judge—a role restricted to Yahweh in the OT. 32-33 First, π ά ν τ α τ ά έθ νη , “all the nations,” are gathered before him. This comprehensiveness matches that of the commission to spread the gospel (cf. 24:14; 28:19). The gathering together (σ ν ν α χ θ ή σ ο ν τ α ί , “they will be gathered,” a divine passive meaning “by God”) described here probably refers to the same “gathering” of the righteous (cf. 3:12; 13:30) or of both righteous and wicked (cf. 13:47; 22:10) spoken of earlier in the Gospel. Probably included, therefore, are the gentile nations, Israel, and also the corpus m ixtu m of the Christian church— i.e., the reference is universal (thus too Cranfield, Catchpole, Via). T he m eaning of “all the nations” h ere is m uch disputed. In his encyclopedic survey o f the in terp retatio n o f this pericope, S. W. Gray tabulates the following conclusions concerning the m eaning of this phrase in descending order o f popularity: (1) all h u m an beings; (2) all Christians; (3) all non-Christians and n o n -jew s; (4) all non-Christians; and (5) all n on-jew s (thus Allen; B randenburger). O ptions 3, 4, an d 5 un d erstand the w ord τά έθνη as referring to the “h ea th e n ,” in the sense o f those who are n o t G od’s people (cf. Friedrich; Court; G arland; Lam brecht; H arrington, who points to the expectation o f a particular ju d g m e n t o f the Gentiles in the apocalyptic literature), with conclusions varying d epending on how the latter is understood. T here are no clear m arkers in the text to indicate that any group is excluded (cf. 24:30), and, m oreover, there are earlier indications in the Gospel that p o in t to the future ju d g m e n t of Christians (e.g., 7:21-23; 16:27). T he second option is based in p art on the difficulty of u nderstanding the ju d g m e n t o f non-Christians by standards o f which they are ig n o ran t (see G. Gay). T he basis for judgm ent, however, may n o t be deeds o f mercy in general b u t only deeds that are indications of response to the message o f the Gospel. T he first option has the advantage of being consistent with the universality o f the same phrase in 28:19, which includes both Gentiles and Jews (see Comment on that verse). T he interpretatio n o f “the nations” in the present passage is closely related to the in terp retatio n o f “the least o f these my b ro th ers” in v 40 (cf. v 45). See fu rth e r Comment on that verse.

The great judgm ent scene portrayed here is alluded to elsewhere in the NT in such passages as Rom 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:11-13 (cf. Acts 17:31). It involves a separation of the righteous and the wicked among the nations (ά φ ο ρ ίσ ε ι , “he will separate,” is also used in referring to the final judgm ent in 13:49; cf. 13:4043). Despite the disagreement of the gender of α υ τ ο ύ ς , “them,” the antecedent remains τα έθ νη , “the nations” (rightly Gray, 353; cf. 28:19 for the same phenomenon) . τ ά π ρό β α τα , “the sheep,” is a common metaphor for the people of God, i.e.,

Comment

743

the righteous (e.g., 10:16; 26:31, citing Zech 13:7; cf. esp. John 10), although Matthew also uses the image of the lost or straying sheep (e.g., 9:36; 10:6; 15:24; Ezek 34:17, 20 call for a separation of sheep from sheep [i.e., the separation of males from females] but also of rams from goats), έρίφ ω ν , “goats,” is used only here in Matthew and elsewhere in the NT only in Luke 15:29 (the slightly different, diminutive form έ ρ ίφ ω ν in v 33, compared to έ ρ ιφ ο ς in v 32, involves no change in meaning). έκ δεξιώ ν α υτού , “at his right hand,” refers generally to the place of honor (cf. 20:23; 22:44, citing Pss 110:1; 26:64; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34). i f εύω νύμω ν, “at the left hand,” however, need not indicate a position of disfavor (cf. esp. 20:21, 23). Some are sheep and some are goats; they are separated from each other into two groups as a setting for the bestowing of reward (and later judgment) together with the instruction that now follows. 34 ό β α σ ιλ ε ύ ς , “the king,” is the one described as sitting upon the throne in v 31, i.e., the Son of Man, and not another person. This is clear from the reference to those at “his right hand” (cf. v 33). The Son of Man is earlier identified as the Judge who hands out eschatological blessing or punishm ent in 16:27; 13:41-43 (cf. 2 Thess 1:7). Now again he is identified as Judge. The judgm ent seat of God (Rom 14:10-12) is no different from the judgm ent seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10). The invitation δ ε ύ τ ε , “come,” vividly contrasts with the π ο ρ εύ εσ θ ε, “depart,” of v 41, as do the other clusters of elements in the two verses, oi ε υ λ ο γ η μ έ ν ο ι, “the blessed” (contrast: [ο ι ] κ α τ η ρ α μ έ ν ο ι, “[the] cursed”), is not elsewhere in Matthew or the NT an appellation used for the righteous (cf. specialized uses in 21:9; 23:39; Luke 1:42; Gal 3:9). They are uniquely the blessed τ ο ν π α τ ρ ό ς μ ο υ, “of my Father” (Matthean idiom; cf. 11:27; 20:23; 26:29, 53), reflecting thereby their special relationship to him. Now at last the righteous are to inherit the eschatological kingdom in all its fullness, the consummation of the fulfillment they had already begun to enjoy in their participation in the kingdom. In its other two occurrences in Matthew the verb κ λ η ρ ο ν ο μ εΐν , “inherit,” is also used in the future tense, once with respect to “the earth” (5:5) and once with respect to “eternal life” (19:29), other metaphors for the eschatological blessing now to be received (for the verb elsewhere in the NT, cf. esp. 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21). The β α σ ιλ ε ία ν , “kingdom ,” to be inherited (for earlier references to this future kingdom, see, e.g., 5:19-20; 6:10; 7:21; 8:11; 18:3; 19:23; 20:21; 26:29) is said to have been ήτοιμασμένην, “prepared” (for the same verb used in reference to eschatological blessing, see 20:23, with the addition “by my Father”; cf. 1 Cor 2:9), ά π ό κ α τα β ολή ς κόσμου, “from the foundation of the world” (for the same expression, see 13:35; cf. Luke 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; Rev 13:8; 17:8), that is, from the beginning of time (cf. m . ʾAbot 5:6). In the blessing of the righteous, God’s eternal purpose is being accomplished. 35-36 There are six different situations of need, all in the aorist tense except for the ή μ η ν, “I was,” in vv 35 and 36 (with regard to “a stranger” and “in prison”). The verb ή μ ην, “I was,” is also assumed for γ υ μ ν ό ς , “naked,” in v 36, following its use in v 35. The immediately startling fact (cf. vv 37-39) is that Jesus says he was in such situations of need, and the righteous in each instance met the need. The needs of hunger and thirst naturally go together, and one may have expected that the need of clothing would have been third rather than fourth, following the reference to being a stranger (for OT combination of the three, see Job 22:6-7; elsewhere in the OT hunger and nakedness are mentioned, with

744

M a t t h e w 25:31-46

thirst probably assumed under hunger; cf. Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7, 16; Tob 4:16; and Rom 12:20 citing Prov 25:21). The provision of food (drink) and clothing is regarded in the OT as the work of the righteous (of whom it is said they “shall surely live” in Ezek 18:9; for food see too Jas 2:15-17; for drink cf. Matt 10:42; Job 22:7). For the third item, hospitality to the stranger, see Job 31:32 (cf. in the NT, Heb 13:2; 1 Tim 5:10). Visiting the sick is m entioned in Sir 7:35 (together with the needy in Sir 7:32-34; cf. Jas 5:14; the verb έ π ι σ κ έ π τ ε σ θ α ί , “look after,” is used in Jas 1:27 but in connection with orphans and widows). On remembering those in prison, see Heb 13:3 (cf. T. Jos. 1.6). In the face of the needs mentioned, the righteous responded appropriately with deeds of mercy. The catalogue is, of course, only representative. It covers the most basic needs of life in order to represent the meeting of human need of every kind. The works themselves, however, serve as but “parabolic stageprops, as it were, used to convey the primary meaning of the parable” (Gray, 353). 37-39 ol δ ίκ α ιο ί, “the righteous” (a favorite word of Matthew’s; cf. esp. v 46; 10:41; 13:43, 49), are understandably astonished at what Jesus has just said to them. They have taken it quite literally but remember no circumstance in which they ministered to Jesus in these ways—hence their threefold question, π ό τ ε σ ε ε ϊδ ο μ ε ν , “when did we see you?” at the beginning of vv 37, 38, 39. The substitution of έθ ρ εψ α μ εν , “we fed” ( τ ρ έ φ ε ί ν is used elsewhere in Matthew only in 6:26), for έ δ ώ κ α τέ μ ο ί φ α γ ε ϊ ν , “gave me to eat,” is apparently only a matter of stylistic variation. A slight abridgment takes place in v 39, where the verb έ π ισ κ έ π τ ε σ θ α ί , “look after,” used in v 36, is omitted, ά σ θ ε ν ο υ ν τα , “sick,” is instead combined with ε ν φ υ λ α κ ή , “in prison,” and both are served by the single verb ή λθ ο μ εν , “we came.” A similar abbreviation takes place in v 43 where, however, the other verb, έ π ε σ κ έ ψ α σ θ ε , “you looked after,” becomes the predicate for both conditions of need. 40 The confusion of the disciples at the statement of Jesus, disclosed in their questions, gives rise to the articulation of an astounding principle, central to the passage. Addressed with the formula ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ΐν , “truly I tell you,” the mark of an especially weighty saying, the righteous are told that to the extent that they did these things έ ν ί τ ο ύ τ ω ν τ ω ν ά δ ε λ φ ώ ν μ ο υ τ ω ν ε λ ά χ ισ τ ω ν , “for one of the least of these my brothers,” they had in effect done them for Jesus himself. Jesus thus identified himself fully with his disciples (cf. 1 Cor 8:12; 12:27; Acts 9:5). T h ere is m uch disagreem ent about the m eaning of the phrase “the least o f these my bro th ers.” From Gray’s survey of the options, we may list the following, in descending o rd er o f popularity: (1) everyone, i.e., particularly the needy am ong hum ankind; (2) all Christians; (3) Christian missionaries; and (4) J ewish Christians. T he fourth option takes the w ord “b ro th ers” too literally and therefore restricts it too narrowly to those Christians who are physically Jews. T he distinction between options 2 and 3 is a small one, unless one insists in option 3 upon “m issionary” in the technical sense o f the term (thus Court, G undry) as opposed to Christians generally—all o f whom in some sense rep resen t the Gospel (cf. 10:32). N othing specific in the passage or context supports the speculation o f M addox th at Christian leaders are intended. T he real choice is between the first two options. T he use o f τω ν άδελφώ ν μου, “my bro th ers,” makes it alm ost certain th a t the statem ent refers n o t to hum an beings in general b u t rath e r to brothers an d sisters o f the Christian community. Elsewhere in the Gospel it is consistently the disciples whom Jesus calls “my b ro th ers” (12:48-49; 28:10; see too 23:8; outside Mat-

Comment

745

thew, see Jo h n 20:17; Rom 8:29; H eb 2:11-12). A lthough Ελάχιστος, “least,” is used elsewhere in Matthew to refer to persons only in 5:19, the true counterpart to the phrase “one of these least” is found in M atthew’s distinctive oi μικροί, “the little ones” (of which ελάχιστος, “least,” is the superlative), a phrase used by M atthew to refer to disciples generally (see 18:6, 10, 14, where the subject is also Christian treatm en t o f Christians; see W inandy). A confirm ation of the correctness of this conclusion is found in the use of the phrase in a sentence th at makes m uch the same p o in t as the present passage: “W hoever gives one of these little ones [ενα των μικρών τούτων] a drink [ποτίση, same verb as in the present passage] of cold water in the nam e of a disciple, truly I tell you, will in no wise lose his [her] rew ard” (10:42). This follows a statem ent about the identification o f m aster and disciple th at is very m uch in line with the th o u g h t o f the present pericope: “T he one who receives you receives me, and the one who receives me receives the one who sent m e” (10:40). Η. B. G reen (206) n o t unjustly describes the present passage as “an extended dram atization” o f 10:42 (see too Cope; Ingelaere). An intriguing OT antecedent is found in Prov 19:17: “W hoever is kind to the poor lends to the L ord and will be paid in full.” See too the rabbinic parallel in Midr. Tanhuma on D eut 15:9: “My children, w hen you gave food to the poor I counted it as though you had given it to m e” (see Jerem ias, Parables ofJesus, 207). T h e p rin c ip le a rtic u la te d h e r e c o n c e rn s in th e first in stan c e d e e d s o f m ercy d o n e to disciples, b ro th e rs a n d sisters, a n d o n ly by e x tra p o la tio n to o th e rs (pace Grassi; C ra n fie ld ; W ilck e n s). F av o rin g th is in te r p r e ta tio n a re L a d d , M ichaels, M á n e k , C o p e , O u d e rslu y s, C o u rt, F ra n c e , C a tc h p o le , V ia, C a rso n , B lo m b e rg , L egasse, L a m b re c h t, a n d D o n a h u e (w hose d iscussion is p a rtic u la rly h e lp fu l) . T h e h y p o th esis o f J. F rie d ric h (cf. C a tc h p o le ) th a t, w hile th is is th e m e a n in g o f th e te x t fo r th e evangelist, J e s u s ’ o rig in a l w ords w ere u n iv e rsa l in a p p lic a tio n is d ifficu lt to su b stan tiate. M ost a sto n ish in g in this p e ric o p e , how ever, is th e in tim a te b o n d th a t id en tifies Je su s w ith his disciples. T h is id e n tific a tio n c a n n o t b e e x p la in e d o n th e basis o f th e saliah m o d e l since th e n th e rig h te o u s w o u ld k n o w th a t th e m e ssen g e rs r e p re s e n te d th e s e n d e r (th u s rig h tly C a tc h p o le; pace M ic h a e ls). 41 T h e s e q u e n c e o f vv 3 4 -4 0 is n o w r e p e a te d b u t in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e u n rig h te o u s , ε ξ ενω νύμω ν, “o n th e le ft,” pick s u p th e p h r a s e u s e d o f th e g o ats in v 33. T h e c o m m a n d π ο ρ εύ εσ θ ε ά π ’έμοΰ, “d e p a r t fro m m e ” (c o n tra s t δ ε ύ τ ε , “c o m e ” in v 3 4 ), is r e m in is c e n t o f th e ju d g m e n t in 7:23 (c itin g Ps 6:8). κ α τη ρ α μ έ ν ο ι, “c u r s e d ,” is u s e d o f th e u n r ig h te o u s in th e N T o n ly h e r e . M a tth e w fre q u e n tly uses “f ir e ” as a j u d g m e n t m e ta p h o r (see Comment o n 3:10); th e p h ra s e το πυρ το αιώνιον, “e te r n a l fire ,” is u se d elsew h ere in M a tth e w on ly in 18:8 (cf. πυρί άσβέστω , “w ith fire u n q u e n c h a b le ,” in 3:12). T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e u n r ig h te o u s c o n d e m n s th e m to th e p la c e o f e te r n a l to r m e n t, th e fire (cf. R ev 14:10; 19:20; 20:10, 1 4-15; 21:8) th a t h a s b e e n “p r e p a r e d ” (cf. v 34) τω δ ια β ό λ ω κ α ί τ ο ΐς ά γ γ έ λ ο ις α ύτο ϋ, “fo r th e devil a n d h is a n g e ls ” (fo r “th e d e v il” see Comment o n 4:1; th e n o tio n o f th e d ev il’s a n g e ls is f o u n d also in Rev 12:7, 9; 2 C o r 12:7). 4 2 -4 3 T h e sa m e six ite m s a re m e n tio n e d as in vv 3 5 -3 6 b u t n o w w ith th e v erb s o f r e s p o n s e c o n siste n tly n e g a te d , “y o u d id n o t.” T h e fifth a n d six th ite m s a re a g a in jo i n e d u n d e r o n e v e rb (cf. v 3 9 ), th is tim e, how ever, ούκ έ π ε σ κ έ ψ α σ θ ε , lit. “y o u d id n o t lo o k a fte r.” As c o n siste n tly as th e rig h te o u s a re a p p ro v e d fo r th e ir d e e d s o f m ercy, so n o w a re th e u n r ig h te o u s f a u lte d fo r th e ir lack o f c h a rita b le d e e d s to w a rd Je su s.

746

Ma

t t h ew

2 5 :3 1 -4 6

4 4 T h is p ro v o k e s th e sa m e p r o te s t f ro m th e u n r ig h te o u s as it d id fro m th e rig h te o u s . T h e y still a d d re ss Je s u s as κ ύ ρ ιε , “L o r d ” (as d id th e rig h te o u s in v 3 7 ), th e re b y r e m in d in g th e r e a d e r s o f a n e a r lie r r e f e r e n c e to th o s e w h o a d d re s s e d Je s u s as “L o rd , L o r d ” b u t w h o w ere n e v e rth e le s s also tu r n e d away (7 :2 1 -2 3 ). In th is case, how ever, r a th e r th a n re fle c tin g an y f o rm o f d isc ip le sh ip , th e a d d re ss o f J e s u s as “L o r d ” is p r o m p te d by c o n f r o n ta tio n w ith th e g lo rio u s S o n o f M a n as J u d g e . Syntactically, M a tth e w n o w a b rid g e s by h a v in g o n e q u e s tio n (i.e., o n e π ό τ ε σ ε ε ϊδ ο μ ε ν , “w h e n d id w e see y o u ,” r a th e r th a n th r e e as in vv 3 7 -3 9 ), a list o f th e six s itu a tio n s o f n e e d s e p a r a te d by 77, “o r,” a n d a sin g le, su m m a riz in g v e rb th a t co v ers all th e n e e d s, ού δ ιη κ ο ν ή σ α μ έ ν σ ο ι, “a n d d id n o t m in is te r to y o u .” T h e s e w o u ld -b e d isc ip le s a re eq u a lly p u z z le d by th e c laim o f Je su s, in th is case, th a t th e y h a d not d o n e th e s e d e e d s o f ch a rity to Je su s. 4 5 A g ain th e key p rin c ip le is a r tic u la te d (cf. v 4 0 ), th is tim e , how ever, in th e n eg a tiv e : n o t to h av e d o n e d e e d s o f k in d n e s s to o th e rs , a g a in d e s c r ib e d as έ ν ί το ύ τω ν τω ν ε λ ά χ ισ τ ω ν , “to o n e o f th e le a st o f th e s e ,” is to h av e fa ile d to d o th e m to Je su s. H e r e a g a in u n d e r th e fig u re “th e le a st o f th e s e ” a re fellow d iscip les, th e so -ca lle d “little o n e s ” (cf. Comment o n v 4 0 ). T h e o m issio n o f th e p h r a s e τω ν ά δ ελφ ώ ν μ ο υ , “m y b r o th e r s ,” is a m a tte r o f a b r id g m e n t a n d s h o u ld n o t b e ta k e n to sig n a l a c h a n g e o f m e a n in g fro m th e p h r a s e in v 40. 4 6 T h e la st s e n te n c e o f th e p a ra b le re fe rs to th e fin a l s e p a ra tio n o f th e r ig h te o u s a n d th e w ick e d (cf. J o h n 5:29; D a n 12:2). T h e w ick e d w ill g o aw ay ε ι ς κ ό λ α σ ιν αιώ νιο ν, “to e te r n a l p u n is h m e n t” (cf. v 41; κ ό λ α σ ις is u s e d e lse w h e re in th e N T o n ly in 1 J o h n 4:18) w h ile th e r ig h te o u s will rec eiv e ζω ή ν α ιώ νιον, “e te r n a l life ” ( th e p h ra s e is u s e d e lse w h e re in M a tth e w in 19:16, 29; see Comment o n 19:16). T h e ad jectiv e αιώ νιον, “e t e r n a l,” is u s e d in b o th in sta n c e s, p o in tin g to th e gravity o f th e issue a t stake. E xplanation T h e tim e o f th e g r e a t ju d g m e n t w h e re in th e rig h te o u s a n d th e u n r ig h te o u s a re fin ally s e p a r a te d will a rriv e w ith th e g lo rio u s c o m in g o f th e S o n o f M an. A ll th e n a tio n s o f th e w o rld — th a t is, ev ery in d iv id u a l o f th o s e n a tio n s — a re to b e j u d g e d o n th e basis o f th e ir tr e a tm e n t o f d isc ip le s o f Je su s. T h is p e r h a p s s u rp ris in g s ta te m e n t p o in ts a t o n c e to th e u n iq u e r e la tio n b e tw e e n Je s u s a n d th o s e w h o follow h im a n d to th e s u p re m e im p o r ta n c e o f th e m issio n a n d m e ssag e o f th e c h u r c h to th e w o rld . T o tr e a t th e d isc ip le , th e b r in g e r a n d re p re s e n ta tiv e o f th e g o sp e l, w ith d e e d s o f k in d n e s s is in e ffe c t to h av e so tr e a te d Je su s. C onversely, to fail to m e e t th e n e e d s o f th e C h ris tia n m is sio n a ry is to fail to m e e t th e n e e d s o f Je su s. T h e r e is th u s a m o s t re m a rk a b le b o n d o f so lid a rity b e tw e e n J e s u s a n d h is d iscip les. A lth o u g h d isc ip le s a re n a tu ra lly also c a lle d to d o g o o d to all p e o p le (cf. 9:13; 1 2:7), d e e d s o f k in d n e s s m u s t b e g in w ith b r o th e r s a n d sisters o f th e fa ith , w ith th e c h u r c h (cf. G al 6:10). A lth o u g h so m e tim e s u n d e r s to o d as c o n f ir m in g a salv atio n by w orks, th is p assag e n e e d n o t b e u n d e r s to o d as in c o m p a tib le w ith th e g o sp e l o f th e k in g d o m as a d iv in e gift. T h e a p o s tle P au l, th e c h a m p io n o f g ra c e , c a n also stress th e signific a n c e o f g o o d w o rk s (see esp . G al 6 :7 -1 0 ; 2 C o r 5 :1 0 ). M a tth e w d o e s stress th e im p o r ta n c e o f r ig h te o u s n e s s as g o o d d e e d s , b u t as a p a r t o f a la rg e r c o n te x t in

Explanation

747

which God acts graciously for the salvation of his people (see Hagner, M a tth e w 1 13, lxi-lxiii and C om m ent on 5:20). The deeds of mercy in the present passage are symbolic of a deeper reality, and as Gray notes, “the main point of the parable is the acceptance or the rejection of the Christian faith” (353; cf. 359). For a balanced and helpful discussion of this problem, see esp. C. L. Mitton.

T h e S to r y

o f J e s u s ’ D e a th R e s u r r e c tio n

a n d (2 6 :1 -2 8 :2 0 )

B ibliography Alsup, J. E. The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975. Bartsch, H.-W. “Die Passions- u n d O stergeschichten bei M atthäus.” In Entmythologisierende Auslegung. TF 26. Hamburg: Reich, 1962. 80-92. Benoit, P. The Passion and Resurrection ofJesus Christ. New York: H erder and H erder, 1969. Blinzler, J. Der Prozess Jesu. 4th ed. Regensburg: Pustet, 1969. Broer, I. “Bem erkungen zur Redaktion der Passionsgeschichte durch M atthäus.” In Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. FS W. Pesch, ed. L. Schenke. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1988. 2 5 -4 6 .— — . Die Urgemeinde und das Grab Jesu. SANT 31. Munich: Kösel, 1972. Brown, R. E. The Death of the Messiah. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994. — — . ‘T h e Resurrection in Matthew (27:62-28:20).” Worship 64 (1990) 157-70. Bruce, F. F. “T he Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative.” BJRL 43 (1960-61) 336-53. — — . ‘T h e End of the First Gospel.” E vQ 12 (1940) 203-14. Buck, E. “AntLJudaic Sentim ents in the Passion Narrative according to Matthew.” In Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity: Vol. 1. Paul and the Gospels, ed. P. Richardson. Waterloo, O ntario: Wilfred Laurier University, 1986. 165-80. Conzelmann, H. “History and Theology in the Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels.” Int 24 (1970) 178-97. Crossan, J. D. The Cross that Spoke: The Ongins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: H arper and Row, 1988. Curtis, K. R G. ‘T h re e Points of Contact between Matthew and John in the Burial and Resurrection Narratives.”JTS 23 (1972) 440-44. Dahl, N. A. ‘T h e Passion Narrative in Matthew.” In Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. 37-51.— — . “Die Passionsgeschichte bei M atthäus.” NTS 2 (1955-56) 17-32. Descamps, A. “Rédaction et christologie dans le réck m atthéen de la Passion.” In L ’Évangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et Théologie, ed. M. Didier. BETL 29. Gembloux: Duculot, 1972. 359-415. Dockx, S. “Les étapes rédactionnelles du r écit de la d ern iére céne chez les synoptiques.” In Chronologies néotestamentaires et vie de l’église primitive. Leuven: P eeters, 1984. 207-32. F inegan, J . Die Überlieferung der Leidens-und Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu. BZNW 15. Giessen: T ö p elm an n , 1934. Fisher, K. M. “R edaktionsgeschichtliche B em erkungen zur Passionsgeschichte des M atthäus.” In Theologische Versuche, ed. J. Rogge and G. Schille. Berlin: Evangelische, 1970. 2:109-28. Fuller, R. H. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Garland, D. E. One Hundred Years of Study on the Passion Narratives. NABPR Bibliographic Series 3. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1990. Gerhardsson, B. ‘J ésus livré et abandonné d ’après la passion selon s. M atthieu.” RB 76 (1969) 206-27. Giblin, C. H. “Structural and Them atic Correlation in the M atthean Burial-Resurrection Narrative (Matt, xxvii. 57-xxviii. 20).” NTS 21 (1974-75) 406-20. G reen, J. B. The Death ofJesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. WUNT 33. Tübingen: Mohr, 1988. Heil, J. P. The Death and Resurrection ofJesus: A Narrative-Cntical Reading of Matthew 26-28. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.— — . ‘T h e Narrative Structure of Matthew 27:5528:20.” JBL 110 (1991) 419-38. H endrickx, H. The Passion Narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. 2nd ed. L ondon: C hapm an, 1984. H illm ann, W. Aufbau und Deutung der synoptischen Leidensbenchte. Freiburg: Herder, 1941. H orbury, W. ‘T h e Passion Narratives and Historical Criticism.” Th 75 (1972) 58-71. Kratz, R. Auferweckung als Befreiung: Eine Studie zur Passionsund Auferstehungstheologie des Matthäus (besonders Mt 27,62-28,15). SBS 65. S tuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973. Kremer, J. Die Osterevangelien— Geschichten um Geschichte. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Lam brecht, J. “H et m atteaanse lijdensverhaal.” Collationes 30 (1984) 161-90. LaVerdiere, E. ‘T h e Passion Story as Prophecy.” Emmanuel 93 (1987) 84-98. Lim beck, M., ed. Redaktion und Theologie des Passionsberichtes nach den

Introduction

749

Synoptikern. Wege der Forschung 481. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Lodge, J. G. “Matthew’s Passion-Resurrection Narrative.” Chicago Studies 25 (1986) 3-20. Lohse, E. History of the Suffenng and Death ofJesus Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Martin, E “Mourir: M atthieu 26-28.” Sémiotique et Bible 53 (1989) 1 8 -4 7 .— — and Panier, L. “Dévoilement du p éché et salut dans le récit de la passion selon Saint M atthieu.” LumVie 36 (1987) 72-88. Matera, E J. ‘T h e Passion according to Matthew: Part O ne. Jesus Unleashes the Passion, 26:1-75.” Clergy Review62 (1987) 9 3 -9 7 .— — . “T he Passion according to Matthew: Part Two. Jesus Suffers the Passion, 27:1-66.” Priests & People [London] 1 (1987) 1317. Meier, J. P. “Com m entary on the Passion, Death and Resurrection (Mt 26-28): The Turning Point of the Ages.” In The Vision of Matthew. New York: Paulist, 1979. 179-219. Moo, D. J. The Old Testament in the Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Overman, J. A. “Heroes and Villains in Palestinian Lore: Matthew’s Use of Traditional Polemic in the Passion N arrative.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. 592-602. Pesch, R., and Kratz, R. So liest Man synoptisch: Anleitung und Kommentar zum Studien der synoptischen Evangelien. VII. Passionsgeschichte. Part 2. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1980. Punnakottil, G. “T h e Passion Narrative according to Matthew.” Biblebhashyam 3 (1977) 20-47. Rieckert, P. K. “T h e Narrative C oherence in Matthew 26-28.” Neot 16 (1982) 53-74. Schelkle, K. H. Die Passion Jesu in der Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments. H eidelberg: Kerle, 1949. Senior, D. “Matthew’s Special Material in the Passion Story: Implications for the Evangelist’s Redactional Technique and Theological Perspective.” ETL 63 (1987) 272-94.— — . The Passion Narrative according to Matthew: A Redactional Study. BETL 39. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1975.-------- . “T he Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew.” In L ’Évangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et Théologie, ed. M. Didier. BETL 29. Gembloux: Duculot, 1972. 3 4 3-57.— — . The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. W ilmington, DE: Glazier, 1985. Smith, R. “Celebrating Easter in the M atthean M ode.” CurTM 11 (1984) 79-82. Smyth, K “Matthew 28: Resurrection as Theophany.” IT Q 42 (1975) 259-71. Soards, M. L. “Oral Tradition before, in, and outside the Canonical Passion Narratives.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough. JSNTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. 334-50. Suggs, M. J. “The Passion and Resurrection Narratives.” In Jesus and Man’s Hope, ed. D. G. Miller and D. Y. H adidian. Pittsburgh: Pittsb u rg h T heological Seminary, 1971. 2:323-38. Trilling, W. “Die P assionsbericht nach M atthäus.” Am Tische des Wortes 9 (1965) 33-44. Introduction In th e sto ry o f th e p a ssio n a n d r e s u r re c tio n o f J e su s w e c o m e to th e clim a x o f th e G o sp el a n d by fa r th e lo n g e s t c o n se c u tiv e n a rra tiv e in M atthew . H e r e th e g o al o f J e s u s ’ m issio n is re a liz e d . T h e d e a th o f Je su s o n th e cross is n o su rp rise , n o r d o e s it in d ic a te th e fa ilu re o f J e s u s ’ m issio n . F ro m th e e v a n g e list’s p o in t o f view, it is th e fu lfillm e n t o f s c rip tu re (26:54, 5 6 ), th e fix e d will o f G o d , a n d th e d e lib e r a te c h o ic e o f th e o b e d ie n t S o n o f G o d . T h is, in d e e d , is th e u n iq u e time ( kairos) o f J e su s (2 6 :1 8 ). T h e re fo re , th e to n e o f th e n a rra tiv e is n o t o n e o f tra g edy o r d e fe a t b u t o n e o f a c c o m p lis h m e n t a n d v ic to ry ev e n b e fo re we re a c h th e tr iu m p h o f th e r e s u r re c tio n in c h a p . 28. T h e r e re m a in s, to b e su re, th e d e e p m y stery o f th e a b a n d o n m e n t e x p e r ie n c e d by J e s u s o n th e cross. A lth o u g h we c a n n o t p e n e tr a te th a t m ystery, its m e a n in g is su rely to b e r e la te d to th e p r o c u r in g o f th e fo rg iv e n ess o f sins th r o u g h th e re d e m p tiv e d e a th o f th e S o n sp o k e n o f e a rlie r in th e n a rra tiv e (1:21; 20:28; cf. 2 6 :2 8 ).J e su s in th is n a rra tiv e ac co m p lish e s th e p u r p o s e fo r w h ic h h e c a m e in to th is w o rld . T h e p a ssio n n a rra tiv e is a lite ra ry m a ste rp ie c e . It c o n ta in s g rip p in g d r a m a th a t c a n n o t b u t m o v e th e re a d e r, y et th e r e is n o th in g m a u d lin h e re . T h e cru c ifix io n

750

Ma

t t h ew

2 6 :1 -2 8 :2 0

its e lf is n o t d e s c r ib e d b u t is r e f e r r e d to in th e b r ie f e s t way. P e r v a d in g th e n a r ra tiv e is a d e e p s e n s e o f iro n y . T h o u g h s in fu l m e n d o th e ir b e s t to th w a r t th e m is s io n o f J e s u s , th e y a c c o m p lis h th e v e ry p u r p o s e f o r w h ic h h e c a m e a n d th u s fu lfill G o d ’s w ill. I t is th is th a t p r im a rily a c c o u n ts f o r th e p a r a d o x ic a l to n e o f th e n a r r a tiv e . B u t th e p lo t is fu ll o f le s s e r ir o n ie s . O n e o f th e tw elve b e tra y s J e s u s w h ile th e o t h e r d is c ip le s , w h o h a d p r o fu s e ly in s is te d u p o n th e i r lo y a lty to J e s u s , a b a n d o n th e i r m a s te r in th e m o m e n t o f crisis. T h e h e a r in g s b e f o r e m e m b e r s o f th e S a n h e d r in a n d b e f o r e P ila te a r e a t b e s t tra v e s tie s o f ju s t ic e th a t c o n d e m n o n e w h o w as tr u ly in n o c e n t to h is d e a th . Yet it is th e R o m a n p r e f e c t w h o k n o w s J e s u s ’ i n n o c e n c e (2 7 :2 3 -2 4 ; cf. J u d a s ’ r e g r e tf u l c o n f e s s io n in 2 7 :4 ). T h e m o c k in g s ta te m e n ts a b o u t J e s u s ’ id e n tity as M e ssia h , S o n o f G o d , c o m in g S o n o f M a n , a n d K in g o f I s ra e l— w h e th e r f ro m C a ia p h a s , P ila te , o r th e u n n a m e d m o c k e r s a t th e c ro ss— a r e k n o w n f ro m th e e a r lie r n a r ra tiv e s o f th e G o s p e l to b e tr u e . T h e f in a l a n d c o r r e c t a s s e s s m e n t o f J e s u s , w h ic h c a p s th e c r u c ifix io n n a r r a tiv e , c o m e s n o t f ro m th e Je w s b u t f r o m a m o s t u n lik e ly s o u r c e , a R o m a n c e n tu r io n a n d h is s o ld ie rs , w h o c o n c lu d e w h a t th e r e a d e r h a s b e e n le d to c o n c lu d e t h r o u g h o u t, n a m e ly , th a t “th is w as tr u ly th e S o n o f G o d ” (2 7 :5 4 ). M a tth e w a g a in follow s h is p r in c ip a l so u rc e , M ark , v ery closely, in s e rtin g o n ly tw o n ew p assag es (2 7 :3 -1 0 ; 2 7 :6 2 -6 6 [cf. 2 8 :1 1 -1 5 ]). F o rm -c ritic a l sc h o la rs h av e e s ta b lis h e d th a t a v e rsio n o f th e p a ssio n n a rra tiv e e x iste d in c o n n e c te d f o rm v ery early, lo n g b e f o r e th e w ritin g o f th e G ospels. T h e p o ssib ility o f a p re -M a rk a n p ass io n n a rra tiv e , p e r h a p s u s e d litu rg ically in th e ea rly c h u r c h , is in v e stig a te d by R. E. B ro w n (D eath o f the Messiah, 4 6 -5 7 ; in th e sa m e w ork, M. L. S o a rd s o ffe rs a review o f sc h o la rs h ip o n th e q u e s tio n [1 4 9 2 -1 5 2 4 ]). In m a n y re sp e c ts th e p a ssio n a n d r e s u r r e c tio n n a rra tiv e c o r r e s p o n d s to th e in fa n c y n a rra tiv e o f th e G o sp el. T h e b ir th a n d d e a th /r e s u r r e c tio n o f J e s u s c a n b e c h a r a c te r iz e d as heavily la d e n w ith c o r r e s p o n d in g th e o lo g ic a l sig n ific an c e. B o th a re a c c o m p a n ie d by u n u s u a l c o n c e n tra tio n s o f e x tra o rd in a ry , so m e tim e s s u p e r n a tu r a l, ev en ts. B o th th e re fo r e raise th e q u e s tio n o f th e h isto ric ity o f th e re sp e c tiv e n a rra tiv e s. As w ith th e b ir th /i n f a n c y n a rra tiv e , w e m u s t av o id th e b a ld a lte rn a tiv e o f either h is to ry or th e o lo g ic a l in te r p r e ta tio n (see H a g n e r, M atthew 1 13, 2 ). H e r e , as th e re , th e e v a n g e list se em s to b e w o rk in g c r e a u vely w ith th e h isto ric a l tr a d itio n to w h ic h h e h a s access. T h e d e g r e e o f th a t creativ ity is, o f c o u r s e , d e b a ta b le . A g a in it se e m s m o s t r e a s o n a b le to re s is t th e n o tio n th a t M a tth e w ’s p r o c e d u r e c a n b e r e g a r d e d as w h o lesale c re a tio n . As th r o u g h o u t th is c o m m e n ta ry , th e p re s u p p o s itio n is th a t m o st, if n o t all, o f th e tim e M a tth e w ’s n a rra tiv e h a s a h isto ric a l c o re . H ow ever, as in th e in fa n c y n a rra tiv e , M a tth e w a t p o in ts in th e p a ssio n n a rra tiv e m ay w ell b e u tiliz in g a n d e la b o r a tin g tr a d itio n a l m a te ria ls w h o se lite ra l h isto ric a l basis m ay b e q u e s tio n e d . P a rtic u la rly p r o b le m atic in th e p a ssio n n a rra tiv e a re th e e v e n ts m e n tio n e d in 2 7 :5 1 -5 3 (see d isc u ssio n in Comment b e lo w ). H e r e it se em s th a t M a tth e w m a k e s u se o f a tr a d itio n th a t h a d a h is to ric a l c o re , w h ic h was th e n e la b o r a te d (p ro b a b ly a lre a d y b e fo re M a tth ew ) to m a k e a th e o lo g ic a l p o in t. R. E. B ro w n ’s m o n u m e n ta l c o m m e n ta r y o n th e p assio n n a rra tiv e s o f th e f o u r G o sp els (Death o f the M essiah) discusses th e issue o f h isto ric ity th r o u g h o u t a n d c o m e s to sob er, b a la n c e d , a n d relativ ely co n serv ativ e c o n c lu sio n s. W h ile I d iffe r fro m B ro w n in m y c o n c lu sio n s a t a n u m b e r o f p o in ts ,

Introduction

751

I nevertheless highly recommend his informative and judicious treatm ent of the issues (see esp. his introductory discussion, 13-24). The larger structure of the passion narrative in Matthew can be analyzed as follows: I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Prelim inaries A. T he Plot to Kill Jesus (26:1-5) B. T he A nointing of Jesus (26:6-13) C. Ju d as’ Betrayal of Jesus (26:14-16) D. T he Passover/Eucharist (26:17-30) T he A rrest of Jesus A. T he Prediction of the Falling Away of the Disciples (26:31-35) B. Jesus’ Struggle in G ethsem ane (26:36-46) C. Jesus A pprehended (26:47-56) T he Trial before the Jewish A uthorities A. Jesus before Caiaphas (26:57-68) B. P eter’s Denial o f Jesus (26:69-75) The Trial before Pilate A. Judas and the Blood Money (27:3-10) B. T he A rraignm ent before Pilate (27:1-2, 11-14) Jewish Complicity in the Crucifixion A. T he Decision for Barabbas and against Jesus (27:15-23) B. Responsibility for the D eath of Jesus (27:24-26) T he Crucifixion o f Jesus A. M ockery o f Jesus by the Rom an Soldiers (27:27-31) B. Jesus Crucified (27:32-37) C. M ockery of the Crucified O ne (27:38-44) D. T he D eath o f Jesus (27:45-50) T he A fterm ath A. Spectacular Events (27:51-54) B. T he W om en at the Cross (27:55-56) C. T he Burial o f Jesus (27:57-61) D. T he Posting o f a G uard at the Tomb (27:62-66; cf. 28:11-15)

The last section of the passion narrative, the posting of a guard at the tomb, serves as a natural bridge to the resurrection narrative of chap. 28, which, of course, provides the real end to the story of the crucifixion. If the death of Jesus is the heart of the Gospel as a totality, that event is but a cul-de-sac apart from the reality of the resurrection of Jesus. The death of Jesus is thus rather like a climactic deceptive cadence at the end of a long fugue, a cadence that leads to a yet greater and more glorious final resolution. The resurrection part of the story is given in remarkable brevity. Apart from the narrative concerning the Jewish authorities’ attempt to cover up the truth (28:11-15), the evangelist provides only an account of the announcem ent of the resurrection to the women at the tomb (28:1-7) and two resurrection appearances, without elaboration, one to the women (28:8-10) and one to the eleven disciples (28:16-20). To be sure, the last passage provides a brilliant climax, not only to the narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection but to the whole of the Gospel. Here the risen, glorious Jesus sets the agenda for his disciples and promises his presence with them “to the end of the age.”

