Matthew 1573127744, 9781573127745

Citation preview

Matthew

Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Matthew Publication Staff President & CEO Cecil P. Staton Publisher & Executive Vice President David Cassady Vice President, Editorial Lex Horton Senior Editor Mark K. McElroy Book Editor P. Keith Gammons Graphic Designer Barclay Burns Assistant Editors Kelley F. Land Leslie Andres

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2006 by Smyth & Helwys Publishing All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-57312-774-5

SMYTH & HELWYS BIBLE COMMENTARY

Matthew Ben Witherington III

PROJECT EDITOR R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia

OLD TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR SAMUEL E. BALENTINE Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education

NEW TESTAMENT GENERAL EDITOR R. ALAN CULPEPPER McAfee School of Theology Mercer University Atlanta, Georgia

Richmond, Virginia AREA OLD TESTAMENT EDITORS MARK E. BIDDLE Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia KANDY QUEEN-SUTHERLAND Stetson University Deland, Florida

AREA NEW TESTAMENT EDITORS R. SCOTT NASH Mercer University Macon, Georgia RICHARD B. VINSON Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia

KENNETH G. HOGLUND Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, North Carolina ART EDITOR FRED WHITEHURST Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia

advance praise This commentary from one of our generation's foremost New Testament scholars will appeal to a wide range of readers. The work both explains Matthew's Gospel in light of the most relevant settings of Matthew's day and highlights Matthew's theological message. At the same time, its style and layout are extraordinarily readable. Craig S. Keener Professor of New Testament Palmer Theological Seminary

Ben Witherington has given us a thorough, insightful, and creative commentary on Matthew's Gospel. Readers will be grateful for the clarity of his analysis and writing, as well as for the evident passion he has for his subject. Especially helpful is his “sapiential reading” of the text, a reading which offers intriguing angles of vision from which to view Jesus and the early Christian community. Guy Sayles Pastor, First Baptist Church of Asheville

Whereas kingship is often seen only in terms of power, Ben Witherington shows how Jesus, for the evangelist Matthew, is king precisely because he embodies divine Wisdom. The selfgiving love of Wisdom incarnate, not the military conquest of a worldly king, fulfills and perfects the kingly office of establishing justice among human beings. Witherington is at his best in providing a historically erudite commentary, attentive to the insights of the Fathers of the Church and pastorally engaged from within the Methodist tradition. Matthew Levering Associate Professor of Theology Ave Maria University

This substantial commentary presents an interpretation of Matthew that is notable for its remarkable clarity and accessibility but without any compromise of scholarly excellence. Its highly respected author has packed the volume not only with superb exegesis, historical-cultural information, and theological discussion, but also with abundant practical wisdom. Witherington is consistently engaging, interesting and helpful. This appealing commentary is beautifully produced, with photographs as well as pictures of art works. Here is a book that will handsomely reward its readers in a variety of ways, but most importantly in the excellent help it provides for understanding the Gospel of Matthew. Enthusiastically recommended! Donald A. Hagner George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament Fuller Theological Seminary

This lucid, informed, and engaging volume combines historical-critical insight, pastoral sensitivity, and Evangelical fidelity. Particularly notable are Witherington's recognition of the Matthean Jesus as a figure of Wisdom, his argument for the Gospel's Galilean setting, and his attention to the political and material cultures of antiquity. Amy-Jill Levine E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies Vanderbilt Divinity School

Dedication

To all my friends and mentors who have labored long in the Matthean vineyard. I hope you will find some fruit in this commentary which is so indebted to all of you.

To W. D. Davies, Krister Stendahl, Raymond Brown in memoriam, Jack Kingsbury, Ulrich Luz, Don Hagner, Bob Gundry, David Bauer, Dale Allison, Craig Keener, and Bob Guelich in memoriam.

Contents 1

INTRODUCTION

1

The Origins of Jesus

Matt 1:1-25

39

2

The Wise King and the Wicked King Sought by Wise Men

Matt 2:1-23

55

3

Precursors to Ministry

Matt 3:1–4:16

77

4

The First Discourse— The Sermon on the Mount

Matt 5:1–7:29

113

5

Copius Miracles and Costly Discipleship

Matt 8:1–9:38

175

6

The Second Discourse— The Mission of the Twelve

Matt 10:1–11:1

215

7

Jesus and His Inquisitors

Matt 11:2–12:50

229

8

The Third Discourse— The Paradox of the Parables

Matt 13:1-52

257

9

Narratives of Rejection and Acclamation

Matt 13:53–17:27

277

10

The Fourth Discourse— On Discord and Status

Matt 18:1–19:1

343

11

Lifestyles of the Workers in the Vineyard

Matt 19:2–20:34

359

12

The Triumphal Entry and and the Teachings of Jesus the Sage

Matt 21:1–23:39

387

13

The Final Discourse— Apocalypse Then

Matt 24:1–25:46

443

14

The Demise and Rise of the Davidic King

Matt 26:1–28:20

471

BIBLIOGRAPHY

545

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

551

INDEX OF SCRIPTURES

553

INDEX OF SIDEBARS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

559

INDEX OF TOPICS

565

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS COMMENTARY Books of the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament are generally abbreviated in the Sidebars, parenthetical references, and notes according to the following system. The Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm (Psalms) Proverbs Ecclesiastes or Qoheleth Song of Solomon or Song of Songs or Canticles Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps (Pss) Prov Eccl Qoh Song Song Cant Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic

xii

Abbreviations Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

The Apocrypha 1–2 Esdras Tobit Judith Additions to Esther Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach Baruch Epistle (or Letter) of Jeremiah Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Daniel and Susanna Daniel, Bel, and the Dragon Prayer of Manasseh 1–4 Maccabees

1–2 Esdr Tob Jdt Add Esth Wis Sir Bar Ep Jer Pr Azar Sus Bel Pr Man 1–4 Macc

The New Testament Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1–2 Peter 1–2–3 John Jude Revelation

Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1–2 Pet 1–2–3 John Jude Rev

Abbreviations Other commonly used abbreviations include: BC Before Christ (also commonly referred to as BCE = Before the Common Era) AD Anno Domini (“in the year of the Lord”) (also commonly referred to as CE = the Common Era) v. verse vv. verses C. century c. circa (around “that time”) cf. confer (compare) ch. chapter chs. chapters d. died ed. edition or edited by or editor eds. editors e.g. exempli gratia (for example) et al. et alii (and others) f./ff. and the following one(s) gen. ed. general editor ibid. ibidem (in the same place) i.e. id est (that is) lit. literally n.d. no date rev. and exp. ed. revised and expanded edition sg. singular trans. translated by or translator(s) vol(s). volume(s) Selected additional written works cited by abbreviations include the following. A complete listing of abbreviations can be referenced in The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999): Ant. b. BAR BASOR BJRL BR Did. En. Gos. Thom. HeyJ Hist. Eccl. ICC JBL

Jewish Antiquities (Josephus) Babylonian Talmudic tractates Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblical Research Didache Enoch (1, 2, 3) Gospel of Thomas Heythrop Journal Eccelesiatical History (Eusebius) International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature

xiii

xiv

Abbreviations JSNT JSOT JTS Jub. J.W. Life LXX m. New Docs NovT PJ Q t. T. Jud. T. Levi TDNT TNTC TynBul VT WBC y.

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees Jewish War (Josephus) The Life (Josephus) Septuagint Mishnah tractates New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity Novum Testamentum Palastine-Jahrbuch Qumran Tosefta tractates Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Jerusalem Talmudic tractates

SERIES PREFACE The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is a visually stimulating and user-friendly series that is as close to multimedia in print as possible. Written by accomplished scholars with all students of Scripture in mind, the primary goal of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is to make available serious, credible biblical scholarship in an accessible and less intimidating format. Far too many Bible commentaries fall short of bridging the gap between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of students of God’s written word. In an unprecedented way, the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary brings insightful commentary to bear on the lives of contemporary Christians. Using a multimedia format, the volumes employ a stunning array of art, photographs, maps, and drawings to illustrate the truths of the Bible for a visual generation of believers. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is built upon the idea that meaningful Bible study can occur when the insights of contemporary biblical scholars blend with sensitivity to the needs of lifelong students of Scripture. Some persons within local faith communities, however, struggle with potentially informative biblical scholarship for several reasons. Oftentimes, such scholarship is cast in technical language easily grasped by other scholars, but not by the general reader. For example, lengthy, technical discussions on every detail of a particular scriptural text can hinder the quest for a clear grasp of the whole. Also, the format for presenting scholarly insights has often been confusing to the general reader, rendering the work less than helpful. Unfortunately, responses to the hurdles of reading extensive commentaries have led some publishers to produce works for a general readership that merely skim the surface of the rich resources of biblical scholarship. This commentary series incorporates works of fine art in an accurate and scholarly manner, yet the format remains “userfriendly.” An important facet is the presentation and explanation of images of art, which interpret the biblical material or illustrate how the biblical material has been understood and interpreted in the past. A visual generation of believers deserves a commentary series that contains not only the all-important textual commentary on Scripture, but images, photographs, maps, works of fine art, and drawings that bring the text to life.

xvi

Series Preface

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary makes serious, credible biblical scholarship more accessible to a wider audience. Writers and editors alike present information in ways that encourage readers to gain a better understanding of the Bible. The editorial board has worked to develop a format that is useful and usable, informative and pleasing to the eye. Our writers are reputable scholars who participate in the community of faith and sense a calling to communicate the results of their scholarship to their faith community. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary addresses Christians and the larger church. While both respect for and sensitivity to the needs and contributions of other faith communities are reflected in the work of the series authors, the authors speak primarily to Christians. Thus the reader can note a confessional tone throughout the volumes. No particular “confession of faith” guides the authors, and diverse perspectives are observed in the various volumes. Each writer, though, brings to the biblical text the best scholarly tools available and expresses the results of their studies in commentary and visuals that assist readers seeking a word from the Lord for the church. To accomplish this goal, writers in this series have drawn from numerous streams in the rich tradition of biblical interpretation. The basic focus is the biblical text itself, and considerable attention is given to the wording and structure of texts. Each particular text, however, is also considered in the light of the entire canon of Christian Scriptures. Beyond this, attention is given to the cultural context of the biblical writings. Information from archaeology, ancient history, geography, comparative literature, history of religions, politics, sociology, and even economics is used to illuminate the culture of the people who produced the Bible. In addition, the writers have drawn from the history of interpretation, not only as it is found in traditional commentary on the Bible but also in literature, theater, church history, and the visual arts. Finally, the Commentary on Scripture is joined with Connections to the world of the contemporary church. Here again, the writers draw on scholarship in many fields as well as relevant issues in the popular culture. This wealth of information might easily overwhelm a reader if not presented in a “user-friendly” format. Thus the heavier discussions of detail and the treatments of other helpful topics are presented in special-interest boxes, or Sidebars, clearly connected to the passages under discussion so as not to interrupt the flow of the basic interpretation. The result is a commentary on Scripture that focuses on the theological significance of a text while also offering the reader a rich array of additional information related to the text and its interpretation. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a

Series Preface

CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource is a distinctive feature of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Combining credible biblical scholarship, user-friendly study features, and sensitivity to the needs of a visually oriented generation of believers creates a unique and unprecedented type of commentary series. With insight from many of today’s finest biblical scholars and a stunning visual format, it is our hope that the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary will be a welcome addition to the personal libraries of all students of Scripture. The Editors

xvii

HOW TO USE THIS COMMENTARY The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary is written by accomplished biblical scholars with a wide array of readers in mind. Whether engaged in the study of Scripture in a church setting or in a college or seminary classroom, all students of the Bible will find a number of useful features throughout the commentary that are helpful for interpreting the Bible. Basic Design of the Volumes

Each volume features an Introduction to a particular book of the Bible, providing a brief guide to information that is necessary for reading and interpreting the text: the historical setting, literary design, and theological significance. Each Introduction also includes a comprehensive outline of the particular book under study. Each chapter of the commentary investigates the text according to logical divisions in a particular book of the Bible. Sometimes these divisions follow the traditional chapter segmentation, while at other times the textual units consist of sections of chapters or portions of more than one chapter. The divisions reflect the literary structure of a book and offer a guide for selecting passages that are useful in preaching and teaching. An accompanying CD-ROM offers powerful searching and research tools. The commentary text, Sidebars, and visuals are all reproduced on a CD that is fully indexed and searchable. Pairing a text version with a digital resource also allows unprecedented flexibility and freedom for the reader. Carry the text version to locations you most enjoy doing research while knowing that the CD offers a portable alternative for travel from the office, church, classroom, and your home. Commentary and Connections

As each chapter explores a textual unit, the discussion centers around two basic sections: Commentary and Connections. The analysis of a passage, including the details of its language, the history reflected in the text, and the literary forms found in the text, are the main focus

xx

How to Use This Commentary

of the Commentary section. The primary concern of the Commentary section is to explore the theological issues presented by the Scripture passage. Connections presents potential applications of the insights provided in the Commentary section. The Connections portion of each chapter considers what issues are relevant for teaching and suggests useful methods and resources. Connections also identifies themes suitable for sermon planning and suggests helpful approaches for preaching on the Scripture text. Sidebars

The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary provides a unique hyperlink format that quickly guides the reader to additional insights. Since other more technical or supplementary information is vital for understanding a text and its implications, the volumes feature distinctive Sidebars, or special-interest boxes, that provide a wealth of information on such matters as: • Historical information (such as chronological charts, lists of kings or rulers, maps, descriptions of monetary systems, descriptions of special groups, descriptions of archaeological sites or geographical settings). • Graphic outlines of literary structure (including such items as poetry, chiasmus, repetition, epistolary form). • Definition or brief discussions of technical or theological terms and issues. • Insightful quotations that are not integrated into the running text but are relevant to the passage under discussion. • Notes on the history of interpretation (Augustine on the Good Samaritan, Luther on James, Stendahl on Romans, etc.). • Line drawings, photographs, and other illustrations relevant for understanding the historical context or interpretive significance of the text. • Presentation and discussion of works of fine art that have interpreted a Scripture passage.

How to Use This Commentary

Each Sidebar is printed in color and is referenced at the appropriate place in the Commentary or Connections section with a color-coded title that directs the reader to the relevant Sidebar. In addition, helpful icons appear in the Sidebars, which provide the reader with visual cues to the type of material that is explained in each Sidebar. Throughout the commentary, these four distinct hyperlinks provide useful links in an easily recognizable design.

Alpha & Omega Language

This icon identifies the information as a language-based tool that offers further exploration of the Scripture selection. This could include syntactical information, word studies, popular or additional uses of the word(s) in question, additional contexts in which the term appears, and the history of the term’s translation. All non-English terms are transliterated into the appropriate English characters.

Culture/Context

This icon introduces further comment on contextual or cultural details that shed light on the Scripture selection. Describing the place and time to which a Scripture passage refers is often vital to the task of biblical interpretation. Sidebar items introduced with this icon could include geographical, historical, political, social, topographical, or economic information. Here, the reader may find an excerpt of an ancient text or inscription that sheds light on the text. Or one may find a description of some element of ancient religion such as Baalism in Canaan or the Hero cult in the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman world.

Interpretation

Sidebars that appear under this icon serve a general interpretive function in terms of both historical and contemporary renderings. Under this heading, the reader might find a selection from classic or contemporary literature that illuminates the Scripture text or a significant quotation from a famous sermon that addresses the passage. Insights are drawn from various sources, including literature, worship, theater, church history, and sociology.

xxi

xxii

How to Use This Commentary

Additional Resources Study

Here, the reader finds a convenient list of useful resources for further investigation of the selected Scripture text, including books, journals, websites, special collections, organizations, and societies. Specialized discussions of works not often associated with biblical studies may also appear here. Additional Features

Each volume also includes a basic Bibliography on the biblical book under study. Other bibliographies on selected issues are often included that point the reader to other helpful resources. Notes at the end of each chapter provide full documentation of sources used and contain additional discussions of related matters. Abbreviations used in each volume are explained in a list of abbreviations found after the Table of Contents. Readers of the Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary can regularly visit the Internet support site for news, information, updates, and enhancements to the series at . Several thorough indexes enable the reader to locate information quickly. These indexes include: • An Index of Sidebars groups content from the special-interest boxes by category (maps, fine art, photographs, drawings, etc.). • An Index of Scriptures lists citations to particular biblical texts. • An Index of Topics lists alphabetically the major subjects, names, topics, and locations referenced or discussed in the volume. • An Index of Modern Authors organizes contemporary authors whose works are cited in the volume.

Introduction

The Gospel of Matthew was placed first Son of a Carpenter One of the clearest proofs of the popuin the New Testament canon, and not larity and influence of this Gospel is without reason. By the time the canonfound in examining textual variants. For example, izing process began in earnest in the probably the earliest and correct reading of the fourth century AD, Matthew was the key phrase in Mark 6:3, our earliest Gospel, has most popular and widely used Gospel Jesus being called a carpenter. This should be for a whole host of reasons. [Son of a compared to Matt 13:55, where he is said to be “the son of the carpenter” (i.e., Joseph). Carpenter] In the Western Church, cerHowever, P45 in the 3rd century, some Caesarean tainly one of these reasons was because manuscripts, and some old Boharic and Latin the book gave especial prominence and manuscripts all have the reading “son of the cara special role to Peter in relationship to penter” at Mark 6:3. In all likelihood, this is an the community of Christ. This Gospel example of scribes conforming the reading in was also popular because it begins with Mark to the reading in what was viewed as the “primary” Synoptic Gospel, Matthew. a genealogy of Jesus’ lineage, it offers a church order of sorts, and it is the only See K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 117. Gospel to mention the ekklesia. It also had a fuller Easter story than we find in the earlier Gospel, Mark. Indeed, it was a much fuller Gospel in most respects, having 18,305 words compared to Mark’s 11,242, yet it was still was of such a length that it could fit on one papyrus roll. We know that in the second century Matthew was already put into codex form, and whether in codex or papyrus roll form, it was often copied in a careful or even elegant hand like other sacred and especially revered texts. The seven earliest papyri of Matthew suggest that this Gospel was used both in private and public settings; it was not considered by some of those who copied it and used it in the latter half of the second century to be of second-class status, quite without literary pretensions. The care lavished on the papyrus preparation reflects their authoritative status for the life and worship of the communities in which they were treasured.1 There is also the evidence from 2 Clement 2.4, a sermon from the early second century in which Matthew 9:13 is called “Scripture” along with the Old Testament. Or consider for example the many funerary inscriptions and papyri used as amulets that have on or in them some part of the Matthean form of the Lord’s Prayer meant to protect the Christian against disease or harm.2 But it was not just in

2

Introduction

antiquity that Matthew’s Gospel was influential. As H. Clarke stresses, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that despite an undistinguished Greek style, words from Matthew have been pronounced, prayed, and intoned more often than those of any Codex Petropolitanus author we know; and when we hear “the Bible says” we will hear more Text page of Gospel of Matthew 10:10-17, written in Greek. (From “Codex Petropolitanus” at the Public Library in St. Petersburg, often from Matthew than from any Russia). Asia Minor (probably Syria), 6th century. other book of Scripture.3 Phrases [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old)] that have become part of the common parlance such as “casting pearls before swine,” “salt of the earth,” “burning the midnight oil,” “waiting until the eleventh hour,” “beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing,” “the blind leading the blind,” or “the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing” we owe to the Matthean portrayal of Jesus. It is thus a book that, while often commented on, continues to reward close attention. But this Gospel was and is far more than a bolster for a particular view of church life, church history, or even the end of the life of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel is, in many ways, the most obviously Jewish of the four canonical Gospels, and intentionally so. As A.-J. Levine has whimsically put it, Matthew “can seem so redolent with such ‘Jewish’ concerns that one wonders if the five thousand were fed with pickled herring and a nice piece of challah.”4 The First Evangelist is not only interested in Jewish issues of various sorts (sabbath, food laws, Corban), but he even seeks to conform his source material to a reverential Jewish way of speaking, for example predominantly speaking of the kingdom of heaven as opposed to the kingdom of God, unlike what we find in the other Gospels. In fact, as we shall see, the Gospel of Matthew is a presentation of the story of Jesus and his followers viewed through the lens of a Jewish sapiential way of looking at the believing and spiritual life. This Gospel seeks to give not only information or inspiration, but wisdom for believing and living a godly life, and as such it lends itself to being used in spiritually formative ways.

Introduction

3

The Sources of Matthew and the Question of Authorship

The Gospel of Matthew was, in all likelihood, not the first Gospel to be written, even though canonically it is placed first. The reasons for this conclusion are many and varied, but here we simply summarize the argument. (1) More than 90 percent of the Gospel of Mark’s substance appears also in the Gospel of Matthew, and of that common material more than 50 percent is word for word. The vast majority of scholars of whatever theological persuasion recognize that this means there must surely be some sort of literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. This much overlap, and especially verbatim overlap, did not happen by accident. This has led either to the conclusion that Matthew used Mark or vice versa, though a few scholars have supposed they both drew on a common source, which is not impossible. (2) Luke’s preface (Luke 1:1-4) tells us that he used sources in the composition of his Gospel—consulting eyewitnesses and preachers of the word. There is no reason to doubt that the author of Matthew’s Gospel did the same; indeed the correspondences between Matthew and Mark seem to require some such conclusion. In fact, the evidence seems to require that one of the Gospels draws on material from the other in the form of a literary dependency (i.e., the verbatim agreements suggest reliance on a stable written source). (3) Though some scholars have argued that Mark used Matthew, this conclusion seems unlikely in light of Mark’s own emphases and agendas. For instance, Mark does indeed want Mark’s Miracle Stories to depict Jesus as a teacher, and offers us two In general, Mark’s miracle stories are a major blocks of teaching material (ch. 4, parabit longer than Matthew’s versions of bles; ch. 13, apocalyptic discourse).5 Yet the the same narratives, and in a world of limited text space, due to the length of a papyrus roll, it is difSermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) is nowhere to ficult to believe that Mark would omit such be found in Mark. Is it really believable that material as Matt 5–7 (or for that matter all of Mark would have omitted all that material had Matt 1–2), material that suited his purposes, in he known it, to make room for mere verbal order to leave room for lengthier miracle tales. It expansion of miracle stories? [Mark’s Miracle Stories] is far easier to believe that the process went the (4) Various editorial, grammatical, and theoother way around—Mark’s miracle stories were edited down by the First Evangelist to leave room logical issues that arise when one compares for things like the Sermon on the Mount. Mark and Matthew, and in all these cases it seems more probable that Mark presents us with the most primitive version of the common material. A few examples will have to suffice. In the presentation of Jesus’ baptism, Matthew’s Gospel presents the matter as a public event. “This is my Son” is what the voice from heaven asserts (Matt 3:17).

4

Introduction

Compare this to the Markan telling of the story, where not only does the voice say directly to Jesus, “You are my Son,” but the event in general is presented as an apocalyptic visionary experience of Jesus—the sky opens, the Spirit descends, and the voice speaks only to Jesus. Since public testimony to Jesus is a motif we find in Matthew that is largely absent from Mark, it is surely more likely that the Markan account is nearer to the original form of the story. Or again, if we compare the dramatic utterance by Jesus to the rich young man in Mark and in Matthew, the account in Mark is clearly harsher and more abrasive than in Matthew. In Mark 9:18 Jesus responds, “Why do you call me good? No one is good save God alone,” but in the Matthean parallel he says, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matt 19:17), which raises no questions about whether Jesus is good or God. Or in regard to the portrayal of the disciples, in Mark they are frequently depicted and castigated for having no faith, but in Matthew the criticism is ameliorated by calling the disciples “you of little faith” (oligopistoi; see, e.g., Matt 17:20). In the account of the women fleeing from the tomb on Easter. Mark has them fleeing only in fear, but Matthew has them fleeing with fear and joy (cf. Mark 16:8 and Matt 28:8). Or again, in Mark 10 Jesus says “no divorce” for those whom God has joined together, but in Matthew 5 and 19 an exception clause is appended. It is surely easier to believe Mark’s account is the earlier one since Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus and the disciples is less offensive or less difficult to swallow. Matthew ameliorates Mark’s Gospel, or whittles down its rough edges. It can also be stressed that grammatically and also in terms of vocabulary, Matthew’s Gospel seems to be an improvement on Mark’s account (e.g., there is little connective tissue between sections of Mark, indeed some 89 sections of 105 in Mark begin with the simple connective kai [and]; Mark uses the historical present some 151 times and often begins a narrative with the adverb “immediately” even though what he really means is “next”).6 Once the conclusion is accepted that Matthew’s Gospel is the later one and that the author has used Mark, then one has to ask the question: Why would an eyewitness like Matthew the tax collector, if he wrote this Gospel, feel compelled to follow Mark so closely, when Mark’s Gospel is written by a non-eyewitness named John Mark? It is not sufficient to argue that since Mark drew on Peter’s preaching, it would be natural for Matthew to use Mark.7 Why not? Because in the material Peter might have especially contributed to Mark’s Gospel (e.g., the account of the Transfiguration, cf. 2 Pet 1:16-18), even if Peter added some things that Mark

Introduction

might not have learned elsewhere, this hardly accounts for why Matthew would follow Mark in detail on occasions when Matthew himself was present as an eyewitness! Why, for instance, would Matthew need to follow Mark so closely in the story of the raising of Jairus’s daughter and the healing of the sick woman when Matthew himself, as one of the Twelve, would have heard this story or perhaps even been present on the occasion (see Matt 7:9-13, 1820)? The detailed use of Mark so much of the time in the First Gospel intimates that the composer of this Gospel was not an eyewitness or one of the Twelve. How then, did this Gospel come to be ascribed to Matthew? Why choose Matthew’s name out of a hat when there are other more prominent members of the Twelve who might be better suited (Peter, James, or John, for instance)? It must be remembered that the ascription in the superscript, “the Gospel according to Matthew,” is not part of the text of the Gospel itself. The Gospel itself is formally anonymous, unlike Paul’s letters where the author mentions his name in the text of the letter. This ascription was appended to the Gospels at a later date, as is clear from the phrase “the Gospel according to. . .” which implies there are multiple Gospels circulating and associated with differently named people. It appears likely that the phrase kata Matthaion was added to this Gospel late in the first or early in the second century when the four canonical Gospels were collected and grouped together for use in the church.8 There is no obvious reason why Matthew’s name would have been chosen over more well-known members of the Twelve unless he was actually known to be the source of some of the material in this Gospel. The most plausible explanation is that some or all of the special Matthean material (e.g., Matt 1–2) goes back to Matthew, and since he was the first and most prominent contributor to this Gospel’s substance (first in the sense that the beginning of the Gospel was from his hand), the Gospel was named after him. This then was not a matter of mere guessing or pseudonymity coming into play, but a following of the ancient practice in which the most prominent contributor to a collective document was the one whose name would be appended to the document by those who used it, as is the case with 2 Peter. [Matthean Association with the First Gospel] This explanation deals with all the facts of the case, accounting not only for the heavy correspondence between Matthew and Mark but also for the naming Matthew in connection with this Gospel in the first place.

5

6

Introduction The First Evangelist as a Scribe

It has often, and rightly, been said of the First Evangelist that he is a rather conservative editor of his source material.9 This is in keeping with the conclusion that he was a Jewish scribe whose task was not to create traditions out of whole cloth, but rather to creatively edit and amplify his sources and arrange them into a effective literary whole. But what sort of scribe was this Evangelist? Let us say at the outset that the term grammateus itself has a range of meanings, as we shall see, but all of them presuppose a person who is literate, one who can read and write, and so a person who eduSaint Matthew Inspired by an Angel cationally is in the upper echelons Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–1669). The Evangelist Matthew and the Angel, 1661. Louvre, Paris, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] of society, since only 10 percent of all ancients could read and write. Matthean Association with the First Gospel There was considerable power in The case for Matthean association with this Gospel can being a scribe in those sorts of social be strengthened, as A.-J. Levine has remarked to me, circumstances. But was a Jewish by noting the following point: the Gospel does seem to have a scribe simply a copier of docuspecial interest in money (noting the unique passage on the ments? temple tax; the disciples are told not to take any gold with them when they travel; Joseph of Arimathea is described as a rich man One might attempt to compare only in this Gospel; and cf. the saying on Mammon). the work of the First Evangelist to the work of later Christian scribes, who can be divided into three groups, though obviously some scribes could multitask: (1) there were scribes who took dictation using a system of abbreviations (those skilled in so called “fastwriting”); (2) there were copyists, whose main task was to copy ordinary documents such as receipts, bills of sale, ordinary letters, and the like; and (3) there were calligraphers, those skilled in “beautiful writing,” a skill used by elite and well-to-do patrons to make copies of classic literature and other documents of great importance, such as formal decrees and the like.10 The problem with trying to apply this division of labor to a document like Matthew’s Gospel is that it reflects the practices of the GrecoRoman world, especially the practices of Christians and others after the first century AD, and neglects altogether the long history of

Introduction

7

scribal activity in the ancient Near East and in Jewish settings in particular. By the same token, we need to recognize that one also cannot simply draw direct analogies from the practices of scribes during and before the monarchial period in Jewish history11 with our scribe, because there was a significant shift in Jewish culture not only due to the Babylonian and Persian exile, during which period Aramaic gradually became the spoken language, but also because of the Hellenization of the region in the wake of Alexander. Then too, trying to draw analogies with later rabbinic practices in regard to midrashic exegesis and the like also suffers from the problems of anachronism.12 Jewish writers and scribes working in the Mishnaic era and later operated rather differently than earlier Jewish scribes. In other words, we are looking for Jewish analogies from the post-monarchial period in Jewish history leading up to the New Testament era, and preferably analogies that involve writing in Greek. [Sitting Scribe] Image Not Available Matthew’s Gospel is written in Greek, not in due to lack of digital rights. Hebrew or Aramaic, and it reflects the traditions Please view the published of Jewish writers who wrote in Greek. More to commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below. the point, it reflects the Jewish sapiential tradition in that era in regard to scribes, and so we need to look more closely at sapiential scribes such as Qohelet and later Ben Sira and even the author of Wisdom of Solomon. Fortunately, in Sirach we have quite clear evidence about the way Jewish scribes worked in the intertestamental period and continuing on into the New Testament era. [Sirach 39:1-11] Many things could be said about this passage in Sirach, but most importantly note that the Law is talked about in a Sitting Scribe context in which law, prophecy, Sitting Scribe. Greek terracotta figurine from Thebes, Boeotia. 1st quarter 6th BC. Louvre, parable, proverbs, and the like are Paris, France. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] all viewed from a sapiential point of view, which is to say as one or another sort of divine wisdom meant to give guidance to God’s people. It is after all Ben Sira who first clearly identifies Torah with Wisdom, indeed suggests that Wisdom became incarnate, so to speak, in Torah.13 I would submit that the

8

Introduction

Sirach 39:1-11 Sir 39:1-11 speaks of the ideal Jewish sapiential scribe: He who devotes himself to the study of the Law of the Most High Will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, And will be concerned with prophecies, He will preserve the discourse of notable men And penetrate the subtleties of parables; He will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs, And be at home with the obscurities of parables. He will serve among great men and appear before rulers . . .

If the great Lord is willing, he will be filled with the spirit of understanding; He will pour forth words of wisdom And give thanks to the Lord in prayer. He will direct his counsel and knowledge aright, And meditate on his secrets, He will reveal instruction in his teaching, And will glory in the Law of the Lord’s covenant, Many will praise his understanding, And it will never be blotted out; His memory will not disappear, and his name will live through all generations, Nations will declare his wisdom, And the congregation will proclaim his praise . . .

First Evangelist sees himself in the light of this sort of description of a Jewish scribe, and so sees his task as interpreting and presenting the life and teachings of Jesus as revelatory wisdom from God. Indeed he will argue that Jesus himself, rather than Torah, is the incarnation of God’s wisdom, and that it is therefore Jesus’ own wise teaching that provides the hermeneutical key to understanding Law, proverb, prophecy, parable, and other things. Of course it must be remembered that the First Evangelist, who ought more appropriately to be called the First (Christian) Scribe, saw Jesus as an eschatological and royal sage, not just another wise man. But the issue here is not the content of Jesus’ teaching but its form. In form, Jesus’ teaching is overwhelmingly sapiential in character, even when the content may involve eschatology, and we must remind ourselves that at least from the time of Daniel, if not before, there had been this sort of cross-fertilization of wisdom, prophecy, and apocalyptic.14 Furthermore, such literature that reflected this cross-fertilization had become enormously popular and influential and may even have helped spawn or at least spur on a whole series of “wise men” or sages in the era just prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus (cf. e.g., Hanina ben Dosa, Honi the circle drawer).15 Thus I must differ from D. E. Orton’s characterization of our author as being an apocalyptic scribe more in the line of the authors of some of the Enochian literature than in line with Ben Sira.16 To the contrary, the description we find in Matthew 13:52, which most scholars think provides a clue to help us understand the First Evangelist, points us in the direction of Ben Sira, not Enoch. It states, “Therefore every teacher of the Torah who has been instructed about the Kingdom of Heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as

Introduction

old.” Notice that the person in question (1) is a teacher; (2) knows the Law and teaches it; and (3) has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven (a, if not the, major subject of Jesus’ parables and other teachings). I would submit that the “new” has to do with what the teacher has recently been instructed about (the kingdom), whereas the old refers to Torah. This teacher in other words does not limit himself to the Torah, but also deals in new treasures, namely the various teachings of Jesus. In this regard it is understandable why the author of this Gospel is such a strong critic of Pharisees and their scribes. It is not the noble task of a scribe that he objects to; he is a scribe. Our author has issues with the Pharisaic scribes who dwell on Torah and its amplification and refuse to recognize the teaching of Jesus and his perspectives on earlier Jewish wisdom, including the Law. Our author is operating in a profoundly Jewish milieu where the teachings of the Pharisees rival the teachings the First Evangelist seeks to offer. [Anti-Jewish Elements in Matthew?]

Another helpful clue to the modus operandi of our author is found in Ecclesiastes 12:9-10. The sapiential scribe is one who must weigh or assess, study, and arrange or set in order the meshalim, the parables, proverbs, aphorisms, riddles of the wisdom tradition. This description reflects the three stages of literary composition—experimenting with, refining and shaping, and then arranging in a collection. The scribe is not merely to record but to enhance the wisdom examined by arrangement and elegance of expression, though always expressing himself with care. Wisdom is meant to be both a guide and goad in life, both a handhold and something that helps one get a grip on life (Eccl 12:11).17 The scribe is an inspired interpreter and editor of his sources, but he is self-effacing and points to others as the sages or teachers whose material he is refining, restoring, and presenting. Anti-Jewish Elements in Matthew? The charge that our Gospel writer is anti-Jewish is oxymoronic. Our author is a Jew, and the fact that he disagrees with some tenets of some Jews, particularly Pharisees but also some Sadducees, does not make him either anti-Jewish or an antiSemite. What can be said is that he does vigorously reject certain aspects of the Pharisaic program (and some of Sadducean theology) and is appalled by hypocrisy that exists in places within that movement. What can also be said is that he seeks to promote a different form of early Judaism centered on Jesus, and so having different views on the Law, the temple, and the land than Pharisees did. See A.-J. Levine, “Anti-Judaism and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, ed. William R. Farmer. Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 1999: 9-36. I would differ with this essay where it says there are anti-Jewish elements in Matthew. That is too broad a claim; there are antiPharisaic and some anti-Sadducean elements in this Gospel to be sure.

9

10

Introduction Greek-speaking Readership The fact that the tax collector is called Matthew rather than Levi in this Gospel does not count against the theory that he re-Judaized his material. This is because the Evangelist is writing in Greek, and it is important to him that his most crucial characters, not only Peter, but also Matthew, have names that make sense for the Greek readers. The substance of his Gospel could be Jewish, but his main protagonists needed names recognizable in Greek. It could be asked, why is he writing in Greek if his immediate audience is in Galilee? The answer seems to be that the author takes seriously the mandate of the Great Commission and wants this Gospel to be used in Jewish Christian communities beyond just his own, which is to say in the Diaspora.

If we were to list our Matthean scribe’s editorial tendencies, they would certainly include the following: (1) this Evangelist reJudaizes his Markan and Q material, making it more useful for his Jewish Christian audience [Greek-speaking Readership]. (2) There is an ameliorating tendency when it comes to dealing both with the portrait of Jesus and of the disciples. The harsher edges of Mark’s account and some of the secrecy motif involving Jesus’ identity is omitted or ameliorated. Jesus is more directly and clearly testified to even on public occasions like his baptism. He is also more directly said to be Immanuel, Son of David, Wisdom, and the like. The disciples, while still depicted as obtuse, are said to have at least a little faith on several occasions, and it is the Zebedee’s mother, not the brothers, who ask for the box seats when Jesus’ kingdom comes. (3) There is a considerable focus on the fulfillment of Scripture, especially at the outset of the work, but also notably in the Passion Narrative. (4) An apologetic motif comes to the fore especially in the Passion and Resurrection narratives. The empty tomb stories are especially amplified in this direction. (5) As shall be shown in detail in a moment, this Gospel has a thoroughgoing sapiential agenda and perspective through which the entire Gospel tradition is being read. (6) The focus on Peter and his role as well as on the formation of Jesus’ community so that it will carry on beyond Jesus’ own day is notable. (7) The tendency of doubling things is noteworthy—two blind men are healed, Jesus apparently rides on two animals, the demoniac of Mark 5:1-17 becomes two demoniacs in Matthew 8:28-34. (8) The First Evangelist rarely shortens or omits any Old Testament references he finds in his sources. To the contrary, he frequently adds quotations and expands allusions. As D. Allison and W. D. Davies say, this evangelist obviously knows and treasures the Old Testament more than other evangelists, and more to the point, he feels compelled to use it and stress its fulfillment.18 This points to both a Jewish Christian author and audience, in all likelihood. When we couple these

Introduction

features with the heavy focus on teaching material in Matthew, we begin to see what distinguishes this Gospel from Mark and Luke. But much more can be said about the First Evangelist as a scribe. What we have said thus far makes clear that we cannot see him as a mere copier of earlier documents. If we were to characterize him, we would have to say he is remarkably like the description of the sapiential scribe we find in Sirach. All the canonical Gospels are like portraits, and as such are inherently interpretative, presenting Jesus from their own particular angles of incidence. The First Evangelist wishes to stress the Jewish character of Jesus and his ministry while at the same time insisting on a high christological take on that ministry. He wants to insist that it was a good thing for Jesus to focus on a ministry to Jews, without in any way denying the goodness of the later mission to Gentiles. He wants to show the newness of much of Jesus’ teaching while still insisting that Jesus was fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies, and indeed the Law would not pass away until he had fulfilled everything in God’s plan. It is not surprising then that the Evangelist, like his Master, was amplifying on the sacred traditions once given in the Hebrew Scriptures.19 But this raises the question of the genre of Matthew’s Gospel in an acute way. The Genre of Matthew’s Gospel

Readers, throughout much of church history, have understood Matthew’s Gospel to be some sort of biography, and recent study of ancient biographies has helpfully shown how Matthew fits into such a genre.20 One suspects that the modern rejection of this thesis by some scholars is often caused by the assumption that since Matthew does not look like a modern biography (an exhaustive womb to tomb account of a person’s life complete with detailed analysis of the development of the person’s personality and career), it could not be any sort of biography. Ancient biographers however did not feel compelled to spend much if any time on a figure’s early years or youth, for in general it was not much believed that human personality developed over time. Personality was rather something one was born with, and it was revealed over time. This being the case, the adult person could be focused on, and this was more often than not the character of ancient biographical accounts. It was also the case that ancient biographers did not feel compelled to present their material in strict chronological order. Rather, they frequently arranged the material topically, as we see the First Evangelist doing; he alternates narratives with blocks of teaching material (see below).

11

12

Introduction

One of the things that in fact distinguishes Matthew from the Qumran literature and some rabbinic literature is that while it is God-centered literature in one sense, the more specific form is christocentric in character. Jesus, whatever else one wants to say about him, certainly had a human story capable of being written up as a biography, which would not be true of the one Jesus called “Abba.” The Qumran literature, like Old Testament literature, is about a God who intervenes in human history, not one who also has a human story. Thus, Matthew’s Gospel presents us with a new kind of Jewish literature—a biography about a person who is both human and has a human story, but who also is thought of as divine.21 Ancient biographers in general were not writing for a technical audience but a more general and popular one, and their focus was on using accounts that best revealed the character and virtues of the person in question. The issue of the figure’s identity and character was of utmost importance. Plutarch puts it this way: For it is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, no a slight thing like a phrase or a joke often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fell. . . . Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but make very little account of the other parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul of a person, and by means of these to portray the life. . . .” (Alex. 2-3)

Several things are striking about this quote in relationship to Matthew in particular. (1) Notice that Plutarch stresses that often what a person says best reveals his character—a turn of phrase or a joke. The Matthean Jesus is of course famous for his major discourses, but he is also famous for certain key phrases like “Son of Man” and “kingdom of heaven,” and even for the occasional humorous one-liner (“it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle . . .”). (2) The author of an ancient biography was trying to reveal the soul of the person in question, who that person truly was at the core of their identity, through the indirect method of portraiture using words and deeds of the figure rather than extended commentary or direct interview. [Direct Interview for Biography] It is no accident that the central issue of Matthew’s Gospel is revealing who Jesus actually was—Immanuel, Son of David, Son of God, Son of Man, Wisdom. (3) As Plutarch says, the focus in an ancient biography is on character and virtues and vices. One of the

Introduction Direct Interview for Biography Direct interview or dialogue with the subject of the work was rare in an ancient biography because of the encomiastic natures of such biographies. They tended only to be written after the person was dead, not least because it was believed by many in antiquity that how a person died best revealed their character. Best to not writer the story until one saw how it ended.

major purposes and functions of such biographies was mimesis, the imitation of the virtues of the great person. It is no accident that there is such a stress in Matthew’s Gospel on following and imitating Christ; indeed, this is precisely what becoming a full-fledged disciple entails. Matthew’s Gospel, in one sense, can rightly be called a manual for discipleship (35 percent of this Gospel is comprised in just the first five discourses). It is thus correct to say that one of the main aims of Matthew’s Gospel is hortatory, but what is not so often recognized is that the focus on Christology is not an end in itself, but rather a means of portraying the Christ as an example for the sake of imitation. How Jesus behaves sets the pattern for how his followers should behave—they should take up their crosses and follow him. Thus, the strong stress of the First Evangelist on making clear who Jesus was (Son of God, etc.) and what he was like reflects the biographer’s eye and interest. Unlike Luke, whose concern is sometimes with synchronisms (relating the micro-history of Jesus to the macro-history of the day—see Luke 2:1-3 or 3:1-4), Matthew is more concerned with adequately and accurately revealing Jesus’ character and career. The genre of biography includes a concern for historical accuracy, without making the issue of causation between historical events the main focus. People, personality, character, and career rather than historic events are paramount. As C. Keener says, Matthew did not write his Gospel without forethought: he was a historian-biographer and interpreter not just a storyteller. . . . If Matthew’s basic genre suggests historical intention, his relatively conservative use of sources (where we can check them, especially Mark) indicates that Matthew’s other purposes did not obscure an essential historical intention.22

Keener, rightly in my judgment, concludes that Matthew’s Gospel should be considered an ancient biography.

13

14

Introduction The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel

This Gospel was written when there was still a living relationship in Jesus’ community with forms of Judaism that did not involve a belief in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. A considerable concern in this Gospel is with the observance of the commandments, the Mosaic Law, and indeed there is even the famous uniquely Matthean sentence about none of the Law passing away until all comes to pass (Matt 5:18). In short, this Gospel seems to be written by and for a community of Jesus’ followers who were overwhelmingly Jewish not only in their ethnic extraction but also in their orientation and patterns of daily living. Let us first consider some of the emphases in and the structure of this Gospel as clues to the audience the First Evangelist was likely addressing.23 [A Chart of Matthew as Biography]

A Chart of Matthew as Biography The following chart comes to us from R. Burridge’s landmark treatment of Matthew as biography. Chapters 1–2 3–4 5–7 8–9 10–11:1 11:2–12 13:1-52 13:53–17 18 19–23 24–25 26–28

Verses 48 42 111 72 41 79 52 136 35 195 97 161 Total 1,069

Topic Prologue and Infancy Preparation and Beginnings Sermon on the Mount (discourse) Ministry Mission of the Disciples (discourse) Ministry and Conflict Parables of the Kingdom (discourse) Ministry and Peter’s Confession Christian Community (discourse) Journey to Jerusalem Eschatology (discourse) Last Supper, Passion, Resurrection

Percentage of Work 4.5 3.9 10.4 6.7 3.8 7.4 4.9 12.7 3.3 18.2 9.1 15.1 Total 100 percent

R. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 197.

There has been considerable debate about what to make of the structure of Matthew’s Gospel. Not surprisingly, it has most often been noted how the alternating between narrative and discourse, with the discourses tending to group material topically (e.g., a collection of parables in Matt 13 or an eschatological discourse in Matt 24–25),24 lends this Gospel a certain back and forth kind of flow or motion. In fact, this very structure makes clear that the First Evangelist is not simply telling a story. There is a certain chronological order to the material, which can be seen to have

Introduction

15

three divisions (4:17; 16:21; 26:16), each demarcated by the phrase “from then on” just as there is a rounding off of all but one of the discourses with the phrase “when he had finished speaking” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). What exactly are we to make of the fivefold or sixfold division of the discourse material? Is this really a new Moses motif? [Discourse in Matthew] It could just as easily be said to be a Wisdom literature motif, for both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have a fivefold division, as does Psalms. The issue then becomes whether Discourse in Matthew we should see these blocks of teaching as some While there is some teaching material in kind of lex nova or new law. Perhaps a case can other places in Matthew (e.g., in Matt be made for some of the material in Matthew 23), it is clear that Matt 23 is to be seen as sepa5–7 being viewed that way, but the collections rate from Matt 24–25, and Matt 23 is not portrayed as the same sort of discourse. It does of parables and the eschatological discourse not have the fixed formula we find at the end of hardly suits such a description. Indeed, in terms the five discourses (see the end of the discourse of substance, much of the material is sapiential in Matt 7, 10, 13, 18, and 25). As Allison and in character even within Matthew 5–7. Perhaps Davies point out, the material in Matt 23, like the it is best to say then that the First Evangelist is material in Matt 12:25-32 and 39-42, is more trying to portray Jesus as a giver of revealed debate material with those who are not followers of Jesus rather than instruction for the disciples. truth in various forms—law, prophecy, wisdom This makes Matt 23 an extension and conclusion utterances—indeed a giver of truth in all the of the polemics in Matt 21–22. Yet it is clearly major forms truth took in the Hebrew some sort of discourse or teaching material, even Scriptures (Law, Prophets, Writings). Jesus is if directed to a different audience. like Moses, only greater; like the prophets, only D.C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical greater (being the fulfillment of prophecy and Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, v.1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 61 n. 31. not merely the one who utters predictions); and like Solomon, only greater, for he is Wisdom come in the flesh. In other words, in Jesus we find the fulfillment of all the converging lines of sacred literature and teaching. But it is right to especially emphasize that the way this Gospel is voiced or nuanced or presented gives it a particularly sapiential flavor, as will be demonstrated in some detail in a moment.25 First, we need to say something about whether there are actually five or six discourses in Matthew. In my view, there are definitely six, not five, although five of them end with the formula mentioned above. Matthew 23 needs to be seen for what it is—a stand-alone discourse offered to a different audience and in a different setting than the apocalyptic discourse in Matthew 24–25. As Matthew 23:1 shows, this discourse is directed to both outsiders and insiders—disciples and the crowds—whereas the other discourses, including chapters 24–25, are directed to the disciples (see Matt 24:1). The woes on the religious officials make sense in the temple precincts where Jesus is said to have been teaching

16

Introduction

(Matt 21:23), but the teaching beginning in 24:1 responds to the remarks of disciples and is directed to disciples in another venue, outside the temple precincts. Since then there are six discourses and not five, this could be said to show Jesus is one greater than Moses or David or Solomon, to each of whom was attributed a fivefold collection of sacred writings (Law, Psalms, Proverbs), but it does not fit the argument that suggests Jesus is primarily portrayed as following a Mosaic paradigm in this Gospel. The Character of Matthew’s Gospel: A Sapiential Reading

This commentary emphasizes the sapiential character of the Gospel of Matthew, and in the material that follows a complete sapiential reading of the entire Gospel is provided. Here the nature of Matthew’s Gospel as a sapiential work is discussed. It is my conviction that a significant lacuna in the study of Matthew’s Gospel is that this Gospel has too often been related to the idea of Christ as a new Moses—which in my judgment is not really a major a motif in this Gospel—and is too seldom read as a sapiential presentation of the life of Jesus. [Matthew as Sapiential Presentation of Jesus’ Life] This is not to say there have been no helpful studies on Matthew involving Wisdom literature and a sapiential reading of the presentation of Jesus. The works of M. J. Suggs, C. Deutsch, and M. D. Johnson come immediately to mind, to mention only a few.26 But these sorts of studies have concentrated on too few passages and have not tried to read the whole Gospel in light of such considerations. Here in this introduction, we intend to give the reader a bird’s-eye view of what such a reading reveals. This can be taken as something of a road map to the interpretation offered in the commentary as whole. Let us begin with general considerations. The First Evangelist carefully constructs his Gospel as a word to the wise (or at least to Jewish Christians, some of whom probably were already teachers). Matthew does not see himself as like later rabbinic scribes27 but rather as standing in the mold of the sapiential scribes described in Sirach 39:1-3: “He seeks out the wisdom of

Matthew as Sapiential Presentation of Jesus’ Life As A.-J. Levine has remarked to me, since by the time this evangelist wrote Moses could be seen as something of a philosopher or sage himself, having been co-opted by the wisdom tradition, this sapiential presentation need not be an either/or proposition. The dominant orientation is not the idea that Jesus is like or imitates Moses.

Introduction

all the ancients, and is concerned with prophecies; he preserves the sayings of the famous and penetrates the subtleties of parables; he seeks out the hidden meanings of proverbs. . . .” It would appear that our author is indeed much like the scribe or wise teacher mentioned in Matthew 13:52, “who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven [and is] like the owner of a house who brings out of the storeroom new treasures as well as old.” The Evangelist has skillfully woven together his source material to produce a compelling portrait of Jesus as both sage and Wisdom, as both the revealer of God and as Immanuel, as well as drawing on other major images of Christ as Son of God, Son of Man, and Christ. The Evangelist does not allude to himself as a sage but rather as a scribe, as is probably the case with some of his audience. This distinction is important to the First Evangelist because he wants to portray Jesus as the great sage and master teacher, but himself and his audience as only recorders and passers down of the tradition. Scribes are not the originators of the tradition but rather the transmitters, interpreters, and appliers of it. It is not an accident that Peter, the first key disciple of Jesus, is portrayed in Matthew 16:17ff. as the one given the authority to bind and loose in the sense of making decisions and giving certain commandments about what one is bound to do and what one is free to do. In other words, Peter is portrayed as the disciple given the task of interpreting the Jesus tradition for the church. There is a deliberate contrast between his teaching and that of the Pharisees who, instead of using (hermeneutical) keys to open the gate to the kingdom as Peter does, do not allow people to go into the kingdom (Matt 23:13, 15). The commissioning of Peter in this role provides the climax of the first main part of Matthew’s narrative. Of course, the climax of the whole work may be compared to Matthew 16 in this matter, for 28:18-20 indicates that it is the duty of disciples in general to make other disciples, which involves teaching them. In Matthew, but not in Mark, Jesus instructs his disciples on the dos and don’ts of being teachers (5:19). The whole point of mentioning the scribes’ and Pharisees’ righteousness in 5:20 is that they are rival teachers. Again in Matthew 10:24-25a, a passage not paralleled elsewhere, a disciple is said not to be above his master teacher (Jesus), but rather is called to be like his teacher. It is plausible that the First Gospel arose out of a school setting and was meant to be used as a teaching aid for Jewish Christian teachers to use with their flocks. It is no accident that Jesus is most clearly presented in this Gospel as a teacher with learners (the meaning of math∑t∑s, which we translate as disciple). For example,

17

18

Introduction

the term math∑t∑s, which occurs only in the first five books of the New Testament, we find some seventy-three times in Matthew, but only forty-six times in Mark and thirty-seven times in Luke. It is also not an accident that in Matthew discipleship is defined as keeping Jesus’ commands or words (cf. Matt 18:19; Matt 28:1820). It is obvious enough that Matthew’s Gospel focuses on instructions for disciples. Notice too how Matthew’s Gospel ends with stories about how the disciples both doubt and believe even after Jesus is raised from the dead. The First Evangelist focuses on Jesus as a Jewish sage and concentrates on his public forms of wisdom teaching—parables, aphorisms, riddles, beatitudes. Matthew’s Gospel, like other Jewish wisdom literature, highlights the use of Father language for God or Father-Son language. In Matthew, “Father” is used of God some forty-two times, compared to only five times in Mark (none of which occur before Mark 8:38) and only fifteen times in Luke, some of which come from Q. This usage is closely tied not only with an understanding of Jesus as the Son of God, but also of disciples as sons and daughters of God. Theology, Christology, and discipleship are linked in this Gospel through the use of Father language. When one believes Jesus is God’s Son, one can come to relate to God as Father, as Jesus did. Matthew stresses this in a text like Matthew 11:27b, where it is made clear that one can only come to know the Father truly through the Son. Thus Matthew edits and arranges his material in careful fashion to present a certain kind of portrait of the central character in the narrative—Jesus. In general, as was common in ancient biographies, the method of portraiture is indirect, allowing words and deeds and relationships to reveal the identity and qualities of the main character. A close examination of the editorial work shows the type of pedagogy the author has in mind. Strikingly, in Matthew’s Gospel, while the disciples repeatedly address Jesus as “Lord” (cf. e.g., 8:21, 25; 14:28; 16:22), when a stranger or a Jewish leader addresses Jesus it is as “rabbi” or “teacher” (cf. 8:19; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36). Notice that only the betrayer Judas among the disciples calls Jesus “rabbi” (26:25, 49). What this tells us immediately is that the First Evangelist does not see titles or terms of respect like “rabbi” or “teacher” as adequate to describe Jesus. This is not to say such titles are inaccurate, for indeed texts like Matthew 23:8-10 make plain that Matthew does want to say Jesus is a sage or teacher, indeed the teacher of the disciples. Thus the disciples, who will in turn disciple others, should not seek to label

Introduction

themselves as rabbi or use the customary term of endearment “abba” or “Father” sometimes used of Jewish teachers or wise men. Note too, that in Matthew 26:17-19 near the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry Jesus, calls himself “the teacher” with the assumption the audience will know immediately who this is. The setting apart of Jesus as sage, and more than sage, from other potential teachers is also seen in the contrast found at the end of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7, where Jesus, who teaches with independent authority, is contrasted with their scribes. The point here is twofold—Jesus is no mere scribe, and also the problem is not with scribes in general but with “their” scribes. The image of Jesus as sage or teacher is so crucial for Matthew that in editorial summary passages, he cites teaching ahead of preaching and healing as Jesus’ chief task (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 11:1). This is all the more striking when one compares the parallel Markan summary at Mark 1:39 where there is no mention of teaching, and when one compares Matthew 11:1 to Luke 7:1 where in the Lukan passage there is no use of the term “teaching.” The content of this teaching is seen repeatedly to be parables, aphorisms, and wisdom discourses. This image of Jesus as sage or teacher and his disciples as scribes or teachers is crucial and gets at the heart of some of things that make Matthew’s contribution to the christological discussion distinctive. Of course, much has been made of the suggestion that Matthew’s central idea is that Christ is the new Moses, offering five great discourses, the first even from a mount. Without totally discounting this idea, too much has been made of it. For one thing, it seems clear that there are probably six discourses (depending on what one does with Matt 23 in relationship to Matt 24–25), and for another in the famous antitheses the Evangelist seems as interested in contrasting Jesus with Moses as comparing the two. After all, Moses did not ban oath taking, all killing, or adultery of the heart! Nor did Moses teach in parables and aphorisms. Even in the birth narratives where a Moses motif has sometimes been detected, it is surely a secondary motif because Matthew 1 is by and large about how Jesus can be called Son of David, and Matthew 2 is about how he can be called Son of God (cf. below). Moses is not a Son of David or of God, and he is certainly not a Son of Man figure; these are the three primary titles Matthew applies to Jesus. We must conclude that the “new Moses” idea is at most a secondary theme and in fact may be raised only to show that Jesus was greater than Moses, not a clone of Moses, so one must look elsewhere to discern Matthew’s distinctive contribution to the

19

20

Introduction

Christ Teaching Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–1669). Christ Preaching (The Hundred Guilder Print). [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

christological discussion. Far more prominent is the theme that Jesus is some sort of Davidic royal figure. But what sort? I would argue that our Evangelist makes his most distinctive christological contribution by showing (1) how Jesus is a messianic Son of David, like but greater than Solomon, offering even greater Wisdom; (2) how he is Wisdom come in person and so embodying and conveying the very presence of God to God’s people (Immanuel); (3) how he is Son of God whose characteristic intimacy with the Father is modeled in part on the relationship of Wisdom to God in Jewish sapiential literature; and (4) how he is the great eschatological or apocalyptic sage, offering God’s final teaching for salvation. What then happens when an early Jewish Christian wishes to tell the story of Jesus as being a person like Solomon but even greater, being the very embodiment of Wisdom on earth? I would suggest that for a largely Jewish audience such as he has, he would stress that Jesus is the Son of David in a way his source did not (note the phrase is found eleven times in Matthew but only four in Mark and Luke and none in John). The Jewish tone of this Gospel is set right from the beginning where Matthew expands on his Markan source by adding the birth narratives, which stress that Jesus is the

Introduction

Son of David, the seventh son of the seventh son. It was also the case, however, that in Jewish tradition, ultimately Wisdom was the teacher of God’s people (cf. Prov 1:20-30; 8:10-16; Sir 4:24; Wis 6:14; 8:4). Matthew assigns this role of Wisdom as the teacher to Jesus himself, which explains how Matthew can portray Jesus as both sage and Wisdom. In calling Jesus the Teacher, a sapiential Christology would be implied to those steeped in Jewish Wisdom material (cf., e.g., Wisdom of Solomon where the teacher is ultimately Wisdom who inspires Solomon but also Solomon as great sage). A sapiential reading of the entire Gospel of Matthew is given in the commentary of the following chapters. Please see the sidebar inserted at the beginning of each section.