752

Ma

t t h ew

2 6 :1 -5

It s h o u ld n o t b e su rp risin g th a t we fin d in th e p assio n a n d re s u rre c tio n n a r r a tive— th e c lim a x o f th e sto ry o f th e e a r th ly J e s u s — a r e c a p itu la tio n o f e a r lie r th e o lo g ic a l th e m e s o f th e G ospel. F o r e x a m p le , M atth ew em p h asizes th e fulfillm e n t th e m e a n d , th r o u g h th e e u c h a rist, th e th e m e o f J e s u s ’ d e a th as th e sacrifice t h a t p ro v id e s sa lv a tio n , i.e ., th e fo rg iv e n e s s o f sins. P a ra d o x ic a lly , h o w ev e r, C h risto lo g y especially e m e rg e s in th e p assio n n a rra tiv e . T h is em p h a sis is a p p a r e n t in a n u m b e r o f ways b u t p re e m in e n tly in J e s u s ’ answ er to th e h ig h p r ie s t’s q u e stio n , w h ich c o n stitu te s his m o st ex p lic it self-confession in th e G o sp el a n d p ro v id es th e p ro m ise o f his tr iu m p h a n t r e tu r n a t th e e n d o f th e age (2 6 :6 3 -6 4 ). W e e n c o u n te r C h risto lo g y ag a in a t a clim actic m o m e n t in th e n a rra tiv e in th e re s p o n se o f th e R o m a n c e n tu r io n a n d so ld iers to th e ev en ts ac c o m p a n y in g th e c ru c ifix io n (27:54). It is n o m e re p r o p h e t, te ac h er, o r h e a le r w h o h a n g s u p o n th e cross. T h is w e finally see in all clarity in th e a p p e a ra n c e o f th e rise n C h rist in 2 8 :16-20. I t is u n f o rtu n a te ly tr u e th a t M a tth e w in te n sifie s Je w ish g u ilt fo r th e c ru c ifix io n o f J e s u s in h is n a rra tiv e . H e d o e s th is by h is re d a c tio n o f M a rk a t p o in ts (as in 27:10) b u t m o r e im p o rta n tly by h is in c lu s io n o f n ew m a te ria l (e.g., 27:4; esp. 2 7 :2 4 -2 5 ; 2 7 :6 2 -6 4 ). R. E. B row n id e n tifie s th is “h a u n tin g issue o f re s p o n sib ility ” fo r th e d e a th o f a n in n o c e n t m a n as th e m a in d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e M a tth e a n a n d M a rk a n p a ssio n n a rra tiv e s (Death o f the M essiah, 2 9 ). I t is a m is ta k e to c o n c lu d e fro m M a tth e w ’s fo cu s o n th e Jew s, how ever, th a t h e is to b e r e g a r d e d as an ti-S e m itic (see Comment o n 2 7 :2 5 ). In s te a d , M a tth e w ’s e m p h a s is c a n la rg e ly b e e x p la in e d by th e in te n s e rivalry b e tw e e n M a tth e w ’s C h ris tia n c o m m u n ity a n d th e Je w ish sy n a g o g u e. I t is th e r e s u lt o f a n in te n s e in tra-Jew ish d e b a te b e tw e e n C h ristia n Jew s a n d n o n -C h ris tia n Jew s (see H a g n e r, M atthew 1 -1 3 , lx x i-lx x iii).

T h e P lo t to K i l l J e s u s G a in s M o m e n tu m

(2 6 :1 -5 )

Bibliography Fonck, L. “Cena Bethanica.” VD 8 (1928) 65-75, 98-106. Segal, J. B. The Hebrew Passover: From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. New York: O xford UP, 1963. Wambacq, B. N. “Pesah-Massöt.” Bib 62 (1981) 499-518. Zerafa, P. “Passover and U nleavened Bread.” A n g 41 (1964) 235-50. Translation lA n d thena when Jesus had fin ish ed speakingb all these words, he said to his disciples: 2 “K n o w c that after two days will be the Passover, a n d the Son o f M a n will be d handed over to be crucified. ” 3 Then the chief p n e s ts e a nd the elders o f the peoplef gathered together in the palace o f the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,g 4a n d they took counsel together so that by deceit they m ight arrest Jesus a n d p u t him to death.h 5B u t they were saying, “N o t d u rin g the feast, lest there be a n o t am ong the people. ”

Comment

753

N otes a καί έγενετο, lit. “and it came to pass,” a Semitism (cf. LXX). b “Speaking” added to translation. c D omits οιδατε, “know.” The verb may also be construed (with the majority of translations) as an indicative, hence “you know.” See Comment. d 7ταραδίδοται is present tense but here is obviously used as a future. e Many MSS (TR it syp,h) add καί ol γραμματείς, “and the scribes” (cf. Mark 14:1). W adds καί ol Φαρισαίοι, “and the Pharisees.” f B* omits του λαού, “of the people.” s D it vgwwsa mae read Καίφα, “Caipha.” h B* omits καί άποκτείνωσιν, “and put him to death,” probably by homoioteleuton (with κρατησωσιν). F orm /S tru ctu re/S e ttin g A. T h is passag e serv es as a tra n s itio n fro m th e p r e c e d in g m a jo r se c tio n o f th e G o sp el, th e fifth a n d fin a l d isc o u rse o f Je su s, to th e clim a x o f th e sto ry o f Je su s, th e p assio n a n d r e s u r re c tio n n a rra tiv e . M a tth e w h a s ju x ta p o s e d J e s u s ’ ow n sta te m e n t c o n c e r n in g w h a t is to b efa ll h im a n d th e r e f e r e n c e to th e Je w ish a u th o ritie s c o n te m p la tin g h o w th e y m ig h t b r in g a b o u t h is d e a th . T h u s th e stag e is se t fo r th e salvific d e a th o f Je su s, th e a c c o m p lis h m e n t o f G o d ’s p u r p o s e in se n d in g Je su s to th e w o rld . B. A fte r th e M a tth e a n f o rm u la th a t m a rk s th e e n d o f th e d isc o u rse (v 1), M atth e w r e s u m e s fo llo w in g M a rk (M ark 1 4 :1 -2 ; cf. L u k e 2 2 :1 -2 ) w ith th e s e few c h a n g e s. T h e n o tic e a b o u t th e P assover c o m in g a fte r tw o days is p u t in to th e m o u th o f Je su s b u t w ith th e o m issio n o f καί τ α ά ζ υ μ α , “a n d th e u n le a v e n e d b r e a d ” ( n o t n e e d e d fo r h is Je w ish r e a d e r s ) . H e f u r th e r a d d s th e n o te fro m Je su s th a t th e S o n o f M an is to b e h a n d e d o v er to b e c ru c ifie d (v 2 b ) . In v 3 M a tth e w p ro v id e s a se ttin g fo r th e g a th e r in g o f th e Je w ish le a d e rs in th e r e f e r e n c e to “th e p a la c e o f th e h ig h p r ie s t C a ia p h a s ” (cf. J o h n 18:24). M a tth e w su b stitu te s ol π ρ εσ β ύ τερ ο ί τ ο ν λαόν, “th e e ld e rs o f th e p e o p l e ” (u n iq u e to M a tth e w [cf. v 47; 21:23; 27:1] a m o n g th e G o sp els, e x c e p t fo r L u k e 22:66) fo r M a rk ’s γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ίς , p e r h a p s as b e in g a m o r e in clu siv e te rm . M a tth e w su b stitu te s σ υ νεβ ο υ λ εύ σ α ντο , “th e y w ere ta k in g c o u n s e l,” fo r M a rk ’s έ ζ ή το ν ν , “th e y w ere s e e k in g ,” b u t o th e rw ise follow s M a rk fairly closely. C. T h e s e tra n s itio n a l v erses set th e d ir e c tio n o f th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e G o sp el. Je su s, a fte r c o n c lu d in g h is fin a l te a c h in g d isc o u rse , r e tu r n s to th e su b je c t o f his d e a th , s o m e th in g th a t tak es o n a n ew d e g re e o f im m in e n c e w ith th e m e n tio n o f th e c o u n s e l ta k e n by th e Je w ish a u th o ritie s . As a n o u tlin e th e fo llo w in g is o ffe re d : (1) a c o n c lu d in g f o rm u la (v 1); (2) J e s u s ’ p ro p h e c y o f h is c ru c ifix io n (v 2); a n d (3) th e m e e tin g o f th e Je w ish a u th o ritie s (v v 3 - 5 ), f u r th e r d iv id e d in to (a) th e p la n to d o away w ith J e su s (v 4) a n d (b ) th e fe a r o f a p o p u la r re v o lt (v 5). C om m ent 1 M a tth e w e n d s th e e s c h a to lo g ic a l d isc o u rse , th e la st o f th e five, w ith th e sam e f o rm u la h e uses to e n d th e o th e rs, καί έ γ έ ν ε τ ο δ τ ε έ τ έ λ ε σ ε ν ο Ίη σ ο ϋ ς π ά υ τ α ς τ ο ύ ς λ ό γ ο υ ς το ύ το υ ς, “a n d it ca m e to pass th a t w h e n Je su s fin ish e d all th e se w o rd s”

754

Ma

t t h ew

26:1—5

(cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1). H e r e π ά ν τα ? , “a ll,” o c c u rs f o r th e first tim e , p ro b a b ly h o w ev e r r e f e r r in g o n ly to th e sayings in c h a p s. 2 4 -2 5 . O n th e o th e r h a n d , v ery likely it in c lu d e s a h in t th a t th is is fo rm a lly th e e n d o f J e s u s ’ te a c h in g , th e la st o f th e g r e a t p u b lic d isc o u rse s (cf. D e u t 31:1 L X X , w h e re a lm o st th e sa m e f o rm u la is u s e d o f th e f o rm a l e n d o f M o se s’ te a c h in g ) . 2 Je su s n o w tu rn s th e m in d s o f his d isciples to th e n e a rn e s s o f th e P assover festival a n d th e im m in e n t d e a th o f th e S on o f M an . T h e n o te a b o u t th e P assover is m o re th a n sim ply a n o te o f th e tim e. W h e n it is c o n n e c te d , as h e re , w ith a re fe re n c e to th e d e a th o f Jesu s, it gives th e la tte r a sacrificial significance; im plicitly Je su s is th e p a sc h a l la m b (b ro u g h t o u t clearly in vv 2 6 -2 8 ; π ά σ χα , “Passover,” is m e n tio n e d o n ly in this c h a p te r o f M atthew ; cf. vv 17-19; fo r ex p licit c o m p a riso n o f th e P assover la m b a n d th e d e a th o f C hrist, see 1 C o r 5:7). ο ΐδ α τβ m ay w ell b e ta k e n as a n im p erativ e, “know ,” ra th e r th a n a n indicative (th u s G nilka, follow ing L o h m e y e r), m a k in g th e s ta te m e n t a so le m n a n n o u n c e m e n t r a th e r th a n m e re ly a n ack n o w le d g m e n t o f w h a t th e disciples alre a d y know . In fact, th e disciples a re h e r e fo r th e first tim e in fo rm e d o f th e close c o n n e c tio n b etw e en th e Passover sacrifice a n d Je s u s ’ d e a th . T h e P assover feast p ro b a b ly fell o n 15 N isan in th a t y ea r (a S aturday, o r S a b b a th day), b e g in n in g like all Jew ish days a t su n d o w n o f th e p rev io u s day (so th a t th e P assover m e a l w o u ld have n o rm a lly b e e n e a te n o n o u r F riday e v e n in g ) . T h u s Je su s p ro b a b ly sp o k e th e se w o rd s to th e d iscip les o n W e d n esd ay (o r T u esd ay n ig h t, w h ich was re g a rd e d as th e b e g in n in g o f W ed n esd ay ). T h e p r e d ic tio n o f th e cru c ifix io n recalls th e e a rlie r p re d ic tio n s in 16:21; 17:22-23; 2 0 :1 8 -1 9 (o n ly th e last, how ever, re fe rs to cru c ifix io n as th e m e a n s o f J e s u s ’ d e a th ) , w h e re in c o n tra s t to th e p r e s e n t passage th e re s u rre c tio n “o n th e th ir d d ay ” is co n sisten tly m e n tio n e d . T h e last tw o p re d ic tio n s also re fe r to “th e S o n o f M a n .” 3 M a tth e w ’s in tr o d u c to r y τ ό τ ε , “th e n , ” h a s th e e ffe c t o f m a k in g th e p lo ttin g o f th e Je w ish a u th o ritie s th e fu lfillm e n t o f J e s u s ’ p re d ic tio n , oi ά ρ χ ιβ ρ β ΐ? και οι πρβσβ ύτβροι τ ο υ λαόν, “th e c h ie f p rie sts a n d th e e ld e rs o f th e p e o p l e ” (see in 2:4 a n d 21:23, resp e ctiv ely ), g a th e r in th e h ig h p r ie s t’s αύλήν, “p a la c e ” (lit. “c o u r ty a r d ”; cf. 26:58, 6 9 ). C a ia p h a s was th e r u lin g h ig h p r ie s t (A.D. 1 8 -3 6 ) a n d w as th e son-in-law o f a p re v io u s h ig h p rie st, A n n a s ( s h o r te n e d fro m A n a n u s ), w h o is ofte n m e n tio n e d w ith C a ia p h a s a n d w h o r e ta in e d a s tro n g in flu e n c e as a k in d o f h ig h p r ie s t e m e ritu s (cf. L u k e 3:2; J o h n 18:13, 24; A cts 4 :6 ). Je s u s w as u ltim a te ly b r o u g h t b e fo re C a ia p h a s (v 5 7 ). 4 T h e p lo ttin g to kill J e s u s is n o t a n ew d e v e lo p m e n t (cf. 12:14; 22:15 [alth o u g h th e P h a rise e s a re th e a g e n ts in b o th in s ta n c e s ], b o th w ith th e c o g n a te n o u n “c o u n s e l”; cf. la te r in th e G o sp el, 27:1, 7; a n d J o h n 11:53). H ow ever, th e r e c o r d in g o f a m e e tin g o f p o w e rfu l Je w ish a u th o ritie s a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e p a s sio n n a rra tiv e gives it a n ew a n d o m in o u s c h a ra c te r. T h e p lo ttin g a g a in s t Je s u s is d e s c rib e d as δόλω, “by d e c e it” (o n ly o c c u r re n c e in M a tth e w ). Im p lie d by th is a re b o th th e in n o c e n c e o f Je s u s a n d th e u n r ig h te o u s n e s s o f h is o p p o n e n ts . T h e w o rd is c o m m o n ly u s e d in th e L X X to d e s c rib e th o s e w h o o p p re s s th e r ig h te o u s (e.g ., L X X Pss 9:28; 34:20; 51:2; 54:11; P ro v 12:20; J e r 5 :2 7 ). 5 D u rin g th e P asso v er J e ru s a le m w o u ld b e ja m m e d w ith m a n y th o u s a n d s o f p ilg rim s, w h o w o u ld hav e th e ir m in d s fille d w ith n a tio n a lis t fe rv o r a n d lo n g in g s. A t th a t tim e th e a p p r e h e n s io n o f a p o p u la r m e ssia n ic fig u re c o u ld p ro v e to b e e x tre m e ly d a n g e ro u s . T h e o n e th in g th e a u th o ritie s c o u ld n o t risk w ith th e R om a n s, to w h o m th e y o w ed th e ir p riv ile g e d p o sitio n , was a p o p u lis t re v o lt (Θόρυβοs ,

Translation

755

“r io t,” is u s e d else w h e re in M a tth e w o n ly in 27:24; cf. J o s . , J. W 1.4.3 §88 fo r a n e x a m p le o f su c h a r i o t ) . I t w o u ld th u s b e b e tte r to w ait u n til a fte r th e feast, o r anyw ay so it s e e m e d a t th e m o m e n t. E xplanation In th is b r ie f tr a n s itio n p assag e we a re a t a tu r n in g p o in t, b e in g se t in m o tio n to w a rd th e g o a l o f th e cross. T h e te a c h in g a n d h e a lin g m in is try o f J e s u s is e ssen tially a t a n e n d , a n d w e p r o c e e d n o w in to th e fin a l a n d clim a ctic stage o f th e G o sp el n a rra tiv e . Je s u s calm ly a n d c o n fid e n tly p re d ic ts w h a t is to h a p p e n to h im . T h is is in d e e d w hy h e h a s c o m e , a n d it is h is p r im a ry w ork. T h e r e is a to u c h o f iro n y in th a t d ire c tly a fte r th is p r e d ic tio n th e Je w ish a u th o ritie s a re r e c o r d e d as busy in th e ir d e lib e ra tio n s c o n c e r n in g th e n e e d to b e r id o f th is tro u b le m a k e r. T h u s u n k n o w in g ly th e y in d u strio u s ly se t a b o u t to a c c o m p lish th e v ery p u rp o s e o f G o d in Je su s. T h e y c a n n o t th w a rt G o d ’s p la n ; in th e ir evil o p p o s itio n to Je su s th e y b e c o m e th e v ery in s tru m e n ts o f th e fu lfillm e n t o f th a t p la n .

T h e A n o in tin g o f J e m s

(2 6 :6 -1 3 )

B ibliography Beran, T. W. ‘T h e Four Anointings.” ExpTim 39 (1927-28) 137-39. Daube, D. ‘T h e Anointing at Bethany and Jesus’ Burial.” ATR 32 (1950) 186-99. D eirett, J. D. M. ‘T h e Anointing at Bethany and the Story of Zacchaeus.” In Law in the New Testament. London: Longman and Todd, 1970, 1986. 266-85.— — . ‘T h e Anointing at Bethany.” SE 2 [= TU 87] (1964) 17482. Feuillet, A. “Les deux onctions fautes sur J ésus, et Marie-Madeleine.” ReuThom 75 (1975) 357-94. Fiorenza, E. Schüssler. In Memory ofHer: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Chnstian Ongins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Greenlee, J. H. “‘For H er Memorial’: Eis mnemosynon autes, Mt 26.13, Mk 14.9.” ExpTim 71 (1959-60) 245. Holst, R. ‘T h e Anointing of Jesus: Another Application of the Form-Critical Method.” JBL 95 (1976) 435-46. Jeremias, J. “Me 14.9.” ZNW 44 (1952) 103-7. Legault, A. “An Application of the Form-Critique M ethod to the Anointings in Galilee (Lk 7,36-50) and Bethany (Mt 26,6-13; Mk 14,3-9; Jn 12,1-8).” CBQ 16 (1954) 131-45. Pesch, R. “Die Salbung Jesu in Bethanien (Mk 14.3-9).” In Orientierung anJesu. FS J. Schmid, ed. P. Hoffmann et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. 267-85. Riggans, W. ‘Jesus and the Scriptures: Two Short Notes.” Themelios 16 (1991) 15-16. Schedl, C. “Die Salbung Jesu in Betanien: Zur Kompositionskunst von Mk 14,3-9 un d Mt 26,6-13.” BLit 54 (1981) 151-62. Storch, R. “‘Was soll diese Verschwendung?’: Bemerkungen zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Mk 14,4f.” In Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. FS J. Jeremias, ed. E. Lohse et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. 247-58. Thiemann, R. E “T h e Unnam ed Woman at Bethany.” TToday 44 (1987) 179-88. Translation 6 When Jesus was in Bethany in the house o f Sim on the leper, 7 woman a came to him

756

Ma

t t h ew

2 6 :6 -1 3

who had an alabaster j a r a o f very expensive b ointm ent, an d she poured it over his head as he was reclining at table. 8B u t when th e c disciples saw this,d they were in d ig n a n t, saying: “W hat is the p o in t o f this w aste?9For th is e could have been sold fo r m uch a n d the m oneyf given to the poor.” 10B u t Jesus knew their reasoningg a n d said to them: “Why are you causing trouble fo r the wom an?For she has done a good work fo r m e .11For you always have the poor am ong you, but you will not always have me. 12For when she poured this ointm ent upon my body, she did it to prepare me fo r burial. 13Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, w hat she has done will also be told in memory o f her. ”h N otes a “Jar” added in translation. b βαρυτίμου, “very expensive.” A number of important MSS (K A D L Θ syhmg) have the synonym πολυτίμου, probably through the influence of the parallel in John 12:3 (cf. Mark 14:3). c Many MSS (A W f1TR sy sams) insert αυτοί), “his.” d “This” added, supplying direct object. e Some MSS (K Γ f 13) add το μύρου, “ointment,” through the influence of the parallel in Mark 14:5. f “The money” added, supplying the implied subject. 8 “Their reasoning” added, supplying direct object. h In μυημόσυυου θύτης the pronoun may also be taken as a subjective gen., resulting in the meaning “her memorial (to me).” See Comment. F o rm /S tru ctu re/S ettin g A . In k e e p in g w ith th e tr a n s itio n to th e p a s sio n n a rra tiv e o f th e G o sp e l, th e sto ry o f th e a n o in tin g o f J e su s— th e p r e p a r a tio n o f h is b o d y fo r b u ria l, as h e in te r p r e t s it— is to ld firs t (fo llo w in g th e o r d e r in M a rk b u t d if f e r in g f ro m its p la c e m e n t in L u k e a n d J o h n , if th e la tte r a re r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o f th e sa m e sto ry ). I t fo cu se s indirectly, b u t p o ig n a n tly , o n th e d e a th o f Je su s, w ith th e p lo ttin g a g a in st J e su s im m e d ia te ly p re c e d in g a n d th e b e tra y a l o f Je s u s im m e d ia te ly follow ing. T h e p assag e th u s h a s a n o b v io u s c h risto lo g ic a l o r ie n ta tio n (G n ilk a ). B. M a tth e w is d e p e n d e n t o n M a rk (1 4 :3 -9 ), w h o se w o rd in g h e follow s r a th e r closely. L u k e 7 :3 6 -5 0 , o n th e o th e r h a n d , is p ro b a b ly a n i n d e p e n d e n t sto ry (so L e g a u lt, M cN eile, C a rso n ; pace H o lst) w ith so m e cross-over in flu e n c e fro m M ark, w h ile J o h n 1 2 :1 -8 is p ro b a b ly th e sa m e sto ry as th a t o f M a tth e w a n d M a rk b u t w ith cross-over in flu e n c e esp ecially fro m th e L u k a n sto ry (see H o ls t fo r th e a r g u m e n t th a t all f o u r n a rra tiv e s r e f e r to th e sa m e in c id e n t) . A m o n g d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n M a tth e w a n d M ark, w e n o te th e fo llo w in g m o r e s ig n ific a n t o n e s. In v 7 M a tth e w h a s a b b re v ia te d M a rk ’s d e s c rip tio n (14:3) o f th e o in tm e n t as νά ρδου π ισ τ ικ ή ς π ο λ υ τ ε λ ο ύ ς , “o f v ery e x p e n siv e n a r d ” (th e m e a n in g o f π ισ τ ικ ή ς is u n c le a r), w ith th e sin g le w o rd β α ρ υ τίμ ο υ , “v ery e x p e n siv e ,” p e r h a p s r e g a rd in g th e d e ta ile d d e s c r ip tio n o f th e o in tm e n t as u n n e c e s sa ry . M a tth e w in th e sa m e v erse o m its th e r e f e r e n c e to th e w o m a n b re a k in g th e a la b a ste r ja r, p e r h a p s fo r th e sa m e re a s o n . In v 8 M a tth e w specifies th a t it w as oi μ α θ η τα ι, “th e d isc ip le s,” w h o w ere a n g ry (fo r M a rk ’s τ ιν ε ς , “s o m e ”) a n d th e re b y stresses f u r th e r th e s h o rtc o m in g s o f th e discip les. In th e sa m e v erse M a tth e w ’s o m issio n o f π ρ ο ς ε α υ τ ο ύ ς , “to th e m selves” (M ark 14:4), m a k e s th e in itia l γν ο ύ ς, “k n o w in g ,” o f v 10 r a th e r d ifficu lt.

Comment

757

M a tth e w ’s typical a b b re v ia tio n o f M a rk c o n tin u e s in v 8 w ith th e o m issio n o f th e u n n e c e s s a ry το υ μ ύ ρ ο υ γ έ γ ο ν ε ν , lit. “(th is w aste) o f th e o in tm e n t o c c u r r e d ” (M ark 14:4), a n d in v 9 o f το μ ύ ρ ο υ , “th e o in tm e n t.” F o r so m e re a s o n M a tth e w re p la c e s M a rk ’s e v a lu a tio n o f th e o in tm e n t a t επάνω δηναρίω ν τριακοσίω ν, “m o re th a n th r e e h u n d r e d d e n a r ii,” w ith th e sim p le πολλοϋ, “m u c h .” M a tth e w o m its M a rk ’s n e x t s h o r t s e n te n c e και έν εβ ρ ιμ ώ ν το α ύ τ η , “a n d th e y sc o ld e d h e r ” (M ark 14:5), as w ell as ά φ ε τ ε α ύ τ ή ν , “leav e h e r a lo n e ” (M ark 14:6), th e re b y le av in g th e q u e s tio n o f v 10, “w hy a re y o u c a u sin g tr o u b le fo r th e w o m a n ? ” w ith n o a p p a r e n t e x p la n a tio n . M a tth e w ’s € ΐς έ μ έ fo r M a rk ’s έ ν έ μ ο ί a t th e e n d o f v 10 is a n im p ro v e m e n t. In v 11 M a tth e w o m its M a rk ’s s e n te n c e “a n d w h e n e v e r y o u w an t, y o u a re a b le to d o g o o d to th e m ” (M ark 14:7), th e re b y s h a rp e n in g th e c o n tra s tin g s ta te m e n t “b u t y o u d o n o t always hav e m e ,” im m e d ia te ly ju x ta p o s in g it w ith th e p r e c e d in g s e n te n c e . S h o rtly a fte r th a t, M a tth e w o m its th e b r ie f s e n te n c e “w h a t sh e c o u ld sh e h as d o n e ” (M ark 14:8), p e r h a p s r e g a rd in g it as u n n e c e ssa ry . M a tth e w ’s re c a stin g o f v 12 (cf. M a rk 14:8) s tr e n g th e n s th e sta te m e n t. H e a d d s τ ο ύ τ ο , “th is ,” a fte r “g o s p e l” fo r e m p h asis. Finally, έ ν δλω τω κοσμώ , “in th e w h o le w o rld ,” is a n im p ro v e m e n t o f M a rk ’s e ls δλο ν τ ο ν κ ό σ μ ο ν, lit. “to th e w h o le w o rld .” M a tth e w ’s r e d a c tio n th u s a g a in re fle c ts th e u s u a l a b b re v ia tio n a n d stylistic im p ro v e m e n t. C. T h e p e r ic o p e co n sists o f n a rra tiv e , e x p la n a tio n o f th e sym bolism o f th e n a r ra tiv e , a n d a c o n c lu d in g lo g io n . T h e fo llo w in g o u tlin e is su g g e ste d : (1) th e w o m a n ’s a n o in tin g o f Je s u s in S im o n ’s h o u s e (v v 6 - 7 ); (2) th e c o m p la in t o f th e d isc ip le s (v v 8 - 9 ); (3) J e s u s ’ in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e d e e d (v v 1 0 -1 2 ); a n d (4) th e m e m o ria l to th e w o m a n (v 13). T h e o n ly strik in g s tr u c tu ra l f e a tu re is in th e p a rallel sta te m e n ts o f v 11: th e c o n tra s t b e tw e e n h a v in g th e p o o r always a n d n o t always h av in g Je su s. C om m ent 6 Β ηθανία, “B e th an y ,” was a village o n th e M o u n t o f O lives n ea rly two m iles ea st o f J e ru sa le m . (Jesus h a d p ro b a b ly b e e n staying in B e th a n y [cf. 21:17].) S im o n “th e le p e r ” ( το ύ λ επ ρ ο ύ ) is n o t m e n tio n e d in th e N T b e y o n d th e p r e s e n t re fe re n c e a n d th e M a rk a n p ara llel. H e w o u ld have b e e n a le p e r w h o h a d b e e n c u re d o f his lep ro sy (by Jesu s?); o th e rw ise h e w o u ld h ave b e e n allow ed n o social in te rc o u rse . 7 Strangely, th e w o m a n re m a in s u n n a m e d (p e r h a p s ju s t b e c a u s e sh e w as a w o m an ; see E. S c h ü ssler F io re n z a ) d e s p ite th e e m p h asis a t th e e n d o f th e p assage c o n c e rn in g th e sto ry b e in g re to ld in m e m o ry o f h e r (v 13; in J o h n , wh e r e th e last p o in t is n o t m a d e , th e w o m a n is id e n tifie d as M ary, sister o f M a rth a a n d L azarus [Jo h n 1 2 :3 ]). In a lavish g e s tu re o f d ev o tio n , th e w o m a n p o u r e d “a n ala b a ste r j a r o f v ery exp en siv e p e r f u m e d o in tm e n t” (α λά β α σ τρο ν μύρ ο υ β α ρυτίμου) over th e h e a d o f Je su s. T h e a la b a s te r flask a c c o rd s w ith th e co stlin e ss o f its c o n te n ts , α ύ τ ο ϋ άνακείμένου, “w hile h e was rec lin in g a t ta b le ,” re fe rs to th e u su al p o stu re a t special m eals. T h e a n o in tin g o f th e h e a d , r a th e r th a n th e fe e t (usually a n o in te d b efo re th e m e al), was th e n o rm a l cu sto m w ith su ch a n expensive o in tm e n t. 8 - 9 T h e discip les, e v e r p ra c tic a l a n d o b liv io u s to th e d e e p e r m e a n in g s o f th e act, p r o te s t in d ig n a n tly (ή γ α ν ά κ τ η σ α ν , “th e y w ere in d ig n a n t,” u s e d e a r lie r in 20:24; 21:15) a t w h a t th e y c o u ld see o n ly as a w aste. W o u ld it n o t hav e b e e n b e tte r to sell ( π π τ ρ ά σ κ ε ιν , “s e ll,” is u s e d e lse w h e re in M a tth e w in 13:46; 18:25)

758

M a t t h e w 26:6-13

something so costly and distribute the money to the poor? The disciples must have been certain they were on the right track in their objection since the gospel entails “good news to the poor” (11:5) and they knew that Jesus had told a rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor (19:21). In ordinary circumstances their objection might well have been apropos, but as Jesus goes on to explain, the present instance was an exceptional one. 10 The word γ ν ο ύ ς , “knowing,” reflects Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of the thinking of his disciples (cf. Mark’s notice π ρ ο ς ε α υ τ ο ύ ς , “to themselves” [Mark 14:4]; cf. the same participle for Jesus’ special knowledge in 12:15; 16:8; 22:18). On the question “Why are you causing trouble for the woman?” see Mark’s notice that the disciples “scolded h er” (Mark 14:5). The idiom π α ρ έ χ ε ι ν κ ό π ο υ ς , “to cause trouble,” is found also in Luke 11:7; 18:5; Gal 6:17. The έ ρ γ ο ν κ α λ ό ν , lit. “good work,” that the woman did is a special work of righteousness (a work of love rather than of almsgiving; cf. Jeremias, 103) because of the peculiar circumstance m entioned in v 12 (the expression occurs, but in the plural, in 5:16). The sense in which ε ι ς έ μ έ , “to m e,” is m eant becomes clear in the next verse. 11 The two parallel, but contrasting, statements of this verse are clear and indisputable. The poor are a reality in every society of every age (cf. Deut 15:11a). Jesus, on the other hand, will not always be physically with his disciples (cf. 9:15 and the several predictions of his death, including v 2 of the present chapter). The last statement becomes one of increasing prominence in the Gospel. One cannot miss what is implied: there will be opportunity in the future to minister to the needs of the poor; there will be no opportunity in the future to minister to Jesus. But even beyond this, the deed of kindness performed by the woman has a special significance. 12 The woman had in effect anointed Jesus’ body for burial. This was certainly not her intent. She was probably simply dem onstrating her unlim ited devotion to Jesus, perhaps in response to something Jesus had done for her or her family. Neither in the context, nor in the woman’s intention, nor in Jesus’ interpretation of her deed is there any suggestion of a royal, kingly anointing here. Only when Jesus interprets the act symbolically does the deed come to bear the significance of preparation for burial. In order to draw out the symbolism, έ π ΐ τ ο ν σ ώ μ α τ ό ς μ ο υ , “upon my body,” replaces the έ π ΐ τ η ς κ ε φ α λ ή ς α υ τ ο ύ , “upon his head,” of v 7. τ ο μ ύ ρ ο ν τ ο ύ τ ο , “this ointm ent,” becomes emphatic. Such “ointm ent,” being highly perfumed, was used in embalming (cf. the plural form of the word in Luke 23:56; other evidence in POxy 736.13; Artemidorus 1.5; Gen 50:2 LXX). The infinitive έ ν τ α φ ιά σ α ι, “to prepare for burial,” is used in the NT only here and in John 19:40 (cf. the cognate noun in Mark 14:8; John 12:7). Matthew accordingly omits the Markan record of the women coming to the tomb to anoint the body (Mark 16:1). 13 As an indirect reward for the woman’s well-timed deed of love, Jesus solemnly affirms (ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ύ μ ΐν , “truly I tell you”) that this story will become a standard part of the gospel tradition and will come to be repeated everywhere the gospel is preached. The notion öf τ ο ε ύ α γ γ έ λ ι ο ν τ ο ύ τ ο , “this gospel,” being “preached” (κ η ρ υ χ θ ή σ ε τ α ι) in the whole world is found already in 24:14, where, however, the phrase is modified by “of the kingdom” (cf. 28:19). Only a forced exegesis could conclude that this preaching is not the church’s proclamation of the gospel (wrongly supposing that Jesus could not have envisioned a worldwide mission) but an angelic proclamation of God’s victory at the end of the age (thus

Bibliography

759

Je re m ia s, Abba, 1 1 5 -2 0 ). Similarly, β ίς μ ν η μ ό σ υν ο υ α υ τή ς, “in m e m o ry o f h e r,” m ay r e fe r to th e c h u r c h ’s c e le b ra tio n o f th e w o n d e rfu l d e e d p e r f o r m e d by h e r r a th e r th a n a divine re m e m b e rin g c o n n e c te d w ith eschato lo g ical rew ard (cf. I Enoch 103:4; Sir 50:6), as Je re m ia s (Abba, 115-20) argues. O n th e o th e r h a n d , p e rh a p s th e p h ra se involves a subjective genitive. T h e n th e m e a n in g w o u ld b e th a t “w h a t sh e h as d o n e will also b e to ld as h e r m e m o ria l to m e .” T h is w o u ld b e m o re in k e e p in g w ith th e fac t th a t sh e is n o t n a m e d . (F o r th is h y p o th esis, see G re e n le e .) T h is u n n a m e d w o m an b ro a d e n s th e c a te g o ry o f disciples b e y o n d th e twelve (see T h ie m a n n ). E xplanation W h e n a w o m an co m es a n d lavishes h e r love a n d g ra titu d e u p o n Je su s in th e fo rm o f a costly o in tm e n t, w ith th e th o u g h t o f h is im m in e n t d e a th u p p e r m o s t in h is m in d h e takes th e a n o in tin g as a sym bolic p r e p a ra tio n o f h is b o d y fo r b u rial. T h e c e n tra l im p o rta n c e o f th e p assio n to th e G o sp el is su c h th a t it tra n sfo rm s th e story. T h e f u n d a m e n ta l q u e s tio n n o w is n o t th e n e e d in e s s o f th e p o o r. T h e discip les’ c o n c e rn fo r th e p o o r is by n o m e a n s in c o rre c t. In th is o n e in stan c e, how ever, th e tim in g was w ro n g . J e s u s ’ s ta te m e n t “y o u always h ave th e p o o r a m o n g y o u ” (v 11) m u st n o t b e ta k e n to m e a n th a t as a c o n s e q u e n c e o n e n e e d n o t w o rry a b o u t th e m o r th a t all a tte m p ts to a m e lio ra te th e c o n d itio n o f th e p o o r a re ill-fo u n d ed a n d futile. T h is c a n n o t b e m a d e c le a re r th a n by c itin g th e fu ll te x t o f D e u t 15:11: “S ince th e re will n e v e r cease to b e so m e in n e e d o n th e e a rth , I th e re fo re co m m a n d you, O p e n y o u r h a n d to th e p o o r a n d n e e d y n e ig h b o r in y o u r la n d .’” T h e o n g o in g p re se n c e o f th e p o o r d o e s n o t p ro v id e a n ex c u se to ig n o re th e m a n d th e ir p lig h t, b u t, q u ite th e co n tra ry , it p ro v id es th e o n g o in g o p p o rtu n ity a n d stim u lu s to h e lp th e m . B u t this o n e tim e responsib ility to th e p o o r m ay b e leg itim ately set aside. All else assum es a s u b o rd in a te p la ce relativ e to th e im m in e n t d e a th o f Jesu s. A n d th e sto ry o f th e w o m a n w h o a n o in te d h is h e a d is n o lo n g e r o n e sto ry a m o n g o th ers b u t p a r t o f th e sto ry o f th e p assio n n a rra tiv e itself.