21

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Christ on the Cross Jerome Wierix (1553–1619). Christ on the Cross, surrounded by Moses, David, Saints Paul and John the Baptist. Undated. Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, Germany. [Credit: Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz / Art Resource, NY.]

The Provenance, Audience, and Date of the First Gospel

In view of the nature of Matthew’s Gospel, the questions of provenance and audience are somewhat easier to adjudicate, though all these matters are intertwined. The Jewish character of the Gospel favors a context in which the Christian audience to whom the First Evangelist writes is in a location where there is a considerable Jewish presence, and furthermore a place where the majority of the audience itself is Jewish. At the same time, as D. Hagner has pointed out, the audience seems to have been in something of a no man’s land. They were a double minority. On the one hand they were Jews, but a minority sect of Jewish followers of Jesus. On the other hand they were Christians, but by the time this Gospel was written most Christians were Gentiles.28 So these Jewish Christians are struggling to continue to justify not only their own existence but an ongoing witness to Israel, whom God had not forsaken.

22

Introduction

This probably narrows down our locale options somewhat, and more often than not places such as Syria (either Damascus or Antioch) or Galilee or its vicinity have been suggested as locales for the composition and delivery of this Gospel. While Antioch seems to be the preference of many commentators on Matthew, there are problems with that conclusion. For one thing, we know there was, long before Matthew’s Gospel circulated, a Christian community in Antioch that included both Jews and Gentiles (see Acts 11–13), and indeed it included so many Gentiles that Luke tells us this was the first place where followers of Jesus were called Christianoi (Acts 11:26). For another thing, Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes clear that already in about AD 50 or not long thereafter, Jews like Peter were fellowshipping with Gentiles in Gentile homes in Antioch until a protest was lodged by “the men who came from James.” It was also the Antioch church that first sent out Paul and Barnabas as missionaries to the Gentiles. This tells us, I think, that we should not see the Christian community in Antioch as predominantly or overwhelmingly Jewish. Even if there was some retrenchment or partial separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch after the debacle recorded in Galatians 2, there is no reason to think of separate communities. Is it really convincing to suggest that a Christian audience in Antioch after the fall of the temple in AD 70 would be more likely than, say, an audience in Damascus or Galilee to have concerns about Israel, the Law, and the like? I think not. There is also the matter of population. Antioch was one of the largest cities in the empire with estimates ranging up to 250,000 people or more. In such a setting, it should have been easy for a tiny minority sect of Jewish Christians to become rather invisible, even though there were many non-Christian Jews in the city. But the ethos of Matthew’s Gospel seems to suggest a situation where there was a Jewish majority of neighbors who were not part of the sect. It seems to suggest a situation where there was an inter-Jewish debate and conflict over Jesus. Does this really describe Antioch in the latter part of the first century AD?29 In addition, I think it is more likely that an audience of Jesus’ followers with no significant number of Gentile converts in their midst would be receptive to arguments about Jesus sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and the like, than an audience with many Gentile converts. They would be more receptive to arguments that the Gentile mission was intentionally a post-ministry of the Jesus phenomenon, while still urging that a mission to Jews was in order.30 They would be more receptive to an understanding of a portrayal

Introduction

of Jesus as Jewish sage and Wisdom. And there is this to consider as well: Matthew the tax collector was Galilean and would have had to know some Greek to practice his trade in that border region. After all, he lived in a region that could on occasion be called “Galilee of the Gentiles,” though in fact there is no solid archaeological evidence of any significant presence of 31 Gentiles in Galilee. A large majority of the residents of Galilee were Jews in the New Testament era, including after the fall of the temple in AD 70.32 If Matthew did have special access to the birth stories and other unique Jesus material, then he must surely have gotten these in Galilee. Furthermore, our Evangelist had direct access to Matthew’s special material in a way that Luke and Mark did not, so I would suggest it is easier to explain both why this Gospel is attributed to Matthew and why it was assembled as it was by the First Evangelist if its provenance is in fact Galilee.33 Various other features of Matthew’s Gospel also point us in the direction of a Galilean provenance. If we ask where it was more likely that an Evangelist would speak about “their synagogues” (plural) repeatedly (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 13:54; 23:34), would refer negatively

Palestine

23

24

Introduction

Sea of Galilee [Photo Credit: Jim Pitts]

to the term “rabbi” (23:8; 26:25, 49), would continually critique Jewish leaders (ch. 23), and would repeatedly insist on Jesus’ messianic identity and ministry,34 surely within Israel rather than outside Israel is more probable. Whatever else one can say about Antioch in the last couple of decades in the first century there is no real historical evidence of polemics between the synagogue or synagogues there and the Christian community that included Jewish Christians. Indeed, even the much earlier Galatians suggests only an in-house debate in Antioch, not an inter-faith one. In addition to these considerations, small linguistic clues in the Gospel itself suggest a Galilean provenance. For example, in Matthew 7:10 we have reference to a harmless water snake commonly found in the Sea of Galilee (tropidontus tesselatus), which was nonetheless something of nuisance because it would take the bait of a fisherman (cf. Matt 17:27).35 The thesis of this commentary, then, is that the audience of the Gospel of Matthew lived in Galilee and was predominantly, if not almost exclusively, Jewish Christian. This thesis also makes good sense in light of various things W. D. Davies and others pointed out long ago about how Matthew reacts to Pharisaism in a particularly noteworthy way. This Gospel is written in some proximity to

Introduction

25

a stronghold of Pharisaism, and that is surely a more likely suggestion in the Holy Land than somewhere else. [Pharisees v. Others] While this Gospel is written within shouting distance of Pharisaic Judaism, the community of the Evangelist is no longer part of that particular stream of early Judaism; rather it is part of the messianic movement of Jesus. The Evangelist seeks to redefine the course or direction of Israel’s history as pointing toward Jesus and needing to be redefined in light of the Christ event. It is possible that Matthew’s community developed in due course into the sect later called the Nazoreans by Jerome and Epiphanius, a sect that had a high Christology and continued to be observant of Jewish law and traditions.36 Like the community of James in Jerusalem,37 this group believed strongly in an ongoing witnessing to Jews (see Acts 21:20), whom God had by no means forsaken, while fully endorsing the mission to Gentiles as well. But precisely because this Evangelist believes so strongly in the ongoing witness to Jews, he has taken the trouble to re-Judaize Pharisees v. Others the Jesus tradition, which both Mark and Luke Though the arguments of Davies are had taken some pains to Hellenize to make it somewhat dated now, I do not buy the more user-friendly for Gentiles. notion that the term Pharisee in this Gospel is simply a cipher for “Jew.’ This Evangelist knows Can we be more specific as to where in Galilee very well the difference between Pharisees and this Gospel was written? There are several clues Sadducees, or Pharisees and Jewish Christians. in the text. Firstly, there is the fact that this We are not yet in the situation that Galilean Jews Gospel mentions cities more frequently than vilwere in after the Bar Kochba revolt in the early lages, even in the material it shares in common second century, much less in the situation of with Mark. Twenty-six times the First Evangelist Galilean rabbinic Judaism where there was a deliberate turning away from Greek. refers to cities, whereas Mark uses the term polis only eight times. Mark uses the term village seven times (køm∑), while we find it only four times in Matthew.38 Notice too that the disciples are encouraged to flee from city to city, not to the hills (Matt 10:23; 23:34).39 This suggests the author is in and is writing to an urban setting. Secondly, as A. Overman has pointed out, the frequent references to debates with Jewish officials suggest the author and audience share an environment that is a center for Jewish thought and life.40 Thirdly, there is the issue of the language of this Gospel. Sometimes it has been argued that since the Gospel of Matthew is written in good koine Greek, it must be written to an audience living outside of Israel. This is by no means necessarily the case. The Hellenization of the region had transpired long before Jesus’ day, and it had left an enduring and profound impact on the Jewish culture.41 The urban centers in Galilee, including in lower Galilee, were also centers where Greek was the second language of choice not only for speaking but espe-

26

Introduction

Capernaum

Lake Tiberias, Israel. Panoramic view near Capernaum, visible toward the right. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0)

cially for writing. Recent archaeological work has confirmed that cities like Sepphoris, Tiberias, Bethsaida, and even Capernaum were places where Greek was in frequent use.42 After the fall of the temple in AD 70, this became increasingly the case in Galilee. Josephus notes that while Aramaic was the main spoken language in Israel, many Jews also knew Greek (Ant. 20.11.1ff.), and we even have a rabbi from a slightly later period urging “Why use the Syrian language [i.e., Aramaic] in Israel? Either use the holy tongue [Hebrew] or Greek!” (b. Sotah 49b). The Greek of this Gospel suggests an urban setting, not necessarily a setting outside of Israel.43 Fourthly, it is sometimes argued that the prominence of and special material about Peter in Matthew’s Gospel favors the locale of Antioch, since we know he was there (see Gal 2). But it certainly cannot be said that the prominence of Peter favors Antioch over a city in Galilee for the provenance of this Gospel, and particularly not over Capernaum. Peter was from Galilee and is even said to have a home in Capernaum in this Gospel. Furthermore, Matthew’s Gospel says Jesus went and lived in Capernaum (4:13). Even Jesus himself is not portrayed as a pure itinerant but rather

Introduction

27

one that had a home in Capernaum despite all his travels. Notice too that in Matthew 9:1 Capernaum is again referred to as Jesus’ own town, and it is apparently on the outskirts of this town that Jesus encounters Matthew and calls him to discipleship (9:9-13). In my view, either Capernaum, which we know was a center for Jesus and his followers, including apparently Matthew, or Sepphoris near Nazareth is likely the setting of this Gospel.44 Of the two, Capernaum is a more likely setting for two reasons: (1) there is clear archaeological evidence of a Christian community continuing in this locale for many generations after the time of Christ, and even evidence that Peter’s home was used as a center for Christian meetings long after his death in the 60s (see below); (2) Sepphoris, being a capital city for Herod Antipas, was much more Hellenized in its cultural expression and would have been problematic in various ways for followers of Jesus in a way Capernaum would not have been. [Avoiding Antipas] Sepphoris and Tiberias are nowhere mentioned in this Gospel, any more than Antioch is. I agree with Luz that it is unlikely this Gospel was written in a small and remote community, or else it becomes difficult to explain its rapid spread, but this takes us into the area of dating the Gospel, which we will address in a moment.45 It is interesting that even as late as the eighth Image Not Available through eleventh centuries when the due to lack of digital rights. church had no meaningful Jewish Please view the published presence in its midst, scribal notacommentary or perform an Internet tions in manuscripts of Matthew for search using the credit below. that period (K, 126, 174) continue to locate this Gospel’s audience in Israel, sometimes even in Jerusalem. Jerome had already stressed in the fifth century that Matthew composed his work for Jewish Christians in the Holy Land Bronze Coin of Herod Antipas (more specifically Judea; see his de Bronze Coin of Herod Antipas, Tetrach of Galilee, and inscription. Reifenberg Collection. Jerusalem, Israel. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] vir. Ill. 3)46 Can we say something more speAvoiding Antipas cific about the social situation of For example, there was the known history of Antipas and Kefer Nahum, the village named how he treated John the Baptist, plus there was Jesus’ after the prophet Nahum? First of dismissive evaluation of Antipas as a fox. Jesus and his followers all, it was a small town taking up at a seem to have avoided locales where there might be a confrontation maximum 42 acres and with a popu- with Antipas or his entourage, which is just one more piece of evilation of perhaps as many as 1,500, dence that Jesus was not a revolutionary in the usual sense of that term.

28

Introduction

but not more. Some excavators have argued that the city was set out in a grid pattern with residences grouped in insulae, but this has been disputed. It is not clear that there was any central planning for this town. What has been found is a multi-room mausoleum and a Roman bathhouse that dates to the second or third century AD. In the excavations around the famous synagogue, stone vessels used for purification (see John 2) have been found. The synagogue that now dominates the landscape in Capernaum dates probably to the second or third century, but its foundation seems to go back to a first-century synagogue. The basalt walls and the ceramic pavement seem to be from the first century AD. In regard to the excavations at Peter’s house, there is clear evidence of unusual renovations in the mid- to late first century involving the plastering of its ceiling, walls, and floor, which suggests this had become a regular meeting place for Jesus’ followers.47 More clearly, walls that were erected in the fourth century AD bear Christian graffiti in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac, attesting to this certainly being a pilgrimage spot and meeting hall in that era. Two of these graffiti appear to mention Peter himself. It is not surprising then that we have historical record of the pilgrim Egeria in the fourth century visiting this house of Peter’s, and by the fifth century an octagonal church had been built on the spot. The excavators claim to have found evidence that Jewish Christians met in Peter’s house in the latter part of the first century AD.48 Whether they have actually found such archaeological evidence or not, Matthew’s Gospel seems to provide literary evidence that points in such a direction.49 As for the date of this Gospel’s writing, it must surely have been written after Mark’s Gospel, which places it sometime after AD 68–70.50 One must also say that even if Mark’s Gospel circulated widely, and I see no reason why it may not have,51 we must allow for some time to have gone by before the scribe who composed the First Gospel had received and digested Mark, had gotten in hand Matthew’s special material, and had gotten hold of a form of the material we call Q, the sayings collection that makes up so much of the Matthean discourse material. No date better suits the composition of this Gospel than sometime either in the later 70s or early 80s.52 This is long enough after the Jewish war for things to have calmed down in Galilee, but not so long that Jewish followers of Jesus were no longer much in evidence in the region. That Matthew’s Gospel should probably not be dated much later than we have just argued is suggested by the following facts: (1) Ignatius seems to know this Gospel’s special editing (cf. Smyrn.

Introduction

1.1//Matt 3:15; Phil 3:1//Matt 15:13). Furthermore, Polycarp certainly knows this Gospel (Pol. 2.3//Matt 7:1-2; 5:3, 6, 10; Pol. 7.2//Matt 6:13; 26:41). This means the First Gospel was known in Smyrna no later than about AD 115. (2) More telling is the fact that Clement of Rome knows this Gospel (cf. 1 Clem. 24.5 to Matt 13:3-9; 1 Clem. 46.6-8 to Matt 18:6-7). This means this Gospel was known in Rome before AD 100. Scholars have frequently pointed to various portions of the Didache as being thoroughly familiar with and dependent on the Gospel of Matthew (see Did. 2.2; 3.15; 5.38-42; 6.9-15; 15.13). The Didache seems to have been already extant in the 90s AD or at the latest in the first few years of the second century.53 Perhaps here is the place to note that Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, writing perhaps around AD 100)54 says Matthew wrote down the logia in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as they were able (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39). Several considerations are relevant: (1) Our current Matthew is of course in Greek, and it does not on the whole appear to be translation Greek, and more to the point it is hardly believable that a document incorporating most of Mark was originally a document in a Semitic language.55 (2) The term logia would normally be rendered “sayings.” Notice that the term Gospel (euaggelion) is not used. (3) It is believable that various of Jesus’ sayings were first written down in Aramaic, which may be what Eusebius means when he says “Hebrew dialect.” (4) It is also possible that special materials about Jesus’ origins and teaching were originally written down in Aramaic. In other words, it is possible that either some of the Q material (e.g., the Lord’s prayer) and/or some of the M material, which includes some logia (e.g., parables) were originally in Aramaic and were translated at some juncture. Perhaps then we may envision Matthew’s special M material as originally in Aramaic, as was some or all of the Q material originally. This situation presented the First Evangelist with a dilemma. The Gospel narrative he had before him and relied upon (Mark) was in Greek, but these other materials were in Aramaic. The natural solution for this scribe was to render all the materials into koine Greek, the lingua franca of the empire, especially since the Evangelist did at the end of the day believe strongly in the Great Commission. If this is the process by which the Gospel as we now have it was put together, then it is unlikely that Matthew himself (while a source of some of the material in this Gospel—M source) assembled this Gospel. It was assembled after the Gospel of Mark was in wide circulation and had become the standard reference

29

30

Introduction

work, the standard narrative on Jesus. [Date of Mark’s Gospel] This helps us once more to date this document in the last couple of decades of the first century. By then, even conservative Jewish Christian communities in or near the Holy Land realized that in order to communicate with the majority of other Christians, including Diaspora Jewish Christians, they had to write in Greek. [Matthean Form of Q]

One further point needs to be stressed, namely that the First Evangelist lived in a mixed language milieu and was himself at least bilingual, and though, on the whole, he uses the Date of Mark’s Gospel LXX for the sake of his Greek readership,56 it is I have argued that the Gospel of Mark clear from his handling of Old Testament matewas written to the church in Rome near rial that he also knows Semitic languages and to the time Jerusalem fell (AD 70). See my The Gospel of Mark. Whether one thinks Matthew is versions of sacred texts, as Allison and Davies written to Antioch, or to somewhere else in Syria have pointed out.57 or Galilee, these locales are in the eastern end of This data simply further strengthens the case the Empire. We must then assume that Mark was for the view that a Jewish Christian wrote in rather wide circulation to have reached such a Matthew for a largely Jewish Christian audience, church and to have done so not long after Mark and presumably one that lived in a genuinely wrote his Gospel. I say this not least because Luke already knows of several such narratives mixed language milieu and that may have been when he writes his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). conversant with some of the Semitic versions of B. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark (Grand their sacred texts. This better describes Galilee Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 26-29. than Antioch. Two other inter-textual relationships must be considered. There are some clear similarities between 1 Peter and Matthew, in particular between 1 Peter 2:12 and Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 3:14 and Matthew 5:10. The argument then becomes a chicken and egg argument. Which came first—1 Peter or Matthew’s Gospel? In my view, it is likely that 1 Peter was probably written in the 60s.58 However, a moment’s reflection on these texts in Matthew shows that they are from the Sermon on the Mount and likely go back to Jesus himself in some form. It is thus possible that we are dealing with the Petrine rendering of this material into Greek both in 1 Peter and in Matthew’s Gospel. In other words, Peter may be the source for some of the Q material in its Matthean Matthean Form of Q Luke shows no knowledge of Aramaic whatsoever. He regularly omits any Aramaic from his source material; in particular we know he does so with his use of Mark. This then leads to the important conclusion that if the First Evangelist was rendering Q material from the Aramaic original, while Luke was using a Greek version of Q, it is more likely than not that the Matthean form of Q is closer to the original in most places, not least because the agenda of the First Evangelist is to retain or even restore the Jewish flavor of the Jesus material! In other words, Q scholars are simply wrong to give a natural preference for the Lukan version of Q.

Introduction

form. That there are other parallels between 1 Peter and Matthew may also support this conjecture (cf. 1 Pet 2:7 to Matt 21:42; 1 Pet 3:8-9 to Matt 5:39, 44; 1 Pet 4:13 to Matt 5:11-12).59 There is also the matter of the relationship of James’s homily and Matthew’s Gospel. James contains some twenty partial quotes or allusions to the Sermon on the Mount, and it is always to the Matthean form of the Sermon on the Mount.60 This does not necessarily mean there is any literary relationship between Matthew and James, especially since James feels free to adapt and adopt these sayings for his own purposes and does not tell his audience they came from Jesus. It seems likely then that both the author of James and the First Evangelist knew the same version of these sayings of Jesus, which is to say they knew the same version of Q, the Aramaic one (see above). If, as I have argued elsewhere, James’s homily should be dated to the mid-50s,61 then we may have evidence from James that the version of Q used by both James and the First Evangelist is likely the earlier version, compared to the Greek version on which Luke draws. This makes Matthew’s Gospel all the more important for learning about early Jewish Christians in the Holy Land and their faith and practices. The Intended Use of Matthew’s Gospel

While I think it is right that this Gospel was intended to be used as a teaching tool training Jewish Christians in their faith, I would not want to imply that this Gospel was intended only for a school setting of some sort, much less as merely an early version of a catechetical manual. Luz, I think, is right in mentioning that Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer points us to the fact that Matthew’s redaction reflects the language of worship in his own community, and this in turn suggests that the material was also meant to be used in worship, not solely in a school setting.62 Luz also points out rightly that the way the Lord’s Supper discussion is framed likely suggests the worship setting where disciples hear the commands “take, eat, drink of it, all of you” (Matt 26:2628). The same can be said about the stress on forgiveness of sins (Matt 9:8; Matt 18) that points to this being a major emphasis in the community. This also makes sense of various modifications of Mark’s account, particularly the stress on the public testimony about Jesus’ identity at the baptism and afterward, and the ameliorating of the harsh Markan depiction of the disciples as lacking faith. This is hardly what one needs to say to new converts in their training or in their worship as they are on the way to being full-

31

32

Introduction

fledged disciples. Furthermore, it would appear that the Evangelist is part of a community where the Greek Old Testament (LXX) is used in worship and study, and so he relies on it as well. This points to an interesting conjecture. Could it be that Jews in Galilee, who spoke Aramaic, knew Greek better than Hebrew?63 They would have to speak Greek to some degree to survive and do business in a multi-lingual environment like the border regions of lower Galilee. Hebrew would only be something they might hear or use on the Sabbath, unless they were training to be a Jewish scribe or rabbi. As Luz points out, phrases from the LXX flow from the pen of the Evangelist, and indeed the terminology and even the structure of Matthew’s Gospel seem to be influenced by the LXX. Luz concludes, “He is at home in his Greek Bible because the worship service plays a decisive role for him.”64 This may help explain why Matthew’s Gospel so rapidly became the Gospel of choice to be used in worship by Christians. It was intended and shaped for such a purpose in the first place, albeit Jewish Christian worship was in view originally. It is also true, as Luz stresses, that this document was intended for repeated readings or hearings. We are thus to envision a community of Jewish Christians who, perhaps in order precisely to distinguish them from the nearby synagogue, use the LXX and Greek in general as their language of worship and study and reflection. More on all these matters will be discussed in the commentary itself. The Impact Crater: Ways Matthew Has Been Read through the Ages

Regardless of the intended use of the First Gospel, the text has always been interpreted and used in a variety of ways, and in fact this Gospel has sometimes been as influential for the ways it has been misread as for the ways it has been properly read and used. [Unintended Influences]

What we learn from scrutinizing the uses of Matthew through the centuries is that texts take on a life of their own once they escape the gravity of their original setting and contexts and any historical controls, or better said once they both escape that original gravity and then become captive to the gravity of other cultures and other settings and so are read anachronistically. This was recently made painfully clear by the great outcry against Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ because of its inclusion (in the original version) of the uniquely Matthean blood-cry (“may the blood be on us and our children,” Matt 27:25). The outcry against

Introduction

33

Unintended Influences In a helpful study of the readings of Matthew through the ages, H. Clarke provides considerable insight on how a text can be influential even in ways the author would not have expected, intended, or in some cases even wished. For example: Many readers know that 16:18 (“Thou art Peter . . . I will build my church”) is basic to Catholicism’s claims for the papacy. But how many know that 9:2-7 is a foundation text for Christian Scientists? Or that Matthew, the only gospel to use the word church is a central presence in Mormonism, and that “pearl of great price” (13:46) became the title of one of the Mormon’s basic texts? Or that 5:34, forbidding oaths, was a fundamental provision of Quakerism? And that the “Harrowing of Hell” (27:52-53), found only in Matthew and often disregarded, has a special place in the art and spirituality of Eastern Orthodoxy? As for Judaism, in the late Middle Ages, a Jew named Shem-Tob created a Hebrew version of Matthew to assist his people in their disputes with Christians, who had for too long used another Matthean verse, the “Cry of the People” (27:25) to justify their anti-Semitism. Historically, 4:17 not only provided the opening salvo of the Reformation, but in the same verse the translation of just one of Matthew’s words, as repent, ended for Protestants the century-old tradition of auricular confession, as well as the sacramental status of penance. And ubiquitous in Reformation writings is their “Call of the Savior” (11:28-30), which seemed to sum up all they found wrong in Romanism though Matthew’s accounts of baptism and the Eucharist also accounted for bitter divisions among the Reformers. The meaning of Jesus’ words on divorce and adultery is still debated (recall how 5:28, on the lust in the heart, almost derailed Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign in 1976). And 5:39, which helped change Tolstoy’s life, has become as much a staple of Christian pacifism as 10:34 is for the militants of liberation theology. The “Christian perfectionism” of 5:48 has inspired both monks and Methodists, and it lurks behind most Christian cults and heresies. In Western culture, Matthew gave the Christmas scene its eastern star, its wise men and its “Flight into Egypt”; an allusion to Matthew helped Hamlet to resolve his tragic dilemma; and the first gospel continues to infiltrate our books and films. The hell that is preached is largely Matthean, and in the gospel’s final lines rests Scripture’s only formulation of the Trinity while also establishing the basis for Christianity’s missionary enterprises. Matthew is everywhere. H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), xi-xii.

the blood-cry text had more to do with the horrible ways this text had been misused to justify anti-Semitism in many centuries after the time of Christ than with its original meaning and intent. While totally escaping anachronism and modern cultural assumptions is impossible, we intend this commentary to be a historical one in nature and orientation. Though total objectivity is elusive, I do not believe radical subjectivity is inevitable; or put another way, I do not believe all we have access to in our age is endless subjective readings and uses of the text. There is more possible in the study of the Bible than reader-response criticism would suggest. Careful historical research is the hedge against the inflation of anachronism, and it is, I submit, precisely where the text makes us most uncomfortable that we must avoid whittling off its hard edges. At those junctures, we both learn something about our own assumptions and prejudices and come most obviously into contact with the historical substance of the text.

34

Introduction

Notes 1 G.

N. Stanton, “The Early Reception of Matthew’s Gospel,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. D. E. Aune (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 42-61, here 50-51, 61. The papyri fragments of Matthew are truly numerous by the time we get to AD 300. See some samples both from rolls and from codexes in New Docs 2, 125-30. Note especially that P1, 17, 64, 67 all contain some of Matthew. 2 See New Docs 3, 103-104, and see especially the request “do not bring us to the testing” or the recitation of the beginning of the prayer “Our Father” in IGA 5.357; P. Ant. 2; P.Oxy. 3; PSI 6, P Koln 4. 3 H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), xxi. 4 A.-J. Levine, “Anti-Judaism and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, ed. William R. Farmer (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 9-34, here p. 21. 5 On which see my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 16-31. 6 The list of some 33 examples of awkward grammar and strange vocabulary including various hapax legomena can be found in J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909), 131-34. 7 On which see my Gospel of Mark, 16-31. 8 See the helpful discussion by Graham Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel,” NTS 43 (1997): 317-46. This is the juncture where I part company with D. Trobisch, who wants to argue that we can learn something about the final redactor of the whole New Testament from the kata Matthaion phrase. But see D. Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 46-54. When the four canonical Gospels were first collected together in a codex, the label became necessary, and this must have happened before Tatian in the 2d century produced his Diatesseron, a harmony of precisely these four Gospels and no others. Note that this harmony used Matthew’s Gospel as the primary Gospel or baseline for its synthesis. This too attests to the great popularity and influence of Matthew already in the 2d century. 9 On this point, cf. my Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 343, and C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 10. 10 See the fascinating study of K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 11 On which see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). 12 See for example the works of M. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); and R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). 13 See my discussion in Jesus the Sage, 335-80. 14 See the helpful study of J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1997). 15 See, e.g., G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973). 16 See D. E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). The analogy with Quman also doesn’t work so well since the Qumran documents don’t really speak about scribes and their tasks, and it is a mistake to confuse a sage, or teacher such as the Teacher of Righteousness, with a scribe. A sage is an originator of wisdom; a scribe, by and large, is an interpreter and explainer of previous wisdom.

Introduction 17 See

my discussion in Jesus the Sage, 72-73. D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, v.1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 31. 19 Though since he is writing in Greek, he will also rely on the LXX. 20 See especially R. Burridge, What are the Gospels? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), and of recent commentaries on Matthew see D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), lvii and C. Blomberg, Matthew ( Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 46-47. 21 See D. Senior, “Directions in Matthean Studies,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, 5-21, here p. 14. 22 C. Keener, 23-24. 23 The most thorough and helpful treatment of the structure of this Gospel is my colleague D. Bauer’s The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). 24 On which see C. Keener, 37; U. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1992), 34-44. 25 Luz, 42. 26 M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970); C. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah, and Discipleship in Matthew 11:25-30 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); and M. D. Johnson, “Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew’s Christology,” CBQ 36 (1974): 44-64. 27 I am thinking of some of those who contributed to the Talmuds and saw themselves as in essence tradents. 28 See D. Hagner, lxviii-lxix. 29 Just as I am unconvinced of the Antiochian provenance of this Gospel, I am even more unconvinced that its primary focus of animus is on the Roman Empire and the imperial cult. While it is true that the dominion of God is being asserted over against other possible dominions, Rome’s is not singled out for special contumely; rather there is more concern with the client king Herod Antipas and his misdeeds. But see W. Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001), and also his Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004). 30 See the helpful study of A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988). 31 The phrase probably refers to the fact that Galilee was surrounded on several sides by non-Jewish neighbors. 32 I suspect the name comes because Galilee abuts regions where there were many non-Jews. We now have a thorough debunking of the notion that the historical Galilee of Jesus’ day or during the New Testament era was a region rife with Gentiles. See M. A. Chauncey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 33 The Galilean provenance of this Gospel has been successfully argued for at length by J. A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), and his Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1996). 34 See D. Senior, “Directions in Matthean Studies,” in Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, 5-21, here p. 8. 35 See J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Why Doesn’t God Answer Prayers?” BR (April 2004): 14-19, 43, here p. 16. 18 See

35

36

Introduction 36 D.

C. Allison and W. D. Davies, v. 3, 726-27. It is interesting that Matthew’s redaction of Mark includes a significant lessening of references to Jesus’ emotions or his ignorance of something. There are some eight texts in Mark referring to Jesus’ emotions and some fourteen texts in Mark alluding to Jesus’ ignorance of something, and Matthew omits them. Here is a clear case where it is hard to argue that Mark used Matthew and added motifs of ignorance and emoting. See Allison and Davies, vol. 1, 104-105. 37 On which see H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2003), 111-41. 38 See J. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 125. 39 See A. M. Gale, “Tradition in Transition, or Antioch verse Sepphoris,” in SBL Seminar Papers 2003, 144-56, here p. 143. 40 J. A. Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1996), 18. 41 See now the numerous fine essays in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling, eds., Hellenism in the Land of Israel (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001). 42 The evidence from Sepphoris is particularly impressive. See now Gale, “Tradition in Transition, or Antioch verse Sepphoris,” 144-56. As Gale points out, there are even Jewish grave markers in Greek in Sepphoris, and this is telling since the traditional spoken language of Aramaic was typically used by Jews on gravestones. See H. Shanks and B. Witherington, 111ff. 43 I agree with Gale, “Tradition in Transition, or Antioch verse Sepphoris,” 142-43, that the ethos of this Gospel does not suggest a wandering community of itinerants. Wandering itinerants simply move on when the going gets rough. This Gospel reflects an environment where Jewish Christians are staying in one place despite opposition. 44 Bethsaida would also be a possibility, but we are only beginning to know something about it from the archaeological data now coming to light. 45 See U. Luz, 92. 46 See the discussion in C. Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 36. 47 See now P. Perkins, “Peter: How a Flawed Disciple became Jesus’ Successor on Earth,” in BR 20/1 (February 2004): 12-23, here 17-18. 48 See J. Strange and H. Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 8/6 (November 1982): 26-37. 49 On these last two paragraphs, see Chauncey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 102-105 and the notes there. 50 See my Gospel of Mark, 20-31. 51 See R. Bauckham, ed., The Gospel for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), for as he has suggested, these Gospels were written with at least one eye on the larger and broader Christian community in various locales. 52 I think it is likely that Luke’s Gospel was composed after Matthew’s, though I doubt Luke had a copy of Matthew’s text to hand. The fact, however, that Luke mentions Gospels plural in Luke 1:1-4 suggests the later date for Luke’s work. On this, see my The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 1ff. 53 For a complete survey of allusions to Matthew in the 2d century, see E. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990). 54 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 128-29. 55 Seeibid., 9. 56 See M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (Leuven: Leuven Press, 2004). 57 D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 33.

Introduction 58 See

my New Testament History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), ad loc. the careful discussion in U. Luz, 93. 60 See my discussion in Jesus the Sage, 236-47. 61 See H. Shanks and B. Witherington, 143-64. 62 See U. Luz, 77. 63 It is interesting that the Evangelist avoids some but not all Aramaisms in the way Luke does. See Ibid., 72. 64 Ibid., 77. 59 See

37

The Origins of Jesus Matthew 1:1-25 The superscript of the Gospel of Matthew, which includes the phrase kata Matthaion, was added to the Gospel at some juncture after it began to circulate in the church, in particular after several Gospels began to circulate, such that Matthew could be distinguished from others by this phrase. The phrase seems to have been added at least as soon as the early second century AD, as there seems to have been a collection of the four canonical Gospels circulating together in one codex at that juncture. As we have seen in the introduction to this commentary,1 it seems unlikely that the notion of Matthew writing some Gospel material was arrived at without a historical foundation, since he is one of the more obscure members of the Twelve. Church tradition suggested that he had written down some of the traditions about Jesus in Hebrew or Aramaic and they were later translated into Greek. We have suggested that these traditions are the uniquely Matthean material we find in this Gospel, which includes the material in Matthew 1–2, though it may also involve some of the sayings or so-called Q material. Matthew then was the source of the material that began this Gospel and of some of the other material in it, and since he was a more famous contributor to this document than Mark or whoever assembled the Q material, the Gospel of Matthew was associated with him rather than someone else.

COMMENTARY The Origins of the Son of David, 1:1-17

Matthew actually begins with the word biblos, which certainly could be translated “book.” This may suggest, since the term is modified by the phrase “of the genealogy/genesis/origin of Jesus Christ,” that this material was originally a separate document that may have extended at least to the end of Matthew 2, perhaps as far as Matthew 4:16. [Biblos Geneseøs] Certainly Matthew 1 is about Jesus’ origins, both human and divine. Though the form of this phrase echoes Genesis

40

Matthew 1:1-25

5:1, in Genesis it is followed by a list of descendants. Keener thinks the First Evangelist is making the profound point that in Jesus’ case, he conveys honor and significance to his ancestors, being the Jewish messiah, rather than the other way around.2 [A Sapiential Reading of 1:1-17] Notice that Jesus is called “Jesus Christ,” with the latter term acting almost as a name or a part of a name, though at 1:17 where it appears alone it seems to be a title. Christos is the Greek adjective turned noun that was used to render the Hebrew term mashiach, which means anointed one. It is understandable that christos was the Greek term used, since this adjective was found on flasks and used of ointment or perfume and D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and its external application. Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According Keener is right to stress that for a Jewish to Matthew, v. 1 (ICC; T & T Clark International, Christian audience, the major names in this 2004), 150. genealogy, such as Judah, Ruth, David, Uzziah, Hezekiah, and Josiah, would conjure up some of the major stories in Jewish history and certainly also convey a sense of the honor claims in the genealogy of Jesus.3 This is also clearly a Jewish genealogy from the fact that it is descending in character as opposed to ascending, as is the case with Luke’s genealogy. Luke is conforming things to the Greek practice in listing ancestors, but Jews generally started with the oldest ancestor that could be listed. The four women listed prior to Mary in this genealogy could be said to share in common a non-Jewish ancestry (Tamar from Canaan; Rahab from Jericho; Ruth from Moab; and Bathsheba, who was the ex-wife of a Hittite). Just by this fact, the unions these women had with Jews would be considered irregular. This is a different matter than emphasizing the miraculous element, in which case we might have expected Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. One suspects, since the First Evangelist is concerned about matters of apologetics and how things will appear to an outside audience, that it is likely these women are included to emphasize “divine Biblos Geneseøs It is interesting that in the LXX version of Gen 5:1, the same phrase biblos geneseøs introduces a list of descendents rather than ancestors. More importantly, this phrase introduces not just a genealogy, but also narrative material in Gen 5. As Allison and Davies suggest, the author seems to conjure up the notion that he is presenting some kind of primal history, or the origins of Messiah and his people, in which case Matt 1:1 should be seen as the intro to the entire Gospel. It may be that the Evangelist intended us to see this as a counterpart to the book of Genesis, or at least its beginnings, for he will go on to depict Jesus as the one who passes the temptation test and fulfills all righteousness as God’s chosen One gone right.

A Sapiential Reading of 1:1-17 The Evangelist seeks to present Jesus as a Jewish royal figure, not merely Son of Abraham, but Son of David, which is mentioned first in 1:1. The genealogy presents Jesus as the perfect one who has been preceded by seven times six generations and who begins the seventh

seven of generations. So intent on presenting Jesus as royalty is the author that he stresses that Joseph is son of David (1:20), even though Joseph is not portrayed as Jesus’ biological father. He could, however, be Jesus’ father under Jewish law by adoption, and thereby Jesus was entitled to his father’ genealogy.

Matthew 1:1-25

41

irregularity”—how God can use unusual women and unusual circumstances to produce leaders such as Solomon or Jesus. It is particularly important for the wisdom theme in this book to emphasize God’s mysterious wisdom from the first, and since the line is traced through Solomon to Jesus, who is the one most like that earlier son of David, this wisdom theme does undergird what is going on here. These previous women, especially in the case of Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, provide precedents by which the Evangelist can defend within an honor and shame culture what God did in regard to Mary and the virginal conception. As a subsidiary theme, there may also be some preparation here for the conclusion of the Gospel in Matthew 28, hinting already that Gentiles had always been part of Messiah’s family and God’s plan to form a people.4 [Textual Variants] The first and most important of the formula quotations in Matthew is the quotation of Isaiah 7:14 at Matthew 1:23, which we will treat here since we are already dealing with the issue of the virginal conception in the genealogy. [Crucial Observations] The upshot of these observations is that Matthew did not likely derive the notion of the virginal conception simply by reading either the Hebrew Bible or the LXX, which he seems to cite at Matthew 1:23. It was rather the event in Mary’s life that forced him to go back and reexamine Old Testament stories, seek to find what prophecy had foretold this would happen. The historical substance of the narrative is what forced such a move on the part of Matthew.5 If we ask, from a Christian point of view, what the theological cash value of the notion of the virginal conception is, it is important in the following regards: (1) The virginal conception and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the process allowed Jesus to be conceived without the taint of human fallenness. He therefore could be, as Paul calls him, the last Adam—only he is Adam gone right, Adam who does not succumb to temptation. Thus the Textual Variants There are interesting textual variants at v. 16. The version supported by Aleph, B, C, W, and others is usually followed and reads “and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” The second reading seems to be a reaction to the first one by a scribe fearful that someone might make the mistake of assuming Mary became pregnant while already married, and so it reads, “and Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being betrothed the virgin Mary bore Jesus who is called Christ” (supported by Caesarean

and old Latin witnesses, Theta and f13 being the principle witnesses). The third textual tradition reads, “Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ” (attested by the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript alone). This last seems to be a revision of the second reading. What we learn is how nervous some scribes were about properly describing what actually went on when holy Mary became pregnant. See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 2-7.

42

Matthew 1:1-25

Crucial Observations Several observations are crucial: (1) The early Jewish interpretation of this text seems to have seen Hezekiah, the successor and son of Ahaz, as the one to whom the text was referring. There seems to be no evidence that any early non-Christian Jew saw this text as referring to messiah, much less a prophecy about a virginal conception. Evidence that the Targums interpret Isa 9:5-6 messianically is one thing, but evidence has not yet turned up in the Targums of similar treatment of Isa 7:14. (2) In the Hebrew text, the word ‘almah is used, not betula. The former term means a young woman of marriageable age, and while this would certainly normally include the concept of virginity in such an honor and shame culture, ‘almah is not a technical term for virgin. Betula more nearly fits that description. (See G. J. Wenham, “Betulah: A Girl of Marriagable Age,” VT 22 [1972]: 326-48.) (3) The term ‘almah is never used in the Old Testament of a married woman, but does indeed refer to a woman who is nubile,

sexually mature. There is in fact only one Old Testament text that may use this term to refer to a woman who is sexually active (Song 6:8, but cf. Prov 30:19). The term then normally implies a virgin but does not focus on this quality of the woman in question. This regular implication of the word probably explains why the LXX translator of Isaiah chose to translate the word as parthenos, which is more nearly a technical term for virgin. (I do not find persuasive the arguments about Gen 34:3 LXX that try to suggest parthenos does not mean virgin there since Dinah is seduced by Shechem. Dinah is called parthenos before the rape, but paidisk∑ afterward. More to the point, however, is Gen 24:43, which suggests occasionally parthenos can be as broad a term as ‘almah and mean a young woman of marriageable age.) It is interesting that other Greek translations of the Old Testament (e.g., Aquila, Theodotion) translate the word in question with neanis. (4) The Hebrew text speaks of the young woman and so seems to have some particular person in mind.

virginal conception probably provides the underpinning for the idea that Jesus was tempted like all other humans but did not sin (Heb 4:15) and could be seen as the holy high priest as well as the unblemished lamb of God. (2) The divine agency involved speaks to how the incarnation happened, but neither Matthew nor Luke tell the story of the preexistent one as we find it in John 1. Nothing is said in these accounts about a preexistent Son of God taking on a human nature. That discussion happened both before all the Gospels were written (Phil 2:5-11) and after the Synoptics were likely completed (John 1). Verse 17 clearly speaks to the schematization of this material, for it refers to fourteen generations between Abraham and David, fourteen generations between David and the exile in Babylon, and fourteen generations from the exile to Christ. A moment’s reflection will demonstrate that the amount of time elapsed between Abraham and David must be much larger than between David and the exile. This is clearly a royal, and so edited, genealogy meant to make certain key theological points about the significance of Jesus. As such, it should not be evaluated in the way one would evaluate a normal modern genealogical record. The Birth of Jesus Story, 1:18-25

Not surprisingly, in Matthew’s birth stories, the main focus is on Jesus, whereas in the Lukan stories there is also a focus on the

Matthew 1:1-25

43

family of and birth of John the Baptist. The explanation of this difference is simple. Luke is writing a historical monograph, not a biography of Jesus, and his focus is on what he deems to be the pertinent events in salvation history. The First Evangelist, however, is writing an ancient Jewish biography of Jesus. Matthew 1:18-25 should probably be seen as something of an apologetical tale explaining how Jesus could be born of Mary and not of Joseph, and yet still be in the Davidic line. R. Brown points out that Matthew 1 is about who and how (i.e., the virginal conception), while Matthew 2 is about where and whence.6 [A Sapiential Reading of 1:18-25] With the mention of Mary in the genealogy, as well as other women, one might have expected a focus on Mary in what follows in Matthew 1:18-25, but in fact Matthew goes on to focus almost entirely on Joseph. Here we note that only Joseph other than Jesus in this Gospel is given the title “son of David.” It is through Joseph

A Sapiential Reading of 1:18-25 Kings were often said to have miraculous births in antiquity, and Jesus is no different. Not only is Jesus said to be born by means of virginal conception, but the reader is told he will bear a divine throne name— Immanuel, meaning God with us (1:23; see Isa 9:6). God in some form is personally present with God’s people in and through Jesus. We are told later (at 11:19) what form that personal presence takes, namely that Jesus is Wisdom come in the flesh, and so he is someone who is a greater royal figure than even the ultimate Jewish sage—Solomon (13:42). The son of David before Jesus was of course Solomon, and the Evangelist will draw comparisons with Solomon and his wisdom throughout the text by presenting Jesus as both a sage who speaks in parables, riddles, aphorisms, and also the Wisdom of God come in the flesh. The term “Son of David” applied to Jesus will be sprinkled throughout the text to remind the audience of his royalty (1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45) but most of this emphasis will come at the end of the narrative to stress he was indeed king of the Jews even though paradoxically he was crucified, and some Jewish leaders were indirectly responsible for this outcome. The concept of the virginal conception has no exact parallels in other stories of prodigious births, either Jewish or Greco-Roman stories. Furthermore, the idea was unlikely to have been generated simply by a reading of Isa 7:14 that is cited in Matt 1:23, for that text could be read to mean that a woman who had previously not had sexual intercourse would conceive by normal means and bear a child. In other words, it was the story of Jesus’ birth told by early

Christians that led to the reading of Isa 7:14 in a new light, not the other way around. If we ask the significance of the virginal conception, it stresses: (1) the holiness of the child, for he was conceived through the agency of the Holy Spirit; (2) the uniqueness of the child, for such a means of conception was unprecedented; (3) the divinity of the child because by this means it was made clear he was also Son of God. The portrayal of Joseph as a righteous and law-abiding man, bound in marital contract to Mary, and not wishing to disgrace her through public divorce proceedings is important. It makes clear that he did not understand it was a virginal conception and thought she would be subject to public disgrace, perhaps even stoning for immoral sexual activity. The Evangelist portrays Joseph as a good and godly man, open to spiritual direction, which comes in the form of a dream in which the angel of the Lord appears to him and tells him to go ahead and marry Mary. Spiritual guidance can take many forms, but here and elsewhere in the birth narratives it comes in the form of a dream. Matt 1:21 says Joseph was instructed to call the boy “Jesus” (i.e., Joshua, a Hebrew name that means Yahweh saves). It is thereby promised that he would save his Jewish people from their sins. Joseph is obedient to the angelic message that comes through the dream and marries Mary. Matt 1:25 probably means that while he had no sexual intercourse with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus, he did do so afterward. Thus the Evangelist provides an explanation for the children who appear subsequently in Matt 13:55, but who do not seem to be alive during the period of the birth narrative and are not mentioned as traveling with the holy family to Egypt.

44

Matthew 1:1-25

and the naming of his son that Jesus becomes Son of David. The portrayal of Joseph is important in several ways. Joseph will be portrayed as a son of David caught between a rock and a hard place, more particularly between the Law, as he is a righteous, law-abiding Jew, and his love for Mary. The situation is not unlike the way Solomon is portrayed when it came to making wise decisions about important, and in some cases life and death, matters (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 3). In other words, Joseph will be portrayed as a wise man before we even hear about the wise men or magi as he responds to the heavenly dreams and does the right thing repeatedly. This sets the tone and stage for the portrayal of Jesus himself as sage and indeed as the embodiment of Wisdom, Immanuel. Notice how Joseph as The Dream of Saint Joseph the wise father who is obedient to Daniele Crespi (1590-1630). The Dream of Joseph. 1620-1630. Canvas. Location: the heavenly directions initiates Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Pd-Art [PD-old-100]) actions three times after being instructed by an angel in a dream (1:24; 2:13; 2:19). The reception of the dreams and the guidance should not be taken to indicate that Joseph was otherwise dense, as if without divine intervention he would have done something stupid. To the contrary, Joseph is depicted as a good Jew following the Law, who was spiritually open enough to accept correction and direction when he misunderstood what God and the Law required of him. Again, he is son of David (i.e., one like Solomon) who provides something of a pattern for his own adopted Son of David—Jesus. Verse 18 of Matthew 1 presents us with two key phrases or concepts in the Greek. The first of these is the use of the term genesis to refer to Jesus’ origins.7 Here as in Matthew 1:1 the issue is Jesus’ origins, not just his birth, though that is included. “The term ‘origin’ is much broader in scope than ‘birth.’ ‘Origin’ has to do

Matthew 1:1-25

with relationships: one’s relationship to mother, to father, to lineage, to forebears, and even to one’s own people, or nation.”8 In fact, this double use of this language in vv. 1 and 18 even summons us to consider Jesus’ relationship to God, and this becomes apparent when the Emmanuel theme surfaces not only here at the beginning of the story but in Matthew 28 as well. Usually it is thought that Jesus is to be seen as Son of David, simply through the act of Joseph’s adopting him; however, our author sees Jesus as a Son of David, like unto Solomon, not least because he is imbued with divine Wisdom by God, and thus is royal like Solomon because of what God has granted him—not merely because of adoptive and fictive kinship. Secondly, we have an important Greek phrase here—prin ∑ synelthein. Here we have a genitive absolute agreeing with the subject. There are then two possible readings of the phrase: (1) “before they had marital union” or (2) “before they married or cohabited.”9 If the former were the meaning, then it would certainly imply that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus. If the latter were accepted, it would simply be a statement about Mary’s pregnancy before marriage. There is actually however a third option—namely that both marriage and its consummation are intended by this phrase. It is difficult to imagine a Jew (or a Jewish Christian like our author) separating these ideas once one was committed to marriage. Thus it seems likely that this phrase is meant to imply marital union did transpire after marriage, and as the Gospel continues, various texts suggest Mary and Joseph had further children (see Matt 13:55-56).10 The awkwardness of the phrase comes from Matthew’s concern to explain how God alone was responsible for Mary’s conception and that Jesus is the result of God’s, not Joseph’s, creative action. I. Broer has rightly said that Matthew is only really concerned about Joseph’s conduct until the point that the birth and marriage happen, in order to show the fulfillment of Scripture.11 Mary then is depicted as having the greatest honor for a Jewess—she is the mother of Messiah, and so through her not merely Scripture but Israel’s destiny is fulfilled. Matthew 1:18 goes on to add that Mary was found to be with child by means of the Holy Spirit. This must actually mean that Joseph found her to be pregnant, though he did not know it was by holy means. Matthew then is reminding his audience that it was by action of God. The action in v. 19 is clearly precipitated by an assumption on Joseph’s part that something unholy had happened. Joseph did not wish to subject Mary to the scandal of a public

45

46

Matthew 1:1-25

breaking off of the betrothal, which in early Judaism was as much a legally binding and formal matter as a divorce is today (see m. Qidd. 1:1). Yet Joseph’s allegiance to God’s word and will came first. What was he to do? Joseph in fact is depicted as the model disciple and follower of God’s will, for he gives up a Jewish father’s greatest privilege (siring his firstborn son) in order to obey God’s will (cf. 1:24). Verse 20 suggests, however, that Joseph was afraid to take Mary as wife once she was pregnant. This is an understandable fear in an honor and shame culture where his whole family’s reputation could be ruined by his being a willing participant in scandal. The angel reassures Joseph that what Mary has conceived is from the Holy Spirit. While Mary will give birth to the child, Joseph will assume what was normally the The Mother of God father’s duty of naming the child Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin (1878–1939). The Mother of God of Tenderness Towards Evil Hearts. State Russian Museum. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-auto)] (cf. Luke 1:59-60). The name given the child is Yeshua, or as we would call it, Joshua. This name means “Yahweh saves” and foreshadows the role the Son of David was to play. Notice that we are already told in v. 21 that he will “save his people from their sins.” First of all, this makes clear that Jesus’ mission is to an Israel that is lost or has gone astray. But what would it mean to save them from their sins? Does this mean save them from the consequences of their sins (e.g., judgment), or does it mean save them from the effects of their sins on their own lives and the lives of those close to them by transforming them? It probably implies both. They are not merely saved from the “wrath to come” but saved from their own worst instincts and behaviors and their consequences by graciously changing these instincts and behaviors. Verses 22-23 affirm that it is not merely a prophet who spoke, but rather the Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah. Like other early Christians, our Evangelist believes the Hebrew Scriptures are the inspired or God-breathed words of God, not merely the words of humans (see, e.g., 2 Tim 3:16). The Hebrew Scriptures were of course the Bible for the earliest followers of Jesus, as there was as

Matthew 1:1-25

yet no New Testament. Our Evangelist here begins to use what have come to be called formula quotations from the Old Testament, of which there are ten in all in the Gospel (the others are 2:5-6; 2:15; 2:17; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; and the last being in the story of Judas at 27:9). G. N. Stanton has noted how closely the Evangelist’s use of the Old Testament, especially in the formula quotations, is related to his distinctive theological themes, in particular to his Christology. It is not an accident that the first of these citations has to do with Jesus being Emmanuel, God with us. While all of these ten formula quotations indicate that events in the life story of Jesus are in fulfillment of the Scriptures, here we are told that Jesus’ identity as God with us was foretold. The question is in what form is God with us in the person of Jesus, and the answer, as we shall see, is as Wisdom come in the flesh.12 The reference to the name “Immanuel” is a reference to a throne name for a king rather than a personal name, and as Chrysostom observes it is the name by which he was to be acclaimed as a result of the outcome of his life, death, and resurrection (Hom. Matt. 5.23). This is what Jesus will be called—the living presence of God with God’s people. This theme finds a recapitulation when we come to the end of Matthew 28:20 and the exalted Christ promises to be with them until the close of the age. In terms of Christology, then, this Gospel is deliberately framed with the picture of Jesus as a king like Solomon who saves his people and gives them wisdom to live by and commands to follow. Joseph himself is then portrayed as an obedient son of David in v. 24, for when he awakens, he obeys the dream vision he has had. Verse 25 has caused no end of controversy, especially in Roman Catholic circles. Joseph takes his wife (v. 24b), “but he was not knowing her until she gave birth to a son.” The focus of this verse is on the fact of Mary’s virginity before the time she gave birth to Jesus, and since the verb is imperfect it also focuses on the period during which Joseph abstained from intercourse with Mary, namely prior to the birth of Jesus. The imperfect, however, probably implies subsequent sexual relations between Joseph and Mary even more than an aorist verb would do. This is so because the phrase “he used not to know” or “he was not knowing her” implies a definite limited duration of abstinence, the duration limited by heøs ou. Attempts to redefine these words to mean “while” or “without” are clearly special pleading, as is the attempt to see these words as unrelated to what comes before them. A. H. Mc Neile puts it this way: “In the New Testament, a negative followed by

47

48

Matthew 1:1-25

heos ou (e.g., 17:9) . . . always implies that the negated action did, or will take place after the point in time indicated by the participle . . . .”13 The issue here is not what heøs means without ou nor what the phrase means in different sorts of contexts. When this phrase is preceded by an aorist indicative such as here (“gave birth”) and following the imperfect verb “he was not knowing,” it is hard to escape the conclusion that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born.14 The verse likely rules out Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus.15 The passage ends with the affirmation that Joseph was again obedient and gave the child the name he was told to give him—Jesus.16 It “remains an odd fact that although Jesus’ name occurs some one hundred and fifty times in Matthew, none of the human characters use it in addressing him”17 in this Gospel. This is only surprising if one forgets that Jesus is not portrayed in this Gospel as a mere mortal, one human amongst many. He is portrayed as the mind and Wisdom of God come in the flesh—God with us. Joseph fades from the scene in Matthew quite dramatically after chapter 2, and in view of the popularity of this Gospel, it is not surprising that there were various later apocryphal attempts to fill in the rest of his story. Especially the Proto-Evangelium of James from the second century proved influential in painting a picture of Joseph being an older man and Mary not being his first wife; rather he had been previously married and the brothers and sisters are his children by his first wife. There is in fact no good basis for this speculation in Christian documents from the first century AD, including no basis in the canonical Gospels themselves. It does appear likely, however, that Joseph died prematurely, probably before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, which explains his absence from the stories in Matthew 13 and elsewhere in this Gospel. More we cannot say on the basis of good historical evidence.