T h e T re a c h e ry o fJ u d a s

(2 6 :1 4 -1 6 )

B ibliography Bacon, B. W. “W hat Did Judas Betray?” HibJ 19 (1920-21) 476-93. Baumbach, G. ‘Judas— Jü n g e r u n d V erräter Jesu .” ZZ 17 (1963) 91-98. Cullmaim, O . “Die zwölfte Apostel.” In Vorträge und Aufsätze 1925 bis 1962, ed. K. Fröhlich. T übingen: Mohr, 1966. 214-22. Enslin, M. S. “How the Story Grew: Judas in Fact and Fiction.” In Festschrift to Honor F. Wilber Gingrich, ed. E. H. Barth and E. E. Cocroft. Leiden: Brill, 1972.123-41. G ärtner, B. Iscariot. Facet Books. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Klauck, H.-J. Judas— Ein Jünger des Herrn. QD 111. Freiburg: H erder, 1987. Levin-Goldschmidt, H ., an d Limbeck, M. Heilvoller Verrat? Judas im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. Lüthi, K. “Das Problem des Judas Iskariot—neu untersucht.” E v T 16 (1956) 98-114. M orin, J.-A. “Les deux derniers des Douzes: Simon le Zélote e t Judas Iskariôth .” RB SO (1973) 332-58. Neirynck, F. “ΑΠΟ

760

Ma

t t hew

2 6 :1 4 -1 6

ΤΟΤΕ ΗΡΞΑΤΟ and the Structure o f Matthew.” ETL 64 (1988) 21-59. Plath, M. “W arum h at die urchristliche G em einde auf die Ü berlieferung d er Judaserzählungen Wert gelegt?” ZN W 17 (1916) 178-88. Popkes, W. Christus Traditus: Eine Untersuchung zum Begrif f der Dahingabe im Neuen Testament. ATANT 49. Zürich: Zwingli, 1967. Reiner, E. “Thirty Pieces o f Silver.” JAOS 88 (1968) 186-90. R oquefort, D. “Judas: U ne figure de la perversion.” ETR 58 (1983) 501-13. Stein-Schneider, H . “A la recherche du Judas historique.” E T R 60 (1985) 403-24. Vogler, W. Judas Iskanoth: Untersuchung zu Tradition und Redaktion von Textes des Neuen Testaments und ausserkanonischer Schuften. T heologische A rbeiten 42. Berlin: E vangelische V erlagsanstalt, 1983. W agner, H ., ed. Judas Iskariot: Menschliches oder heilsgeschichtliches Drama? Frankfurt: K necht, 1985. W rede, W. “Ju d as Isch ario t in d e r urchristlichen Ü berlieferung.” In Vorträge und Studien. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907. 127-46. T ranslation 14 Then one o f the twelve, the one called Ju d a s Iscanot,a came to the chief p riests a nd l5said:h “W hat will you give me s o I w ill betray him to yo u ? ”A n d they set withc him the am ount o fd thirty silver coins.e 16A n d fro m that time he began to seek a n opportune time in order that he m ight betray him .f N otes a D Θcvid lat read Σκαριώτης, “Scanötēs,”omitting the initial iota. See Note on 10:4. b D adds αυτοίς, “to them.” c έστησαν, possibly “weighed out (to him),” which would indicate that he was paid immediately. The same verb occurs in the LXX of Zech 11:13. d “The amount o f”added for clarity. e Some MSS (D f 1) read στατήρας, “staters,” specifying the kind of silver coins. f Some MSS (D Θ it sams mae bo) add αύτοΐς, “to them.” F orm /S tru c tu re /S e ttin g A. Follow ing u p o n th e ir m e e tin g to devise a p la n to d o away w ith Je su s (vv 3 -5 ), th e c h ie f p riests a re so o n c o n fro n te d w ith a n id eal o p p o rtu n ity . N o o n e less th a n an in tim a te o f Jesus, o n e o f th e twelve, co m es fo rw a rd to b etra y his m a ste r in to th e ir h an d s. A n d n ow th e story takes o n a m o m e n tu m th a t fin d s its e n d in th e cru cifix io n o f Jesus. I f Je su s h as b e e n a n o in te d fo r his b u ria l in th e p re c e d in g p e ric o p e , th e in e x o ra b le p ro cess by w h ich h e co m es to his d e a th h as its b e g in n in g h e re . B. M a tth e w c o n tin u e s to follow M a rk (h e r e M a rk 14:1 0 -1 1 ; cf. L u k e 2 2 :3 -6 ), in th is case so m e w h a t freely. A m o n g M a tth e w ’s r e d a c tio n a l c h a n g e s , th e follow in g s h o u ld b e n o te d . A t th e s ta rt M a tth e w in se rts Tore, “th e n ,” a fav o rite d ev ice, tra n s p o s e s ε ι ς τω ν δώ δεκα, “o n e o f th e tw elve,” to th e h e a d o f th e s e n te n c e fo r e m p h a s is , a n d a lte r s M a rk ’s S e m itic 7 σ κ α ρ ιώ θ , “I s c a r i ö th ,” to th e G re c iz e d Ίσ κ α ρ ιώ τη ς , “Is c a riö te s ” (so to o L u k e 2 2 :3 ). In v 15 M a tth e w a lte rs M a rk ’s n a r r a tive in to d ir e c t d isc o u rse , in s e rtin g th e p h r a s e “w h a t will y o u give m e ? ” th e re b y a d d in g p e c u n ia ry c o n s id e ra tio n s to J u d a s ’ m o tiv e. In th e sa m e v erse h e o m its M a rk ’s ά κ ο ύ σ α ν τε ς έχά ρ ησ α ν, “a n d w h e n th e y h e a r d th e y w ere g la d ” (M ark 14:11), p e r h a p s sim p ly to a b b re v ia te . M a tth e w also re p la c e s M a rk ’s έ ττ η γ γ ε ίλ α ν το , “th e y p r o m is e d ,” w ith έ σ τ η σ α ν , “th e y se t,” a n d sp ecifies th e a m o u n t a g r e e d u p o n as τρ ιά κ ο ν τα , “th irty ,” silver co in s, in o r d e r to p r e p a r e th e way f o r th e u se o f Z ec h

Comment

761

11:13 later in the narrative (27:9) . Finally, note Matthew’s insertion of a characteristic ά π ό τ ό τ ε , “from that time,” at the beginning of v 16 and the use of the direct object ε ύ κ α ιρ ία ν , “opportune tim e” (so too Luke 22:6). We again note Matthew’s tendency to abbreviate but also his ability to introduce new material for both stylistic and theological (or argumentative) reasons. C. An outline of this short passage would do no more than enumerate the following items, proceeding verse by verse: Judas goes to the Jewish authorities (v 14), agrees upon a price for which to betray Jesus to their hands (v 15), and begins to look for an opportunity to betray him (v 16). Comment 14 Matthew will not have the reader miss the irony that it was els' τω ν δώ δεκα , “one of the twelve,” which he moves to the beginning of his sentence, who actually betrayed Jesus (this is given even stronger emphasis in vv 20-25). The name Judas Iscariot has already been m entioned in the list of the twelve in chap. 10 (10:4). See the discussion there. For ά ρ χ ιε ρ ε ίς , “chief priests,” cf. vv 3, 47, 59. 15 Matthew’s casting of the passage seems to make Judas’ motivation one of money since he asks what amount they are willing to pay. Possibly the verb here (see N ote c) means “weighed out” in the sense of paid then and there, although it seems unlikely that the authorities would have paid in advance. All they needed was the agreement (cf. Mark 14:11). On the other hand, it may well be that Matthew inserts the question in order to prepare the way for the mention of the amount, i.e., the “thirty” (unique to Matthew) pieces of silver that will become important in the fulfillment of Zech 11:13 cited in 27:9 (cf. 27:3). Although the exact value of the silver pieces is not known, the amount was comparatively modest (coincidentally the price of a slave according to Exod 21:32; but perhaps a more insubstantial sum, even “paltry,” if “thirty shekels” reflects an idiomatic Sumerian expression as Reiner argues). The modest am ount and the lack of bargaining on Judas’ part suggest that money was not his only or even his primary motive. Because of his treachery, Judas becomes known in the gospel tradition as “the betrayer” (cf. 10:4; 26:24-25, 46, 48; 27:3). Matthew (like Mark) makes no mention of “Satan” or “the devil” as a force acting upon Judas as do Luke (Luke 22:3) and John (John 13:2; cf. 6:70). 16 The Lukan parallel makes clear the character of an ε ύ κ α ίρ ία ν , “good opportunity,” namely one ά τ ε ρ ό χ λ ο υ , “without a crowd” (Luke 22:6). This is in keeping with the earlier m entioned fear of a riot by the authorities (v 5). For them it would have been best “after the feast” (v 5) of Passover (and Unleavened Bread), but the opportunity that now presented itself was so ideal that it practically overruled all other considerations. Matthew’s ά π ό τ ό τ ε , “from that time,” is characteristic, indicating a clear turning point in the narrative, though not so important as those of 4:17 and 16:21 (see Neirynck, 33-34). Explanation

It must be disconcerting to every disciple of Jesus that one of the twelve, that group so uniquely intimate with Jesus, became the betrayer of his master. It came

M a t t h e w 26:17-19

762

as no surprise to Jesus, however, who knew the hum an heart so well. But it w as a surprise to the disciples, who could not bring themselves to believe that one of their company would betray Jesu s. We can only speculate regarding Judas’ motives, though it seems unlikely that the motive was money alone. Perhaps he was disappointed in the direction of Jesus’ ministry and wished to force his hand by having him arrested. Perhaps with the Zealots he shared the ardent expectation of a national-political kingdom that would end the Roman domination of Israel. It is unlikely, however, that Judas was offended at the anointing of Jesus because he understood it as an anointing of the King of the Jews (p a ce Bacon). We must avoid, however, making Judas into a kind of unconscious hero of the faith for his role in initiating the process against Jesus that led to the redemptive event of the cross (contra Levin-Goldschmidt and Limbeck). Judas’ betrayal was a sinister deed and is only spoken of in such terms by Jesus (see esp. 26:24). Because God can use that deed in accomplishing his will does not turn it into a commendable one, nor are we to think of Judas as a kind of saint (cf. the similar conclusion of Klauck).

Preparations fo r the Passover

(26:17-19)

Bibliography A r n o t t , A . G . ‘“ T h e

firs t d a y o f u n le a v e n e d

2 3 5 - 3 8 . B la c k ,M . “Ε Φ Φ Α Θ Α [ Τ Α ]

Δ ΙΔ Ρ Α Χ Μ Α

(M t

G e m b lo u x : D u c u lo t, A

B S a c 131

(1 9 7 4 )

cèn e : C o n t r i b u t i o n

4 2

(1 9 6 0 )

M e la n g e s

In

3 6 9 - 9 3 .—

—

H y p o th e s is .” B ib 5 7

(1 9 5 1 -5 2 )

b ib liq u e s .

.

F S

“D is tr ib u te d

(1 9 7 6 )

B .

R ig a u x ,

‘T h e

D a y

D e s c a m p s .

o f th e

o f th e ‘T h e

P a sso v e r:

P a sso v e r: A T im e

o f th e

e t d e la p r e p a r a tio n

1 9 7 3 . J a u b e r t, A .

d e la

T h e D a te o f

d e s T o d e s J e s u .” Z N W

I s la n d , N Y : A lb a , 1 9 6 5 . S t r o b e l , A . “D e r T e r m i n o f th e

A .

(1 9 8 4 )

(p a s s im ),

o f C h r i s t ’s C r u c i f i x i o n . ”

L e s p é r i c o p e s d e l’e n t r é e à J ér u s a l e m

T im e

e d .

O b s e rv a n c e

O b s e rv a n c e

à l’é t u d e d u p r o b l è m e s y n o p t i q u e . P a r i s : G a b a l d a ,

6 9 -1 0 1 . Z e itlin , S . T h e

Σ Α Β Β Α Τ Α

1 -2 4 . H e a w o o d , P . J .

3 7 -4 4 . H o e h n e r, H . W .

2 4 1 -6 4 . J a c o b , R .

th e L a s t S u p p e r. S t a t e n 51

(1 9 7 5 )

T e st o f th e

L a s t S u p p e r.” J Q R

b is ) .”

2 2 .7 .” B T 3 5

1 4 .1 2 , L k

t 2 6 .1 8 W ), [ Τ Α ]

( M

1 9 7 0 . 5 7 - 6 2 . C h e n d e r l in , F . “D is tr ib u te d

H y p o th e s is .” B ib 5 6

P re lim in a ry

1 7 .2 4

. . .’: M t 2 6 .1 7 , M k

k 7 .3 4 ), [ Τ Α ] Π Α Σ Χ Α

(M

P a s s o v e r M e a l.” JQ R 4 2

(1 9 5 1 -5 2 )

4 5 -5 0 .

T r a n s la tio n

17 O n a n d

18A n d is

th e f i r s t

s a id :

n ea r.

d a y a

o f th e f e s t iv a l

“W h e r e d o y o u

h e s a id :

“G o

in to

A t y o u r p la c e c I

d is c ip le s d id

a s J e s u s

w a n t u s th e

c ity

w a n t

o rd e re d

Notes

a “Day” added to translation.

to to

to

o f U n le a v e n e d

B r e a d ,

m a k e p r e p a r a tio n f o r y o u

th e m a n c e le b r a te

th e m , a n d

a n d

sa y

to

h im :

th e P a s s o v e r

th e y

m a d e

re a d y

th e

“T h e

w ith

d is c ip le s

c a m e

to J e s u s

to e a t th e P a s s o v e r m e a l ? ”

m y

t e a c h e r s a y s :b

“M

y

d is c ip le s .” ” ” 19A n d

th e P a s s o v e r m e a l.

tim e th e

Farm/Structure/Setting

763

bA Φ omit b διδά σκα λο ς λ έ γ ε ι, “the teacher says.” c π ρο ς σ ε, lit. “with you.”

Form/Structure/Setting A. This short passage serves as a prologue to the two following pericopes, which describe what took place at the Passover meal (i.e., vv 20-25, 26-30). Matthew’s telling suggests that Jesus had taken steps to prepare for this important time rather than that a special divine providence was at work (as in Mark and Luke). B. Matthew shows evidence of depending upon Mark (cf. Mark 14:12-17), but he has considerably abbreviated that material, taking up just the skeleton of the Markan passage. In v 17 only relatively insignificant omissions occur. Thus Matthew omits the unnecessary ή μ έ ρ α , “day,” the somewhat difficult o r e τ ο π ά σ χ α β θυ ο ν , “when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Matthew may have been bothered by the fact that the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread was 15 Nisan while the lambs were sacrificed on 14 Nisan), and the redundant participle 27τ ε λ θ ό ι/τε ς , “having gone.” But then Matthew omits altogether Mark’s mysterious account of the sending of two disciples with the instructions that they would encounter a man carrying a ja r of water whom they were to follow (Mark 14:13), that they were to go into the house and ask the master of the house where the guest room was (Mark 14:14), that he would show them a large upper room fully furnished where they were to prepare the Passover meal (Mark 14:1 5), and finally that they did this and found all just as Jesus had said (Mark 14:16). In contrast with this, Matthew preserves from Mark only that the disciples were to go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the teacher says he wants to eat the Passover there with his disciples. Matthew makes one significant insertion, o κ α ιρ ό ς μ ο υ έ γ γ ύ ς ε σ τ ι ν , “my time is near” (v 18). Matthew concludes by noting that the disciples obeyed Jesus and then in the last four words rejoins Mark verbatim: κ α ί ή τ ο ιμ α σ α ν τ ό π ά σ χ α , “and they prepared the Passover.” It is perhaps surprising that Matthew here abbreviates Mark as much as he does. The reason is not that he has any objection to the material but more probably that he is pressed to conserve space; Mark’s details are not necessary at this point. This is in keeping with Matthew’s practice throughout the Gospel in his use of Mark. C. The straightforward narrative consists of the disciples’ question (v 17), Jesus’ instructions (v 18), and the disciples’ compliance with those instructions. Matthew seems to want to move quickly to the important events that follow. D. Although it is not possible here to go into any detail regarding the problem of dating the Passover and the celebration of the meal by the disciples, the following brief remarks may be offered. The synoptic Gospels present the last supper as a Passover meal that took place at the normal time, i.e., on 15 Nisan, which began at sundown on Thursday. (The lambs were being sacrificed earlier that day, i.e., on 14 Nisan [cf. Mark 14:12].) The meal was eaten that night, and Jesus was arrested, given a mockery of a trial, and crucified on the same day, i.e., by Friday afternoon (on the problem of “the first day of Unleavened Bread,” cf. Comm en t on v 17). In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, Jesus’ death takes place at the time of the sacrificing of the Passover lambs, before the eating of the Passover meal (cf. John 18:28). On this reckoning, 15 Nisan began twenty-four hours later than in the Synoptics, i.e., on Friday at sundown. Commentators have ap-

764

M a t t h e w 26:17-19

pealed to the possibility of various calendrical reckonings (Jaubert [cf. Strobel]: solar calendar [e.g., Qumran, Synoptics] versus lunar calendar [e.g., Pharisees, John]; Hoehner: Galilean calendar [e.g., Pharisees, Synoptics] versus Judean calendar [e.g., Sadducees, John]); or “distributed observance” (Chenderlin); and, of course, a deliberate chronological shift for theological purposes (i.e., on Jo h n ’s part to line up the death of Jesus with the sacrifice of the lambs) has often been suggested. Any of these possibilities seems preferable to the Herculean attempt to harmonize the discordant chronologies (as, e.g., by Carson, 528-32). Comment

17 r fj π ρ ώ τ η τ ω ν ά ζ ύ μ ω ν , “the first day of Unleavened Bread,” was technically the first of the seven days of the festival; this first day occurred on 15 Nisan, the same day as the Passover celebration. Yet according to Matthew, following Mark, it is on this day that preparations are made for the Passover meal of the evening (reckoned as the next day, making it 16 Nisan, a day too late). For this reason some have attempted to understand τ η π ρ ώ τ η , “on the first,” as a misunderstanding of the underlying Aramaic, which would have been KQp, q a m m ā , or “Op, q a m m ê, “before,” rather than n$Qp, q a m m ā ’ā h, “first” (thus Allen). The solution can only be guessed at, but the problem seems not to have bothered the evangelists. Perhaps the feast of Unleavened Bread could have been thought of as beginning a day before the Passover (cf. Exod 12:18, referring to the evening of 14 Nisan—thus eight days of Passover; cf. J o s . , J.W . 5.3.1 §99; A n t. 2.15.1 §317 also refers to keeping the feast of Unleavened Bread for eight rather than seven days, thus including 14 Nisan [see Str-B 1:987-88]). Arnott’s suggestion that the passage is referring to “unleavened things” goes against the natural meaning of the phrase τ ω ν ά ζ ύ μ ω ν . The preparation would have included the obtaining of a suitable place, the sacrificing and preparation of the lamb, and the acquisition of other necessities such as herbs, wine, and bread (cf. Exod 12:1-20; and the Passover Haggadah). The feast of Unleavened Bread or Passover was one of the three major feasts involving pilgrimage to Jerusalem (see Deut 16:16). On this occasion the deliverance of Israel from the slavery of Egypt was commemorated. Lambs were slaughtered in remembrance of the sacrificial lambs of Exod 12:127. Now, however, a greater deliverance was to be accomplished by the unique sacrifice of God’s Messiah (see vv 26-30). 18 The disciples are instructed to go “into the city” (the Passover had to be celebrated in Jerusalem) π ρ ο ς τ ο ν δ ε ίν α , “to the m an,” i.e., to someone known but not identified, with whom previous arrangements appear to have been made by Jesus. This man will apparently understand who “the teacher” is and recognize the signal ο κ α ιρ ό ς μ ο υ ε γ γ ύ ς έ σ τ ι ν , “my time is near.” The reference to this person as τ ο ν δ ε ίν α , “the m an” or “so-and-so” (the only NT use of the word), i.e., someone who for some reason remains anonymous, together with the unusual message, retains in Matthew’s account an unexplainable air of mystery when the Markan parts of the story have been removed (cf. the similar “mystery” in 21:23). Nevertheless, Matthew’s version of the story is readily explainable as the result of Jesus’ own prearrangem ent with the man, with precisely the need of a place to celebrate the Passover in mind (π ο ιώ τ ο π ά σ χ α , “I want to celebrate the Pass-

Translation

765

o v e r”; cf. L X X E x o d 12:48; N u m 9:2- 5). T h e u se o f ό δ ιδ ά σ κ α λο ς, “th e te a c h e r ” (cf. 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:11; 22:16, 24, 3 6 ), se em s to su g g e st th a t th is p a rtic u la r m a n m ay n o t h av e b e e n a fo llo w er o f J e s u s (in w h ic h case κύριος, “L o r d ,” m ig h t h av e b e e n e x p e c te d in k e e p in g w ith M a tth e w ’s u s a g e ) . ό κ α ιρ ό ς μ ο υ έ γ γ ύ ς έ σ τ ιν , “m y tim e is n e a r ,” re fe rs, o f c o u rse , to th e tim e o f J e s u s ’ d e a th (cf. J o h n 7:6, 8; b u t ώρα μο υ, “m y h o u r ,” is fa r m o re c o m m o n in J o h n ) , th e re b y c o n n e c tin g v ery closely th e im m in e n c e o f th e d e a th o f J e su s w ith th e P asso v er c e le b ra tio n . T h a t th e m a n k n ew th e m e a n in g o f th e se w ords, how ever, re m a in s unlikely. H e n e e d o n ly k n o w th a t J e s u s r e q u ir e d a p la c e in w h ic h h e a n d h is d iscip les, i.e., th e twelve, c o u ld c e le b ra te th e P assover to g e th e r. 19 T h e d isc ip le s d id as Je su s “o r d e r e d th e m to d o ” (σ ν υ έ τα ξ ε ι e lsew h e re in th e N T o n ly in 21:6 a n d 2 7 :1 0 ), a n d th e y p r o c e e d e d to p r e p a r e fo r th e P assover m e al. T h e s e ttin g is th u s in p la c e fo r th e fo llo w in g p e ric o p e s . E xplanation Je s u s was u n q u e s tio n a b ly aw are o f w h a t im p o r ta n t th in g s h e w a n te d to te a c h h is d isc ip le s a t th e P assover m e al. I t is th u s fully u n d e r s ta n d a b le th a t p e rh a p s e a r lie r in th e w ee k h e h a d m a d e in q u irie s c o n c e r n in g a su itab le , i.e., p riv ate, lo c a tio n fo r th is ev e n t. A lrea d y in th e fo rm u la s p o k e n to th e m a n , “m y tim e is n e a r ,” th e a n tic ip a te d d e a th o f Je s u s is a s so c ia te d w ith th e e a tin g o f th e P assover m e al. T h is will b e m a d e q u ite e x p lic it in vv 2 6 -3 0 . T h is P assover will b e u n lik e an y o th e r P assover th e d isc ip le s h a d e x p e rie n c e d .

D is c lo s u r e o f th e B e tr a y e r

(2 6 :2 0 -2 5 )

B ibliography Bauer, J. “Judas Schicksal u n d Selbstm ord.” BLit 20 (1952-53) 210-13. Fensham, F. C. “Ju d a s’ H and in the Bowl and Q u m ran .” RQ 5 (1965) 259-61. H ein, K. “Judas Iscariot: Key to the Last-Supper N arratives?” N T S 17 (1970-71) 227-32. H o fb au er, J. “Judas, d er Verräter.” T P Q 110 (1962) 36-42. Leahy, D. “T he M eaning of Matt. xxvi,24.” Scr 2 (1947) 82-84. Preisker, H. “D er Verrat des Judas u n d das A bendm ahl.” Z N W 41 (1942) 151-55. Schwarz, G. Jesus und Judas. BWANT 123. Stuttgart: Kohlham mer, 1988. Translation 20A n d when evening came, he reclined at table with the twelve.a 21A n d while they were eating, he said: “Truly I tell you th a tb one o f you will betray me.” 22A n d becoming greatly distressed, they began to say to him ,c one by one:d “I’m not the one, Lord, am I ? ”e 23A n d he answered a n d said: “The one h a vin g dipped his h a n d with m ine in the bowl, this one will betray me.24 The Son o f M a n goes ju s t as it has been written concerning him, but woe to that m an through whom the Son o f M a n is betrayed. It would have been

766

Ma

t t h ew

2 6 :2 0 -2 5

better i f that m an had not been born.” 25A n d Ju d a s, the one betraying him, answered a n d said: “I ’m not the one, Rabbi, am I ? ”f J e su s g said to him: “You have said the truth.”h N otes a Many MSS (K A L W Δ Θ lat syh samss mae bo) add μαθητών, “disciples” (cf. Note on 20:17). The evidence, however, slightly favors its omission. See TCGNT, 64. b P37 and P45 omit ö t l , “that.” c αύτώ, “to him,” is omitted by p37vidp45 D Θ f13latt sys mae bo. d els' έκαστος*, lit. “each one.” Some MSS (P45 D Θ f 13 sy8,pp,hmg) read els' εκ αυτών, “one of them.” P64vid omits εΐς' έκαστος' altogether. e μήτι εγώ είμι, κύριε, lit. “it is not I, Lord?” expecting a negative answer. f The question here has exactly the same form as in v 22 (see preceding Note). 8 “Jesus” added to the translation for clarity. So, too, P45K it vgmss syp add ό Ιησούς·, ‘Jesus.” h σύεϊπας, lit.’’you have said (it).” F o rm /S tru ctu re/S ettin g A . In th e in tim a te se ttin g o f th e ir priv ate, fam ilial c e le b ra tio n o f th e P assover m e al, Je su s m a k es th e sta rtlin g re v e la tio n th a t o n e o f th e twelve will b e re s p o n sib le fo r h is b etray al. S in ce th e b etray al le ad s to th e d e a th o f Je su s, we ag a in h av e th e asso cia tio n o f his d e a th w ith th e Passover. T h e c o n n e c tio n b e c o m e s th e c e n tra l p o in t o f th e p e ric o p e th a t follow s th e p r e s e n t o n e . T h e cu lp ab ility o f th e b e tra y e r is rea d ily p u t to g e th e r w ith th e stress o n th e fu lfillm e n t o f s c rip tu re (v 24). B. M a tth e w c o n tin u e s to u se M a rk as h is so u rc e fo r th is p assag e (M ark 14:1821; cf. L u k e 2 2 :2 1 -2 3 ; a n d fo r a d istin ctiv e a c c o u n t, J o h n 1 3 :2 1 -3 0 ). H e follow s M a rk r a th e r closely, esp ecially in v 24, w h ic h is p ra c tic a lly in v e rb a tim a g r e e m e n t w ith M a rk 14:21. M a tth e w m a k es a few ty p ical o m issio n s, m a in ly to a b b re v ia te th e M a rk a n te x t. T h u s in v 21 h e o m its M a rk ’s ό ’Ι η σ ο ύ ς , “J e s u s ” (M ark 14:18), a n d th e u n n e c e s s a ry s h o r t c lau se ό έσ θίω ν μ ε τ ’ έμ ο υ, “o n e w h o is e a tin g w ith m e ” (a p r o b a b le a llu sio n to Ps 4 1:9); in v 23 h e o m its th e aw kw ard ε ι ς τω ν δώ δεκα, “o n e o f th e tw elve” (M ark 14:20); a n d a t th e b e g in n in g o f v 24 h e o m its M a rk ’s u n n e c e s s a ry o t l , “b e c a u s e ” (M a rk 1 4 :2 1 ). M a tth e w m a k e s tw o s lig h t a lte r a tio n s : c h a n g in g M a rk ’s ε ι ς κ α τ ά ε ις , “o n e by o n e ” (M ark 14:19), in v 22 a n d in v 24 a d d in g th e v e rb ην, “w as,” o r h e r e , “w o u ld h av e b e e n .” B u t M a tth e w also m a k e s a few m o r e s u b sta n tia l a d d itio n s to h is M a rk a n so u rc e . T h u s th e w h o le o f v 25 is a n a d d itio n . M a tth e w f u r th e r a d d s d e ta ils o f th e se ttin g in v 20, th e p o ig n a n t κύριε, “L o r d ,” in v 22 (cf. M a rk 14:19) a n d in v 23 th e w o rd s τ ή ν χ ε ΐ ρ α , “th e h a n d ,” as w ell as th e e m p h a tic ο υ τ ό ς μ ε παραδώ σει, “th is o n e will b e tra y m e ,” a t th e e n d o f th e v erse (cf. M a rk 1 4 :20). M a tth e w th u s a g a in p re s e rv e s a n d m o d ifie s h is so u rc e . C. T h e p assag e co n sists o f s tra ig h tfo rw a rd h isto ric a l n a rra tiv e larg ely p r e s e n te d in th e f o rm o f d ir e c t d isc o u rse . T h e fo llo w in g sim p le o u tlin e m ay b e su g g e sted : (1) th e re v e la tio n th a t o n e o f th e tw elve w ill b e tra y Je s u s (v v 2 0 -2 1 ); (2) th e distre s s e d q u e s tio n in g o f th e d isc ip le s (v 2 2 ); (3) th e p a r tia l an sw e r (v 2 3 ); (4) th e g rie v o u s sin o f th e b e tra y e r (v 2 4 ); a n d (5) th e fu ll an sw e r (v 2 5 ). A few s tr u c tu ra l fe a tu re s to b e n o te d are : th e id e n tic a l q u e s tio n s o f w 22 a n d 25 b u t w ith th e te llta le d if fe r e n c e in th e la tte r o f th e a d d re ss ρ α ββ ί, “R a b b i”; th e n a rro w in g fo cu s in th e p a r a lle l u tte r a n c e s o f w 21 a n d 23, “o n e o f y o u w ill b e tra y m e ” a n d “th is

Comment

767

one will betray m e”; and the twofold repetition and contrast of ό νιος' τ ο ν άνθρώ πον, “the Son of Man,” and ό ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς ε κ ε ί ν ο ς , “that m an,” in v 24. The tradition underlying the woe saying of v 24 is cited in 1 Clem. 46.8, where it is combined with other material underlying 10:6. The saying “it were better for them not to have been born” is found in Herrn. Vis. 4.2.6. Comment 20-21 ό φ ία ς δ ε γ ε ν ο μ ε ν η ς , “when it was evening,” reflects the custom that the Passover meal be eaten at night. This, according to our reckoning (see C om m ent on v 17), was Thursday night, the beginning of 15 Nisan. Jesus reclines with his disciples in order to partake of this special meal. While the first part of the meal was in progress (i.e., before the actual Passover ceremony, involving recitation of the Passover Haggadah), Jesus makes the shocking disclosure that one of them will betray him. The announcement is prefaced with the weighty formula α μ ή ν λ έ γ ω ν μ ΐν , “truly I tell you.” This would indeed turn out to be an unusual Passover meal! 22 It is obvious that the disciples would be λ ν π ο ύ μ ε ν ο ι σ φ ο δ ρ ά , “greatly distressed,” by Jesus’ words (the same expression occurs in 17:23 at the second announcem ent of the coming death of Jesus and in 18:31). One by one each disciple asks whether he is the betrayer. The initial word of the question, μ ή τ ι ε γ ώ ε ί μ ι , “It is not I?” produces the expectation of a negative answer (cf. NRSV: “Surely not I?”). The added κ ύ ρ ιε , “Lord,” points to true discipleship (though not necessarily; cf. 7:21), especially given the stark contrast with Judas’ address of Jesus as ρ α β β ί, “Rabbi,” when he asks the same question in v 25. 23 Jesus’ answer appears to take us no further than the original statement in v 21 that one of them would betray him. He adds only the point that the betrayer is presently eating with Jesus. The aorist participle, έ μ β ά φ α ς , “having dipped” (contrast Mark’s present participle), together with μ ε τ ’έ μ ο ν , “with m e,” suggests only that the betrayer had already dipped his bread into the bowl at the same time that Jesus had (not just at that moment, pace Fensham). This is therefore not a clear indication of the betrayer’s identity (contrast John 13:26). Judas’ question in v 25 confirms this conclusion. The τρ ν β λίω , “bowl” (in the NT only here and in the Markan parallel), used often in the LXX, was an ordinary bowl containing a sauce or “dip” into which one dipped one’s bread or other food (cf. John 13:26). Eating together—normally a sign of fellowship and human solidarity—here involves a violation of intimacy. 24 The fate of Jesus is no accident of history, however, for ό μ ε ν ν ιο ς τ ο ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν ν π ά γ ε ι κ α θ ώ ς γ έ γ ρ α π τ α ι π ε ρ ί α ύ τ ο ν , “the Son of Man goes as it is written concerning him.” That is, the death of Jesus is the realization of God’s plan and the fulfillment of scripture (cf. vv 54, 56; this emphasis is stronger in Luke; see esp. Luke 18:31; 24:25-27, 44-47). No reference is given here, but occasional OT quotations appear in the remainder of the passion narrative (cf. v 31; 27:9). The title “Son of Man” has been frequently linked with the earlier passion predictions (17:12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 45; cf. 12:40; 17:9; see “Excursus: Son of Man” at 8:20). The “woe” saying is very similar in form to the second one of 18:7 (which is linked with the κ α λ ό ν έ σ τ ι ν , “better if,” sayings [18:8-9]), where, however, the woe is pronounced upon the one “through whom the stumbling comes.” The somber saying that “it were better had that man not been born” finds a parallel

768

Ma t t h e w 26:26-30

in the apocalyptic language of 1 E n o ch 38.2 and points unmistakably to the great seriousness of the offense. Judas’ suicide (27:5) is quite in keeping with the woe pronounced upon him. See the C om m ent on 26:14-16. 25 Finally, according to Matthew, Judas questions Jesus, perhaps just to see whether he really knew who the betrayer was. The reference to Judas as ο π α ρ α ό ιδ ο ύ ς α υ τ ό ν , “the one betraying him” (present participle), perhaps points to the fact that the betrayal had already been initiated (cf. vv 14-16). His question follows precisely the same form that the other disciples had used, i.e., expecting a negative response (cf. v 22); yet he addresses Jesus as ρ α β β ί , “Rabbi,” rather than as κ ύ ρ ιε , “Lord.” This is a particularly conspicuous difference since Matthew reserves the address κ ύ ρ ι ε for disciples or potential disciples while using other titles (e.g., “teacher”) for address by those who resist or oppose Jesus (Judas uses “Rabbi” again in addressing Jesus in v 49; the word is used elsewhere in Matthew only in 23:7-8). Judas had not yet arrived at a proper estimation of Jesus. Jesus’ response, σ ϋ ε ϊ π α ς , lit. “you have said (it),” is obviously (as also in v 64 and similarly in 27:11) to be understood as an affirmation, albeit somewhat indirect. That is, yes, Judas w as the betrayer as he himself well knew (for the syntax, see C om m ent on v 64). Although no reference is made to Judas’ departure (cf. John 13:30), it is perhaps to be assumed here since Judas is next referred to as coming with the guards in vv 46-47. Explanation

At the beginning of their celebration of Passover together, Jesus makes it known that one of the twelve will betray him. The distress of the disciples leads to some inevitable soul searching even if their questions amount to defiant assertions of loyalty (cf. v 33). If the twelve, those who had known Jesus so intimately, who had accompanied him throughout his ministry, were prom pted to ask the question of their loyalty to Jesus, how much more properly may Christians who have not had that privilege occasionally ask that question. The line between comm itm ent and betrayal can be a thin one as the disciples themselves were to discover in the very near future. And although the sovereignty of God is always working itself out in the events of the Christian’s life, this can never be made an excuse for failure—not in the case of Judas, nor in the case of the Christian. The Pharisees and the Qumran sect share with Christianity the sustained tension between God’s sovereignty and human free will (and thus responsibility).

Institution o f the E ucharist

(26:26-30)

Bibliography A a le n , S . “Das A bendm ahl als O pferm ahl im N euen T estam ent.” N o v T 6 A lle n , W . C . “T he Last S upper N ot a Passover M eal.” ExpTim 20 (1908-9)

(1963) 128-52. 377. A u le n , G . Eucharist and Sacrifice. Tr. E. H. W ahlstrom. Philadelphia: M uhlenberg, 1958. B a h r, G . J.

Bibliography

769

“T he Seder o f Passover and the Eucharistic W ords.” N o v T 12 (1970) 181-202. B a rth , M . D a s A b e n d m a h l: P a ssa m a h l, B u n d e s m a h l u n d M e s s ia s m a h l Zürich: Evangelischer, 1945. B e c k , N . A . “T he Last Supper as an Efficacious Symbolic Act. ’’J B L 89 (1970) 192-98. B e n o it, P . “T he Accounts of the Institution and W hat They Imply.” In T h e E u c h a r is t in the N e w Testam ent, ed. J. D elorm e et al. Baltimore: H elicon, 1964. 71-101 B lig h , J. “Scriptural Inquiry: ‘Do this in com m em oration of m e.’” T h e W ay 5 (1965) 154-59. B o k se r , B . M . “Was the Last S upper a Passover Seder?” B R 3.2 (1987) 24-33. B ra u m a n n , G . “Mit euch: Matth. 26.29.” T Z 21 (1965) 161-69. B u rk itt, E C . “T he Last Supper and the Paschal Meal." J T S 17 (1915-16) 291-97. C a r m ic h a e l, D . B . “David Daube on the Eucharist and the Passover Seder. ”J S N T 42 (1991) 45-67. C a se y , M . “T he O riginal Aramaic Form o f Jesus’ Interpretation o f the C up.” JTS41 (1990) 1-12. C o o k e , B . “Synoptic P resentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice.” T S 21 (1960) 1-44. C u llm a n n , O ., and L e e n h a r d t, E J. E ssays o n the L o r d ’s Supper. L ondon: Lutterw orth, 1958. D aly, R . J. “T he E ucharist and Redem ption: T he Last Supper and Jesus’ U nderstanding of His D eath.” B T B 11 (1981) 21-27. D a v id , J.E . “Mt 26:28: Un faux problem e.” B ib 48 (1967) 291-92. D e lo r m e , J. “T he Last Supper and the Pasch in the New Testam ent.” In T h e E u c h a r is t in the N e w Testam ent, ed. J. D elorm e et al. Baltimore: H elicon, 1964. 21-67. D e s c a m p s , A . “Les origines de 1’E ucharistie.” In J e su s et l ’E glise: E tu d e s d ’exegese et de theologie. BETL 77. Leuven: Leuven U P/Peeters, 1987. 455-96. D u p o n t, J. ‘“Ceci est m on corps,’ ‘Ceci est m on sang.’” A TR80 (1958) 1025-41. D u R o y , J.-B . “Le d ern ie r repas de Jesus.” B V C 26 (1959) 44-52. E d a n a d , A . “Institution of the Eucharist according to the Synoptic Gospels.” B iblebh ashyam 4 (1978) 322-32. E m e r to n , J. A . “T O A I M A M O T Τ Η Σ Δ ΙΑ Θ Η Κ Η Σ : T he Evidence o f the Syriac Versions.”J T S 13 (1962) 111-17. F e l d , H . D a s V e r s tä n d n is des A b e n d m a h ls . D arm sta d t: W issen sch aftlich e Buchgesellschaft, 1976. F e n e b e r g , R . C hristliche P a ssa feier u n d A b e n d m a h l: E in e U blischherm en eu tisch e U n te r s u c h u n g d er n e u te sta m e n tlich e n E in setzu n g sb erich te. SANT 27. M unich: Kösel, 1971. F u ller, R . H . “T he D ouble O rigin of the Eucharist.” B R S (1963) 60-72. G a lo t, J. “Eucharistie et In carnation.” NRT 105 (1983) 549-66. G ra il, A . “Sacrem ent de la croix.” L u m V ie 7 (1952) 11-27. G r e g g , D . W . A . A n a m n e s is in the E u ch a rist. N ottingham : Grove, 1976. G ü n t h e r , J . “Das B e ch e rw o rt J e s u .” T G l 45 (1955) 4 7 -4 9 . H a h n , F. “Die alttestam entliche Motive in der urchristlichen A bendm ahlsüberlieferung.” E v T 27 (1967) 3 3 7 -7 4 .———. “Zum Stand der Erforschung des urchristlichen H errenm ahls.” E v T 35 (1975) 553-63. H ig g in s , A . J. B . T h e L o r d ’s S u p p e r in the N e w T estam ent. SBT 6. London: SCM, 1 956.———. “T he O rigins of the Eucharist.” N T S 1 (1954-55) 200-209. H u se r, T. “Les recits de l’institution de la Cene: Dissemblances et traditions.” H o k h m a 21 (1982) 2850. Irw in , K . W. “T he Supper Text in the Gospel of Saint Matthew.” D u n R e v 11 (1971) 170-84. J e re m ia s , J. T h e E u ch a ristic W ords o f Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.———. “This is My Body.. . . ” E x p T im 83 (1972) 196-203. K ä se m a n n , E . “Das A bendm ahl im N euen Testam ent.” In A b en d m a h lsg em e in sc h a ft? ed. H. Asmussen et al. M unich: Kaiser, 1938. 6093. K ilp a tric k , G . D . “Eucharist as Sacrifice and Sacram ent in the New Testam ent.” In N eu es T estam en t u n d Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: H erder, 1974. 429-33. ———. “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: T he Last Supper.” E x p T im 64 (1952-53) 4 8. K o llm a n n , B . U r sp ru n g u n d G estalten der frü h c h ristlic h e n M ahlfeier. GTA 43. G öttingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1990. K o sm a la , H . “Das tu t zu m einem G edächtnis.” N o v T 4 (1 9 6 0 -61) 81-94. K u h n , K . G . “Die A b e n d m a h lsw ö rte .” T L Z 75 (1950) 399-408. L a V e rd ie r e , E . “Do This in Rem em brance of M e.” E m m a n u e lQ O (1984) 365-69. L e a n e y , A . R . C . “W hat Was the L ord’s Supper?” T h 70 (1967) 51-62. L e b e a u , P. L e v in n o u v e a u d u R o ya u m e: E tu d e exegetique et p a tristiq u e s u r la parole eschatologique de J e su s ά la Cene. Museum Lessianum, Section biblique 5. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1966. L e o n -D u fo u r, X . “Prenez! Ceci est m on corps p o u r vous.” NRT 104 (1982) 223-40. L e ro y , H . Z u r Vergebung der S ü n d e n : D ie B o tsch a ft der E va n g e lie n . SBS 73. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. L ie tzm a n n , H . M a s s a n d L o r d ’s Supper, ed. R. D. Richardson. Tr. D. H. G. Reeve. Leiden: Brill, 1979. L o h m e y e r, E . “Das Abendm ahl in der U rgem einde.” J B L 56 (1937) 2 1 7 -5 2 .———. ‘Vom

770

M a t t h e w 26:26-30

urchristlichen A bendm ahl.” T R u n.s. 9 (1937) 168-227, 273-312; 10 (1938) 81-99. L y ss, D . “Mon corps, c’est ceci (Notule sur Mt 26, 26-28 et par.).” E T R 45 (1970) 389-90. M arsh all, I . H . L a s t S u p p er a n d L o rd 's Supper. G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. M astin , B . A. ‘Jesus Said G ra ce .” S J T 24 (1971) 449-56. M e r k le in , H . “E rw äg u n g en zu r Ü b e rlie fe ru n g d e r neutestam entlichen A bendm ahlstraditionen.” B Z 21 (1977) 88-101, 235-44. M eyer, B . F. ‘T h e Expiation Motif in the Eucharistie Words: A Key to the History o f Jesus?” G reg 69 (1988) 461-87. P a tsch , H . A b e n d m a h l u n d historischer Jesus. CTM 1. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972. P e s c h , R . D a s A b e n d m a h l u n d J esu Todesverständnis. QD 80. Freiburg: Herder, 1978.———. ‘T h e Last Supper an d Jesus’ U nderstanding of His D eath.” B iblebhashyam 3 (1977) 5 8 -7 5 .———. W ie Jesu s d a s A b e n d m a h l hielt: D er G r u n d der E u c h a n stie . Freiburg: H erder, 1977. R e u m a n n , J. T h e S u p p e r of the L ord: T h e N e w Testam ent , E cu m en ica l D ialogues, a n d F a ith a n d O rder o n E u c h a rist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. S ald arin i, A .J . Jesu s a n d Passover. New York: Paulist, 1984. S an d e rs, H . A , “A T hird Century Papyrus of Matthew and Acts.” In Q u a n tu la cu m q u e. FS K. Lake, ed. R. P. Casey et al. London: Christophers, 1937. 151—61. S an d v ik , B . D a s K o m m en des H e rr n beim A b e n d m a h l im N e u e n Testam ent. ATANT 58. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. S c h e lk le , K . H . “Das H e rrn m a h l.” In R ec h tfe rtig u n g . FS E. Käsemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlm ann, and P. Stuhlm acher. T ü b in g e n /G ö ttin g e n : M o h r/V an d en h o eck 8c R uprecht, 1976. 385-402. S c h ü rm a n n , H . ‘Jesus’ Words in the Light of His Actions at the Last Supper.” In T h e B re a kin g o f B read. Concilium 40. New York: Paulist, 1969. 1 1 9-31.———. “Das Mahl des H e rrn .” In U rsp ru n g u n d G estalt : E rörterungen u n d B e s in n u n g e n z u m N e u e n Testam ent. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1970 . 7 7 - 1 9 6 . S ch w eizer, E . “Das H errenm ahl im N euen Testam ent.” T L Z 79 (19 5 4 ) 5 7 7 92.— — — . T h e L o rd 's S u p p er according to the N e w Testam ent. Facet Books. Philadelphia: Fortress, 19 6 7. S en n , F. C . ‘T h e L ord’s Supper, N ot the Passover Seder.” W o r s h i p s (198 6 ) 3 6 2 68. S tag g, F. ‘T h e L ord’s Supper in the New Testam ent.” R ev E x p 66 (19 6 9 ) 5 - 1 4 . S yk es, M . H . ‘T h e Eucharist as ‘Anamnesis.’” E x p T im 7 1 (19 5 9 -6 0 ) 1 1 5 - 1 8 . T e m p le , S . “T he Two Traditions o f the Last Supper, Betrayal, and A rrest.” N T S 7 (1 9 6 0 -6 1 ) 7 7 -8 5 . T h y e n , H . S tu d ie n z u r S ü n d e n v e r g e b u n g im N e u e n T e s ta m e n t u n d s e in e n a ltte s ta m e n tlic h e n u n d j ü d is c h e n V oraussetzungen. FRLANT 96. Göttingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1970.

Translation 26A n d while they were eating, Jesus took a lo a f of a bread, a n d w hen he h a d blessed God fo r it,b he broke it in to pieces, a n d g iv in g themc to his disciples, he said: “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27A n d he took a cup,d a n d w hen he h a d g iven thanks, he g ave it to them, saying: “A ll o f yo u d n n k o f it; 28fo r this is my blood of e the covenant ,f w hich is poured o u t fo r a l l gf o r the forgiveness o f sins. 29B u t I tell you, fro m n o w on I m i l n o t d n n k a t a ll fro m this f r u i t o f the vin e u n til th a t day w hen I d rin k it w ith yo u new in the kin g d o m o f my Father. ”30And w hen they h a d s u n g a hym n, they w ent o u t to the M o u n t o f Olives.

Notes a ‘A loaf of’ added to translation. b εύλογήσας, “having blessed.” Some MSS (A K W Γ Af1,13 syh) have εύχαριστήσας, “having given thanks,” probably by the influence of the parallel in Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24. But compare too the same verb in v 27. c “Them” added, supplying the direct object. d Some important witnesses (P45A C D K Γ f 13) include the definite article τό. The tendency of scribes would have been to add rather than delete the definite article. TCGNT, 64. e Many MSS (A C W f1,13 TR syh) insert the definite article τό before της διαθήκης, producing an attributive adjectival phrase, “the blood of the covenant,”which is much smoother than the accepted text. For that reason, it is probably not original.

Form/Structure/Setting

771

f Many MSS (A C D Wf1,13 TR latt sy sa bo) insert κα ινής, “new,” before “covenant,” almost certainly from the parallel in Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25. As Metzger points out, had the word been in the earliest MS, there is no reason it would have later been deleted. TCGNT, 64. g περί πολλών, lit., “for many.” See Comment. Form/Structure/Setting

A. We come now to a central component of the passion narrative. This pericope with its provision of a way for the followers of Jesus to commemorate the death of Jesus gives to the church what will become its central sacrament. The event recorded here not only anticipates the death of Jesus, but it also provides an interpretation of that event. Jesus takes basic elements of human sustenance, food and drink, and transforms the partaking of those elements into a symbolic portrayal of his redemptive death (cf. 1 Cor 11:26). B. Matthew follows Mark very closely in this pericope (Mark 14:22-25; cf. Luke 22:15-20, which, however, is quite different [cf. 1 Cor 11:23-26]; cf. John 6:5159, which also seems to bear some relationship to this material) . There are only six substantive differences from the Markan text. Three additions are made: φ ύ γ ε τ ε , “eat,” in v 26, a natural addition, but the present pericope is the only eucharist narrative with this imperative (cf. Mark 14:22); ε ι ς α φ ε σ ι ν ά μ α ρ τιώ ν , “for the forgiveness of sins,” in v 28, implied in the preceding phrase, “poured out for many,” but made explicit only in Matthew (cf. 1:21); and μ ε θ ’ υμώ ν, “with you,” in v 29, again unique to Matthew and recalling the reunion of Jesus with his disciples (cf. 24:31; 25:34). Matthew makes two significant alterations: he turns Mark’s statement that all drank from the cup (Mark 14:23) into an imperative, 7τ ί ε τ ε ε ξ α ύ τ ο ϋ π ύ ν τ ε ς , “drink of it, all” (v 27), thus bringing about parallelism with the imperative “eat” (v 26) no doubt through liturgical influence; second, he changes Mark’s reference to rrj β α σ ιλ ε ία τ ο υ Θεού, “the kingdom of God,” at the very end of the pericope (Mark 14:25) to rr) β α σ ιλ ε ία τ ο υ π α τ ρ ό ς μ ο υ , “the kingdom of my Father” (v 29; cf. a similar expression in 13:43). One omission may also be noted, that of Mark’s ά μ ή ν , “truly” (Mark 14:25), in v 29, which thereby avoids the common formula (but it is difficult to know why). Other alterations of the Markan text are small and insignificant. In all, Matthew’s relatively conservative preservation of his source attests to its importance to him. C. The core of the passage consists of the “words of institution” as they later became called. The passage may be outlined as follows: (1) the eating of the bread (w 26-27); (2) the drinking of the wine (vv 27-28); (3) the eschatological drinking of the wine (v 29); and (4) the departure (v 30). Structural parallelism can be seen in the reference to the bread and the cup. Thus in w 26-27 we have λ α β ώ ν ά ρ τ ο ν /π ο τ ή ρ ι ο ν , “taking bread/cup,” ε ύ λ ο γ ή σ α ς / ε ύ χ α ρ ι σ τ ή σ α ς , “blessing/ giving thanks,” followed by the parallel imperatives φ ύ γ ε τ ε , “eat,” and π ί ε τ ε , “drink,” which are found only in Matthew among all the NT accounts (i.e., including Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26). T here are also the two parallel interpretive sentences of w 26, 28: τ ο ϋ τ ό έ σ τ ι ν τ ο σ ώ μ ύ μ ο υ , “this is my body,” and τ ο ύ τ ο γ ύ ρ έ σ τ ι ν τ ό α ΐ μ ύ μ ο υ , “for this is my blood” (this parallelism is also in Mark), the latter being heavily modified with further interpretive material. Liturgical influence is probably to be detected in the form of the material as well as in choice of words. In addition to the parallel account of the institution of the

772

M a t t h e w 26:26-30

eucharist in 1 Cor 11:23-26 (cf. allusion in 1 Cor 10:16), see too D id . 9.1-5 and Justin Martyr, A pol. 1.66.3. D. The sense in which the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been one of the notorious and divisive problems in the Christian church (for illuminating discussion of this along with other aspects, see Reumann; Cullmann and Leenhardt; Marshall). In the present note, only the following brief observations are possible. Jesus’ use of the verb έ σ τ ίν , “is” (“this is my body”; “this is my blood”), can hardly be meant literally when Jesus is physically present with them at the meal. The verb is to be taken seriously but as involving a deep and important symbolism. As the Passover meal involved rich symbolism, so Jesus instills a new dynamic symbolism into these elements. Christ is genuinely present in the elements, but without a change of these into his actual body and blood (as in transubstantiation). To eat of these elements is mysteriously to partake of Christ and his gifts, to enjoy the grace of the gospel (cf. John 6:56-57). Since the life of the Christian—the enjoyment of the gift of new life—depends so fundamentally upon the death of Jesus, the identification of the bread and wine of this supper as his body and blood is centrally significant. Yet although the eucharist points to the sacrifice of Jesus, it is not itself a sacrifice but a memorializing and contemporizing of the unique sacrifice accomplished by Jesus on the cross. Understandably, this commemoration of the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins becomes the central component of Christian worship. For helpful orientation, see Hahn, E v T 35 (1975) 553-63. On the issue of the historicity of the words of the institution, see Pesch, D as A b en d m a h l Comment

26 Further on into the meal m entioned in the preceding verses, i.e., into the Passover celebration proper (cf. v 19), Jesus apparently interrupts the normal ceremony, takes the common (unleavened) bread and wine, and attaching new symbolic significance to them (“efficacious symbolic acts,” thus Beck), invites his disciples to partake of them. Beginning with the bread (possibly the ΓΚ0, massah , “unleavened bread,” reserved for the afikom an = έπ ικ ώ μ ο ν, “revelling”] or “after-meal dessert” of the Seder, which became symbolic of the coming of the Messiah; see Carmichael), which he consecrates or sets apart for its special use by prayer { ε ν λ ο γ ή σ α ς , “having blessed [God]”; cf. 14:19 and Com m ent there), he breaks it into fragments that he then gives to the disciples (cf. Luke 24:30). The blessing of God and the breaking of the bread into fragments recalls the miraculous feeding of 14:9 and of 15:36. The words Jesus now speaks to them are astonishing in their import: λ ά β ε τ ε φ ύ γ ε τ ε , “take, eat,” τ ο ύ τ ο έ σ τ Lie τ ο σ ώ μ ά μ ο υ , “this is my body” (cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:2, both modified by a υ π έρ υμών, “for you,” clause; cf. 1 Cor 10:16). Jesus identifies the bread with his body, the former a symbol of the latter (cf. F orm /Structure/Setting% D above). As the various aspects of the Passover meal itself involved deep symbolism, soJesus develops a new symbolism for the disciples’ meal (cf. Schürmann, ‘Jesus’ Words in the Light of His Actions at the Last Supper”). The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus, which is about to be given over to death on their behalf. The vicarious nature of this body (and its death) remains implicit here, but it becomes clear from the explanatory comments accompanying the reference to the blood in v 28. The background is that of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb (cf. Exod 12:21, 27). On the supper as a Passover meal, see esp. Jeremias, The E u ch a ristic Words o f Jesus, 15-88;

Comment

773

Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the N ew Testament; Marshall; Leaney; and Saldarini (to the contrary, Allen, Senn, Bokser). 27-28 It is uncertain at what point in relation to the traditional Passover meal Jesus introduced his new symbolism of the bread and wine and his atoning death (cf. Bahr). It is common, however, to relate the taking of the cup referred to here as the third cup, the so-called cup of blessing (cf. 1 Cor 10:16). This would have been preceded by the drinking of two earlier cups of wine (cf. Luke 22:17), in between which bitter herbs had been eaten, the Passover Haggadah recited, and the first part of the H a ttel sung (i.e., Pss 113-18; see Str-B 4:41-76; m. P esa h . 10:17). “When he had given thanks” (ε ϋ χ α ρ ισ τ ή σ α ς * cf. 15:36, the only other occurrence of the word in Matthew), he gave the wine to them with the instruction m e r e ε ξ α ϋ τ ο ϋ π ά ν τ ε ς , “drink from it, all (of you).” The inclusive reference here to “all” probably has no significance beyond the importance of each disciple partaking of the wine (as of the bread, though not stipulated there). The symbolism of the bread and cup is only fulfilled in the participation of each individual disciple for whom Jesus’ death was to be accomplished. In the parallel sentence to the saying of v 26 concerning the body of Jesus, τ ο ύ τ ο γ ά ρ έ σ τ ι ν τ ο α ΐμ ά μ ο υ , “for this is my blood,” we have the same type of symbolism at work: the wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus, and to drink that wine is symbolically to partake of the blood and its atoning effect. This is clear from the three interpretive phrases that follow. First, the blood is described as τ η ς δ ια θ ή κ η ς, “of the covenant.” This phrase occurs in the OT (Exod 24:8; Zech 9:11; cf. Heb 9:20). The blood here is not the blood that was necessary to the first covenant (cf. Heb 9:18) but that which inaugurates the new covenant; thus although the word κ α ιν ή , “new,” does not occur here (although many MSS, but of inferior quality, include the word), it is to be presupposed (nor does it occur in Matthew’s source, Mark 14:24; it is, however, found in Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The phrase “blood of the covenant,” without the adjective “new,” referring to the blood of Christ, is found in Heb 10:29 (cf. 13:20; in the OT, Exod 24:8). The new covenant is that prophesied in Jer 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:6-13; 9:15-22). See David on the awkwardness of Matthew’s Greek text here. Second, the blood is described as τ ο π ε ρ ί π ο λλώ ν έ κ χ ν ν ν ό μ ε ν ο ν , “which is poured out for many” (cf. Isa 53:12). The language “poured out” is itself an allusion to sacrifices of atonement in the temple ritual (e.g., Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). Matthew’s π ε ρ ί is not to be distinguished in meaning from Mark’s υπέρ: i.e., it too means “on behalf o f ’ (see BAGD, 644b). π ο λλώ ν is probably used in the Semitic sense of “all” (as it is, e.g., in Rom 5:15, 19) and may point to the underlying Hebrew or Aramaic spoken at the meal. See Comm e n t o n 20:28 (where the analogous preposition α ν τ ί, “in place of,” occurs). The pouring out of the blood of Jesus is to be taken not literally but metaphorically, referring to his death. Third, the blood (or more accurately, the pouring out of the blood) is described as being ε ι ς ά φ ε σ ιν ά μ α ρ τίώ ν , “for the forgiveness of sins” (see Leroy, 30-37). This notice links the death of Jesus both with that of the suffering servant of Isaiah (cf. Isa 53:12) and with the new covenant prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer 31:34). It is finally the real purpose of the coming of Jesus (cf. 1:21). AsJeremias points out, “Without Is 53 the Eucharistic words would remain incomprehensible” (E x p T im 83 [1972] 203; see E u ch a ristic Words o f Jesus, 218-37, esp. 231). On the eucharist as sacrifice, see Kilpatrick. On the OT roots of the eucharist, see Hahn, E v T 27 (1967) 337-74.

774

M a t t h e w 26:26-30

29 This somewhat difficult statement seems to function as an indication of the imminence of Jesus’ death while pointing to the certainty of eschatological triumph. Jesus solemnly announces in a vow (cf. Num 30:2-17) that he will not drink wine after this occasion (contra Jeremias, who argues that Jesus abstained from food and drink at the meal; see Patsch’s response), i.e., not again in this life. In the narrative he is arrested shortly after the conclusion of the Passover meal (cf. w 47-56). When Jesus next drinks wine ( τ ο ύ τ ο υ τ ο υ γ ε ν ή μ α τ ο ς τ η ς ά μ π ε λ ο ν , “this fruit of the vine,” an alternate, Semitic way of referring to wine) with his disciples, it will be at the eschatological banquet (see Com m ent on 8:11; cf. 22:1-10). ‘T he next meal of Jesus with his disciples will be the Messianic meal on a transformed earth” (Jeremias, E u charistic Words o f Jesus, 217). If his death is now a certainty, so is that joyous occasion when disciples and master will be reunited. At that time Jesus will drink the wine κ α ινό ν, “new,” that is, the new wine in the new setting of eschatological fulfillment, and he will drink it μ ε θ ’ υμών, “with you,” the Lord and Redeemer with his fully redeemed community of disciples. This will be the occasion of the experience of the consummated eschatological kingdom, here referred to as 777 β α σ ιλ ε ία τ ο υ π α τ ρ ό ς μ ο υ , “the kingdom of my Father” (cf. 13:43; 1 Cor 15:24). 30 At the end of the Passover meal, the fourth and final cup was drunk and the conclusion of the H a lle t (Pss 113-18, with various allusions to salvation) was sung (cf. m. P esa h . 10:7). It is very probably the singing of those prescribed Psalms that is referred to here (the only other reference to singing in the NT is in Acts 16:25; cf. 1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; Heb 2:12; Jas 5:13). Jesus and the disciples left Jerusalem to return to the M ount of Olives, presumably going directly to Gethsemane (v 36). A season of prayer would have been appropriate following the Passover celebration. Explanation

Amidst the rich symbolism of the Passover meal, Jesus creates a new complex of symbols relating directly to his sacrificial death. It is not an accident of history but the working of divine sovereignty that Jesus was crucified at the Passover season. For Jesus was the new, eschatological Passover lamb (cf. 1 Cor 5:7), whose sacrificial death was the atonem ent for the sins of the world. The bread and wine, the commonest of elements, come in the institution of the Eucharist to bear sublime meaning as the expression of the very center of the Christian faith, the mystery of the death of God’s own Son. For this reason the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is at the center of Christian worship. The Eucharist becomes a Christian Passover. As A. J B. Higgins puts it, “The Last Supper was the pattern of future celebrations of the Passover for the followers of Jesus” (L o rd 's S u p p er in the N e w Testam ent, 53). When the church repeats this sacramental meal, it looks simultaneously back to the redemptive death of its Lord, which is thereby commemorated, as well as forward to the future consummation of eschatology when Christians will be united with their Lord in the unalloyed enjoyment of the kingdom that is thereby celebrated (cf. 1 Cor 11:26). And for the present, the celebration of the sacrament brings a fresh experience of the grace of God through the forgiveness of sins, a renewed participation in salvation already enjoyed, and a renewed sense of the oneness of the members of the one body of

Form/Structure/Setting

775

Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:17). The disciples in the immediacy of the m oment could not have begun to realize the significance of what Jesus was saying and doing. This they would first do after the resurrection. But by the time Matthew’s readers read this account, the Eucharist had long since become a fixed com ponent in their worship; hence they read the narrative with fuller understanding.

The Prediction o f the Falling A w ay o f the Disciples a nd the D enial o f Peter (26:31-35) Bibliography “T he Passion according to Matthew. ” W orship 58 (1984) 98-107. E v a n s, C . E ‘“I will go before you into Galilee. ' ”J T S n .s . 5 (1954) 3-18. K o sm a la , H . ‘T h e Time o f the Cock-Crow.” A S T I 2 (1963) 118-20; 6 (1967-68) 132-34. K u n tz, G . “A Note on Matthew XXVI. 34 and XXVI. 75.” JTS 50 (1949) 182-83. P o liti, J. “‘N ot (N ot I).’” L itera tu re a n d Theology 6 (1992) 345-55. Z e lle r, D . “Prophetisches Wissen um die Zukunft in synoptischen Jesusw orten.” 7 P 52 (1977) 258-71. B ro w n , R . E .

Translation

31 T h en Jesus s a id a to them: “A ll o f yo u w ill f a l l aw ay d u rin g this n ig h t because o f me. For it is w ritten: I w ill strike the shepherd a n d the sheep o f the flo c k w ill be scattered. 32B u t after I ha ve been raised, I w ill go before yo u in to Galilee. ”33B u t Peter, responding, said to h i m.b “I f a ll f a l l aw ay because o f yo u ,c I m yself w ill never f a l l away. ” 34Jesu s sa id to him : “T ruly I say to yo u th a t this n ig h t before the cock crows you w ill deny me three times.” 35Peter s a i d d to him : “E v e n i f I h a d to die w ith you, I w o u ld never deny you. ” A ll the disciples also spoke similarly. Notes a λ έ γ ε ι, historical present, lit. “says.” b p37 s f sams omit αύτω , “to him.” c In P 53e v σοί, “because of you,” occurs after εγώ , “I,” resulting in “If all fall away, I myself will never fall away because of you.” Cf. έ ν έμοί, “on my account,” in v 31. d λ έ γ ε ι, historical present, lit. “says.”

Form/Structure/Setting

A. Only a short time before his arrest Jesus tells his disciples that they will be unable to remain loyal to him and that they will scatter like sheep. Not only will this happen, but Peter, who professes his loyalty most loudly, will deny Jesus three

776

Ma t t h e w 26 :31-35

times before the coming dawn. These prophecies find their fulfillment before the end of the chapter (cf. w 56, 69-75). B. Again Matthew is dependent on Mark and follows his source very closely (Mark 14:26-31; cf. Luke 22:31-34; John 13:36-38). Matthew does not abbreviate as much as he customarily does, but the following more significant deletions may be noted. In v 34 Matthew omits σ υ σ ή μ ερ ο ν , ‘You today” (Mark 14:30), both words being redundant; ή δ ίς , “twice,” being unnecessary after π ρ ιν , “before”; and δ ίς , which would have introduced an unnecessary complication. Matthew also omits in v 35 Mark’s descriptive adverb έ κ π ε ρ ισ σ ώ ς , “with great emphasis” (Mark 14:31), although it is difficult to know why unless it is because in the next sentence all the disciples spoke ομοίω ς, “similarly.” Meanwhile, however, Matthew makes an unusual num ber of additions of which the following should be noted. In v 31 Matthew adds the words υ μ ε ίς , ‘You,” and ε ν έ μ ο ί ε ν τ η ν υ κ τ ϊ τ ο ύ τ η , lit., “in me in this night” (Mark 14:27), thereby supplying the specific identity of the subject (with emphasis) , as well as the reason and the occasion referred to by the main verb (cf. v 34). In the quotation of Zech 13:7 in v 31, Matthew adds τ η ς π ο ίμ ν η ς , “of the flock” (cf. Mark 14:27), bringing about closer agreem ent with the LXX (according to Alexandrinus) and relating the flock more closely to π ο ιμ έ ν α , “shepherd.” In v 33 Matthew adds an unnecessary initial ά π ο κ ρ ιθ ε ίς , but in keeping with his style. In v 33 Matthew adds ο υ δ έ π ο τ ε σ κ α ν δ α λ ισ θ ή σ ο μ a t , “I will never fall away” (cf. Mark 14:29), thereby repeating the verb and with the two verbs providing added emphasis. Finally, in v 35 Matthew adds oi μ α θ η τ α ί, “the disciples” (cf. Mark 14:31), to emphasize the disciples’ claim of loyalty. The several substitutions Matthew makes for Markan words are not particularly noteworthy. C. The passage consists of prophecies of Jesus concerning the disciples and the responses of Peter. The following outline m ay be offered: (1) Jesus’ prophecy concerning the falling away of the disciples (v 31); (2) the promise of going before them to Galilee (v 32); (3) Peter’s assertion of loyalty (v 33); (4) Jesus’ prophecy of Peter’s denials (v 34); and (5) Peter’s renewed assertion (v 35). Also note the OT citation in v 31 without fulfillment formula and the parenthetical character of v 32 with its prophecy that Jesus will go before the disciples to Galilee after he is raised. B a rn . 5:12 seems to reflect a knowledge of Matthew in an allusion to this passage where Zech 13:7 is cited in a form similar to that of Matthew (i.e., t o π ρ ό β α τ α τ ή ς π ο ίμ ν η ς , “the sheep of the flock”). Comment

31 The equivalent to σ κ α ν δ α λ ισ θ ή σ ε σ θ ε ε ν έ μ ο ί, ‘You will fall away on my account,” is found in 11:6; 13:57 (cf. John 6:61; 16:1). The verb can mean “to be offended by,” “to cause to stumble,” or “to be caused to stumble by” (for the construction, see BAGD, 752b). In the present context the meaning is a “falling away,” an express disloyalty of the kind expressed in the verb used toward the end of the pericope, ά π α ρνεΖ σ θ α ι, “to deny” (vv 34-35). έ ν τ η ν υ κ τ ϊ τ α ύ τ η , “in this night” (cf. v 56), the disciples ( π ά ν τ ε ς υ μ ε ίς , “all of you”) would abandon their Lord in fear for their own lives. Even this sad turn of events had been foreseen in the scriptures. Zech 13:7 contains a reference both to the striking of the shepherd (in the sense of leader; cf. Ezek 34), which in the present context becomes an allusion to the death

C om m ent

777

of Jesus, and to the scattering of the flock (the people), which in turn becomes readily understood as the flight of the disciples (the metaphor of shepherd and sheep is earlier used in 9:36). Matthew’s 8 l α σ κ ο ρ π ίσ θ ή σ ο ν τα ί , “will be scattered,” is drawn from Mark, which in turn follows the reading of the LXX according to A (cf. Heb. ütepüseyn, “and they will be scattered”). On the other hand, the form of the opening verb ( π α τά ξ ω , “I will strike”), also taken from Mark, agrees with the Masoretic text against all the LXX witnesses. Since the quotation is introduced by Matthew with the formula γ έ γ ρ α π τ α ί, “it is written,” it is easy to see the acting subject as God and not Peter (pace B. Lindars, N ew Testament Apologetic, 129). To say that God strikes the shepherd is to affirm that the death of Jesus is paradoxically the divine will (cf. esp. w 24, 54). Important MSS of the LXX of Zech 13:7 (BN*) refer to μ ικ ρ ο ύ ς, “little ones” (cf. Matt 10:42; 18:6, 10, 14), in parallel with π ρ ό β α τα , “sheep” (so too Heb. D'Hl&l, hassdca n m , “little ones”). Matthew puts the verb at the beginning of the clause to increase the parallel with the first clause and for emphasis. The shepherd will receive a mortal blow, and the sheep will flee even at the prospect of this calamity (cf. John 16:32; 10:15 for the shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep). 32 This parenthetical statement provides the consoling thought that the smitten shepherd and the scattered sheep will be reunited. After his death, a theme that still dominates, Jesus is to “be raised” to new life (other occurrences of ε γ ε ί ρ ε ι v in reference to the future resurrection of Jesus are in 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; cf. 27:63). And then like a shepherd leading his sheep, he will go before them into Galilee (cf. 28:7, 10; for the imagery of shepherd going ahead of the sheep, cf.John 10:4). Authoritative leadership m ay be alluded to here (see Evans). The meeting in Galilee after the death and the resurrection of Jesus is recorded in the last pericope of the Gospel (28:16-20; cf. 28:7). 33 Peter, as is his habit in Matthew, plunges in to say what others are only thinking (cf. 14:28; 15:15; 16:16; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27). If others, indeed all ( 7τ ά ν τε ς ) others, should “fall away” (on σ κ α ν δ α λ ί ζ ε ι , see Com m ent on v 31) because of what is to happen to Jesus (the construction assumes the prediction of v 31; cf. BDF §372[lc]), Peter says emphatically (εγώ , “I myself’) that he will not. Indeed, not now, not ever (ο ύ δ έπ ο τε, “never”) . This boast of Peter becomes even stronger in v 35. 34 Jesus says to Peter, beginning with the weighty formula ά μ ή ν λ έ γ ω σ ο ι, “truly I tell you” (the last one in Matthew), that before the night is over he will have denied Jesus not once but three times. The ε ν τ α ύ τ η r fj ν ν κ τ ί , “in this night,” echoes the same phrase (slightly different word order) in Jesus’ initial statement in v 31. It is unlikely that the reference to the cock crowing in Matthew is to be understood as referring to a Roman division of the night watch (p a ce Kosmala). Rather than saying “before dawn,”Jesus says π ρ ίν ά λ έ κ τ ο ρ α φ ω ν η σ α ι , “before the cock crows,” thereby preparing for what becomes a superb dramatic touch in the fulfillment recorded in w 74-75. The thought of a threefold denial of Jesus must at this point have seemed unthinkable to Peter. 35 Peter more vehemently than before insists that under no condition, not even under the threat of death, would he deny Jesus. That he regards the possibility of such a threat to be remote is indicated by the rare subjunctive verb δ έ η (lit. even if “it might be necessary”). Peter’s perspective, so closely following the teaching of Jesus at the supper, serves as an instance of dramatic irony (thus Heil, T he D eath a n d R esurrection o f Jesus, 41). This of course was precisely the circumstance in which he was soon to find himself. The verb for “deny” here

778

Ma t t h e w 26:36-46

( ά π α ρ ν έ ίσ θ α μ in Matthew only in the present pericope, v 75, and 16:24) may possibly be more emphatic than, but not essentially different from, ά ρ ν β ΐσ θ α ί (cf. w 70, 72), which is used in 10:33 in the statement “whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.” Peter’s denial of Jesus can thus be regarded as putting his own status before God in jeopardy, π ά ν τ β ς oi μ α θ η τ α ί , “all the disciples,” spoke ο μ ο ίω ς ·, “similarly,’’joining with Peter in their insistence that they would not deny Jesus, even in the face of death (v 56). But only the failure of Peter will be focused upon later in the chapter (vv 69-75).

Explanation

With the arrest of Jesus and the prospect of his death, his disciples—the ones closest to him—will scatter. Despite their protestations of loyalty, their courage will fail them and they will desert their Lord. The imminent failure of Peter, the first of the apostles, is focused upon, finding its corresponding fulfillment at the end of the chapter. The humanity of Peter and the disciples together with the very real frailty of every profession of commitment will be revealed. Despite the best of intentions, the disciples will not be able to be true to their deepest convictions (cf. v 56). They, like Peter, will have disappointed themselves as much as Jesus. But in the same breath Jesus gives notice that they will yet have a future with Jesus (v 32). All is not lost; the setback is only a temporary one though nonetheless serious for that. There is a way back from this failure. God’s faithfulness to these vexed disciples remains unshakable just as his forgiveness and restoration are available to every follower of Jesus.

Jesus' Struggle in Gethsemane

(26:36-46)

Bibliography “Doing G od’s Will: Matthew 26:36-46.” International Review of Mission 77 (1988) 221-28. A rm b ru ste r, C . J. ‘T h e Messianic Significance o f the Agony in the G arden.” Scr 16 (1964) 111-19. B a rb o u r, R . S. “G ethsem ane in the Tradition of the Passion.” N TS 16 (1969-70) 231-51. B e c k , B . “G ethsem ane in the Four Gospels.” EpR 15 (1988) 57-65. B ird sa ll, J. N . “Egregoreo.”JTSn.s. 14 (1963) 390-91. B la isin g , C . A “Gethsemane: A Prayer o f Faith.” JETS 22 (1979) 333-43. B o m a n , T . “D er G ebetskampf Jesu.” N TS 10 (1963-64) 261-73. B r au m an n , G . “Leidenskelch u n d Todestaufe.” Z N W 56 (1965) 178-83. B ro n g e rs , H . A “Der Zornesbecher.” OTS 15 (1969) 177-92. C r a n fie ld , C . E . B . ‘T h e Cup M etaphor in Mark 14:36 and Parallels.” ExpTim 59 (1947-48) 137-38. D a u b e , D . “A Prayer Pattern in Judaism .” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 539-45.———. “Two Incidents after the L ord’s Supper.” In The New Testament and RabbinicJudaism. London: University of London, 1956. 330-35 (reprinted Peabody, MA: H endrickson). D a u tze n b u rg , G . “Psyche in Mk 14,34/M t 26,38 u n d Jo 12,27.” In Sein Leben bewahren. SANT 14. M unich: Kösel, 1966. 127-33. D ib e liu s , M . “G eth sem a n e.” CrQ 12 (1935) 254-65. F e ld m e ie r , R . Die Krisis des Gottessohnes: Die Gethsemaneerzählung als Schlüssel der Markuspassion. WUNT 2/21. T übingen: Mohr, 1987. A a g a a rd , A . M .

N o te s

779

F e u ille t, A . L ’agonie de Gethsemani: Enquete exegetique et thiologique suivie d 'une etude de Mystere de Jesus’ de Pascal. Paris: G abalda, 1977. H e r in g , J . “Simples rem arq u es sur la p riere ä Gethsemane: M atthieu 26.36-46; Marc 14.32-42; Luc 22.40-46.” RHPR 39 (1959) 97-102. ———. “Zwei exegetische Probleme in d er Perikope von Jesus in G ethsem ane (Markus XIV 32-42; Matthäus XXVI 36-46; Lukas XXII 40-46).” In Neotestamentica et Patristica. FS O. Cullmann, ed. W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 64-69. H o lle r a n , J. W. The Synoptic Gethsemane. Analecta G regoriana 191. Rome: Gregorian University, 1973. J o h n so n , S. L ., Jr. “The Agony of Christ.” BSac 124 (1967) 303-13. K a y a la p a ra m p il, T. “Passion and Resurrection in the Gospel of Matthew.” Biblebhashyam 16 (1990) 41-51. K en ny, A . ‘T h e Transfiguration and the Agony in the G arden.” CBQ 19 (1957) 444-52. K u h n , K G . ‘Jesus in G ethsem ane.” E vT 12 (1952-53) 260-85. L e o n -D u fo u r, X . ‘Jesus ä Gethsemani: Essai de lecture synchronique.” ScEs 31 (1979) 251-68. L e sco w , T. ‘Jesus in Gethsem ane.” E vT 26 (1966) 141-59. L ö v e s ta m , E . Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963. M e e s , M . “Die Bezeugung von Mt. 26, 20-40 au f Papyrus (P63, P64, P65, P66) u n d ihre Bedeutung.” Augustinianum 11 (1971) 409-31. P e le e , E ‘Jesus ä Gethsemani: Remarques com paratives sur les trois recits evangeliques.” FV 65 (1966) 89-99. R o b in s o n , B . P. “Gethsemane: T he Synoptic and the Johannine Viewpoints.” CQ R 167 (1966) 4-11. R o c h e , J. “Q ue ta volonte so it faite.” VSpir93 (1955) 249-68. S e n io r, D . The Passion Narrative according to Matthew: A Redactional Study. BETL 39. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1975.———. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. W ilmington, DE: M ichael Glazier, 1985. Stan ley, D . M . “Matthew’s G ethsemane (Mt 26:36-46).” In Jesus in Gethsemane: The Early Church Reflects on the Sufferings of Jesus. New York: Paulist, 1980. 155-87. S tark ie, W. J. M . “Mt 2645.” ExpTim 31 (1919-20) 477. T re m e l, Y.-B. “L’agonie de Christ.” LumVie 68 (1964) 79-104.

Translation

36 T h en Je su s cam e w ith them to the area called G ethsem ane , a n d he sa id to the disciples ;a “S it here w hile I go there a n d pray. ” 37A n d he took Peter a n d the two sons o f Zebedee, a n d he beg i n to be sorrow ful a n d a n xio u s. 38T h en he sa id to them: “M y so u l is very sad, even to d eath. R e m a in here a n d w atch w ith me. ” 39A n d w hen he h a d gone fo rw a rd b a little , he fe ll u p o n his fa c e in prayerc saying: “M y d Father, i f it can be, let this cup p a ss fro m me. B u t n o t as I will, b u t as yo u do.”e40A n d he came to th e f disciples a n d f o u n d them sleeping, a n d he sa id to Peter: “A re yo u th u s n o t strong enough to w atch w ith m e f o r one h o u r? 41W atch a n d pray, in order th a t yo u m ay n o t enter in to testing. O n the one h a n d , the spirit is w illing, but, on the other, the fle sh is weak.”42A g a in a second tim e he w ent a n d prayed, sa yin g ;g “M y h Father, i f th is i ca n n o t p a ss,j except th a t I d rin k it, let y o u r w ill be done.” 43A n d w hen he came back, he a g a in f o u n d them sleeping, fo r their eyes h a d become heavy. 44A n d he left them ;k a g a in g o in g some distance,l he prayed a third time,m sa y in g a g a in n the sam e prayer. 45 T h en he came to the ° disciples, a n d he sa id to them: “Sleep f o r the tim e th a t rem ains, a n d rest.p Lookq the h o u r has come near, a n d the Son o f M a n is betrayed in to the h a n d s o f sinners. 46Rise, let u s go. Look, the one w ho betrays me has come near. ” Notes

a Θ/ 13have α ύ τό ίς , “to them” (cf. Luke 22:40). A number of MSS (KACDWf 1lat sy samsmae bo) add α ντο ϋ , “his,” probably by the influence of the Markan parallel (Mark 14:32). b Many MSS (P53RACDLW0f 1,13TR syh) have προσελθών, “having gone to (there).” Supporting the text, 77ροελθών, are P37,45B lat sys,pco. c π ρο σ ευ χ ό μ εν ο ς καί, lit. “praying and.”