CONNECTIONS The Genus and Genius of Genealogy

Scholars have always puzzled over the two very different genealogies found in Matthew and Luke. Since the time of Annius of Viterbo in AD 1490, it has been traditional to suggest that Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph (i.e., his legal genealogy, since Jesus would have to have been legally adopted

Matthew 1:1-25

49

or recognized by Joseph), whereas Luke’s genealogy traces his lineage through Mary (his “natural” genealogy). Some support is lent to the Matthean side of this conjecture by the fact that the Matthean genealogy and birth narrative focuses on Joseph more than Mary.18 More to the point, it would appear that the First Evangelist presents the royal genealogy of Jesus, seeking in particular not merely to establish that he was a Jew (Son of Abraham), but more importantly that he was king of the Jews (Son of David). What we know of royal king lists is that they would often present a selective genealogy, concentrating on the line of succession. That Matthew’s list is selective is shown by the fact that for the five centuries between Zerubbabel and Joseph, only nine names are listed, compared to the eighteen names for the comparable period in Luke’s genealogy. On the whole, the author seems to follow the lists in

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Christ Surrounded by His Ancestry Byzantine (476–1453). Christ Surrounded by His Ancestry. Mosaic in the narthex. 14th C. Hora Church (Kariye Camii), Istanbul, Turkey. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

50

Matthew 1:1-25

Chronicles, but clearly this genealogy in Matthew seems to have been schematized to serve certain purposes. Here are some factors of importance in interpreting the Matthean genealogy: (1) In Matthew, the genealogy introduces the Gospel and more particularly the birth narratives, tracing the line from Abraham through Joseph and Mary to Jesus, using the term “begot” (egenn∑sen). (2) The division of the names into three groups of fourteen is artificial, and it probably sets up the notion that Jesus should be seen as the perfect descendent of Abraham and David—the son of the seventh set of sons. (3) There is a noteworthy insertion of several women into a patrilineal genealogy, which is certainly meant to draw our attention to them, especially since they are women with surprising aspects to their stories. (4) Various names are also omitted from the genealogy, which is not surprising in a stylized king list. (5) Especially noteworthy is the awkward circumlocution at the end of the genealogy that threatens to undo the whole thing. The genealogy takes a left turn by mentioning that Jesus came from Mary and not Joseph, even though this is Joseph’s genealogy. Yet this left turn is not surprising when one realizes that the Evangelist is wrestling with how to speak of a virginal conception and still make royal claims about Jesus. The real issue is not so much Jesus’ ancestry as his character, and this genealogy is meant to be seen in light of the pericope that follows it in 1:18-25, with the latter passage helping to explain the strangeness of the genealogy, in particular how Jesus could be born of Mary and not of Joseph and yet still be the Son of David.19 The genealogy, then, and the passage that follows it seek to explore and explain the virginal conception. There is a recognition of the difficulties caused by Jesus’ “unusual” origins, so in a sense this material can be seen as an exercise in apologetics—showing how Jesus could be born only of Mary and yet be the Son of David. It was unusual to list women in a patrilineal genealogy unless the father was unknown, or there was a bifurcated line with two wives producing two sets of sons, or the women were famous figures or related to famous figures (as is the case in Matthew’s genealogy). Matthew’s genealogy mentions five remarkable women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. One plausible conjecture that takes these women as a group argues that the first four women are mentioned because they, like Mary, had irregularities in their past, and yet were still vehicles through whom God moved along God’s plan and brought royal figures to Israel.20 Mary then is to be seen as a vehicle of the divine plan and Joseph a righteous man, and Jesus is shown in this genealogy to be indebted to both of them for

Matthew 1:1-25

who he is, naturally in the one case and legally in the other case. As we have noted, however, in the introduction to this commentary, our Evangelist is setting things up here to portray Jesus as a sage, a Son of David, but one far more like Solomon than his father. In fact, it can be argued that this genealogy is meant to trace Jesus’ link to Solomon and Isaac, for they are respectively the son of David and the son of Abraham, and this is what Jesus is said to be at the beginning of the genealogy in Matthew 1:1. It is important to add that there was the concept of legal paternity in early Judaism, so Jesus could indeed be entitled to Joseph’s genealogy if Joseph legally accepted and adopted him.21 The Virginal Conception

Though sometimes the miracle that happened at the beginning of Jesus’ life is called the virgin birth, technically that is an inappropriate phrase, since in fact the miracle transpired not at the birth but at the conception. Thus, we will refer to this miracle as the virginal conception. The virginal conception is one of the areas of the birth narratives where there is some overlap between Matthew and Luke, though Matthew focuses on Joseph’s reaction to the miracle and Luke focuses on Mary’s. The two authors do not seem to have known each other’s sources for this material, and that strengthens the case for the virginal conception concept being grounded in an historical event in the life of Mary. Also strengthening the case for a historical basis to this event is the fact that both Matthew and Luke are concerned about evangelism and thus concerned about the opinion the world will have of their message. This being so, and especially in the case of the conservative honor-shame environment in which Matthew’s community seems to have operated, it is hard to believe the virginal conception story is not well grounded in history, not least because the charge of illegitimacy would be an easy one to make since this story might readily be doubted (and of course, as we see later, Celsus, made such a deduction). No reasonably sane or sagacious evangelist would make up such a tale. Rather, these two evangelists felt they had to tell this story, and the First Evangelist struggles the most to be faithful to relate the story while trying to integrate it into his strong emphasis on Jesus’ royal heritage and on Jesus as fulfilling prophecy. It has sometimes been suggested that the birth narratives and particularly the accounts of the impregnating of Mary should be seen as parallel with pagan accounts about gods mating with

51

52

Matthew 1:1-25

human beings, or accounts of hieros gamos, the sacred marriage of the human and divine. (Mythological stories of Danae being impregnated by Zeus in a golden shower, Leda by Zeus disguised as a swan, Alcema by Zeus impersonating her husband, or the unusual birth of Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus or Athena from his head are certainly far from clear parallels, never mind sources of this story in Matthew. Nor do stories about Caesar’s impressive origins seem likely to be adopted and modified by anyone as Jewish as our author.) There are numerous problems with these suggestions, not the least of which is that no mating is described or hinted at in either Matthew’s or Luke’s account. Nothing is said about God coming down in the guise of a human and coupling with Mary. Rather, the story is of a miraculous conception without the aid of any human being, without any form of intercourse, a miracle that happens to Mary through the agency of the Holy Spirit. It is also in order to point out that etiological myths about the birth of a ruler or emperor involving a god are attempts to claim that the person in question has divine origins. Early Jews did not by and large view messiah or the ultimate Son of David in that way. They expected messiah to be fully and only human (see below). It is unlikely that Jews would have created such a story about messiah. And in fact, the focus in Matt 1 in particular is on Jesus as being the Son of David, not on his being the Son of God. This story of conception of messiah through the agency of the Holy Spirit is without any real precedent in Old Testament, early Jewish, or pagan literature of the period.22 The use of prophecy in the birth narratives is of course a noteworthy feature of these accounts, especially in Matt 1–2. No other section of this Gospel is so clearly and persistently linked to the Old Testament, not only because of the formula quotations but also because of the allusions and general use of Scriptural language in the account. In fact, the very structure of Matt 1–2 seems to be largely determined by the five formula quotations in these two chapters. For our purposes here, it is especially crucial to state that the story of Jesus itself has led the author to the Old Testament text looking for an explanation, rather than the story being generated out of Old Testament quotations. This is especially clear at Matt 2:23, where the quote about Jesus being called a Nazarene shows how creatively the Old Testament could be handled, in a midrashpesher kind of approach, to ground one’s existing story in the Old Testament. Here I part company with R. Gundry, who even wants to argue that the narrative about Jesus is itself a midrash-pesher on

Matthew 1:1-25

53

the Old Testament text.23 Among other things this is a category mistake. The Jewish technique of midrash-pesher requires a fixed Scriptural text on which and out of which one can do creative things in terms of implications and applications. This hermeneutical technique does not involve the creation of the narrative that provides the basis for doing these sorts of expansions The Annunciation and applications. Fra Angelico (circa 1395-1455). The Annunciation. Fresco. Location: Convento di San Marco, Florence. The Evangelist’s text here [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] is a collection of stories about Jesus and his origins, not a rewriting of the stories of the Old Testament itself, but he has shaped and molded these new stories in the light of Old Testament prophecy. R. T. France is right to query what fulfillment of the Old Testament could have meant, if in fact the story was created out of the Old Testament text itself.24 Matthew concludes narrative sections with these prophecy quotations, especially in order to confirm some of the unusual divine twists in the story of Jesus’ origins. This is especially the case when it comes to the use of Isaiah in regard to the virginal conception. The attempt to argue that the birth narratives are some kind of different genre of literature, a genre more prone to myth, than the narratives that follow them simply does not work when one realizes that this entire Gospel is following the ancient genre of biography, which more often than not included stories about the hero’s origins and birth.

Notes 1 See

pp. 3-11 above. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 78. 3 Ibid., 77. 4 See my discussion in Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 167-68. 2 C.

54

Matthew 1:1-25 5 See

the discussion in C. Keener, 83-86, for helpful treatment of collateral issues and the inadequacy of myth stories and other such supposed parallel accounts. 6 R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (London: Chapman, 1977). 7 B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 7, is surely right that the reading gennasis, which has the narrower meaning of “birth” or “engendering,” is later. The earlier and better witnesses of various text types have genesis. See J. D. Kingsbury on the import of this reading in “The Birth Narrative of Matthew,” in Matthew (Nappanee, IN: Evangelical Publishing House, 1998), 154-65. 8 J. D. Kingsbury, “The Birth Narrative of Matthew,” 156-57. 9 There is clear evidence from the papyri that synerkomai means to marry—SEG 831. See New Docs 3, 85. 10 On this entire matter, see H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2003). 11 I. Broer, “Die Bedeutung der ‘Jungfrauengeburt’ im Mattausevangelium,” Bib Leb 12/4 (1971): 248-60. 12 G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 363. 13 A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 10. 14 “Know” here is of course a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or intercourse, very much like what is said of Adam and Eve in Gen 4:1. 15 See the discussion of the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Brother of Jesus, 93109. 16 It is quite clear that the reason the Fathers denied the obvious grammatical sense of the text is because they associate sexual relationships with a man as something less than holy, or even as defiling. See Cromatius Tractate on Matt. 3.1; Chrysostom, Hom. Mat. 5.3, and other citiations in The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 1 a, ed. M. Simonetti (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 19-20. 17 H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 9. 18 H. Clarke, 1-9. 19 See K. Stendahl, “Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Matt 1-2,” in Judentum, Urchristentum Kirche. Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin: Topelman, 1960), 94-105. 20 See M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). 21 See R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (London: Chapman, 1977), 137-39. 22 Still helpful on this issue is the now dated study of J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960). 23 See R. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967); R. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). 24 See R. T. France, “Scripture, Tradition, and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew,” in Gospel Perspectives 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 201-37.

the wise king and the wicked king sought by wise men Matthew 2:1-23

COMMENTARY A Star Is Born, 2:1-12

As noted in the introduction,1 wise kings are portrayed as having counselors or sages as advisors in antiquity. Part of the building up of the picture of Jesus as a kingly figure like Solomon comes already in a passage like this when the magi are subject to discussion. In the nonJewish world, and even in the realm of Herod the Great, this kingly appearance meant having astrologers, among other things. It is telling, however, that though the magi have audience with Herod, they do not keep his counsel, but rather being warned in a dream do not return to him and do as he asked. Instead, they keep company with and bring gifts to the real royal figure who has come on the scene—namely Jesus. It is important not to blend the birth stories together. Matthew says nothing of shepherds on the scene, and Luke nothing of wise men. The stories about these different participants in the story surely came from different sources. [A Sapiential Reading of 2:1-12] Several disclaimers need to be made at the outset. Firstly, these men are not kings; they are stargazers and sages. Secondly, the text says nothing about there being three of them; this is a deduction from the fact that they gave Jesus three gifts. The term “magi” comes to us from the Latin magus, which in the plural is magi, but ultimately the term goes back to the Greek magos from which we get “magician,” “sorcerer,” or one who is wise in reading the stars and the signs of the time. In Media and Persia, from well before the time of the New Testament, such men were seen as almost a priestly class of people, and they served kings regularly. Lastly, it is a mistake to read this story too much in the light of the story of Moses. None of the formula quotations cite Exodus,1 nor do

56

Matthew 2:1-23 A Sapiential Reading of 2:1-12 If Jesus was to be the great King of the Jews (2:2), the one like but wiser than Solomon, then by ancient standards one would expect: (1) signs in the heavens announcing his coming; (2) that he would be visited by a king’s counselors or seers, being presented with gifts fit for a king; and (3) that he would be involved in power struggles with other so-called great kings, such as Herod the Great. The Evangelist portrays all of these things happening in Matt 2, underscoring the royalty of Jesus. Jesus is portrayed as both Son of David and Son of God in Matt 1–2. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (2:1), the ancestral home of David. The magi (the word from which we get the term “magician”) were ancient astrologers who sought to read coming events in the stars. Notice that 2:2 says they have come to worship the infant king. The Evangelist is emphasizing not only the royalty but also the divinity of the child. There is a considerable stress in Matthew’s Gospel on the fulfillment of prophecy, and we see this motif stressed at several places in chs. 1–2 (cf. 1:22-23 to 2:5-6). The underlying concept here is that what happened to Jesus, however surprising or miraculous, was all a part of God’s plan for the Messiah from ancient times. The characterization of Herod as a brutal, scheming, paranoid dictator prepared to kill anyone who might challenge his right to rule Judea comports with what we know of him from Josephus’s account in his Jewish Antiquities. The story is laced with irony, for Herod has to be told by his own priests and teachers of the law what the prophecies say about the birth of the Messiah. Herod tries to lure the magi into his plot to get rid of Jesus, but they, like Joseph, receive spiritual guidance from a dream (2:12) and so do not return and tell Herod where Jesus can be found. The story involves not only the prodigy of a virginally conceived child, but also a star that leads the magi to the exact spot in Bethlehem, for it “stopped over the place where the child was” (2:9). The gifts they bring are gifts fit for a king—gold, incense, and myrrh.

the stories of the flight into Egypt or of the slaughter of the innocents really match up with Mosaic stories. Jesus is not born in Egypt, he does not serve in Pharaoh’s court, he does not flee from Egypt, the angel of death comes after Egyptian not Jewish children unlike Herod,3 and the magi are not portrayed at all in a negative

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Adoration of the Magi Bernard Buffet (1928–1999). Adoration of the Magi. c. 1961. Collezione d'Arte Religiosa Moderna, Vatican Museums, Vatican State. [Photo Credit : Scala / Art Resource, NY]

Matthew 2:1-23

The Church of the Nativity The manger, traditionally the birthplace of Jesus in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem, Israel. Byzantine, 11th C. Bethlehem. Location: Church of the Nativity in Manger Square. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0)

light here, unlike the counselors of Pharaoh. To the contrary they are seen as representatives of the Gentile world that recognize who Jesus is and properly worship him. There can hardly be a polemic against astrology here since the star and stargazing lead right to Bethlehem and Jesus.4 Actually much closer and more interesting is a story from the life of Solomon, to whom Jesus is compared in this Gospel. First Kings 11:40 says “Solomon sought to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt . . . and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.” Here the roles are reversed—it is Solomon as Jesus who flees and the wicked Jeroboam as Herod. The story actually revolves around answering three “where” questions—where was Jesus born, where did he go when Herod threatened, and where did he go when Herod died? The issue here is in part who is the real king of the Jews—the pretender who liked to call himself king of the Jews even though he was an Idumean (see Josephus, Ant. 15.373; 16.311) or the one born King of the Jews? But first we must ask—where did our magi come from? Verse 2 says “we saw his star en t∑ anatol∑,” which probably does not mean “in Anatolia” or “in the east,” for if that were the case the wise men would have traveled from the west to reach Jesus. No, the Greek phrase likely means “at its rising,” and this comports with what v. 1 says, namely that these men are from the east.5

57

58

Matthew 2:1-23

Sometimes it has been argued that this story has been created out of several Old Testament texts, specifically Psalm 72:10-11 and Isaiah 60:1-11, or sometimes it is suggested our story is a midrash on 1 Kings 10. These conjectures are based on the assumption that Persian sages would not come to honor a Jewish peasant king. These sorts of conjectures overlook several important factors: (1) Persian sages were intensely interested in the connections between astral phenomena and political events, especially the rise and fall of kings. The story about Persian sages, including one famous sage named Tiridates traveling all the way to Rome in AD 66 to visit Emperor Nero, is no myth (Dio Cassius 63.7; Suetonius Nero 13). The journey to Bethlehem was a considerably shorter trek, and furthermore Persian magi were more interested in Semitic kings in nearby regions than in more distant ones. (2) In my judgment, one of the keys to understanding this story is again the fact that Matthew is remembering the story of Solomon, who was visited by the Queen of Sheba who bore gifts from Arabia, and it is not impossible these magi are from the same locale since two of their gifts are from Arabia. In other words, this is another story highlighting that Jesus is a son of David like Solomon. (3) It was widely believed that stars heralded the birth of human beings, especially kings, destined for greatness.6 (4) Both Suetonius and Tacitus tell us that at the turn of the era there was great expectation of the coming of a world ruler quite specifically from Judea (Suetonius, Vesp. 4; Tacitus, Ann. 5.13).7 It should be added that Psalm 72 and Isaiah 60 are texts about kings, not sages or stargazers, and 1 Kings 10 is about a singular queen. The story we have here was not simply a creation based on these earlier tales, though I would suggest that the Solomon story does affect how Matthew tells his story. There is nothing inherently improbable about a visit from the magi to Judea then, but what of the magical star itself? Particularly difficult is Matthew 2:9, which suggests that “the star went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.” This is no ordinary astral phenomenon. The text suggests that the star led the men to the precise spot where Jesus was, but surely they would not have needed a star to get from Jerusalem to little Bethlehem only six miles away. This does not sound like some kind of phenomena that could be identified either as a star or a comet (Halley’s comet did show up in this region in 12 BC, but that is too early to be connected with this event). J. Kepler conjectured what was being described was not an ordinary conjunction of planets (e.g., Jupiter and Saturn, which were in conjunction in the region in 7 BC, or Venus and Jupiter, seen from 12 August 3 BC),

Matthew 2:1-23 Was Christ Born on Christmas Day? As early as the time of the church father Hippolytus (d. AD 236), Jesus’ birthdate was said to be December 25, and John Chrysostom (AD 347–407) agreed. The view of these scholars prevailed in various parts of the church, including in Africa and Asia Minor. However, the Armenian Church, followed by some Orthodox churches, held out for January 6 and still follow this tradition today, though most churches go with the Western date of December 25, with January 6 being Epiphany. It is sometimes argued that the December date was picked because it happened to be the date of the Roman Saturnalia, and when Christians came to the fore under Constantine in the early fourth century they sought to replace pagan celebrations with Christian ones. This is a possibility as an explanation for why the date was picked, but there was nothing in the Saturnalia celebration (which involved slaves and masters exchanging roles and privileges for a day) that explains the nature of the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth. The celebration of Christmas in Rome is attested as early as AD 336, which is to say in the year before Constantine’s death.

59

On the other hand, nothing in the stories from Matt 1–2 or Luke 1–2 rules out a mid-winter birth. It cannot be argued that the date was picked to coincide with the winter solstice since that date is December 21, not December 25. Sometimes it is suggested that since Luke 2:8 mentions flocks in the field, a time other than winter must be meant, however the Mishnah (Seqal 7.4) suggests that sheep around Bethlehem might well be outside at this time of year. Bethlehem was in fact the region where sheep were raised and prepared to be used for sacrifices 6 miles away in Jerusalem, so it would be surprising indeed if there were no sheep and shepherds outside in this region that had many such shepherds. It is thus possible, though the evidence is not compelling one way or another, that Jesus was born on December 25. What we can say with more assurance is that he was certainly not born in 1 BC or AD 1. (Note that there was no 0 year programmed into the calendar when the turn of the era was calculated in the early middle ages.)

but rather the birth of a super nova, a new star. This would certainly have gotten the attention of the stargazers, and such an event was visible in this region in 5/4 BC, fitting the general time frame for both the birth of Jesus and the demise of Herod.8 The astral phenomenon itself would help explain why Herod was so nervous, for he knew such signs were thought to augur the birth of new kings. It is interesting, however, that early Christian interpreters saw a problem with interpreting Matthew 2:9 in this way and suggested instead that an angel was meant by “the star,” a conjecture that well suits the ancient belief that stars were angelic beings. In any case, various imponderables make all calculations conjectural. What we can say with a bit more assurance is that Matthew seems to suggest that the wise men showed up a fair bit of time after Jesus was actually born. The date of Jesus’ birth must precede the death of Herod. We should probably place it somewhere between 6–4 BC. A medieval scribe, Dionysius the Dwarf in the sixth century AD, miscalculated the timing of the turning of the era from BC to AD, and we have lived with the mistake ever since.9 But what of the day when Jesus was born? What can we deduce from the evidence we have? [Was Christ Born on Christmas Day?] Matthew 2:1 tells us Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a fact independently attested at Luke 2:4-7. Here is another of the few clear correspondences between the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives.

60

Matthew 2:1-23

Bethlehem

It is of course possible that this location was assumed to be the right one because of the prophecy of Micah 5:2, but only Matthew makes anything of the connection with the prophecy and only he makes much of Jesus being the Son of David. Luke assumes this locale without any such reference. It would appear on the basis of Matthew 2:1 that this information was in the Evangelist’s Matthean source, and he connected it to the prophecy at Matthew 2:6. In other words, the source material led the First Evangelist, here and elsewhere with formula quotations, to go and find a Scriptural basis for this fact. The Matthean account in fact does not relate the story of the birth itself, unlike the Lukan account. What we are told in v. 11 is that the magi found Mary and Jesus in a house, but this seems to have transpired some while after the birth of Jesus. It is interesting that Justin Martyr (Dial. 79) in the second century AD says the Holy Family took up residence temporarily in a cave near the village of Bethlehem. This is plausible since many peasants did make caves their homes in that region. Perhaps this is what the Matthean account envisions, but we cannot be sure. Verses 2-9 of the story are in fact about the encounter between the magi and King Herod. [Herod the Not-So-Great] Matthew 2:2 tells us the magi arrived in Herod’s court already asking the question as to

Matthew 2:1-23

where the person born king of the Jews could be found. This question would have immediately raised fears because of course Herod was not born king of the Jews; he was made such through the aid of Rome and through warfare. The second important aspect of this introduction to the story is that the magi say they have come to worship this king. So far as we can tell, earlier Jewish messianism did not include the idea that the messiah would be divine and so be a proper object for worship. But of course the magi are not Jews, and so their language reflects ideas that were extant elsewhere in the ancient Near Eastern world about a king being the divine son of some god. The irony of course is that non-Jews were more likely to properly recognize Immanuel for who he was than Jews. This seems to foreshadow the Gentile response to Jesus, who would worship him as Lord. “The pagan astrologers worship Jesus; Israel’s ruler seeks his death, acting like a pagan king.”10 This needs to be stressed because our author is not trying to contrast Jews with Gentiles in general here; rather, the obdurate Jerusalem leadership as opposed to these open-minded wise men are being contrasted.11 This is more than mere prostration before a potentate or mere homage by bowing, both of which were common in the ancient

Herodium Fortress of King Herod the Great. 37–4 BC. With Hellenistic tower, columnated courtyard, synagogue (Synagogue 2nd BC), Israel. Herodion (Herodyon, Herodium) Synagogue (Credit: Deror avi / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0)

61

62

Matthew 2:1-23

Herod the Not-So-Great The first thing to stress about this man is that he was an Idumean, which is to say that basically he was of Edomite heritage. He ruled in Judea at the behest of Rome, and how far he was willing to go to curry favor with Rome is clear. Here and elsewhere I think Josephus is basically reliable in his portrayal of Herod as a ruthless egocentric ruler. Although P. Richardson shows that a few admirable things can be said about Herod, I am largely unconvinced by his attempt to portray Herod in a favorable light. Especially unconvincing is his attempt to portray Herod as a good Jew. A good Jew of Jesus’ day was not like Herod, whom Richardson admits “shared the religious outlook of most Roman citizens. He had little hesitation in acknowledging Octavian in the cult of Roma and Augustus, and he supported other temple cults such as Pythnian Apollo.” In other words, Herod was not a monotheistic Jew, and pointing out that in some ways he was Torah observant while he was in Judea does not prove otherwise Our concern is not so much with Herod’s great building projects, including the temple, nor with his megalomania in general, but with the pattern of his reign, and especially with how he was toward the end of his life. From the outset Herod showed his true colors—he was energetic, impulsive, and given to take action quickly, frequently in ruthless fashion. There was a leader of bandits (apparently peasants and landless people) in Galilee named Hezekiah who had been creating mayhem on the Syrian border. Herod not only captured him but had him and his followers executed (J.W. I.204). This pleased the Roman governor in Syria, Sextus Caesar, to no end. However, the action alarmed the aristocracy in Jerusalem because “they saw how powerful and reckless Herod was and how much he desired to be a dictator” (Ant. XIV.158-65; J.W. 1.204-07). For this action, the Sanhedrin summoned Herod to trial in Jerusalem, for an action by the Sanhedrin was required before the death penalty could be imposed on a Jew (J.W. I.208-09; Ant. XIV.165-67). (This very point shows what a different situation the Sanhedrin was in during Jesus’ day, for by the time of Jesus’ trial they had long since been stripped of the power of capital punishment, a divesting that likely took place at the juncture when Judea was made a Roman province rather than a client state.) It may well be asked—why did the Romans become willing to support Herod so strongly, when in fact Antony while in Syria had received many visits from Jewish groups asking him to oppose Herod and his family? The reasons seem to be as follows: (1) The Hasmonean family was in shambles, and there was no one left as a viable candidate for the throne. (2) Antipater and his family had always had good relationships with this Idumean family. (3) The

Romans preferred at this stage of their existence to have others do the dirty work of containing Jewish hotheads and keeping the Parthians at bay, not least because ever since the time of Gaius Marius the Roman army had been based not on conscription but rather the soldiers were simply hired and paid—an expensive proposition. (4) Herod was unqualified to be the high priest, and thus he could not hold both the office of high priest and ruler. The Romans liked it better when all power was not left in the hands of one client king. (5) the Romans saw in Herod a potential source of ongoing revenue, as he was ruthless enough to extract it from the populace and aristocrats if need be. After sorting out the chaos in the land with much brutality, by about 30 BC and for about twenty years Herod ruled with few foreign difficulties and only a few domestic problems. This was the height of his reign and of its prosperity. But 10–4 BC was a time of both foreign and domestic turmoil for Herod, and he responded to the problems with frequent brutality. The older Herod got and the nearer to death, apparently the more paranoid he became about relatives and others seeking to take his throne from him. Sometime around 7 BC, Herod had his two sons by Mariamne executed on the charge of treason (Ant. XVI.361-94; J.W. I.538-51). Even later Herod was to execute Antipater, his son by another wife Doris, only a few days before Herod himself passed away. His indecision about the succession is clear from the fact that he drew up three different wills in the last two years of his life. But it was not only family troubles that plagued Herod during the last years of his reign. He fought a war against Trachonite bandits but also against their Nabatean supports, and when he crossed the Nabatean border to do so he violated the Pax Romana, and Augustus strongly disapproved of this action. Indeed the emperor refused to receive Herod’s ambassadors who came to plead his case in Rome. Two years passed before their case was finally heard. Furthermore, there were religious troubles. When Herod had previously sworn allegiance to Rome and the emperor he had exempted some Pharisees and Essenes who objected to such a loyalty oath, but after the Nabatean debacle when they again refused to swear such an oath Herod fined them, and indeed some Pharisees were executed apparently for treasonous behavior (Ant. XVII.49-67). As Herod began to decline in health, several Jewish teachers, possibly Pharisees, incited a group of young people to pull down the golden eagle that was erected by Herod over one of the temple gates. The youth along with those who incited them were burned alive, and even the high priest was dismissed from office (Ant. XVII. 49-67).

Matthew 2:1-23 It can be said that the final disposition of Herod’s estate was a recipe for disaster, as he left the realm to not one or two but three of his sons. Herod died in Jericho probably in 4 BC just before Passover (J.W. II.10; Ant. XVII.213). He was buried at one of his favorite fortresses, the Herodium. In their assessment of Herod’s reign, J. Hayes and S. Mandell explain his actions toward his family as follows: “[they] appear to have been fueled by a sense of insecurity and inferiority. As the product of Hasmonean ineptitude, Idumean opportunism, and Roman contrivance, Herod had no firm base within his kingdom that could count him as its own, and vice versa.” It is however no justification for his lethal behavior toward his family to say that Arisrtobolus I and Alexander Janneaus behaved even worse in this regard. It may be the case that Herod never escaped the stigma of having become king by means of a hostile takeover of Jerusalem and Judea with the aid of Rome. If we are to evaluate Herod’s apparent respect for some Jewish beliefs, institutions, and customs, even to the point of rebuilding the temple, with his apparent lack of respect for the same once he was outside the realm of Judea, we can only say that Herod’s desire to be seen as a Hellenistic monarch who fully participated in the Greco-Roman world clearly outweighed whatever loyalty he may have had toward Judaism. The fact that Herod provided a good deal of employment through his building projects, twice during his reign reduced taxes (Ant. XV.365; XVI.64), and refused to let his sister marry a Nabatean commander because he refused to convert to Judaism shows that even Herod had enough sense to know he could go too far in straining his relationship with the devout Jews in his realm. If he

63

wished to remain in power, there had to be a certain amount of placating Jewish religious sensibilities. Finally, as for the famous aphorism of Augustus about Herod that it was better to be Herod’s pig (hus) than his son (huios) (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.11), this should likely be seen as a remark reflecting Augustus’s knowledge of how Herod had executed various of his sons, and how Jews in general did not kill and eat pork. It may tell us nothing about whether or not Herod himself kept a kosher table. (The latter is unlikely in my view, not least because he was always entertaining Gentiles.) Thus when even Richardson admits “Herod’s piety . . . did not extend to matters of theology, Torah, the future, or God’s role for Israel—let alone issues such as sin, redemption, and atonement,” nor apparently did it extend to scrupulousness about matters of orthopraxy, we have good reason to doubt whether Herod could in any sense be deemed a good or consistently observant Jew. In light of all of this, there is nothing historically implausible about the idea that Herod might have become paranoid and slaughtered a few innocents in Bethlehem after the report of the magi and his advisors. P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), xiii, 295; J. Hayes and S. Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander to Bar Kochba (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1998), 145; for more on Herod, see my New Testament History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 49-106.

Near East (cf. Herodotus 1.134; Gen 23:7; 27:29; 33:3; 1 Sam 24:8; 1 Kgs 1:16, 47; Josephus, Ant. 6.285). The evidence we have indicates that magi such as these belonged to a priestly caste of astrologers usually from Persia or Babylon (cf. Cicero, Leg. 2.10.26; Philo, Spec. 3.100; Lucian, Fug. 8). The magi regularly were consulted by kings because they were known for divination, astrology, magical powers, esoteric wisdom, and prediction of the future.12 Following stars is also found in the literature of the time (Virgil, Aen. 2.694). What is perhaps most interesting about this story is that the magi could only get so far based on the signs in the heavens, or general revelation. Thereafter they had to ask for directions, and guidance is given based on special revelation, a prophecy from the Hebrew Bible. It is of course true that the Hebrew Bible forbade divination

64

Matthew 2:1-23

and astrology (Deut 4:9; 18:9-13; Isa 47:13), but this did not stop Herod and even fully Jewish kings from on occasion consulting such individuals and believing what they were told. What we know of Herod suggests that he was paranoid and superstitious about many things and prone to colossal overreaction. Yet Herod had enough sense to know that a sign of the birth of a new king of the Jews meant his own demise could not be far off, and in fact this was the case, historically speaking. Jesus was born not long before the death of Herod, even though the historical Jesus was not destined to rule Judea directly in the conventional sense during this era. Nevertheless, this story comports with the prophecy about Jesus found in Luke—he was a figure destined to precipitate the rise and fall of many great ones in Israel (Luke 2:34). Note that the title “King of Jews” (which Herod liked to call himself ) is only found elsewhere in this Gospel applied to Jesus in the Passion narrative (27:11, 29, 37). The term “king” always had political connotations, and it is noteworthy that all Gospels agree Jesus was crucified on the political charge of claiming to be a king, which amounted to high treason, an offense for which one could indeed be crucified under Roman jurisprudence. As we shall see, it is significant that the titulus over the cross read king rather than mashiach or christos. Jesus would not likely have been crucified for merely being another Jewish sage or holy man, or even a prophet. Herod is depicted in vv. 3-4 as not knowing his Jewish history well, so he has to consult with chief priests and scribes to discover where the Bible says messiah was to be born. Notice that the text also says that not only Herod but all Jerusalem is dismayed or disturbed at this news. The last thing they wanted was more turmoil and upheaval in Judea. The coming of a new king would not necessarily be seen as good news, and especially not by the elite who were indebted to and partially dependent on the current regime for their own power and wealth. We should not have romantic notions about all of Jerusalem longing for a messiah. Those who were currently prospering would certainly not be anxious for any change in regime. Notice how in Matthew 21:10 the whole city is shaken by the triumphal entry of Jesus. The unhesitating response of the consultants in v. 5 that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea is not surprising, as the dominant form of messianism in early Judaism was certainly Davidic in character,13 and of course Bethlehem was the shepherd David’s city. Notice how in John 7:41-42 even the crowd knows messiah would come from Bethlehem, which further underscores the point that Herod is being portrayed as ignorant or spiritually

Matthew 2:1-23

65

obtuse here. And we already see the sort of scribes that stand in contrast with the First Evangelist himself, who has put together our Gospel narrative. The next quotation in v. 6 follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX versions of this text exactly. Ephrathah is omitted, and instead we hear of Judah. Also Matthew’s version speaks of princes and rulers (h∑goumenos) rather than the LXX’s thousands and a different word for rulers (archonta). But the most significant alteration is the fact that whereas the Hebrew and the LXX both call Bethlehem small among the thousands of Judah, here in Matthew it is said that she is not least among the rulers. The last line of the quote is close to the LXX of Micah 5:3, but also seems to directly echo 2 Samuel 5:2. It was of course common in early Judaism to do composite quotations, and of course it is possible this quotation is done from memory, and two texts have been blended together quite naturally.14 Verse 7 indicates that after receiving the answer, Herod then had a secret consultation with the magi to find out when exactly the star had appeared, perhaps on the theory that he could figure out how much time he had to act to squelch the problem. Verse 8 then indicates a further reason for the secret discussion, namely that Herod wanted to tell them privately not merely to search out and find where this baby was born, but to report back to him so he could go and worship the child as well. Did the magi really not know of Herod’s horrible reputation? Perhaps the negative stories had not reached their home in the east. Verse 9 then tells us they left King Herod and continued to follow the star until it stopped over the place where Jesus was. [The Star] This is said in v. 10 to prompt great joy (a very different reaction than Herod’s)—they had reached the end of their journey. In fact, Matthew heightens the expression with a redundancy—”they rejoiced with a great joy exceedingly” (cf. Luke 1:14, 44, 46; 2:10, 14, 20). The longawaited king had at long last been found! What are we to make of v. 11? Matthew seems The Star to know nothing of a birth in a stable. But how Cf. Virgil’s Aen. 2.692-704, where one takes this fact depends on how one reads the Aeneas finds an escape route by folLukan story in Luke 2, and in my view Luke lowing a star with a fiery tail behind it, or Diodorus suggests that there was no room in the guest Siculus 16.66.3, which tells of a traveler who folroom, and so the child was born in the back of lowed a comet from Corinth to Sicily. On the later the house where the animals were kept, not born Christian view that the star was in fact an angel, see Arabic Gospel of the Infancy 7. Chrysostom in a stable. Jesus was laid in a corn crib for actually says the star came down and pointed out animals as Luke 2:7 tells us, but the image of the place directly, since it could not do it from on 15 birth in a stable is probably not historical. The high (Hom. Matt. 6.3).

66

Matthew 2:1-23

Three Magi before King Herod The three magi before King Herod. The Magi in the House of Herod. James Tissot (1836–1902). Location: Brooklyn Museum, European Art collection. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Matthean story also highlights the fact that Jesus is found with Mary his mother. Mary of course is the primary caregiver at this juncture (and later if Jewish custom was followed), and so it is natural to mention her. When the magi find the child and Mary, they do obeisance, which is a bowing down to the ground, an act of extreme respect or even of worship. Later in the Gospel of Matthew, proskyneø is used of supplicants needing something of Jesus (8:2; 9:18; 15:25), but it is also used of disciples (14:33; 28:17).16 Here worship as well as obeisance seems to be meant. The meaning worship is common in the papyri.17 They are then said to open their treasure boxes in order to give gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Frankincense and myrrh were expensive items, not least because they only came from Southern Arabia and what we now call Somaliland. Pliny (Nat. 12.65) says the highest grade frankincense cost six denarii a pound, which is to say six days wages of a day laborer. He also says

Matthew 2:1-23

(12.70) the most prized myrrh could go for fifty denarii a pound.18 The mention of three gifts is the origin of the idea that three givers visited Jesus, three wise men. Here there may be an echo of Psalm 72:10-15, which refers to even kings falling down before the king of Israel and offering gifts, including gold. Isaiah 60:1-6 refers to both gold and frankincense. Matthew is telling us “the newborn king is king of all the world, and the appropriate homage shall be paid to him by all nations. . . .”19 These gifts possibly reflect the wealth of the magi, but they certainly are intended to reflect the worth of the Christ child. The incense is the rosin of the incense tree grown in Arabia, myrrh is the rosin of myrrh trees, which also grow in Arabia and Ethiopia. These products were Incense tree used as spices, for cosmetic purBoswellia (the tree which yields the frankincense resin). poses, for magical practices, at Herbarium specimen (FT) of Boswellia rivae from Somalia. (Credit: Mauro Raffaelli / ceremonial occasions, and even as Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0) medicine. They were very expensive not to mention imported items. The early church Fathers (Ireneaus, Haer. 3.9.2; Origen, Cels. 1.60; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.8.63) understood the myrrh to point toward Jesus’ death, but if so Matthew 27:59-60 makes nothing of this, unlike other Gospels that do (Mark 15:23; John 19:39). Those same church Fathers saw gold as a symbol of Christ’s royalty and frankincense for Christ’s divinity. Finally it should be noted that the text simply says they came “into the house” without specifying that this was the Holy Family’s home. Clearly it was the house in which they were staying, but to say more is conjecture. Verse 12 tells us the magi, instead of returning to Herod, are warned in a dream not to go back to him, and being obedient to the word from above return to their own country. The importance

67

68

Matthew 2:1-23

of this narrative is that Jesus is recognized to be and worshiped as a king from the outset, but not a king like Herod. Rather, he is a king of peace and so even more Solomonic than Solomon, whose name means peace. This is all part and parcel of the portrayal of Jesus as the ultimate Son of David, who is at once king, sage, and Wisdom. Note the threefold reference to homage or worship (vv. 2, 8, 11). Matthew is hammering home his christological message about Jesus, that he is both a divine and human figure whom even Gentiles will come to worship.20 But he is also suggesting more—if the heavens signal his birth and wise men seek him, then he must indeed be God’s Wisdom. The audience, however much they were Jewish Christians, is meant to identify with the Gentile magi and not Herod or the priests and scribes who serve him. Escaping the Slaughter of the Innocents, 2:13-18 Myrrh tree

This story, like the one preceding it, is closely linked to Scriptural texts (Hos 11:1 and Jer 31:15), which again makes clear that Matthew wants to suggest that these events should not be unexpected, since they were in fact predicted. Sometimes this story has been thought to be obviously unhistorical because commentators have a hard time imagining Herod killing large numbers of innocent infants. There are two problems with that assessment. Firstly, as we have seen, Herod was ruthless and would stop at nothing to protect his throne and reign. Secondly, Bethlehem was a tiny place, not even on a major road. We should not imagine that there were

Somali man collecting incense. (Credit: Somalia Ministry of Information and National Guidance, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-2.0)

Matthew 2:1-23

69

A Sapiential Reading of 2:13-18 The story is again moved along by the spiritual responsiveness of Joseph to a dream in which once again the angel of the Lord communicates with him (2:13). We should not conclude from this that Joseph is obtuse, for the circumstances were so unexpected that in fact the Evangelist is portraying Joseph as very spiritually open and receptive. He could not have foreseen Mary’s pregnancy by means of the Holy Spirit or the need to flee to Egypt. Joseph is once more obedient to the heavenly directions. And Herod is furious for being fooled by those who were wise and went home without reporting back to him. We have then the contrast between the unwise king and the wise one, the brutal king and the king of peace who comes as an infant and is instantly recognized and proclaimed by those who are spiritually seeking.

dozens of boys two years old and younger in Bethlehem at the time. Indeed there might have been only a few. It has of course also been thought to be a theologoumenon (i.e., a theological construction) because it gave Matthew an opportunity to portray Jesus as Israel fleeing to and coming out of Egypt. [A Sapiential Reading of 2:1318]

The problem with this argument is again threefold: (1)We know that historically, Jews, including King Jereboam, did regularly flee to Egypt in difficult times (cf. 1 Kgs 11:17, 40; 2 Kgs 25:26; Jer 26:21; 41:17; 43:17; Josephus, Ant. 14.21; 15.42-49 [during the time of Herod]; J.W. 7.410). There is furthermore the fact that by the time of Jesus, there was a huge Jewish community in Alexandria and substantial ones elsewhere in Egypt as well. There is then nothing implausible about the Holy Family Matthew’s Source—“King” taking refuge there. (2) Against the idea that this It is telling that Matthew chooses to is a non-historical story with a theological follow the Hebrew text of Hos 11:1 rather than the LXX. The latter has the term message is the fact that it cannot be argued that “child” rather than “son” in the quotation, which Matthew or the First Evangelist makes much of would more clearly refer to Israel rather than a Jesus being seen as Israel; rather he is seen as the royal figure. Matthew has deliberately chosen the King of the Jews and Son of David, the one sent version of this text that more clearly could refer to to free Israel, not be Israel. Nor is there any sort a king rather than Israel. of parallel with the story of Moses here, because Jesus is not said to be born in Egypt, and his family flees to Egypt whereas Moses flees from it. [Matthew’s Source—”King”] (3) There are actually Jewish traditions about Jesus and his family being in Egypt, and Jesus is said to have learned magic there (b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sabb. 104b). Verse 13 provides a further instance of the motif of divine intervention and guidance provided in a dream, and again it is said to come from an angel of the Lord (cf. 1:20).21 The instructions are quite explicit—take the child and his mother, escape to Egypt, and stay there until I send another message signaling the all clear. Again Joseph is instantly obedient to the message, as he arises the night he

70

Matthew 2:1-23

has the dream and leaves for Egypt, where he and his family stay until the death of Herod. The return of Jesus and family to the Holy Land is seen as a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 (MT). Verse 16 suggests that Herod’s action in Bethlehem against the infants is a result of his secret plan being thwarted. In other words, it is an irrational act of displaced and misdirected anger. We also learn that the reason why Herod had inquired about the precise timing of the appearance of the star is because he assumed this would tell him how long it had been since the child was either conceived or born. The fact that he has children age two and under destroyed does not necessarily mean he waited a considerable period of time between hearing of the magi’s action and taking action. It may simply mean there was a considerable period of time The Flight into Egypt between when the star appeared Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528). The Flight into Egypt. From the Marienleben (Life of Mary). first and was seen in Persia and 1511. Woodcut. Lcation: National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. [Credit: Wikimedia when Herod finally acted against Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] the children. Verse 17 indicates that Herod’s action against the children was not unforeseen. The formula quotation of Jeremiah 31:15 seems to be a mixed quotation in the sense that the first and third sentences follow the MT, but the fourth sentence follows LXX. Ramah is a city six miles north of Jerusalem, so presumably the point is that weeping was heard over a wide range in Judea since Bethlehem is six miles south of Jerusalem. The reason for the mention of Rachel in the prophecy is that she was the mother of Benjamin, and the mourning in Jeremiah is about being the children led into exile, thus the text there is metaphorical when it uses the phrase “are no more.” However, Rachel was actually buried in Bethlehem (Gen 35:19). The idea here may be that Rachel wept from her grave for the exiles and now is weeping again

Matthew 2:1-23

from the grave. But Jeremiah 31:15 is part of a larger passage, and if one reads on to v. 17 one realizes that God comforts Rachel by promising the restoration of God’s people, a restoration associated with the time of new covenant in 31:31-34.22 The Return of the King, 2:19-23

This third passage in Matthew 2 begins with the same structure as we find in the previous one about the flight into Egypt—the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and gives a command to get up and take the child and his mother and go back to the land of Israel, to which command Joseph arises and does exactly as he is told (noting the parallel language in vv. 14 and 21).23 We are told however that Joseph was not sanguine that going to Judea again was a good idea, since Herod’s son Archelaeus was ruling there, and so having been warned of this in a dream he withdrew to the “district” of Galilee, going to live in the small town of Nazareth.24 This too is seen as a fulfillment of Scripture, but notice that here prophets (plural) are referred to for the quotation “he shall be called a Nazarene.” [A Sapiential Reading of 2:19-23] It has been difficult to find a Scripture or even a combination of Scriptures that match these words. One ingenious suggestion is that Isaiah 11:1 in the Hebrew lies in the background, which speaks of the NZR “branch” from the stump of Jesse, a reference to the messianic figure also referred to as Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14.25 In favor of this association is the fact that at Qumran the “branch” in this passage was also interpreted messianically (1QH 6.15; 7.619). Though a different Hebrew word is used for branch, this same way of speaking of a messianic figure is found in Jeremiah 23:5; A Sapiential Reading of 2:19-23 Yet a further time, at 2:19, once Herod has died, the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph and sends the Holy Family home from Egypt. Matt 2:15 indicates that Jesus was to be seen as recapitulating the story of Israel, being called out of Egypt as God’s Son (quoting Hos 11:1). Only Jesus will be Israel gone right, not wandering, grumbling in the wilderness for forty years, and then not managing to enter the promised land. Jesus will pass the wilderness test in only forty days and go on not merely to dwell in the Holy Land but to teach and heal in the land, saving his people from their ills and sins, rather than sinning himself as Israel had done before him. Here we have the notion that a people could be summed up in their leader, their royal head, and if he was wise he could both save them and lead them (see 2:6b). One final time, at 2:22, Joseph is warned not to go back to Judea but rather to withdraw to the north, to Nazareth in Galilee, and even this surprising move is said to be a fulfillment of prophecy (2:23), though it is not clear what Scripture is in mind since there are no predictions about Nazareth in the Old Testament (could it perhaps refer to Jesus’ taking a Nazarite’s vow?). Jesus, like Joseph, will be obedient to the word and the direct guidance of God through various means.

71

72

Matthew 2:1-23

33:15; Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12. What we are seeing here is indeed midrashic use of the Old Testament, and the combination of such Scriptural material with stories of Jesus, creatively woven together, has been called midrashic haggadah, but it would be better called midrash and haggadah (narrative), for we have no reason to think the story itself is being embroidered except by the creative addition and handling of the Old Testament. Another suggestion is that Matthew has in mind the notion of being a Nazarite, which is the term substituted for “one set apart” or a “holy one unto the Lord” in the LXX (cf. Isa 4:3; Judg 13:5-7; 16:17). Jesus then is seen as one holy unto God, a conclusion that might find support in Matthew 19:10-12 if Jesus is referring to himself. However, the usual characterization of Jesus as one who ate and drank with sinners and at weddings (cf. John 2 to Mark 1–3) does not comport with the notion that he took a Nazaritic vow. This suggestion then seems less likely than the connection with the branch oracle. On the surface of things, the impression left by this account is that Joseph and his family are moving to Nazareth for the first time. What is odd about this story is that of course another son of Herod, Herod Antipas, was ruling in Galilee, so why would Galilee be better than Judea for the family? But then one must also ask why would Joseph move to such an out of the way town unless there were already family connections there. Or was it chosen precisely because in a town of 500–1,500 at the most they would be able to disappear or become inconspicuous? It is a town nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament or in earlier Jewish sources, which may explain why the exegetical gymnastics were necessary to relate this move to Nazareth to the Old Testament. Bethlehem Though many scholars think it is difficult to It should be noted that the text of reconcile this account with what Luke 2:39-40 Matthew does not say Bethlehem was says, which suggests that Jesus’ family was origithe hometown of Joseph and Mary, and Luke only nally from Nazareth, both accounts agree on indicates it was Joseph’s ancestral home. The Holy Family could well have been in Bethlehem visiting this key point—that Jesus grew up in Nazareth relatives, or for the census as Luke suggests. and came to be called Jesus of Nazareth. [Bethlehem] It is interesting that one of the castes of priests settled there after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, which suggests that it was seen as a ritually pure place.26

Matthew 2:1-23

CONNECTIONS The Primacy of Prophecy Fulfilled

The Jewishness of all this material in Matthew 1–2, heavy-laden as it is with Jewish concerns and Jewish sacred texts, is notable, as is the restraint in regard to what is predicated of Christ. Unlike in later birth and infancy legends, the actual birth of Jesus is only mentioned in passing (at 1:25), and we are not told any tales of healings or other small miracles that the infant Jesus performed. Divine guidance through dreams and a miraculous star, and of course the virginal conception, are the miracles related, but Matthew shows no propensity to play up these factors unduly, which would have been at the expense of the flow of the narrative. What is crucial to him is the fulfillment of prophecy rather than dazzling the audience with lengthy tales of signs and wonders. This is because his focus is christological rather than purely eschatological or thaumaturgical. The king, the long-awaited and long-foreseen ruler, Immanuel, the one the wise men seek, has come into the family of Mary and Joseph. It is enough to underscore this fact. Added miracles are not needed to punctuate the power of this momentous event. There is also considerable stress not only on the divine plan foretold in Scripture, but also on divine intervention in the person of the angel of the Lord and in dreams to make sure the divine plan comes to fruition. We should not talk about determinism here, for if there had been determinism, there would be no need for midcourse corrections engineered by angels, nor would there have been slaughtering of innocents in Bethlehem.27 “God’s will is not always done (cf. 6:10b), and this will be true until the end of the age comes.”28 Christmas Then and Now

Though today the church makes much of Christmas—and understandably so, for as John Donne once said, “twas much when man was made like God long before, but when God was made like man, much more”—still it is interesting to note that Christ’s mass, which is of course where we get the name Christmas, was only a minor celebration until 1223 when St. Francis of Assisi got permission to set up a manger surrounded by Matthew’s wise men, Luke’s shepherds, and even live animals, and hence the traditional nativity scene and celebration was born. Francis did this in conjunction with the midnight mass at Grecchio celebrating Christ’s birth.

73

74

Matthew 2:1-23

Little did he realize the precedent he was setting for the church ever after.29 Thereafter there were ever increasing additions to the celebration. St. Nicholas, a giving Christian (from whom we get Santa Claus), was brought into the festivities; special confections were Image Not Available added such as candy sticks in the due to lack of digital rights. shape of bishop’s staffs (candy Please view the published canes); the tradition began of the commentary or perform an Internet evergreen Christmas tree to which search using the credit below. Luther apparently was the first to add candles, inspired by seeing stars shining through a evergreen when walking one winter night; holly was added with the berries symbolizing Christ’s blood and the sharp-edged leaves the crown of thorns; and lastly the British Druids added mistletoe as a symbol of new life. It is interesting Christ the Redeemer between Saints Francis of Assisi and that each year the British ruler has Nicholas for a long time had two gentlemen Anonymous, 14th C. Christ the Redeemer between Saints Francis of Assisi and Nicholas. present gifts of gold, frankincense, Fresco. Lower Church, S. Francesco, Assisi, Italy. [Photo Credit: Scala / Art Resource, and myrrh to the Dean of the NY] Chapel Royal in London. But not only were symbols and signs created to celebrate the birth of Jesus, so was an elaborate ruminating on the birth stories themselves. For example, Ignatius of Antioch first commented on the magi story, suggesting that all the other stars and the sun and the moon formed a ring around this special star, only to be so outshone by it that for a time witchcraft and all magic ceased because the power of death was to be destroyed by the One who came (Ephes. 19.2-3). Very different was the comment of a curmudgeonly Deist, Thomas Woolston (1669–1733), who suggested that if the wise men had brought sugar, soap, and candles they would have been acting in much wiser fashion! Many more such traditions and rituals could be recounted, but they all point to one thing—the great significance of and need to celebrate the birth of this one man more than all others.30

Matthew 2:1-23

Notes 1 See

pp. 46-47. citation of Hos 11:1 of course alludes to the historical exodus but focuses on the role of God who is calling, not on Moses at all. 3 The story of Moses in the bull rushes is somewhat closer, but there it is Pharaoh’s own wife that rescues Moses, not some angelic dream-vision. 4 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, v. 1 (ICC; T & T Clark International, 2004), 228-30, and notice how in Matt 24:29 we hear of stars falling from the sky as a sign of the end times, and there is the darkening of the sun at 27:45. 5 On this being a technical astronomical phrase, cf. Homer, Ody. 12.4; Plato, Polit. 269a; T. Levi 18.3; and see Allison and Davies, vol. 1, 236. 6 See R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (London: Chapman, 1977). 7 There is the humorous story of how Josephus, at the time a leader of Jewish rebels, avoided the ax or the cross when captured by Vespasian’s troops. He suggested to Vespasian that he was the ruler to come out of Judea destined to be a world ruler—in this case emperor of the Roman Empire. Not only did Vespasian become emperor; he rewarded Josephus for being a “true prophet” by setting him up for life in Rome, where he wrote his chronicle of the Jewish Wars and his Antiquities, among other things. 8 See R. T. France, “Scripture, Tradition, and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew,” in Gospel Perspectives 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 201-37. 9 See my discussion of ancient calendars and calculations in New Testament History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 62-64. 10 C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 97. 11 Rightly, D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 238. 12 See the evidence in C. Keener, 99. 13 On this point see my The Many Faces of the Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1998), 11-23. 14 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 29, who rightly points out that there is no sensus plenior when it comes to this quotation, as the application is perfectly straightforward. 15 The Greek of Luke’s story probably refers to a guest room rather than an inn as being the place where there was no room. 16 See U. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1992), 137. 17 See CPR 19 in New Docs 1, 57. 18 See New Docs 4, 129-30. 19 D. Hagner, 31. 20 This story works historically in part because Persians were far more likely to attribute divinity to such human kings than Jews (cf. Arrian, Alex. 4.11.8; Cornelius Nepo, 9). 21 Notice that the magi are simply said to be warned in a dream (2:12) with no reference to an angel. 22 See C. Keener, 111-12; D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, v. 1, 267-69. 23 On the possible parallel with the story of Moses returning to Egypt when the wicked pharaoh had died, see Exod 4:19-20. The problem of course is that Moses is returning to Egypt, which is a very different matter than a Jewish king returning to the Holy Land. 2 The

75

76

Matthew 2:1-23 24 Archelaeus

was the least able of the three sons and the most like his father in brutality, and this may have factored into the decision to go to Galilee even though it too was ruled by a Herod. 25 See D. Hagner, 40. 26 See C. Keener, 115. 27 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 282-83. 28 Ibid, 283. 29 See H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 14. 30 See ibid., 15-23.