780

M a t t h e w 26:36-46

d A few MSS (P53* LAf 1vg"") omit μου, “my,” by the probable influence of the parallel in Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42. ef 13adds Luke 22:43-44, perhaps through the influence of the lectionary (see Nestle-Aland apparatus). f D it vgcl sys,pbo add αύτον, “his.” &λέγω ν, “saying,” is omitted by B g1. h P37and a few other witnesses omit μου, “my” (cf. v 39). i Many MSS (Θ TR lat sys,pmae bo and Df 13, but in different word order) add το ποτήριον, “cup,” a natural addition because of the following verb, “drink.” j Many MSS (A C Wf 13TR syh) add ώ τ ’έμον, “from me.” kAlternate punctuation puts καί ά φ ε ίς α ύτούς, “and he left them,”and even possibly πάλιν, “again,” with the preceding sentence (v 43), thereby alleviating v 44 of some of its awkwardness. For an alternate translation of this clause, see Comment. 1“Some distance” added to translation in keeping with the participle άπελθών, “having gone.” mSome MSS (P37A D Kf 1it) omit εκ τρ ίτο ν , “a third time.” n πά λιν, “again,” the last word of the Gr. sentence, may by different punctuation become the first word of the next sentence (v 45), thereby avoiding the awkwardness of two occurrences of the word in the same sentence (i.e., if the alternate punctuation mentioned above in Note k is not accepted). Many witnesses (A C D Wf1,13TR lat syp,h sa mae), on the other hand, omit this π ά λ ιν altogether, in order to avoid the repetition of the word. o D W Γ TR lat sys,p bo insert α ύ το ν , “his.” PThe sentence may be intended as a question: “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?” See Comment below. q ιδού, “look,” is omitted by Θf 1mae, perhaps because of the occurrence of the word in v 46. Form /Structure/Setting

A. Just prior to his arrest, Jesus confronts his destiny in his agonizing prayer in the garden of Gethsemane. He knows well what lies ahead. This is the last pericope in which the earthly Jesus is together with his disciples. The inner core, Peter, James, and John, are unable to watch and pray in support of the trial of the soul through which Jesus passes. And thus again the disciples are portrayed as failures. At the crucial m oment they are unable to pull themselves out of their sleepy stupor. B. Matthew continues to follow Mark closely (Mark 14:32-42; cf. Luke 22:3946, which, however, is quite different from Mark, and John 12:27-28, which is generally similar). Matthew makes the typical abbreviation of Mark. T he m ost substantial omissions are the following: in v 39 Matthew omits M ark’s Iva ei δυν α τό ν e a r tv παρελθη ά π ’ α ύ το ν ή ώρα, “that if it is possible, the h o u r m ight pass from h im ” (Mark 14:35), although the first words ε ί δ υνα τόν έ σ τ ιν , “if it is possible,” are used in connection with the first petition in Matthew; also in v 39 M atthew omits M ark’s first clause in the prayer, π ά ν τα δ υνα τά σοι, “all things are possible for you” (Mark 14:36), perhaps as being irreconcilable with the prayer “if it is possible”; an d in the same verse the evangelist omits M ark’s Aramaic w ord άββά, “F ath er” (Mark 14:36, the only occurrence o f the word in the G ospels); in v 40 he omits the first question to Peter in Mark, Σ ιμώ ν , καθεύδεις; “Simon, are you sleeping?” (Mark 14:37), perhaps regarding it as unnecessary; in v 43 M atthew omits M ark’s statem ent και ούκ η δ εισ α ν τ ί άποκριθώ σιν αύτω, “and they did n o t know w hat to answer h im ” (Mark 14:40), perhaps as irrelevant to the narrative; an d finally in v 45 Matthew omits M ark’s somewhat puzzling ά π έ χ ε ι, “it is e n o u g h ” (Mark 14:41). O n the o th e r hand, however, M atthew makes a n u m b er o f additions, am ong which the following may be noted: in v 36 M atthew adds μ ε τ ' α υτώ ν ό Ιη σ ο ύ ς, “Jesus with

F o rm /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

781

th e m ” (cf. Mark 14:32), supplying a subject for the verb, introducing a new section, and preparing for Jesus’ speaking with his disciples a little later in the verse; n ear the end of the same verse, Matthew adds άπελθώυ έκεΐ, “having gone th e re ” (cf. Mark 14:32), indicating that the praying was done a little distance away. In v 38, as in v 40, Matthew adds μ ε τ ’έμοϋ, “with m e,” to the verb γρηγορεΐτε, “w atch” (cf. Mark 14:34, 37). In v 39 Matthew adds μου, “my,” after “F ather” (cf. Mark 14:36). In v 40, Matthew adds προς τούς μαθητάς, “to the disciples” (cf. Matthew 14:37), avoiding M ark’s slightly ab ru p t syntax. In v 42 Matthew adds εκ δευτέρου, “a second tim e” (cf. Mark 14:39), thereby specifically enum erating all three instances that Jesus w ent to pray (cf. v 44; although M ark enum erates the times Jesus comes to the disciples [Mark 14:41]). In the same verse Matthew adds the content of the prayer, which varies a little from that in v 39 (contrast Mark 14:39: προσηύζατο του αύτόυ λόγου είπώυ, “he prayed, saying the same thing [lit. w ord]”). But in v 44 Matthew utilizes the M arkan language ju st m entioned, adding it in the reference to the third prayer o f Jesus. In v 45, M atthew again adds προς τούς μαθητάς, “to the disciples” (cf. Mark 14:41), thereby bringing about parallelism with v 40. Finally, in the same verse, Matthew adds ιδού, “look” (cf. Mark 14:41), one of his favorite m arkers o f som ething particularly im portant. Among M atthean substitutions, the following may be noted. In v 37 he substitutes τούς δύο υιούς Ζεβεδαίου, “the two sons of Z ebedee,” for M ark’s ‘Jam es and Jo h n ” (Mark 14:33); in th e sam e verse, he substitutes λυπεΐσθαι, “to be sorrow ful,” for M ark’s έκθαμβεΐσθαι, “to be distressed” (used four times in Mark b u t never in Matthew). In v 39 he substitutes προσώπου αύτοΰ, “his face,” for M ark’s τής γης, “the g ro u n d ” (Mark 14:35), a m ore suitable (Semitic) expression for prayer. In v 45 M atthew’s favorite τότε, “th e n ,” replaces M ark’s καί, “a n d ” (Mark 14:41), and in the same verse, Matthew substitutes the m ore precise ήγγικευ, “has com e near,” for ήλθευ, “has com e.”

Thus, Matthew again follows his source closely while displaying a degree of freedom in his use of it. C. The passage with its three references to Jesus praying and the disciples sleeping has clearly a dramatic character. It is structured around the instructions of Jesus to his disciples and his prayers. The passage ends with the dramatic utterance of Jesus that the time has come. The following is an outline of the pericope: (1) Jesus’ and his disciples’ entrance into the garden (v 36); (2) Jesus’ and the inner circle of disciples’ progression into the garden (vv 37-38); (3) Jesus’ first prayer (vv 39-41), subdivided into (a) the prayer (v 39), (b) finding the disciples asleep (v 40), and (c) exhortation to the disciples (v 41); (4) Jesus’ second prayer (vv 42-43), subdivided into (a) the prayer (v 42) and (b) finding the disciples asleep (v 43); (5) Jesus’ third prayer (v 44); (6) the resignation (v 45a); and (7) the imminent betrayal (vv 45b-46). Certain structural features are easily seen. To begin with, there are the three times Jesus prayed (έ κ δ ε υ τ έ ρ ο υ , “a second time” [v 42], and έ κ τ ρ ί τ ο υ , “a third tim e” [v 44]). Matthew, however, has not pressed for as much symmetry as he might have. Thus in the first instance (v 39) the aorist verb π ρ ο σ η ύ ξ α τ ο , “he prayed,” is not used, as it is in the second and third instances. The content of the prayer is given in the first two instances but not in the third (v 44), and both instances essentially agree in content (i.e., the affirmation of God’s will; an if-clause pertaining to “that which is possible”; a reference to the “passing” of what is in view) yet hardly at all in form. Similarly, whereas there is an exhortation after the first prayer (v 41), this is not true of the others (in the second the sleepiness of the disciples is simply indicated [v 43], and the

782

M a t t h e w 26:36-46

third ends in a note of resignation [v 45a]). Other minor structural parallelisms to be m entioned are the following: the correspondence of the com m and γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ τ ε μ ε τ ’ ε μ ο ύ , “watch with m e” (v 38), with the question using the same words in v 40; the π ά τ ε ρ μ ο υ , “my Father,” at the beginning of the two prayers (w 39 and 42); the parallel ο ύ χ ώ ς ε γ ώ , “not as I,” ά λ λ ’ώ ς σ υ , “but as you,” in the first prayer (v 39); the dual imperatives of v 41, γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ τ ε κ α ί π ρ ο σ ε ύ χ ε σ θ ε , “watch and pray”; the parallel structure of v 41b, τ ο μ ε ν π ν ε ύ μ α π ρ ό θ υ μ ο ν , ή δ ε σ ά ρ ξ ά σ θ ε ν ή ς ·, “the spirit (is) willing, but the flesh (is) weak”; the parallel imperatives in v 45, κ α θ ε ύ δ ε τ ε , “sleep,” and ά ν α π α ύ ε σ θ ε , “rest”; and finally the repeated ή γ γ ι κ ε ν , “has come near” (the hour; the betrayer), in w 45 and 46. Justin Martyr (D ia l. 99.2; 103.8) quotes the Matthean version of the prayer that the cup, “if possible,” might pass from Jesus (cf. v 39). The logion of v 41b is cited in Polycarp, P hil. 7:2. For comprehensive treatm ent of the pericope, see especially Feldmeier. Comment

36 Jesus and his disciples came to a χ ω ρ ίο ν , a “place” or a “plot of land” (the only occurrence in Matthew), which was known as Γ ε θ σ η μ α ν ί , “Gethsemane,” the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew ^00 Π3, g a t s e m a n e , which means “oil press.” More than a garden (cf. κ ή π ο ς , “garden,” of John 18:1, 26), Gethsemane was probably an olive orchard. It was located across the Kidron valley on the lower slopes of the M ount of Olives. At a certain point Jesus instructs his disciples to sit down and to wait for him while he proceeds a little farther to pray (Matthew also records Jesus as praying in 14:23). 37-38 This is one of the special occasions in which only the inner core of disciples is allowed to participate (cf. earlier 17:1 [the transfiguration; for parallels with the present pericope, see Kenny]; Mark 5:37 [raising of a dead girl]). At this hour of trial, it is only natural that Jesus would want the emotional support of his closest friends (see Barbour for a discussion of Jesus’ testing in the face of evil). The two sons of Zebedee are of course James and John (cf. 4:21; 10:2; Mark 14:33). The reason for Jesus’ desire to pray is indicated in the infinitives λ υ π ε ισ θ α ί and ά δ η μ ο ν ε ΐν , namely, that he was “sorrowful” and “anxious.” As the m oment of his arrest approaches, Jesus is filled with dread. We are not told precisely the cause of this anguish. Perhaps Jesus faces the fear of death (thus Cullmann, Im m ortality o f the S o u l or R esurrection o f the D ea d ? [London: Epworth, 1958] 21-22), but very probably what he faces here is the prospect of dying as the bearer o f sin and thus as one who experiences the consequent wrath of God (cf. the pain of 27:46; see too esp. Heb 5:7; cf. Armbruster; R. E. Brown, D ea th o f the M essia h , 234). Jesus’ words in v 38, π ε ρ ίλ υ π ο ς έ σ τ ι ν ή ψ υ χ ή μ ο υ , “my soul is very sorrowful” (cf. John 12:27: “troubled”), allude to similar language in the LXX of Pss 41:6, 12; 42:5 (where in all instances it occurs in the question “why are you sad, my soul?”) . “Soul” here is to be understood in the sense of person. The expression of being sad ε ω ς Θ α νά το υ , “to death,” that is, to the utmost limit or degree, is also biblical language (cf. LXX of Jonah 4:9; Sir 37:2, where in both instances it is linked with “sorrow”). Thus, using the language of the Bible, Jesus tells Peter, James, and John that his sorrow is so great that he is hardly able to bear it. The forgiveness of sins that he offers (cf. v 28) will be accomplished only at an incom-

C om m ent

783

prehensible personal cost that goes far beyond physical death. So, not as a brave martyr but in a state of extreme sorrow, he contemplates his death. He asks the three to remain there and charges them γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ τ ε μ ε τ ’έ μ ο υ , “watch with m e.” That is, they were to support Jesus by watching (present tense) not only “with” him, by assisting him with their conscious presence, but perhaps too with prayer (cf. v 41). Jesus does not want to face this time of anguish alone. The command to “watch” here and in vv 40 and 41 on the night of the Passover echoes the “night of vigil” referred to in Exod 12:42 (thus Gerhardsson). 39 Jesus goes by himself μ ικ ρ ο ύ , “a little further,” into the orchard, where he falls on his face before God in prayer (in the OT a common posture in special circumstances of worship, fear, or submission; in the NT, cf. 17:6; Rev 7:11; 11:16). In his prayer he addresses God with the intimate words π ά τ ε ρ μ ο υ , “my Father” (very frequent in Matthew, but cf. esp. v 29; 11:25, 27; 25:34). τ ο π ο τ η ρ ιο ύ τ ο ύ τ ο , “this cup,” is a m etaphor for the suffering and death that he was soon to face (it is used as a m etaphor for death also in 20:22-23; cf. John 18:11). For the related imagery of “the cup of God’s wrath,” also pertinent to the present context (see esp. Cranfield), cf. Rev 14:10; 16:19; and OT background in Isa 51:17, 22. Jesus then prays that e l δ υ ν α τ ό ν έ σ τ ι ν , “if it is possible,” he might not have to go the way of the cross. This conditioning of the prayer with “if it is possible” becomes more specific in the final clause of the prayer, π λ ή ν ο ύ χ ώ ς ε γ ώ Θέλω ά λ λ ’ ώ ς σ ύ, “but not as I will, but as you (will)” (cf. v 42). The governing reality then is not the will of Jesus, who would avoid what lies ahead, but the will of God, who is fixed in his intent to accomplish salvation for the world through the death of his Son (cf. John 6:38; 4:34). In actuality, if the will of the Father is done, it is n o t possible to avoid the cross (contra Blaising’s insistence that the first-class condition necessitates a real possibility). 40-41 When Jesus returns to the three disciples, he finds that they are sleeping and that he has received no support from them. They seem oblivious to what he is going through despite the indication of his anguish in v 38. κ α θ ε ύ δ ο ν τ α ς , “sleeping,” here and imv 43 is a culpable act (unlike in 25:5), especially after the command of v 38 (see Daube for the view that sleeping violated the fellowship of the Passover community [h ä b ü rä ]), and becomes a metaphor in the NT for moral failure (cf. 1 Thess 5:6-7; Eph 5:14). Thus the rhetorical question to Peter conveys a rebuke (addressed to all the disciples as the plural form of the verb indicates), underlined by the reference to μ ί α ν ώ ραν, “one hour.” γ ρ η γ ο ρ ή σ α ι μ ε τ ’ ε μ ο ύ , “watch with m e,” corresponds exactly to the command of v 38 (see C om m ent there). For a second time the command to “watch” ( γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐ τ ε ) is given, but here it is linked with π ρ ο σ ε ύ χ ε σ θ ε , “pray.” Now the focus is not upon watching μ ε τ ’ ε μ ο ύ , “with m e,” but upon the need for vigilance in the future, threatening situation of the disciples. That is, they are to ‘watch and pray” (again plural verbs) so that they might not enter into testing. The lesson of Jesus’ experience is thus applied to the disciples. Accordingly, the command to “watch” ( γ ρ η γ ο ρ ε ΐν ) becomes a standard feature in ethical catechism in the NT (in the sense of spiritual preparedness; cf. 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:6; 1 Peter 5:8; see Lövestam, Spiritu a l W akefulness in the N ew T esta m en t), as does the command to pray (cf. Eph 6:18; 1 Thess 5:17; 1 Peter 4:7). The reference to praying so as not to enter testing recalls the petition of the model prayer in reference to the great eschatological

784

Ma t t h e w 26 :36-46

trial (6:13). (The experience of Jesus’ own testing in the context of testing to be experienced by the disciples brings to mind Heb 2:18; 4:15). If Jesus’ experience in Gethsemane underlines the truth that τό μ εν πνεύμα πρόθυμον, ή δε σάρξ άσθενης, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” how much more will this be the experience of the disciples in the struggles that await them. This logion points to the tension between the inner person, the center of volition, and the outer person, the bodily flesh with its more obvious inherent weakness (for the spiritflesh distinction, see 1 Cor 7:34; 2 Cor 7:1; cf. Rom 8:4-17; Gal 5:17, where, however, flesh is contrasted with the Holy Spirit; for comparison with Qumran, see K uhn). 42-43 Matthew’s addition of έκ δευτέρου, “a second time,” is redundant after πάλιν, “again,” but corresponds to έκ τρίτου, “a third time,” in v 44. See above for structural similarities with the first prayer (v 39). Again Jesus begins his prayer with the words πάτερ μου, “my Father,” asks that τούτο, “this (cup),” might pass, and conditions his prayer with the now negative εί ούδύναται, “if not possible”—reflecting a further stage of resignation—as well as the direct γενηθήτω τό θέλημά σου, “may your will be done” (cf. the petition in 6:10; Acts 21:14). The acceptance of God’s will shows Jesus as one who is strong in his obedience, and thus Jesus is portrayed only positively in this pericope (see Dibelius). When Jesus returns from this time of prayer (v 43), he again finds the disciples καθεύδοντας, “sleeping” (as in v 40), but this time no actual rebuke is recorded, although one is clearly implicit (cf. Mark 14:40c). Only the comment that their eyes βεβαρημένοι, “were heavy,” is added (the word is used similarly in Luke 9:32: “heavy with sleep”). The disciples continued to find it impossible to stay awake while Jesus was praying. 44—45 Because the opening clause καί άφείς αυτούς, usually translated “and having left them ,” is redundant (given the participle άπελθών, “having gone”), it may mean “having allowed them ” (i.e., to sleep), a perfectly legitimate meaning of άφιέναι. This interpretation is consonant with the fact that Matthew in the preceding verse gives no report of Jesus saying anything to the disciples. It is also in agreement with the command of v 45 that they go on with their sleeping, unless this be taken as implying that only now after the third prayer is sleeping allowed. On the other hand, it is also possible that the participle means “having left” and that the redundant άπελθών, “having gone,” is retained merely to strengthen the parallelism between this verse and v 42 where it also precedes προσηύξατο, “he prayed” (cf. προσελθών in v 39). Jesus prayed έκ τρίτου, “a third time” (cf. Mark 14:41; 2 Cor 12:8), πάλιν, “again,” τον αυτόν λόγον, lit. “the same word” but in context “prayer.” Possibly καθεύδετε [τό] λοιπόν καί άναπαύεσθε is to be taken as a question (thus N R SV : “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?”) or an exclamation to the same point. The advantage of this interpretation is that it avoids the incongruity of the traditional rendering, “sleep for the rem ainder of the time and rest,” with the initial words of v 46: “rise, let us go.” On the other hand, from the N R S V translation one might expect έτι, “still,” rather than [ t o ] λοιπόν, lit. “the rem ainder”; and the άναπαύεσθε, “rest,” also seems to make less sense in a question than in an exhortation. If the words represent an exhortation, they may point simply to the reality of Jesus’ final resignation to, and acceptance of, what lay ahead of him. The final sequence of events is about to begin, and now there is nothing the disciples can do. Thus they are invited to

E x p la n a tio n

785

sleep and take their rest, although there is little time for such now. ιδ ο ύ ή γ γ ί κ β ν ή ώρα, “look, the hour has come near,” signals the beginning of the passion (for ώ ρα , “hour,” as the hour of the passion of Jesus, see, e.g., John 2:4; 7:30; 12:27; 13:1; 17:1). έ γ γ ί ζ β ί ν , “to draw near” or “to come,” is used elsewhere in Matthew mainly in connection with the coming of the kingdom of heaven (3:2; 4:17; 10:7). The anticipated betrayal of the “Son of Man” (cf. in this chapter vv 2, 24; and earlier 17:12, 22; 20:18) now finds its fulfillment. Only here in Matthew is reference made to els' χ ε ΐ ρ α ς ά μ α ρ τω λ ώ ν , “into the hands of sinners” (cf. 17:22. “into the hands of m en”; the only other instance involving identification in the betrayal sayings refers to “the chief priests and scribes” [20:18]). While at times the “handing over” (= betrayal) of Jesus is expressed by a divine passive indicating God as the acting subject (e.g., 17:22; 20:18), here in light of the immediately following verses Judas is understood as the subject (cf. v 24). 46 The words έ γ ε ί ρ ε σ θ ε α γ ω μ ε ν , “rise, let us go” (cf. the identical words in John 14:31), do not have flight in mind but rather going to meet the betrayer and those with him. Matthew’s ιδο ύ, “look” (cf. v 45), yet again serves to call attention to a key event in the narrative. If the hour of the betrayal has come near (v 45), so too ή γ γ ι κ ε ν δ π α ρ α δ ίδ ο ύ ς μ ε , “the one who betrays me is about to come” (cf. vv 15, 21,23-25). E x p la n a tio n

The thought of what he will have to undergo in the near future fills Jesus with dread and anguish. A real struggle within the soul of Jesus takes place in Gethsemane, and he craves the support of those who have been closest to him during his ministry. The mystery of the agony of God’s unique Son cannot be fully penetrated. That it has to do with bearing the penalty of sin for the world to make salvation possible seems clear. What we do see in the narrative isJesus pleading that if at all possible the cup of this suffering might pass from him without his having to drink of it, i.e., that he might even at this late m oment bypass the agony of the cross. Yet here as elsewhere Jesus submits himself, however reluctantly, to the will of his Father. In all of this the disciples incidentally learn important lessons that may be summed up in Jesus’ statement that while the spirit may be willing, the flesh is weak. Told to watch with Jesus, and no doubt eager to do so, they fail—being overcome with the combination of the Passover meal, the wine, and the lateness of the hour. No answer is given in the passage to the problem of the weakness of the flesh other than that it is a fact to be admitted and not to be underestimated. First this human failure, then the desertion of their master— the disciples are in for a bad time. They fail miserably at doing the will of their Lord. And yet despite it all, they remain disciples—disciples who have that status only through ongoing forgiveness. But Jesus knows their weakness and finally allows them the rest their frail humanity so craves. While the disciples in their sleepy stupor remain uncomprehending, for Jesus the immediate crisis is over and the final act about to begin. Now unwaveringly his face is set toward the cross and the fulfillment of his Father’s will.

786

M a t t h e w 26:47-56

Jesus Taken into Custody

(26:47-56)

Bibliography B la c k , M . ‘T h e Arrest and Trial of Jesus and the Date of the Last Supper.” In New Testament Essays. FS T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins. M anchester: M anchester UP, 1959. 19-33. C ro ss a n , R . D . “Matthew 26:47-56—Jesus A rrested.” In Tradition as Openness to the Future. FS W. W. Fisher, ed. F. O. Francis and R. P. Wallace. Lanham , MD: University Press o f America, 1984. 175-90. D a u b e , D . ‘T h re e Notes Having to Do with Johanan Ben Zaccai: III. Slitting the H igh Priest’s Ear.” JLSn.s. 11 (1960) 59-62. D e issm a n n , A . “Friend, W herefore A rt T hou Com e?” ExpTim 33 (1921-22) 491-93. D ib e liu s, M . ‘Jesus u n d der Judaskuss.” In Botschaft und Geschichte. Tübingen: Mohr, 1953. 1:272-77. D o e v e , J. W. “Die G efangennahm e Jesu in Gethsemane: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche U ntersuchung.” SE 1 [= TU 73] (1959) 458-80. E ltester, W. “‘Freund, wozu du gekom m en bist’ (Mt. xxvi 50).” In Neotestamentica et Patnstica. FS O. Cullm ann, ed. W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 70-91. H a rris , R . “Deissmann on the Holy Grail.” ExpTim 35 (1923-24) 523-24. H a rris o n , E . F. “T he Son of God am ong the Sons of Men: XIII. Jesus and Judas.” BSac 105 (1948) 170-81. K lo ste rm a n n , E . “Zur Spiegelbergs Aufsatz ‘Der Sinn von eph ho parei in Mt 26,50.’” Z N W 29 (1930) 311. K o sm a la , H . “Matthew xxvi 52: A Q uotation from the Targum .” NovT 4 (1960-61) 3-5. K rie g e r, N . “Der Knecht des H ohenpriesters.” NovT 2 (1957) 73-74. L e e , G . M . “Matthew xxvi.50:rΕταίρε έ φ ’ο πάρει.”ExpTim 81 (1969-70) 55. L im b e c k , M . “‘Stecke dein Schwert in die Scheide . . . !’ Die Jesusbewegung im U nterschied zu den Zeloten.” BK 37 (1982) 98 104. O w e n , E . C . E . “St M atthew xxvi.50.” JT S 29 (1927-28) 384-86. P e r i, I . “D er W eggefährte.” ZNW 7S (1987) 127-31. R e h k o p f, F. “Mt 26.50: ΕΤΑΙΡΕ ΕΦ Ο Π Α Ρ Ε Ι” ZNW 52 (1961) 109-15. S ch n e id e r, G . “Die Verhaftung Jesu: Traditionsgeschichte von Mk 14.4352.” ZN W 63 (1972) 188-209. S p ie g e lb e ig , W . “D er Sinn von έ φ ’ο πάρει in Mt 26,50.” ZNW 28 (1929) 341-43. S u gg it, J. “Com rade Judas: Matthew 2§:b0.”Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 63 (1988) 56-58. S u h l, A . “Die Funktion des Schwertstreichs bei der G efangennahm e Jesu: Beobachtungen zur Komposition u n d Theologie der synoptischen Evangelien (Mk 14,43-52; Mt 26,47-56; Lk 22,47-53).” In The Four Gospels. FS F. N eirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1992. 1:295-323. W ilso n , J. P. “Matthew 26,50: ‘Friend, w herefore art thou come?”’ ExpTim 41 (1929-30) 334.

Translation 47A n d w hile he w as yet speaking , look, J u d a s , one o f the twelve, came a n d together w ith h im a great crowd fro m the ch ief p riests a n d elders o f the people w ith swords a n d clubs. 48A n d the one betraying h im ga ve them a sign, saying: “T h e one I kiss— he is the one. Seize him . ”49A n d im m ediately w hen he h a d come to Jesus, he sa id :a “H a il, R a b b i”; a n d he kissed him . 50B u t Jesu s sa id to h im :b “F n e n d , f o r this yo u com e!”c T h en they came, p u t their h a n d s u p o n Jesus, a n d took h im in to custody. 51A n d look, one o f those w ith Jesu s reached w ith his h a n d a n d drew his sword, a n d s tn k in g the se rv a n t o f the high priest, he cu t o f f his ear. 52T h en Jesus sa id to him : “P u t yo u r sword back in its place. F or a ll w ho take the sword w ill by the sw ord perish. 53O r do yo u th in k I a m no t able to call u p o n my Father, a n d he w ill send m e d n o w e more th a n twelve legions o f angels? 54H o w therefore w ould the scriptu res be fu lfille d th a t th u s it m u st be?” 55A t th a t p o i n t fJesu s sa id to the crowds: “H a v e y o u come o u t as f o r a n in su rrectio n ist to capture me w ith swords a n d clubs ? I w as s ittin g daily g in the temple teaching, a n d y o u d id n o t

Form/Structure/Setting

787

arrest me. 56B u t this whole th in g has happened in order th a t the w ritin g s o f the prophets m ig h t be fu lfille d . ” T h en a ll the h disciples aba n d o n ed h im a n d fled .

Notes

aA few MSS (P37? C [sys] sams mae bo) add αύτω , “to him.” b P37omits the words “Hail, Rabbi... to him,” probably through homoioteleuton (αύτω — αύτω , “to him — to him” [the first of these is probably in P37; see preceding Note]). c έ φ ’δ πάρει, lit. “for which you come,” may also be translated as a question: “Why have you come?” or as “Do what you are here to do.” See Comment. dK* Θf 1 (bo) insert ώδε, “here.” e Many MSS (A C D W Θf1,13 TR it [syh mae]) place ά ρ τι, “now,” after δύναμαι, “I am able.” f ε ν εκ είνη τ η ώρα, lit. “in that hour.” g Many MSS ([A] C D W Θf1,13TR latt syP,hmae) insert προς υμάς, “with you,” probably through the influence of the parallel in Mark 14:49. hA few MSS (B it syssa) add αύτοΰ, “his.” Form/Structure/Setting

A. The preliminaries are over, and now the narrative moves into the sequence of events that culminates in the crucifixion of Jesus. The betrayer does his despicable deed; there is a brief attempt at resistance on the part of the disciples. But the central motif from the beginning of the final sequence, when Jesus is taken into custody by the Jewish authorities, is the fulfillment of the scriptures. From the arrest of Jesus the narrative moves immediately into his so-called trial and thence to his death. From this point on, the narrative takes on an inexorability that reflects a mysterious conjunction of hum an determ ination and divine superintendence. B. Matthew again is closely dependent upon Mark (Mark 14:43-49; cf. Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12). The major differences from Mark are the addition of w 52-54 (words of Jesus about the sword, angels, and the fulfillment of scripture), presumably from Matthew’s special source, and the omission of Mark 14:50-52 (the enigmatic reference to the young man in the linen cloth). Beyond these we may note Matthew’s omission in v 48 of Mark’s κ α ί ά π ά γ ε τ ε ά σ φ α λ ώ ς , “anct lead him away securely” (Mark 14:44), probably regarded as unnecessary, and in v 47 his omission of τ ω ν γ ρ α μ μ α τ έ ω ν , “the scribes” (cf. Mark 14:43), probably to abbreviate. Three other omissions may be noted: in v 47 Mark’s ευ θ ύ ς, “immediately” (Mark 14:43), redundant with the genitive absolute construction; in v 49 Mark’s έλθω ν, “having come” (Mark 14:45), redundant given the following π ρ ο σ ελθ ώ ν , “having come to”; and in v 55 π ρ ο ς υ μ ά ς , “with you” (Mark 14:49), probably to abbreviate. On the other hand, Matthew makes a num ber of additions to his Markan source. Most substantial, in addition to the one noted above, is in v 50, o δ ε Ι η σ ο ύ ς ε ΐ π ε v α ύ τω , ε τ α ίρ ε , έ φ ’δ π ά ρ ε ι, “But Jesus said to him: ‘Friend, for this you come’” (cf. Mark 14:45, where no words are spoken to Judas). This causes the addition of the following words, τ ό τ ε π ρ ο σ ε λ θ ό ν τ ε ς , “then having come,” as well as ε π ί τ ο ν 7ή σ ο υ ν , “upon Jesus” (cf. Mark 14:46). A few other additions are noteworthy. In v 47 Matthew adds π ο λ ύ ς, “great” (cf. the plural in v 55), in referring to the crowd (cf. Mark 14:43) and the modifier τ ο ύ λ α ο ύ , “of the people,” to “the elders” (cf. 21:23, 26:3; 27:1). In v 49 he adds the greeting χ α ΐ ρ ε , “hail,” as a

788

M a t t h e w 26:47-56

dramatic touch (cf. Mark’s simple “Rabbi” in Mark 14:45). In v 51 he inserts Ιδ ο ύ , “look,” in characteristic fashion (cf. Mark 14:47), and in the same verse he adds έ κ τ ε ί ν α ς τ η ν χ ε ΐ ρ α , “having reached (with) his hand,” one of the few times in Matthew’s redaction of Mark that he adds something not obviously useful or necessary. Note these few further additions: in v 55 Matthew adds έ ν ε κ ε ίν η τ η ώ ρα, “in that hour” (formulaic; cf. 8:13; 10:19; 18:1; cf. Mark 14:48); in the same verse he adds έ κ α θ ε ζ ό μ η ν , “I was sitting” (the usual posture for teaching); and at the beginning of v 56 he adds τ ο ύ τ ο δ ε δ λ ο ν γ έ γ ο ν ε ν , “this whole (thing) has happ e n e d ,” to com plete M ark’s sentence (Mark 14:49). Among M atthew ’s substitutions, we may note the more common σ η μ ε ΐ ο ν , “sign,” in v 48 for Mark’s σ ύ σ σ η μ ο ν , “signal” (Mark 14:44, only here in the NT); τω ’Ι η σ ο ύ , “to Jesus,” in v 49 for Mark’s α ύ τω , “to him ” (Mark 14:45); and τ ο ΐ ς ό χ λ ο ις , “the crowds,” in v 55 for α ύ τ ο ΐ ς , “them ” (Mark 14:48). There is a degree of freedom in Matthew’s use of Mark, yet in the main Matthew, as usual, follows his source closely. C. The pericope consists of historical narrative but includes certain teaching elements (i.e., vv 52-54, 56). The following is a suggested outline: (1) the arrival of Judas and the guards (v 47); (2) the betrayal of Jesus (vv 48-49); (3) the arrest of Jesus (v 50); (4) a token of armed resistance (v 51); (5) Jesus’ words to his disciple(s) (vv 52-54); (6) Jesus’ words to the crowds (vv 55-56a); and (7) the flight of the disciples (v 56b). There is virtually no structural symmetry to speak of. Probably the most interesting feature is the reference to the fulfillment of scripture at the end both of the words to the disciple (s) (v 54) and of the words to the crowd (v 56a). The passage ends with the strongly negative note concerning the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus. Comment

47 A further ιδού, “look,” calls attention to the arrival of Judas the betrayer, who is again deliberately mentioned as els' τω ν δώ δεκα, “one of the twelve” (cf. w 14, 21, 25). The ό χ λ ο ς πο λύς, “large crowd,” ά π ό τω ν άρχι.ερεώ ν κα ί π ρ εσ β υ τέ ρ ω ν τ ο ύ λαού, “from the chief priests and elders of the people” (linked also in 21:23; 26:3; 27:1), probably consisted of some of the temple guard, possibly expanded by some specially hired men, and perhaps even a contingent of Roman soldiers (cf. John 18:3, 12). Their number and their weapons, μ ε τ ά μ α χ α ιρ ώ ν κ α ί ξύλω ν, “with swords and clubs,” seem to suggest that they intended to take into custody a serious criminal (cf. v 55). Perhaps they feared that the eleven would defend Jesus at any cost. 48-49 So that there would be no mistake in the darkness, Judas informs the guard that he will give them a sign by kissing Jesus, the customary practice of greeting between friends (see Dibelius) even down to the present in the Middle East (cf. Luke 7:45; Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:16; 1 Peter 5:14). This Judas does ευ θ έω ς, “immediately,” with the usual greeting χ ο ί ρ ε , “hail” or “greetings” (cf. 28:9), the Greek probably reflecting an underlying, rather ironic, salam , “peace,” and with the appellation ρ α β β ί, “Rabbi,” again indicating that he has gone over to the opponents of Jesus (cf. v 25 and C om m ent there). The verb for “kiss” in v 49 is an intensive form (κ α τ α φ ί λ ε ΐ ν ) compared to the simple φ ι λ ε ΐ ν in v 48.