Precursors to Ministry Matthew 3:1–4:16 D. R. Bauer has demonstrated that there is an “inclusio” between Matthew 3:2 and 4:17, because what is said of John at 3:2 then is said of Jesus in 4:17.1 Matthew 4:17 can be seen as a transitional verse that brings closure to the previous summary passage, but it also introduces what follows, and we have the demarcation “From that time on . . . ,” which indicates a major division in the narrative. This being the case, it seems natural to take Matthew 3:1–4:16 as a major subsection of the Gospel of Matthew. This section deals with the period in Jesus’ life prior to his beginning public ministry in Galilee and elsewhere.

COMMENTARY John the Herald and Forerunner, 3:1-12

Unlike Luke (cf. Luke 3:23), the First Evangelist tells us nothing about how old Jesus was when he began his ministry, but clearly we are meant to see Jesus as an adult at this juncture, and many years have passed since his family returned from Egypt and went to Nazareth. In Matthew, as in Mark, the story of Jesus’ adult life actually begins with the story of John the Baptizer, which is not surprising since the First Evangelist is following Mark in Matthew 3:1-6. But it would appear there was a Q account of this story as well because the First Evangelist, like Luke, begins only with the quote of Isaiah and saves the use of the Malachi 3:1 quote Mark also uses for later (Matt 11:10). As Hagner points out, Matthew is close to Mark in content, but he shifts the description of John’s lifestyle to before the account of the crowds coming to John, and he also adds the statement that the Dominion of God is at hand.2 [A Sapiential Reading of 3:1-12]

The second part of this story is virtually identical with Luke’s account (cf. Luke 3:10-15 to Matt 3:7-10). What this shows us already is that the First Evangelist tends to blend his sources together and arrange material topically, whereas Luke tends to alternate

78

Matthew 3:1–4:16 A Sapiential Reading of 3:1-12 When royal figures traveled anywhere or were to be presented to any group of people, heralds went before them announcing their coming and preparing the way. This is the role John the Baptist plays in the first Gospel. Not only does he fulfill the Isaianic prophecy about preparing the way of the Lord (Isa 40:3), but he speaks of the greater one coming after him in a way that diminishes his own stature as a great prophet and exalts that of Jesus (Matt 3:11). Later in the story, John from prison is said to have heard about the messianic deeds of Jesus (11:2) and sends his own messengers to ask if Jesus is truly the One. Jesus then recites his deeds and says Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, referring to himself.

between sources. According to our reckoning of sources, the First Evangelist has now left his special Matthean source behind and is using Mark and Q. It is noteworthy then that unlike what precedes in this particular segment, there is nothing supernatural about the story. This may be because John was not a miracle worker, but more to the point in the First Evangelist’s theological history writing, he focuses the discussion of the miraculous on Jesus and what happens in his life. It is Jesus who is the special Son of God and whose birth and ministry is attended by the miraculous. It is all the more interesting then that our Evangelist presents Jesus and John in parallel—both are announced with the same verb (paraginetai—3:1 and 13), and John’s preaching is very much a preview of Jesus’ (cf. 3:2 to 4:17; 3:10 to 7:19; 3:12 to 13:30; 3:7 to 12:33-34; 23:33).3 Our author is walking a fine line between showing how Jesus was indebted to the ministry of John and at the same time John is to be seen as subordinate to Jesus. This calls for some comment on John as a historical figure and his relationship to Jesus. In v. 1 the eschatological stage is set by the phrase “in those days,” a phrase the prophets used to refer to an eschatological time (Zeph 1:15; Amos 9:11; Zech 12:3-4; Isa 10:20). The First Evangelist, more than any other Gospel writer, calls John by his “trade” name, so to speak—the Baptist. Only the First Evangelist puts John’s message in direct discourse so that he speaks for himself. Notice that Luke and Mark both explain the intended outcome of the repentance, namely that one will receive forgiveness of sins. What is especially interesting is that John seems to be circumventing the line of thinking that suggests sacrifice is required, and so a trip to Jerusalem, in order for forgiveness to be offered. The message of John is that God’s Dominion or saving reign is approaching or at hand. The First Evangelist more than any other Gospel writer uses the phrase “of heaven” when speaking of this Dominion (some thirty-three times), and he alone uses the phrase among New Testament writers. He also on occasion uses the phrase

Matthew 3:1–4:16

“Dominion of God” (12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). In v. 3 we have another example of this writer making a public announcement of sorts, for only he uses the emphatic phrase “this is the one whom . . . .” The Isaiah 40:3 text is seen as fulfilled by and in John the Baptist by all four Gospel writers. What is especially interesting about this text is that it could be divided in two ways: (1) “the voice of one crying: ‘In the wilderness make straight . . .’” or (2) “the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘make straight. . . .’” Either reading is possible. It is interesting that the Qumran community took the text in the first sense, and this in part explains why they located where they did by the Dead Sea. The “wilderness” in this case is not a forest but rather a barren chalk wilderness just to the east of the Dead Sea and of the Jordan. The description of John in v. 4 is deliberately intended to remind us of Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 1:8 to Zech 13:4), though he is not formally associated with Elijah until Matthew 11:14. John signifies a fresh outburst of eschatological prophecy. The impression left by vv. 5-6 is that John is drawing large crowds and that there is a big response to his preaching—many were coming out and being baptized in the Jordan. Verse 7 indicates that many Pharisees and Sadducees came out to hear John and see what he was up to. The fact that they are mentioned together does not mean they were acting in concert, and each group would have their own reasons to be curious about John because John threatened these groups’ authority and control over the people in some respects, especially if he was offering forgiveness outside of the Law’s requirement in regard to sacrifice for certain sins. We will find these two groups mentioned again later in Matthew (16:1-12; 21:45-46).4 We will say more about them later in the commentary. For now it is sufficient to remark that some common enemies and some things seen as a common threat could have united these two John the Baptist disparate groups on occasion. John’s preaching is clearly not an example of Andrei Rublev (1360–C.1430). St. John the Baptist. Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art currying favor with the audience as he calls the (PD-old-100)]

79

80

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Pharisees and Sadducees the offspring of vipers (see also Matt 12:34; 23:33 where it is only the Pharisees). John speaks of an inbreaking wrath of God coming soon, and he challenges his audience to demonstrate concretely that they have repented (hence fruits of repentance). Verse 9 brings to the fore an important point—physical descent from Abraham is not going to be enough to exempt one from the wrath to come. John seems clearly to treat his fellow Jews, including Pharisees and Sadducees, as those who need to act like proselytes and go through the whole process of starting over with God by repentance and baptism, so they can be forgiven for their sins. John says outright that God can raise up new children of Abraham from the stones if need be. He is striking at the heart of the automatic ethnic privilege and provision mentality. Notice how John’s word about a barren tree being cut down and burned at v. 10 is repeated verbatim by Jesus at 7:19. The First Evangelist is not afraid to show a close connection in the preaching of John and of Jesus. Verse 11 contrasts John’s baptism with the baptism of the one who follows John, which will be a baptism of the Holy Spirit and of fire, and so presumably not a reference to a literal baptism, such as Christian baptism.5 It seems clear enough that John expects a human being to be his successor, for he refers to the person’s sandals and to him being stronger than John (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:37), which would be an innocuous and nonsensical remark if it was referring to God. The phrase “the Coming One” may be a messianic allusion (cf. Ps 118:26). Verse 12 indicates that a sifting and judgment is coming on Israel. By the Spirit and the Word, 3:13-17

The story of Jesus’ baptism is found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, and though his baptism is not mentioned in John, its occasion is. Each of the Evangelists obviously thinks this is an important occasion, and each treats it rather differently. We can learn much from seeing how Matthew differs from his Markan source and what he adds to it. It is not however always the case that what is unique about a Synoptic account is what the Evangelist sees as most crucial. The unique elements may simply show what the Evangelist thought important to add to the source material. [A Sapiential Reading of 3:13-17]

Five things immediately strike the reader of the First Evangelist’s account: (1) The baptism seems at first to be a rather private affair, and Jesus’ vision at first seems to be so as well. (2) The First Evangelist chooses to stress that this baptism is something Jesus

Matthew 3:1–4:16

81

A Sapiential Reading of 3:13-17 Jewish kings, like other ancient kings, must be anointed before they speak or act as royal figures. The ceremony of anointing is recounted at Matt 3:13-17. There is first the ritual of purification (baptism) and then the anointing by God’s own Spirit. This story has direct echoes with the presentation of the king in Wis 1:1ff. For instance, it was the duty of the king to fulfill all righteousness, and this is precisely what Wis 1:1-2 says: “love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord in goodness and seek him with sincerity of heart, for he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do no distrust him. . . .” It is important to note that in that earlier Jewish text, receiving the Spirit is the key to receiving wisdom, which then one uses in one’s royal duties. So here Jesus, in order to be seen as a righteous king, submits to the rite of purification, is publicly anointed by God for the office, and then is publicly proclaimed to be God’s royal Son. Contrast the more private and visionary nature of anointing and announcement in Mark 1, and we see that this is a deliberate emphasis in Matthew. The announcement here in Matthew must be compared to the one made to the inner circle of disciples at Matt 17:5. Jesus is the one with whom God is well pleased. As we shall see, the description of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration as gleaming and shining like the sun simply echoes the description of Wisdom in Wis 7:26-29. Throughout this Gospel, Jesus is presented as God’s Wisdom made manifest and as the royal figure who exercises and promulgates wisdom.

chose to take upon himself. He went to the Jordan in order to be baptized by John. Thus this was not a chance encounter or spur of the moment decision. (3) As is especially true in John’s Gospel, the Baptizer’s subordination to Jesus is stressed in the Matthean account. Indeed, here we have John’s recognition of how he ought to be subordinate to Jesus. (4) Arising out of (3) is that John here even tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized, it would appear, because he feels the roles should be reversed. (5) There is also a stress on the fact that this baptism is a fulfillment of God’s will for Jesus. Jesus the perfect Son will fulfill all that is expected of him, whether it is foretold in the Scriptures or not. From the time of some of the earliest Christian interpreters of this story, remarks have been made concerning the Trinitarian nature of Jesus’ baptism. The Father speaks, the Son listens and receives, the Spirit descends.6 While one can debate whether the First Evangelist is emphasizing this point, it is latent in the text. Jesus is portrayed here as one who knows God’s timing and what is fitting in that time frame; in this case it is fitting that he be baptized. Sometimes it has been argued that Jesus fulfills the role of Israel here, but as Gundry points out the stress seems to be on how Jesus provides a paradigm for disciples.7 Note the following features of the story: (1) the stress on Jesus’ assuming the lower position, being baptized, and so identifying with God’s sinful people; (2) the allusion to the Trinity that prepares the way for the Great Commission in Matthew 28; (3) an example for disciples in the closing remark about God being well pleased with what Jesus has done (his baptism, his fulfilling all righteousness), as Gundry noted. Certainly later in this Gospel numerous stories are told in a

Alexander Ivanov (1806–1858). Appearance of Christ to the People. Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Christ Appearing to the People

82 Matthew 3:1–4:16

Matthew 3:1–4:16 Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-15 1 Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart; 2 because he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him. 3 For perverse thoughts separate men from God, and when his power is tested, it convicts the foolish; 4 because wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin. 5 For a holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit, and will rise and depart from foolish thoughts, and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness. 6 For wisdom is a kindly spirit and will not free a blasphemer from the guilt of his words; because God is witness of his inmost feelings, and a true observer of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue. 7 Because the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said; 8 therefore no one who utters

83

unrighteous things will escape notice, and justice, when it punishes, will not pass him by. 9 For inquiry will be made into the counsels of an ungodly man, and a report of his words will come to the Lord, to convict him of his lawless deeds; 10 because a jealous ear hears all things, and the sound of murmurings does not go unheard. 11 Beware then of useless murmuring, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul. 12 Do not invite death by the error of your life, nor bring on destruction by the works of your hands; 13 because God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. 14 For he created all things that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them; and the dominion of Hades is not on earth. 15 For righteousness is immortal.

way to stress the implications for Christian discipleship or Christlike character. What should be equally emphasized is how much this presentation is indebted to earlier Jewish Wisdom literature, in particular the themes of the first chapter of Wisdom of Solomon where the same stress on righteousness, Spirit, and choosing the correct path are found, and note that the exhortation is to rulers. This comports well with the fact that Jesus himself says he must fulfill all righteousness, indicating he knows he is taking on the royal role. [Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-15]

For our purposes, what is especially noteworthy about the passage from Wisdom of Solomon is that the reception of the Spirit is associated with the reception of godly Wisdom. Here we remember the story in 1 Kings 3:6-15 (cf. 4:29-34) about Solomon praying for and receiving wisdom from on high, after which he could take up his ministry to Israel as a ruler. Revelatory wisdom, not wisdom learned from observing nature or human nature, is the issue here. Jesus will later in this Gospel be queried about where his wisdom comes from by his own home folks (Matt 13:54), and at another juncture he will reiterate that revelation from the Father is where his wisdom did indeed come from (Matt 11:25). The great wisdom revealed to the public here and confirmed to Jesus at his baptism is his identity—he is indeed the Beloved Son, and through this event he is empowered by the Spirit to take up the royal mantle and do the duties of such a royal and divine Son of God, including the fulfilling of all righteousness, which as we have seen from Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-15 is the first desideratum of a true king.

84

Matthew 3:1–4:16

There are not really any major textual problems in this passage, but it is interesting that various ancient manuscripts add clauses about a light shining on the Jordan when Jesus goes down into the water to heighten the apocalyptic effect of the story.8 The auto may be original in 3:16, in which case there is some stress on the private transaction that went on between Jesus and God on this occasion. This does not mean this should be seen as a purely subjective occurrence, as visions were believed to originate from an objective source. Notice too that the First Evangelist uses hosei, “as if,” a dove so as to avoid describing either the form of the Spirit or how it descended. When talking about the ineffable, we can only speak in analogies (cf. Rev 4–5 or Ezek 1). More to the point, this scene, as is more clearly the case in Mark, is depicted as involving an apocalyptic vision—the heavens are opened, there is a voice from heaven, and the Spirit comes down.9 It is possible that we are meant to see this as the inauguration of the messianic age, since it was believed in early Judaism by some that the Spirit would not be fully active again until that age began. The Joel prophecy (Joel 2:28-32), which is in fact quoted at Acts 2, speaks of the seeing of visions and is specifically related to the last days. E. Schweizer stresses that the heavens must be opened for God to speak and the Spirit to come down.10 It is interesting that the First Evangelist makes clear the apocalyptic and visionary nature of this event in v. 16b by quoting almost word for word from the introduction to Ezekiel’s throne-chariot vision in Ezekiel 1. [The Theological Implications of Jesus’ Baptism] Here it will be worthwhile to say a few things about the phrase “to fulfill all righteousness” in Matthew 3:15. First of all, notice that Jesus says “it is fitting for us” to do this. Is this his identification with humanity? Is it an implicit call for disciples to follow this example, or is he just talking about he and John doing this and so fulfilling God’s plan? There is a temptation and a danger in interpreting the phrase in light of Pauline thinking, but this would be a serious mistake, as the First Evangelist does not use the term dikaiosyne and its cognates in the same way as does Paul. As Schweizer points out, here “righteousness” seems to have the sort of sense it often does in the Old Testament and in the Qumran literature where it refers neither to an attribute nor to some absolute standard but rather to a particular course of conduct that does justice to another’s needs. Righteousness from heaven corresponds to fidelity on earth, and both entail doing what one ought to do in light of what one has covenanted to do and in light of what is best for all in the situation. The righteousness of God frequently refers

Matthew 3:1–4:16

85

The Theological Implications of Jesus’ Baptism Some stress must be placed on the sequence of events—water baptism, spirit endowment, voice of confirmation, and then temptation and ministry. Jesus does not begin his ministry prior to the reception of the Spirit and the word of confirmation from above. Of course we know from the birth narratives that the Spirit was also involved in the conception of Jesus, so the point is not to suggest that Jesus became something he wasn’t before through baptism. Rather, as J. D. G. Dunn has put it, Jesus takes on a new stage of his life, a new role, as he has now been equipped for ministry by the Spirit. What this narrative also suggests is that Jesus chooses to go all the way in being human. He chooses to draw on the resources available to mere mortals in such circumstances—the guidance of a word from God and the empowerment and leading of the Spirit. As we shall see in Matt 4:11ff., the great temptation for Jesus was to push the God button, so to speak, rather than living by the word and the Spirit—the two resources available to any human being. Jesus’ great temptation turns out to involve the inclination to act in a more than human fashion and so thereby obliterate his true humanity. This line of thinking makes good sense of the sequence—Spirit endowment, temptation, then ministry on the basis of the word and in the power of the Spirit. Had Jesus chosen to call on angelic help or relied on his own divine knowledge or power, his perfect identification with humankind would have ceased. Thus while Jesus needed neither cleansing nor Spirit endowment, he willingly received both to be like us. What then does the voice from heaven connote and denote about Jesus? The words of the voice seem to be a conglomerate citation from two texts with Isa 42:1 being the primary text in the background: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him.” It is suggested that the doulos is changed to huios in view of Ps 2:7. It is interesting that the Western text of Luke 3:22 does cite the LXX version of Ps 2:7 in full, but that text is probably not original even in Luke, so at most one can argue it was an early interpretation of the story. It can be suggested that in Matthew the term being substituted for servant is “chosen.” The term “beloved” can certainly refer to a special or chosen one, echoing Isa 42:1 (cf. Matt 12:18). The main emphasis here then seems to be on Jesus as the chosen instrument of God. Matthew will go on to emphasize that Jesus is the suffering servant, and there may be a hint of that even in this story, for ultimately “fulfilling all righteousness” could refer to fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law through Jesus’ sacrificial death. What then are we to make of the use of the term “Son” here? Too many have seen this as adoptionist language. Like the kings of old, Jesus is adopted as the Son of God at his coronation (cf. Ps 2, which seems to involve a coronation ode). In view of the birth narratives, however, that is surely not what the First Evangelist intends. It can however be said that this is the first juncture in which the Son is publicly manifested and begins to assume his role. Notice that the public manifestation is stressed in contrast to Mark’s more private account, for here we have “This is . . .” rather than “you are. . . .” God has made the announcement about the Son. It can be argued that the Evangelist has altered his source here in order to make this a public announcement scene involving a divine testimony, a divine vouching for Jesus. Thus it turns out to be a coronation scene, but without the adoptionist implications. 4Qflor. 10-14 shows, as does other evidence, that “Son” was used as a messianic title, which is not surprising since it had long since been used as a royal title, as in Ps 2. At the least, this narrative is indicating the fact that Jesus is double royalty, not merely Son of David, but even Son of God. Because Jesus is taking a human way, submitting to baptism, it might appear he was an ordinary mortal needing cleansing from sin. The voice from heaven indicates that he is much more. It indicates among other things that he has a special relationship with the Father. J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), 23-37.

to God’s vindication or God’s divine saving activity on behalf of his people, having mercy on them. Schweizer especially points to Isaiah 56:1—”do righteousness for soon my salvation (righteousness) will come.” Thus righteousness can mean the gracious activity or gift of God of deliverance as God promised. Thus Jesus submits to doing God’s loving will for humanity, and particularly for Israel, to be their deliverer in the way God intends, following God’s

86

Matthew 3:1–4:16

salvific plan; thereby all righteousness is fulfilled.11 The word “all” should be stressed as well. Jesus will do everything he can and all that is required to fulfill God’s loving plan. The Testing of the King, 4:1-11

We have seen in the baptismal story that the First Evangelist portrays that event as something of a public coronation; “This is my Beloved Son” certainly draws on Psalm 2:7, which was spoken to the Davidic king of the day. What would be clear to at least many Jewish Christians who knew some Jewish literature of the period is that the next scene is also about what happens to those about to assume great power or great authority. The king must be tempted or his metal tested before assuming his official duties. Here again we see a good example of how this Gospel writer conceptualizes his A Sapiential Reading of 4:1-11 It is no accident that in Wis 2, right after the discussion about the kings anointing and righteousness, we have the tale of the king immediately being put to the test. Some ungodly ones say, “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man. . . . He professes to have the knowledge of God and calls himself a child of God . . . and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from his adversaries.” The account goes on to say that these ungodly ones were led astray through the devil’s envy. In Matthew, however, Jesus is tested directly by the devil. In all the Synoptic Gospels there are two tests of Jesus, one just before the ministry begins and one as it draws to a close in Gethsemane. The final test is not over until the king dies. The first part of the above quote from Wisdom of Solomon illuminates Matt 4, and the latter part illuminates Matt 26–27, Jesus the righteous king being tested not only in his own spirit in the garden but being tried by ungodly men. Notice that Matt 4:1 says it is the Spirit that led Jesus out into the wilderness to be tested. By definition, God tests (intending to strengthen the believer’s moral character) and the devil tempts (intending to destroy that character), and paradoxically enough the same set of circumstances can be taken either as a test or a temptation depending on how one responds. Jesus is portrayed as responding as a believer, indeed a believing king, ought to respond—relying on the word of God. Notice that the temptations Jesus faces are those that only the Son of God might or could face— temptations to misuse the miraculous power God had given him to be a royal ruler in various selfish and self-protective ways. But if Jesus had turned stones into bread, thrown himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, or worshiped the devil (an ascending scale of severity of temptations) in order to feed himself, prove himself to the crowds, or gain his kingdom without dying for it, he would no longer have been the obedient Son of God who models godly behavior for his followers. He would have acted in a selfish way that should not be emulated and would not have been wise. Thus, Jesus is portrayed here as not taking shortcuts to glory, but rather following the hard and long path of obedience, living by God’s word and resisting temptation as we must by relying on that word. Notice that even the devil can cite Scripture (4:6, citing Ps 91:11-12), but only Jesus fleshes it out and obeys it. Wisdom amounts not only to knowing the truth but obeying it. When Jesus the King passes the test, the devil leaves him and angels attend him, as is only fitting for a divine King who has an angelic entourage.

Matthew 3:1–4:16 Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-24 12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end

87

of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

presentation based on Jewish wisdom ideas and narratives, in this case an important narrative in chapter 2 of Wisdom of Solomon, where we have the story of the testing of the king by those who have no wisdom and think unsoundly. [A Sapiential Reading of 4:1-11] [Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-24]

Notice that in Wisdom of Solomon 2 the king is said to be a righteous man and to boast that God is his Father, [Father-Son Language] and note that in the last line there is a reference to the devil’s envy, which is apparent in the Matthean account as well. The devil is portrayed here as not just the archetypal tempter but also as someone wicked and envious who longs to destroy God’s righteous one by having him worship the tempter. Before he begins his ministry, Jesus must renounce the temptation to take matters, even stones, into his own hands and use his power in a way that would make him a self-serving and unrighteous king not living according to the wisdom of God. Like Solomon, Jesus does not ask for long life, nor for wealth, nor to wield great power in an inhuman way, nor to destroy his enemies. Instead he relies on the resources available to all who walk in righteousness—the word of God, which is God’s great deposit of revealed Wisdom, and the indwelling Spirit of God. Only when Jesus the royal one has passed the test in regard to these things, in regard to the will to power especially, is he able to go forth and begin his ministry. It is also Father-Son Language In light of how seldom the Father language even turns up in the Old Testament, this passage is significant as a precedent for the use of Father-Son language in the Gospels when presenting Jesus as a royal figure. It is a mistake to look only to the Old Testament for the font of some of the ideas and images and allusions found in this Gospel. Two intertestamental books— Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach—also provide much material that helps our Evangelist properly cast his narrative as a Wisdom epic.

88

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Christ in the Desert Ivan Kramskoi (1837–1887). Christ in the Desert. 1872. Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

noteworthy that only after his having passed this test do we begin to hear Jesus’ paradigmatic wisdom in Matthew 5–7, where the renunciation of the use of power inappropriately and of unwise and ungodly ways is taught. The story of Jesus’ temptation is found in all three Synoptic Gospels, though with significant differences. The accounts in Matthew and Luke are similar though they have a different order of the second and third temptations. The Markan account is much more brief and includes no dialogue between Jesus and Satan (see Mark 1:12-13). It is clear enough that neither Matthew nor Luke got their basic account of this event from Mark, and that is why most scholars think it came from Q. Yet it also needs to be said that the Matthean and Lukan accounts are different enough that some have suspected Q may originally have been in Aramaic and was

Matthew 3:1–4:16

89

variously translated, producing more than one edition of Q. What we can say is that the author of Matthew’s Gospel knows Aramaic, while Luke does not. Luke consistently omits all Aramaic quotations from his source (e.g., Mark), and he consistently follows the LXX or some other Greek Old Testament text in Scriptural quotations. We may of course expect to find the First Evangelist’s editorial and theological tendencies in the way his account differs from Luke’s and Mark’s, but more importantly we may also suspect that the account in Matthew is more likely to be closer to the Aramaic original than Luke’s account, due to Luke’s attempts to make his narrative more user friendly for a Gentile audience, and also due to the fact that he probably relied on a Greek version of Q. In all three Synoptic accounts of the temptation, it is made plain that God’s will is for Jesus to go into the wilderness for trial and testing. The First Evangelist conveys this by saying it was the Spirit who led12 Jesus into the wilderness at the outset of the account (4:1). There is then a complexity to this story. It would appear that God intends the wilderness experience as a test of Jesus, but the devil intends it as a temptation of Jesus. The difference lies in the intentions and desired outcome of each party. [Attempting to Overcome a Tempting]

Attempting to Overcome a Tempting The Greek word peirasmos can refer to either a trial/testing or to a temptation, depending on the context of usage. R .T. France argues that it is misleading to call this a temptation narrative because the verb peirazø elsewhere in Matthew and almost always in the New Testament refers to a testing. However, the trial-maker here is said to be the diabolical one (ho diabolos), not God. Certainly God would not directly attempt to get Jesus to worship Satan. A temptation is by definition something that if given in to can destroy one’s character, whereas a testing is something that can strengthen a person’s character. So in this narrative we have the paradox that the same event God intends as a testing, Satan intends as a tempting. This observation makes mincemeat out of a neat parceling out of events between the active and passive or permissive will of God. It is customary to say that God allows things to go wrong, which is true enough, but here God, in the person of the Spirit, is actually actively leading Jesus to the place of trial. This is one of those stories that makes perfectly clear that one must not make facile statements about what God would and wouldn’t do with someone God loves and has called and chosen, even chosen for ministry. Thus we may say God as a test sent

Jesus to be tempted by the devil, the difference being in the active intention of each party. This avoids an obvious theological dilemma because of course even Jesus’ brother recognized that God tempts no one, for God desires the destruction of no one’s moral fiber (see Jas 1:13-14). God may lead one to the place of temptation, but God does not tempt the person nor desire that one give in to such a temptation. What this narrative is no doubt about is the testing of Jesus’ conscious reaction to his new messianic role and sonship tasks. We will see how wisely he responds to the trial. Will he pass the test as Wisdom of Solomon implies Solomon did and so show himself a righteous man and worthy to be king? The answer of course turns out to be yes, and it is worth noting that this story sets up one of the petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, providing a key as to how it should be translated and interpreted. Matt 6:13 should read “lead us not into temptation, but rather deliver us from the Evil One.” Herein we see that the disciple prays to God not to have to go down the road where Jesus went, in this respect, but then the trials of the King are of a unique and extraordinary nature, as we shall see. R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), 96-100.

90

Matthew 3:1–4:16

It goes without saying that if this story has a historical core, then it must go back to something Jesus related to the disciples, since it is a private encounter of Jesus who is bereft of human companionship on this occasion. Of course many scholars have simply dismissed the idea of this being a historical story not only because it involves the devil, but also because various of the quotes from Deuteronomy and the Psalms seem in the main to come from the LXX, and it is doubted that Jesus would have used that version in a debate with anyone. However, this Gospel is written in Greek, and the Evangelist does often choose to use the LXX version of quotations from the Old Testament, perhaps due in part to his audience or his commitment to witnessing to Gentiles. Since there is a close parallel passage in Luke, we may rule out the notion that the Evangelist created this story, perhaps expanding on Mark. What is entirely overlooked in this discussion is that we have already been presented with evidence at the baptism that Jesus is a seer, one who has apocalyptic visions, and there is no reason why this story could not also be seen in that light; in fact I think it should be.13 In terms of the Matthean ethos, this makes sense since we have already seen various junctures in Matthew 1–2 where the story involves divine dreams and indeed where dreams alter the course of events. I would submit that this is what we are dealing with here as well. Jesus has a visionary encounter with the Diabolical One. It is telling that there are only two junctures where Jesus is depicted as confronted with these sorts of temptations—here and in the garden of Gethsemane. Thus the temptations frame the account of the ministry. But what sort of temptations are they? Clearly they are not ordinary or mundane temptations of a normal human being. Here the temptation has directly to do with Jesus being the royal Son of God, a figure with divine power, endowed by the Holy Spirit. Each temptation begins “If you are the Son of God. . . .” It cannot be said then that this is merely some sort of picture of Jesus as an Adam figure. Jesus is more than just Adam or even Israel gone right. Jesus is the divine Son of God, Immanuel, who nonetheless in his human nature is subject to temptation. [Diabolos]

In v. 2 it has been argued that the Evangelist stresses the parallels between Moses and Jesus. They both are said to have fasted (Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9, 18). However, in the Moses story Moses has gone up on the mountain alone to encounter God, and he prepares to be in a holy condition for that encounter and for receiving and writing down Torah by fasting. Moses is not really being tested; he is simply purifying and preparing himself for the encounter and the

Matthew 3:1–4:16 Diabolos The word diabolos is found in the LXX though very rarely, and more importantly it is found in the Wisdom of Solomon. In the LXX the term seems to refer to someone who is a false witness or false accuser. We are reminded of the story in Job 1–2 where Ha Satan (which means the adversary) acts like a prosecuting attorney in the heavenly court. The development of the Jewish understanding and beliefs about Satan did not come to full bloom before the New Testament era, and here in this Jesus story we begin to see its full shape.

revelation from God. The Jesus story is very different from this, involving as it does both the devil and severe temptations. Some scholars have also suggested that Jesus is being presented as like Israel—tempted in the wilderness, only Israel failed the test (Deut 8:2-40). There may be something to this suggestion, especially when we note not only the locale of Jesus’ temptations, but also their duration—forty days, like the forty years of trial Israel endured. In this light one can find new meaning in Jesus’ responses from Deuteronomy, for it was Deuteronomy 6–8 that God put before Israel in the wilderness. Here then Jesus would be showing that he understands both the means and the meaning of obedience in a way that Israel did not. Notice too that Jesus meets his temptation apparently in the same region Israel did when they were preparing to enter the promised land (Deut 6:10-15). Yet it must be stressed that while these echoes of the story of Israel are real and present in the Matthean account, the Evangelist is stressing that Jesus is tried as the unique Son of God, not merely as Israel or just another Israelite. Jesus is tried as the royal representative of Israel, not as if he were Israel in the flesh. Thus, one must beware of reading too much into the Moses or Israel allusions here. The First Evangelist believes he is telling a familiar and yet in some ways distinctive tale about a unique individual, Jesus, who is the fulfillment of such previous stories, but in a way that moves the situation beyond those stories. Another general, noteworthy feature of this narrative is that the story is not suggesting that food or angelic help is wrong per se; it was what they might be used for in this instance, namely the violation of God’s plan for Jesus to be a particular kind of Son of God, one who does not pursue the usual royal path of power and wealth. Thus it is notable that at the end of the account, Jesus is indeed ministered to by angels, and we may perhaps take the term diakonoun here literally to mean he was waited on with food (cf. the parallel from Elijah’s story—1 Kgs 18). Most scholars agree that the Matthean arrangement of the order of temptations is probably original, for Luke seems to have ordered his account so there would a logical geographical progression

91

92

Matthew 3:1–4:16

ending up in Jerusalem, which is what his Gospel as a whole does. Certainly in terms of drama, the Matthean account is more dramatic. It is also noteworthy that Satan can quote Scripture as well (v. 6), though he appears to twist the text from the Psalms because that text does not deal with deliberate actions, much less deliberate actions meant to test God. Put simply, Jesus is tested three times by three attempts to get him to put God to the test. It is then not merely Scripture or its citing that saves Jesus but his fidelity and obedience to the true meaning and intent and wisdom of God’s word. As v. 2 now stands it appears to mean, though it is not made explicit, that Jesus was tempted at the end of his forty-day fast, when he was indeed very hungry. This makes sense as well in terms of apocalyptic visions because often they come after one has reached the limits of self, after one has reached a limnal state. The devil then comes to Jesus when he would be physically weakest. The first two temptations begin with the conditional statement “If you are the Son of God . . .,” which involves the assumption that Jesus believes this to be true. Only with the third temptation is the guise dropped; Satan makes a bold, direct appeal for worship from Jesus. It is no accident that this scene comes directly after the baptism—Jesus has assumed a role and task that threatens Satan’s control of the world. Here, as Schweizer aptly puts it, we have a standoff between the ruler of this world and the ruler intended for this world—eyeball to eyeball.14 The temptation then turns on how Jesus will demonstrate he is the Son of God. He will not indulge in gratuitous miracles and especially not self-serving ones. He will not achieve the aims or plan of God by giving allegiance to someone who is less than God. Thus what we are dealing with here is not so much an identity crisis as a task or ministry crisis—how will Jesus carry out his commission? How will he approach the tasks God has set before him? Jesus’ first response in v. 4 intimates that spiritual food is more important than physical food, and as John 4 intimates, doing God’s will is Jesus’ primary food. The quotations here by Jesus are from Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:16, and 6:13, respectively. Does Jesus see himself as bringing about the renewal of the covenant ala Deuteronomy? The second temptation in vv. 5-7 takes Jesus in a vision to the pinnacle15 of the temple in Jerusalem. Here the devil is more subtle quoting the Scripture to buttress his appeal. Presumably this location is picked because of its maximum effectiveness for demonstrating that Jesus was indeed the royal Son of God. What is

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

The Temptation of Christ Joachim Patinir (1480–1524). The Temptation of Christ. Oil on oak, Upton House, Bearsted Collection, Banbury, Oxfordshire, Great Britain. [Photo Credit: National Trust / Art Resource, NY]

being tested here is divine providence, just as the previous temptation involved testing divine provision. But what an inappropriate place to put God to the test—in the very symbolical place where God’s presence was most thought to dwell. It was believed by some early Jews, and various orthodox ones today, that messiah would come across the Mount of Olives to annunciate the messianic age. Even today orthodox Jews wish to be buried at the top of that mount in order to be first up in the resurrection to greet messiah when he comes. Verse 7 has a quote by Jesus that probably does not mean “you” (the devil) should not tempt “me” (Jesus), though that is possible. Rather, the point is that for Jesus to do such a thing would be putting God to the test. In short this may not be a christologically loaded remark, though in Matthew’s Gospel it is possible that it could be. Are we to think in v. 8 of Moses, who was also taken up on a high mountain to survey all that God (not the devil) would give his people? In light of such diverse texts as Luke 4:6; John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; and 1 John 5:19, this should not be seen

93

94

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Place of Temptation South-east corner of the wall around the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. Jesus was tempted here by the devil.

as a false offer, for early Christians believed Jesus was indeed to be the world ruler. But Satan here is shrewdly trying to get Jesus to capitulate to his rulership before a shot has even been fired for the Dominion of God. Verse 8 is not dramatic hyperbole if one recognizes that this is seen in a vision. Jesus dismisses Satan with the insistence that he will worship and serve only God himself.16 It becomes apparent as the story goes on that the devil had not left Jesus for good, but from this juncture on, the character of Jesus’ messiahship or royal sonship has been set, and the way it will be expressed in ministry is set. Jesus has been confirmed by both the word and the Spirit of God and tested on their behalf. He is now ready to express God’s Wisdom to the world in the context of the trials of ministry.

[Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

The Sage by the Sea, 4:12-17

The First Evangelist alone tells us that when Jesus heard John had been put in prison, he pulled up stakes in Nazareth and went and lived at Capernaum on the sea of Galilee. This may imply Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (see Luke 4), though the First Evangelist does not say so. What he does say is that Jesus really began his ministry after John was imprisoned. It is important to notice that the message with which Jesus is said to have begun A Sapiential Reading of 4:12-17 his ministry is the very same message John proJesus’ ministry begins in earnest after claimed (cf. 3:2 to 4:17). Are we meant to think John is imprisoned. He is said to go and Jesus saw his ministry as a logical extension of live in Capernaum, and so yet another Scripture is the Baptist’s ministry, or better said the complefulfilled (Isa 9:1-2). Jesus takes up the cry of tion and fulfillment of it? Only the First John, whose voice has been silenced by imprisEvangelist leaves this impression, for only he onment—“Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is a call not merely to feel sorry for uses the very same words to characterize the one’s sins, or even just to accept forgiveness for preaching of each of these preachers. [A Sapiential them, but to turn around and choose a different and wiser course of living.

Reading of 4:12-17]

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Sea of Galilee [Photo Credit: Jim Pitts]

In v. 17 the verb metanoeite means more than just to be sorry for or to change one’s mind about. It means to make a radical life change, in this case to turn away from the patterns of sin and rebellion and turn back to God and to obedience to his will. This appeal to change is given urgency by what follows it—”because the Dominion of God is at hand.” This is what may be called an eschatological sanction. But how does the First Evangelist, and Jesus before him, conceive of this? Does this mean the end of the world, some cataclysmic final judgment, the dawning of the messianic age, or the inbreaking of God’s final saving reign? We will say more about this in a moment, for now we note that the verb engidzo is in the perfect and means something like “has already come near” or “is just breaking in.” But does this mean near in time or near in space? It has become a truism that Jesus’ essential message had to do with the coming of the Dominion of God. A. Loisy once made the interesting observation that Jesus proclaimed the coming of the kingdom, but it was the church that showed up. The perfect tense of the verb suggests something that is already inaugurated and so urgent action is required.

95

96

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Only the First Evangelist amongst the Gospel writers uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven,” using the circumlocution “heaven” for God here. This may or may not reflect Jesus’ own chosen speech pattern, but it certainly reflects the early Jewish Christian attitude that, like the early Jewish attitude, had great reverence for the name of God and the naming of God and therefore would avoid pronouncing God’s name, lest it be done in an imperfect manner, a manner that did not properly honor God. It is clear that the Dominion of God is not seen as something different from the Dominion of Heaven; the latter is a circumlocution for the former, and the latter is not commenting on the location of this Dominion per se. But why should this basileia be called of God or of heaven? Are we to translate this word “Kingdom” or “Reign” or “Dominion” or divine saving activity or something else? In my view this term has slightly differing nuances in different places, but in all cases the divine saving activity of God on earth is involved. I prefer the translation “Dominion” because it can convey both a reign and a realm, both an activity and its result. In short, when the Dominion is referred to in the present tense, the concept of divine saving activity or reign is entailed. When Jesus speaks about a future inheriting, obtaining, or entering the Dominion he is indeed talking about a place and a condition. The Sage’s First Students, 4:18-22

We notice in this passage that Jesus calls ordinary men, even fishermen, and he calls them not merely to follow or travel with him, but to come and learn how to “catch” human beings. This then is not a mere call to personal discipleship; it is a call to ministry, participating in the spreading of the good news and the making of disciples. The verb “to follow” here is probably a loaded term, meaning both literally following him around and also imitating his pattern of life and praxis, as was the case with various other Jewish teachers and their pupils. They were to use and learn from Jesus’ wisdom. This whole scene suggests that Jesus conceptualizes himself as a sage not unlike a Hanina ben Dosa, but with some new wrinkles. For example, Jesus seems to be the first to actively recruit disciples in early Judaism, rather than waiting for disciples to come to his home or school to study. There is the further distinctive that Jesus chooses to be itinerant, though Jesus may be following a pattern John the Baptizer first established in this regard. The summary of the calling in vv. 18-22 stresses Jesus’ authority and perhaps his charisma. The response of the fishermen (Simon

Matthew 3:1–4:16

97

and Andrew and the Zebedee brothers) seems spontaneous, though they must surely have heard of Jesus before this juncture (see John 1:1–4:2). They leave behind family and vocation to follow Jesus. [A Sapiential Reading of 4:18-22]

Summing Up in Advance, 4:23-25

A Sapiential Reading of 4:18-22 The calling of the first disciples is recounted, and the first four called— Peter, Andrew, James, and John—are all said to be Galilean fishermen whom Jesus says will be transformed into fishers of human beings. They respond as disciples should, immediately leaving their nets and following Jesus. Jesus was an unusual sage, for he sought out disciples and was itinerant, which did not characterize other early rabbis. It is however said to characterize Wisdom, who is said in 1 En. 42 (cf. Prov 8:1-5) to cry out in the marketplace for people to gain wisdom, but is rejected and returns to the Father. Jesus is again portrayed as the human embodiment of God’s divine wisdom, God’s plan and blueprint for holy living.

Here we have a preliminary summing up of the nature and regional effects of the ministry of Jesus. This same summary is virtually repeated in Matthew 9:35, just prior to Jesus’ sending out of his disciples for the first time to do what he had been doing all along. They become his agents or shalihim.17 This summary seems to be derived directly from a few sentences at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel—v. 23 from Mark 1:39; v. 24 from Mark 1:28, 34; and v. 25 from Mark 3:7-8. Note that some distinction is made between teaching in the synagogues, preaching—presumably in public and in the open air—and healing. These are the three weapons, plus his personal presence and example, that Jesus uses to inaugurate the Dominion of God on earth and destroy the reign of the powers of darkness over the human mind and heart. [A Sapiential Reading of 4:23-25]

Notice that the good news or gospel is connected here to the Dominion, as elsewhere in this Gospel (cf. A Sapiential Reading of 4:23-25 24:14; 26:13). The good news has eschatological Matt 4:23 says Jesus traveled all over content—it is about the inbreaking of God’s Galilee proclaiming this wisdom in syna18 saving reign in and through Jesus. But Jesus’ gogues as well as preaching the good news. A ministry is not just a “spiritual” one as is clear distinction is made between his teaching and his from his many acts of physical healing. His is a preaching, the latter entailing the call to repentance and the announcement of the near much more holistic approach. The king wishes eschatological reign of God. He is also said to to have the entire allegiance of his subjects, and heal, which attracted enormous crowds even wishes and conveys to them shalom, well-being from Syria. Part of Solomon’s wisdom was in all aspects of their lives. Should we see believed in early Judaism to involve the knowlimplied here as part of the Matthean schema the edge of the healing arts, including the knowledge old distinction between “kerygma” and of the right words for exorcism. “didache,” preaching for the masses, instruction for the disciples? That there is some justification for this sort of assessment can be seen at the beginning of Matthew 5 where we are told specifically that Jesus taught his own disciples, even though there was a crowd also present. This suggests we should see

98

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Matthew 5–7 as some sort of wisdom about the Dominion of God and how it is to be lived out in light of the new saving activity of God through the ministry of Jesus. Rather surprisingly, we read in vv. 24-25 that Jesus’ ministry is heard of all over the area, including beyond the Jordan in the Decapolis and up north in Syria.19 This text does not suggest that Jesus intentionally directs his ministry to those locales or people beyond the borders of Israel.20 What is said is people from those places heard of Jesus’ ministry and came to him. That is a different matter than Jesus initiating a Gentile mission himself. Notice that every region surrounding Galilee is mentioned, save one—Samaria. This omission cannot be accidental in view of the fact that later in this Gospel Jesus’ disciples are told not to go to Samaria. This is perhaps because they too, during Jesus’ earthly ministry, are directed only to the lost sheep of Israel.21

CONNECTIONS The Dominion of God and the Human Heart

The Dominion of God on the earth is a cipher for God’s final divine saving activity that happened first through the ministry of Jesus and then continuously through the ministry of his followers over the course of the last two millennia. The essence of this is that God sets up the divine reign in the lives of those who receive God. It is what Christians are referring to today when they talk about Christ ruling in their hearts or being Lord of their lives. The Dominion has come to the most personal and private of locations—the inner life of individual human beings and the midst of the community of God’s people. Yet that is not all, for as we shall see, changed lives lead to redemptive actions that in turn change other lives and even on occasion change the very fabric and structure of a society. For some the notion of the coming of God’s Dominion within the human heart will seem far too small and cramped a space for God to work, if God’s saving activity is going to make a difference in the world. It will appear to some that this is an over-spiritualizing of the concept of God’s Dominion. Is this being too heavenly minded to be any earthly good? While such a reaction is understandable, it fails to come to grips with the fact that most of the major problems human beings face originate in the human heart. Whether we think of war, murder,

Matthew 3:1–4:16

adultery, drug addiction, theft, idolatry, or racist or sexist acts, all of these horrors ultimately originate in the human heart. Jesus understood this and at one point condemned the lusts of the heart (Matt 5:27-28). God’s saving Dominion comes to deal with the primary source of human social maladies, not simply to deal with the social effects or communal expressions of such maladies, though responding to the latter is also important. Elsewhere, when discussing the issue of clean and unclean food, Jesus is also reported to have remarked, “whatever goes into a person from outside the person can not defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach. . . . It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly” (Mark 7:18-23, my emphasis). In sum, in Jesus’ view the heart was the heart of the matter, and humankind desperately needed a heart transplant or transformation, not merely a heart bypass operation. In both the Old and the New Testaments, the human heart is seen as the control center of human personality. It is the place where one finds thoughts, emotions, and will. This is why for instance we hear about the “thoughts of the heart” in the Bible. God knew that if the control center of human personality could be gotten hold of and pointed in the right direction, then the rest of the person and personality would follow. It is like leading a horse to water. If the halter is on the horse and one can get hold of it and turn the horse’s head, the rest of the horse will follow. So too with human beings. Once God gets hold of a person’s heart, the renovation of the whole person has been set in motion. When the heart is led in a particular direction, the rest will follow. Here I would like to offer two illustrations of my point about the importance of the reign of God’s saving activity in the human heart. Firstly, a recent laudable campaign against drugs in the public school had as its slogan “Just Say No.” The assumption behind the campaign was that better-informed young people and a sufficient exhortation should give them the gumption to reject turning to drugs. The problem with this assumption is that information without inner transformation will not and cannot finally solve the problem. The human heart must be changed if people are to really be different. A new attitude, not merely new ideas, is required. If we want to end the drug problem in America we would do well not merely to preach but also to pray that God’s transforming, saving activity might break into the lives of the myriads of troubled people who are addicted to one or another drug.

99

100

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Recently, I had occasion to see a powerful play by a man named Stephen Dietz titled God’s Country. It deals with the still pervasive problem of racism in our society. Our society has racism as one of its perpetual besetting sins perhaps because we have always been an immigrant nation, with lots of new faces, and quite naturally selfcentered human beings are suspicious of those who do not look, dress, speak, or act like themselves. All human beings tend to assume they are normal and others who are not like them are therefore strange or suspicious or even wicked. Dietz drives home the point that racism originates in the human heart, and more to the point racism is based on and driven by the irrational fears and illogical assumptions that often reside in the heart. Precisely because human beings are fallen creatures and their thoughts and feelings are often dark and dangerous, God’s Dominion must first invade and take over the human heart if human society is to be improved. Jesus understood this and proclaimed the Dominion in such a way that people could realize God demands and delivers a personal change in people’s lives when God comes to dwell in fullness within them and in their midst. This leads not only to the power of positive thinking but to a transformed will and healed emotions. Of course the essential presupposition of all this proclamation of the need of God’s saving presence in a human life is that human beings are not all right in their present condition. The presupposition is that human beings are fallen and they cannot get up by their own efforts. They are lost in a world of self-centered and selfseeking ventures and realities and require a radical rescue operation to be set right so they may truly learn to love others and become other-directed individuals. What the Dominion of God entering the heart does is take a person out of a circus-like hall of mirrors where one is perpetually looking at and admiring various configurations of one’s self, and places that person out in the fresh air of God’s world where one may see the world as it is and understand one’s own place in it. The Dominion of God in the New Testament and in the Teaching of Jesus

Sometimes Christians are apt to mistake the Dominion of God for the church. A moment’s reflection will show however that the two terms do not refer to exactly the same entity within the Christian canon, much less in the teaching of Jesus. For one thing, none of us are praying for the church to come, but every time believers say the Lord’s Prayer we ask God to send his Dominion. For another thing,

Matthew 3:1–4:16

we don’t talk about obtaining or inheriting the church, but we certainly use these terms about God’s Dominion. Nevertheless, one can say that God’s Dominion can be seen within the church, if by church we mean the people of God. There is a sense in which when God is ruling and saving and transforming his people so that they become the Dominion of God, the church is at least a place where that Dominion can be seen and experienced. By the same token, Israel and God’s Dominion should not be simply identified with one another. If by Dominion we mean God’s rule amongst his people, then wherever God’s people can be found, there also is the Dominion. Doubtless Ezekiel was surprised to have his throne-chariot vision on the River Chebar in Babylon (cf. Ezek 1–2), but it was intended as a reminder that God and the divine presence and activity were not confined to Mt. Zion in Jerusalem or even to the land of Israel. Furthermore, as the story of Jonah suggests, God was prepared to accept followers even from among the Ninevites if they repented and honored the one true God. There are also warnings that God’s ruling presence can be withdrawn from a group of God’s people if they are faithless (cf. Matt 21:43 and Rom 11). On the other hand, Jesus and his earliest followers did expect the final manifestation of God’s Dominion on earth to have the land of Israel and the risen patriarchs in that land as its particular focus (see Matt 19:28; Luke 13:28). The relationship between the church and Israel is more complicated. On the one hand, all of Jesus’ earliest followers were Jews, as of course Jesus was himself. Furthermore, after Easter and Pentecost all the earliest Christians who made up the Jerusalem church were also Jews, so far as we can tell from a close reading of Acts 1–4. There was then a time when the church was a subset of Judaism, which took many different forms in the 1st century AD. However, it appears equally clear that most non-Christian Jews came to view Christians as not true Jews due principally to their belief in and worship of Jesus, and on the other hand the earliest Jewish Christians saw themselves as the very definition of true Jews. By the time we get to what is probably Paul’s earliest extant letters, Galatians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians all written somewhere around AD 50, a distinction is made between Jews and the followers of Jesus, and even more strikingly, Paul applies language previously reserved for Israel to the church. At one point he even calls Jew and Gentile united in Christ, or at least Jewish Christians, “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). Finally, if we read carefully Rom 9–11, it will become apparent that Paul believes: (1) God has not cast off his first chosen people or reneged on his promises to them.

101

102

Matthew 3:1–4:16

(2) Nevertheless, those who have rejected Christ or are outside of Christ have been temporarily broken off from the people of God. Not all Jews are true Jews. In the present, Paul affirms that a true Jew is one who recognizes Jesus as the Jewish messiah, as Paul and the apostles had done. (3) When the full number of Gentiles become part of the people of God, then Christ will return and “all Israel [i.e., those not already Christians] will be saved” (Rom 11:26), by which Paul seems to mean a very large number of Jews who hitherto had not believed in Christ. The upshot of this somewhat complicated discussion is that Israel also cannot simply be equated with the Dominion of God, nor can Israel simply be identified with the church, for while on the one hand sometimes in the New Testament Israel may refer to Jews and Gentiles united in Christ (though this can be disputed; in Gal 6 it may just refer to Jerusalem Jewish Christians), sometimes it also refers to non-Christian Jews. In such a situation it is not surprising that we sometimes get confused about the relationship of God’s Dominion, the church, and Israel. What is crucial to bear in mind at this point is that God’s Dominion is a larger concept than either the concept of church or Israel. God’s saving activity can happen outside of either the Jewish or Christian community; indeed this is what missionary work accomplishes. Needless to say, it can happen outside the nation of Israel or the U.S.A. or outside of any of the nations that have traditionally had a Judaeo-Christian heritage. Furthermore, that activity can break into our midst quite apart from our prayers or plans. God and the divine activity cannot be confined or domesticated by God’s people. The New Testament, however, urges that God has chosen to activate and implement his eschatological Dominion through one specific person and his activities—those of Jesus Christ. When Jesus himself sought to speak about the Dominion of God, he spoke of it as having both a future and a present dimension. On the one hand, it had broken into the present through his ministry, for Jesus speaks of his exorcisms as evidence that the Dominion has broken into the lives of his audience through his ministry (Matt 12:28 and par.), and on the other hand we have clear teaching about the future reign of the Realm or Dominion, which is something the disciples are to pray for the coming of (Matt 6:10), and something that when Jesus told stories about who would sit down at the messianic banquet when the Dominion of God fully comes on earth he reminded his followers that there would be some surprising people present. “I tell you that many will come from the east and the west and will eat with Abraham and

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Isaac and Jacob in the Dominion of Heaven, while the heirs of the Dominion will be thrown into outer darkness . . .” (Matt 8:11, cf. Luke 13:28-29). The realm of God then is the place where God’s reign will perfectly manifest itself on earth. The eschatological nature of this whole line of thinking should be clear from one observation—the phrase “Kingdom/Dominion of Heaven” does not refer to the condition in heaven alone, for there is no need to pray for God to rule in heaven. That, according to the Bible, is a continual state of affairs. No, the Dominion of Heaven that is being prayed for is something early Jews and Christians both fervently believed would one day come on earth, and to that end they prayed. This was an exciting concept, not some static belief that God was always and everywhere eternally reigning, for it was connected with the concept of a coming messianic age upon the earth, and with Israel regaining the Holy Land. Baptism

Baptismal ideas and praxis are two of the most interesting and contested matters in Christian history. A brief sampling of opinions show that there is not nor has there ever been any unanimity on these matters in the church. For example, when we get to a period of church history in which the creeds and canon are being firmed up, namely in the fourth century, baptism already had definite shape and a set of rules, and it involved both infants and those who were beyond infancy. Since it was seen as a sacrament that would remit of all sin, and in view of Hebrews 6, baptism was delayed until adult candidates had undergone months of instruction and correction, usually during Lent and ending on Holy Saturday. It was then performed on Easter Sunday, incorporating the rebirth symbolism natural to that day. Some Christians, like Emperor Constantine, postponed their baptism until just before their death, fearing that they would violate Hebrews 6, committing some post-baptismal sin and so be excluded from the Dominion of God and heaven. Baptism was performed in a baptistery, which was usually a round building at the entrance to a cathedral or church or adjacent to it. The baptisand would face west, renouncing the works of the devil (there was a sort of exorcism dimension to this ritual that was eliminated by Luther and Calvin at the Reformation), standing in the baptismal font, and then they would receive a new white garment, symbolic of the change they went through. It was not long after the rise of church buildings and then cathedrals that baptismal fonts became

103

104

Matthew 3:1–4:16

art objects of a sort, with their shape symbolizing death and regeneration in various ways—the four-sided font was meant to seem like a coffin (the baptisand was dying and being reborn); the sixsided one symbolized Good Friday and Jesus’ death on that day; the eight-sided one symbolized resurrection and the eight people on Noah’s ark saved by/through the flood; and finally the round font signified the womb from which one was emerging in new birth. While the baptism of infants probably began in the first century AD due to the practice of baptisms of whole households (such as that of Stephanus mentioned in 1 Cor 1, Cornelius mentioned in Acts 10, or Lydia in Acts 16:15), there can be little doubt that the practice accelerated in the early middle ages when so many infants were dying in infancy, and it came to be believed that without baptism they were going to hell or at least to limbo. Augustine suggested that original sin would be washed away in infant baptism, and so the babies could go to heaven if they had received the sacrament before death. The turning of water baptism into a sacrament, and more importantly into a necessary means of salvation, necessitated some sort of practice of infant baptism, since the church had a problem with the notion that infants were lost simply because they could not articulate their faith in Christ. The exegetical gymnastics that various theologians went through in dealing with the issue of infant salvation and infant baptism are interesting. For example, Aquinas said children could be justified by the faith of the church, or Luther suggested they could be justified by the faith of their sponsors, or Calvin suggested by their potential for faith. The Anabaptists, however, as part of the Reformation, had different opinions. Menno Simons (1496–1561), founder of the Mennonites, said infant baptism was a harmful superstition without scriptural warrant. Indeed, he went so far as to say it was an invention of the Antichrist! In his view Matthew 19:14 promised salvation to infants without the necessity of baptism. William Penn and other Quakers dispensed with water baptism altogether, noting that Jesus himself baptized no one. Their cry was “we are disciples of Jesus, not of John.” The Salvation Army likewise dispensed with the ritual of baptism. It was apparently U. Zwingli (1484–1531) who first went the entire way of seeing baptism as a spiritual aid or pledge or symbol but not as a sacrament of grace. If we are wondering why there has always been such dissent about this matter in the church, partly it is because the New Testament itself, unlike the Didache, does not tell us specifically

Matthew 3:1–4:16

how and on whom to practice this rite. To be sure, it provides examples, but the book of Acts is full of what one might call missionary baptisms, where whole families are brought into the church. That book neither raises nor really answers the second-generation question of what one should do with the children of believers. First Corinthians 7 says the children of even one Christian parent are “holy,” which may mean sanctified in some sense, or it may simply mean set apart for God. But if it means either one of these, the proper question is how can one withhold baptism, which is an entrance ritual into the community, from those who are already at least provisionally set apart for and a part of that community? Nor does the New Testament prescribe a certain quantity of water to be used or a certain confession that needs to precede the ritual before baptizing can take place. Baptizø it is true often connotes immersing something or someone in water, but it is not a technical term for baptism, and in any case, as the Didache shows, it could refer to pouring or even sprinkling for that matter even in the first century. It is interesting that in the later Western text of Acts 8, a sentence is added to the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch that was not a part of our earliest and best Greek text of that story. The verse has Philip telling the eunuch nothing hinders him from being baptized if he will first profess his faith. The original version of the story did not mention such a requirement. In short, the church is always likely to have divided opinions about the character, mode, quantity of water, subjects, and theology of baptism because the limits of these things are not made perfectly clear in the New Testament.22 In closing, a few things can be said from a historical point of view: (1) It is not clear that John’s baptism should be seen as the same as Christian baptism in its character. It is clear enough that John’s baptism involved repentance of sins and was practiced on youth and adults. A text like Acts 19:1-7, however, makes clear that John’s baptism and Christian baptism needed to be distinguished in the early church. The disciples in this text are clearly not Christians but rather followers of John who have not even heard about the Holy Spirit. Notice that the disciples of John are rebaptized when they become Christians. This distinguishes the two practices of baptism. (2) Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 says in a moment of frustration that he is glad he didn’t baptize more people in Corinth, as they had made far too much of baptism in relationship to their way of adhering to one leader or another. One cannot imagine Paul saying, “I thank God I did not save more of you.”