Comment

789

50 Jesus’ addressing of Judas as ε τ α ίρ ε , “friend,” should not be understood as involving a negative or sarcastic connotation, for the word can mean “comrade” or “companion” (in the NT used only in Matthew; cf. 11:16 [v.l.]; 20:13; 22:12; Socrates refers to his pupils using this word; cf. BAGD, 314b). Jesus’ words έ φ ’δ π ά ρ ε ι are extremely difficult to interpret. Literally they mean “for what you are come,” which can be understood as a question (thus Deissmann), “Why do you (have you) come?” taking the relative as an interrogative. In this case, of course, the question would have to be rhetorical or ironical, since Jesus knows well why Judas has come. On the other hand, the words can be understood as a statement with an implied command, i.e., “what you have come to do, do it” (cf. NRSV: “do what you are here to do”; cf. John 13:27; cf. Owen). Yet Judas has already performed his act of betrayal in the kiss when Jesus speaks these words. It is the guard that acts next. Another possible understanding, however, is to take the words quite literally as a comment of resigned disappointment in Judas: “for this you come!” (cf. the irony of Luke 22:48). It reflects at once disappointment in Judas, a further stage of resignation to the will of God that will take him to his death, and a yielding to the final act of the story (cf. R. E. Brown, “Appendix III, C” [D eath o f the M essia h , 1385-88] and his conclusion that the phrase is a way of indicating Jesus’ knowledge of what Judas is doing). (Cf. Wilson: “Companion, the thing you are here for!” Thus too Spiegelberg: “It is this for which you are here!”; cf. Rehkopf; Eltester.) The guards, having had their man pointed out to them, grab Jesus and take him into their custody (cf. John 18:12). 51-52 In a token of resistance on the part of the disciples, one of them (according to John 18:10-11, 26, it was Peter) takes his sword and slashes at τ ο ν δ ο ΰ λ ο ν τ ο υ ά ρ χ ιε ρ έ ω ς , “the servant of the high priest” (the name Malchus is provided in John 18:10; Krieger suggests the servant was Judas!), slicing off his ear (only in the Lukan account does Jesus heal the severed ear [Luke 22:51], just as only in Luke do we learn that the disciples had with them two swords [Luke 22:38]). There can be little doubt that more serious harm was intended ( pace Daube, who thinks of mutilation that would render one unfit for cultic service). Jesus, however, instructs his disciple to put the sword back in its scabbard and then utters the now-famous logion: π ά ν τ ε ς γ ά ρ οί λ α β ό ν τ ε ς μ ά χ α ι ρ α ν ε ν μ α χ α ίρ η ά π ο λ ο ϋ ν τ α ι , “for all who take the sword will by the sword perish.” This chiastically formed proverbial saying, which probably goes back to Gen 9:6 (where, however, it refers to capital punishm ent), describes the generally true principle that violence begets violence (cf. Rev 13:10, which takes up this logion). (Kosmala’s argument that the logion comes from a Targum of Isa 50:11 is not more than a possibility.) This was no sensible way to proceed, even if it seemed like an appropriate indication of loyalty to Jesus. Furthermore, it opposed the teaching of Jesus already given in 5:39 (cf. 10:39). 53-54 If resistance were the right thing, Jesus had no need of swords or human assistance (cf. John 18:36, where Jesus denies any present claims that would justify violence). He makes the statement, in the form of a rhetorical question, that supernatural help is available to him at just a word to his Father. More than δ ώ δ εκ α λ ε γ ι ώ ν α ς α γ γ έ λ ω ν , “twelve legions of angels,” is an enormous num ber (a legion of Roman troops am ounted to about six thousand; thus here more than 72,000 angels!), but exactitude is no concern and the num ber twelve has obvious

790

Ma t t h e w 26:47-56

symbolic connotations. “Twelve” legions may be intended to correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel or to a full complement of twelve disciples. For the help of angels, cf. Ps 91:11-12 (cf. the use of this passage in Matt 4:6, where Jesus also does not avail himself of angelic assistance); for “innumerable angels,” cf. Heb 12:22. Earlier in the Gospel the Son of Man sends angels (13:41; 24:31) and comes with his angels (16:27; 25:31). Belief in angels had increased dramatically in the period of the second temple. Here compare the militant angels who fight on the side of the sons of light in the Qumran writings (e.g., 1QM 7:6; 12:8). Again we see that Jesus’ obedience to the will of the Father is not a matter of compulsion but of a free yielding to that will (cf. vv 39, 42). Even at this late m oment all could be aborted, but then the scriptures would remain unfulfilled. It is implied in v 54 that if the scriptures are not fulfilled, the very faithfulness of God could be called into question. The scriptures state that ο ύ τ ω ς δ ε ι γ ε ν έ σ Θ α ι, “thus it must be” (S e t, “it must,” reflecting divine necessity, is used in reference to the death of Jesus in 16:21; cf. related uses in 17:10; 24:6; the same construction, δ ε ι γ ε ν έ σ θ α ι , is found in the LXX of Dan 2:28-29; 2:45 [Theod.]). God has ordained that things should be thus and since a l γ ρ α φ α ί , “the scriptures,” reflect the will of God, they must be fulfilled. This same point is stressed again in v 56. Thus the emphasis on the fulfillment of scripture (on π λ η ρ ω θ ώ σ ιν , “be fulfilled,” see C o m m en t on 1:22) is im portant in Matthew generally (cf. the “fulfillment quotations” and the discussion in Hagner, M a tth e w 1 - 1 3 , liii-lvii) but also in connection with the death of Jesus specifically. 55 Jesus turns at this point to speak to the mob ( τ ο ΐ ς δ χ λ ο ι ς , lit. “to the crowds”), ε ν ε κ ε ίν η τ η ώ ρα , “in that hour,” is formulaic and should be taken in the sense of “at that time” (see BAGD, 896b). Not far beneath the surface of Jesus’ statement is a criticism of their cowardice. They could have arrested him when κ α θ 'η μ έ ρ α ν ε ν τω ίερ ω έ κ α θ ε ζ ό μ η ν δ ιδ ά σ κ ω ν, “I was sitting daily in the temple teaching” (cf. 21:23; Luke 19:47; 21:37), but they were afraid of the people (cf. 14:5; 21:26, 46). Even in the middle of the night they have come with an oversized force of men armed μ ε τ ά μ α χ α ιρ ώ ν κ α ι ξύλω ν, “with swords and clubs” (cf. v 47) , as though they were going to apprehend a violent revolutionary ( λ η σ τ ή ν c a n also mean “thief’; cf. 21:13; 27:38; but see BAGD, 473a). They are despicable opportunists. 56 Yet Jesus returns to the outworking of God’s superintending will in what is happening, τ ο ύ τ ο δλο ν, “this whole,” refers probably to the apprehension of Jesus, which is but the beginning of the passion. Jesus’ path to the cross has been laid out in advance by the divine will. What happens does so not only in fulfillm ent of the plan devised by the chief priests and elders but, more importantly, in fulfillment of the scriptures (cf. v 54). The expression α ί γ ρ α φ α ί τ ω ν π ρ ο φ η τώ ν , “the writings of the prophets,” occurs only here in the NT (cf. Rom 16:26). It refers to the second division of the Hebrew Bible, the , n e W im , “prophets,” including especially such books as Isaiah (e.g., esp. chap. 53) and Zechariah (e.g., chaps. 12-13). On πληρω θώ σιΡ , “be fulfilled,” also in v 54, see C om m ent on 1:22. The brief last sentence of the pericope records the abandonm ent of Jesus by the disciples. If the fulfillment of the scriptures m eant that armed resistance was ruled out (v 52) and the only alternative was passive submission, the disciples would have nothing of it ( π ά ν τ ε ς , “all,” of them is noteworthy). This brief note about

Bibliography

791

their flight poignantly recalls the disciples’ empty promise that if necessary they would die with Jesus (v 35) and simultaneously fulfills Jesus’ prediction that they would fall away and be scattered (v 31; cf. John 16:32). Explanation

The betrayal with its ‘Judas kiss” and the arrest of Jesus are the shocking events with which the passion begins and which culminate in the crucifixion of Jesus. As implausible as it may look from a human perspective and especially from that of the fear-ridden disciples, God is in control of these events, and his will is mysteriously being done while evil men make their move against Jesus. The word concerning the fulfillment of scripture is addressed not only to the disciples but also to the mob. It cannot have meant much to them, and they probably took it as the raving of a deluded man. Even the disciples were unable to put much stock in Jesus’ statements that these things were fixed in the divine will and that legions of angels could have been called upon had Jesus chosen the path of resistance. But what looks from a hum an point of view to be madness or tragedy is in this instance the mysterious working out of God’s saving purposes. It would be a mistake to take the saying that all who take the sword will die by the sword as a proof text for an absolute pacifism. The proverb, to be sure, discourages violence in general as an unproductive path. Peacefulness is surely a clear mark of those who belong to the kingdom of God (cf. 5:9). Violence only begets more violence. It may, however, at times be unavoidable (cf. Luke 22:36) and the lesser of two evils. In the present instance it was clearly out of place. Jesus had incalculable resources available to him if resistance had been an appropriate action. In this instance passive submission alone was consonant with the will of God.

Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin

(26:57-68)

Bibliography Abraham s, I. ‘T h e Tannaitic Tradition and the Trial N arratives.” In S tu d ie s i n P h a r is a is m a n d th e G o s p e ls . C am bridge: C am b rid g e UP, 1917-24. 2:129-37. B am m el, E. “Die Blutgerichtsbarkeit in d er röm ischen Provinz Ju d äa vor dem ersten jüdischen A ufstand.” J/S 25 (1974) 3 5 -4 9 .———. “Kaiphas u n d der Prozess Jesu .” N e u e P re sse (Coburg) (March 22, 1 9 51).———, ed. T h e T r ia l o f J e s u s . FS C. F. D. Moule. SBT 2.13. London: SCM, 1970. B artsch, H.-W. “Wer verurteilte Jesu zum Tode?” N o v T 7 (1964-65) 210-16. B en-C horin, S. “Wer hat Jesus zum Tode verurteilt?” Z R G G 37 (1985) 63-67. B enoit, P. ‘Jesus devant le S anhedrin.” A n g 20 (1943) 1 4 3 -6 5 .———. “Les outrages ä Jesus p ro p h ete (Mc 14,65 et p a r).” In N e o te s ta m e n tic a e t P a tr is tic a . FS O. Cullm ann, ed. W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. 92-110. B etz, O . “Problem e des Prozesses Jesu .” A N R W 2 . 2 5 . 1 (1982) 5 6 5-647.———. “T he Tem ple Scroll and the Trial of Jesus.” S W J T 30 (1988) 5-8. Blinzler, J. D e r P ro ze ss J e s u . Regensburg: Pustet, 1960— — — . “Das Synedrium von Jerusalem u n d die Strafprozessordnung d er M ischna.” Z N W 52 (1961) 5 4 -6 5 .———. T h e T r ia l o f Je su s.

792

M a t t h e w 26:57-68

2nd ed. Tr. J. & F. McHugh. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959.———. “T he Trial o f Jesus in the Light o f History.”Judaism 20 (1971) 49-55. B o w k e r , J . W. “T he O ffence and Trial o f Jesus.” In Jesus and the Phansees. New York: Cam bridge, 1973. 42-52. B r a n d o n , S. G. F. “T he Trial o f Jesus. "Ju d a ism 20 (1971) 4 3 -4 8 .———. The Tria l o f Jesus o f Nazareth. New York: Stein and Day, 1968. B r o e r , I . “D er Prozess gegen Jesus nach M atthaus.” In Der Prozess gegen Jesus , ed. K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg: H erder, 1988. 84-110. B ü c h s e i , F. “Die B lutgerichtsbarkeit des Synedrions.” ZAW 30 (1931) 2 0 2 -1 0 .———. “N och einmal: Zur B lutgerichtsbarkeit des Synedrions.” ZAW 33 (1934) 84-87. B u r k ill, T . A . “T he C om petence of the S an hedrin.” V C 10 (1956) 8 0 -9 6 .———. “T he Trial of Jesus.” V C 12 (1958) 1-18. B u r n e t t , F. W . “C haracterization in Matthew: R eader C onstruction o f the Disciple Peter.” M cKendree Pastoral Review (Lebanon, IL) 4 (1987) 13-43. C a t c h p o l e , D . R . “T he Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64).” N T S 17 (1970-71) 2 1 3 -2 6 .———. “T he Problem o f the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial.” In The Trial o f Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2.13. L ondon: SCM, 1970. 4 7 -6 5 .———. The Trial o f Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1 7 7 0 to the Present Day. SPB 18. Leiden: Brill, 1972.— — . “‘You Have H eard His Blasphemy.’” TynB 16 (1965) 10-18. C o h e n , D ., an d P a u l u s , C . “Einige B em erkungen zum Prozess Jesu bei den Synoptikern.” ZSSR 102 (1985) 43745. C o h n , H . “Reflections on the Trial of Jesus.” Judaism 20 (1971) 1 0 -2 3 .— — — The Trial and Death o f Jesus. New York: H arper and Row, 1971. D a n b y , H . “T he Bearing o f the Rabbinical Crim inal Code on the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels.” J T S 21 (1919— 20) 51-76. D a u b e , D . The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism . L ondon: A thlone, 1956. 2 3 26 (reprinted, Peabody, MA: H endrickson). D a v ie s , A . T . “T he Jews and the D eath o f Jesus: Theological Reflections.” In t 23 (1969) 207-17. D i b e l i u s , M . “Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte.” Z N W 30 (1931) 193-201. D o d d , C . H . “T he Historical Problem o f the D eath o f Jesus.” In More New Testament Studies. G rand Rapids: Eerdm ans, 1968. 84—101. D u p o n t , J . ‘“Assis ä la droite de D ieu’: L’interpretatio n du Ps. 110,1 dans le Nouveau Testam en t.” In Resurrexit: Acts du Symposium sur International la Resurrection de Jesus, ed. E. Dhanis. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974. 423-36. E b e l i n g , H . J . “Zur Frage nach d er K om petenz des Synhedrion.” Z N W 35 (1936) 290-95. F e u i l l e t , A . “Le triom phe du Fils de 1’hom m e d ’apres la declaration de Christ aux Sanhedrites (Mc. xiv, 62; Mt xxvi, 64; Lc, xxii, 69).” In L a venue du Messie, ed. E. Massaux et al. RechBib 6. Bruges: Desclee de Brouwer, 1962. 149-71. F lu s s e r , D . “At the Right H and o f Power.” Im m anuel 14 (1982) 4 2 4 6 .———. “W ho Is It T hat Struck You?” Im m anuel 20 (1986) 27-32. France, R . T. “Jesus devant C aiphe.” Hokhm a 15 ( 1 9 8 0 ) 2 0 - 3 5 . F r i c k e , W . Standrechtlich gekreuzigt: Person u n d Prozess des Jesus aus Galiläa. Frankfurt am Main: Mai, 1 9 8 6 . G e r h a r d s s o n , B . “Confession and Denial before Men: Observations on Matt. 26:57-27:2. ” J S N T 1 3 (1981) 4 6 -6 6 .———. ‘Jesus livre et abandonne d ’apres la passion selon Saint M atthieu.” R B 76 (1969) 206-27. G n i l k a , J . “D er Prozess Jesu nach den B erichten des M arkus u n d M atthäus m it ein er R ekonstruktion des historischen Verlaufs.” In D er Prozess gegen Jesus, ed. K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg: H erder, 1988. 11-40. G o l d b e r g , A . “Sitzend zur Rechten d er Kraft.” B Z 8 (1964) 284-93. G o u r g u e s , M . “Marc 14:62 et Paralleles (Mt 26:64; Lc 22:69).” In A la droite de D ieu: Resurrection de Jesus et actualisation du Psaum e 11 0 : 1 dans le N ouveau Testament. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1978. 143-61. G r a n t , R . M . “T he Trial of Jesus in the Light o f History. "Judaism 20 (1971) 37-42. G r a p p e , C . “Mt 16,17-19 et le recit de la Passion.” R H P R 72 (1992) 3340. H a u f e , G . “D er Prozess Jesu im Lichte d er gegenw ärtigen F orschung.” D ie Zeichen der Zeit 22 (1968) 93-101. H a y , D . M . Glory at the Right H and: Psalm 1 1 0 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1973. H i l l , D . “Jesus before the S anhedrin— O n W hat C harge?” IB S 7 (1985) 174-86. H o l z m e i s t e r , U. “Zur Frage d er Blutgerichtsbarkeit des Synedrium s.” B ib 19 (1938) 43-59. H o r b u r y , W . “T he Trial o f Jesus in Jewish T radition.” In The Trial o f Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2.13. L ondon: SCM, 1970. 10321. I m b e r t , J . “Le proces de Jesus.” Revue de TInstitut Catholique de P a n s 19 (1986) 53-66. J a u b e r t , A . “Les seances du sanhedrin et les recits de la Passion.” R H R 166 (1964) 143-

Bibliography

793

169; 167 (1965) 1-33. J e r e m i a s , J . “Zur G eschichtlichkeit des Verhörs Jesu vor dem H ohen Rat.” ZNW 43 (1950-51) 145-50. J o n g e , M . d e . “T he Use of H O CHRISTOS in the Passion N arratives.” In J esus au x origines de la Christologie, ed. J. D upont et al. BETL 40. Gembloux: Duculot, 1975. 169-92. J u e l , D . M essiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel o f Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. K e r t e l g e , K ., ed. D er Prozess gegen Jesus: Historische Rückfrage u n d theologische Deutung. QD 112. Freiburg: H erder, 1988. K ilp a tr ic k , G . D . The T n a l o f Jesus. London: O xford UP, 1953. K o c h , W . Zum Prozess Jesu: M it Beiträgen von J. B linzler, G. K lein , P. Winter. W eiden Kr. C ologne: D er Löwe, 1967. K o l p i n g , A . ‘“Standrechtlich gekreuzigt’: N euere Ü berlegungen zum Prozess Jesu .” TRev 83 (1987) 265-76. L a m a r c h e , P. “Le ‘blasphem e’ de Jesus devant le sanhedrin.” R S R 50 (1962) 748 5 . ———. “La declaration de Jesus devant le sanhedrin.” In Christ vivant: Essai sur la christologie du Nouveau Testament. LD 43. Paris: Cerf, 1966. 147-63. L a p i d e , P. Wer war Schuld an Jesu Tod? Gütersloh: M ohn, 1987. L e g a s s e , S . ‘Jesus devant le S anhedrin.” R T L 5 (1974) 1 7 0 - 9 7 . ——— . Le proces de Jesus: L ’histoire. LD 1 5 6 . Paris: Cerf, 1 9 9 4 . L i n d e s k o g , G . “Der Prozess Jesu im jüdisch-christlichen Religionsgespräch.” In Abraham unser Vater: Juden un d Christen in Gespräch über die Bibel. FS O. Michel, ed. O. Betz et al. Leiden: Brill, 1963. 32536. L i n t o n , O . “T he Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm cx.” N T S 7 (1960-61 )o 258-62. L ö v e s ta m , E . “Die Frage des H ohenpriesters (Mark 14,61, par. Matt. 26,63).” SEA 26 (1961) 93-107. L o h s e , E . “D er Prozess Jesu Christi.” In Ecclesia u n d Res Publica. FS K. L. Schmidt, ed. G. K retshm ar and B. Lohse. G öttingen: V andenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1961. 2439. M a r c u s , J . “Mark 14:61: ‘Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?”’ N o v T 31 (1989) 125-41. M a t e r a , F. J . “T he Trial of Jesus: Problems and Proposals.” In t 45 (1991) 5-16. M c R u e r , J . C . The Trial o f Jesus. Toronto: Clark, Irwin, 1964. M o u l e , C . F. D . “T he Gravamen against Jesus.” In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. FS W. R. Farmer, ed. E. P. Sanders. Macon, GA: M ercer UP, 1987. 177-95. N e i r y n c k , F. “7 fr έ σ π ν b π α ίσ α ς σβ\ Mt 26,68/L k 22,64 (diff. Mk 14,65).” E T L 63 (1987) 5-47. O ’M e a r a , T . F. “T he Trial of Jesus in an Age of Trials.” TToday 28 (1972) 451-65. O ’N e ill, J . C . “T he Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus’ Trial before the S anhedrin.” In The Tria l o f Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2.13. London: SCM, 1970. 72-77. P a u l u s , C . “E inige B e m e rk u n g e n zum P rozess Je su bei d en S y n o p tik e rn .” Zeitschrift der Sa vig n y-Stiftu n g f ü r R echtsgeschichte 102 (1985) 437-45. P a w lik o w s k i, J . T . “T he Trial and Death of Jesus: Reflections in Light of a New U nderstanding of Judaism .” Chicago Studies 25 (1986) 79-94. P e s c h , R . Der Prozess Jesu geht water. Freiburg: H erder, 1988. P o w e ll, M . A . “T he Plot to Kill Jesus from T hree D ifferent Perspectives: P oint of View in Matthew.” Society o f Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. 603-13. R a m s a y , W . M . “T he Denials of Peter.” E xp T im 27 (1915-16) 36063; 28 (1916-17) 276-81. R e i c h r a t h , H . “D er Prozess Je su . "Judaica 20 (1964) 129-55. R i t t , H . “Wer war Schuld am Jesu Tod? Zeitgeschichte, Recht u n d theologische D eutung.” B Z 31 (1987) 165-75. R iv k in , E . What Crucified Jesus ? The Political Execution o f a Charismatic. Nashville: A bingdon, 1984. R o s e n b l a t t , S . “T he Crucifixion of Jesus from the Standpoint of the Pharisaic Law.” JBL 75 (1956) 315-21. S a n d m e l , S . “T he Trial of Jesus: Reservations.” Judaism 20 (1971) 69-74. S c h in z e r , R . “Die B edeutung des Prozesses Jesu .” Neue Zeitschrif t f ü r systematische Theologie u n d Religionsphilosophie 25 (1983) 138-54. S c h m id t, K . L . “D er Todesprozess des Messias Jesus. "Ju d a ica 1 (1945) 1-40. S c h n e i d e r , G . “Gab es eine vorsynoptische Szene ‘J esus vor dem Synedrium ’?” N o v T 12 (1970) 2 2 -3 9 .———. “Jesus vor dem Synedrium .” BibLeb 11 (1 9 7 0 ) 1 - 1 5 . S c h r e ib e r , J . “Das Schweigen Jesu.” In Theologie u n d Unterricht, ed. K. Wegenast. Gütersloh: M ohn, 1 9 6 9 . 7 9 - 8 7 . S c h u b e r t , K . “Die Ju d e n u n d die Röm er.” B L it 36 (1962-63) 2 3 5 -4 2 .———. “Das Verhör Jesu vor dem H ohen Rat.” In Bibel u n d zeitgemässer G lau be II, ed. J. Sint. Klosterneuburg: Buch- u n d Kunstverlag, 1967. 97-130. S c h u m a n n , H . “B em erkungen zum Prozess Jesu vor dem S ynedrium .” Zeitschüft der Savigny-Stiftung fü r Rechtsgeschichte 82 (1965) 315-20. S c o tt, R . B . Y. “Behold, H e Com eth with C louds.” N T S 5 (1958-59) 127-32. S h e r w in - W h ite , A . N . “T he Trial of Christ.” In History and Chronology in the New Testament. Theological Collections 6. London:

794

Ma t t h e w 26:57-68

SPCK, 1 9 6 5 . 9 7 - 1 1 6 . S lo y a n , G . S . ‘T h e History of the Tradition o f the Trial in Matthew.” In Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. 7 4 -8 8 .———. “Recent Literature on the Trial Narratives o f the Four Gospels.” In C r itic a l H is to r y a n d B ib lic a l F a ith : N e w T e s ta m e n t Perspectiv e s , ed. T. J. Ryan. Villanova: College Theology Society, 1979. 136-76. S o b o s a n , J . G . ‘T h e Trial of Jesus.” J E S 10 (1973) 70-91. S te w a r t, R . A . “Judicial Procedure in New Testam ent Times.” E v Q 4 7 (1975) 94-109. S t o n e h o u s e , N. B. “Who Crucified Jesus?” In P a u l before th e A r e o p a g u s a n d O th e r N e w T e s ta m e n t S tu d ie s . G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. 41-69. S t r o b e l , A . D ie S t u n d e d e r W a h rh e it : U n te r s u c h u n g e n z u m S tr a fv e r fa h r e n g e g en J e s u s . WUNT 21. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. T h e i s s e n , G . ‘Jesus’ Temple Prophecy: Prophecy in the Tension between Town and Country.” In S o c ia l R e a lity a n d th e E a r ly C h r is tia n s . Tr. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. 94-114. T rillin g , W . “Der ‘Prozess Jesu.’” In F r a g e n z u r G esc h ich tlic h ke it J e s u . Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1966. 130-41. U n n ik , W . C . v a n . ‘Jesu V erhöhnung vor dem Synedrium.” Z N W 29 (1930) 310-11 (reprinted in S p a r s a C ollecta. NovTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1980. 1:3-5). W ils o n , W . R . T h e E x e c u tio n o f Jesu s: A J u r i d ic a l a n d H is to r ic a l In v e s tig a tio n . New York: Scribners, 1970. W in te r , P. O n th e T r ia l o f J e s u s . Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961.———. ‘T h e Trial of Jesus and the C om petence of the S anhedrin.” N T S 10 (1963-64) 494-99. W o o d , H . G . “A Mythical Incident in the Trial of Jesus.” E x p T i m 28 (1916-17) 459-60. Y a m a u c h i, E . M . “Historical Notes on the Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.” C h rT o d 15 (1970-71) 634-39. Z e itlin , S . “T he Political and the Religious Synedrion.” JQR 36 (1945) 109-40.———. “Synedrion in Greek Literature, the Gospels and the Institution of the Sanhedrin. ”J Q R 37 (1946) 189-98. ———. W h o C ru c ifie d J e s u s ?New York: H arper and Row, 1942.

J e s u s o n T r ia l

Translation 57A n d those who took Jesu s in to custody led h im aw ay to C aiaphas the h ig h ripe s t , where the scribes a n d elders h a d gathered together. 58A n d Peter follow ed h im fr o m a distance as f a r as the courtyard o f the high p r iest, a n d h a v in g entered it, he w as s ittin g w ith the serva n ts to see the outcome. 59N o w the ch ief p rie sts a a n d the whole S a n h e d rin were seeking false testim ony a g a in st Jesu s so th a t they m ig h t ha ve a n excuse to b p u t h im to death, 60a n d they d id n o t f i n d a n y c evidence they could use d a m o n g the m a n y fa ls e witnesses who came fo rw a rd . B u t eventually tw o e came fo rw a rd a n d 61 said: “T h is m a n said: T a m able to destroy the temple o f God a n d after three days to b u ild it again. ”,f 62A n d the high p r iest rose a n d sa id to him : “H a v e y o u n o th in g to a n sw er to w h a t these m en accuse yo u of? ” 63 B u t Jesu s w as silent. A n d the high p r iest sa id g to him : “I adjure yo u by the liv in g God th a t y o u tell u s i f yo u are the M essiah, the S o n o f God. ”h6 4 Jesus sa id to him : “You h a ve sa id the tru th .1 Ifu rth erm o re tell you, in the fu t u r e j yo u w ill see the S o n o f M a n s ittin g a t the tig h t h a n d o f the P o w er k a n d co m in g u p o n the clouds o f heaven. ” 65 T h en the h igh priest tore his garm ents, saying: “H e has blasphem ed!l W hy do we still need witnesses ? Look, yo u h a ve now heard th e m blasphemy. 66W h a t is y o u r o p in io n ? ” A n d th e y n a n swered a n d said: “H e is g u ilty a n d sh o u ld die. ”o 67 T h en they spit in his fa c e a n d struck him . A n d they slapped h im ? 68saying: “P rophesy to us, M essiah, w ho is it th a t has h it y o u ? ”

Notes a Many MSS (AC Wf 1T R syp.h) add καί oi πρεσ β ύτερο ι, “and the elders” (cf. v 57). b “Have an excuse to” added to translation to complete sense. c Many MSS (A C2 [D] W f [1],1S TR it sy[s],h) add κ α ί , “and,” after ο ύ χ evpov, “did not find,” and repeat ο ύ χ εΰρον after ψευδομαρτύρω ν, “false witnesses,” thereby making an extra, redundant sentence:

Form/Structure/Setting

795

‘They found none. And though many false witnesses came forward, they found none” (cf. Kjv). d “Evidence they could use” added to complete sense. e Many MSS ([A] C Df 13TR latt syh) add ψευδομάρτυρες, “false witnesses.” f “It again” added to complete sense. A large number of MSS (K A C D L W TR lat) include the direct object αύτόν, “it,” either before or after οίκοδομήσαι, “to build.” See TCGNT, 65. g Many MSS (A C [D] W TR it sy) add άποκριθείς·, “answered.” See TCGNT, 65. h Some MSS (C* N W Δ vgmss syh samss mae bo) add τον ζώντος, “the living” (cf. the use of the phrase earlier in the verse as well as in 16:16). i σ ύ etnas', lit. “you have said (it).” j ά π’άρτί, lit. “from now.” See Comment. k τής δυνάμεως, lit. “the Power,” is a deliberate circumlocution for God (as, e.g., in “kingdom of heaven”). It could well be translated “God” here (cf. n eb , t ev , n iv ), but it is better to retain the original. See Comment on w 65-66. 1K* sypbegin the high priest’s statement with ίδέ, “look.” Many MSS have the recitative on (introducing a quotation) before the high priest’s statement (A C*vidWf 1,13TR). mMany MSS (A C W Θf1,13TR it) add αυτόν, “his.” n D it syshave άπεκρίθησαν πάντες καί, “they all answered and.” oένοχος· θανάτου έστίν, lit. “he is guilty of death.” p “Him” added as implied object. A few MSS (D G Φf 1) make the object explicit by adding αυτόν, “him.” Form/Structure/Setting

A. The first stage of Jesus’ trial is reached in this pericope, the trial before the Jewish authorities. This “trial” is obviously of an exceptional character with necessary departures from usual procedure because of the extraordinary circumstances. But at least a show of justice is made. On the grounds of his selfidentification, a high christological point in the Gospel (v 64), Jesus is accused of blasphemy and given the death sentence; finally he is mocked and ridiculed before being handed over to the Romans. B. Matthew again follows Mark closely for this pericope (Mark 14:53-65; cf. Luke 22:54-71; John 18:13-24). There are no lengthy omissions or additions. Among the omissions, the following are the most substantial: in v 58 Mark’s “and he was warming himself at the fire” (Mark 14:54), as an unnecessary detail; in v 67 Mark’s “and to blindfold him” (Mark 14:65), though presupposing this in v 68. Other more minor omissions are: in v 57 7τ ά ν τ ε ς oi α ρ χ ιε ρ ε ίς ', “all the chief priests” (cf. Mark 14:53), the evangelist perhaps being satisfied with the reference to the high priest; and in v 63 Mark’s τ ο ν ε υ λ ο γ η τ ο ύ , “the blessed” (cf. Mark 14:61), since it is unnecessary in the high priest’s question. Several minor agreements with Luke against Mark (e.g., in vv 58, 63, 68) are most probably the result of the overlapping influence of oral tradition (see Neirynck on w 67-68). It should also be noted that, for whatever reason, in vv 60-63 (cf. Mark 14:56-61) there are numerous omissions and vv 63-67 (cf. Mark 14:63-65) contain numerous additions. In vv 60-63 many o f the omissions involve obvious abbreviation. The following are noteworthy. In vv 60, 61 (cf. Mark 14:56, 59) Matthew omits the two references to the testimony o f the false witnesses being in disagreem ent (Matthew regards the testimony as correct and valid; note his use of δύο, “two,” in v 60). Matthew in fact omits M ark’s reference to his accusers as έψ ευδομαρτύρουν κ α τ ' αυτόν, “bearing false witness against h im ” (v 60; cf. Mark 14:57), and his added ύστερον, “finally” (v 60), distinguishes the two witnesses from the false witnesses ju st previously m entioned. In v 61 Matthew omits

796

M a t t h e w 26:57-68

M ark’s reference to the tem ple as τούτον τον χειροποίητον, “this, m ade with h an d s,” an d the one to be built after three days as άλλον άχειροποίητον, “another, n o t m ade with h an d s” (cf. Mark 14:58), thereby preparing the way for the words about the tem ple to refer secondarily to the body o f Jesus an d its resurrection. T he omissions in these verses involve various kinds of abbreviation, e.g., in v 63 M ark’s καί ούκ άπεκρίνατο ούδέν, “and he answered n o th in g ” (Mark 14:61), which is red u n d a n t following the statem ent th at ‘Jesus was silent.” A m ong additions to Mark the following should be m entioned: in v 57 the subject, ol κρατήσαντες, “those arresting h im ” (Mark 14:53), is provided and the high priest’s nam e, Καϊάφαν, “Caiaphas,” is given. At the end of v 58 M atthew adds ίδεϊν το τέλος, “to see the en d ,” specifying the reason for P eter rem aining in the vicinity. In v 59 he notes that the authorities were seeking ψευδομαρτυρίαν, “false testimony,” against Jesus (cf. Mark 14:55). In v 61 he adds δύναμαι, “I am ab le” (cf. Mark 14:58), in the accusation against Jesus (see Comment). Finally, we note the additions in w 63-67. In v 63 Matthew prefaces the high priest’s question with έξορκίζω σε κατά του θεού του ζώντος ϊνα ήμΐν ειπης, “I adjure you by the living God that you tell us” (cf. Mark 14:61), adding a certain gravity to the im portant question that follows. In the same verse Matthew introduces the allusion to Dan 7 with the em phatic πλήν λέγω ύμϊν, “but I tell you,” as well as the somewhat difficult words άπ ’άρτι, lit. “from now,’’just at the beginning of the allusion. In v 65 he adds the verb έβλασφήμ ησεν, “he has blasphem ed,” emphasizing the high priest’s assessment, and the words ΐδε νυν, “look, now,” for emphasis (cf. Mark 14:63). In v 67 he adds εις το πρόσωπον αυτού, “into his face,” and ήμΐν, χριστέ, τις έστιν δ παίσας σε, “(prophesy) to us, Messiah, who is it that has hit you?” (the last four words are found in Luke 22:64 and constitute a m inor agreem ent against Mark, probably to be explained through the influence of oral tradition; cf. Mark 14:65). Matthew also, as he often does, introduces τότε at the beginning of w 65,67, thereby bringing m ore sense of chronological succession to the narrative. Among the m ore significant substitutions, the following are to be noted: in v 60 δύο, “two,” for Mark’s τινες, “som e” (Mark 14:57), in keeping with Matthew’s interest in “two or three witnesses” (cf. 18:16); in v 63 του θεού, “of God,” for τού ευλογητού, “the Blessed O ne,” one of the m ore surprising changes by Matthew, who otherwise prefers circumlocution in referring to God; in v 64 the indirect admission σνεΐπας, “you have said,” for Mark’s bolder εγώ είμι, “I am ,” again perhaps surprising given Matthew’s Christology (see Comment) . In v 65 Matthew substitutes the m ore comprehensive and less specific τά Ιμάτια, “the garm ents,” for τούς χιτώνας, lit. “tunics” (Mark 14:63). In v 66 he substitutes δοκεΐ, “does it seem,” for φαίνεται, “does it appear” (Mark 14:64). And last, in v 67 he has οι δε έράπισαν, “and they slapped (him ),” avoiding Mark’s introduction of a new subject in οι ϋπηρέται ραπίσμασιν αυτόν έλαβον, “the servants took him with slaps” (Mark 14:65). Despite the many changes noted (for a variety of reasons), in general Matthew still follows Mark quite closely.

C. The genre of historical narrative continues, with a focus on the evidence given against Jesus and the subsequent exchanges. Outline: (1) Jesus’ being taken to the high priest (and being followed by Peter) (vv 57-58); (2) the authorities’ seeking of evidence against Jesus (vv 59-61), further divided into (a) failure (v 60a) and (b) the evidence of two witnesses (vv 60b-61); (3) the high priest’s key question (vv 62-63); (4) Jesus’ answer (v64); (5) the charge of blasphemy (v65); (6) preliminary death sentence (v 66); and (7) the mocking of Jesus (vv 67-68). There are few noteworthy structural features. Parallel infinitives may be observed in the charge against Jesus in v 61, and also striking are the three parallel verbs of v 67. Of central significance in the passage is the citation of Dan 7:13 in v 64. D. It has been observed by many scholars that the trial of Jesus here portrayed fails at many points to correspond to the procedures laid down in the Mishna,

Comment

797

S a n h . 4-7. (For full discussion siah, 328-97.) The trial is full

of the problem, see R. E. Brown, D ea th o f the M esof anomalies: held at night, on the eve of a holy day, minimal attendance of members of the council, irregular location, without proper conditions pertaining to a capital case, no witnesses for the accused, and so forth. Although all this cannot be denied, it is a mistake to conclude that the present account is unhistorical (for a defense of its historicity, see Sherwin-White). A key question, one that is virtually impossible to answer, is the extent to which the legal procedures laid down in the Mishna at the beginning of the third century were in effect at the time of Jesus (see Danby; to the contrary, Abrahams, who argues that the Mishna preserves authentic traditions regarding the first century). Apart from this difficult question, many commentators simply forget that this was a quite extraordinary event in which, from the perspective of the Jewish authorities, it was expedient, if not necessary, to bend the rules. Two key factors must be kept in mind. First, just as Judas’ initial approach was unexpected, so the opportunity to apprehend Jesus in the privacy of the night presented itself unexpectedly, and they had to act quickly if they were to act at all. Second, the Jewish authorities were extremely eager to be rid of Jesus im m ediately —before the climax of the holy feast of Passover—and thus no doubt they found this opportunity impossible to resist. It is not difficult, therefore, to imagine a night meeting of the authorities, probably without the full membership of the council (despite Matthew’s τ ο σ υ ν έ δ ρ ω ν δ λ ο ν , “the whole Sanhedrin” [v 59]; cf. his omission of Mark’s π ά ν τ ε ς oi ά ρ χ ιε ρ ε ϊ ς , “all the chief priests,” in v 57), and an abbreviated quasi-legal process. Perhaps the present pericope really portrays a preliminary interrogation, prior to turning Jesus over to the Romans, rather than a trial (R. E. Brown, D eath o f the M essiah, leans toward this conclusion). Although an attempt was made at having a trial of sorts (cf. vv 59-62), by Mishnaic standards the trial was a sham. But under the very special circumstances, it could not have been otherwise. The Gospel of John which, relying on independent tradition, has no account of a formal trial before the Jewish authorities, mentions only what must be taken as an informal, semi-private hearing, first before Annas, the father-inlaw of Caiaphas (John 18:13), and then before Caiaphas himself (18:24). Luke has a formal trial before the Sanhedrin as in Matthew—not at night, however, but “when day came” (cf. Matthew 27:1). There is no need to harmonize these discrepancies. The Synoptics agree that there was at least the semblance of a trial before the Jewish authorities; John provides his counterpart in the hearings before Annas and Caiaphas (on Jewish judicial procedure, see Stewart). It was the Romans, however, who would try Jesus and eventually execute him. Comment

57 It is clear from this verse that the mob sent to apprehend Jesus had been sent by the Jewish authorities under the direction of the high priest. It is to his house that they return with their prisoner. On Caiaphas, see C om m ent on v 3. ol γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ί ς , “the scribes,” are no doubt m entioned here (and not in v 3 or v 47) because of the importance Torah scholars would have in legal matters such as might emerge in a “trial” (see F o rm /S tru c tu re /S e ttin g §D). On π ρ ε σ β ύ τ ε ρ ο ί, “elders,” see C om m ent on 16:21.

798

M a t t h e w 26:57-68

58 Peter, who had fled the scene of Jesus’ apprehension along with the other disciples (cf. v 56), apparently did not go far but subsequently followed the mob α π ό μ α κ ρ ό θ εν , “from a distance,” to the palace of the high priest. He went έ ω ς τ ή ς α υ λ ή ς , “as far as the courtyard,” which in v 3 refers to the palace itself but here to the courtyard of the palace (cf. v 69; see too Jo h n ’s explanation of how Peter’s entry into the courtyard was made possible [John 18:15-16]), and sat there with τ ω ν υ π η ρ ε τώ ν , “the servants” (perhaps “guards”; cf.John 7:32, 45-46; 18:3), waiting ί δ ε ΐ ν τ ό τ έ λ ο ς , “to see the outcome.” This parenthetical sentence has the purpose of preparing the reader for the account of Peter’s denial of Jesus in vv 69-75. 59 The Jewish authorities had perhaps begun to gather witnesses and formulate a case against Jesus immediately after Judas’ offer to betray Jesus into their hands. However, they were not prepared for the suddenness with which the “trial” came upon them, and so they were still interviewing witnesses and trying to build their case against him. Their goal was not justice but the end of Jesus. Thus they were seeking ψ ε υ δ ο μ α ρ τ υ ρ ία ν , “false testimony” (elsewhere in Matthew only in 15:19; cf. 19:18; Ps 27:12), a charge to use against Jesus ό π ω ς α υ τ ό ν Θ α να τώ σ ω σ ιν, “so that they might put him to death” (as had been the idea much earlier; cf. 12:14; 26:4). oi ά ρ χ ι ε ρ ε ϊ ς , “the chief priests,” play a very im portant role in the passion narrative (cf. vv 4, 14, 47). τ ό σ υ ν έ δ ρ ω ν δ λ ο ν , “the whole Sanhedrin,” need not be taken literally but as referring to the whole of the members then present, unless it anticipates the apparently fuller meeting of the Sanhedrin in the m orning (as in 27:1, where the parallel [Mk 15:1] refers to “the whole Sanhedrin”; cf. Luke 22:66). Gnilka suggests the possibility of a subcommittee charged with such matters. 60-61 They were at first frustrated in their attempt to find something they could use from among “the many false witnesses who came forward” ( π ο λ λ ώ ν π ρ ο σ ε λ θ ό ν τ ω ν ψ ε υ δ ο μ α ρ τύ ρ ω ν ). Then two men were found (δύο , “two”; for the importance of two witnesses, see 18:16; cf.John 8:17; Deut 17:6). Matthew avoids calling them “false witnesses,” apparently regarding their evidence as true and not wanting to deny that Jesus had said what is reported by the witnesses. The logion, “I am able to destroy [ κ α τ α λ ύ σ α ϊ] the temple of God [ τ ο ν ν α ό ν τ ο υ θεόν] and after three days to build it [ ο ίκ ο δ ο μ ή σ α έ ] ,” is not found as an utterance of Jesus in Matthew or the other Synoptics (a form of it is found in John 2:19; cf. Mark 14:58; Acts 6:14). It is, however, on the lips of passersby in 27:40, and thus Matthew assumes its authenticity. Matthew has referred to the destruction of the temple using the same verb, κ α τ α λ ύ ε ιν , “destroy,” in 24:2, but there it is not Jesus who does the destroying (for the unfounded charge that Jesus would destroy the temple, see Acts 6:14). Perhaps Matthew’s δ ύ ν α μ α ι, “I am able,” is regarded as more truthful than Mark’s “I will destroy” (Mark 14:58). Matthew also alludes to the resurrection of Jesus after three days (cf. in the m outh of the opponents, 27:63; cf. 12:40 and the Western text of Mark 13:2, which however probably depends on Mark 14:58) or, more regularly, on the third day (16:21; 17:23; 20:19). Νον/here, however, is there a reference to Jesus building the temple again in three days (for apocalyptic expectation of a rebuilding of the temple, see 1 E n o ch 90.29; 91.13; Tob 14:4; Gnilka also cites the Targum of Isa 53:5, which refers to the Messiah building a new tem ple). The accusation thus mixes together two quite separate matters, the destruction of the temple and the resurrection of Jesus.