105

106

Matthew 3:1–4:16

This suggests that while baptism is not necessary for salvation (a fact that even John Wesley affirmed because he could not believe all good Quakers were lost simply because they were not baptized); nevertheless, Matthew 28 suggests it was a necessary ordinance if one was going to obey and please Christ. Notice too how Paul in 1 Corinthians 1 and Romans 6 associates the symbolism of baptism with the death of Jesus and what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Baptism originally was about symbolizing the dying of the old self, it would seem. (3) It is possible that the practice of a ritual ablution as an initiatory rite as found at Qumran may provide some background to the Christian sacrament. At Qumran it was a one-time ritual, and it was a rite of passage. The Christian ritual also was viewed as a rite of passage, and so should be administered only once, as it symbolized the crossing from the realm of darkness into the community of light for the first time. It is not an accident that baptism is said to be “one” in Ephesians 4, and there is no evidence from the New Testament that anyone thought the importance or efficacy of baptism was determined by who administered it, presumably so long as it was a Christian. Since there were no “clergy” in the New Testament era, it wasn’t a matter of clergy privilege either. Notice that apostles, their coworkers, evangelists like Philip, and various others baptized those coming into the Christian community. (4) Baptism, in contrast to the Lord’s Supper, was viewed as a passive sacrament, by which I mean it was a sacrament performed by one person for the benefit of another. No one was to baptize themselves. By contrast the Lord’s Supper was an active sacrament—one had to take and feed on the bread, take and drink the juice, discerning the body of Christ (see 1 Cor 11). (5) Sometimes in the early practice of baptism there was dramatic symbolism involved. There is evidence that early on baptism was done in the nude. One put off one’s old garments before going into the water and then came out of the water and received new ones. This led in the age of the rise of asceticism in the second century to the separating of the baptizing of women and men, with women officiating at women’s baptisms so long as derobing was part of the ritual. By the Middle Ages, derobing had been pretty much abandoned, so much had the ideals of asceticism taken hold of the church. Perhaps some of these considerations can help point us toward a more helpful consideration of our modern practices of baptism and their antecedents.

Matthew 3:1–4:16 John the Baptizer

Let us start with the question about John’s possible connection to the Dead Sea community of Essenes. Was John the Baptist at some point a part of that Qumran community? The evidence isn’t compelling, but it is suggestive that this may have been so. We know the Baptist was plying his trade in the Judean wilderness, the same region where the Qumran community was, although John 1:28 and 3:23, with the reference to Bethany and Aenon, suggest he was operating somewhat north of their locale. Secondly, there is the matter of the text used in our earliest Gospel, Mark, to introduce John the Baptist. Mark 1:2-3 quotes Mal 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. The latter text in particular seems to have been a theme verse for the Qumranites. They were preparing the way of God’s coming in the Judean wilderness. (There is of course the fact that the Hebrew text of Isa 40:3 suggests that the way the text should be read is “The voice of one crying: ‘in the desert prepare the way of the Lord.’” In this way of reading the text, the preparation, rather than the crying, is what is transpiring in the wilderness.) John may be said to be doing the same. He shared a common eschatological outlook that now was the time when the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises of God would begin to transpire, and he also shared with the Qumranites the belief that God’s judgment on Israel was imminent and that repentance was necessary. Thirdly, there is the issue of diet. Both John and the Qumranites manifested ascetical tendencies. Fourthly, there is the matter of John’s water ritual. While it is true that Qumran’s water ablutions were basically a matter of daily purification rites, there does seem to have been an initiatory water rite practiced on the probationary members there, on which it is possible John could have modeled his water ritual. Finally, one needs to stress that according to Luke 1, John came from a priestly family. This is possibly significant because the Qumran community was not only founded by someone in a priestly line, it was attempting to have all its members live in a priestly manner and prepare for the coming of both a priestly and a kingly messianic figure. In other words, it was natural for a pious young man of priestly stock to be attracted to such a group of people. One must go on to say that when we encounter John, even if he was at one time a Qumranite, he is so no longer, as shown by the fact that he is alone and is making an effort to call the nation directly to repentance rather than just withdrawing from the polluted majority of Israel. Further, he allows both the clean and unclean, the sinners and the righteous, to come into contact with him. Furthermore, it would appear that John had no Levitical

107

108

Matthew 3:1–4:16

program in mind for those he baptized to follow, nor had he a revolutionary program to cure the nation’s ills. He was not a reformer in the same manner that the Pharisees or Zealots were. He was also not a miracle worker, as John 10:41 reminds us. Josephus has only a little to say about John the Baptizer, devoting one paragraph to John (Ant. 18.116-119), which is of course significantly less attention than John gets in the New Testament. First and foremost Josephus makes no connection between Jesus of Nazareth and John. He mentions of course that John was noted for his baptizing, but he does not mention that the river Jordan was where this transpired. It is possible that John chose the eastern or Perean side of the Jordan to baptize people because it was outside the Roman province (though within the territory of Herod Antipas—cf. John 1:28; 10:40). It is also Josephus who tells us John was imprisoned beyond the Jordan at the fortress known as Machaerus, which suggests that it was near where John had been operating and where he was taken prisoner. One of the major tendencies of Josephus, when he is dealing with matters of Jewish belief, is that he attempts to present things in a way that would make sense to a Greco-Roman audience. For example, instead of speaking about things like resurrection, a specifically Jewish notion, he is more likely to speak about a belief in immortality.23 In the case of John, what Josephus does is deeschatologize his teaching. John goes from being an apocalyptic prophet of doom to being a teacher of morality, exhorting people to live righteous lives and be just and pious. Furthermore, instead of John offering a baptism of repentance to sinners, Josephus suggests that John’s baptism was a sort of confirmation ritual for a conscience that had already been cleansed (Ant. 18.117). It is also interesting that Josephus, who certainly knew about the furor that Antipas’s marriage to Herodias caused, nonetheless attributes Antipas’s arrest of John to a fear that the people might follow John should an uprising against Herod happen, unlike what we find in the New Testament. According to Luke 3:1-2, John began to prophesy and baptize in the fifteenth year of Tiberius’s reign as emperor, which depending on whether partial years are being counted would mean John began to act and speak in either AD 27 or 28. In my judgment, it is likely that John’s ministry transpired in AD 27 and 28 (B. Meyer rightly says it could have begun as early as the fall of AD 27.), possibly continuing on into early AD 29, and Jesus’ ministry began probably in AD 28 (the overlap period with John) and concluded with his crucifixion in AD 30.24

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Something now needs to be said about John’s water ritual and the radical nature of it. If, as both Josephus and the New Testament, indicate, this rite was connected with repentance and God’s forgiveness of sins, then in effect John was offering people a way to obtain right standing with God quite apart from the temple apparatus in Jerusalem. It needs to be remembered that John’s rite bore most resemblance to proselyte baptism, which was a ritual practiced only on Gentiles! John’s calling of all kinds of Jews to baptism suggests that he was in agreement with the Qumranites that the nation of Israel was seriously corrupt, not holy at all. The nation needed more than remedial attention to minor problems; it needed to start over from scratch with God (see, e.g., Matt 3:7-10). Yet unlike the Qumranites, John allows all sorts of people to come into contact with him. It is a serious mistake to underestimate the importance of John the Baptist when considering the issue of the rise of the Jesus movement. In the earliest Gospel, John and his ministry are quite properly seen as “the beginning of the gospel” (see Mark 1), an idea the later Gospels also promote in one fashion or another. John is the one who sets things in motion and prepares Israel for the coming of her God and his reign, for judgment was to begin with the household of God, and only thereby and perhaps thereafter would there be redemption. It is probably correct that the largely positive presentation of John in the Gospels is due to Jesus’ own positive appreciation of John and his ministry.25 According to Mark 1:5, people were coming to the Jordan from Jerusalem and Judea to be baptized by John. This suggests that his ministry must have been near Judea, probably on the other side of the Jordan and somewhat north of Jerusalem, placing John in Antipas’s territory. There may be something significant about the reference to Judeans and Jerusalemites coming to John. It must be remembered that at this time, that part of the Holy Land was part of a Roman province, and yet it contained the holy city. Its priesthood and even the vestments of the priest were under Roman control. Pious Jews in that realm would have had to know something was seriously wrong morally or spiritually for them to be living under occupation. By contrast, in Galilee at least there was the facade or illusion that someone who was at least partly Jewish was ruling Jews. Now in regard to Jesus, what we have just said suggests that Jesus was baptized by John in or near Judea. I would suggest that it is likely that John 3:22–4:3 is correct in suggesting there was a period in Jesus’ life in which Jesus was either a disciple of John or a co-

109

110

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Jordan River [Photo Credit : Jim Pitts]

laborer with him beyond the Jordan before embarking on his own largely Galilean ministry once John was imprisoned.26 If Mark 1:6 is anywhere near the mark in terms of historical substance, it suggests that John was self-consciously dressing and presenting himself like one of the prophets of old, in particular like one of the northern prophets, in particular Elijah (on the leather girdle cf. 2 Kgs 1:8). Even less in doubt is the fact that John’s baptism was for the remission of sins, quite apart from the sacrifices in the temple. This may explain why even tax collectors and Romans, according to Luke 3:12-14, came to John for baptism (cf. Matt 21:31-32), and it would further explain why not only the temple hierarchy but the Pharisees would be likely to be at odds with John and his methods of dealing with sin and uncleanness. Another facet of the Markan account that appears in the other Gospel accounts as well is that John did not see himself as the definitive revealer of God, but rather expected some sort of sequel to his own ministry. Someone or something would come after him. From Mark and the Q material, it is not clear whether John envisioned God directly intervening with a baptism of fire, or another human agent of God. The saying about the sandals, if it actually

Matthew 3:1–4:16

goes back to John, would support the conclusion that John expected a human agent to follow him, of whom he was unworthy to even be a slave. In the earliest collection of Jesus’ sayings, the material called Q by scholars, almost a tenth of this material mentions or is devoted to John and his words and deeds. This demonstrates beyond cavil that John was a significant figure in the life of Jesus and the beginning of the Jesus movement. Jesus, of course, is said to have thought so as well, as we shall see in due course. Just how significant a figure John was, despite his deference to Jesus in the Gospels, is shown by Acts 18:25 and 19:1-7. Apollos who comes from Alexandria in Egypt knows only John’s baptism, even though he is a Christian and even though it is the early 50s AD. In Acts 19:1-7 we are presented with a story about disciples of John, still extant at this time, who know of John’s baptism but not Christian baptism or the reception of the Holy Spirit at conversion. These texts remind us that Jesus was not the only one who led a significant reform movement in early Judaism that continued to have an ongoing impact. There is also evidence, as we shall see, that John had some doubts, when in jail, about whether Jesus was indeed the one destined to come after him and lead God’s people in the right direction. Much in the news of late is the finding of a cave where John the Baptizer may have baptized some in Judea. On the cave wall is a physical image of a man with upraised arms and apparently wearing skins, and there is evidence of what might be an anointing stone and perhaps a mitzvah or baptismal pool. Since this cave was found near the traditional site of where John the Baptist is thought to have lived, there may be some creditability to the suggested identification, but since there are no inscriptions involved, the identification is far from certain. All of this shows both the complexity and importance of John the Baptizer and the events that involved him and that he set in motion. Since, however, this cave is nowhere near where John is said to have practiced his ministry, if it is connected to John it may reflect the practices of his ongoing followers or admirers near the traditional site of John’s home.

111

112

Matthew 3:1–4:16

Notes 1 See

D. R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 73-84. 2 D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC: Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 45. 3 Ibid., 46. 4 Luke 3:7 says they were coming to be baptized; Matthew more simply that they were coming to the baptism. 5 This should be especially clear in light of the little phrase “of fire.” 6 See H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 26-30. 7 See R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 44-59. 8 See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 10. 9 It is more evident in Mark than here. See my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 68-79. 10 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 51-56. 11 Ibid., 53-54. 12 Mark uses stronger language, saying the Spirit impelled Jesus into the wilderness. 13 See my discussion at length in Jesus the Seer and the Progress of Prophecy (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 246-92. 14 E. Schweizer, 56-66. 15 The Greek word here means something that juts out, something like a wing or buttress. 16 Note the addition of the word “only” to the Old Testament quote for emphasis. 17 On which see pp. 219-25 below. 18 See the discussion in E. Schweizer, “Matthew’s Church,” in The Interpretation of Matthew (ed. G. Stanton; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 129-55, here p. 134. 19 This is sometimes thought to be a nod in the direction of the fact that this Gospel was written for those in Antioch. We have seen this suggestion to be less likely than the provenance of this Gospel being Galilee. 20 On which see pp. 221-22 below. 21 See pp. 109-10 below. 22 See the entire helpful discussion in H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 26-31. 23 See rightly P. Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999], 122: “This is typical of Josephus who regularly translates apocalyptic elements in Judaism into political and philosophical terms. . . .” 24 For the view that Jesus died in AD 33, which allows one to push forward John’s ministry to AD 28–29, see P. Barnett, 123-24. I am unconvinced by his arguments that Jesus had a three- to four-year ministry. 25 See rightly W. Wink’s John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 111. 26 For a more detailed discussion of these matters, see my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 34-38.

The First Discourse—The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:1–7:29 Clearly the most discussed portion of the First Gospel, even more perhaps than the birth narratives, is what has come to be called the Sermon on the Mount. What is less often discussed is that by and large Jesus is serving up counter-order wisdom here, not wisdom to be derived from observing nature or human nature, but wisdom to be derived from revelation, from listening to God and watching how God works in the world for its redemption. [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Matthew 5–7] [Counter-order Nature of Jesus’ Wisdom]

The First Evangelist’s tendencies to group material of a similar nature together in one place is in evidence here, and there is a sense that what we find here is Jesus’ Greatest Hits—a collection of his most memorable teaching. What is evident from the first Beatitude is that this material is not and was not meant to be seen as Law, not even Lex Nova. It is rather sapiential material and should be evaluated in the context of other early Jewish wisdom literature. In fact, the Law is viewed and treated in this passage as but one form of God’s wisdom that is set beside other forms such as beatitudes, aphorisms, parables, and the like. The Law is not seen as the only norm by which all else is to be evaluated. Notably, it is set in tandem with the prophets in Matthew 5:17-20 who were offering prophecies, not laying down laws. The phrase “Law and the Prophets” makes clear as well that the term “law” (nomos) here refers to something less than the whole Torah. It either refers to the Mosaic Law within the Pentateuch, or perhaps the Pentateuch with a special focus on its legal content. We are meant to see Matthew 5–7 as the teachings of the greatest sage, but they are heavily indebted to all sorts of earlier wisdom motifs, literary types, themes, and the like.1 It is interesting that in the Ante-Nicene period (i.e., before AD 325 and the Council of Nicea), no passage was more commented on by the early Church Fathers, a trend that continued for example in a figure like John Wesley, who dedicated some thirteen of his forty-four Standard Sermons to these three chapters. It is a mistake, however, to read this material through the later filter of the Lutheran discussions of Gospel v. Law, as this material hardly falls neatly into the latter category, nor

114

Matthew 5:1–7:29

General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Matthew 5–7 Unlike what we find in Mark 1–4, the First Evangelist chooses at the outset to give only a brief summary of Jesus’ Galilean ministry in Matt 4:17-25 before turning to the first of his five or six collections of Jesus’ teachings, which is found in Matt 5–7. The beginning of the ministry account had included the citation from Isa 9:1-2, which was part of a longer laudatory passage about the coming of the great Davidic king who will be called Wonderful Counselor, among other things, and whose authority will grow and will reign in peace from the Davidic throne and over the Davidic kingdom (Isa 9:6-7). It becomes immediately clear then when we turn to Matt 5, the stress will be on Jesus as a teacher, as the true Son of David, rather than as a miracle worker, and Matt 5:1 says quite specifically that his teaching is directed toward his disciples. Notice the flow of the text—Jesus saw the crowds but went up on the mountainside and sat down, and his disciples came to him and he began to teach them. This Gospel then presents itself as primarily the teaching for the insiders, in this case for Jewish Christian disciples. The first calling of the learners in Matt 4:17-25 (“learners” is what the Greek word normally translated “disciple” means) is like the call of Wisdom in Prov 1:20-23 to the simple to come and learn, and what follows then is clearly to be seen as Wisdom teaching. The so-called Sermon on the Mount would be better called the Teaching or Wisdom from the Mount, and it should be seen as a collection of some of Jesus’ most memorable sapiential sayings. From the beatitudes to the metaphors inculcating good works (5:16), to the upholding of Torah as an expression of wisdom and righteousness (see Sir 24), to the practical teaching on self-control in regard to anger and sexual expression, prohibition of oaths, exhortations to love enemies, to almsgiving, to prayer and fasting, to instructions of wealth, health, loyalties, the

appeal to wisdom from nature to reduce anxiety, to prohibition of judging others, of profanity, to the insistence on following the golden rule, the narrow path, to maintain integrity in word and deed, and to avoid false teachers, we have in Matt 5–7 a virtual compendium of the usual standing topics that sages would discuss as a comparison with Prov 1–6 or Sirach will show. The difference here is that Jesus offers both traditional and counter-order wisdom, and all of the teaching is served up with the understanding that God’s eschatological reign is breaking in, and so to some extent new occasions teach new duties, as well as reaffirming some of the old ones. The new teachings that involve counter-order and to some extent counter-intuitive wisdom include the teachings against accumulation of wealth, against oath taking, against divorce, and in favor of non-retaliation and nonresistance, of loving enemies, of singleness, of the last being first and vice versa. Traditional Jewish wisdom sought to show people practically how to live so they could be healthy, wealthy, and wise. Jesus’ teaching does not simply baptize these agendas and call them good. In some cases he substitutes a different sort of wisdom. Notice how the end of the first wisdom discourse in Matt 5–7 focuses on the parable of the wise man (7:24ff.). The one who hears and heeds all the teaching in this discourse is deemed such a person by Jesus. The Evangelist stresses that much of this is revelatory wisdom, not wisdom deduced by evaluating human experience or nature, and thus he presents Jesus as a sage open to revelation, and implicitly the Evangelist presents himself as a prophetic sage, like Jesus, who uses the Old Testament in sapiential ways and believes in the revelatory wisdom given from God to Jesus and through Jesus to disciples like the Evangelist. With this orientation we can better comprehend what is happening in all the Wisdom discourses in Matthew by looking at a few things in more detail.

is it entirely what one would call a proclamation of the good news. It is a form of wisdom teaching for those who are already disciples or followers of Jesus. Too often this material is taken out of its Jewish and Matthean context in a way that leads to a significant distortion of the Evangelist’s purposes. It is important to gain a general perspective on this material before examining its particulars, and so in a more detailed discussion we will consider the genre or nature, the setting, the audience, and the structure of this material. As C. Bauman has said, Matthew 5–7 has been dramatized, secularized, universalized,

Matthew 5:1–7:29 Counter-order Nature of Jesus’ Wisdom J. Updike saw the counter-order nature of Jesus’ wisdom clearly when he said: This kingdom is the hope and pain of Christianity; it is attained against the grain, through the denial of instinct and social wisdom and through faith in the unseen. Using natural metaphors as effortlessly as an author quoting his own works, Jesus disclaims Nature and its rules of survival. Nature’s way, obvious and broad, leads to death; this other way is narrow and difficult: “Come in by the narrow gate. . . .” Christ’s preaching threatens men, the virtuous even more than the wicked, with a radical transformation of value whereby the rich and pious are damned and harlots and tax collectors are rather more acceptable. . . . Two worlds are colliding; amazement prevails. Jesus’ healing and preaching go together in the Gospel accounts, and his preaching is healing of a sort, for it banishes worldly anxiety; it overthrows commonsense and materially verifiable rules that, like the money changers in the temple, dominate the world with their practicality. J. Updike, “Matthew,” in Incarnation: Contemporary Writers on the New Testament, ed. A. Corn (New York: Viking Press, 1990), 8-9.

criticized, psychologized, politicized, and radicalized.2 Obviously it has provoked and will repay close scrutiny. Climbing Mount Wisdom

In regard to the issue of sources, literary context, and structure, it goes without saying that we have here a more expanded form of what is found in Luke 6, and the source then is likely to be the Q collection. Secondly, as we have already suggested, it is unlikely that Matthew 5–7 was originally given all in one sitting, as we find various bits and pieces of this in differing places in Luke’s Gospel, just as the First Evangelist groups together in Matthew 8–9 a representative selection of miracle tales. The First Evangelist gets much of all these chapters from Q, some from Mark, and a bit from his special source as well. Probably, Jeremias’s conjecture that this material was originally transmitted in Aramaic and then translated and edited variously by various people is correct.3 In regard to the setting on the mountain, this was always regarded as a natural spot for a revelation from God, and not only in the case of Moses either (cf., e.g., on Elijah 1 Kgs 19). Notice that Jesus sits down to teach, assuming the normal posture of a Jewish teacher or sage, and so we are given a cameo of what an amazing teacher he was. He does not stand before Israel holding over their heads ten commandments; he sits and offers various kinds of wisdom utterances. In fact if we note the summary statement in Matthew 9:35, it appears that we ought to take 5:1–9:34 as a good sampling of Jesus’ praxis in both word and deed, showing he is a powerful authority figure in both areas. This too is appro-

115

116

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Mountain of the Beatitudes Mountain of the Beatitudes, near Tabgha and Bethsaida. This is the place where some traditions suggest Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. From Bethsaida to Mount of the Beatitudes. (Credit: russavia / Wikimedia Commons, PD)

priate as it was believed in early Judaism that part of Solomon’s wisdom was in knowing how to cure illnesses as well as solve problems.4 Too often today the teaching is isolated from the healing, but the First Evangelist stresses that both characterized Jesus’ ministry—the ministry was to minds and spirits but also to bodies. Jesus furthermore requires of his followers not just merely thoughts or good intentions. He could never have invented the cliché “it’s the thought that counts.” To the contrary, he is interested in deeds, in actions of piety and charity. Some scholars have seen in Matthew 5–7 something of a primitive catechism with the following tripartite structure: (1) introduction—5:3-19; (2) thematic sentence—5:20; (3) controversy concerning the interpretation of Scripture between Jesus and the theologians (the six antitheses)—5:21-48; (4) controversy with righteousness of the Pharisees—6:1-18; (5) the new righteousness of the disciples—6:19–7:27. The major theme of this catechism is said to be the way of life of the Christian as opposed to the Jew.5 Part of the problem with this analysis is that the term “catechism” is anachronistic and suggests a theological deposit that is learned, not just wise sayings, which is basically what we have here.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

117

Guelich also suggests a sort of tripartite structure to this material: (1) the Blessings of the Kingdom—5:3-16; (2) the Greater Righteousness—5:17–7:12; (3) the Alternatives—7:13-27; or to speak of this division more simply—blessings, admonitions, warnings. What this latter simplification brings to light is that we are certainly not simply dealing with laws here; in fact, we are dealing largely with a metaphorical kind of speaking of the sapiential sort. It is important, as Guelich stresses, to see that we are not dealing with mere ethics here either but rather a response to what God has done and is doing amongst the disciples. “God has acted to establish a new relationship between himself and his own that expresses itself in conduct demanded in 5:21–7:12, ‘the greater righteousness.’”6 But it is important to point out that what is said here also involves eschatological promises of what God will yet do—comfort the afflicted and so on. One final issue that should be broached here is Jesus’ approach to Torah as reflected in Matthew 5–7. It appears that he acts in regard to it with a certain degree of sovereign freedom. Sometimes he intensifies its demands, sometimes he sets its demands aside, sometimes he affirms its demands, sometimes he offers a new teaching that can either supplement or in some cases supplant some of the Law’s demands, sometimes he fulfills its promise or demands. It is not just a matter of his offering or attempting to offer the correct interpretation of the Law. [Fulfilling the Law] It is really not possible to claim that Jesus in the antitheses is simply contrasting his teaching Fulfilling the Law Fulfillment is not the same as obeying. By this I mean that promise and fulfillment or prophecy and its fulfillment are categories like call and response. To say something must be fulfilled is to say God is faithful to his promises and prophecies and they will come to pass. Some of these are of course conditional in nature, and if the condition is not met (e.g., “If my people, who are called by my name, will repent and turn to Me, then . . .”), one should not look for fulfillment. Jesus speaks of fulfillment rather than abolition, and fulfillment means “all is accomplished.” This is eschatological language for all of God’s eschatological salvation will and plan being finally and fully worked out on earth. But this is a very different matter than asserting that the way that plan will be worked out is by a repristinization or a reapplying or a rededication to the Mosaic covenant and complete obedience to all its statutes. Jesus does not call his disciples to resubmit to the Mosaic covenant. He calls them to submit to God’s new eschatological plan and

covenant, which is part and parcel of the Dominion breaking into space and time. He calls them to submit to wisdom that is both some parts old and some parts new. This is of course confusing since some of Moses’ teaching is simply endorsed and reapplied by Jesus, but some of it is dismissed, some of it is intensified, and so on. The point is that all of it is fulfilled in and through the coming of the Dominion, by which is meant that its intent, purpose, sum, heart is accomplished, without the limits of the Law, namely its allowance for human sin and hardheartedness being reinforced or reaffirmed. New occasions do teach some new duties, and the true apocalyptic sage is one who can read the signs of the times and know what is apropos for the eschatological situation. Of course, the record of the Law must stand as witness until all is fulfilled. The requirements of the Mosaic Law covenant are not however simply reimposed on the followers of Jesus. Indeed, he calls them to a higher standard of righteousness than Moses required!

118

Matthew 5:1–7:29

with the oral traditions of the elders. If one rightly examines Matthew 5:31 in light of 19:9, it is Moses whom Jesus is actually quoting and taking on, and in fact in Matthew 19 he feels free to appeal to Moses against himself—the creation order against the later Mosaic legislation based on hardness of human hearts. There is a free use of the Scriptures to new ends. Jesus seems to be promulgating new demands for his new covenant people, for the new situation in the light of the dawning of God’s Dominion, but one cannot and should not insist that this amounts to nothing more than a renewal of the old covenant or additions to it that do not change its essential character. Anyone who puts himself in the place of the sacrificial system through his death and condemns the existing one through his action in the temple is not simply perfecting the status quo. Of course, it is also true that Jesus reaffirms many elements of the Old Covenant as well, but he exercises a selective hermeneutic, highlighting certain parts as more crucial, more central than the rest—particularly the Shema and the love of neighbor as self.

COMMENTARY The Beatitudes, 5:3-12

The Beatitudes are some of the most familiar verses of the sermon, and they have in fact been over-interpreted for so long that its hard to peel back all the excess verbiage of commentators and get back to the essence of this material.7 Fundamental to understanding this material is realizing in the first place that it is wisdom literature, and secondly that therefore it should not be seen as general ethical maxims or truisms. It is not true in many cases that in the ordinary course of affairs, the merciful receive mercy, nor do all those who mourn get comforted. Some have seen this material as about attitudes, some about actions, some about blessings. What helps in figuring out these sorts of issues is realizing not only the sapiential character of the material but also its eschatological orientation. It presupposes that there is a God who rights wrongs and will make things turn out all right in the end, and it also presupposes that the person who is wise enough to realize this fact has found the source of true contentment or blessedness. These beatitudes are given by the one who inaugurated the new state of eschatological affairs. In each case, we discover that the being satisfied, the obtaining mercy, the being called sons of God, and most clearly the seeing God all

Matthew 5:1–7:29

119

refer to a destiny set aside for the faithful followers of Jesus, and not just anyone. These then are not rules that somehow will work on the stage of history apart from a context of Christ’s work and the destiny of the believer. Nonetheless, I must insist, though there is the action of God that precedes and rewards the behavior being discussed here, what is the focus are actions and A Sapiential Reading of 5:3-12 to a much lesser degree attitudes. In any case, it The beatitudes are in the form of eschais not true that the First Evangelist has simply tological blessings, telling the disciples spiritualized the original (read Lukan) beatiwhat will be the case in the future when they tudes. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:3-12] enter the Dominion of God—the Dominion will be It also needs to be realized that there are many theirs, they will inherit the earth, they will be comforted, they will be filled with righteousness, other beatitudes in the New Testament (for they will be shown mercy, they will see God, they example, twenty-eight just in Matthew and will be called children of God. But in the present Luke, and seven in Revelation). This literary their condition is often that which might not be form then is not unique to the Sermon the seen as a blessing—they are poor in spirit, Mount or the discourses in Matthew. Nor mourning, meek, persecuted, but at the same should these beatitudes in Matthew 5 be intertime in other ways they would be seen as blessed because they are merciful, pure in heart, peacepreted in a different manner than the others, but makers. As v. 12 suggests, the reward is great in all should be seen in the light of the larger heaven, but the travail may be great here on earth context of Jesus’ ministry. [Makarios] as one tries to live by the wisdom of kingdom It is clear enough that the Evangelist has carevalues in a fallen and hostile environment where fully arranged the eight beatitudes so that, for meekness and mercy are mistaken for weakness. instance, the first and the last one involve the present tense verb, while the ones in the middle all have future tense verbs. Only the last of these beatitudes is in the second person, which personalizes the discourse as this segment comes to a close. The rest of the beatitudes are all in the third person. I agree with Guelich that it appears that the Matthean form is more original than the Lukan form, as a comparison with Old Testament beatitudes suggests.8 Many have noted the close parallel between the first and the third beatitudes, and in fact in some manuscripts v. 4 and v. 5 are reversed so the two can be together. Possibly these two were originally a pair. What this indicates is that Jesus believed the Dominion of God was already being realized on earth through his ministry and also that this Dominion ultimately would be on earth, not merely in heaven. It seems likely that the First Evangelist has structured these beatitudes so as to indicate how they fulfill Isaiah 61:1ff., which reads in part, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of

120

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Makarios What then does makarios mean? There are three major possibilities: (1) blessed, (2) fortunate, or (3) congratulations. If one opts for the first meaning, the beatitude has a cultic sense, a sort of sacrament that effects what it announces. But there seems to be little connection between these beatitudes and blessing itself (see R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding [Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 1982], 40ff). The second translation is much more probable and suggests that Jesus is urging a course of action or confirming his disciples in such a course of action. If this is the correct sense, the word could be translated “happy” or “fortunate” are they because. . . . The third translation announces a promise like a letter congratulating a prizewinner in a contest. The real bone of contention that sometimes determines how one or another commentator decides between (2) and (3) as a translation is whether one thinks Jesus sees some sort of eschatological reward for good behavior, and thus perhaps we are discussing

entrance requirements for getting in God’s Dominion on the last day. Or are we talking about undeserved blessings bestowed freely and in a sense arbitrarily, some now and some later (depending on whether the verb in question is present or future tense)? In regard to the former view, there must surely be some connection between the action referred to and the consequences listed in the hoti (because, for) clause. To deny a correlation is to deny that the second clause explains why the first group is fortunate. In short, while I would agree that it seems likely that these sayings are not talking about how one becomes a disciple in the first place, yet still it seems clear that there is envisioned some sort of correlation between the believer’s behavior and whether they will receive such rewards or benefits in the future. Thus for instance the converse of v. 8 also is true—the impure of heart will not see God. There are consequences for a disciple’s choice of action. Believers are not immune to consequences. This should not surprise us since Wisdom literature is full of actionand-consequence sorts of reasoning.

the vengeance of God, to comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion, to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor. . . . Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance.

If this text does lie in the background here, which seems likely, then not only can it be suggested that Jesus sees himself in the role of the Servant, bringing these promises to fruition, but also it would appear that beatitudes one and three were separated by the Evangelist to show the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In terms of his own editorial work, most scholars think the phrase “and thirst” has been added by the Evangelist in v. 6 (cf. the Lukan parallel). Four of the beatitudes are shared in common by Matthew and Luke—the ones found in Matthew 5:3, 4, 6, 11-12—and we find them in the same order in both Gospels. This suggests they were already arranged in this order in Q. Though it used to be commonplace to say the First Evangelist has spiritualized the simpler and economic beatitudes found in Luke, this is far from certain. Luke’s “blessed are the poor” reflects Luke’s concern with the issue of wealth and poverty throughout his Gospel. If one bears in mind the interesting parallel in 1QM 14.7

Matthew 5:1–7:29

and also the background in Isaiah 61:1, which in Greek would likely be rendered closer to the Matthean form of the first beatitude, this suggests (1) the First Evangelist does not mean spiritualized physical poverty; nor (2) does he mean those who are impoverished because they lack the Holy Spirit, but rather those who are poor in the sense of being oppressed and abused, with the possible implication that as a result they have become downcast and depressed because of their situation. These are people who know their need for God and so turn to God. The main stress then would be on their social condition, not on their attitude, even though their condition has produced a certain attitude and knowledge of human frailty and personal poverty. The text does not necessarily connote those who are spiritually deficient as opposed to those who aren’t. The point is not to separate two kinds of disciples but rather to focus on one kind of condition, a condition that makes one aware of dependency on God. For those who are aware of that, God already reigns in their life; they already have the Dominion in their life. The second beatitude in v. 4 is more easily explained. It does not refer to those who have just lost a loved one, but rather to those who are disenfranchised, overcome with helplessness or their lostness without God, or better said because of their allegiance to God in a lost world. Possibly it refers to those who mourn for the disenfranchisement of Israel. It is interesting that in later rabbinic treatment of the Servant Songs of Isaiah, the messiah came to be called the Comforter (menachem). The third beatitude refers to the gentle (v. 5), and it needs to be stressed that the meek are not the weak. They will inherit the earth. As is frequently pointed out, the terms “meek” and “poor” go back to the same Hebrew root word and refer not to those who are milk toasts or have inferiority complexes. In fact the word does not refer to an attitude at all, whether of weakness or softness. Rather it refers to a condition of total dependency on God. Those who are totally dependent on God will in due course inherit the land. It would appear that Jesus did believe in an eschatological restoration of the land to those whom God had chosen, but not before the eschaton. The beatitude in v. 6 could be taken to mean that those poor ones who hunger and thirst for vindication will receive it. This is certainly a familiar theme in the Old Testament, and what is envisioned is that satisfaction comes on the last day when all wrongs are rectified. Isaiah 61:3 favors this interpretation. Elsewhere in Matthew, however, dikaiosyn∑ seems to refer to right conduct, not

121

122

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Sermon on the Mount Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794–1872). Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1-3). 19th C. Woodcut. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

right standing with God or vindication.9 In that case, what may be meant is that those who long for what is truly right and long that right be done in general are reflecting God’s wishes and will. It is true that disciples who show mercy do so in part because they have received mercy (cf. Matt 18:21-35 and Luke 6:36), but that is hardly the point here. The point here is that it will be done unto you as you have done to others. At the final judgment, God will show mercy on those who have demonstrated it themselves. Guelich here and elsewhere misses the focus on the behavior of disciples, though that presupposes the prior work of grace in their lives. Verse 8 refers to the pure in heart and makes quite clear that without personal holiness no one can enter into the holy presence of God. Jesus does not say here how one receives the condition of purity, but it is clear that one must have it to “see” God (a clearly synonymous notion to being saved to the uttermost, experiencing

Matthew 5:1–7:29

glory, receiving a heavenly reward, and the like). The background here seems to be Psalm 24:3-6. Verse 9 speaks of those who actively work for peace. Here we have the only use of the noun “peacemaker” in the New Testament. It refers not to nonresistance nor to a passive posture but rather to one who brings reconciliation between two or more parties. These are the people who establish shalom, well-being, wholeness for all concerned. So much is the making of peace God’s agenda that those who do such things shall be said to be like the heavenly Father, chips off the old block—sons and daughters of God. Verse 10 refers to the persecuted, who are considered fortunate to have the honor to suffer for righteousness’ sake—for the sake of God’s Dominion and principles. The participle dediøgmenoi is in the perfect and means someone who has already completed a time of suffering and has experienced the scars of persecution. To them belong the Dominion, or perhaps we may say they belong to it. Verse 11 in essence is really just an expansion on this theme, only here it is made clear that this is done not for some abstract concept called righteousness, but for Jesus’ sake. Those who suffer in such fashion have a good pedigree—they stand in a long line of the great biblical sufferers for God’s cause, such as the prophets. Great will be their reward in heaven. Notice heaven itself is not said to be a reward, rather there are rewards “in” heaven. We may call them bonuses for good behavior, for certainly God is not obligated to bestow them. Jesus is indicating that God has chosen that there be a correlation between our behavior and our standing or reward in heaven. There are then envisioned to be long-term benefits to living a Christ-like life, pursuing righteousness because clearly enough these beatitudes are also a description of what Jesus was like. The theme of the character of the disciple is further pursued in what follows, having here been reassured that there are rewards for so pursuing it. Salt and Light: The Character of the Disciple, 5:13-16

Most scholars have seen this material as merely transitional between major sections of the sermon, but since they define the nature of discipleship they deserve more than a passing mention. We have here two metaphors followed up by explanatory parables. There are of course numerous parallels elsewhere in the Gospels to the salt and light metaphors (cf. Mark 4:21; 9:50; Luke 8:16; 11:33; 14:34), and the fact that the material in Matthew 5:13-16 appears in other places in Luke suggests that the First Evangelist

123

124

Matthew 5:1–7:29

has placed this material here for a specific reason. Note that the parable of the city set on a hill is found independently in P. Oxy. 1.37-42 as well as in the Gospel of Thomas. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:1316] [Light]

Verse 13 begins with the same second person direct address as we saw in 5:11-12, and Guelich is probably right that while in vv. 1112 we have the negative description of the cost of discipleship, here we have its positive description and responsibiliA Sapiential Reading of 5:13-16 ties figured forth in metaphor. It was not The disciples are to be those who act as uncommon in later rabbinic literature to use the a preservative in the world (like salt in metaphor of salt to refer to wisdom, which meat), preventing it from being as rotten as it seems to explain the use of the verb møranth∑, a might be. They are to act as light in the world, not only unveiling the darkness around them, but word that literally means to grow foolish or by themselves shining by means of good deeds. extrapolation to become insipid.10 Salt that loses its saltiness is good for nothing, or to put it in sapiential terms, a disciple who loses his wisdom grows foolish. As the First Evangelist puts it, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out into the street, which is normally where the refuse went in that culture. Many scholars have wanted to argue that salt cannot lose its savor, but this is not quite true. Impure salt, dug from the deposits at the Dead Sea, could in fact lose its properties as the sodium chloride dissolved or evaporated.11 There was, furthermore, probably a sapiential play on words here in the Aramaic because tabel means salt and tapel means foolish in Aramaic. Jesus was making a play on words, not offering a chemistry lesson. The point is this—if a disciple ceases to function in the one capacity in which he or she is truly valuable, namely bearing witness to the world by word and deed, then that disciple is worthless, fit only to be cast out. Note the eschatological overtones here as in the parable of the wedding banquet.12 Light By way of background, the most important thing that can be said is that this material is sapiential to the core, and not judicial, just as was the case with the Beatitudes. In early Judaism, God, Israel, the temple, and the Law can all be called light. That these attributes are now ascribed to Jesus’ disciples means Jesus sees them as representatives of God and representative of Israel, in all likelihood. If the image of the city set on the hill is meant to allude to the temple or Jerusalem or Zion (see Mic 4:1-3; Isa 2:2-4), then what is being suggested is that the circle of disciples is where the presence of God and people of God may be found. Guelich puts it this way: “By introducing the saying into this context, the Evangelist has combined the two

symbols for Israel, the concept of light (5:14a) and the city set on the hill (5:14b) and applied them to the disciple’s mission in the world” (122). While this makes sense, it overlooks the fact that messiah was also called light, in particular a light to the nations as well as the glory of Israel (see, e.g., Luke 2:32). It is certainly possible in this Gospel where messiah is seen as God’s Wisdom, God’s light come in the flesh, that the disciples are being seen as the representatives or extensions of Jesus who is the light of the world. In other words, this saying may have more of a christological rather than ecclesiological background. R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 1982), 4044.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

The point of the second sapiential metaphor is that a disciple who does his job is obvious in a fallen world, indeed cannot be hidden, but rather will be conspicuous. One did not become a disciple to hide one’s lamp under a bushel. One does not keep an oil lamp burning in order to put it under a peck measure (i.e., a bowl that will hold one peck of material). The appropriate function of a disciple is to bear witness in word and deed and so be a light to the world, just as the appropriate way for a lamp to function is to shine uncovered and unhindered. Notice that the operative word here is “world” (kosmos) not only Israel. There is an implicit universalism here. It is possible that Jesus is alluding to the menorah, the symbol of Israel, saying his disciples are the menorah to the world. The disciples are to act in public so as to draw attention, not to themselves, but to the source of the light within them, to point to the glory of God. Of course the opposite may happen as vv. 11-12 indicate, but the witness can also be effective. There is of course a close connection between light and glory in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. If you illuminate someone who is in darkness, they may see the light or they may curse it. If you illuminate their own personal darkness, they may give praise to God by repenting, or again they may turn from the light. What is so important about this material is to recognize it is sapiential in character and indicates that Jesus is teaching as a sage not as a later rabbinic teacher. He is basically not offering a midrash on this or that Old Testament text, and this is all the more important because the material in Matthew 5:1-16 is what sets the stage for the discussion of the Law in what follows. The Law is seen as a particular manifestation or deposit of Wisdom and is viewed in wisdom categories and ways. The discussion is very different from the way the Law is handled in the Talmuds and Mishnah, as we shall see. Laying Down the Law, 5:17-20

It seems clear that this material is meant as a sort of qualifier of what follows, namely the antitheses, lest one get the impression that Jesus was some sort of antinomian. Despite the general agreement on this function of these verses, there is no agreement on their meaning. For one thing, v. 17 seems to contradict the following antitheses, and it is hard to believe the Evangelist, who is otherwise careful about structure and such matters, would allow formal contradictions to stand together in so short a space. How can it both be true that the Law is not invalidated and yet Jesus

125

126

Matthew 5:1–7:29

A Sapiential Reading of 5:17-20 In the famous sayings that follow, Jesus presents himself as a sage who has independent and personal authority, not feeling a need to cite the traditions or teachings of other rabbis. The formula “You have heard it said . . . but I say to you” sometimes finds Jesus contrasting his teaching with Moses, sometimes with other Jewish traditions. The famous aphorism in Matthew 5:17 speaks of the fact that Jesus has come to fulfill the Torah, God’s previous instructions to his people. But once something is fulfilled, whether a prophecy, a promise, or a teaching, then it is completed and over and done with. Jesus says that not the smallest portion of the Law will disappear until everything is accomplished, by which is meant the kingdom of God’s saving reign fully comes on earth. It needs to be remembered that Jesus is addressing Jewish followers already under the Mosaic Law, not Gentiles, and it is doubtful the author of Matthew has a different audience in mind. What is clear from Matthew 5:20 is that as the Dominion of God breaks into human history, this does not mean a lessening of the requirements God places on his people; rather there is an intensification of demands. To whom more grace is given, more is required.

exercises liberties with it, adding, subtracting, and even substituting for it? Thus a close look at these verses is in order, not least because apart from v. 18, which has a parallel in Luke 16:17/Mark 13:31, this material is unique to this Gospel. We would assume it tells us something about the Evangelist’s emphases. Perhaps we will find here a real clue about the Evangelist’s aims for this Gospel. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:17-20]

Verse 17 begins with a form that is identical to the saying in Matthew 10:34, which likely goes back to Jesus. This saying is meant to correct certain misconceptions, namely that Jesus came to katalysai the Law and the Prophets. Note that the discussion here is not simply about the Law, but about the Law and the Prophets, which presumably is shorthand for the whole Old Testament. The verb here means to annul or to set aside, and it should be seen as the direct opposite of the verb in the following clause— pl∑røsai. The latter word has various meanings, but likely means here what it means elsewhere in this Gospel when the subject is prophecy, namely fulfill the promise, intention, will of God expressed in these earlier Old Testament sayings. [pl∑røsai] This involves bringing a promise to fruition and so to its intended end or goal, to teach what the Old Testament was aiming at, to bring forth the reality to which the Old Testament was pointing. As the Evangelist is constantly reminding us, this is what happened in the whole life and ministry of Jesus—fulfillment of the Scriptures. Jesus was not abolishing the Law in the sense of

pl∑røsai What is the meaning of pl∑røsai? It could mean: (1) accomplish or obey; (2) bring out the full meaning of; (3) fill out more fully and intensify; (4) validate and establish; (5) complete, and so finish; (6) do—in the sense of doing all it requires and thus fulfilling its expectations and requirements, and thus putting it at an end. Certain of these possibilities seem ruled out by the context. In light of the antitheses that follow, meaning (3) seems ruled out. Jesus does at some points set his teaching over against that of Moses. Secondly, this latter verb must mean something that contrasts with the former verb, which means to annul, and “accomplish” or “obey” hardly fills the bill. Abolishing has to do with teaching not actions and we may suspect that plerosai does as well. This is especially likely since v. 19 goes on to discuss teaching a conclusion confirmed by the fact that v. 17 speaks not only of the Law but also of the Prophets.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

127

declaring it untrue, but by fulfilling it he was making clear that in view of the new eschatological situation, the in-breaking of the Dominion, it was no longer applicable carte blanche but only insofar as Jesus reaffirmed parts of it in his Dominion teaching. Of course, it is true that the Old Testament promises were only partially being fulfilled in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Some of the fulfillment was yet to transpire, and so in the meanwhile some of the Law can be and is reaffirmed and reapplied. Thus of course none of the Law is forgotten or erased from the book before the eschaton. It does not yet pass away before all that it plans Sanctifying God’s Name and foretells happens (gen∑tai refers to some It is interesting that Rabbi Hiyya bar action, a happening). [Sanctifying God’s Name] Abba and Rabbi Johnan both were preParelth∑ means “becomes invalid” or “lost.” The pared to renounce a letter, a written alphabetical Law is not said to be lost or invalid; it is just letter, if doing so would sanctify the name of God that the fulfilled part no longer applies or acts as (see b. Yebam. 79a). Jesus on the other hand would not even renounce a single jot or tittle of it, a norm in the Dominion. A truth does not never mind an alphabetic letter. become less true simply because it is a timely truth as opposed to a timeless truth. Thus it is true, but only applicable to one age or covenant stage of God’s people. Thus, v. 19 makes clear to Jesus’ disciples that the commands of the Old Testament cannot simply be dismissed. There can be no antinomianism in the community, but Jesus is about to show his disciples the sort of hermeneutical approach to take to the Law, determining which portions are still applicable and which have been completed and fulfilled. Discipleship certainly involves obedience and righteousness, indeed a righteous life both in character and action that requires more than lip service to the Old Testament. Indeed the followers of Jesus are to exhibit a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. It is interesting that v. 19 stops short of saying that a teacher who tries to relax the high standard of ethics and obedience is excluded from the Dominion, but he or she does get the last and least place in that Dominion. Verse 20 indicates that a high standard of righteous life and behavior is necessary if one is to enter the Dominion at the end (bearing in mind this is addressed to those who are already Jesus’ disciples). It becomes apparent in what follows that Jesus is as concerned about the root or heart causes of sin (such as anger or lust) as about their fleshing out in actions, which he takes equally seriously.

128

Matthew 5:1–7:29 Antithetical Behavior, 5:21-48

This section is bound together by the antithesis formula—”you have heard it said . . . but I say to you”—found at vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43 with small variations. On the one hand, one can say the heart of the Law, loving God and neighbor wholeheartedly, is preserved in this teaching. One can also say that to intensify a demand of the Law is not to nullify it, and to go beyond the Law is not necessarily to go against. But more is going on in this section than mere amplification on or reaffirmation of the Law as we shall see. Allison rightly stresses that we should see the discussion in an eschatological context, and that what is being said is that Jesus fulfills the prophecies and so does not simply abolish the Law. He puts it this way—”Jesus’ new teaching brings to realization that which the Torah prophesied.”13 This is true enough but does not recognize the character of the material, which is not prophetic oracles, nor does it recognize that Jesus is not being portrayed as an eschatological prophet here, but rather as one who fulfills the Law and the Prophecies, and indeed is God’s full manifestation of his Wisdom upon the earth. Allison then suggests, “It follows not that Jesus contradicts Scripture but that he rightly interprets it according to his eschatological outlook.”14 But this still does not do justice to the character of what is found in the antitheses. Jesus believes the eschatological situation was already in play, and that new occasions teach not merely new interpretations of the old wisdom, but new wisdom as well, and sometimes that wisdom involves setting aside a passage from Moses because in the eschatological situation there can be no more concessions to sin. The original intentions of God’s creation plan, not the interim portion of the ethic of the Mosaic Law that involved all sorts of concessions to sin, are now to be lived out. The clearest proof of this is not only that Jesus prohibits what Moses allows (e.g., oaths or divorce or murder), but that Jesus also allows what Moses prohibits (work on the Sabbath, fraternizing with the unclean including foreigners), and indeed he places demands on his followers in regard to things such as their sexual ethics that are far more demanding than Moses. His sovereign freedom in the handling of the Law marks the way in which he proceeds. Jesus’ behavior is explained by the assumption of an eschatological situation and the assumption of a new covenant as well as the assumption by Jesus that he had divine authority to say and do these things. Doubtless, however, Jesus would have added that one cannot violate a law that is no longer in force, so he should not be seen as a law breaker, but rather as a new covenant maker. Of course it was bound to be confusing that the

Matthew 5:1–7:29

129

new covenant involved some of the same commandments as the old one. Six different topics are addressed in this section of material— anger, lust, divorce, oaths, revenge, and love. One of the things that characterizes this teaching is that Jesus is literally trying to get to the heart of the matter. The root of the problem lies in the human heart, which prompts various kinds of misbehavior. Thus he will deal not only with actions like oaths or adultery and divorcing, but with things like anger, lust, revenge, and love. Jesus also intends to return to first principles, as we shall see. Anger, 5:21-26 Notice first of all that Matthew 5:21-26 deals with the issue of anger. The commandment of Moses prohibiting murder (Exod 20:13) is cited, but only as an opening remark so that Jesus can tell his disciples he is calling them to a much higher standard of righteousness than just avoiding murder. It should be noted that this passage involves an ethic that can be called in house. The term “brother” keeps coming up in this discussion. In other words, Jesus is regulating behavior amongst his disciples. A Sapiential Reading of 5:21-26 This was never intended as some utopian ethic The intensification of demands is made to be imposed on society in general. A certain clear in this section. Jesus is by no escalation can be seen as the anger boils over— means to be seen as merely a second Moses, for first he refers to being angry, then refers to he goes well beyond Moses in some demands actions involving epithets—>raka is an Aramaic and even against some Mosaic teaching in term of contempt, and “you fool” is even worse. others. For example, the commandment of Moses not to murder is gone beyond by the saying that if Notice also the escalation in “subject to judgone is even angry with or calls a fellow believer a ment,” “answerable to the council” (perhaps the fool, one can be subject to judgment. Notice the Sanhedrin), and “in danger of hell fire.” Some commandment that before one continues one’s of this should probably be seen as dramatic religious duties, including offerings, one needs to hyperbole, as is often typical of sapiential lanbe reconciled with those from whom one has guage, which relies on metaphor and the become estranged. The heart of the Gospel has to do with forgiveness and reconciliation as a means dramatic. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:21-26] of healing of community, and this goes even But is Jesus really saying don’t be angry ever beyond the message of no revenge taking or for any reason? If so he would certainly be retaliation. Even with an adversary (5:25), one is offering a different wisdom than Aristotle, who urged to settle matters quickly before things said those who are angry at the right things and escalate and one finds oneself judged and in jail. with the right people at the right time for the right length of time are to be praised (Eth. nic. 5.4).15 Notice however the context of Jesus’ words. The sort of anger Jesus is referring to involves fellow believers, and more to the point it involves verbal abuse. He is not talking about righteous anger in regard to a sin or a wrong done; he is talking about sinful anger against

130

Matthew 5:1–7:29

another person and its inappropriate expression. This is where it needs to be pointed out that there is probably an echo here of the story of Cain, which refers to anger against a brother and murder and also mentions the offering of a sacrifice (see 5:23-24). [Cain’s Story]

It seems clear, in light of this, that Jesus is referring to some kind of sinful anger; otherwise he would have had to condemn his own behavior (cf. Mark 1:41; 3:516; and of course the action in the temple—see Matt 21:12-17). What Jesus is condemning may be called sinful rage and wrathful actions. Notice that the antithesis section goes on to deal further with one of the expressions of anger, namely taking revenge (see below on vv. 38-45). [Anger and Wrath]

Cain and Abel Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528). Cain killing Abel, 1511, woodcut, Rosenwald Collection. National Gallery of Art. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old100)]

Cain’s Story Gen 4 recounts Cain’s story and shows how his anger led to the murder of his brother Abel (cf. Wis. 10:3). This story is also alluded to in Matt 18:22 and 23:35. It is also interesting that in 1 John 3:15 we have a reference to Cain and his murdering his brother followed by “all who hate a brother or sister are murderers.” That the Cain story is important as an illustration of sinful anger in the Wisdom tradition is shown by Wis 10:3, which says “when Cain departed from Woman Wisdom in anger, he perished because in rage he slew his brother.”