Comment

799

The explanation for this may well be found in the combination of the two motifs seen in the Gospel of John (2:19-21) where, however, the temple is explicitly interpreted as referring to τ ο υ ν α ο ύ τ ο υ σ ώ μ α τ ο ς α ϋ τ ο υ , “the temple of his body,” and where there is also evidence that the metaphorical reference confused the Jews. The only difference with the present logion is that there is no reference to Jesus as the one who destroys the body. No doubt the complexity of the tradition is caused by this double meaning of “temple” and Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple and of his own death and resurrection after three days. 62-63a Matthew says nothing about how grievous this charge may have been regarded, but the fact that this testimony was allowed after much else had been refused suggests that the prosecutors believed it would be useful. To speak of destroying the temple or even of the temple being destroyed would definitely have been regarded as an extremely serious, indeed a treasonous, offense, one deserving of capital punishment (cf. Acts 6:13-14). Matthew’s δ ύ ν α μ α ι, “I am able” (v 61), however, has the effect of shifting attention to the authority or power claimed in such a statement. And it was in the personal claims of Jesus that the Jewish authorities thought their best hope of doing away with Jesus lay (thus the high priest’s question of v 63b). The high priest asks Jesus whether he has any response to the accusations made against him, no doubt hoping he would expose himself to further peril by what he said. Jesus, however, “kept silent” (έ σ ιώ π α ). In his trial before the Jewish authorities, as before Pilate (27:14), Jesus makes no attempt to defend himself. The silence of Jesus is an important motif in the passion narrative and perhaps alludes retrospectively to Isa 53:7 (for another strand of the motif of silence, see Pss 38:14; 39:9; cf. Gerhardsson, R B 76 [1969] 206-27). It was probably understood by Caiaphas as consent to the truthfulness of the charge brought against him. Jesus submits to the faulty reasoning of his accusers and opponents in order to accomplish the will of God and so to fulfill the scriptures (cf. vv 54, 56). His silence was a sovereign silence. 63b-64 The high priest’s next question is made even weightier in Matthew than it is in Mark by the addition of the solemn words έ ξ ο ρ κ ίζ ω σ ε κ α τ ά τ ο υ θ εο ύ τ ο υ ζ ώ ν τ ο ς , “I adjure you by the living God.” He charges Jesus under an oath to God (έ ξ ο ρ κ ίζ ω , “I adjure,” is used only here in the NT; ορκίζω , “I adjure,” is found in Mark 5:7) to answer his question truthfully. The modifier τ ο υ ζ ώ ν τ ο ς , “the living,” in reference to God is found also in 16:16 (see C om m ent). The question is whether Jesus considers himself to be b χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ό υ ιό ς τ ο ϋ θ ε ο ΰ , “the Messiah, the Son of God.” There is no need to suppose by this language that the high priest m eant exactly what the early church meant by this phrase in its Christology. That the Messiah would be the Son of God, even uniquely so (though of course metaphysically distinct from G od), was quite probably the high p rie st’s own understanding (for the view of the Son of God in Palestinian Judaism, see Hengel, Son o f God, esp. 41-56). For “Son of God,” see 14:33 (and C om m ent there); 16:16 (Messiah as Son of God); 27:40, 43, 54 (cf. John 11:27; 20:31). Jesus offers an answer to the direct question of the high priest, and it is an answer of the greatest significance. Nowhere does Jesus reveal himself more than here. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ response, given in the historical present tense for vividness, the words σ υ el π α ς , “you have said,” rather than being strictly evasive (or negative), amount to an affirmative answer (see esp. Catchpole; cf. v 25; 27:11 [to Pilate]; 27:43), but in a much less direct and emphatic way than Mark’s έ γ ώ ε ί μ ι , “I am ”

800

M a t t h e w 26:57-68

(Mark 14:62). In this alteration of Mark, Matthew probably intends to allow for qualification and to preserve the consistency of the indirectness of Jesus’ messianic claims, especially vis-a-vis his opponents, throughout his narrative. Matthew, whose Christology is generally more explicit than Mark’s, would not in principle have objected to Mark’s έ γ ώ β ίμ ι (cf. 14:27 and C om m ent there). Jesus’ affirmation of being the Messiah, the Son of God (the background for the two combined titles may have been Ps 2; see Lövestam), may not yet in itself have been sufficient grounds for the high priest to regard him as blaspheming. But when Jesus adds to his answer the quoted material from Dan 7:13 and the allusion to Ps 110:2, identifying himself as th a t trium phant figure—and thus more than the Messiah as a merely hum an agent—as the one who is “given dominion and glory and kingship” whom all will serve and whose kingdom will see no end (Dan 7:13-14), the one who sits at the right hand of God (Ps 110:1), the high priest reacts to what he regards as horrifying blasphemy (cf. v 65). In the face of such a startling claim (Moule, 194), his reaction is understandable, π λ ή ν , rather than being adversative in force, involves clarification of the meaning of Messiah (i.e., not one with present political aspirations), hence “furtherm ore” (see Catchpole, N T S 17 [1970-71] 213-26). λ έ γ ω ν μ ΐν , “I tell you,” though not the full formula (it lacks ά μ ή ν , “truly”; see C om m ent o n 5:18), functions to give the following statement the character of a pronouncement. Matthew’s ώ τ ’ ά ρ τ ι is difficult. If taken in its ordinary sense, i.e., “from now on,” it is not easy to understand how it can be applied to what they (Jesus addresses those present: ν μ ΐν , “you,” plural) “will see.” To begin with, we are probably m eant to take the expression in a general sense, m eaning in the near future rather than from that actual m om ent (cf. the use of the phrase in 23:39 where they did continue to see Jesus for a while). It can hardly be stretched, however, to m ean the distant future (as the NIV seems to take it). It is thus very possible to take it as referring to the events attending the crucifixion and the resurrection and its afterm ath, that is, in and through the amazing events that will soon follow in their experience (R. E. Brown: “in the storyline the Sanhedrists could have seen dram atic signs of Jesus’ vindication by G od” [Death of the Messiah, 504]; a kind o f “m ental seeing o f the Son o f Man sitting on G od’s right h an d ” [Gundry, 545]). The Jews will see, presumably at the parousia a n d /o r the final jud g m en t (cf. Rev 1:7), the Son of Man sitting at G od’s right hand; this, however, is som ething that will begin with the im m inent resurrection o f Jesus (cf. 28:18). A further possibility, however, is that the phrase is to be taken as referring n ot to the im m inent seeing but to the im m inent sitting of the Son of Man at G od’s right hand, which will take place in the im m ediate future in the resurrection of Jesus (thus Zahn, who criticizes an inept translation). This is the sense of Luke’s parallel άπό το ν vvv, “from the present,” in the easier statem ent of Luke 22:69: “From the present the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of G od”) . As a third possibility, b u t less probably, ά π ’άρτι could be taken as a single word with the quite rare m eaning “certainly” (cf. BAGD, 81a; BDF §12 [3]); thus: “Assuredly you will see the Son of M a n . . . . ” This avoids the problem of ά π ’ά ρ η being placed before δψβσθβ , “you will see,” but if this is what the evangelist m eant, he could have chosen m uch m ore obvious words or phrases.

Two key passages are combined here. The reference to “the Son of Man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven” is drawn almost verbatim from Dan 7:13 (the same material has been quoted in 24:30 and is also alluded to in 11:3; 16:27;

Comment

801

25:31; cf. 23:39; on this phrase, see Scott). The ready reference to the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus) in speaking about the Son of God shows simply that both titles could be used of the Messiah. The reference to “sitting at the right hand of the Power” is an allusion to Ps 110:1, cited earlier in 22:44 (cf. Mark 16:19; Acts 7:5556.; 1 E noch 69:27 [according to B and C]), where it is also used to elucidate the meaning of “Messiah,” “the Son of David.” See C om m ent on 22:44. “The Power” (from Heb. ΠΊΌ2, g eb ü rä h ; see Goldberg) is, of course, a way to refer to God without using the word “God” (the Hebrew text of Ps 110:1 refers to the right hand of Yahweh [LXX: κ ύ ρ ιο ς , “ L O R D ” ] ) . This circumlocution becomes a very important consideration in the question of the culpability of Jesus in his reply to the h igh. priest (cf. vv 65-66). Jesus in self-confession thus not only admits that he is the Messiah but goes on to elucidate his understanding of the Messiah in terms of the one like the Son of Man of Dan 7:13 and the Lord addressed in Ps 110:1 (cf. 22:41-46), this despite everything about the present moment that seems incompatible with such a statement. If not precisely claiming deity (cf. John 5:18; 10:33), Jesus was at least ranking himself with God in a unique status (cf. Lamarche, “La d eclaratio n ”). Thus Powell’s analysis proves co rrect when he writes th at “Matthew’s passion narrative must be read and interpreted in light of Matthew’s christology and, particularly, in light of Matthew’s concept of Jesus as the Son of God” (612). 65-66 The high priest finds Jesus’ words intolerable. They seem not only so obviously untruthful but also so outrageously self-aggrandizing—indeed, sacrilegious—that he reacts in horror and tears his garments. This symbolic action is m entioned in the OT in connection with m ourning (cf. Lev 10:6; 21:10; 2 Kgs 19:1), in the Mishna in connection with the pronouncing of the divine name ( m . S a n k. 7:5), and in Acts 14:14 in connection with Paul and Barnabas being accorded divine honors. The high priest’s statement έ β λ α σ φ ή μ η σ ε ν , “he has blasphemed,” and the following statement, “Look, now you have heard the blasphemy [ τ η ν β λ α σ φ η μ ί α ν ] ” have raised the question whether Jesus’ response and statement would technically have constituted blasphemy. According to the Mishna, “‘The blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself’ ( S a n h . 7:5; cf. in the OT Lev 24:10-23). In Matthew’s narrative (following Mark), however, Jesus avoids using even the word “God” (let alone pronouncing the divine name [i.e., Yahweh]), instead making use of the circumlocution τ η ς δ υ ν ά μ ε ω ς , “the Power” (v 64). This seems to be a deliberate attempt to show that Jesus was n o t guilty of blasphemy, at least technically, and that the cause of the high priest’s reaction lay elsewhere, i.e., in the personal claims of Jesus (cf. 9:3 in connection with forgiving sins, which is characterized as blasphemy). In fact, however, blasphemy was used in a wider sense to refer to any insult of God, for example, by an arrogation to oneself of prerogatives that belong to him alone (rightly R. E. Brown, D ea th o f the M essia h , 523). In that sense Jesus could well have been understood as being guilty of blasphemy (cf. v 64; see Linton; Lövestam; Dodd, 99). It was not the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah in itself that was considered grounds to do away with him; it was his personal delineation of that messiahship that did so (cf. John 19:7). “If the judges sought for a plea on which to condem n Jesus, his confession of the Messiahship would surely have sufficed, even if, in the most technical sense, it

802

M a t t h e w 26:57-68

was not blasphemy” (Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, 1:352). From this m oment the high priest’s case is made (cf. Luke 22:71), and Jesus’ fate is sealed. No further witnesses are necessary; what they might have offered has become redundant. The verdict of those present is έ ν ο χ ο ς θ α ν ά το υ έ σ τ ί ν , “he deserves to die.” This verdict is hardly based on any consideration of the evidence even if the unwarranted charge of blasphemy naturally brought with it the suggestion of the death penalty (Lev 24:16); it simply carries out the predetermined purpose of the Jewish authorities to do away with Jesus (cf. v 4). The verdict of capital punishment taken here was perhaps an informal one, later formalized by the meeting of a larger number of Sanhedrin members at the early morning meeting mentioned in 27:1 (see Comment ). The Jews themselves did not have the authority to carry out the death sentence (see Jeremias), so Jesus would have to be sent to the Roman authorities. 67-68 The mistreatment and mocking of Jesus reflect the hateful animosity of the Jewish leaders toward him. Spitting upon and striking a person (cf. the parallel 27:30 for the same deeds from the Romans) involve insult and pain. The early church soon found this treatment of Jesus to be the fulfillment of scripture (e.g., esp. the servant of Isa 50:6; 53:3, 5; cf. too Mic 5:1). The mocking includes the blindfolding of Jesus (assumed but not mentioned by Matthew; cf. Mark 14:65) and the request for him to “prophesy” ( π ρ ο φ ή τ ε υ σ ο ν ) , i.e., tell supernaturally, who was striking him. The address “Messiah” or “Christ,” which perhaps alludes to the confession in the trial, is, of course, used mockingly. The Messiah w ould be able to identify his mockers. But not for a minute did they suppose he could be what he claimed. He was for them at that moment a charlatan who deserved no respect. Explanation

It is clear that the Jewish authorities were biased against Jesus from the start and that it is hardly meaningful to call this hearing a “trial.” They were fixed in their purpose to have Jesus put to death, so they sought no justice here and contrived only the facade of propriety. They needed merely the thinnest case against him, only enough to trigger a self-incriminating (from their perspective) response. They got more than they expected from Jesus: not only his admission that he was the Messiah but the unbelievable statement, his self-confession, that he would sit at God’s right hand and that they would eventually see him in his glorious parousia, coming with divine glory. From their point of view, he suffered from a severe case of megalomania. He had gone too far in associating himself with God—which no doubt also accounted for his irresponsible behavior with regard to the law and the Pharisaic tradition. The impudent man and his movement had to be stopped. And thus in their zeal to be rid of Jesus, they unknowingly set in motion events that would forever and unshakably establish that movement. For the death of Jesus— the fate they deemed he deserved—is what fundamentally establishes the church. The one they now mock in their mistaken confidence is the one before whom they will some day stand as their judge. The Jewish people as a whole, of course, bear no responsibility for the death of Jesus. Still, there is no need to rewrite history to exculpate the Jews from their responsibility in the death of Jesus. As Stonehouse rightly notes: ‘There is a far deeper guarantee in Christianity of the rights of the Jew than any revision of one’s estimate of the actual course of the events connected

Translation

803

with the death of Jesus could provide” (69). Christians who want to assign responsibility for the death of Jesus should think of their own sin. And when they think of the Jews, they should think of their Lord and the source of their salvation.

Peter ’s D enial o f Jesus

(26:69-75)

Bibliography “P eter’s Denial as Polemic or Confession: T he Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical H erm eneutics.” Semeia 3 9 (1 9 8 7 ) 4 7 - 6 8 . D e r r e t t , J . D . M . ‘T h e Reason for the Cock-Crowings.” N T S 2 9 (1 9 8 3 ) 1 4 2 - 4 4 . E r n s t , J . “Noch einmal: Die Verleugnung Jesu durch Petrus (Mk 1 4 ,5 4 .6 6 - 7 2 ) .” In Petrus u n d Papst, ed. A. Brandenburg and H. J. Urban. Münster: Aschendorff, 1 9 7 7 .4 3 - 6 2 . G a r d in e r , W . D . ‘T h e Denial of St. Peter.”ExpTim 2 6 ( 1 9 1 4 - 1 5 ) 4 2 4 - 2 6 . G e r h a r d s s o n , B . “Confession and Denial before Men: Observations on Matt. 2 6 :5 7 - 2 7 :2 ”J S N T 1 3 (1 9 8 1 ) 4 6 - 6 6 . G e w a lt, D . “Die V erleugnung des Petrus.” LingBib 4 3 (1 9 7 8 ) 1 1 3 - 4 4 . G o g u e l, M . “Did Peter Deny His Lord?” H T R 25 (1 9 3 2 ) 1 -2 7 . G u y o t, G . H . “Peter Denies His L ord.” C B Q 4 (1 9 4 2 ) 1 1 1 - 1 8 . K le in , G . “Die Verleugnung des Petrus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche U ntersuchung.” Z T K 5 S (1 9 6 1 ) 2 8 5 - 3 2 8 . K o s m a la , H . ‘T h e Time of the Cock-Crow.” A S T I 2 (1 9 6 3 ) 1 1 8 - 2 0 ; 6 ( 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 ) 1 3 2 - 3 4 . K o s n e tte r , J . “Zur Geschichüichkeit d er Verleugnung Petri.” In Dienst an der Lehre. FS F. König. W iener Beiträge zur Theologie 10. Vienna: H erder, 1 9 6 5 . 1 2 7 - 4 3 . L a m p e , G . W . H . “St. Peter’s Denial.” BJRL 5 5 ( 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 ) 3 4 6 - 6 8 . L a tte y , C . “A Note on Cockcrow.” Scr 6 (1 9 5 3 ) 5 3 - 5 5 . L a V e r d i e r e , E . A . “P eter Broke Down and Began to Cry.” Em m anuel 9 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) 7 0 - 7 3 . L in n e m a n n , E . “Die Verleugnung des Petrus.” Z T K 6 3 (1 9 6 6 ) 1 - 3 2 . M a s s o n , E . “Le reniem ent de Pierre.” R H P R 3 7 (1 9 5 7 ) 2 4 - 3 5 . M a y o , C . H . “St. P eter’s Token of the Cock Crow.”J T S 2 2 (1 9 2 1 ) 3 6 7 - 7 0 . M c E le n e y , N . J . “P eter’s Denials-How Many? To W hom?” C B Q 52 (1 9 9 0 ) 4 6 7 - 7 2 . M e r k e l, H . “P eter’s Curse.” In The Trial o f Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2 .1 3 . London: SCM, 1 9 7 0 . 6 6 - 7 1 . M u r r a y , G . “Saint P eter’s Denials.” D R 1 0 3 (1 9 8 5 ) 2 9 6 - 9 8 . P e s c h , R . “Die Verleugnung des Petrus: Eine Studie zu Mk 1 4 ,5 4 .6 6 - 7 2 (und Mk 1 4 ,2 6 - 3 1 ) .” In Neues Testament u n d Kirche. FS R. Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder, 1 9 7 4 . 4 2 - 6 2 . R a m s a y , W . M . ‘T h e Denials o f Peter.” ExpTim 2 7 ( 1 9 1 5 - 1 6 ) 4 1 0 - 1 3 , 4 7 1 - 7 2 , 5 4 0 - 4 2 ; 2 8 ( 1 9 1 6 - 1 7 ) 2 7 6 - 8 1 . R i e s e n f e l d , H . ‘T h e M eaning of the Verb άρνβϊσθαί.” FS A. Fridrichsen. ConNT 11. Lund: Gleerup, 1 9 4 7 . 2 0 7 - 1 9 . R o t h e n a i c h e r , F. “Zu Mk. 1 4 ,7 0 u n d Mt. 2 6 ,7 3 .” B Z 2 3 ( 1 9 3 5 - 3 6 ) 1 9 2 - 9 3 . S c h w a n k , B . “Petrus verleugnet Jesus.” SänSend 2 9 ( 1 9 6 4 ) 5 1 - 6 5 . S m ith , P. V. “St. P eter’s Threefold Denial of O ur L ord.” Th 17 (1 9 2 8 ) 3 4 1 - 4 8 . T a y lo r, D . B . “Jesus-of N azareth?” ExpTim 9 2 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 3 3 6 - 3 7 . W a lte r, N . “Die Verleugnung des Petrus.” Theologische Versuche 8 (1 9 7 7 ) 4 5 - 6 1 . W e n h a m , J . W . “How Many Cock-Crowings? T he Problem of Harmonistic Text-Variants.” N T S 2 5 ( 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 ) 5 2 3 - 2 5 . Z u n tz , G . “A Note on Matthew XXVI. 3 4 and XXVI. 7 5 .”j T S 5 0 (1 9 4 9 ) 1 8 2 - 8 3 . B o o m e rs h in e , T . E .

Translation 69N o w Peter w as sittin g outside in the courtyard. A n d one se rv a n t g irl came u p to h im a n d said: “You too were w ith Jesu s the G alilean. ”a 70B u t he denied it before therrib a ll , saying: “I d o n ’t k n o w c w h a t y o u are ta lk in g about. ”d71A n d another se rva n t g ir l e saw h im w hen he cam e o u t to the entrance a n d sa id to those who were there: “T h is f m a n

804

Ma t t h e w 26:69-75

w as w ith Jesus the N azorean. ” 72A n d a g a in he denied w ith a n o a th :g “I do n o t kn o w the m a n . ” 73A n d after a little w hile those w ho h a d been s ta n d in g there came a n d sa id to Peter: “T ruly yo u to o h are one o f them , f o r i y o u r speech also betrays you. ”J 74T h e n he began to curse a n d to swear: “I do n o t kn o w the m a n ! ”A n d im m ediately the cock crowed. 75A n d Peter remembered the word w hich Jesu s h a d spoken:k “Before the cock crows y o u w ill deny m e three times. ”A n d he w en t o u t a n d cried bitterly.

Notes a C syP have Ναζωραίου, “N azorean,” perhaps by the influence the parallel in Mark 14:67 (cf. v 71). b “T h e m ” add ed in tran sla tio n Some MSS (A C* W Γ Δ / 1) include αύτών, “th em .” O n the o th er h an d , K h a s only αυτών, lacking πάντων, “all.” c D (Δ) f l it sf add ουδέ έπίσταμαι, “n o r do I u n d e rstan d ,” alm ost certainly from the parallel in M ark 14:68. d 77 λέγεις", lit. “what you are saying.” e άλλη, lit. “a n o th e r,” b u t since the word is fem inine, “servant girl” is understood. D it vg01 m ake it explicit by adding the word παιδίσκη. f Many MSS (A C L W Θ / U3 TR latt syPh bo) add καί, “also,” perhaps by the influence o f the L ukan parallel (Luke 22:59). See TCGNT, 65. s D it m ae add λέγων, “saying.” h D Θ / 1 sy* samss om it και σύ, “also you,” probably because o f the parallel in M ark 14:70. *C* Σ syh** ad d Γα,λιλαΐος el καί, “You are a Galilean a n d ,” by the influence o f the parallel in M ark 14:70. j δήλόν σε ποιεί, lit. “m akes you plain.” D it sys have ομοιάζει, “is similar (to Jesus’).” k Many MSS (A C W Θ / 1,13 TR sy sams m ae bo) add αύτω, “to him .”

Form,/Structure/Setting A . In turning to this story about Peter (thereby interrupting the narrative of what befell Jesus), this pericope concludes the motif of the abandonm ent of Jesus by his disciples and provides the account of the fulfillment of Jesus’ specific prediction concerning Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus (vv 33-35). The poignancy of Peter’s disloyalty to Jesus is deepened by the placement of this narrative between the account of Jesus before Caiaphas and the Jewish authorities and that of his appearance before Pilate. It is perhaps unexcelled in the Synoptics for its dramatic effect. The contrast of Peter’s denial with Jesus’ own confession (v 64) is deliberate. For the parallels between the passages (e.g., the three stages in each [see §C below]), see Gerhardsson,/SVT13 (1981) 46-66. B. Matthew follows Mark, as is his custom, but somewhat more freely in the present narrative than usual (Mark 14:66-72; cf. Luke 22:56-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27). The following are the more significant alterations. In v 69 Matthew omits Mark’s note (Mark 14:66-67) that the servant girl was “one of the high priest’s,” the repeated reference to her looking at Peter, and that Peter was Θ ερ μ α ιν ό μ ενο ι ;, “warming himself.” This reflects Matthew’s practice of abbreviating by removing details he regards as unnecessary (he had earlier deleted Mark’s reference to the fire (v 58; cf. Mark 14:54). In the same verse he replaces Mark’s Ν α ζ α ρ η ν ο υ , “Nazarene,” with Γ α λ ιλ α ίο ν , “Galilean” (but he uses Ν α ζ ω ρ α ίο υ in v 71 and avoids Mark’s Γ α λιλα ίο ς" in v 73). In v 70 he adds that Peter made his denial έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν π ά ν τ ω ν , “before everyone” (cf. Mark 14:68), in order to emphasize Peter’s fail-

Form/Structure/Setting

805

ure. On the other hand, in the same verse Matthew omits Mark’s ο ύ τ ε e iτ ίσ τ α μ α ι, “nor do I understand,” and Mark’s σ υ , “you” (emphatic subject), in order to abbreviate. In v 71 Matthew further omits κ α ι α λ έ κ τω ρ έφ ώ ν η σ ε ν , “and the cock crowed” (which, however, is textually doubtful), since he has previously reduced the number of cock crowings from two to one in Jesus’ foretelling of Peter’s denials (v 34; cf. Mark 14:30; cf. Wenham). In the same verse he replaces Mark’s π ρ ο α ύ λ ιο υ , “forecourt” (Mark 14:18), with the more common π υ λώ ν α , “gate.” Also in v 71 he turns Mark’s same η π α ιδ ίσ κ η , “servant girl” (cf. π ά λ ιν , “again” [Mark 14:69]), into ά λ λ η , “another,” servant girl (cf. Luke’s έ τ ε ρ ο ς , “another,” man [Luke 22:58]), this in keeping with his penchant for having two (or three) witnesses (cf. McEleney). Matthew further omits ίδ ο ϋ σ α α υ τ ό ν η ρ ξ α το π ά λ ιν , “seeing him began again” (Mark 14:69), replaces π α ρ ε σ τ ώ σ ιν , “standing,” with ε κ ε ί, “there,” and omits the recitative ό τ ι, “that”—all to abbreviate. He replaces ε ξ α ύ τ ώ ν έ σ τ ι ν , “is of them,” with ή ν μ ε τ ά Ί η σ ο ϋ τ ο υ Ν α ζω ρ α ίο υ, “was with Jesus the Nazorean,” perhaps for emphasis upon Peter’s denial of Jesus. In v 72 he supplies emphatic words to Mark’s simple notice that “again he denied” by adding μ ε τ ά όρκου ό τ ι ούκ ο ιδ α τ ο ν άνθρω πον, “with an oath: I do not know the m an” (cL Mark 14:70). In v 73 Matthew adds κ α ί σύ, “also you” (cf. Mark 14:70), for emphasis, and in the same verse he substitutes the explanatory ή λ α λ ιά σ ο υ δ ή λ ό ν σ ε π ο ιεί, “your speech betrays you,” for Mark’s Γ α λ ιλ α ίο ς ε ΐ, “you are a Galilean” (Mark 14:70). In v 74 he inserts his favorite initial τ ό τ ε , “then,” and omits Mark’s τ ο ύ τ ο ν ό ν λ έ γ ε τ ε , “this one of whom you speak” (Mark 14:71), probably for the sake of abbreviation. In the same verse Matthew omits έ κ δ ε υ τέ ρ ο υ , “a second time” (Mark 14:72), and in v 75 he omits δ ίς , “twice,” in keeping with a single crowing of the cock. Finally, also in the same verse, Matthew substitutes έξ ελθ ώ ν έξω , “having gone outside,” for Mark’s difficult έπ ιβ α λώ ν, “broke down” (?), and adds the touching adverb π ικ ρ ώ ς, “bitterly.” C. The pericope consists of the three charges and three escalating denials, which provide its basic structure, together with a brief account of Peter’s response. It may be outlined as follows: (1) the first charge and denial (vv 69-70); (2) the second charge and denial (vv 71-72); (3) the third charge and denial (vv 7374a); and (4) the crowing of the cock and Peter’s recollection of Jesus’ words (w 74b-75). Although Matthew avoids strict parallelism in his account of the charges and denials, some correspondences are noteworthy. The charges are made by μ ί α π α ιδ ίσ κ η , “one servant girl,” and ά λ λ η , “another (servant girl)” but in the third instance by oi έ σ τ ώ τ ε ς , “the bystanders.” While the first and third charges are addressed in the second person, κ α ί σ ύ , “you also,” the second charge is put in the third person, ο υ τ ο ς , “this one.” The first two charges accuse Peter of being μ ε τ ά Ί η σ ο ϋ , “with Jesus” (in the first modified by “the Galilean,” in the second by “the Nazorean”), while the third Charge accuses Peter of being έ ξ α ύ τώ ν , lit. “of them ,” and is intensified by the addition of ά λη θ ώ ς, “truly.” To the third charge, unlike the first two, is added the grounds of the charge. Whereas the verb ή ρ ν ή σ α τ ο , “he denied,” is used in the first two denials, in the second μ ε τ ά όρκου, “with an oath,” is added, and in the third the climactic η ρ ξ α τ ο κ α τ α θ ε μ ά τ ι ζ ε ι ν κ α ί ό μ ν ύ ε ιν , “he began to curse and to swear,” is used. Matthew, who supplies words of Peter in each denial, uses ο ύ κ οιδ α , “I do not know,” in all three instances but in the first has τ ι λ έ γ ε ι ς , “what you are saying,” as the object and in the sec-

806

M a t t h e w 26:69-75

ond and third the identical and more specific τ ο ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν, “the m an,” thereby making the second and third denials identical (vv 72, 74). Thus the pericope is artistically constructed with an excellent sense of progression and dramatic climax, even to the last word, π ικ ρ ώ ς , “bitterly.” Comment 69-70 V 69a connects with and continues the narrative begun in v 58, where Peter was left sitting in the courtyard. The servant girls of w 69, 71 had perhaps been among the crowds who had seen Jesus teaching and recognized Peter as having been with him (κ α ί σ υ, “you too,” is emphatic). Jesus is referred to as τ ο ν Γ α λ ιλα ίο ν, “the Galilean,” only here in the NT, except for Luke 23:6 (cf. Matt 21:11). The charge involved the implicit threat that Peter too might be apprehended and suffer the same fate as that of Jesus (which ironically was what Peter had said he was prepared to do; cf. v 35). Peter, in the grip of fear (pace Gardiner, who argues for stubborn self-will), έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν π ά ντω ν, “before all,” i.e., all who overheard the woman’s comment, denies that what she says is true: “I don’t know what you are talking about.” Peter thus denies even knowing about the matter, let alone being personally associated with Jesus. And ironically he makes his denials at the same time that Jesus boldly confesses his identity in response to the high priest’s question. Here (and in v 72) the word ά ρ ν εΐσ θ α ι, “deny,” recalls both Jesus’ prediction (v 34) and the warning of 10:33 (on the meaning of the word, see Riesenfeld). It anticipates the problem of persecution and apostasy in the later church (see Lampe). 71-72 Peter, apparently sensing imm inent personal threat and wishing to avoid any further questioning, begins to leave the courtyard (έ ξ ε λ θ ό ν τ α ε ις ' τ ο ν π υ λώ να , “having gone into the entrance”) only to be encountered by another servant girl who, recognizing him, makes the same charge, which is now, however, addressed to those standing there: ο ν τ ο ς ή ν μ ε τ ά Ι η σ ο ύ τ ο ν Ν α ζω ρ α ίο ν , “this one was with Jesus the Nazorean.” Reference to Jesus as “the Nazorean” (on Ν α ζω ρ α ίο ς', see C om m ent on 2:23) is fairly common in the NT (2:23; Luke 18:37; John 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9; the alternate form Ν α ζ α ρ η ν ό ς *, “Nazarene,” is preferred by Mark [Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6]). Since Nazareth was a city in Galilee, the appellation is only a further specification of the latter. Peter’s denial (note: π ά λ ιν , “again”) is now made μ ε τ ά δρ κο ν, “with an oath,” i.e., with all the more strength (on the force of an oath, cf. 14:7, 9 and the teaching of Jesus in 5:33, here violated), and with the statement ο ν κ ο ΐδ α τ ο ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν, “I do not know the m an.” The reader cannot miss the deliberately impersonal “the m an” (cf. v 74 for the same sentence verbatim). The Son of Man has become to the first of the disciples an anonymous “the m an.” 73-74a μ ε τ ά μ ικ ρ ό ν , “after a little while,” a third charge comes, this time from others standing there, now men (as the masculine participle indicates) and thus more seriously threatening than the accusations of the women servants. Having heard him speak, they recognized his distinctive Galilean accent. ‘Truly [ά λη θ ω ς],” they claim, “you too [again emphatic] are one of them [ έ ζ α ύ τ ώ ν ] ,” i.e., one of the disciples of Jesus, most of whom were Galileans. The present tense ε ΐ, “are,” is deliberate and all the more threatening to Peter. As evidence for their claim, they add “your speech [λ α λ ιά ] betrays you,” lit. “makes you obvious.” This is not

Explanation

807

the only time the Galilean Peter would become conspicuous in Judea (cf. Acts 4:13, where, however, the nuance is a little different). Peter’s self-defensive reaction is vehement: he begins to curse and to swear, κ α τ α θ ε μ ά τ ι ζ ε t v , “to curse,” and ό μ ν ύ ε ίν , “to swear,” are difficult to distinguish in meaning: both may involve appeal to a deity’s wrath to come upon oneself if the statement being made is not true. On the other hand, the first verb may possibly assume Jesus as its direct object, i.e., that Peter cursed or reviled Jesus (thus Merkel; Gerhardsson, JSNT 13 [1981] 46-66). The response ο ύ κ ο ΐδ α τ ο ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν , “I do not know the m an,” is exactly the same as his second response (v 72). Gerhardsson puts it graphically: “In order to save his skin he howls with the wolfpack” (JSAT 13 [1981] 55). 74b-75 The dramatic effect of the short sentence κ α ί ευ θ έω ς ά λέκ τω ρ έφ ώ νησ εν, “and immediately the cock crowed,” is especially powerful. The narrative repeats the prediction of Jesus (originally reported in v 34) and records Peter’s reaction to hearing the cock crow and remembering the words of Jesus. The story ends with the brief, but especially poignant, έ κ λ α υ σ ε ν πικρω ς, “he wept bitterly.” Peter “does not rend his garments but he ‘rends his heart’” (Gerhardsson, J S N T 13 [1981] 62). The reference to the “cock crowing” here does not refer to the marking of the Roman watch (12:00-3:00 A.M.) by that name (pace Mayo, Kosmala; see R. E. Brown, D eath o f the M essiah , 606) and is not used as a time indicator (nor does it have to do with evil spirits, pace Derrett). It points rather to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in v 34 and at the same time, as a dramatic touch, serves to heighten Peter’s shameful failure. Explanation

Peter’s guilt is not greater than that of the other disciples who abandoned Jesus and who thus in effect also denied him. It is, of course, far more conspicuous because of the present passage. Peter is singled out, however, not merely because of his boastful claim that he would never deny Jesus even if it meant death (all the disciples spoke similarly according to v 35) but more particularly because of his central importance in Matthew. Peter, even when he was first designated “the rock,” had been unable to face the prospect of a suffering Messiah (16:21-23), nor, we may be sure, did he relish the words then spoken by Jesus about the need for his disciples to take up their cross and to be willing to lose their lives for his sake (16:24-25). Now he had faced precisely that challenge and had failed miserably. We cannot be surprised at the bitterness of his soul at that moment. The fact that Peter, the prime apostle, the “rock” upon which Jesus promised to build his church, could exhibit this human weakness and failure should provide both a warning (cf. esp. 10:33) and encouragement to disciples of Jesus who read the Gospel of Matthew. Obviously it can never be appropriate for disciples to become overconfident in their own strength. The problem of human weakness must always be realistically faced, especially in cases when it is magnified by fear. (These insights are confirmed by Gewalt from a literary-critical point of view.) But if failure occurs, there is also the prospect of forgiveness and restoration (presupposed in Matthew [cf. the reference to “the eleven” in 28:16], where however Peter’s name does not occur again; cf. Mark 16:7; Luke 24:12; John 20:2-7; 21:15-23). The Gospel of Matthew, for all its emphasis on the rigors of discipleship, is not overly optimistic about human performance. But neither is it lacking in emphasis upon forgiveness (e.g., 1:21; 9:2, 5-6; 12:31-32; 26:28).

808

M a t t h e w 27:1-2

Jesus Is H anded over to Pilate

(27:1—2)

Bibliography “W ho Has A uthority?” E xpT im 94 (1983) 146-47. M c G in g , B . C . “Pontius Pilate an d the Sources.” C B Q 5 3 (1991) 416-38.

K e rr, I.

Translation

1And when morning had come, all the chiefpriests and the elders of the people tooka counsel together againstJesus with the resulting verdict thatb he should be put to death. 2And having bound him, they led him away and handed himc over to Pilate d the governor Notes a ελα βον , “ took.” D vgmss mae bo have έπ ο ίη σ α ν, “made” (a consultation), by the influence of the parallel in Mark 15:1. b “With the resulting verdict that” translates the simple ώ σ τε, lit. “so that.” c “Him” added, supplying direct object. Many MSS (A [C3] W Θ / 1,13TR) insert the α ύτόν, “him.” d Many MSS (A C W Θf 1,13TR latt syh) insert Ποντίω , “Pontius,” before “Pilate.” Since there is no reason for its deletion, it was probably added to supply the full name. See TCGNT, 65.

Form /Structure/Setting

A. Having established that Jesus should be put to death, the Jewish authorities proceed to the next stage of the process by turning him over to the Romans. The action introduced here is continued in vv 11-37 after the parenthetical account of the end of Judas (vv 3-10). B. Matthew continues to be dependent on Mark, again following his source quite closely (cf. Mark 15:1; cf. Luke 23:1; John 18:28). Matthew recasts the beginning of v 1 with a genitive absolute, πρω ίας' γ ε ν ο μ έ ν η ς , “when it was morning,” and omits Mark’s ε υ θ ύ ς , “immediately,” as unnecessary. He replaces Mark’s π ο ιή σ α ν τ ε ς , lit. “having made,” with έλα β ο ν, “took” (used consistently with σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ω ν , “counsel,” in Matthew; cf. 12:14; 22:15; 27:7; 28:12). Matthew inserts π ά ν τ ε ς , “all,” before ol ά ρ χ ίε ρ ε ΐς , “the chief priests,” meaning again “all who were there”; he identifies the π ρ ε σ β ύ τ ε poL, “the elders,” as τ ο ν λ α ο ύ , “of the people” (as often elsewhere, e.g., 21:23; 26:3, 47, though never so in Mark); and he omits Mark’s κ α ι γ ρ α μ μ α τ έ ω ν κ α ι δ λ ο ν τ ο σ υ ν έ δ ρ ω ν , “and scribes and the whole Sanhedrin,” perhaps regarding the latter as tautologous or as an overstatement though there seems to be no reason for the omission of the scribes, except abbreviation, since they are earlier mentioned as involved in the proceedings (cf. 26:57; 27:41). Matthew adds the reason for the gathering in the words κ α τ ά τ ο ύ ’Ι η σ ο ύ ώ σ τ ε Θ ανα τώ σαι α ύ τό ν , “again stJe sus so that they might put him to death.” In v 2 he replaces τ ο ν Ί η σ ο ύ ν , ‘Jesus,” with the pronoun α ύ τ ό ν , “him,” no doubt because he has used the name Jesus in the addition just mentioned. Matthew also adds τω ή γ ε μ ό ν ι , “the governor,” after the first reference to Pilate’s name, providing a note of specific identification.