Matthew 5:1–7:29 Anger and Wrath Jesus is not the first in the Jewish tradition to strongly condemn anger and wrath. In fact, it is likely he is drawing here on the earlier teachings of Jesus ben Sira, who says, “anger and wrath, these are abominations, and the sinful person will possess them” (Sir 27:30). We may also compare Prov 14:29—“whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but one who has a hasty temper exalts what is foolish.” The point is, when you are dealing with fallen human beings, there is a close connection between anger and sin (cf. Ps 4:4). Prov 15:1 says anger destroys even the wise, for its nature is not to be controlled but rather to be controlling. Testament of Dan gives three entire chapters to the subject of anger and warns that there is a real blindness in anger (2.2), that such an emotion can take over the whole soul (3.1-3), that it leads to senseless and sinful actions (4.1).

Verses 23-26 provide us with practical advice on what to do if some fellow believer has something against you, and the advice involves go and be reconciled. It then adds that if an adversary has something against you, Jesus advises settling before it goes to trial and there are horrific consequences. Leaving gifts at the altar and making friends on the way to court “are both illustrations of the self-discipline of reconciliation, which is the antidote to anger.”17 What is interesting about this advice is that it tells a person how to respond to another’s anger, perhaps even appropriate anger, rather than giving advice on how to deal with one’s own anger. The function of this material is not to give advice to isolated individuals, but rather to help believers live in community with one another. Reconciliation is the watchword given to those who have wronged another. Go and make it right before any other acts of piety or charity are attempted, says Jesus. The reference to being thrown in jail and not getting out until the debt is paid is true to the judicial situations of the day. One could not be thrown in jail for failure to pay a debt without a judicial decision, and one would not be released until the debt was paid, sometimes with as much as a 50 percent surcharge (cf. P. Monac 52, lines 16-17; UPZ 1.124, lines 12-13).18 Lust and Adultery, 5:27-32 Matthew 5:27-32 is a section of the Sermon that deals with moicheia (see vv. 27, 28, 32) and has the by the now familiar antithetical format. The opening saying in vv. 27-28 raises two questions: (1) What is the meaning of the main verb here? (2) How should the key clause in v. 28 be rendered? Normally the term moicheuø and its cognates refer to a specific sin, namely extramarital intercourse by a married person with someone betrothed or married who is not his or her legal spouse. In other words, the term normally refers to adultery. It is true, however, that the term is

131

132

Matthew 5:1–7:29

A Sapiential Reading of 5:27-32 Not only the act of adultery but even lust in the heart is condemned as unacceptable for a holy person. The candid and extreme advice about cutting off body parts rather than going down into Hades should not be seen as exaggeration, as Jesus is mentioning standard punishments for things like voyeurism (loss of an eye) or theft (loss of a hand). The difference is that Jesus is suggesting one would be better to punish oneself this way rather than

be thrown into Gehenna (a Jewish notion of hell in which it is viewed like a stinking garbage dump where the fire never goes out and the worm eating the refuse never dies). This summarizes Jesus’ teaching on divorce, and the basic teaching is no divorce except on grounds of some sort of sexual aberration (incest, sex with a prostitute). The Greek word here does not mean adultery or marital unfaithfulness in general; see below on Matt 19:1-10.

sometimes used in a bit wider sense of various sorts of sexual misbehavior—feelings, thoughts, or acts that involve sexual sin. I would suggest that the term is used in its narrower sense in vv. 27 and 32, but it is used in a somewhat more extended sense in v. 28. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:27-32]

Traditionally v. 28 has been translated “anyone looking on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in her heart.” This translation is problematic because it involves linking seeing and desiring as part of one act instead of two, and it involves translating the key verb as “commits adultery with her,” even though the “her” here is not the object of a preposition in the Greek and in fact is more likely to be the subject of the infinitive “to desire.” A better translation would be “anyone who so looks on a woman that she becomes desirous has already led her astray into adultery in his heart.” This is strikingly different from the usual kinds of warnings in early Judaism because Jesus would be suggesting that the source of the problem is not the seducing woman who is viewed as a temptress but rather male lust that leads a vulnerable woman astray. In a patriarchal culture, it is rare for the power relationships to be viewed in this way with the moral responsibility placed mainly on the male, who is in the dominant position to make sure nothing immoral happens. This, however, seems to be clearly what Jesus intends by his remarkable teaching. In addition of course we find Jesus intensifying the definition of adultery to include lustful thoughts. Male aggression then, not male instability in the face of temptation, is the focus of this teaching.19 Entirely consistent with this is what follows in 29-30, where Jesus in effect tells males who are unable to control themselves that it would be better to dismember themselves than behave in a way that leads them straight to Gehenna. Jesus says “if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.” In fact Jesus is talking about known sins and known punishments here; he is not being merely hyperbolic and simply saying in dra-

Matthew 5:1–7:29

133

matic fashion you need to sever yourself from whatever causes you to sin. Loss of eyes was a well-known punishment for sexual misbehavior, and loss of a hand was a punishment for theft, including stealing another person’s wife.20 “Thus the whole passage . . . is speaking in terms of punishments actually known in Palestinian practice in order to throw light on the great difficulty of remaining effectively loyal to . . . the Kingdom of heaven.”21 In vv. 31-32, we have an antithesis that pits Mosaic teaching about divorce over against Jesus’ teaching. A fuller form of this teaching can be found in Matthew 19.22 Verse 31 is a partial quo- The Table of the Seven Deadly Sins tation of Deuteronomy Hieronymus Bosch (1450–1516). Lust. Detail of The Table of the Seven Deadly Sins. Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] 24:1, and it needs to be kept steadily in view that only men could really divorce in Jesus’ setting, though women could effectively force a divorce. Verse 32 should be compared to Matthew 19:9, which is the same teaching with only a slight word change. The basic teaching allows no grounds for divorce with one exception, and in fact goes on to say that a man who does divorce his wife makes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her thereafter commits adultery. But what exception is referred to here? It seems clear that the semantic field for the word porneia is broader (unless it is used as a technical term) than that of moicheia. The root meaning of porneia is having sex with a porn∑, which means with a prostitute. The exception clause in Matthew 5:32 then could then allow divorce on grounds that one’s wife had taken up prostitution, an extreme form

134

Matthew 5:1–7:29

of marital infidelity. Since the term moicheia has already been used in this passage to refer to adultery, it is logical to conclude that porneia is not simply a synonym for it. Porneia can also refer to incest, and indeed a good case can be made that this is what is meant in Matthew 19, because it is quite believable that Jesus at some juncture commented on the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother’s wife. We know of course that John the Baptist did so, and it cost him his head. Finally, the term porneia can certainly also have a broader sense to refer to a variety of sexual aberrations including bestiality, having sex with children, homosexual sex, prostitution, incest. It is however unlikely, especially in the case of Matthew 19, that this is what the exception clause refers to, because the disciples in that text understand Jesus to be making a demand that is more stringent than Moses’ requirements.23 The most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus is referring in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 to the same exceptional situation—in this case incest. This makes good sense when one compares Mark 10 and 1 Corinthians 7, both of which indicate that Jesus’ basic view was no divorce. Jesus then would be saying here that since an incestuous relationship shouldn’t be called a marriage, its dissolution doesn’t amount to a violation of a marriage relationship honored by God. In addition, Jesus seems to be saying that when God has joined two people together and the husband divorces his wife, God still sees them as married, hence the strong language about the remarried wife being forced to commit adultery.

Oaths, 5:33-37 Verses 33-37 deal with the issue of oaths, something else that certainly was permitted under Mosaic Law, but that Jesus is now banning. In the Old Testament, oaths were permitted provided that they were neither false nor irreverent (cf. Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:3-15; Deut 23:21-23; Ps 50:14; Zech 8:17; Wis 14:28). Psalm 50:14b may be in the background of what Jesus says here. Note as well that v. 34a appears in James 5:12a. Furthermore, we have Jesus himself in Matthew 26:63 refusing to speak under oath. He simply says, “You have said so.” The point of swearing an oath is of course to vouch for the truthfulness of some claim or remark. But Jesus is calling for such a high standard of integrity that one never needs to back up a claim or statement with an oath. He is requiring total honesty in every situation.24 One can simply let one’s yes mean yes, and one’s no mean no, which suggests that Jesus is mainly concerned about promissory oaths—where one promises

Matthew 5:1–7:29

135

A Sapiential Reading of 5:33-37 to do something under oath. Nevertheless, there While Moses and other Jewish teachers is no indication here that Jesus is merely conallowed for oaths, Jesus calls for a stancerned with excessive swearing or oath taking dard of honesty such that an oath is never about even trivial matters (cf. Philo, Decal. 92). necessary. An oath was a means of insisting on or Were this in view, the alternative would not state demonstrating the truthfulness of some utterance, but this is unnecessary if one’s word is that one should limit one’s self to just yes or no always transparently true. in responding. Verse 36 also suggests that oath taking is in vain anyway; it can’t change anything, even the color of a single strand of hair on a person’s head. Verse 37 provides a serious sanction for the imperative—anything that goes beyond yes or no comes from the Evil One, for it is a form of exaggeration or a lie (hence the mention of the Father of Lies here). [A Sapiential Reading of 5:33-37]

Finally we should note that Jesus himself calls Jerusalem the city of the Great King (v. 35) at a time when there was no king in Judea but rather a procurator. This of course could be a reference to God as the Great King (Ps 48:2), but in view of our Evangelist’s constant efforts at portraying Jesus as the great and wise king who will later ride into his city of Jerusalem, this may be foreshadowed here.

Jesus’ Ethical Enjoinders, 5:38-42 Certainly one of the most abiding lessons one needs to learn from the Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus’ ethical enjoinders are not based on, nor do they make allowances for, hardness of heart, unlike what Jesus will say about the Mosaic Law in Matthew 19. Rather Jesus’ ethics presuppose the new situation now possible with the dawning of the eschatological reign of God on earth. Thus, for instance, the lex talionis (the “eye for an eye” principle) assumes that evil is necessarily going to happen and must be accommodated by the law being set up to limit its damage and consequence, so that justice may be brought forth from a bad situation. Time and again the Jesus tradition asks Jesus’ followers to think in a different way about things, think of what they ought to do, not merely what was legal for them to do, or even what they might be justified in doing if they are wronged. In light of the new eschatological situation, they are to act on the basis of what they should do. This is a different sort of ethics indeed, and one that would not work for a secular state that does not recognize “the signs of the times.” Rather this is the ethics of a specific community of faith that recognizes the binding authority of Jesus’ teachings on various matters. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:38-42]

136

Matthew 5:1–7:29 A Sapiential Reading of 5:38-42 Moses’ teaching limited revenge, while Jesus’ teaching calls for the abandonment of all such vengeance. The evil person is not to be resisted if they strike you, take your outer garment, or impress you to do some chore. The attitude of the disciples is to be one of generosity, regardless of how they are treated. The follower of Jesus is to do unto others as they would wish to be treated, even if the person in question is mistreating them. At Matt 7:12, this is said to sum up the essence of the teaching of the Law and the Prophets.

Verse 38 is a clear example of how Jesus sets his own agenda and offers his own enjoinders that sometimes stand in contrast to clear Old Testament laws (in this case Exod 21:24/Deut 19:21/Lev 24:20). One of the more distinctive features about Jesus’ teaching was that he was willing to speak on his own authority rather than on the basis of previous teachings or traditions (cf. Matt 7:29). The “but I say to you” could be shocking in an early Jewish environment, and actually it would be especially surprising from a sage who had devoted himself to honing and rephrasing the wisdom of the past. Jesus urges in v. 39 that the evildoer (not here the Evil One) not be responded to in kind; indeed he is to be responded to in kindness in a proactive rather than reactive manner. The Matthean form of the saying here has to do with the willingness to take a slap on the right cheek with the back of the hand, a considerable insult in the ancient Near Eastern environment. The follower of Jesus is not to take such an insult as an opportunity to start a cycle of reprisals. Unlike Luke 6:29, then, we are not here really talking about a response to violence in general, but to a physical insult, an honor and shame matter. Many scholars think the Lukan form of the saying is more primitive, but it seems to me that we have yet another example where Luke has broadened the implications of the saying to speak about violence in general for a wider and more Gentile audience. Probably the verb antisténai refers to legal action taken in court and thus should be translated “oppose” rather than “take action against.” Thus the actual subject here is a refusal to take legal action against (i.e., no legal retaliation for an insult). Then v. 40 deals with the converse situation where one is personally taken to court. The advice here amounts to suggesting that if someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give them your outer wrap or cloak as well. This advice is especially striking when compared to the enjoinders in Exodus 22:25-26/ Deuteronomy 24:12-13, because there the outer garment is said to belong inalienably to the original owner. Jesus is once again setting up a new ethic for his own community, not merely reapplying an old one.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Verse 40 also suggests a means of forestalling a legal action and being taken to court. Then in vv. 41-42 we have three illustrations on one principle— the principle being doing good to the neighbor or even the enemy regardless of how they have treated you. Again the fundamental principle generating the ethic is that of love rather than reciprocity. This principle does not merely go beyond the Old Testament one of lex talionis, it sets it aside and starts over from scratch in a radical new way. The first example is well known. It was possible for a Roman soldier of the occupation force to compel a Jewish civilian to carry something or do something for him (consider the case of Simon of Cyrene and the cross—Matt 27:32). The word milion from which we get the word “mile” actually means 1,000 paces, which is slightly less than a mile. In any case, the advice here involves going beyond the expected and required help. Again, the principle is to do what a follower of Jesus ought to do, not merely what was expected or required. Action is taken on the basis of one’s already extant fundamental ethical commitments. One is also to respond to a beggar or borrower generously, not refusing them when they ask. Of course almsgiving was a fundamental expectation in early Judaism (see Matt 6:2), but here even greater generosity, one that is not calculating in a quid pro quo kind of way, is being urged. One gives without thought of return, and not merely out of a sense of duty either. One gives simply because that is the character of God, and of Jesus, and is expected to be the character of Jesus’ followers. Self-sacrifice replaces selfinterest as the fundamental basis of ethics in the Dominion of God, because it is assumed that Jesus has established a new eschatological state of affairs. Love for Enemies, 5:43-48 The material in Matthew 5:43-48 concludes and in some ways sums up the antithesis section of the Sermon on the Mount and requires close scrutiny. The format is again the familiar “you have heard it said . . . but I say to you.” Verse 43 begins with a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 (cf . the fuller quote at Matt 19:19), which only leaves out the “as yourself ” portion of the quote, and is followed by a statement found nowhere in the Old Testament or in rabbinic literature—”hate your enemies.” There is something of a parallel to this found at Qumran (1QS 3-4, 9-10; 19.21-22) where it is said one may love the sons of light and hate the sons of darkness. One can imagine a statement that means love your friends and love your enemies somewhat less, but that is not what we have

137

138

Matthew 5:1–7:29

here. One can also imagine the Qumran saying being offered up by a Zealot as well, but it is not characteristic of Judaism at its highest and best, though there must have been many settings during Roman occupation when such an idea was thought if not expressed. [A Sapiential Reading of 5:43-48] A Sapiential Reading of 5:43-48 The higher standard to which Jesus The attempt to retroject this saying back into calls disciples is made clear here. They Aramaic and take into account the lack of comare to perfectly manifest the love God has for all parative mechanism in Aramaic so that the net people, even toward their own enemies. The love effect is “love your enemy, but somewhat less demanded here has nothing to do with reciprocity than you love your fellow believers,” or whatrelationships; rather it is a matter of giving with ever, seems unlikely. Jesus often spoke in no thought of return. God the Father is characterized as an indiscriminate lover and blesser of both contrastive terms, which is characteristic of sapithe evil and the good, giving them both the sun ential literature anyway (cf. Proverbs), and here and the rain they need to provide them with crops where you have deliberate antitheses one should and sustenance. probably resist the temptation to whittle off the hard edges of the contrast. Jesus is not only calling for loving of enemy but also for praying for them. The enemy is further defined as a persecutor in v. 44b. The Evangelist likely sees this as behavior that is only possible in the light of the new eschatological situation and the new endowment of the disciples with power and the Spirit enabling conduct that goes beyond the usual. Jesus then is urging conduct not conditioned or determined by kinship (whether ethnic, social, or religious) or reciprocity. Rather he urges that disciples must love like the Heavenly Father and so be true sons of the Father. It is interesting to compare this enjoinder with Proverbs 25:21, which counsels giving food and drink to one’s enemy if they are hungry and thirsty. Showing hospitality to an enemy is one thing; loving them is taking it to another level. Verse 45b gives two illustrations of God’s indiscriminate love—God makes the sun and rain to benefit both the wicked and the righteous. Jesus is, in short, urging his followers to a love that goes beyond in-group love. In v. 46 we have a deliberately offensive comparison—if you love those who love you, how are you any different from the despised custom officials (Jews who had permission to collect taxes and tolls for the Romans)? Even Gentiles greet and treat their own well or kindly. Thus a comparison is made between followers of Jesus and the two least favorite groups for observant Jews—Gentiles and tax collectors. To be told that one was no better than these two despised groups would be patently offensive, however true the remark. The point is that such self-serving in-group love is nothing exceptional (perisson). Jesus does not mince words here. Too often v. 48 has been isolated from its context, but as the noun makes clear, this statement is the conclusion to what has gone

Matthew 5:1–7:29

before, and what has gone before is the exhortation to love as the Father loves. The key word here is of course teleioi. But is the Evangelist referring to character, conduct, or wholeness in relationships? Clearly the command to love in the previous verses was not a command to have warm feelings toward others, but rather an exhortation to a certain kind of conduct or activity including praying. Thus I take it that the term here is not referring to some sort of state or condition of sinless perfection; it is talking about a form of conduct that only arises out of a new and whole relationship with God. To be perfect here means to love in the same indiscriminate way that God loves, as was just described. Deuteronomy 18:13 may stand in the background here, which refers to being tamim or blameless, and one could point to Leviticus 19:2 where there is the exhortation to be holy as God is holy, but more is surely meant here than simply wholeness of relationships or blamelessness in activity. Rather a positive concept of complete and self-sacrificial loving is in view, and here Hill is near to the mark when he says, “The emphasis is not on flawless moral character, but on whole-hearted devotion to the imitation of God, not in perfection of his being but of his ways. . . . In their acts of love, reconciliation, and faithfulness, the disciples are to show God’s attitude to men, that perfection in love which seeks the good of all.”25 R. Guelich tries entirely too hard to avoid the conclusion that behavior or conduct is primarily in view, but this is the very essence of Jewish sapiential advice—guidance on conduct, not feelings or experiences.Guelich is right that this conduct presupposes the gracious work of God and of Jesus and a preceding relationship with both, but those relationships are the basis, not the focus of these commandments. One must also note that these commands are not seen as supererogatory works for the few such as monks or ministers of various sorts. This wisdom is addressed to all believers. While it is true that Jesus is not trying to be legalistic here in the narrow sense of that term, the force of the imperatives must be given their full weight. He is absolutely serious about the daily conduct of disciples mirroring these principles and imperatives. Such conduct is not viewed as optional or merely ideals for which to strive. Jesus is assuming that new empowerment of the disciples by the Spirit will propel and impel them to such conduct. To whom more is given in and through the eschatological situation, more is required. Thus these ethical imperatives are eschatologically and christologically grounded, but they imply more than just a renewed relationship with God.

139

140

Matthew 5:1–7:29

In Jesus’ view, such conduct is indeed a precursor and perhaps even a pre-requisite for the entering of God’s eschatological Dominion at the end of the eschatological age. As Wesley was to later it put it, while the ethic of Jesus does not suggest we are saved by our good deeds, we are nonetheless not saved without them either, for God requires of his people good conduct. The implication at the least seems to be that the degree of righteousness one reflects here and now in one’s conduct determines one’s status in the future Dominion (whether one will be considered great or small). If there is no conformity to Jesus’ new imperatives, then there may be reasons for one’s salvation to be considered doubtful in the first place. Of course there will be failure, and need for repentance and forgiveness along the way, but then there will also be grace moments when the believer’s conduct does conform to what God expects of the believer in this lifetime, not in eternity. God works in the believer in this lifetime to will and to do the will of God. Hypocritical Piety, 6:1-4

In an honor and shame culture, one is always trying to improve one’s honor rating, and that requires the doing of good public works that will be seen and praised by other human beings. Jesus however is offering counter-order and counter-intuitive wisdom in such a culture. He in essence says the only audience disciples are to be playing to is an audience of One—God. Notice the focus here on doing righteousness (i.e., doing righteous deeds). The issue here is not merely the contrast between public and private, as Jesus is not banning public good deeds. Notice that the initial admonition is “be careful.” Believers are to analyze their motivations for doing things in public. They are not to do them “in order to be seen.” They are not to do things to attract attention to themselves. One hedge against doing things for the wrong or self-centered reasons is doing them secretly, for example when it comes to making donations. “To do an act of mercy” is in earlier wisdom literature a technical phrase for almsgiving (see Sir 7:10). It has been debated as to whether there were actual occasions in the temple when, if someone gave a large gift, a trumpet was blown.26 [A Sapiential Reading of 6:1-18] [Hypocrites]

The sapiential saying about the left hand is interesting precisely because the left hand was not the favored hand. Doing something with the left hand was less likely to bring notice or praise. The point here of the saying is to act unself-consciously, and so not care which hand one uses for an act of almsgiving, as one does not care

Matthew 5:1–7:29 A Sapiential Reading of 6:1-18 In these verses we have Jesus’ own interpretation of the traditional Jewish duties of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Performing such tasks for human approbation leads to no reward from the Heavenly Father. Giving and praying and fasting are even to be done in secret, removing the motivation to show off or display one’s piety before others. Instead of prayers of many words that go on and on, Jesus provides his disciples with a prayer paradigm, which would be better called the Disciple’s rather than the Lord’s Prayer. God is addressed as Father, thus allowing the disciple the same privilege as Jesus had, and connoting an intimate relationship with the creator of the universe. The prayer for kingdom and will to come and be done makes clear that these things were not complete or fully done yet on earth. Hallowing God’s name precedes the petitions for daily bread and forgiveness of sins. Crucial is the linking of forgiveness received with the offering of forgiveness to others. If one is not forgiving, one places an impediment in one’s own life preventing the receiving of divine forgiveness (see v. 14). Matt 6:13, since it is addressed to God and since God tempts no one to do any evil thing, would be best translated “put us not to the test, rather deliver us from the Evil One.” The disciple prays to be delivered from not merely temptations but even testing for which he or she is not ready.

what onlookers may think of one’s act. Could Jesus himself have used the word hypocrit∑s, which is after all a Greek word? The answer is yes, even if he was only minimally bilingual. This is a word he could have heard in Sepphoris where Greek dramas were presented regularly, and it appears this word actually became a loan word, like various other Greek terms, in spoken Aramaic.27 This need not mean he was fully bilingual, but several other scenes in the Gospels probably imply he knew some Greek (e.g., the encounter with the Canaanite woman, the Gentile centurion, or Pilate). The Lord’s Prayer, 6:5-15

If there is truth in the statement that almsgiving, fasting, and prayer are three of the pillars of early Jewish orthopraxy, it is not a surprise to find these things grouped together in Matthew 6 and commented on by Jesus. The Jewishness of Jesus is on full display in this Gospel, and sometimes one gets the impression that the First Evangelist sees it as his job and goes out of his way to mediate the Jewish heritage to his audience, albeit through the filter of the Hypocrites What is not in debate is that the term hypocrit∑s never has a positive sense in this Gospel, unlike for instance in Greek literature where it simply means someone who acts in the theater (Aristotle, Poetics 18.19; Diodorus Siculus 37.12.1). Here we are dealing with people who do things for their own self-glorification, even acts of piety, which makes it particularly offensive to Jesus. This term is used frequently of the Pharisees in Matt 23 (six times) who are depicted there as exhibit A of self-aggrandizing pious behavior. It should be noted, however, that not even Matthew portrays all Pharisees as hypocrites. The two terms are not necessarily synonymous in the Evangelist’s mind, unlike in later anti-Semitic Christian discourse.

141

142

Matthew 5:1–7:29

life and teachings of Jesus. The material on prayer in Matthew 6 is both central and crucial, not least because this prayer is found in a rather different form in Luke 11. Probably our Evangelist has grouped various teachings on prayer together here, since he tends to group things topically in this Gospel.28 It is possible that the original setting for the Lord’s Prayer material is more nearly conveyed in Luke 11:1-2 where the disciples actually ask to be taught by Jesus about how to pray, just as John had taught his disciples. Jeremias is likely right that what they are asking is to learn a specific sort of prayer, a prayer that would identify them or characterize them as Jesus’ disciples, reflecting Jesus’ belief system. More clearly in Luke, but also here, we learn that this prayer is not a prayer for all people to use but for all the disciples of Jesus to use. We also learn that the phrase “in this fashion” suggests we are more being given an outline of how to pray than a detailed list of all the things one ought or could pray for. But then this is like wisdom literature in general, which gives typical advice. The added factor in Jesus’ wisdom instruction about prayer is that it clearly is affected and shaped by having one eye on the eschatological horizon. [Doxology] In Matthew’s setting, the Lord’s Prayer provides a positive model of how and what to pray, and it is preceded by examples of how not to pray. Thus for example the disciples are not to be like the hypocrites who love to stand in the synagogues or in the corner of the village square wishing to be seen praying and so be seen as ultra religious. Those who were most observant could be very punctilious and precise about praying at the right hours, and thus would even stop in a crowd and begin praying if it was prayer time. Notice that in this text we have a contrast between public and private praying. The prayer of a devout person is a personal matter, not a performance. The point here is to get at the motives for praying in a certain way and in certain places, and clearly a private venue for personal and private prayer is seen as most appropriate. This is not a tirade against all forms of public praying or corporate prayer or even formal and formulaic prayer. Indeed, the Lord’s Doxology Two text critical matters need to be dealt with at the outset. In 6:12 the aorist tense verb aphekamen is likely more original, perhaps going back to a perfect verb in the Aramaic original. Also, our earliest and best witnesses do not have the doxology found in 6:13, though the Didache has a form of this doxology. The doxology added in some later manuscripts seems to have been based on 1 Chr 29:11-13. Probably when this prayer began to be used in worship is when the doxology was added, and the Didache suggests this already happened in the late first century AD. Perhaps one of the earliest copyists of this Gospel added the doxology found in some Matthean manuscripts.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

143

Prayer is a formal and formulaic prayer. Rather, Jesus says that those who pray to be seen already have their reward—they have been seen. Then in v. 6 Jesus suggests that his disciples should avoid showing off (this reading connects well with the term hypocrit∑s that refers to actions that may not reflect the actual state and character of the heart of the doer), and the way they are to do this is by going into the storeroom This is perhaps the windowless, small room in the middle of an ancient Near Eastern home, which would sometimes be the only room with a door that latched so a person could have total privacy. It was a place where supplies and dried goods were stored. [Praying within One’s Heart] Jesus believes public prayer is not necessary to get God’s attention, and after all the real function of prayer is not to convey information to God that God does not already Praying within One’s Heart know, nor is its primary function to convey It is interesting that Abelard saw Jesus’ information to one’s fellow human beings if it is call to private prayer as a call into the personal rather than corporate prayer. What v. monastery, where one could always pray in private, while Ambrose said it was a call to 6c says literally is that your Father who sees in inward prayer, praying within one’s heart. secret will “restore it” to you. This suggests a situation where one has been wronged or defrauded of something, and Jesus is urging reliance on God to redress the balance. On the other hand, since Jesus has just spoken of the reward of the “actor,” the language of restoration may mean no more than that God will make it worth the prayer’s while to pray in this earnest and honest and self-effacing way. Notice the filial relationship appealed to here. They are to pray to their Father. It is to be noted that there was not much use of Father language of God in other early Jewish circles, and even less in the Hebrew Scriptures.29 A definite personal relationship with God is connoted by this language of Father. In v. 7 another negative example is set forth—that of the Gentiles. It is somewhat uncertain what the verb battalogeø really means, but probably it means babbling or prattling like a child, or mindless repetition of something, droning on and on with the various names and titles of God. Possibly this word goes back to the Aramaic battal, which means that which is useless. At Qumran that word means “without effect,” thus the meaning here could be empty or idle chatter or meaningless and ineffective prayer speech. The problem for the Gentile was that not only did many believe if one pronounced the name of the deity correctly, one had power over that deity (and thus he would experiment with various pronunciations) or would gain power from that deity, but also polytheists were often uncertain which god to appease or appeal to,

144

Matthew 5:1–7:29

hence the need for lengthy addressing of various deities who may have blessed or blighted a person. Thus sometimes prayer was offered up just to cover one’s bases, with the buckshot method of praying being used, hoping one name or term or another would hit the right target. Thus it is added here “so by their many words they hope to be heard.” Perhaps part of the point here is about verbosity, in view of the compactness of the Lord’s Prayer that follows. Another matter is also hinted at in v. 8 in regard to pagan prayer. Apparently some Gentiles really did think that one god or another needed to be informed about some matters. In other words, the gods were not assumed to be omniscient. In any case, Jesus says this is not so with the biblical God. The Father knows one has needs before one even vocalizes or thinks to vocalize them. Part of the point in praying is then a simple sharing of what is on one’s heart and also to go through a process of dialogue, enhancing the relationship so the human participant can better discern God’s actual will in a situation. Prayer is always a way of drawing closer to God. Notice that in the preface to the Lord’s Prayer, the “you” addressed is plural, and the “our” is stressed before the term “Father.” Matthew makes clear this is a family or corporate prayer to a degree that is not evident in Luke. Notice also the asking for “our” bread, “our” sins forgiven, and so on. One of the tendencies of the First Evangelist is indeed to adopt the Jesus material for corporate worship in his community, and we may attribute at least some of the “our”s to him. By way of source and form critical background, we can say the following: (1) Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 are two forms of the same prayer, going back to an Aramaic original. It is possible that Jesus taught this prayer more than once, but the redactional touches suggest the modifications or differences we find should be attributed to the Evangelists’ agendas. (2) The two versions of the prayer do not differ greatly in meaning, but Matthew’s version seems to be somewhat formalized and embellished in a Semitic way (e.g., “our,” or “who art in heaven”). These changes however are probably close to the Jewish spirit of the original prayer. (3) It is usually concluded by scholars that the Lukan version is closer to the original length while the Matthean version is closer to the original wording in various places. This comports with the fact that we know the First Evangelist to be a more conservative handler of Mark than is Luke, taking over verbatim more of the words in his source than Luke does. For example, the word “debts” in v. 11 as opposed to Luke’s “trespasses” is closer to the Aramaic original, only the First Evangelist has rendered it literally. The Lukan version takes the

Matthew 5:1–7:29

broader sense that includes the literal meaning but expands it to include sins as a form of debt. The debate will center on whether Jesus was thinking in particular of financial woes. (4) The attempts to translate this whole prayer back into Aramaic have suggested that the prayer originally had rhythm and rhyme and parallelism and a clear structure.30 (5) The basic structure in Matthew is opening invocation (v. 9b), three “thou” petitions (vv. 9b-10b), three “we” petitions (vv. 111-13a). This seems to have been the original structure of the prayer. (6) The redactional additions in Matthew seem to come at the end of clauses (“who art in heaven,” “as in heaven so on earth,” and possibly “but rescue us from the Evil One”). The additions clarify but do not change the essential meaning of the prayer. (7) Various scholars have noted that the Matthean form of the prayer is more eschatologically oriented, while Luke’s form is more present and daily life oriented. This is an overdrawing of the contrast, for even Luke’s version speaks of a coming Dominion and Matthew’s entails a prayer for the bread for tomorrow (not manna from heaven nor the eschatological feast). (8) Verses 14-15 serve as an expansion on the point made in v. 12. It seems probable that the original Aramaic form of this prayer began with the simple word abba, which does not mean “daddy” as it is not slang or informal, though it is a term of endearment a child would use of a father—Father dearest or the like. Even so, this way of addressing God is unprecedented in the period before Jesus, and it surely tells us something not only about the intimacy Jesus had with God in prayer, but about his belief that his disciples could share a similar close relationship with God.31 Heaven is, of course, the traditional term for the dwelling place of God, and in the Matthean redaction of this prayer there is the deliberate contrast or distinction between what is the case in heaven and what is the case on earth (v. 10c). The point of mentioning heaven in the invocation or opening address to God is probably to emphasize God’s exalted status. It is appropriate to ask what should be made of the three petitions that follow this address. Who is expected to hallow God’s name or to do his will, and when? Possibly vv. 9c and 10b could be seen as a prayer that God’s name will one day be hallowed and his will one day be done by human beings, rather than stressing that God will hallow his own name and accomplish his own will. Is God both the subject and the object of these petitions? Possibly not, in light of the eschatological and ethical character of the prayer in general focusing on human eating and sinning and the like, though this prayer could be a plea that God would finally bring

145

146

Matthew 5:1–7:29

about the final state of affairs when every knee will bow and every tongue confess, when the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of God and of his Anointed One. In any event, this prayer shows clearly that Jesus did not believe the eschatological situation was already fully realized in his day and through his own ministry. There was still a sense in which the Dominion, the divine saving reign, had yet to come on earth. Verse 10c indicates that heaven is the place where God’s will is already perfectly done, in contrast to earth; otherwise this petition would be pointless. [Kiddush Prayer] Verse 11 is the most controverted of the verses in this prayer due to one word—epiousion. The debate boils down to two options for translation: (1) the bread for tomorrow or (2) daily bread. In either case, the meaning is a request for the necessary sustenance to live, bread being the staple of the ancient ordinary person’s diet in the ancient Near East and so standing for daily food in general. If one goes with the first translation, then this suggests the Lord’s prayer is an evening prayer in which one is asking God to provide today the necessary food that will sustain the person through the next working day, the meal eaten at dawn before one went to work—a peasant’s or a blue-collar worker’s breakfast so to speak, whether one was a farmer, a fisherman or a carpenter. One must have today the food for tomorrow, as it will be eaten first thing in the morning. What this petition definitely suggests is a daily dependence on God even for the necessities of life. The second “we” petition speaks of debts, and since the term “forgive” is used, we may be sure sins and not only financial deficiencies are involved, though the financial shortcomings are included. Too much ink has been spilt on whether the Evangelist is suggesting that our being forgiven is dependent on our forgiving others. The point is that regardless of the order of events there is a connection between being forgiven and receiving forgiveness both now and in the Dominion in the future. A person who refuses to forgive should not expect to be forgiven when the Dominion comes, and a person who knows he or she has been forgiven should Kiddush Prayer It is possible that Jesus is here drawing on the Kiddush prayer, prayed at the end of synagogue services, or even on the eighteen benedictions. If this is the background to Jesus’ prayer, then the prayer should definitely be read eschatologically and anthropologically, for the Kiddush prayer reads in part “hallowed be his great name in the world, and may his kingdom come in your lifetime and in your days.” The hallowing is done by humans, but the reigning is done by God in this form of the prayer. It is likely that in Jesus’ prayer as well, the ultimate plea for the kingdom is a plea for God to consummate and bring to pass God’s salvation plan on earth.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

then apply the same loving mercy to fellow human beings. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21ff. is a further expression of this same point. Thus the real gist of the matter here is “forgive us, just as we on a lesser scale forgive our debtors/trespassers.” An unforgiving Christian is an oxymoron, and he or she has put an impediment in his or her heart to receiving final forgiveness. There is indeed a vital connection between the vertical and horizontal expressions of forgiveness by God and human beings. If one persists in unforgivenness, one may end up like the servant in the parable32 who was initially forgiven but then later called to full account due to his unforgivenness. Jesus once more affirms that the behavior of a disciple after the person becomes a disciple will indeed affect one’s final status in the Dominion of God. Thus, vv. 14-15 are not comments on initial forgiveness that happens at the point of becoming a disciple but rather on final forgiveness at the eschaton (notice the way the phrase reads “your heavenly Father will not forgive . . .”). Verse 13 is as equally controversial in some respects as v. 11. Over the centuries, there have been many debates over whether this verse contradicts what James says about God tempting no one. The noun peirasmon can indeed mean either “tempt” or “test,” with the context determining the issue. This is why one perfectly valid way to render this verse in English would be “do not put us to the test.” It is quite possible that here again Jesus is drawing on an old Jewish sapiential prayer, “Do not bring me into the power of a sin, a temptation, a shame” (b. Ber. 60b). The Aramaic original of this petition would likely read something like “cause us not to enter,” or better, “do not allow us to enter.” In either case, God is not viewed as the tempter and there is no necessary conflict here with what James, following the Old Testament sapiential traditions, says about God not being a tempter. The prayer then is asking that God will protect a person from entering into a situation of temptation. The following and final petition then probably means “rescue/preserve us from the Evil One.” This fits well with v. 13a since Satan is seen as the source of temptation, and to be rescued from him is to be rescued from the source of temptation. As Guelich notes, the notion of “Evil” as an abstract concept does not exist in the New Testament, only evil deeds or the Evil One is referred to. Turning evil into a mere power or force or malignant idea is a modern preoccupation. Early Jews most certainly believed in a personal devil and beings known as demons.33 This comports with what we have seen in Matthew 5:37 and what we will find in

147

148

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Matthew 13:19. Guelich suggests one final thought, namely that it was Jesus who fed the hungry, liberated the possessed, and offered the forgiveness of sins, thereby bringing in the Dominion, and it was Jesus who could be said to perfectly do God’s will on earth, including delivering us once and for all from Satan’s power. Here indeed is a prayer to which God is prepared to listen, indeed has already answered in a decisive way in the life and work of Jesus. This prayer also suggests that if we have our priorities right, we will pray first and foremost for the plan of God and his glory to be manifested on earth, before we ask for personal help or favors. Praise and thanksgiving precede petition and pleading. The prayer also suggests that we will do well to pray for necessities, truly important things in life—daily food, deliverance from the machinations of the Evil One, forgiveness of sins—the physical and spiritual necessities of life. It would also be well if we always asked before praying, is this a prayer that measures up to the model prayer? Is this a prayer Jesus would have prayed? Is this a prayer we should feel free or uneasy to sign Jesus’ name to? These are all questions worth pondering. On Fasting, 6:16-18

Once again the real complaint here is about acts of piety that are done to get attention or provide a public attestation and public praise of one’s piety. Jesus says of such a person that they already have their full reward from the attention they got by these acts. What we are dealing with here is voluntary fasting, not a required fast (see Luke 18:1; Did. 8.1). Notice there is no mention of a prescribed fast connected with a specific Jewish festival or a ritual like a Nazaritic vow. It is interesting that this is the only place in the New Testament where fasting is actually taught or encouraged, which is something of a surprise when one considers the later stress on this in Christian ascetical contexts. Notice that Jesus stresses that his disciples are to look perfectly normal when they fast, head anointed, face washed. This exhortation makes perfectly good sense when it is read in the light of earlier wisdom literature. For example, Sirach 9:8 and 2 Samuel 12:20 suggest that this sort of grooming and pleasant appearance were forbidden on fasting days. Those who pray are not to appear in distress or in extremis. But Jesus believes he and his followers are in an eschatological situation that calls for joy. He will continue to use wisdom speech, but he will modify it and its customs to suit the eschatological situation. If his disciples must think in terms of rewards, then they are to look

Matthew 5:1–7:29

149

only to the praise they will get from God for voluntary fasting. Isaiah 58:3-12 seems to lie in the background here. Singleness of Purpose and Anxiety, 6:19-34

After the unit on fasting, it has seemed to many that Matthew has given up on a thematic or structurally organized approach to his material and has simply presented a random collection of sayings. This impression is enhanced in the minds of scholars who notice that Luke has this material in various places (vv. 19-21//Luke 12:33-34; vv. 22-23//Luke 16:13; vv. 25-34//Luke 12:22-31). But as Bornkamm has noted, it would appear that the structure of the Lord’s Prayer is the organizing principle for the rest of this material.34 Thus for instance Matthew 6:19-24 serves as an amplification of the first three petitions in the prayer, while 6:2534 parallels the daily bread petition; Matthew 7:1-5 expands on the forgiveness petition, while 7:6 parallels the two sayings in 6:13, and 7:7-11 expands upon the clause that speaks of “before you ask.” I find this argument basically convincing, and it means this material in Matthew 6–7 is not randomly assembled at all. [A Sapiential Reading of 6:19-34]

The theme that unites the material in vv. 19-24 is singleness of purpose, or as Guelich puts it, one’s treasure, eye, and master indicate one’s priorities in life. Verse 19 reads literally, “Do not treasure up treasures on earth where moth and eaters (brosis means eating and probably refers to vermin and rats) can consume (or destroy), and thieves can dig through (the house wall or the treasury wall) and steal. Rather treasure up treasure in heaven where these things cannot happen.” If one were to stop at this point, one could read this to refer to doing spiritual good deeds versus being selfish and A Sapiential Reading of 6:19-34 Jesus urges the disciples not to store up resources on earth, but rather in heaven. His point has to do with what one puts one’s trust in and where one’s security lies. Jesus stresses that one cannot serve two masters—God and money. It is ironic that our money says “In God we trust.” The exhortation not to worry comes not because there is nothing to worry about in this world, but because God is greater than all human circumstances. Notice the reference to Solomon in all his splendor (6:29). This is no accident, as Jesus is enunciating a wisdom teaching that supercedes the teaching and the blessings of Solomon. Solomon was a collector of material resources, but Jesus says his disciples

should not live like that, but rather trust God and rely on God’s blessings. He can take care of humans as well as he can take care of other creatures. In 6:30 we have the first use of a characteristic Matthean descriptor of disciples— “you of little faith.” The audience is not said to have no faith, but this wisdom is meant to bolster and increase and stretch the faith they have. The disciple is to seek first the Dominion and trust God to add and take care of the other needs one has, for the greatest need is to be among the saved under the reign of God, which we call God’s Kingdom or Dominion. The term Dominion is to be preferred because it can refer to a reign or a realm like the Hebrew and Greek concepts, but Kingdom always connotes a place to us.

150

Matthew 5:1–7:29

collecting material possessions. However, v. 21 brings us to the point—where your treasure is, there also will be your heart. The heart in Semitic anthropology is not merely the seat or center of affections, but of thought, conscience, will—in short it is viewed as the control center of the personality. What this little parable is saying is that whatever one values most will determine one’s life orientation, how one arranges one’s life and act and plan. We would say, whatever you have your heart set on, which will determine what really is at the center of your being and priorities. As R. Guelich says, one’s treasure is the ultimate expression of one’s person, thus the point here is not to seek better treasures (although it is true Jesus speaks of heavenly or eschatological rewards) but to have one’s allegiance with God and God’s priorities and to submit to God’s rule and priorities. Taken in isolation, vv. 22-23 might be seen to be a parable about generosity as opposed to stinginess, for the term “evil eye” does in Jewish literature sometimes refer to stinginess (cf. Deut. 15:9; Prov 22:9; cf. Matt 20:5). This however ignores the obvious meaning of haplous, which is “simple” or “clear” or “unmixed” (singular). The point here is that the whole life is clear or illuminated if one has singleness of purpose, has one’s eye fixed on God’s goal. The eye is viewed in antiquity as a window on the soul, not merely the source of one’s physical vision. In contrast to this is the person who focuses his attention on that which is bad, or one who has a sick eye. When that is the case, the whole life of the person is dark. The clue to the interpretation comes at the end in v. 23c where we hear “if the light which is in you is darkness, how great the darkness will be.” The point is again to ask what one’s guiding light is. What is the single internal organizing principle or orientation of one’s life? If it is an undivided fixation on the light of God and God’s reign, well and good, but if what one takes to be light and guidance turns out to be darkness and danger, even if it amounts to a focus on a lesser good, a lesser light than God, then one’s whole life is lived in darkness. Verse 24 brings this whole discussion to a somewhat clear climax. If the first two illustrations were about having the right orientation, this saying is about singleness of service to that one orientation. Verse 24 says literally “no one is able to be a slave to two masters.” The point is not that it was impossible to work for two different people (cf. Acts 16:16, 19). This was even a legal possibility in Jesus’ day. The key here is the word doulein—one cannot give total allegiance to two masters. The Aramaic comparative mechanism seems to be at work in v. 24b with the love/hate contrast really

Matthew 5:1–7:29

referring to being more devoted to the one than to the other, or to put it another way, to be attached to one, and detached or indifferent about or even despising the other. Here again the punch line comes at the end—you cannot serve both God and Mammon. Mammon is simply an Aramaic term transliterated into Greek, and it does not mean “filthy lucre” or ill-gotten gains. The word means possession in general, not money in particular. The point of the contrast here is much the same as the one in vv. 19-21. Earthly possessions should not be the focus of one’s allegiance. It is not possible to be a slave of both God and material possessions, and the truth under-girding this is that when one comes to love material things too much, the possessions possess him or her, rather than vice versa. It is not possible to give one’s primary allegiance, one’s undivided attention and service, to both. To be divided only causes anxiety, which is the next topic of discussion. The material in 6:25-34 corresponds to the petition about daily bread in the Lord’s prayer and has the following structure: (1) prohibition; (2) support for prohibition from nature (vv. 26, 28-30, a typical motif in wisdom literature) and from human incapacity to change life’s length (v. 27) and from the negative example of the Gentiles (vv. 31-32); (3) positive exhortation coupled with a promise of God’s supply. It is possible that Luke preserves this material in its more original setting. The passage begins with a prohibition of being anxiously concerned. Merimnaø refers essentially to a state of mind. This warning is about being so self-concerned about taking care of one’s own needs, even if indeed we are talking about the necessities of life. But such anxiety leads not only to worry but also to activity—seeking to secure one’s needs or life by one’s own efforts. Jesus is not calling for his disciples to be irresponsible or reckless. He does not rule out forethought or planning, but he does insist that faith, not fear and anxiety, be the motivating force in what we decide and do and how we react, and he does insist on leaving the results in God’s hands. Thus the exhortation says not to be anxious about one’s life (psych∑ here clearly means life not soul, referring to something that needs physical feeding). Life is much more than the basic concerns about food, clothing, and shelter. The point of the rhetorical questions in v.25b is that if God has given one life and a body, much greater gifts than mere food and clothing, then a fortiori God is able to take care of the lesser needs. We have here an example of an argument from the greater to the lesser. The example from nature in v. 26 reinforces the point. Birds of the air neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet God

151

152

Matthew 5:1–7:29

feeds them. Now in point of fact, wild birds work very hard for their food, but that is not the point. The point is that God provides the place and time and opportunity for them to be fed, and so a fortiori he will do the same for human beings as we are of much greater value to God. Verse 27 provides another illustration. Who is able to add a cubit (about eighteen inches) to one’s height or lifespan? (H∑likian Image Not Available normally means lifespan though it due to lack of digital rights. can refer to height. It is probably Please view the published not the latter here since eighteen commentary or perform an Internet inches is not a small amount to search using the credit below. add to one’s height!) [Matthew 6:27] Verse 28 exhorts that we study diligently the lesson learned from the wildflowers (katamanthanø is a hapax legomena and means careful study with a view to learning). The wildflowers grow without laboring or spinning for that matter (krina is perhaps the wild white lily, but in any case a wildflower). The great beauty we can adorn kings with in clothing pales in comparison to the beauty of such flowers. Verse 30 Mammon stresses the contingency of things. George Frederic Watts (1817–1904). Mammon. Oil on canvas, 1884–85. Tate Gallery, London, Great Britain. [Photo Credit: Tate Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY] The grass of the field once cut and dried was burnt in a furnace for fuel in a wood-poor nation like Israel. And yet God takes care even of wild grass, clothing it in beauty. How much more so will he cloth humans. In this verse we also have the term oligopistoi that Matthew may have added to his source; it is a Matthew 6:27 usual feature of the Matthean redaction as a way In a use and application of this text that of characterizing the disciples who have little or would be humorous if it wasn’t comonly weak faith (cf. 8:26; 14:31; 16:18). Here it pletely serious, Tertullian says Matt 6:27 prohibits refers to lack of confidence in God’s providential actors from wearing high heels and prohibits care for his own. Anxiety about such things is women from wearing artificial hair pieces (Spect. 21; Cult. fem. 7.2).

Matthew 5:1–7:29

153

really a slap in the face of God. It is a way of saying “I don’t trust you, God, to take care of things.” [Chrysostom] In v. 32 Gentiles are characterized as those who anxiously worry about and seek food, drink, and clothing. Those who do not believe in the true God focus on accomplishing things for themselves, and then when they cannot control all of life’s vicissitudes they worry. They seek to make up for the lack of faith by activity or diligence, but it’s never enough. The Gentiles serve as negative foils for examples of true discipleship in Matthew 5–7, not due to their ethnicity but due to their spiritual condition, which affects their whole life orientation.35 Jesus then tells his disciples that God is very well aware of human needs. We do not have here an asceticial ethic that involves despising physical necessities or pretending they are not really necessary—”your Heavenly Father knows you need them,” says Jesus. Rather we have an exhortation about trusting God. In v. 33 we have a positive exhortation to go along with the negative one with which we started in v. 25—”seek first the Dominion of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added to you.” This aphorism raises numerous questions. Does the word “first” imply it is all right to seek other things if one’s priorities are straight? The context would seem to imply that the “other things” are not anything we might want, but the necessities previously listed. Furthermore, the verb “seek” is in the continual present tense, so it refers to the ultimate life quest, what one relentlessly focuses on. The term protos could mean “above all,” but the way the rest of the aphorism reads it suggests that disciples are to seek only one thing, because it is God, not disciples, who will add the rest. It is possible to take the word Dominion or Kingdom here to refer to the future Dominion that believers will one day enter, and on such a view “righteousness” here would refer to God’s final vindication of the

Chrysostom The skill in this sort of sapiential rhetoric, which builds from God’s care for the lesser things to God’s care for the greater, was especially evident to Chrysostom: Note the acceleration of images: just when the lilies are decked out, he no longer calls them lilies but “grass of the field.” He then points further to their vulnerable condition by saying “which are here today.” Then he does not merely say “and are not tomorrow” but rather more callously “cast into the oven.” These

creatures are not merely “clothed” but “so clothed” in this way as to be later brought to nothing. Do you see how Jesus everywhere abounds in amplifications and intensifications? And so he does in order to press his point home. So then he adds, “Will he not much more clothe you?” The force of the emphasis is on “you” to indicate covertly how great is the value set upon your personal existence and the concern God shows for you in particular. Homily on Matthew 22.1, in Ancient Christian Commentary Series Vol 1a, 145.

154

Matthew 5:1–7:29

believer at the eschaton, the final future salvation and deliverance God will provide. The problem with this interpretation is that if the added things come in this life, it would seem that the thing to which one devotes one’s life quest should come in this life as well, at least in part. The Dominion in this Gospel has an already and not yet quality to it, and so this exhortation probably refers to seeking God’s saving rule here and now, especially over one’s own life and seeking to follow God’s will and example (note that “his” righteousness refers to God’s; we are not asked here to seek our own righteousness). The idea is to model our behavior on God’s and submit to God’s rule and will in our lives, as explicated in this sermon. Righteousness here refers to conduct in light of the new eschatological situation brought about by Jesus and his ministry. God provides both what should be our prime objective in life, his Dominion or saving rule, and all other needed things, so there is no good reason to be anxious at all. Finally, at v. 34 we are exhorted not to worry about tomorrow, for it has enough trouble of its own. This is not about avoiding planning for the future; it’s about avoiding worrying about the future since such worry is fruitless. Each day has concerns enough to engage us, and we must focus on God and the tasks at hand. Verse 34 is somewhat anticlimactic. On Judging, Judgment, and Critical Self-evaluation, 7:1-6

Certainly one of the most quoted and misquoted portions of the Sermon on the Mount is found in Matthew 7:1-2, and its metaphorical illustration in 7:3-5. It needs to be said from the outset that it makes no sense whatsoever in light of the other discourses of Jesus in this Gospel, particularly the critiques of the Pharisees and other religious leaders, to see this as some sort of call never to criticize anyone or anything. Matthew 7:1-2 and 3-5 may originally have been separate sayings of Jesus, as we shift from the second person singular to the second person plural at v. 3, but if so they have been aptly juxtaposed here. Nor is this a cry for Christians not to be judging or critically evaluating things, as 7:1520, 10:11-15, 16:6-12, and 18:17-18 make clear. The issue here has to do with unfair critiques, uncharitable evaluations, and also, as the metaphorical illustration makes clear, judging others by a different standard than one uses to judge oneself. [A Sapiential Reading of 7:1-6] [Wisdom Literature]

Matthew 5:1–7:29

One of the most telling dimensions of the Jesus material here is the warning that one will be judged by God in the same way the individual follower of Jesus has judged others, using the same sort of standards, criteria, critical scrutiny, degree of probing, and the like. One of the keys to understanding what is going on with this material is that its focus has to do with judging or condemning people, not judging particular words or deeds or attitudes or actions of people. It is not for any human being to be the final judge of another person’s life or to consign them to outer darkness, making some kind of final spiritual evaluation of where a person stands with God. T. W. Manson put it well long ago:

155

A Sapiential Reading of 7:1-6 This text calls for self-examination, not merely a nonjudgmental attitude toward others. The issue here is not the abandonment of critical judgment about human behavior, but abandonment of judging other people, even if and when they sin, since we are not omniscient and cannot take all into account. Rather we are to concentrate on our own foibles and the flaws in our own vision that prevent us from seeing ourselves as we ought to do. Notice the focus on how we view others and how we view self.

Wisdom Literature The function of this wisdom material is not to disable all critiques and critiquing, as is perfectly clear when we compare it to previous or parallel Jewish wisdom literature on the same subject (see e.g., Sir 18:20 and cf. M. Abot. 1.6; 2.5 and M. Sota 1.7). To judge from Rom 2:1; 14:4, 1 Cor 4:5; 5:12; Jas 4:11-12; 5:9; and 1 Clem 13:2, these Jesus sayings struck a chord and were reused frequently in 1st-century Christian discussions.