Bibliography

809

Comment

1-2 π ρ ω ία ς δ έ γειρ ό μ εν η ς, “and when it was morning,” refers probably to first daylight. The phrase σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ω ν ελα β ο ν, “took counsel,” occurs also in 12:14; 22:15; 27:7; 28:12 (the last two employing the participle λ α β ό ν τ ε ς , “having taken”). The last two instances, as here, may refer to formal meetings. In the present case we probably have a defacto second meeting of the Jewish authorities that same morning (cf. Luke 22:66)—still not legal by Mishnaic standards but perhaps somewhat more formal than in 26:57-68 and probably with more members of the Sanhedrin in attendance. Perhaps too the decision taken (as σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ω ν ελα β ο ν, “took counsel,” may be understood) may be regarded as more formally official than the opinion expressed in 26:66. Alternatively, this meeting may be considered the final stage of the meeting described in 26:57-68 (thus R. E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 632). Taking the decision are π ά ν τ ε ς oi ά ρ χ ιε ρ ε ΐ ς κ α ί oi π ρ ε σ β ύ τ ε ρ ο ι τ ο ύ λαού, “all the chief priests and the elders of the people,” which appears to be a favorite Matthean shorthand for the Jewish authorities (cf. 21:23; 26:3, 47). The decision is κ α τ ά τ ο υ Ι η σ ο ύ , “against Jesus,” and involves the death penalty, ώ σ τ ε θ α να τώ σ α ι α ύ τ ό ν , “so that they should put him to death.” Since the execution of the death penalty was probably not allowed to them (cf. John 18:31b), they bind Jesus as a criminal and hand him over (for the verb π α ρ α δ ίδ ό ν α ί, see Comment on 17:22) to the Romans and specifically to Pilate, τω ή γ ε μ ό ν ί, “the governor.” Pilate was praefectus (“prefect,” a position somewhat later designated “procurator”), the fifth over Judea, from A.D. 26/27 to 36. His nomen (representing the tribe), “Pontius,” is given in Luke 3:1; Acts 4:27; 1 Tim 6:13. On Pilate, cf. Josephus Ant. 18.2.2 §35; 18.3.1-2 §§55-62; 18.4.1-2 §§85-89; J.W. 2.9.2-4 §§169-77; and Philo, De legatione ad Gaium 299-305. Pilate, who would normally have been resident in Caesarea Maritima, was conveniently in Jerusalem to provide some control during the Passover feast. For particularly useful studies of Pilate the man, see McGing; R. E. Brown, “Appendix IV: Overall View of Judas Iscariot,” in Death of the Messiah, 1394-1418. Explanation

The fate of Jesus is decided by the Jewish authorities, although it is the Romans who must finally carry out the sentence against Jesus. This is not the last mention of Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus in Matthew, however, which comes to a kind of climax later in the chapter (vv 20-25). It is a motif the evangelist does not shy away from, despite his own Jewish background. It is also a motif that has had tragic and un-Christian consequences in the hatred and persecution of the Jewish people as a whole. See further the Explanation for 27:15-26.

Ju d a s a nd the Blood Money

(2 7:3-10)

Bibliography Benoit, P. “T he Death of Ju d as.” In J esu s a n d the Gospel. New York: H erder, 1973. 1:189207. B ernard, J. H. “T he D eath of Judas: Mt 27.3-10.” E xp , 6th series, 9 (1904) 422-30.

810

M a t t h e w 27:3-10

B e tz , O . ‘T h e D ichotom ized Servant and the E nd of Judas Iscariot.” R e v Q 5 (1964) 43-58. B r u c e , F. F. ‘T h e Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative.” BJRL 43 (1960-61) 336-53. C o le lla , P . ‘T re n ta denari.” R ivB 21 (1973) 325-27. C o n a r d , A . ‘T h e Fate o f Judas: Matthew 27:3-10.” T f T 7 (1991) 158-68. D e s a u te ls , L . “La m ort de Judas (M t 27,3-10; A c 1,15-26).” ScEs 38 (1986) 221-39. E s c a n d e , J . ‘Judas et Pilate prisonniers d ’une m em e structure (Mt 27,1-26).” F V 78 (1979) 92-100. F in d la y , J . A . T h e First Gospel and the Book of Testimonies.” In A m icitiae Corolla, ed. H. G. Wood. London: University of London, 1933. 57-71. H a u g g , D . Judas Iskarioth in den neutestamentlichen B erichten. Freiburg: Herder, 1930. H e r b e r , J . “La m ort de Judas.” R H R 129 (1945) 47-56. J e r v e ll, J . T h e Field of Jesus’ Blood: Mt. 27, 3-10.” NorT T 69 (1968) 59-73. Kla u c k , H .-J . Judas— ein Jünger des Herrn. QD 111. Freiburg: H erder, 1987. L a k e , K . T h e Death of Judas.” In The Beginnings o f Christianity: Part 1: The Acts o f the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake. New York: Macmillan, 1933. 5:22-30. M a n n s , F. “U n m idrash chretien: Le reck de la m o rt de Judas.” RevSR 54 (1980) 197-203. M e n k e n , M . J . J . T h e References to Jerem iah in the Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 2,17; 16,14; 27,9).” E T L 60 (1984) 5-24. M o e s e r, A . G . T h e Death of Judas.” BiTod 30 (1992) 145-51. M o o , D . J . T ra d itio n and O ld Testam ent in Matt 27:3-10.” In Gospel Perspectives, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. 3:157-75. M u n ro , J . I . T h e D eath of Judas (Matt, xxvii.3-8; Acts i.18-19).” ExpTim 24 (1912-13) 235-36. Q u e s n e l, M . “Les citations de Jerem ie dans l’evangle selon saint M atthieu.” EstBib 47 (1989) 513-27. R e in e r , E . T h irty Pieces of Silver.” In Essays in Memory o f E. A . Speiser, ed. W. W. Hallo. J A O S 88 (1968) 186-90. R o q u e f o r t, D . ‘Judas: U ne figure de la perversion.” E T R 58 (1983) 501-13. S c h w a rz , W . “Die D oppelbedeutung des Judastodes.” B L it 57 (1984) 227-33. S e n io r, D . “A Case Study in M atthean Creativity: Matthew 27: 3-10.” B R 19 (1974) 2 3 -2 6 .———. T h e Fate o f the Betrayer: A Redactional Study o f Matthew XXVII,3-10.” E T L 48 (1972) 372-426. S p a rk s , H . F. D . “St. Matthew’s References to Jerem iah.”J TSn.s. 1 (1950) 155-56. S te in -S c h n e id e r, H .

“A la recherche du Judas historique: U ne enquete exegetique ä la lum iere des textes de l'Ancien Testem ent et des Logia.” E T R 60 (1985) 403-29. S tre c k e r, G . “Die Judasperikope (Mt. 27,3-10).” In Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht, 1962. 7682. S u tc lif f e . E . E “Matthew 27:9.”J T5n.s. 3 (1952) 227-28. T ilb o r g , S . v a n . “Matthew 27:310: An Intertextual Reading.” In Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. FS B. van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma. Kämpen: Kok, 1989. 159-74. U n n ik , W . C . v a n . T h e Death of Judas in Saint M atthew’s Gospel.” In Gospel Studies. FS S. E. Johnson, ed. Μ. H. Shepherd and E. C. Hobbs. ATR Supplem ent Series 3. Evanston, IL: Anglican Theological Review, 1974. 44-57. U p to n , J . A . T h e P otter’s Field and the Death of Judas.” Concordia J o u r n a l 8 (1982) 213-19. V o g le r, W . Judas Iskarioth. Theologische Arbeiten 42. Berlin: Evangelische, 1983.

Translation

3Then when Judas, the one who betrayeda him, saw that Jesus b was condemned to death,c he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief pnests and elders, 4saying: “1 have sinned in having betrayed innocentd blood. " But they said: “What difference is that to us? That's your problem. ”e 5And when he had thrown the silver piecesf into the temple,g he departed. And he went and hanged himself 6And the chiefpriests, having taken up the silver pieces, said: “It is not permitted to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money. " 7And when they had counseled together, they bought the “potter's field" with the silver pieces h as a burial place for aliens. 8Therefore that field was called the “field of blood" up to the present. 9Then the wordi was fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah,j which says: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the precious One k upon whom a price had been set by the children1of Israel, 10and they mgave the silver pieces nfor thefield of the potter, just as the Lord commanded me."

F o rm /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

811

Notes a παραδιδούς, lit. “betraying.” Many MSS (KA C W Θf1,13 TR) have the aorist participle παραδούς, lit. “having betrayed.” b ‘Jesus” added for clarity, specifying the subject of the passive verb. c “To death” added to translation for clarity. d Some MSS (B1L Θ latt sys samss mae bo) have δίκαιον, “righteous,” perhaps by the influence of 23:35. See TCGNT, 66. e t l προς ημάς; σϋ όψη, lit. “What [is that] to us? You see [to it]. ” f 8 adds τριάκοντα, “thirty,” probably by the influence of v 3. g εις τον ναόν (K B L Θ f 13). Many MSS (ACWf 1TR) have εν τω ναω, “in the temple,” which suggests that Judas was in the temple complex rather than outside. Throwing the silver pieces from the outside, as suggested by εις τον ναόν, implies “strong emotion and physical exertion.” TCGNT, 66. h έξαύτών, lit. “from them.” i “Word” added for clarity. j A few MSS correct Ίερεμίου, “Jeremiah,” to Ζαχαρίου, “Zechariah” (22 syhmg armmss), and some simply omit the name altogether (Φ 33 ita,b vgms sye,p,pal boms). Two MSS (21 it1) have “Isaiah.” See TCGNT, 66-67. k τον τετιμημένον, lit. “the one having been priced.” However, this can also be translated “the valued One” or “the precious One” (so NJB; NRSV margin). See Comment. 1άπό υιών ’Ισραήλ, “by the sons of Israel.” mSome MSS (KB2vidW sy) have εδωκα, “I gave,” perhaps through the influence of Zech 11:13 (cf. μοι, “to me,” at the end of the sentence). A*vidhas εδωκεν, “he gave.” See TCGNT, 67. n αυτά, lit. “them.” Form/Structure/Setting

A. Matthew at this point inserts the story of Judas’ remorse and suicide together with the account of the purchase of the potter’s field with his thirty pieces of silver. Matthew, the only Gospel with this story, has probably included it because of the correspondence between certain elements of historical tradition concerning the end of Judas and material in Zechariah, which leads him to the last of his special formula quotations stressing fulfillment. Thus, although this story interrupts the narrative of the condemnation of Jesus, it has the desirable effect of further indicating God’s sovereign control over the events having to do with the betrayal and death of Jesus (cf. 26:54, 56). B. In the present pericope, Matthew departs from his Markan source, used throughout the passion narrative. The evangelist is probably working creatively with traditional materials at his disposal. The only other NT account of the fate of Judas is found in Acts 1:15-20, which, however, differs from the present narrative in im portant respects (see Benoit). Nevertheless, there is an im portant connection between the two passages in the common reference to the “field of blood” (Acts 1:19). Another relatively early account of Judas’ death is found in the obviously elaborated and fictional narrative in Papias, Fragment 3 (preserved by Apollinarus of Laodicea [for the Greek text, see Lake, 23, and for ET, see R. E. Brown, Death o f the Messiah, 1408-9]). C. Matthew’s main goal in the pericope is obviously the fulfillment quotation with which it ends. The pericope is shaped with this in mind from the start, i.e., in the reference to Judas’ return of the thirty pieces of silver (v 3) but also clearly in the deliberation of the chief priests and their purchase of the field (vv 6-8). This is an o th er exam ple of haggadic m idrash (Gnilka: haggada; Benoit:

812

M a t t h e w 27:3-10

“midrashic interpretation” [206]) based on the quoted matter of the OT similar to that encountered also in the infancy narrative and in the temptation narrative of 4:1-11. This fact, however, does not necessarily exclude the reality and use of historical traditions here. The following outline may be suggested: (1) Judas’ change of mind and return of the money (vv 3-4); (2) the suicide of Judas (v 5); (3) the purchase of the potter’s field (vv 6-8); and (4) the consequent fulfillm ent of scripture ( v v 9-10). The m ost notable structural feature is the correspondence between the narrative section and the quotation in the reference to τ ά τ ρ ιά κ ο ν τ α ά ρ γ ύ ρ ια , “the thirty pieces of silver” (vv 3, 9), and to τ ο ν ά γ ρ ό ν τ ο ν κ ε ρ α μ έ ω ς , “the field of the potter” (vv 7, 10). Comment

3 When Judas, δ π α ρ α δ ιδ ο ν ς α υ τ ό ν , “the one betraying him ” (he is described similarly in 26:25, 48), saw that Jesus had been “condem ned” (κ α τ ε κ ρ ίθ η ; the same verb is used in the prophecy of 20:18), he “changed his m ind” about what he had done. It is impossible to know how Judas may have been affected psychologically by his act of betrayal. However, a high degree of remorse, if not technically repentance (μ ε τ α ν ο ε ΐ ν would have been used in that case, with more positive connotations), is implied in the participle μ ε τ α μ ε λ η θ ε ί ς , “regretted” (used also in 21:29, 32), and is confirmed by his statement in v 4 as well as by his deed in v 5b. The money he had obtained, τ ά τ ρ ι ά κ ο ν τ α ά ρ γ ύ ρ ια , “the thirty pieces of silver” (cf. 26:15), now became reprehensible to him, and he attempted to return it to “the chief priests and elders” (see v 1). 4-5 Judas is painfully aware of the injustice he has committed against Jesus. He thus declares that he “has sinned” ( ή μ α ρ τ ο ν ) in his betraying of α ΐμ α άθω ον , “innocent blood,” a common expression in the OT. A specific injunction against doing just what Judas did is found in Deut 27:25: “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood [LXX: α ί μ α τ ο ς ά θ ω ο ν\.” Since it is obviously as wrong to give such a bribe as to take one, the Jewish authorities are themselves also guilty. This fact they ignore, however, in their response, τ ί π ρ ο ς η μ ά ς , lit. “what [is that] to us?” The process has gone too far to be reversed, and the Jewish authorities have no interest in regaining the money they had paid, let alone absolving Judas of his crime, σ ύ όψη, lit. “you see [to it] ” (the future tense is here, as in v 24, imperatival [BDF §362]), essentially turns the problem back upon Judas. (V 24 uses the same expression when Pilate refuses to find Jesus guilty; in the same verse Pilate declares himself άθω ος , “innocent,” of τ ο ν α ί μ α τ ο ς , “the blood,” of Jesus.) No doubt loathing himself as well as the Jewish authorities, Judas throws the coins ε ι ς τ ο ν ν α ό ν , “into the temple,” i.e., into the temple area (cf. Zech 11:13), perhaps through a gate or over the wall into the area restricted to the priests (an allusion to the practice referred to in m. cA rak. 9:4 seems unlikely, pace Gnilka). The short notice of Judas’s end is given in three words: κ α ι ά π ε λ θ ώ ν ά π ή γ ξ α τ ο , “and he went away and hanged himself’ (ά π ά γ χ ε σ θ α ι is used only here in the NT; cf. 2 Sam 17:23 [but deliberate allusion to Ahithophel seems unlikely; with Gnilka; Moo, T he O ld Testam en t in the Gospel P assion N arratives , 190; pace R. E. Brown, D eath o f the M essiah , 643, 656]; Tob 3:10). Acts 1:18 attributes Judas’s death to a cause other than suicide, reflecting God’s judgm ent (for an early attempt to harmonize the disparate ac-

C om m ent

813

counts, see Papias, Fragment 3 [see F o rm /S tru ctu re/S ettin g §B]). From a Greco-Roman perspective, suicide was the only honorable deed for one who betrayed his teacher (thus Moeser; but it is unclear how much Judas the Jew would have been influenced by this perspective). 6 Because the money was “blood money” ( τ ι μ ή α ίμ α τ ο ς , lit. “the price of blood,” i.e., “of a bloody deed”), it was contaminated and abhorrent to God (cf. Deut 23:18). Therefore, it could not be deposited ε ι ς τ ο ν κ ο ρ β α ν ά ν , “in the (temple) treasury” (from Aramaic qorbäntf; cf. J o s .,/. W 2.9.4 §175 and the word κ ο ρ β α ν , “Korban” or “gift,” in Mark 7:11), the place from which it presumably had come. This much the chief priests would admit, though they are quite oblivious to their own complicity. On the importance of the notion of “blood money” (contrast “innocent blood”) to the formation of the pericope and its place in the passion narrative, cf. Senior, E T L 48 (1972) 372-46. 7-8 The chief priests then agree (the language is the same as in v T. they “took counsel,” or “decided”) to use the money for something practical (and religiously correct) and buy with it a piece of land, identified by Matthew as τ ο ν ά γ ρ ό ν τ ο ν κ ε ρ α μ έ ω ς , “the field of the potter” (cf. the Hebrew of Zech 11:13), ε ι ς τ α φ ή ν τ ο ΐ ς ζ έ ν ο ις , “for a burial place for aliens” (i.e., for non-Jews, who were not allowed to be buried in the same cemetery with Jews). For this reason (δ ιό , “wherefore”), i.e., because the field was purchased with “blood money” (v 6), it became known as ο ά γ ρ ό ς α ί μ α τ ο ς , “the field of blood,” as it continued to be known down to the evangelist’s own day (probably south-southwest of Jerusalem, across the valley of Hinnom). Acts 1:19 knows too of this “field [but χ ω ρ ίο ν rather than α γ ρ ό ς ] of blood,” referring to it also using the transliterated Aramaic equivalent Ά κ ε λ δ α μ ά χ , “Hakeldamach” (= ΚζΓΤ bprj, haqel d em a 5). The story in Acts, however, connects the naming of the field to the m anner of Judas’ death in that field rather than to the kind of money used to buy it. 9-10 Matthew’s last fulfillment quotation (see Hagner, M a tth e w 1 -1 3 , liii-lvii) is fraught with difficulties. To begin with, the quotation is attributed to 7 ε ρ ε μ ίο ν τ ο ν π ρ ο φ ή τ ο ν , “Jeremiah the prophet,” although it is taken mainly from Zech 11:13, where the shepherd doomed to slaughter (Zech 11:7) is valued at and paid “thirty shekels of silver” and instructed to throw the money to “the potter” (ΊΚΤ, yoser, LXX: χ ω ν ε ν τ ή ρ ιο ν , “foundry,” i.e., “to the m oulder” or “smelter”; Syriac Peshitta has “treasury” [thus NSRV]). Almost certainly it is the reference to “the potter” in Zechariah that brought to mind the book of Jeremiah, where the potter assumes such a large role, causing the evangelist to cite it here (cf. Jer 18:1-12; 19:1-15) or causing the early church to relate and perhaps conflate the two passages. A rather less likely connection is with the reference to the buying of the field with seventeen shekels of silver in Jer 32:6-9. (Nowhere in Jeremiah are the potter and the field brought together, however.) The quotation as Matthew gives it is somewhat closer to the Hebrew than to the LXX. T he opening words, to be sure, are essentially Septuagintal: και ίλαβον τά τριάκοντα άργύρια (LXX: τούς τριάκοντα άργνρους), “and I [or ‘they’] took the thirty silver coins.” Matthew’s n ext words, την τιμήν του τετιμημένου ον έτιμήσαντο, “the price of the one having been priced [or ‘the precious O n e ’], whom they priced,” however, are closer to the H ebrew (ΤΠΡτ Ί£Υϊ TW*, >eder hayqar >aser yaqarti, “the m agnificence of the price with which I was p riced”) than to the LXX. T he awkward redundancy of Matthew’s

814

Ma t t h e w 27:3-10

G reek is alleviated if one translates τον τετιμ η μ ένο ν as “the precious O n e ” (so NJB, NRSVm argin). Som ething that is “p riced ” can from an o th er perspective be understood as “valued as precious,” and this may well be how M atthew’s Christian readers u n d erstood the participle (M cNeile). This difference in nuance may also be related to differen t vocalizations o f ipTT, i.e., “IpTl, hayqär, “the p rice”; Ί£ΤΙ, hayaqar, “the h o n o red o n e ” (Moo, ‘T rad itio n ,” 158). M atthew’s άπο υιών Ισραήλ, “by the sons of Israel,” is n o t found in the H ebrew O T or in the LXX and is simply M atthew’s expansion o f “by th em ,” with the action o f the Jewish authorities in m ind (the άπό probably reflects the H eb. ]□, min, in a partitive sense, i.e., “some o f the sons o f Israel”; cf. Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 126). T he words of v 10, καϊ εδωκαν αύτά εις' τον άγρον του κεραμέων, “and they gave them for the field of the potter,” similarly find no actual counterpart in the OT (though, as indicated above, Jerem iah has references b o th to the p o tter and to the buying of a field). T he final clause, καθά σννέτα ξένμ ο ι κύριος', “ju st as the Lord com m anded m e,” a clause th at is frequently found in the LXX w ithout the μο ι, “m e,” probably uses form ulaic language to reflect the opening of Zech 11:13, καί εΐπ εν κύριος' προς' με, “and the L ord said to m e”—which probably is also the explanation of the discordant μοι, “m e ” (the preceding verbs in the quotation are all plural, including the am biguous ελαβον, “they took,” which in the LXX is first person singular; i.e., it is the p ro p h et who takes the m oney). It is rem arkable th at the very line in Zech 11:13 th at suggested the Jerem iah passage, “an d threw them [the thirty pieces o f silver] to the p o tte r [or into the treasury] in the house o f the L ord,” is n o t included in M atthew’s qu o ted m aterial (though earlier Matthew states that Judas took the silver pieces and threw them into the tem ple [v 5]). But he may have avoided this line because o f the shift in subjects th at would th en have been necessary. M atthew’s com m ent th at the chief priests decided th at the m oney could n o t go into κορβαναν, “the treasury” (v 6), suggests th at he may have known o f the variant rendering ΊΚίΝ,Jösär; “treasury,” for Ί^Τ, yöser, “potter,” in Zech 11:13 (Bruce, BJRL 43 [1960-61] 349-50; cf. Benoit).

If we attempt to reconstruct how Matthew came to this fulfillment quotation, we may conclude the following. Matthew had from Mark that Judas was paid ά ρ γ ύ ρ ιο ν , “money” (Mark 14:10). Matthew may have had a separate tradition about the amount of “thirty,” but perhaps it is more likely that he imports this detail from the Zechariah quotation in anticipation of using it later in connection with the “potter’s field” (cf. its presence already in 26:15). Because Zech 9-14 was particularly im portant for the early church as a resource of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus (cf. in Matthew Zech 9:9 in 21:5; Zech 13:7 in 26:31; see esp. Bruce, B JR L 43 [1960-61] 336-53; Moo, T he O ld Testam ent in the Gospel P a ssio n N a rra tiv es , 173224) and in particular because Zech 11 speaks of a shepherd “doom ed to slaughter,” taken obviously by Matthew to refer to Jesus (cf. 26:31), Matthew finds the correspondence between Zech 11:13 and the story of Judas taking silver coins for betraying Jesus a compelling one. Matthew also probably had an element from historical tradition about a “field of blood” associated with Judas’ reward money (cf. Acts 1:18), which he may also have known as “the potter’s field.” Thus Matthew finds a further correspondence in the twofold statement of Zech 11:13 that the pieces of silver were thrown “to the potter”—why else, according to Matthew, than to buy the field in question (v 7)? The combination of these motifs may thus be responsible for the association with Jeremiah. The textual basis for the attribution of the quotation to Jerem iah is particularly strong (the reading “Zechariah” in 22 syhmg arm mss is obviously a “correction”)

E x p la n a tio n

815

though there is no real quoted material from Jeremiah. If this attribution is not simply a blunder (thus Stendahl, School o f St. M a tth ew , 123), how is it to be explained? Scholars have suggested the following possibilities, listed here in what is in my opinion an ascending order of probability: (1) the quotation is derived from an apocryphal book of Jeremiah (Origen; Jerome; Lohmeyer; Strecker, Weg); (2) the passage in question is in fact Jer 19:1-13 (E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology o f the O ld Testam ent a n d a C om m entary on the M essia n ic Predictions, reprint [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1956] 4:40-45; Gundry; Senior; Moo, “Traditions,” who admits it is “the least obvious reference” [161]; Carson); (3) ‘Jerem iah” means “the prophets” collectively since in some canonical lists the book of Jeremiah stands at the head of the prophets (Str-B 1:1030; Sparks; Sutcliffe); (4) the Zechariah and Jeremiah passages in question were already associated by the early church and perhaps—although the hypothesis does not depend on this—conflated in a collection of testim onia under Jerem iah’s name, which Matthew made use of (Findlay; Bruce, B JR L 43 [1960-61] 341). The first solution is of necessity pure speculation; the second depends on similarities too general in nature; and the third is based on insufficient evidence. On the importance of Jerem iah’s understanding of a rejected Messiah for Matthew, cf. Menken and Sparks. Matthew’s use of the quotation, as in several other of his fulfillment quotations, depends on the correspondences noted above, which are regarded not as coincidental but as divinely intended, so that the former foreshadow the latter and the latter are said to be the fulfillment of the former. Matthew is unconcerned about a num ber of details that do not correspond, e.g., that in Zechariah the prophet takes the money while in Matthew the evil chief priests take the money; that in Matthew the priests do not put the money into the temple treasury while in Zechariah the money is cast into “the house of the Lord.” Instead, because of the im portant role played by Zech 9-14 in the polemic of the early church, Matthew all the more confidently bases his argument on the quotation of Zech 11:12-13 (for the generative function of the text in explaining the pericope, see R. E. Brown, D ea th o f the M essia h , 657-60). What Judas and the Jewish authorities did had already been anticipated by the prophets. The narrative in effect identifies Jesus as the good shepherdprophet of Zechariah and at the same time contrasts him with the chief priests, the evil sheep-owners (thus van Tilborg). Explanation Judas becomes aware too late of the full horror of his betrayal of Jesus. What lay behind his change of heart is difficult to say. He can hardly have expected a different decision than that reached by the Jewish authorities, namely, that Jesus should be condemned to death. Had he perhaps with national-political loyalties hoped he could force Jesus to act powerfully against his enemies and exert his messianic power (prematurely), as the devil had tempted him in the wilderness (4:1-11) and as he would be tempted upon the cross (27:40)? Or did it simply dawn upon Judas that he had been responsible for the great injustice of the condemnation of a truly righteous and good man? At the same time, the narrative has an unmistakable inevitability about it. We can pity Judas, but we cannot make a hero out of him, nor alas even a believer. As the Son of Man fulfills the prophe-

816

Ma t t h e w 27:11-14

cies, so too do Judas and the Jewish priests, as they act freely out of their own unfortunate motives, unwittingly acting as instruments for the accomplishment of God’s purposes and the fulfillment of scripture. In no sense are we allowed to take Judas or the Jewish authorities as representing Jews or Judaism in general, let alone “the essence of Jewishness.” In such thinking lies the evil root of antiSemitism.

Jesus Arraigned before Pilate

(27:11-14)

Bibliography “Why Pilate?” In The ΤriαΙ of Jesus. FS C. F. D. Moule, ed. E. Bammel. SBT 2.13. L ondon: SCM, 1970. 78-83. B a m m e l, E . “T he Trial before Pilate.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. E D. Moule. Cambridge: Cam bridge UP, 1984. 403-12. B e c q , J. “Ponce Pilate et la m o rt de Jesus.” BTS 57 (1963) 2-7. B e n o it, P. “P raetorium , L ithostroton an d G abbatha.” In Jesus and the Gospel. New York: H erder, 1973. 167-88. B lin zle r, J. “D er Entscheid des Pilatus: Exekutionsbefehl oder Todesurteile?” M T Z 5 (1954) 171-84. B r a n d o n , S . G . F. Jesus and the Zealots. New York: Scribners, 1967. C a n tin a t, J. ‘Jesus devant Pilate.” VSpir 86 (1952) 227-47. C h ilto n , C . W. “T he Rom an Law o f Treason u n d e r the Early P rincipate.”JRS 45 (1955) 73-81. C u llm a n n , O , Jesus and the Revolutionaries. Tr. G. Putnam . New York: H arper & Row, 1970. E rh a rd t, A . “Was Pilate a Christian?” CQR 137 (1944) 157-67. E s c a n d e , J. ‘Judas et Pilate prisonniers d ’une m em e structure (Mt 27, 126).” F V 78 (1979) 92-100. G a rn s e y , P. “T he Crim inal Jurisdiction of G overnors.” JRS 58 (1968) 51-59. H a r r is o n , E . F. ‘Jesus and Pilate.” BSac 105 (1948) 307-19. H e n g e l, M . Was Jesus a Revolutionist ? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. H o r v a th , T . “Why Was Jesus B rought to Pilate?” NovT 11 (1969) 174-84. I r m s c h e r ,J . “ σ ύ λέγεις- (Markxv.2—Matt, x x v ii.ll—Luke xx iii.3 ).” Studii Clasice 2 (1960) 151-58. K ä s tn e r , K . Jesus vor Pilatus: Ein Beitrag zur Leidensgeschichte des Herrn. NTAbh 4.2-3. Münster: A schendorff, 1912. L e m o n o n , J.-P. Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judee: Textes et Monuments. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1981. L ib e rty , S. “T he Im portance o f Pontius Pilate in C reed and G ospel.”JT S 45 (1944) 38-56. M aie r, P. L . “Sejanus, Pilate, and the Date of the C rucifixion.” C H 37 (1968) 3-13. M a rin , L . ‘Jesus before Pilate: A S tructural Analysis Essay.” In The New Testament and Structuralism, ed. A. M. Johnson, Jr. Pittsburgh Theological M onograph 2. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1976. 97-144. M a te ra , F. “Mt 27.11-54.” Int 38 (1984) 55-59. Q u in n , J. F. “T he Pilate Sequence in the Gospel of Matthew.” DunRev 10 (1970) 154-77. R ie sn e r, R . “Das Prätorium des Pilatus.” BK 41 (1986) 34-37. R o b b in s , V . K . “T he Crucifixion an d the Speech o f Jesus.” Forum 4 (1988) 33-46. R o g e r s , R . S . “Treason in the Early E m pire.”JRS 49 (1959) 90-94. S h e rw in W h ite , A . N . Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: C larendon, 1963. S taa ts, R . K . “Pontius Pilatus im Bekenntnis d er frü h en Kirche.” Z T K 84 (1987) 493-513. V in c e n t, L . H . “Le Lithostrotos evangelique.” RB 59 (1952) 513-30. W a n sb ro u g h , H . “Suffered u n d e r Pontius Pilate.” Scr 18 (1966) 84-93. W in ter, P. “T he Trial o f Jesus as a Rebel against R om e.” The Jewish (Quarterly 16 (1968) 31-37. A lle n , J. E .

See also Bibliography for 26:57-68.

F o rm /S tr u c tu r e /S e ttin g

817

Translation 11N o w Je su s stood before the governor, a n d the g o ve rn o ra asked h im , saying: “A re yo u the k in g o f the Je w s? ” A n d Jesus s a id :b“You speak the truth. ”c 12A n d w hen he w as accused by the ch ief p n e sts a n d the elders, he answ ered n o th in g . 13T h en P ilate said to him : “D o yo u n o t hear how m a n y th in g s they bear w itness a g a in st y o u ? ” 14A n d he d id n o t answ er him , n o t even to a single charge, so th a t the governor w as very am azed.

Notes a W Θ sys omit ό ήγεμώ ν, “the governor,” perhaps because of the immediately preceding occurrence of the word. b Many MSS (ABW Θf 1,13TR lat sy mae) include αύτω, “to him.” c σ υ λ έ γ ε ις , lit. “you say.” See Comment.

Form,/Structure,/Setting A . Following an interruption with the story of Judas, the narrative regarding Jesus’ progress toward his crucifixion continues with his arraignment (an interrogation rather than a formal trial; see Bammel) before the Roman governor Pilate. The Roman arraignment is quite similar to that before the Jewish authorities (26:59-66). While Jesus admits to being the “king of the Jews,” i.e., their Messiah, he makes no attempt to answer the accusations brought against him. Pilate is amazed at Jesus’ demeanor and, unlike the Jewish authorities, ultimately refuses to find him guilty (cf. v 24). B. Matthew resumes his dependence upon Mark in this short pericope (Mark 15:2-5; cf. Luke 23:2-5; John 18:29-38). The following more significant changes should be noted. Because of the previous interlude concerning Judas and the potter’s field, Matthew adds the opening sentence to set the context: ό δ έ Ι η σ ο ύ ς έ σ τ ά θ η έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν τ ο ν ή γ ε μ ό ν ο ς , “and Jesus stood before the governor.” Also in v 11, Matthew substitutes ό ή γ ε μ ώ ν , “the governor,” for ό Π ιλ ά τ ο ς , “Pilate” (Mark 15:2), taking the word from his opening sentence. In the same verse Matthew omits Mark’s unnecessary ά π ο κ ρ ιθ ε ίς α ύ τω , “answering him.” In v 12 Matthew' omits πολλά , “many things” (Mark 15:3), referring to the accusations against Jesus, focusing instead on Jesus’ silence by the addition of ο ύ δ έ ν ά π ε κ ρ ίν α τ ο , “he answered nothing.” In the same place Matthew adds κ α ί π ρ ε σ β υ τ έ ρ ω ν , “and elders,” in keeping with his usual dual reference to “chief priests and elders” (cf. 26:3, 47, 57; 27:1, 3, 20). In v 13 Matthew abbreviates by omitting Mark’s question (Mark 15:4), “Do you not answer anything?” (probably because of his addition of the statement in v 12 that Jesus answered nothing); Matthew then turns Mark’s statem ent concerning their accusations of Jesus into a question. In v 14 Matthew intensifies Mark by his replacement of ο ύ δ έ ν , “nothing” (Mark 15:5), with π ρ ο ς ο ύ δ έ ε ν ρ ή μ α , “to not even one charge,” and by the addition of λ ία ν , “greatly,” to θ α υ μ ά ζ ε ιν , “was amazed.” He also replaces τ ο ν Π ιλ ά το ν , “Pilate,” with τ ο ν η γ ε μ ό ν α , “the governor” (“Pilate” was used by Matthew in v 13). C. Structurally, the passage consists of the basic pattern of question and answer typical of an arraignment. It may be outlined as follows: (1) Pilate’s question

818

Ma t t h e w 27:11-14

(v lla -c ); (2) Jesus’ answer (v l 1d); (3) Jesus’ silence before his accusers (v 12); (4) Pilate’s second question (v 13); and (5) Jesus’ continued silence (v 14). The parallels with the narrative of Jesus before Caiaphas and the Jewish authorities are impressive: Jesus is brought before the key authority figure (v 11; cf. 26:57); he is asked a question concerning his understanding of himself (v 11: “King of the Jews”; cf. 26:63: “the Christ, the Son of God”); Jesus responds affirmatively though indirectly (v 11: σ ύ λ έ γ ε ι ς , “you say [so]”; 26:64: σ ύ e tn a s', “you have said [so] ”); both inquisitors ask Jesus for a response to the accusations (v 13; cf. 26:62); and in both cases Jesus is silent (vv 12, 14; cf. 26:63). Comment 11 Jesus is now brought before the Roman governor Pilate, resuming the narrative from v 2 (see there concerning Pilate; for rich background material to the Roman trial, see R. E. Brown, D ea th o f the M essiah, 676-722). For the location of this “trial,” the p ra e to n u m in H erod’s “lower” palace, see Riesner. Pilate’s question, σ υ ε ΐ ο β α σ ιλ ε ύ ς ' τω ν Ιο υ δ α ίω ν , “are you the king of the Jews,” amounts to the same question put by the high priest in 26:63 concerning whether Jesus is o χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ' ο υιός' τ ο υ Θεού, “the Messiah, the Son of God,” but expressed now in more political language, reflecting no doubt the m anner in which the charge was expressed to Pilate by the Jewish authorities (cf. John 18:34). Though the division is Jiardly absolute, a religious question was thus in effect turned into a political one, for the Romans would only be concerned about the latter. The Jews, however, would have said “King of Israel” (cf. v 42). The issue that concerns Pilate is whether Jesus was an insurrectionist who constituted a political threat to the Roman rule of Judea. Jesus’ answer, σ ύ λ έ γ ε ις ', “you say (so),” is an affirmation (see Catchpole, N T S 17 [1970-71] 213-26, on the similar response in 26:64) though indirect (all four Gospels have the same response by Jesus to Pilate’s question; cf. 1 Tim 6:13, which probably refers to this event). Jesus thus admits to being “King of the Jews” but implies by the form of his answer that his kingship is not the sort that Pilate might suppose (cf. John 18:36-37). Jesus answers Pilate just as he did Caiaphas (26:64; cf. 26:25) although without any added qualifying words. Words such as Jesus had spoken to Caiaphas would be meaningless to the Roman prefect. Despite Jesus’ answer, Pilate seems instinctively to know that Jesus is not really a threat to the political and social stability he was charged to preserve (cf. the Johannine explanation in John 18:36 and Jesus’ recognition of Pilate’s authority in John 19:11). He finds no reason to be worried about a Jewish “king” of this kind and perceives the issue to be nothing more than Jewish quibbling (cf. v 24). Although some have tried to construe Jesus as a political revolutionary (esp. Brandon), it is clear that such an understanding of Jesus is incorrect (see Cullmann; Hengel). 12-13 Jesus would not defend himself against the charges of τω ν ά ρ χ ιε ρ έ ω ν κ α ί π ρ ε σ β υ τέ ρ ω ν , “the chief priests and elders” (cf. 26:3, 27:1). Although Matthew does not specify the charges here, they were presumably of the order of those mentioned in 26:61 (the only other occurrence of κ α τ η γ ο ρ ε ΐν , “accuse,” in Matthew is in 12:10 in connection with the violation of the sabbath; cf. Luke 23:10). Jesus was, in brief, a dangerous revolutionary bent on disturbing the status quo. This was the

B ib lio g r a p h y

819

accusation of the Jewish authorities against Jesus, although it is unlikely (pace Horvath) that they had any idea that Jesus could or might overthrow Roman authority then and there. Matthew’s readers almost certainly related the silence of Jesus before his accusers (cf. v 14) throughout the passion narrative, both here and before the Sanhedrin (26:62), to the servant of Isa 53:7, who like a lamb led to slaughter did not open his mouth. It is not the silence of defeat or confusion but of a triumphant resolution. Pilate’s question about Jesus’ silence reflects his surprise at Jesus’ passive resignation (cf. 26:62, where the same verb, κ α τ α μ α ρ τ υ ρ ο ύ σ α , “they bear witness against,” is used). Jesus appears to be no threat to him. 14 Matthew sharpens the report of Jesus’ silence in noting that Jesus responded π ρ ο ς ο υ δ έ e u ρ ή μ α , “to not even one charge.” ρ ή μ α , lit. “word,” in the present context can be taken to mean “matter” or “charge,” especially when governed by π ρ ο ς, “to.” The result of Jesus’ persistent silence was the great amazement of Pilate (for the silence of Jesus in the passion narrative, see C om m ent on 26:63). What kind of man is it, he must have wondered, who refuses to defend himself? The exceptionally unusual nature of this case is further brought to Pilate’s attention in v 19. E x p la n a tio n

The process whereby Jesus is “tried” continues toward its inexorable conclusion. Jesus now courageously faces the Roman interrogator who has the power of life or death (cf. John 19:10) in the settlement of the case. He quietly gives assent to the question whether he is the Jewish king but does not flinch in the face of his accusers’ charges. He keeps silent now, just as he did before the Jewish authorities. The dignity of that silence impresses even Pilate, who could not, however, have known that he was participating in a divine drama of such historical consequences that his own name would thereby be immortalized. Jesus’ commitment to the cross—the will of his Father—is firmly fixed. Nothing, no one, can turn Jesus away from that goal.

The Decision for Barabbas and againstJesus (27:15-23) Bibliography ‘T h e Release of Barabbas (Mark 1 5 : 6 - 1 5 par.; Jo h n 18 :3 9 -4 0 ), and Judaic Traditions in the Book of Esther.” In Barabbas and Esther and Other Studies. Atlanta: Scholars, 1 9 9 2 .1 - 2 7 . Bajsi