The whole business of judging persons is in God’s hands, for he alone knows the secrets of men’s hearts. This does not mean that we are not to use all the moral insight we possess in order to discover what is right and wrong; but that we are to confine ourselves to that field and refrain from passing judgment on persons. For our judgment is itself a factor in shaping their lives, and a harsh judgment may help a fellow-creature on the road to perdition.36

Another way of rendering this saying would be “do not condemn another person to hell, so you may not be similarly condemned at the last judgment.” Verses 3-5 bring to light the further theme of hypocrisy—not applying the same critical standard to oneself that one applies to others. It appears likely that Romans 2:1 is based on Matthew 7:35. “Because human beings unhappily possess an inbred proclivity to mix ignorance of themselves with arrogance towards others, the call to recognize one’s own faults is a commonplace of moral and religious traditions (John 9:41; 1 John 1:8).”37 More to the point, it is a repeated theme in Wisdom literature. It seems often to be the case that Jesus is drawing on proverbial wisdom from the past but recasting it in light of his own mission and his eschatological orientation. For instance, when evaluating Matthew 7:3-5 we should compare b. B. Batra 15b: “If the judge said to a person ‘Take the splinter from between your teeth,’ he would retort ‘Take the beam from between your eyes.’” The contrast between splinter and beam

156

Matthew 5:1–7:29

is a metaphorical way of contrasting small and large moral oversights or defects. The saying also encourages us to be more critical of self and less critical of others, or better said equally critical of self as we are of others. There is also the matter of which should come first. We are first to take the log out of our own eye. Notice that Matthew 18:15-20 makes clear that there is a place for correction or reproof of others, but not in a hypocritical fashion where one is oblivious to or refusing to correct one’s own faults. Notice too the use of “brother” language here, which makes clear that these are rules for the behavior of disciples in relating to other disciples. Allison makes the important point that the verb in 7:3 simply means to see, but the one in 7:5 means to see clearly, and more importantly the seeing clearly is for the sake of helping the other, not hurting them or condemning them.38 The second-century commentator Irenaeus, who frequently relied on Matthew’s Gospel, applied this wisdom even in evaluating heresy (Haer. 4.30.3). Matthew 7:6 is certainly, along with 7:1-5, another of the most misunderstood and misused of verses in the Sermon on the Mount. If however one interprets the saying in light of earlier Jewish literature, it is certainly easier to understand. Firstly, many wisdom utterances were striking because they juxtaposed two unexpected or incongruous elements—for example, remember Proverbs 11:22 that speaks of a gold ring in a pig’s snout. Here again in our saying we are dealing with pigs, which for Jews were always unclean animals, as well as with dogs, which by and large in early Judaism were not domesticated animals but rather were scavengers, dirty creatures of the streets. Now both pigs and dogs were used as metaphorical descriptors or pejorative terms for Gentiles by Jews. If 7:6 is not taken out of its present context, then we have a contrast between fellow believer (“brother”) and dog or swine (outsider, unbeliever). This suggests that certain teachings or kinds of teachings are for insiders, and they will be wasted on outsiders (see 15:26-27). [Matthew 15:26-27] And “pearls” suggests something especially precious. This comports nicely with Matthew 13:36-52 and 15:15-20, texts that suggest certain teachings are only for disciples. Seeking and Asking of God, 7:7-14

Matthew 7:7-11 has to do with seeking and asking for things from God. It suggests God is a giver of good gifts and not bad ones, and God is not like a prankster who might give someone a stone when they were expecting something life-giving like a loaf of bread. God

Matthew 5:1–7:29 Matthew 15:26-27 Somewhat on the right line were both Luther and D. Bonhoeffer, who assumed Jesus was suggesting that one not waste too much time on the hard-hearted. The gospel should be shared with all, but when one is rejected one should move on (10:4). (See D. Hagner, Matthew [WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993], 171-72.) But this line of interpretation, while certainly preferable to Did. 9.5, which uses this verse to justify prohibiting the unbaptized from receiving communion (and was followed by Tertullian and Augustine in this), still doesn’t get at the heart of the matter, which seems to have been more nearly understood in its original sapiential sense by Augustine—don’t reveal the deeper things of the faith to outsiders who will only fail to appreciate them (see his Serm. Dom. 2.20.67-70). It does not make sense to see the dogs or the swine as believers, even young or novice believers, considering the way that imagery was regularly used in early Jewish wisdom literature, including by Jesus in Matt 15:26.

does not play cruel games. H. D. Betz suggests Jesus is urging that one’s basic approach to life should be from a posture of trust. One should be “the quester, the seeker, the knocker on doors. One should not yield to misanthropic pessimism, introverted seclusion, or withdraw into the group of the like-minded.”39 While this is a good life posture, Jesus is not talking about life in general but about trusting God, seeking God’s face, asking for what you need from God. Asking, seeking, knocking are all Jewish language for prayer (cf. Isa 55:6; Jer 29:13-14). I agree with Allison that the attentive reader of this sermon will hear an echo of the Lord’s Prayer (6:11) in the saying about asking a father for bread, and more generally to the whole section in 6:25-34.40 “All good things” would include both material and spiritual things. Here we have an image of God as generous and longing to bless us if we will but ask. But like all wisdom literature, one must resist the temptation to globalize things. The saying goes on to make clear that a true father is not going to give something bad or dangerous to the person in question, or at least bad or dangerous on that occasion and at that time. We do not have a picture here of God as an indiscriminate giver of anything we might ever ask for, as if going to God is like going to Wal-Mart. Notice how Luke 11:13 narrows down the nature of what might be given to the Holy Spirit!41 [A Sapiential Reading of 7:7-14]

Some commentators have fallen into the trap of simply taking this material as sapiential hyperbole and then giving reflections on unanswered prayer. This is a mistake because from Jesus’ point of view, God always answers prayer—it’s just that sometimes God answers no to what we request, or not now, or not with this person, and of course sometimes the answer is yes. Here the stress is on how God exercises good judgment in answering prayer, knowing how to give good gifts to his children. As Allison points out, 7:11 reminds us that God does this, even though we are “evil.” This

157

158

Matthew 5:1–7:29 A Sapiential Reading of 7:7-14 Jesus exhorts the disciple to expect, ask, seek, even implore God for the good things one needs in life. But the proviso is that we are asking for things that glorify God and help us, for God’s good gifts. Matt 7:13-14 reminds the audience that the right path is often a narrow one, but it leads to life. These verses also make clear that neither Jesus nor the First Evangelist was a naive universalist when it came to the matter of salvation.

sermon does not reflect some sort of naïve optimism about human nature. Rather, its optimism has to do with the character of God and God’s grace. This sermon assumes that humans are decidedly fallen creatures who sin, get angry, murder, commit adultery, lie, are greedy, and are foolishly anxious, among other negative descriptors. The wisdom Jesus dispenses calls humans to trust themselves and their own judgment less and trust God more. Revelatory, counter-order, and counter-intuitive wisdom is what he dispenses. The wisdom Jesus dispenses assumes that God is already intervening to right human wrongs and transform human character, and until this process is complete at the eschaton, it is a matter of trusting and obeying God and God’s dictums, even if one cannot always see the reason why or even if the outlook seems bleak. Matthew 7:12 (see Luke 6:31) presents us with Jesus’ version of the Golden Rule, something this saying was not called before the eighteenth century. This saying is said to sum up the Law and the Prophets. It is important to recognize that it is often the preoccupation of Wisdom literature to distill things or sum things up in a pithy and memorable saying, such as we have here. Wisdom literature strives to present maxims, aphorisms, one-liners, even riddles, parables, and allegory that sum things up or tease the mind into active thought or both. Sometimes it strives for clarity and sometimes for complexity, but always it intends to teach a lesson. Jesus, as a sage, is all about summing up, getting to the heart of the matter, challenging people with the fundamentals of the faith, and in the case of the Sermon on the Mount it has more to do with orthopraxy, right living, than orthodoxy, right believing, though that is involved as well. [The Golden Rule] Notice, too, that Jesus is not naïve about human beings and their tendency to act according to self-interest. Jesus assumes self-interest and self-regard and seeks to stretch the audience toward self-sacrifice and regard and love for others. One final thing should be said. A maxim, while it may sum up the Law, is also said to sum up the Prophets. It is not an apodictic statement. It is a rule of thumb, a truism that applies in many different kinds of situations and is a good general guide for life. Jesus’ maxims assume the eschatological context and situation. Later attempts, such as that of Thomas

Matthew 5:1–7:29 The Golden Rule Jesus was by no means the first or only person to come up with a version of the Golden Rule. There is the famous saying of Rabbi Hillel, for example: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary on it; go and learn” (b. Sabb. 31a cf. Tob 4.15; 2 En. 61.1-2). It is worth pointing out that Jesus insists on a positive formulation of the maxim, where as other forms of it, both Jewish and Greco-Roman (cf. Isocrates Nic. 61; Herodotus 3.142), tend to be negative. Jesus is not talking just about avoiding evil or appearance of evil. He is talking about actually doing good to others. One must treat others in the positive way one would like to be treated.

Jefferson, to extract and excerpt them and apply them outside of a fundamental belief in a God who intervenes in human history and saves and transforms human beings were not merely exercises in distortion; they were exercises in futility, turning theologically grounded maxims into anthropologically oriented ones. In the end, this saying reminds us that Jesus was bold enough to believe God had given him insight into what the main thing was, what the real heart of God’s will for humankind was all about. It was about the coming of the Dominion of God on earth, as it is in heaven, the transformation such a coming brings, and the need for an intensive and extensive response by those who have been transformed by God’s Dominion. The disturbing saying found in Matthew 7:13-14 is worth a close look—the saying about the narrow gate. The text reads, “Enter through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious the road way which leads unto destruction, and many are those entering through it. [For] the gate is narrow and the way confined that leads unto life, and few are those who are finding it.” These verses open the final section of the sermon. The Matthean form of the saying seems to be closer to the original Aramaic. This saying should be compared to the one in Matthew 5:20 where clearly the Dominion is a realm to be entered. Here entering into life is but a synonym for entering into the Dominion. This saying follows the summing up of the Law and Prophets by means of the Golden Rule. The two ways idea is of course prevalent in early Judaism and is also found in early Christian sources such as the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. It would appear that the reference to gates and ways are but two alternate ways of talking about the same thing— entrance into the Dominion or into destruction. Thus the discussion here is not about the process that leads to or from the gate. The question is whether we are talking about final entrance or present entrance into the Dominion. One may compare at this point 7:21 where doing God’s will precedes the entering, and one

159

160

Matthew 5:1–7:29

must note here the parallelism between the term Dominion and the term destruction. It is natural to conclude that just as “entering into destruction” is in the future, so is entering into the Dominion. Thus here the focus is on a way of life that precedes and leads to entering into the Dominion—following the will of God as exhibited in this sermon so that one may not be found to be going down to destruction in the end. In short, one cannot enter into the future Dominion without the greater righteousness (5:20-21; 7:12), the bearing of good fruit (7:16-20), the doing of God’s revealed will (7:21-33), and of course by God’s grace and one’s new relationship with God through Jesus. By these means one can do God’s will and so enter the Dominion through the narrow gate. Nevertheless, Jesus, who was no universalist, believes only a few, only a minority will enter the final gate into the Dominion. Before one enters the heavenly choir one must seek to tune one’s instrument and make harmonious music here and now, lest one fail the final audition. The parabolic nature of this teaching suggests that sinning and going the way of the world is easy now; entering the narrow gate later is not so easy, not unlike a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Still, with God all things are possible. The implications of this teaching are clearly that conduct after one becomes a full-fledged disciple will affect whether one enters into life or the final Dominion or not. One is not eternally secure until one is securely in eternity, and one’s behavior as a disciple affects that final outcome. Throughout this final section of the sermon, the already and the not yet dimensions of the Dominion are presupposed, and they are the ground of the teaching about the new and more demanding righteousness required of Jesus’ followers. The focus in this entire sermon is on the behavior of the believer, what discipleship really ought to look like, in order that one might pass through the narrow gate in the end and so enter into eternal life. The life referred to here must be some sort of life that goes beyond what the disciple was born with or already has, or else the talk about entering it would be nonsensical. As the Gospel progresses, the “way” to the narrow gate becomes increasingly clearly a matter of taking up one’s cross and following the example of Jesus. Bearing Fruit, 7:15-20

In his Homily on Matthew 23, John Chrysostom envisions a false prophet standing before the broad way and beckoning people to enter there, rather than by the narrow gate. This may in fact be the correct connection between what precedes Matthew 7:15-20 and

Matthew 5:1–7:29

161

this text. There are of course many warnings against false prophets in early Christian literature (Mark 13:21-23; 2 Pet 2:1-22; 1 John 4:1-3; cf. Matt 24:4-28), but the question is whom Jesus had in mind if he said this. It is unlikely he has John the Baptist in mind, but the religious leaders of early Judaism—Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees—could well be in view who sought to speak authoritatively on religious matters. The term prophet then would be used more broadly to refer to teachers of religious matters. [A Sapiential Reading of 7:15-23]

The major theme here is that one can judge A Sapiential Reading of 7:15-23 the tree by the fruit it bears. Jesus is honing in, The warning against false prophets prohowever, on a particular kind of false prophet or vides with it a test—if their teaching or false teacher—one who is a ravenous wolf fruit is good, then they also must be good. If on seeking to devour sheep, one who wears sheep’s the other hand what they say bears bad fruit, they themselves are likewise false. The tree is to be clothing but is actually ferocious. He is not judged by the fruit test. Verse 21 does not refer to talking about someone who is merely misguided people who are calling Jesus “savior, savior” but or has some false beliefs or practices. He is do not in fact believe he is such. The contrast is talking about someone who is deliberately not between words and belief. Rather Jesus is trying to mislead. What Jesus counsels is that talking about those who call him good teacher, such people’s true beliefs and character will master, sage, or rabbi in an ingratiating manner but do not do the will of the Father in heaven. eventually be betrayed by or come to light Even if such a person has performed miracles and through their behavior, and then they can be exorcisms using Jesus’ name, if they have not properly evaluated. Notice the eschatological lived a wise life according to godly teaching they conclusion to this teaching. The tree that conwill not enter the Dominion of God. tinues to bear bad fruit will eventually be cut down and destroyed. Notice it does not exhort the disciples to be the lumberjacks. The judgment in view is that of God at the eschaton. The warning here, then, has to do with the disciples being wary of those disseminating false religious information. Those Who Say Lord, Lord, 7:21-23

Let us first say that those who will enter the Dominion of God in the end are not people who have called Jesus “lord” (in this case it probably means respected sir, not Lord in the divine sense), or prophesied using his name, or even those who have performed exorcisms using his name or have done other miracles. The issue is whether they did God’s will or not. Notice that the contrast is not merely between one’s talk and one’s deeds. The ones not admitted to the Dominion have even performed miracles in Jesus’ name! Jesus is now talking about people who use their connection with Jesus, in both their speech and their religious activities, to sway others or create a following, but in fact they are not doing God’s

162

Matthew 5:1–7:29

will in the process. Notice that even supernatural works are not sure signs that one is in right relationship with God, nor is even accurate prophecy—Balaam offered up such prophecies; indeed God prevented him from saying anything false about or against Israel. The issue is doing God’s will, and what this sermon tells us about doing God’s will has more to do with acts of charity and love and self-sacrifice than performing spectacular deeds or making showy confessions that draw attention and people to oneself. Jesus has called his disciples to travel a difficult road, be prepared for persecution, obey Jesus’ teachings, pray and live sincerely, and eventually enter by the narrow gate. “Hence the spectacular things that cannot but promote vanity are far from being unambiguous boons. In no way can they be held up as a testimony to faith. They do not make possible entrance into the kingdom of heaven.”42 The Wise and Foolish Builders, 7:24-29

Our Evangelist has recognized clearly the sapiential quality of Jesus’ teaching, and it is no accident that he concludes the sermon with a parable about wisdom and foolishness, making clear the sort of teaching Jesus has been offering. It is teaching that should be compared to what one finds in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and with the parable of Nathan told to David. It is teaching that subsumes even the Law within the orbit of sapiential instruction and feels free to modify all the source material, even the Law, in order to fit the new eschatological occasion and opportunity. This parable is said to be about hearing and putting into practice the teachings of Jesus. In other words, this parable is appropriately positioned here as it galvanizes the listener into action, since he or she has heard the full sermon. Notice that the imagery suggests the teaching given in this sermon is meant to be foundational, and it stresses how important it is to get the foundation right, but it also stresses that disciples are called to “do” something. [A Sapiential Reading of 7:24-29] Jesus’ sermon is a call to action, in this case to building on the solid rock foundation. This in turn means Jesus is calling his disciples to be like a sage or a scribe, not merely knowing the foundational wisdom teachings of Jesus, but building on them. It is interesting how the teaching of Jesus in this Gospel is somewhat framed by parables about the wise and the foolish here and then at Matthew 25:1-13. It reminds us that Jesus’ concern was with helping his disciples live wisely in light of the eschatological situation. Notice that we are not told that the person who builds on sand has built a different sort of house than the one who built on

Matthew 5:1–7:29 A Sapiential Reading of 7:24-29 The concluding parable makes clear that Jesus has been offering the disciples a solid pedagogical foundation on which to build their lives and ministry. But it is up to them to put his words into practice. Otherwise, they are like the fool described so often in the book of Proverbs who is not the intellectually challenged person, but rather the person who lacks good moral judgment. It is not common sense that Jesus’ wisdom calls us to, but rather a Christian sense that only makes sense in the context of a Christian vision of the world, belief system, and ethical commitments. Matt 7:28 says the crowds were amazed at the teaching because he taught as one who had independent authority, unlike a normal teacher of the Law. Amazement should not be confused with commitment or discipleship, then or now.

rock. The two houses might well appear from a casual glance to be identical. But they differ in the most important regard—the foundation.43 Jesus is not comparing those who have never heard of him or his teaching and those who have. He is comparing two groups of people who have heard his teaching. One acts wisely and builds a life upon Jesus’ teaching. The other acts foolishly by building on some other foundation. Our passage lets us know that faith without works is dead. It lets us know that the essence of discipleship is not just about belief, but also about behavior or ethics; indeed the latter is the ultimate revealer of what one truly believes. The testing of the structure Jesus has in mind is probably the eschatological testing, not unlike what Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Indeed I would suggest that Paul’s teaching there is based on this parable in Matthew 7. But there the issue is the super-structure others are building on the foundation Paul laid, which is Jesus Christ. In both analogies, the super-structure is going to be tested in the future. The sermon ends at 7:28-29 with the amazement of the crowd, but we are not told the reaction of the disciples. What stunned the crowds was that Jesus taught as one having independent authority and not like the teachers of the Law. This is not a surprise since Jesus was a sage, not a scribe of the Torah, and we have seen in this very collection of his teaching how he was capable of drawing on even the Law in a sapiential way and using it with a sapiential agenda in mind. The Sermon on the Mount does not bear witness to Jesus’ giving of a new law; indeed the style and character and exousia (which can mean power or authority or both) of the teaching contrasted him with the expositors of the law. No, Jesus is offering new wisdom, eschatological wisdom, wisdom grounded in his ministry and the new situation, wisdom ultimately grounded in him.

163

164

Matthew 5:1–7:29

CONNECTIONS The Embarrassing Sermon on the Mount

In his profound study on the Sermon on the Mount, C. Bauman has rightly and wryly pointed out how this material has always been an embarrassment to the church if taken in its plain sense. He rightly notes that the Catholic tradition at least allowed that it was a counsel of perfection that at least some Christians should take seriously (namely saints and monks like St. Francis, but it was beyond the scope and ability of ordinary Christians), whereas most Protestant interpretations of the material have trivialized, blunted, or denied the real force and thrust of this material, assuming it represents picturesque Oriental illustrations of much broader, more profound, more universal, more natural, more humane, more responsible, and more Christological principles than that which Jesus himself had in mind. This sophistical comedy perpetuates itself in virtually a thousand commentaries whose function it is to explain by the arts of theological science why the plain words of Jesus mean the opposite of what they say. And this is called interpretation and calls for hermeneutical learning.44

When explaining the text becomes artful attempts to explain it away or explain that it does not say what it means or does not mean what it says, then we are dealing with artful dodging. Part of the problem, without a doubt, is caused by the lack of understanding of Wisdom literature on the part of Christian interpreters, which is to say the lack of understanding of how metaphorical and analogical speech, while not to be taken literally for the most part, is nonetheless in dead earnest and is meant to be taken seriously and lived out by the followers of Jesus. To dismiss the figurative speech as if it did not involve demands and imperatives just because it is seldom literal speech is to misread the character of the discourse. The Magic of Prayer

The customs, practices, postures, and content of prayer tell us a great deal about the piety of a particular person or group of people. Sometimes the derivations of various practices are also revealing. For example, the practice of holding palms together in prayer comes from the medieval practice of a vassal placing his hands

Matthew 5:1–7:29

between the hands of his master in supplication. It then became a symbol of placing one’s affairs in God’s hands. In antiquity the normal posture for prayer was standing, not kneeling, and it involved lifting up one’s hands toward heaven. Notice for example the exhortation in 1 Timothy 2:8. Many statuettes from all over the ancient Near East depict praying figures with hands upraised. It was a common posture in that world, and it was not seen as ostentatious. Recently a friend shared with me this moving and true story. It aptly illustrates some of the main points in the Sermon on the Mount, particularly those made in Matthew 6–7. Back in the fifteenth century, in a tiny village near Nuremberg, lived a family with eighteen children. Eighteen! In order merely to keep food on the table for this mob, the father and head of the household, a goldsmith by profession, worked almost eighteen hours a day at his trade and any other paying chore he could find in the neighborhood. Despite their seemingly hopeless condition, two of the elder children, Albrecht and Albert, had a dream. They both wanted to pursue their talent for art, but they knew full well that their father would never be financially able to send either of them to Nuremberg to study at the academy. After many long discussions at night in their crowded bed, the two boys finally worked out a pact. They would toss a coin. The loser would go down into the nearby mines and, with his earnings, support his brother while he attended the academy. Then, when that brother who won the toss completed his studies, in four years, he would support the other brother at the academy, either with sales of his artwork or, if necessary, also by laboring in the mines. They tossed a coin on a Sunday morning after church. Albrecht Dürer won the toss and went off to Nuremberg. Albert went down into the dangerous mines and, for the next four years, financed his brother, whose work at the academy was almost an immediate sensation. Albrecht’s etchings, his woodcuts, and his oils were far better than those of most of his professors, and by the time he graduated, he was beginning to earn considerable fees for his commissioned works. When the young artist returned to his village, the Dürer family held a festive dinner on their lawn to celebrate Albrecht’s triumphant homecoming. After a long and memorable meal, punctuated with music and laughter, Albrecht rose from his honored position at the head of the table to drink a toast to his beloved brother for the years of sacrifice that had enabled Albrecht to fulfill his ambition. His closing words were, “And now, Albert, blessed brother of mine, now it is your turn. Now you can go to Nuremberg to pursue your dream, and I will take care of you.”

165

166

Matthew 5:1–7:29

All heads turned in eager expectation to the far end of the table where Albert sat, tears streaming down his pale face, shaking his lowered head from side to side while he sobbed and repeated over and over, “No . . . no . . . no . . . no.” Finally, Albert rose and wiped the tears from his cheeks. He glanced down the long table at the faces he loved, and then, holding his hands close to his right cheek, he said softly, “No, brother. I cannot go to Nuremberg. It is too late for me. Look . . . look what four years in the mines have done to my hands! The bones in every finger have been smashed at least once, and lately I have been suffering from arthritis so badly in my right hand that I cannot even hold a glass to return your toast, much less make delicate lines on parchment or canvas with a pen or a brush. No, brother . . . for me it is too late.” More than 450 years have Praying Hands passed. By now, Albrecht Dürer’s Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528). Praying Hands. 1508. Point of brush and black ink, heighthundreds of masterful portraits, ened with white, on blue prepared paper. Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna, pen and silver-point sketches, Austria. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] watercolors, charcoals, woodcuts, and copper engravings hang in every great museum in the world, but the odds are great that you, like most people, are familiar with only one of Albrecht Dürer’s works. More than merely being familiar with it, you very well may have a reproduction hanging in your home or office. One day, to pay homage to Albert for all that he had sacrificed, Albrecht Dürer painstakingly drew his brother’s abused hands with palms together and thin fingers stretched skyward. He called his powerful drawing simply “Hands,” but the entire world almost immediately opened their hearts to his great masterpiece and renamed his tribute of love “The Praying Hands.”

Ritual prayers were not uncommon in antiquity, and the tendency to see prayer, if prayed in a certain way, as something magical that forced the Divine to do something one wanted was

Matthew 5:1–7:29

not uncommon. How a good formula prayer can become treated as some sort of magical device or talisman is shown by Clarke’s comments about the Lord’s Prayer: It was the only prayer allowed, and repeatedly recited by the medieval Bogomils, a heretical sect from the Balkans; and their European counterparts, the Cathars, believed that pronouncing it over their food and drink would transform them into Christ’s body and blood and that they would be damned if they failed to recite it at the point of death. It was considered a powerful defense against witches, and reciting it backward was a standard feature of Black Masses and other satanic rituals.45

Any and all of these users of the prayer could have stood to have heard Calvin’s reminder that the answers to our prayers depend more on God’s power and goodness than on any trust of ours, much less our perfect recital of the prayer.46 On the positive side of the ledger, however, is what profound meditation on the Lord’s Prayer may do. Erasmus for instance said that the “our” in the address “our Father” should have prevented Christians from ever going to war against each other. “How can you call on a common father if you are drawing a sword to thrust in your brother’s vitals?” (The Complaint of Peace 1517). But at the other end of the spectrum is the fact that John Eliot (1604–1690), missionary to the Algonquins, first translated the Lord’s Prayer into their language from the Greek, only to be asked why they should forgive the tribes with which they had been warring, a perfectly reasonable question from a mundane human point of view, which makes clear just how against the normal human grain Jesus’ wisdom was, even in regard to prayer. When I was doing my doctoral work in England, my wife and I lived in the caretaker’s cottage at Elvet Methodist Church. The problem with this cottage is that the right half of the house, which was near the river Wear, had been built on the unbiblical foundation of sand! The end result was that the left half of the house was sinking into the church parking lot. A crack appeared over the threshold just above the front door and began moving up the structure. The bedroom in the upstairs left corner of the house had a sloping floor, moving down to the right because that side of the house was sinking. When my parents came to stay with us, my father got in bed one night and slid right off the bed, falling onto the floor on the other side. This was partly because of the slick nylon sheets, but it was even more because of the slope of the floor in the room. The church in its wisdom decided that the best way to

167

168

Matthew 5:1–7:29

deal with the problem was to put a brace up against the right wall of the building, to prevent it from sinking further into the parking lot and finally falling apart. Notice that they did not attempt to shore up the foundation! This story reminds me again and again of the parable that ends the Sermon on the Mount. If you don’t get the foundation right, eventually the structure will go wrong and be destroyed. The foundation is clearly enough the teaching of Jesus, and of course Jesus himself. Building on any other foundation is a dangerous business. It is well to stress that Jesus is telling his disciples that discipleship is indeed about doing. It is not merely about saying “lord, lord” or even about doing spectacular miracles. It is about modeling the wise character of Christ and behaving in a way that is consistent with what one believes. On Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount

There are at least four historical contexts in which this material should be viewed: (1) it must be seen as part of the ministry of Jesus and his dialogues and the controversies and instructions that arose out of that ministry; (2) in view of (1), it must be seen in light of the major thrusts of Jesus message, in particular what he had to say about the Dominion of God and more broadly about eschatology; (3) it must be compared to Jesus’ other practical wisdom utterances to understand its character and function; (4) it must be considered in light of the situation the Evangelist is addressing, as he is the one in all likelihood who assembled this material as we have it here. Notice that Luke’s somewhat comparable Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6) involves much less material and often material with alternate readings of some sayings (e.g., “blessed are the poor” instead of “blessed are the poor in spirit”). The older, mainly Lutheran engendered way of discussing this material is neatly summed up in J. Jeremias’s little essay where he points out that this material has indeed often been seen as an example of Jesus laying down a new law, like the Old Testament Law, which is seen as having the function of driving the hearer to Christ with cries for mercy, since it refers to an unattainable goal (1ff.). There are numerous problems with this conclusion, not the least of which is that this very material says the Law will not pass away until all is fulfilled. If it can never be perfectly obeyed or fulfilled by humans, what then? Also, this same “sermon” stresses that unless your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the eschatological Dominion of God. These remarks cannot be ignored. Indeed, they must be given their due.

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Another popular view is that this material was intended as a goal or ideal, not a norm. In other words, it was something to strive for, not something that could be imposed or always expected to be lived up to. Yet this approach also has problems because Jesus seems to be saying that he does expect a higher standard of rectitude and obedience of his followers than the Pharisees and scribes demand and strive to achieve. The problem with both the new Law and the ideal views is that they ignore that these words are given in light of the new eschatological situation Jesus has inaugurated through his ministry. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see this material as an extension of the Mosaic Law. In character it is more like wisdom material, and in content it presupposes a new eschatological situation that was not the case under Moses. It was Jeremias who argued that this material should be seen as Gospel, not Law, and while I would agree that this material teases out some implications of how the disciple should live in light of the truth of the good news, it is not Gospel itself, in the sense of the generative narrative about Jesus or what one would announce to or impose upon the lost. Rather we have implications and practical applications of the fact that God’s saving reign has broken into the human situation and has changed the level and character of theological and ethical discourse. Here we have the cost of discipleship for one who has already taken up his cross and is following Jesus. Jeremias seems to allow for these considerations when he speaks about every word of this sermon being preceded by the preaching of the kingdom, Jesus’ deeds, and the granting of sonship to his disciples.47 Notice that this material is addressed to the disciples (Matt 5:1-2) though it is overheard by the crowd. Wesley adds a helpful frame of reference when he points out that all God’s commandments are in fact covered promises, by which is meant that God’s Spirit can and will enable a person to obey and be faithful in the ways described. I quite agree with C. Bauman when he urged that both Catholics and Protestants have been guilty of reacting to this material in such a way as to insist that “either Jesus did not mean what he said or he did not say what he meant or . . . that what he says applies to a different time than now or in a different way than then.”48 He goes on to rightly add It is commonly assumed that Jesus’ ethic was too high to be woven into the fabric of life in this world, that his teaching was too lofty for ordinary people in usual circumstances, and that his demands are therefore intended essentially for the original disciples transfigured by the divine aura of their Master, for metamorphosed

169

170

Matthew 5:1–7:29 believers elevated into an otherworldly existence, and possibly for beatified monks reposing in celestial bliss on holy mountains. . . . [But] judging from its content, we conclude that the Sermon on the Mount is evidently not addressed to the best of all possible worlds . . . but rather to a world in which there were very deep personal and spiritual needs. The words of Jesus address a world: where there is unreconciled anger and litigation, adultery and divorce, where speech has lost its integrity, where there is persecution and retaliation, where coats are stolen and cheeks are slapped, where hatred of enemies is sanctioned, where hypocrisy parades in the guise of piety, where people trespass against each other and against God, where thieves break in and steal, and where there is danger of the whole body being full of darkness, where people are preoccupied with material cares and are anxious about the future, where they condemn each other and profane what is holy, and where the majority are on the way to destruction. Surely it is unrealistic to assume that the Sermon on the Mount applies only to an otherworldly apocalyptic or monastic ideal where these conditions presumably don’t apply.49

The point is that Jesus’ words are meant to address situations disciples do and shall face in this life, not in the next, and it is a failure of nerve to deny this fact. Bauman is also correct that most interpretations have tried too hard to restrict the scope of the material’s meaning, qualify the sense of its validity, or limit the context of its relevance.50 This is a helpful observation about the human tendency to try and whittle off the hard edges of Jesus’ teaching, especially this teaching in Matt 5–7. But it must also be said that the advice given by Jesus does presuppose the new eschatological situation and the grace available in it. Here perhaps is the place to say something about A. Schweitzer’s view that this is some sort of interim ethic, an ethic in extremis and with great rigor, because it was believed the end of human history was imminent. In other words, these are the marching orders for the troops in the shadow of the eschaton. But of course Schweitzer believed Jesus was wrong in his eschatology, indeed that Jesus realized he was wrong when the Dominion didn’t quite show up as expected, and therefore Jesus chose to go up to Jerusalem and try to throw himself on the wheel of history and force the in-breaking of the End. I have shown elsewhere the major problems with Schweitzer’s eschatological analysis of Jesus (see my Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World [Downers Grove: Intervarsity Varsity Press, 1992]; and in regard to some of the particulars of Schweitzer’s analysis of Paul, see my Paul’s Narrative Thought World [Louisville: Westminster John

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Knox, 1994]), not the least of which is it does not adequately come to grips with a text such as Mark 13:32 in our earliest Gospel where Jesus says point blank that even God’s Son doesn’t know the timing of the end, in particular of the second coming, which is seen as the great trigger event for the final scenario. Furthermore, one must reckon with the fact that the material in Matt 5–7 was written into this Gospel some forty to fifty years after the death of Jesus when a full generation had come and gone, and so the Evangelist himself must not believe it to be final instructions for the final hours of history. It is, however, wisdom for the beginning of the eschatological age when hopes are high that the consummation will not be long, though the timing is unknown. As R. Guelich rightly stresses, this is material that takes seriously both the already and the not yet of the Dominion and the fact that disciples are in medius res. Disciples would not need such instructions if they were already all they ought to be, but by the same token, they could not endure or even approximate such instructions if they were not already on their way to being mature followers of Christ, imitating his example. This is, as Matt 5:1-2 makes clear, an ethic for disciples, but one also that the world of interested parties should be overhearers of, or at least hear about. This means it is not wisdom for a private club, rather for Jesus’ followers, and since anyone is potentially such a follower the world is meant to overhear this and learn what they are getting themselves in for. It goes without saying that this is not a wisdom meant to be imposed on a world that is not even open to such material yet. It is a yoke one takes upon one’s own self freely and willingly, as Jesus will later suggest in this very Gospel.

171

172

Matthew 5:1–7:29

Notes 1 Furthermore,

it is an aural text. See B. B. Scott and M. E. Dean, “A Sound Map of the Sermon on the Mount,” in Treasures New and Old, 311-78. 2 C. Bauman, Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for Its Meaning (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1985), 62. 3 It is of course possible, and indeed likely, that Jesus used some of this material on more than one occasion, but the fact that both Luke and the First Evangelist follow the same order of material and have word-for-word agreement in some places and vary in others favors the view that they are both drawing on an original Q source. 4 See, e.g., the material on Solomon knowing the right words for an exorcism. 5 J. Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970),23. 6 R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 1982), 38. 7 The Beatitudes continued to be popular in early Christianity long after the first century. For example, from the papyri we have P. Coll. Youtie 6, which has a collection of several beatitudes, including Matt 5:6, which may originally have been in an amulet or been part of a Christian letter. 8 See Guelich, 45ff. 9 See pp. 43-50 above. 10 This is probably the Greek word from which the English term “moron” derives. 11 See R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), 112, and his references. 12 See pp. 411-15 below. 13 D. C. Allison, The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 59. 14 Ibid., 61. 15 Contrast Horace, Epistle 1.2.62, who says anger is a short form of madness. 16 Interestingly, the First Evangelist omits these references to Jesus’ anger, as he does with other emotions of Jesus that Mark mentions. 17 D. C. Allison, 70. 18 New Docs 9, 61. 19 See the detailed discussion in B. Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 19-21 and the notes. 20 See J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament, v. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 431. 21 Ibid., 25-26. 22 See pp. 363-69 below. 23 See pp. 364-70 below. 24 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, v. 1 (ICC; T & T Clark International, 2004), 535. 25 See D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 56.. 26 See the discussion in D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 139. 27 See New Docs 5, 21. 28 See pp. 16-30 above. 29 See my and Laura Ice’s treatment of this in The Shadow of the Almighty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 30 On which see the still useful older study by C. F. Burney, The Poetry of our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925). 31 See Shadow of the Almighty, 19-50. 32 See pp. 357-60 below.

Matthew 5:1–7:29 33 On

this subject see D. Hagner, 153-55. G. Bornkamm, “The Authority of Bind and Loose in the Church in Matthew’s Gospel,” in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. N. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 85-97. 35 It is hard to believe, if this Gospel is mainly addressed to Gentiles, that these sorts of remarks would be retained in this Gospel, but quite understandable if this is written to Jewish Christians in a Jewish setting. 36 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1948), 56. 37 D. C. Allison, 153. 38 Ibid. 39 H.D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 507. 40 D. C. Allison, 156. 41 Here is another good example of when it is wrong to assume Luke is more likely to give the more primitive version of a Q saying than Matthew. To the contrary, as a rule of thumb, it is more likely to be the reverse, though not always so. 42 D. C. Allison, 169. 43 Ibid., 171. 44 Bauman, 419-20. 45 H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 83. 46 On all of this see the discussion in Clarke, 83-87. 47 J. Jeremias, 30. 48 C. Bauman, 417-18. 49 Ibid., 409. 50 Ibid., 417. 34 See

173

Copious Miracles and Costly Discipleship Matthew 8:1–9:38 Though the material in Matthew 8–9 is largely a collection of miracle stories (ten of them in these two chapters), we do have interspersed a brief paragraph about the cost of discipleship and how a teacher of the Law was not prepared to pay it (8:18-22), whereas a tax collector was prepared to pay it (9:9-13—namely Matthew), and the unit ends with the lament of Jesus that the harvest is abundant but the workers few (9:35-38). Miracles then are related to discipleship and the profession of faith in Jesus (see, e.g., 8:5-13). The summary passage in 9:35-36 signals the end of the section, and 9:37-38 provides the transition to the next major segment, which involves the sending out of the Twelve on their first missionary venture. It is important to bear in mind that up to Matthew 8, there has only been a summary about Jesus’ miracles (4:23-25); here we begin to hear the stories themselves. [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 8–9] [Jews and Gentiles at the Margins]

General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 8–9 These two chapters are largely about healings of various sorts, as the Evangelist continues to cluster topics together (a block of teaching material followed by a block of narrative again and again). For reasons that are not completely clear, the calling of Matthew is found in the middle of this section. Matthew is portrayed as a toll collector, with scribal skills, and so he would have been a logical person to have partial responsibility for writing down some of the traditions found in this Gospel. Jews of Jesus’ era associated Solomon, son of David, with miracles, particularly with cures and exorcisms. Josephus the Jewish historian writes (Ant. 8.45), “God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons. . . . He also composed incantations by which illnesses were relieved.” Solomon was believed to have learned medicinal recipes as part of the wisdom God granted him (8.46-47). In fact, Solomon’s name would be recited with the incantations as a way of affecting a cure. These ideas about Solomon are also found at Qumran and in other early Jewish literature, and they help us see that Jesus continues to be portrayed as a sage wiser than Solomon in Matt 8–9 as these miracles are recounted. It is no accident that once we are beyond the birth narratives, every time the phrase “Son of David” is applied to Jesus it arises in a context where there is a request for healing (cf. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31). This is understandable in light of the association of Solomon with healing and cures. It is also the case that this connection of Jesus to Solomon is a special interest of the First Evangelist, for the phrase “Son of David” is only found once in his Markan source (Mark 10:46-47). Jesus, like Solomon, is a healer and exorcist, therefore he is appealed to using the Solomonic label “Son of David” (see Matt 15:22).

176

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Jews and Gentiles at the Margins One of the most important factors in understanding Matt 8–9 is recognizing that Jesus is dealing with both Jews and Gentiles who are at the margins or fringes of Jewish society in these stories. A.-J. Levine aptly sums this up: Jesus now encounters individual Jews and gentiles, rulers and pariahs, men and women, all with distinct needs and distinct responses to his message. By focusing particularly on the interaction between Jesus and those who are outcasts of or marginal participants in the Jewish cultic establishment—lepers (8:1-4), women (8:14-15), demoniacs (8:16, 28-34; 9:32), tax collectors (9:9-13), sinners (9:11-13), the cultically impure (9:20-22) and the very marginal and impure, the dead (9:23-26)—the section exposes an interest in the social rather than the ethnic divisions. The centurion’s gentile background and thereby his peripheral relation to the various forms of institutionalized Judaism is continuous with rather than antithetical to the majority of Jews whom Jesus encounters. A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions in Matthean Salvation History, (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988), 109-10.

The First Evangelist’s penchant for grouping things together topically and in blocks (either teaching material or largely miracle material) is in evidence here, but it should be noted that the miracle tales serve pedagogical purposes. They are not told for their own sakes, but rather to enhance or inculcate discipleship. This is not surprising in a sapiential piece of Jewish literature, for such literature is relentlessly ethical and pedagogical in character, seeking to teach lessons including by using narratives of activities. But our author is far from the first Jewish writer to tell a story of salvation history involving miracles from a sapiential point of view. In the Wisdom of Solomon, the writer tells the story of Moses the miracle worker and the crossing of the Red Sea from a sapiential point of view. [Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-21] There was, then, precedent for the kind of sapiential viewing of the life of a servant of God who was a miracle worker, such as we find here. However, the difference in perspective in the two treat-

Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-21 15 A holy people and blameless race wisdom delivered from a nation of oppressors. 16 She entered the soul of a servant of the Lord, and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs. 17 She gave holy men the reward of their labors; she guided them along a marvelous way, and became a shelter to them by day, and a starry flame through the night. 18 She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through deep waters; 19 but she drowned their enemies, and cast them up from the depth of the sea. 20 Therefore the righteous plundered the ungodly; they sang hymns, O Lord, to thy holy name, and praised with one accord thy defending hand, 21 because wisdom opened the mouth of the dumb, and made the tongues of babes speak clearly.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

ments is telling. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom is treated as a personified divine power of sorts, guiding biblical history, whereas in the First Gospel, Wisdom is a person, namely Jesus, and so becomes the center of the story. Thus Wisdom in this Gospel does not stand above or behind the drama but is in the drama of the Gospel, and as Matthew 11:19 tells us, Jesus/Wisdom is justified by his actions.

COMMENTARY The Man with the Dreaded Skin Disease, 8:1-4

The first miracle story is an abbreviation of the account found in Mark 1:40-45, and it is not a surprise that the first miracle is about the healing of a Jew, whereas the second one involves a Gentile. [A Sapiential Reading of 8:1-4]

In v. 2 the First Evangelist uses his signal word “behold,” indicating something special is about to happen. There is an issue of translation here with the word kyrie. If one takes the act of prostration before Jesus as a sign the man is worshiping Jesus, then kyrie might mean Lord in some sort of exalted sense. But this action was, in that culture, often a gesture of homage and respect (see T. Ab. 34, 9, 16A), something far short of worshiping the person to whom the act was directed. This leper (if he was such) has come to the conclusion that Jesus could heal him if he would. The implication is that he has seen or heard of Jesus’ previous miracles, even though in the narrative outline the First Evangelist has not recounted any such stories, only mentioning the fact in passing in Matthew 4. The statement of faith is as follows: “if you want to, sir, you are able to cure me.” [Matthean Editing] [Hanson’s Disease] A Sapiential Reading of 8:1-4 Jesus heals a man with a dreaded skin disease. Notice that Jesus reaches out and touches the man in order to heal him. Being unclean in a culture that focused on ritual impurity made one an outcast, literally an untouchable. Jesus believed that since the Dominion of God was breaking in, issues of ritual impurity were moot, and such restrictions should no longer be maintained. Jesus will advocate that only moral impurity defiles a person. This too shows Jesus was one greater than Moses, who could even indicate when the Law of Moses had been superceded. Notice that the man is allowed to participate in his own healing, and he knows Jesus has a choice about whether he will heal him or not. The man was to go and show himself to the priest so he could be reintegrated into the community, but Jesus saw no need to do this himself as he did not believe he had been defiled by touching the man.

177

178

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Matthean Editing It is interesting to note what the First Evangelist leaves out of the account, as it reflects the general pattern of Matthean editing: (1) the phrase “being moved with compassion” (Mark 1:41) is omitted; (2) “very sternly warning him” (Mark 1:43) is likewise deleted, as the First Evangelist plays down the emotions of Jesus; (3) “for your purification” (Mark 1:44) is omitted, perhaps as Hagner says because our Evangelist wants to emphasize that it is Jesus who made this man clean; and (4) the consequences of the healing for Jesus are omitted, namely when the man goes out and disobeys Jesus’ command to keep silent, it leads to a situation where Jesus can no longer afford to go out in public lest he be thronged by miracle-seeking crowds (Mark 1:45). These editorial changes do not reflect an editor merely cramped for space, but rather one who has his own agendas as to how he wants to present these stories. One of the things at play here is trying to remove some of the ambiguities from the story, and another is trying to downplay Jesus’ emotions and the rather hysterical frenzy of excitement his miracles stirred up, as the author wants Jesus to appear to be the quintessential sage, always making wise, sensible decisions and in control of his emotions, always able to teach and try and get his wisdom across. Notice this story is prefaced with a remark about how large the crowds were that had just heard Jesus’ teaching. D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 197.

Hanson’s Disease Though there has long been a debate as to whether Hanson’s disease, which we call leprosy, even existed in the first century AD, in 2004 there was a national news report that evidence of the disease from medical archaeological research has come to light. (See the earlier treatment of this view by J. Zias, “Lust and Leprosy: Confusion or Correlation,” BASOR 275 [1989]: 27-31.) Any dreaded skin disease was, however, problematic in Jewish culture because, besides the illness itself, the condition made one ritually unclean and one was then to go around shouting “unclean, unclean” to warn others to stay away (Lev 14:45-46). Both Lev 13:45-46 and Josephus, Ant. 9.74, indicate that such people were quarantined and kept away from normal society. The horrible stigmatization and isolation this produced for a Jew can only be imagined. One became an “untouchable.” Compounding the problem was that this disease was incurable and resulted in the end in death. Thus 2 Kgs 5:7 attests to its incurable nature, short of a miracle, and Num 12:12 (cf. B.T. Ned. 64b) attests to the fact that someone who contracted the disease was regarded as being as good as dead.

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Jesus Healing the Leper Byzantine (476–1453). Jesus healing the leper. Mosaic in the narthex. 14th C. Location: Hora Church (Kariye Camii), Istanbul, Turkey. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

Matthew 8:1–9:38

What is especially remarkable about this story in its original context is, of course, the curing of the incurably diseased man, but almost equally remarkable is the way Jesus chose to heal him—by reaching out his hand to him, touching the man (thereby violating Levitical law—Lev 5:3), and telling the man that he does want to make the man whole. Notice that the cure comes not from or by the touch of Jesus, but when he says “be whole.” The instant Jesus said those words, the man was cleansed of his leprosy. The man had been brave to come out of quarantine and risk public contact, and he had faith that Jesus could heal him. Jesus positively responded to his courage and faith. Verse 4 provides us with the first “don’t tell” request by Jesus in this Gospel, to be found also in other stories in 9:30, 12:16, 16:20, and 17:9. Jesus wishes to avoid the wrong sort of acclaim and popularity and wishes to avoid inflaming the wrong sort of messianic expectations and ideas. Jesus wanted his cures to be acts of compassion, not spectacles meant to wow people into God’s Dominion. We are not in fact told that any of the crowd witnessed this event, as their reaction is not recorded. Notice that Jesus tells the man to go show himself to the priest and follow the requirements for the cleansing of such a person found in Leviticus 13–14 (see especially Lev 14:57; cf. Luke 17:14). Now this command presents us with a conundrum. Jesus himself doesn’t follow the rule about not touching a leper, but he tells the former leper to go and follow the rules for the cleansing of a leper. Why? Jesus was obviously concerned that this outcast be integrated back into the life of his own village or town, and the way to do that was to have his cure validated by the priest and perform the necessary requirements of the Law in regard to cleansing, which included the offering of a sacrifice. This man was not joining Jesus’ entourage; he was reentering everyday life in a Jewish village. Jesus’ command had to do with the man going back to living in his world, not joining the Jesus movement. Jesus himself either did not deem the man unclean, did not deem the man’s touch defiling, did not mind becoming unclean for a time, or didn’t even mind the danger of contracting a deadly and contagious disease, so great was his compassion for the ill. Or perhaps he didn’t really believe the laws of clean and unclean applied anymore, at least in his context. There are various possibilities. What makes the best sense to me, especially in light of the fact that Jesus touches many unclean people, including the dead on occasion—and we have no record of him ever personally going through any kind of ritual of purification—is that Jesus believed

179

180

Matthew 8:1–9:38

that with the Dominion coming, the rules of clean and unclean no longer applied to those Jews prepared to live in his world, live in the light of the new eschatological thing God was doing, which eclipsed the old in various ways. Sages were famous for seeing things in a new and creative light, and Jesus was such a sage. I, thus, disagree with the interpretation of the final phrase “for a witness to them” that suggests Jesus sent the man to the priest so the priest would know Jesus was a lawabiding Jew. No, the witness has entirely to do with the man’s wellness, so the priest could attest to the fact before the community, and the man would be accepted back into the community. Jesus does not want the man to tell the priest or others about him, only to provide the ocular proof that the man is well.1 Jesus does not care to get the credit; he only cares that the man got the cure and was reunited with “them”—his people, those of his community.2 A Gentile’s Great Faith, 8:5-13

The story of the curing of a Gentile centurion’s servant is longer than the story of the healing of the leper, and it provides the first occasion where Jesus praises someone for having great faith, someone who is not a disciple of Jesus.3 This stands in marked contrast to the way the disciples themselves are more than once characterized as oligopistoi, those of little faith. Indeed, Jesus even says he has not found such great faith anywhere in Israel thus far. This story is set in Jesus’ base of operations—Capernaum, a seaside town near the border with Gentile territory, and in an area where one might expect to find some Roman presence for security reasons even though it was officially Herod’s territory. [A Sapiential Reading of 8:5-17] [Disputed Borders]

A Sapiential Reading of 8:5-17 This may be a story about the healing of a Gentile centurion’s servant, but it is also possible that this man was a Semite of some sort (for example, an Edomite) since most Roman troops in the region were locally enlisted people. In any case, this man is one of two figures who are said to have great faith in Matthew’s Gospel, in contrast to the disciples who are regularly castigated for their little faith. The centurion, it is implied in v. 11, will sit at the eschatological table with the patriarchs while some Jews will lose their dinner invitations. The theme of reversal is a common one in the Jesus tradition, and it shows Jesus’ wisdom was of a counter-order sort. By contrast, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law is only mentioned in passing. It is interesting that Isa 53:4 is said to be fulfilled by Jesus’ healings, making Jesus not only a figure like Solomon, but the ultimate Isaianic kingly figure—the suffering Servant who carried the diseases of his people and bore their infirmities.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

181

Disputed Borders Romans, even when they allowed client kings to rule a region, did keep tabs on how things were going, and they maintained some presence and occasionally some troops in a volatile area, even though they were not engaging in direct rule in a place like Galilee. The presence of a centurion in such a border region within the empire is in no way surprising. Borders were always problematic and often disputed.

In terms of the Matthean outline, this story and the one found in Matthew 15:21-28 are important, for they show that Jesus, while he did not initiate a ministry to Gentiles during his earthly ministry, was willing to help Gentiles if they came to him. Notice, however, that both of these stories involve healing and help from a distance. The emphasis in Matthew on Jesus being sent only to the lost sheep of Israel is neither compromised nor changed by these stories, as they do not constitute Jesus seeking out non-Jews. The Gentile mission does not begin until after Easter, and even Matthew 28 could be subject to the interpretation that what was meant by the Great Commission was going to the Diaspora and converting Jews who lived in all the nations.4 This is the only miracle story in Matthew that is not also found in Mark. It is a story of various kinds of reversal, as are so many of the stories about Jesus. We have a Roman authority figure submitting to a Jewish healer’s authority and power, we have a Gentile submitting to a Jew, and we hear that some of those we might expect to be in the Dominion will be out, Jesus and the Centurion Paolo Veronese (1528–1588). Jesus and the Centurion. Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. and some of those expected to be [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] out (e.g., hated Roman Gentiles) will be in.5 Reversals are, however, the order of the day as the Dominion comes—the least, last, and lost become the first, most, and found. Gentiles, women, slaves, unclean Jews, and the sick are all redeemable, and some are redeemed as Jesus brings in the Dominion, the divine saving reign of God. A few things should be said about the centurion. Firstly, it is possible he came some distance to get Jesus’ help. There was at least one legion in Syria in Jesus’ day, and so he may have come from there; but since Capernaum was near the border and on a trade

182

Matthew 8:1–9:38 The Roman Army A legion had ten cohorts, and each of the cohorts had six “centuries” and so had six centurions commanding them. Normally such soldiers served for twenty years in the army, but they could not join in the first place unless they were Roman citizens, who would become knights or members of the equestrian class upon retirement from the military. When they mustered out, they would normally be given land somewhere as a sort of pension. Part of the required practices of such soldiers was participating in pagan religious rites, specifically worshiping the patron deity or deities of the legion, and also participating in emperor worship. For this reason, neither observant Jews nor later Christians were able to be full participants in the Roman army.

route, it is not improbable that Romans were stationed nearby to maintain order at the border. [The Roman Army] Centurions were, in the normal course of affairs, the face of the Roman military that ordinary people, including Jews, would tend to run into or have to deal with (see CIJ 2.132, no. 920). Centurions who worked in the provinces would need to be able to speak Greek, and it is probable this centurion’s conversation with Jesus was in Greek.6 What one needs to remember is that the animus against the Romans was high in Jesus’ day in Galilee, but it was even higher by the time the First Evangelist wrote his Gospel there, after the Jewish War, which included various battles and skirmishes in Galilee in the 60s, and in the wake of the destruction of the temple by Romans in AD 70. There was surely no love for Romans when the First Evangelist wrote to his Jewish Christian community in Galilee. The retention of this story, also found in Luke 7:1-10,7 is striking in such a situation, as it shows that Jesus, while focusing on his own people, nevertheless is prepared to help others and does not harbor the same prejudices as many of his contemporaries and fellow Galileans. We have already seen in Matthew 5:41 how Jesus counsels not to resist even an unfair request from such a soldier, and he would go on to counsel paying taxes to a Roman state (22:21). Jesus was certainly no zealot, and even Pais his kindness to a Roman centurion would be The Greek term pais here could be considered offensive to many Jews, never mind translated “son,” but in the twenty-four uses of this term in the New Testament, it always his teaching on taxes. means “servant” (with one probable exception), The centurion appears to be a man of some and in any case the First Evangelist consistently means, for v. 6 indicates he is asking for help for uses huios for son. his servant. [Pais] What needs to be stressed is that Roman soldiers were not allowed to have legal families while they were in the service, but they were allowed to have servants. Thus, this slave was likely the only family the centurion had, and clearly he valued him highly or he would not have come and humbled himself before a Jew like Jesus.8 The request the

Matthew 8:1–9:38

centurion makes is oblique. He simply states that his servant is paralyzed and suffering greatly, apparently the victim of some terrible accident. Notice that Jesus offers to come and heal the man,9 but the centurion views Jesus as some sort of holy man whom he does not deserve to have come under his own roof. [Purity Rules] [Romans and Anti-Semitism]

183

Purity Rules Here again we see that Jesus did not seem to think he needed to strictly observe the Jewish rules about ritual purity. A Gentile’s house would certainly be considered unclean by Jews (cf. Acts 10:28-30), not least because Gentiles didn’t observe Jewish purity rules, but also because Jews believed Gentiles sometimes buried their dead in or under their homes or kept their ashes in the house. There was some truth to this belief, especially for Romans who kept a traditional altar in the home as well as a “closet” with the death masks and perhaps even some of the ashes of their ancestors.

The centurion protests that he is not worthy to have Jesus come to his abode, and he draws the military analogy with the concept of chain of command. If Jesus will but give the word as a trustworthy man, the centurion trusts that what Jesus says will come to pass. The centurion is a Romans and Anti-Semitism man under authority and a man of authority, One of the things to bear in mind about and he is used to being commanded and trusted Romans is that while they were often and also used to commanding and trusting anti-Semitic, it is also true that they believed things will turn out as he has said. Jesus need various people from the eastern portion of the only give the word, and the centurion trusts it empire, particularly Egypt and Israel, had will be done. He calls Jesus kyrie, at the very prophetic and miraculous powers. Sometimes they were even enamored with eastern holy men, least a term of respect meaning “honored sir” as is shown by the reaction of Vespasian (as he here, and he recognizes Jesus has exousia power was about to punish or even execute Josephus) and authority beyond his own, at least in this to Josephus’s prophecy in Galilee that Vespasian particular matter of healing someone. would be emperor before long, fulfilling the According to v. 10, Jesus is astonished or prophecy that one who came forth from Judea amazed. Notice that Jesus directs this remark to would rule the empire (fulfilling Dan 7, apparently!). This resulted in Josephus being set up for those following him, as an implicit criticism of life in Rome in a comfortable place, where he their lack of faith. While the faith of the centuwrote his memoirs. There was, thus, respect by rion amounts to a profound trust in Jesus’ Romans for someone like Jesus with a reputation ability to heal, not a full-fledged belief in Jesus as a sage and miracle worker. as messiah or the like, nonetheless this sort of absolute trust in Jesus that manifests itself in action Jesus finds astounding, and indeed it is unparalleled up to that point in Jesus’ ministry in Israel. [An Active Faith] Jesus has thus far not even found a Jewish person with that much trust in him. An Active Faith Regarding the centurion’s active faith, see A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988): Matthew’s definition of faith goes beyond the belief that Jesus can work miracles, and it implies more than group membership (7:21) and adherence to certain rituals. It is a trust which is manifested in action. This faith is the reason for Jesus’ willingness to perform miracles on behalf of gentiles (cf. 15:21-28) and it is the means by which gentiles will gain access to the privileges now held only by the Jews. (115)

184

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Verse 13 records that the man is commanded by Jesus to return to his home and he will find the healing done just as he believed it could be, and there is the confirmation that the servant was healed at that very hour. This story, however, has been set up to leave us with a remarkable pronouncement of Jesus, and so we are meant to see it as a pronouncement story, which may be why it was preserved in Q, the Evangelist’s source here.10 Verses 11-12 involve a saying (cf. Luke 13:28-29) also addressed to Jesus’ followers, which contrasts many from the east and the west coming to the messianic banquet with the “sons” of the Dominion who will be displaced by those coming from these far places.11 The phrase “dominion of heaven” is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth used, but here it becomes abundantly clear that This description of the fate of the “sons” this Dominion is on earth as it involves earthly of the dominion comports with other travelers coming to it, and it involves an earthly early Jewish descriptions of damnation (cf. 13:42; feast with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and 22:13; 25:30; 1 En. 10:4-6; 62:11; 63:6, 11; 2 En. 25:4-5; Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:10). Weeping and Jacob, who have arisen from the dead.12 The gnashing of teeth are this Evangelist’s most used “sons” of the Dominion, which must surely refer phrase for damnation (cf. 13:42, 50; 22:13; to some Jews here, will not merely be excluded 24:51; 25:30). The weeping is a sign of mourning from the feast; they will be cast out into utter and the gnashing of teeth consternation at the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of way things have turned out. In regard to this teeth. [Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth] saying, Keener stresses, “The damnation of those who thought themselves destined for the What it also showed is that Jesus, who surely kingdom sounded a sober warning to nationalist taught this saying to his own disciples, believed Jews of Matthew’s [and Jesus’] day, just as it that how one believed and behaved after one would sound a warning to complacent Christians was part of the chosen people would be part of today.” what determined whether one would enter the C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Dominion of God in the end or not. In its Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 269. present setting, while this saying might not rule out a reference to Diaspora Jews, it seems more likely that we have a clear contrast between Gentile inclusion and the exclusion of some Jews, presumably those in Israel who did not have such trust or faith in Jesus. There was, in any case, precedent in the prophets (Isa 56:3-8; cf. Isa 25:2-8) for the idea of Gentile inclusion at the eschaton. Equally important is the observation of France, who notes that if Jews dined with Gentiles there was the issue of ritual defilement from the food unless the meal was Kosher, and even if the meal was Kosher, the Gentiles themselves, unless they did ritual purification, would be considered unclean. This provides another indirect piece of evidence that Jesus does not believe that in the kingdom, or even in his circle of followers where the Dominion is coming, there will or should be issues of ritual purity anymore.13

Matthew 8:1–9:38 The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law, 8:14-17

It is interesting that the one healing miracle where Jesus takes the initiative is the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. This is also the only story about Jesus helping a member of the family of one of his disciples. Jesus sees that she is lying in bed with a fever and takes action, touching her. Immediately the fever leaves her. This is a story the Evangelist found in his Markan source, and as usual he abbreviates the story. For example, he leaves out Mark’s opening phrase “immediately coming from the synagogue,” and he chooses to use the name “Peter” rather than Mark’s “Simon.” The names of the other male disciples are deleted, leaving the focus squarely on Jesus,14 and the report of the situation is omitted as well. Finally Peter’s mother-in-law is said to minister to Jesus once she gets up from her sick bed, whereas Mark’s account has her ministering to “them.” This terse narrative reminds us that Peter was married (see 1 Cor 9:5), and it also reminds us that “fever” in the ancient world was seen as a disease itself, not merely a symptom of a disease. If indeed Jesus’ headquarters in Capernaum was Peter’s house, it is understandable why Jesus, already a part of that household, might take the initiative to heal Peter’s wife’s mother. He already knew her and had a relationship with her. The verb diakoneø used of the woman’s response refers to various kinds of practical service including providing food. Since the essence of discipleship will be said to be service, this woman is being portrayed as one who responded to Jesus appropriately and positively as a disciple.15 This pithy story is typical of the sort of short anecdotes one finds in ancient biographies from this period. The basic typical structure of a miracle tale (report of illness, curing of the disease, evidence of the cure in the response of the healed) is preserved, but the focus is clearly on Jesus’ action and how this produced service to and of him. The importance of the fact that Jesus is touching a woman to whom he is not related and that she is responding to him in service should not be overlooked. Jesus was probably the first Jewish sage to have women as some of his followers.16 Notice finally that the First Evangelist leaves out the fact that Mark stresses—this healing happened on the Sabbath. This is perhaps to avoid portraying Jesus as one who violated the Sabbath, but more likely it conveys to us the fact that the focus is on Jesus the person and his acts of compassion, rather than emphasizing the story as a part of the ongoing Sabbath controversy Jesus stirred up. Appended to this story is the account in vv. 16-17 of many demon-possessed people being brought to Jesus for exorcism, and it

185

186

Matthew 8:1–9:38

is implied that people with ordinary illnesses also were brought to him. We are told that Jesus drove out the “spirits” with a word. Demons were not viewed as fallen angels, but rather some sort of lesser evil spirit, sometimes called an unclean spirit (see, e.g., Mark). They were viewed as personal entities capable of responding to commands, such as Jesus’ command that they leave someone. It is interesting that once again in v. 17 the First Evangelist shows his interest in stressing that Jesus’ deeds, even the controversial ones, were a part of Scripture fulfillment, in this case of Isaiah 53:4. There can be little doubt that Jesus was viewed by various early Christians as the Servant of Isaiah 40–55, and the First Evangelist was one of them (cf. Matt 26:28; 27:12; 27:38), though he does not make as much out of this as some others were to do.17 Here he quotes a small portion of the most key of the Servant Songs, Isaiah 53,and reminds us that in performing such miracles Jesus was living out what was prophesied about the Servant in that passage. Teacher Conference, 8:18-22

Verse 18 prepares the hearer/reader for what is to follow in vv. 2327, indicating that Jesus wanted to get away from the crowd by sailing across the lake. Hence he gave orders to the disciples to cross to the other side. Notice that as a sage Jesus is not reluctant to command his disciples. He has the independent authority to do so. The material found in vv. 19-22 is Q material, and so it is also found in Luke 9:57-62. [A Sapiential Reading of 8:18A Sapiential Reading of 8:18-22 Here we have two sayings about the cost of discipleship. It can involve having nowhere to live, and it can involve forsaking important duties in order to put following Jesus first on the priority list. The saying in Matt 8:22 is radical, as burying a parent was considered a fulfillment of the Mosaic commandment to honor one’s parents. The story is meant to prompt the reader to ask who Jesus must be if following him supercedes keeping even one of the Ten Commandments.

22] [Early Christian Editors]

In fact, Jesus has two brief encounters here with would-be disciples. The first is a scribe or teacher of the Law. He offers to follow Jesus wherever he will go, which in light of v. 18 might be considered ironic, since Jesus is about to head into non-Jewish territory (see vv. 2834). Jesus’ response to the scribe is not a rejection of the man but a warning that he would be committing himself to an itinerant lifestyle if he were to follow Jesus and emulate Jesus’ lifestyle. More importantly, there are allusions here to two sorts of Jewish traditions on which Jesus regularly drew to describe and delineate his ministry—the wisdom tradition and the apocalyptic tradition. As for the former, we have here an echo of 1 Enoch 42:1ff., which speaks of Wisdom coming on the human scene and being rejected, unable to find a home amongst human beings.18 In regard to the

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Early Christian Editors Only Matthew describes the one approaching Jesus as a scribe or Torah scholar, and he addresses Jesus as a teacher. Luke has generalized the account, saying “someone” asked, and he omits the use of the word “teacher.” (I would stress once again that when one works through the differences between Matthew and Luke’s accounts of common material carefully, time and again it appears to me that Luke has generalized and Gentilized his account for Theophilus, whereas the First Evangelist has kept closer to the Jewish character of the material, even when need be re-Judaizing some of the material he derived from Mark. More often than not, it is the Matthean version, especially of the sayings material, that seems closer to the original Aramaic source.) The sayings, however, found in Matt 8:20 and 22 are in near verbatim agreement with what we find in Luke. This reminds us that early Christian editors were more careful not to alter the sayings of Jesus than the narratives about Jesus.

latter, the phrase “son of man” is drawn by Jesus from Daniel, in particular from Daniel 7. There is also a possible allusion to Daniel 4 where the king is left out in a field foraging. That Jesus was itinerant few would dispute (see, e.g., Luke 8:1-3). More disputable, however, is the contention of G. Theissen that he set up one sort of standard and ethic of discipleship for the itinerant disciples and another for the sedentary or stay-at-home ones.19 This saying does reflect that Jesus did not really have a home of his own once the ministry began. He seems to have made Capernaum and the home of Peter a base of operations, but basically he was on the road. The reason this would be off-putting for a scribe is that he would be used to the model of study in a house and staying in one location where the teacher or religious figures were situated (a home, a synagogue, the temple precincts). He would not expect an itinerant lifestyle.20 There is an overtone not only of homelessness to this saying but also of rejection. Jesus is in part on the move regularly because some people reject and cast him out, even from his own home synagogue, and others pursue him not to become his disciples but to get what they need from Jesus—cures. There may be a further overtone. Jesus is known to have called Herod Antipas a fox (see Luke 13:32), and Herod had been busily building his own little abode for himself and his brother’s wife Herodias in Tiberias just down the road from Capernaum, as well as in Sepphoris, which was near Nazareth. Jesus could be commenting on the fact that Herod had a home, but men like John the Baptist and Jesus did not precisely because foxes like Herod were after them. He could also be commenting on the rejection he faced in cities like Bethsaida and Chorazin and even Capernaum, which Jesus anathematizes in Matthew 11:20-24 for not responding properly to his miracles and ministry.

187

188

Matthew 8:1–9:38

The brief narrative in vv. 21-22 provides us with one of the most radical of all of Jesus’ sayings, which Martin Hengel has examined at length.21 Here Jesus is suggesting that following him takes precedent even over the obligation in the Ten Commandments to honor parents. This is one of the sayings that would have been so offensive in its original setting that it is impossible to doubt Jesus said it. Notice that Jesus does not say this to just anyone, but to one of his disciples. The general consensus is that the Matthean form of this material is closer to the original than the Lukan form. Luke seems to have shifted the location of the command to follow, and the saying that comes after the one about burying the dead in Luke is likely Lukan as well. The saying in vv. 21-22, then, is about the claim Jesus made on his own disciples. Notice that the disciple in question only asks to be allowed first to go and bury his father. It is a question of priorities. [Burial Duties] Let me be clear that this saying is not trivializing or dismissing the importance of honoring parents. Jesus elsewhere says it is important to do so (cf., e.g., Mark 7:10-13 and Burial Duties To understand the radical nature of par.). The point of this saying is to show that the Jesus’ response to his disciple’s first urgency is to respond to and follow Jesus. request, bear in mind that various Jewish texts Other things cannot be “first” when the indicate that the duty to bury someone Dominion is breaking in and Jesus is instigating supercedes even the most binding of religious it. obligations (m. Ber. 3:1; Tob. 4.3; 6.13), and this Jesus, while thoroughly Jewish and a very reliis all the more so when one is dealing with a member of one’s own family. Even a priest was gious person, was nonetheless a radical Jew. The required to set aside his priestly duties to bury his trick is to rightly understand the balance father or mother (S. Lev. 21.3). Only a high priest between old and new in Jesus’ teaching, minor a Nazirite was exempt from the duty of burying istry, and self-understanding. Jesus has in effect one’s father (Lev 21:11; Num 6:6-7). said here, “Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead; you come follow me.’ The implication is that those who do not follow Jesus are spiritually dead. This comports with what we hear elsewhere in Matthew, namely that Israel is lost. Jesus had come to rescue them in the face of the coming Dominion and the coming judgment. What we see in this brief segment is Jesus’ messianic authority. Even more to the point, only a person who believed he embodied the wisdom and mind of God, one who believed he was the exegesis of the Father and the Father’s will, would likely have been able to say something like this without for a moment seeing himself as violating God’s intents in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus was not a bad or irreligious person. He was a radical one whose self-understanding produced all sorts of surprises when it came to his teaching and deeds.22[Freedom over Mosaic Law]

Matthew 8:1–9:38

189

Freedom over Mosaic Law Even E. P. Sanders recognizes in Matt 8:21-22 clear evidence that Jesus exercised a certain sovereign freedom over the Mosaic Law and was capable of saying it was superceded on occasions in order to serve the in-breaking Dominion. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 254-55.

Stiller of Storms, 8:23-27

The narrative we find in Matthew 8:23-27, which was prepared for in 8:18, is taken over from Mark, and as such it is a further illustration both of Jesus’ power and authority, and the lack of full faith or trust of the disciples in Jesus. Following his usual editorial bent, the First Evangelist abbreviates his Markan source material considerably in the telling of this story (see Mark 4:36-41). Notice the subtle change from Mark’s “they took him into the boat” to they followed him into the boat (emphasizing the discipleship theme).23 The First Evangelist adds an earthquake in the sea, omits that the boat was already filling with water, and more importantly omits the reference to Jesus being on a cushion in the stern of the boat, though both accounts relate that Jesus was sleeping, even in the stormy weather. The reproach in Mark, “do you not care we are perishing,” is also omitted in Matthew. Whereas Mark has Jesus ask if the disciples have any faith, in Matthew it is “you of little of faith.” The First Evangelist also omits the command of Jesus to the elements to be still. While the disciples’ reaction in Mark is said to be “they feared a great fear,” in Matthew it is A Sapiential Reading of 8:23-27 said “they marveled.” The story as we have it in This is another story meant to make Matthew prepares us for the similar tale clear that Jesus has divine power, even involving especially Peter in Matthew 14:22-33 over nature, and also that the disciples continue to be people of little faith. They do not know what (cf. especially 8:25 to 14:30 and 8:26 to 14:31). kind of man Jesus is, for he is the very Wisdom Whereas here in Matthew 8 the story concludes and Power of God come in the flesh, and even with the christological question raised—“What nature obeys him. kind of man is this?”—in Matthew 14 the story climaxes with a direct answer to the christological question—“Truly you are the Son of God” (14:33). The net effect of the Matthean editing of the Markan account is that the disciples come off in a little better light (they even say “Lord save us”), and the more eyewitness feeling of the Markan narrative is lost. [A Sapiential Reading of 8:23-27] Verse 24 begins with the Matthean marker that something remarkable is about to take place—“behold.” The reference to a great earthquake is part of a pattern of Matthean texts where the author shows interest in such things, unlike Mark and Luke (see 24:7; 27:51-54; 28:2). The reason for this interest is not likely geo-

190

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Jesus Stilling the Tempest Gustave Doré (1832–1883). Christ Stilling the Tempest. 19th C. Engraving. (Credit: The Doré Gallery of Bible Illustrations)

Matthew 8:1–9:38

191

Sea of Galilee The Sea of Galilee was in an area where there had been volcanic activity (for example, one can go to Chorazin and find a synagogue built out of the volcanic basalt rock—jet black), where there were seismic faults, and where the deepest cut in the earth leading down to the Dead Sea and Jericho (the lowest city on earth) and beyond could be found. Sodom and Gomorrah were also along this fault line. It is not impossible, then, that there could have been an earthquake in the region at that juncture, but Mark simply reports a fierce whirlwind, which was also possible in the bowl-shaped pit in which the Sea of Galilee rested.

logical, but rather eschatological since earthquakes, as in Matthew 24:7, are part of the eschatological drama. [Sea of Galilee] In the midst of all this mayhem, and with waves coming over the bow, Jesus continues to sleep (imperfect tense verb) in the stern. “There is an obvious intentional christological Søt∑ria aspect here. The one who has nowhere to lay his More often than not in the ministry of Jesus, the use of the term søt∑ria and head (v. 20) is yet paradoxically at home everyits cognates does not refer to the full Christian where, apparently untroubled by normal and spiritual sense of salvation. For example, anxieties. In the Old Testament such sleep is eviwhen a woman is said to be “saved” by her faith dence of a trust in God’s protection (cf. Job in Luke 7:48, the proper translation is “your faith 11:18-19; Pss 3:5-6; 4:8; Prov 3:24-26).”24 has healed you”—i.e., she has been saved from The choice of the “Lord” language in v. 25 her illness or malady. (The language is common in earlier Jewish literature written in Greek—see rather than Mark’s “teacher” makes sense in Exod 14:13, 30 LXX; Sir 46:1; 1 Macc 4:25; Pss. light of what Jesus is about to do. Teachers do Sol. 16:5; T. Job 19:2 and of course it was very not lecture storms, but the Lord can control common in pagan Greek literature as well. See C. them. Notice too the language “save us,” which Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew here means something mundane, namely rescue [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 280.) While this us. [Søt∑ria] has spiritual implications, the story is not about the woman becoming a card-carrying Christian. In Note the juxtaposition of fear and faith in v. other words, we must be careful not to be 26. The former is seen as the antithesis of the anachronistic when we read stories such as we latter. If the disciples had been trusting, they have here in Matt 8, especially stories that use would not have given way to such huge fears. the language of salvation. (It is in any case the The story is meant to convey the idea that a Christian position that salvation comes by having supernatural calm came over the sea after Jesus faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus and that he is the risen Lord. Such could only happen rebuked the wind as if it were a petulant raging after Easter anyway.) child. While the wind might in the natural course of affairs cease suddenly, the water would have remained choppy for a considerable period of time. This is not the case, and so we are dealing with a nature miracle here. The First Evangelist, in this first collection of miracle tales in Matthew 8–9, seems to be going out of his way to present representative samples of all the different sorts of miracles Jesus performed—healings of various sorts, exorcisms, nature miracles, raising the dead. Understandably in light of psalms like Psalm 89:8-9, calming seas has been seen as an act of God, an act of a

192

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Storms

divine being. This is correct, and it is in order to point out that in Wisdom of Solomon, it is Wisdom who is said to have enabled or performed signs and wonders such as the parting of the Red Sea, another nature miracle. [Storms] Thus in this story Jesus really is presented as Lord, in particular as Wisdom who can even do what God does, being the very expression of the mind and character and nature of God on earth. Mark’s “who” question is turned into a “what sort of man” question in v. 27, which is appropriate here. The answer is a divine sort who can do the very acts previously predicated of God in the Old Testament.

There is evidence from the papyri that storms were definitely seen as acts of God, and anything that put a stop to them was likewise viewed as an act of God and so in this case a proof that Jesus was divine. See New Docs 6, 85-86.

Jesus the Exorcist, 8:28-341

The most conspicuous way the Matthean account of this narrative differs from the Markan source is that Jesus is dealing with two people in Matthew but only one in Mark. What is less obvious is that the Matthean account is only half as long as the Markan version of the story. In this particular case, Luke has followed Mark more closely in both wording and length (cf. Luke 8:26-39 to Mark 5:1-20). The omissions of Markan material are noteworthy and circumstantial, once again giving the account a A Sapiential Reading of 8:28-34 less fresh or eyewitness feel. For example, Mark’s The healing of the Gadarene demovivid description (Mark 5:3-5) of the man being niacs is recorded in Matthew as bound in chains, crying out, and bruising himself is involving two people, not just one as in Mark. omitted in exchange for a brief statement that the Jesus is portrayed as one who can command and silence and exorcise even the most men in question were extremely violent and thus no numerous collections of demons. He wants one could pass by on that particular road. Also no credit references from them, and their omitted is the dialogue between Jesus and the man attempt to take control over him by naming at the beginning (Mark 5:8-10) and the one near him Son of God fails. The demons return to the end of the tale (Mark 5:18-20). The statement their element, the chaotic waters of the sea about the crowd’s reaction of fear when they see the via being sent into the pigs. Jews would have found this story humorous—unclean outcome of the exorcism is dropped (Mark 5:15people are helped when Jesus sends 16). The net effect is that the story is reduced from unclean spirits packing by allowing them to nineteen to seven lines, while still leaving us the gist inhabit unclean animals that were worthless of the story. [A Sapiential Reading of 8:28-34] for food from a Jewish point of view. The There may well also be a sort of suppression in story also continues to demonstrate that one Matthew of Markan statements about Jesus’ techgreater than Solomon is in their midst. nique in performing exorcisms. There may have been a good reason for this. We know for a fact that Jesus was heavily criticized even during his ministry for the exorcisms (cf. Mark 3), and later Jewish polemics characterize Jesus as a sorcerer.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

193

If we are right that this Gospel was written in Galilee and perhaps even in Capernaum, Jesus’ activities in Gentile territory across the lake could have required even more explaining in the context of this Jewish Christian community in the 80s. The less said, the better. While Mark especially highlights Jesus as an exorcist, Matthew does not stress it as much, and by the time we get to the Fourth Gospel we have no stories about exorcisms.25 If the First Gospel was written in a Jewish context where the usual criticism of Jesus was that he was a sorcerer, it is understandable why the First Evangelist would say less about this and abbreviate Mark’s accounts, even though he was a conservative editor of his source material. The First Evangelist omits Mark’s discussion about Jesus’ technique. Justin Martyr goes a step further and stresses that Jesus did not use the usual techniques for exorcism, namely rings, roots, incantations, spells, and the like (Justin Martyr, Dial. 85). Sometimes this story has been seen as humorous, for to Jews pigs were unclean animals, and so unclean spirits and unclean animals would have been seen as deserving each other’s company. The more of them destroyed, the better. One commentator has even called this the story of “deviled ham.”26 But it may be doubted that the

Gadara Gadara is the site of an exorcism in the NT, when Jesus drives two demons into the Gadarene swine (Mark 5:1-10) Gadara was a Hellenistic-Roman town, a member of the Decapolis, the antique federation of ten cities. Courtyard of the 6th century Byzantine church. Umm Qais/Gadara, ruins of the Byzantine church (Credit: Berthold Werner, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-3.0)

194

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Textual Problems We discover from the outset with Matt 8:28 that we have the same textual problem in Matthew as in the Markan account at Mark 5:1. Did the original story speak of a Gadarene, a Gergasene, or a Gerasene demoniac (or demoniacs)? There is of course a geographical issue involved as well. Both Gerasa and Gadara were cities of the Decapolis on the non-Jewish side of the Sea of Galilee. But Gadara was some five miles south of the Sea of Galilee, and some have objected that it could not be in view in light of the details of the story. We don’t get the sense that the pigs ran five miles to leap into the sea in any of the Synoptic accounts! Josephus, however, who knew the region well and had lived there in the 1st century, says Gadara had territory that lay on the frontiers of or extended to the Sea of Galilee (Life 9.42). The reading Gerasene is only supported by later versional evidence, and our best external textual evidence for Matthew supports the reading Gadarene (see B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London: United Bible Societies, 1971], 19). It is probably important that the First Evangelist does not claim that this miracle took place in Gadara but in the “region” of the Gadarenes, which means it could indeed have taken place near the Sea of Galilee.

First Evangelist saw this story as deliberately humorous, especially because he wants to stress that Jesus was a great healer and a compassionate person and that exorcism was a serious business. [Textual Problems]

If we examine Matthew 8:29-32 closely, it will be noted that in the Matthean account it is the demon-possessed people who shout, “What do you want with us, Son of God? . . . Have you come to torment us before the appointed time?” Jesus does not respond to these queries in Matthew, nor were the queries prompted by an initial command from Jesus for the evil spirit to leave the man (cf. Mark 5:8). Indeed, Jesus only speaks when we are told it is indeed the demons doing the talking and they request to go into the herd of pigs. Jesus offers a one-word response to the request—“Go!” Jesus does not ask the name of the demons, and the demons do not name themselves as Legion in the Matthean account. In our account, Jesus neither silences nor confirms the acclamation by the demons that he is the Son of God. 27 The story in Matthew ends with the folks from the nearby town of Gadara hearing about the exorcism and going out and asking Jesus to leave the area. He is destroying their pig farming business. There is nothing about the men wanting to join Jesus’ band of disciples. Nevertheless, Jesus has aided men on the margins of Gentile society, just as he had been doing for Jews on the margins of their society on the other side of the lake. Jesus is not accepting Gentile disciples, at least not at this juncture.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

195

Analysis of Paralysis, 9:1-8

The sixth miracle tale in this collection of ten is the story about Jesus coming home to Capernaum (“his town”) from across the sea and healing a paralytic there. For the first time we have the introduction of the theme of forgiveness in this sort A Sapiential Reading of 9:1-8 of narrative, which is not surprising since most The story of the healing of the paralytic early Jews seem to have believed that sickness raises the important issue of the relaand sin were closely connected in this fashion— tionship of sickness and sin, as well as the issue if you were sick or had a defect or condition, it of what authority Jesus has to pronounce sins was probably because you or your parents had forgiven. On the former matter, Jesus suggests that the more serious issue is the one of sin, and sinned (see John 9:1-3). Jesus’ view seems to there is also the fact that sin can indeed have have been that there was no necessary correlation physiological effects. In this case, the physical between sickness and sin, though on some occahealing is to be taken as an indicator that Jesus sions one engendered the other. But Jesus knew also has the power to deal with our deeper sickperfectly well many sinners were robustly ness, sin sickness. The text is not suggesting a healthy, and some pious people were ill. one-to-one correspondence between sickness and sin such that one could conclude someone Furthermore, bad things, even calamities, could was a notable sinner if they had a noticeable sickhappen to God’s people (see Luke 13:1). ness. The text is, however, suggesting Jesus has However, Jesus seems to have also known that been authorized to forgive sins, not least because sometimes spiritual problems had psychosohe is the human expression of the mind and will matic effects on one’s body. Those in profound of God—God’s Wisdom in the flesh. grief on occasion contract shingles, and sinners sometimes suffer the physical consequences of a Forgiving Sins spiritual condition such as guilt and its effect on The Matthean account is once more an the body, which can include ticks and even abbreviated version of the Markan account. In this case, the First Evangelist leaves paralysis. [A Sapiential Reading of 9:1-8] [Forgiving Sins] out the setting, the story about the man being let The story begins with several people bringing down through the roof, and the saying found in the paralyzed man on a mat to Jesus, and as in Mark 2:7—“Who is able to forgive sin except God Mark, the story says Jesus saw “their faith,” by alone?” We know of course that the First which is meant the faith of those who carried Evangelist’s answer to this question is that the man on the mat. Jesus clearly responds to humans can on occasion and indeed must forgive sins (cf. Matt 7:12; 16:19; 18:18). However, here faith, even on occasion with miracles. Notice the story is about a man’s sins being forgiven by that Jesus does not initiate the action here. His God (noting the use of the divine passive—“your miracles seem always to be on-the-spot acts of sins have been forgiven [by God]”). compassion, not planned in advance, as his teaching events often seem to have been. In v. 2 the First Evangelist has Jesus tell the paralytic, “Take courage, son,” something not found in the Markan account, before he then tells him his sins are forgiven. In Mark this prompts the teachers of the law present to think to themselves that Jesus is blaspheming, but in Matthew they say this to themselves. But both accounts stress that Jesus knew their thoughts, apparently by supernatural means. [“Paralytic walking away with his bed,”]

196

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Jesus queries his critics about which is easier to say—“get up and walk” or “your sins are forgiven.” The story suggests that forgiving sins is the easier thing to say but Image Not Available the harder thing to do, whereas due to lack of digital rights. saying “stand up and walk” is a Please view the published dangerous thing to say, since the commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below. evidence will either stand up and confirm your words or not, but who can tell if someone is forgiven sins just by looking at them? Forgiveness is an inward or spiritual matter, and its reality may not Paralytic Walking Away with His Bed be immediately apparent. Jesus, Paralytic walking away with his bed. Detail from Scenes of the Life of Christ. Carved ivory pyxis. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] however, believes God’s divine saving activity is breaking into the world through his ministry, and it is right for him to proclaim and indeed to enact forgiveness in this situation. Once this is done, the man gets up, takes his mat, and goes home. The crowd is left in awe and they praise God, though the First Evangelist does not record their words. What he does add to the Markan account is that they praised God that such authority to forgive sins and heal had been given to human beings! This sets up the discussion of forgiveness in Matthew 16 and 18 nicely. [Son of Man] Son of Man It should be noted that Jesus here uses his third person phrase “Son of Man” to identify himself, something he did frequently during his ministry. There is good reason to think he chose this moniker for himself because he exegeted himself and his ministry out of Dan 7:13-14. It is hardly an accident that the two most frequent phrases on Jesus’ lips are “Son of Man” and “kingdom of God,” and the only place we find these two sets of ideas juxtaposed in the Old Testament is in Dan 7:13-14, where we hear of one who will rule in an everlasting kingdom, who will be worshiped by all people having been given sovereign power, authority, and glory (i.e., divine presence). It is my contention that this is part of how Jesus viewed himself, though he also exegeted himself and his ministry out of other crucial texts such as Isa 53, Zech 9, or Prov 3 and 8 in its discussion of Wisdom. (See my The Christology of Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 234-48). Jesus had a christological understanding of himself and his mission. It simply did not conform to various preexisting messianic expectations of those he lived amongst, and in any case Jesus did not come to meet their expectations but rather to meet their needs for transformation by means of God’s divine saving activity. That such transformation was indeed possible is testified to in the call narrative about the most famous source of this Gospel material—Matthew himself, which follows immediately.

Matthew 8:1–9:38 The Call of Matthew, 9:9-13

Perhaps no text is more appropriate to further our discussion of Jesus as a healer than this one where Jesus alludes to himself as a physician. In the structure of Matthew’s Gospel, there is a sequencing of controversy material where first Jesus deals with the scribes, then here the controversy is with the Pharisees, and then in the next unit in vv. 14-17 Jesus is confronted by John’s disciples. Inasmuch as this is a teaching Gospel, it is not surprising that the Evangelist would group together material to show how Jesus distinguished himself and his teaching from various major groups within early Judaism. But there is also another sort of ordering going on here, for in Matthew 9:1-8, we have seen the healing of a paralytic and also have learned that Jesus forgives sin. This latter is further fleshed out in 9:9-13, where Jesus dines with a multitude of sinners. There is also the dynamic of the whole question of the relationship of sickness and sin, a question dealt with indirectly in the two pericopes in Matthew 9:1-13. Sickness is not always caused by sin, though it can be, but in our pericope Jesus sees sin as a kind of disease that he has come to cure. [A Sapiential Reading of 9:9-13] [Telønion] Only this Gospel calls the man in question Matthew; otherwise in Mark and Luke he is known as Levi son of Alphaeus. These are obviously not the same names or variants on the same name, and some scholars have suggested that the First Evangelist has changed the name to match his preexisting list of twelve apostles (see Matt 10). This is an unnecessary conclusion for several reasons. First of all, we know Jesus had a penchant for giving nicknames to some of his closest followers, such as Peter or the Boanerges. It is possible that Matthew, which means “gift of Yahweh” (cf. 2 Kgs 24:17; Neh 11:17) is such a name.28 It is also possible that the man bore two Semitic names, which was not uncommon in this era (cf., e.g., Josephus Ant. 18.2.2; 18.4.3; 20.8.11). In other words, “Levi” could be the name of the tribe he belonged to, just as Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin. A Sapiential Reading of 9:9-13 The calling of Matthew is presented as exhibit A of the calling of outcasts and despised sinners, for tax collectors were collaborators with Rome and their client kings who would bilk the people of their resources. The Pharisees, with their concern for both ritual and moral purity, could not understand why Jesus banqueted with the bad. Jesus’ response is that of a healer— because it is precisely such people who most need his healing touch as the great physician. The call of the sinner is like the call of Wisdom to the simple in Prov 9 with this difference. Jesus actually believes the wayward will listen and respond to his call, especially since it involves mercy as the heart of his approach.

197

198

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Telønion Telønion here refers to either a tollbooth or a customs or tax house. There was a difference between the two professions. The tax collector worked directly for the Romans, whereas a customs official was employed by Herod Antipas in this case or whoever was in direct charge of the region (see above). Presuming the setting of this story is still Capernaum, though the text does not directly say so, there are then two possibilities in regard to Matthew’s profession. He could be manning a booth on the border of Antipas’s territory and extracting customs or tariffs from those coming in from Herod Philip’s territory or leaving Herod Antipas’s, or possibly he set up shop on the lake at the dock and collected fees from those going across the lake to Philip’s territory. It is also, however, quite possible that Matthew’s actual job was collecting taxes specifically from fishermen. We can only imagine the dynamic Matthew’s entrance into the inner circle of the Twelve caused; at least four of the Twelve were Galilean fishermen. Since Matthew is located in a specific spot and seems known locally, it is unlikely he was an itinerant tax farmer.

The only real question is why the name “Matthew” is used here instead of “Levi,” when that is what the Evangelist found in his Markan source, a source he normally follows quite closely. The answer may be that the First Evangelist had direct access to some special Matthean material and knew that the man’s personal name, the name by which Jesus called him, was Matthew. If this event transpired in Capernaum, then it is likely Matthew would have heard about, if not personally heard, the message of Jesus previously. If so, this would make the story a bit less enigmatic and we would not have to rely on some sort of theory of Jesus’ personal magnetism to explain why Matthew dropped everything and followed Jesus. The Evangelist tells us Jesus reclined at table with many tax and/or toll collectors and sinners. This is said to happen “in the house,” but whose house? While it could be Jesus’ house in Capernaum, in which case Jesus is the host, Luke tells us it was Levi’s house, which is more probable on at least two counts: (1) We appear to be talking about a house that can hold many, which is unlikely to be the case with Peter’s/Jesus’ house. (2) Matthew’s house was the more likely congregating place for people whom observant Jews would consider sinners or even un-Jewish in their behavior and allegiances. The word “sinners” can sometimes be used in the New Testament to refer to Gentiles in general (see Gal 2:15), but it is just as often used to refer to wayward Jews or nonobservant ones. E. P. Sanders has argued that it refers especially to notoriously immoral people, not only nonobservant Jews,29 and this too is possible. Since Jesus speaks here about being a physician of the sin-sick, one would think the term “sinner” connotes something more than just nonobservant Jews.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

Calling of Saint Matthew Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1573-1610). Calling of Saint Matthew. Contarini Chapel. S. Luigi dei Francesi, Rome, Italy. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-US)

Notice that the Pharisees ask Jesus’ disciples, not Jesus, why he is doing what he is doing. Apparently, Jesus’ authority and reputation is well known in this area, and the Pharisees didn’t want to confront him directly. But Jesus responds directly to these inquisitors, saying that it is not the strong or the well (ischyontes) who need a physician, but those having an illness. This reveals something of the orientation of Jesus’ ministry—he focused especially on the least, the last, and the lost. It may also imply that Jesus recognized many Pharisees were law observant, and he was not focusing on them. Probably this story also bears witness to the fact that Jesus did not see these people as unclean, or that he was willing to incur uncleanness to help them. [Jesus the Individual] Verse 13 involves a quotation from Hosea 6:6 that follows the Hebrew form of the text. The key word in the quotation is thysian, which can mean sacrifice. But this term in fact is a wider term meaning any sort of ritual offering, and thus Jesus’ response would be quite appropriate to the Pharisees if the broader sense is what the Aramaic behind the present Greek text suggests. The Pharisees, by performing the letter of the Law in a particular manner, have in

199

200

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Jesus the Individual We need to keep in mind that in Jesus’ culture, no one was holding up placards saying “accent on the individual.” Standing out from the crowd was not seen as a good thing; it was seen as abnormal. People were identified by the groups of which they were a part, and they were seen as suspect if they were somehow different and stood out from the local core groups. Even worse than simply being eccentric (i.e., an individual) was if they hung out with the wrong crowd. Jesus did both. He stood out, and he constantly associated with the marginalized of various sorts, including the outcasts of society and the despised.

fact managed to ignore the spirit of the Law, which involves the restoration of the wayward. Jesus says he came to call (into the Dominion or into discipleship) sinners, not the “righteous.” E. Schweizer notes the causal gar here, which emphasizes that Jesus’ dining with these people is a fulfillment of the Hosea saying.30 It may also be a foreshadowing of what Jesus will say about the messianic banquet (see 22:3-9). Why were tax collectors or customs officials so despised? Partly due to graft and extortion; partly because the tax collectors worked for Rome, the enemy; but also in the case of the Pharisees it was because they dealt with Gentiles (and so were regularly unclean), not to mention that they handled money that depicted images of idols. Fast Answers on Fasting, 9:14-17

The First Evangelist is again following Mark here with some abbreviation (for example, omitting the opening verse, Mark 2:18, of the segment Mark 2:18-22), but he also adds a revealing phrase at the end—“and both are preserved.” Once again we are dealing with Jesus using wisdom speech in public, in this case responding to the query as to why his own disciples did not fast as John’s did. There are in fact two sapiential sayings here, one about a bridegroom (v. 15) and one about sewing and patches (vv. 16-17). The passage attests to the fact that Jesus was frequently in controversies because of the way he and his disciples stood out from the norm, in particular from other religious figures and pious groups. [A Sapiential Reading of 9:14-17]

Here the question is raised by John’s disciples, and notice that they say they and the Pharisees fast (the regular fasting days for the latter were Mondays and Thursdays; see Luke 18:12). They are not referring to some special fast associated with a feast day, such as the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29; cf. Acts 27:9), but normal fasting during a week. Notice that the question is actually about the abstinence from fasting by Jesus’ disciples, but the question is directed

Matthew 8:1–9:38 A Sapiential Reading of 9:14-17 God is doing a new thing in Jesus, bringing in his saving reign, and so it is the time for feasting rather than fasting. It is a time for new wine poured into new wineskins, for the old molds and ways of dealing with things no longer fit the situation.

to Jesus on the assumption that he is responsible for the behavior patterns of his followers. The proper background to the first short parable is Isaiah 54:4-8 (cf. Isa 62:5 and Ezek 16:7-10) where God is depicted as a bridegroom. There seems to be an implicit suggestion that Jesus now fulfills for Israel, or at least his own disciples, the divine role. Stories like this raise the question of how referential parables were meant to be. We will discuss the relationship of parable and allegory below in the Connections section. Here we have a saying that implicitly suggests the eschatological time had come, that messiah was in Israel’s midst, and so it was the time for feasting, not fasting. As I have said elsewhere, there was no conventional notion of messiah as bridegroom, so this saying fits the pattern that when Jesus makes claims through word or deed, he does so in an indirect manner to avoid identification with popular messianic ideas with which he does not agree.31 Notice, however, the jarring note that the bridegroom is going to be forcibly taken away from them, at which juncture fasting and mourning will be appropriate. The second little parable in vv. 16-17 deals with wine and wineskins and how it is inappropriate to put new wine in old wineskins for the very good reason that new wine is effervescent enough, still being in the process of fermenting, and old wineskins inflexible enough that the former may well burst the latter. It is appropriately conjoined with the parable about the bridegroom since wine was the staple drink in antiquity but especially at weddings, where both old and new wine would be served (see John 2:1-12). The final line of this parable in Matthew sounds a positive note, and since it is not found in the Markan source, which ends on the note about the loss of both wine and wineskin, we may assume this tells us something about the Evangelist’s views, namely that Jesus was a new kind of sage telling new kinds of parables, doing new kinds of deeds, and encouraging new sorts of orthopraxy because the Dominion was breaking into their midst. That new occasions teach new duties is part of the lesson here.32 In a culture that believed the old was the true and reliable, new things, new teaching, and new behavior had to be justified in one way or another. Jesus does so by telling parables.

201

202

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Jesus’ Ministry to Women, 9:18-26

The First Evangelist gives only the bare bones of the Markan story he had in his source (Mark 5:21-43), severely abbreviating the account and leaving out many of its interesting circumstantial details and asides. As D. Hagner says, he cuts out one third of the first part of the story about the dying girl, two thirds of the story about the woman with the blood flow, and two thirds of the conclusion of the story about the dying girl.33 We get the impression that the First Evangelist is not interested in telling these stories for their own sake, but only insofar as they teach his audience something about following Jesus or about the character of Jesus himself. This is one of those instances where it seems clear that Mark is the source and the First Evangelist is the editor, as the Markan account is much more detailed and fresh, sounding like a firsthand account. [A Sapiential Reading of 9:18-26]

The more notable deletions of the First Evangelist include Jairus’s name, the fact that he is a synagogue ruler, his pleading, references to the crowd, the extent of the woman’s suffering, the clear reference to her healing, the fact that Jesus knew power had gone out from him, his question “Who touched me?” (which suggested he needed to be informed), the later report of the death of the girl (in Matthew the ruler reports she has died up front; cf. Matt 9:19 and Mark 5:23), the taking of only three disciples and the parents into the presence of the girl, the words Jesus spoke to the girl, the reference to her walking and being given something to eat, and the reference to the astonished reaction of the crowd. There are a few Matthean additions, chiefly the reference to flute players being present at the ruler’s house, the reference to the fringes on Jesus’ garment, the phrase “take courage,”34 and the words about it being reported throughout the region (v. 26).35 In the Matthean telling of these tales, the Evangelist has placed stress on the raising of the dead, this story being an illustration that Jesus was capable of such. After the ruler comes and kneels before Jesus, making his request, Jesus and the disciples go with him, and

A Sapiential Reading of 9:18-26 The twin stories of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the healing of the synagogue ruler’s daughter again show that Jesus performed miracles as acts of compassion, not to prove who he is. Jesus elevated the magic-tainted faith of a woman who thought she could be healed by touching the robe of the holy man. Jesus told her it was not the garment but her faith that healed her. Here as elsewhere in the Gospels, the term “saved” has its less spiritual sense of “healed” rather than being born again. Jesus is so imbued with the power of God that he can even raise the dead.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

203

the process is interrupted by a woman who touched the fringes on Jesus’ garment. This detail about the fringes or tassels is not found in Mark’s account. Fringes are mentioned in Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12 as reminders to observant Jews of God’s commandments. This detail makes clear that Jesus sought, in ways that accorded with the coming of the Dominion, to continue to be an observant Jew. This was one of the confusing things about Jesus. In some respects he seemed observant, and in other respects he seemed to be going his own way, even making up his own rules and practices. Both things were true, which is why Pharisees and others questioned him in particular about the ways he deviated from normal early Jewish thought and praxis. Seizing the edge of someone’s garment indicates urgency (see 1 Sam 15:27), and it should be stressed that this woman was taking a risk in touching Jesus, since she was perpetually unclean. Her condition was desperate for both medical and ritual reasons. Her ailment would have kept her from marriage or likely precipitated divorce if it began after marriage. She no doubt Ritual Impurity was tired of the ostracism and physical suffering The dangers of ritual impurity and its as well. [Ritual Impurity] Notice that the woman’s effects on one’s acceptability to God or faith is magic-tainted. She thinks touching a to holy people is well demonstrated in the inscripholy garment of a holy man will heal her. She tions in TAM V 1, 238, which reads: “Antonia, undoubtedly was trying to be as unobtrusive as daughter of Antonius, to Apollo, god Bozenos, possible. However, Jesus would not allow her to because I entered the (temple) area in a dirty garment, being punished I confessed and dedifade into the crowd without some correction. cated (this) eulogy because I became whole” (see He wanted to make clear that her faith in Jesus New Docs 8, 173). Notice how healing not only as a healer, not some sort of magic garment, led cures the physical problem but also makes it posto her healing. Hence, Jesus tells her so in sible to solve the ritual impurity problem. public, and the Matthean account adds that she was healed from “that” moment, making clear the connection between faith and healing, indeed between conscious faith and healing. Verse 23 refers to hired flute players, part of a party of hired mourners, who did not have the same personal investment in the death of the daughter as her family did. The Matthean account then makes clear that it is they who laughed when Jesus said the girl was not dead. If she was not dead, the “town criers” would not be paid, since there was no funeral or period of mourning. Notice too the singular focus on Jesus taking the girl by the hand and raising her up. This account does not mention the witnesses of the event in the inner chamber, but the Markan account is surely right that witnesses would need to be present to validate that Jesus had actually raised the dead. Notice again that Jesus either thinks the rules

204

Matthew 8:1–9:38

A Sapiential Reading of 9:27-38 The story of the healing of the two blind men again emphasizes the role that the men’s own faith played in their healing. They were asked if they believed Jesus could give them sight. Notice that they had cried to Jesus for mercy, not for something owed. They are presented as trusting souls. Their response in v. 31, disobeying Jesus’ order not to tell of the miracle, is understandable. But Jesus did not want to be primarily known as a healer. He wanted the focus to be on the message of the Dominion of God, which could change more than one’s physical state. Vv. 33-34 present a brief exorcism account, and the crowd exclaims that nothing like this had been seen in Israel. They may well be right, as there are no tales of exorcism in the Old Testament and few in earlier Jewish literature. Jesus gained a reputation as an exorcist that connected him firmly in some minds with Solomon, but in the minds of some Pharisees with Satan. They demonstrate that when you can’t deny the remarkable facts, you do your best to reinterpret them lest they threaten your own worldview. V. 36 stresses the compassion of Jesus on the harassed and helpless and those without able leadership. Jesus will send his disciples out to lead the lost into a discipling relationship with the one who can lead them and give them wisdom by which to live.

about the uncleanness of a corpse are suspended or are superceded, and notice that nowhere are we told that he goes through ritual purification after he touches the girl. The account closes with the news spreading like wildfire that Jesus had raised the dead. Healings and Summary Accounts, 9:2738

The material at the end of Matthew 9 is summary accounts of miracles performed by Jesus that in their present forms have no parallels in the other Gospels. [A Sapiential Reading of 9:27-38] [Form, Substance, Duplication, and Editorial Patterns in Matthew’s Gospel]

This story has several interesting elements. Jesus appears to ignore the initial cry of the blind men. They are said to be following him and crying out, “Have mercy Son of David.” [Benefaction] Jesus does nothing until they get inside. As in so many of these stories, the Evangelist wishes to emphasize the lesson such a story will have for the disciples, and that lesson here is the importance of faith for healing. Not

Form, Substance, Duplication, and Editorial Patterns in Matthew’s Gospel Many scholars regard the healing of two blind men as a doublet (i.e., an instance of when the First Evangelist has taken the Markan narrative of one healing and doubled the number of those healed, thereby upping the miraculous ante). R. H. Gundry even sees 9:27-31 as the first edition of the story later presented in Matt 20:29-34 (R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 176-79; A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew [London: Macmillan, 1915], 128.) shows how many similar elements there are in the two stories). However, this story takes place in Galilee, not in Jericho, and the context here is in a house. Furthermore, there is no mention of faith in Matt 20, a key theme in this Gospel. Thus while it is not impossible that 9:27-31 is a summary of the later story, certain elements such as the focus on faith amount to expansions, not condensations. There are then three possible explanations: (1) The Evangelist found two

different versions of the same story and chose to include them both to be on the safe side, since he was a conservative handler of his material. (2) The story in Matt 9 is indeed a summary of the story in Matt 20, put here to give a quick and earlier illustration of Jesus’ messianic healings (the healing of a blind person is unrecorded in the Old Testament and was regarded in some circles as evidence of the appearance of a messianic figure). (3) We have here two different, though similar stories, told similarly because there was something of a pattern that developed in the oral tellings of stories about the same subject. Healing stories took one form, exorcisms another, controversy tales yet another. It does seem unlikely that with a limited amount of space for his work, the Evangelist would simply repeat himself or, worse, be oblivious he was doing so. On the whole, it seems to me that if one of these stories is a summary, it is the one in Matt 20, but the two tales have considerable differences in context and didactic focus and purpose. Much depends on the amount of liberty one thinks the Evangelist exercised with his source material.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

205

Benefaction The Gospel writers seem to view benefaction and help to the ill or impaired as an expression of mercy rather than the setting up of a patronage relationship or a reciprocity cycle. Jesus is not looking for something in return. See New Docs 8, 111.

surprisingly, this is also a major focus in the healings of the leper, the centurion’s servant, the woman with the blood flow, and Jairus’s daughter. Here, then, we have a major thematic focus of the Evangelist. The title “Son of David” appears here for the first time as a direct address to Jesus (cf. 1:1; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15). As we have pointed out earlier, the term more specifically points to Jesus being like Solomon, the son of David, and this is not a surprise since Solomon was the one believed in early Judaism to have the wisdom of cures, and of course he was also noted for his mercy.36 There seems to have been fairly intense messianic expectations in Jesus’ day, to judge from the response to John the Baptist. Notice the connection not only here but also in 15:22 and 20:30-31 between the “Son of David” title and mercy. Notice too in Matthew 11:4-5 how it was expected that messiah would be a healer, based on such texts as Isaiah 35:5-6 and 61:1. As the story here develops, a reason arises perhaps as to why Jesus does not heal these men in public. Because “Son of David” was clearly a title with messianic implications, Jesus did not want to be characterized or caricatured by the popular concepts of what a Son of David must do or be like. He wanted to chart his own messianic course. Even without the outcry, healing a blind man might well whip up messianic furor or fervor of one kind or another that could prevent Jesus from doing his ministry, which was not good at this early juncture. Later (e.g., in Matt 20) when Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, it mattered less. Thus Jesus heals in response to faith, only indoors, and with a stern charge to tell no one. [Enebrim∑th∑] In this case, it qualifies how Jesus charged them. But how could they possibly hide the results of this miracle from Enebrim∑th∑ The verb enebrim∑th∑ is a strong word those who had previously known them? The originally referring to the snorting of point seems to be that Jesus does not wish to be horses when angry, and it came to refer to deep publicly proclaimed a messianic figure too early feelings, even deep anger. and be radically misunderstood. The question of whether the First Evangelist indulges in the Markan messianic secret motif,37 which we also seem to find at Matthew 8:4, is much debated. At the least, one can say Matthew emphasizes the theme less than Mark. In any case, I would take it to be a genuine historical characteristic of Jesus’ ministry that he sought to avoid messianic caricatures. In an eschatologically

206

Matthew 8:1–9:38

charged environment following the Baptist, Jesus could well wish to be careful about how he responded to public acclamations. Jesus had not come to meet popular expectations about Messiah. Notice how in v. 28 we have a rare indication of what sort of faith Jesus expects in such a situation—namely a belief that Jesus can perform a miracle. The blind respond “yes sir” (kyrie having its simpler sense here as a term of respect, not a divine title). Verse 29 has kata plus pistis, which may mean, but probably doesn’t, “according to the measure of your faith.” Rather the meaning seems to be “because you have such faith.” Jesus can of course heal without faith, but he seldom chooses to do so, and where he met unfaith, Mark says he was unable to do so. Notice how in this verse it is not the touch but the word that heals. The men’s sight was apparently instantly restored. Yet, though he warned them to be sure not to let anyone know of this, they went out and spread it around the whole region. Little did they realize that they were hindering rather than helping the ministry of Jesus by doing so, for Jesus came primarily to preach and teach about the Dominion’s coming in and through his ministry, not to provide temporary remedies to physical problems. In his ministry the message was more important (as the stress and ordering of things in this Gospel makes clear where the teaching material is placed before this collection of healings). Notice that even healing is by a word of power, not by a physical act. If Jesus were pressed to do nothing but heal, the wider scope and character of his message would never get out. In vv. 32-34 we have the healing of a deaf and dumb man, which has several interesting features. For one thing, disease is not usually associated with demonic possession in this or other Gospels, but here the possession apparently causes this illness. The sign that exorcism had successfully been accomplished was that the dumb man immediately spoke. The crowd as usual was in awe of what had happened and said, “Never was it seen thusly in Israel.” This could be taken to be a criticism of the leadership of Jesus’ day, or more likely it is a recognition that Jesus and his ministry were someone and something truly unique. Notice, however, that v. 34 (which may be a later addition since various western manuscripts omit it) indicates that the Pharisees did not deny that Jesus exercised such power, but like in the Beelzebul story in Mark 3, it is suggested that Jesus casts out demons by the authority and power of the devil himself, who presumably is thought to have control of such beings. The miracle could not be denied, but its implications for the understanding of Jesus and his ministry could be variously interpreted.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

207

Verse 35 is a summary we have already come across before, but here it sums up what characterized Jesus’ ministry—preaching, teaching, healing through an itinerant ministry schema. This prepares us for what the disciples will be commissioned to do in the next chapter, namely to go and do likewise, imitating the words and actions of Jesus, thereby being extensions of Jesus’ own ministry, Jesus’ agents. Verse 36 involves a touching metaphor. Jesus felt compassion on the crowds (ochlos here as in v. 33) because it was as if they were without leadership or care or protection—like sheep without a shepherd. The verbs here are graphic. It says literally “they were like sheep that were torn and helpless.” The picture is of neglected sheep being attacked by wolves. Another possible translation would be harassed and helpless. This suggests not merely a leadership vacuum but rather leaders who were apparently even devouring the sheep instead of feeding and protecting them. Harvest They were harassing rather than helping them, In biblical literature, the image of harvest is usually an image of what will and the result was they were weak and weary. happen at the last judgment (cf. Joel 3:1; Isa Jesus however did not believe that even sheep in 17:11 cf. Matt 13:30, 39). The image of a sheep this condition were past being rescued. Indeed, without a shepherd also has Old Testament he had special concern for the least, last, and precedents, such as Num 27:17 when Joshua is lost. Thus Jesus decided to send out reinforceappointed. If harvest represents judgment, then ments or, better said, extenders of the the worker’s task is to warn as well as to gather in the harvest. Perhaps the harvesters are also ministry—namely the disciples. This is already conceived of as those who aid the sifting of the begun to be indicated in vv. 37-38, addressed as wheat from the chaff. In either case, Jesus saw it is to the disciples. The harvest is great but the the eschatological work of God happening through workers are few. The disciples are to beseech the his ministry. The disciples take over roles angels person in charge of the harvesting that he might were often thought to have at the eschaton in thrust out workers into the harvest. [Harvest] early Judaism.

CONNECTIONS Metaphor and Parables

In 1986 during a drought time in Galilee, the sea was at an all-time low, and not far from Capernaum, a first-century fishing boat was found stuck in the mud near the shore. It was 26.5 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and 4.5 feet deep, made of hand-hewn wooden beams. While the boat lacks an inscription in the stern saying “Jesus slept here,” it nonetheless gives one a feel for the sort of boat the disciples would have used as fishermen in the Sea of Galilee. It is not a boat that could have held more than twelve or thirteen people

208

Matthew 8:1–9:38 Mashal The term mashal is a broad one that can refer to riddles, aphorisms, proverbs, extended analogies, full-fledged narrative parables, and even allegories or at least parables with allegorical elements. The term, then, which is later translated as parabolos in the Greek, refers to metaphorical speech in a broad sense.

comfortably or safely, but it was big enough for that number, which is interesting. One can only imagine the terror of being caught in the middle of the lake during a massive storm in a boat that size without a motor or the luxury of being able to go below deck. The finding of this so-called “Jesus” boat helps us visualize the story. [Mashal] The parables of Jesus need to be seen in their original historical context, without the encumbrance of various modern theories of metaphor and meaning that are not really appropriate for analyzing the historical phenomena in question.38 If we wish to consider the category of metaphor as understood by the ancients, then Aristotle’s dictum that a metaphor is when a single aspect of A is related to a single aspect of B needs to be taken into consideration (Rhet. 2.20ff.). Yet this definition shows that parables, which frequently have several points of comparison with reality, were more than merely metaphors, though perhaps we might call them extended metaphors. It needs to be remembered that in early Jewish and Jewish Christian literature, metaphors and parables were by no means selfcontained units creating their own literary sphere or realm. Rather the issue was regularly the matter of the point or points of comparison, with the assumption always being that they referred in some way to a reality outside themselves.39 Parables are comparisons in the form of an analogy or story. Jesus’ parables in particular were both timely and historical in character, meant to provide his audience with various sorts of comparisons between what God’s Dominion and its in-breaking were like in comparison to familiar early Jewish life experiences. Though Jesus was certainly notable because of the frequency with which he used the parabolic form, and in some cases the subject matter he spoke about using the form (God’s in-breaking Dominion), Jesus was not unique in his use of the form, and recent studies of other early Jewish parables, many of which clearly have allegorical elements and some of which could simply be called allegories, have made clear that Jesus was a practitioner of a well-known art.40 But of importance is the fact that narrative parables, which seem to be Jesus’ most preferred form, were not

Matthew 8:1–9:38

characteristic of sages whose work made it into the Old Testament, but rather seem to have been a prophetic phenomenon, a prophetic modification of a Wisdom form (cf. 2 Sam 12:1-4; Ezek 17:3-10; Isa 5:1-6). Basically they are comparisons elongated into short narratives. It is fair to say Jesus cast his teaching into a recognizable sapiential form (riddles, aphorisms) or the prophetic adaptation of such a form (the narrative parable, often with allegorical elements). In either case he speaks by various means of figurative speech, choosing to address his audience indirectly. The evidence suggests that narrative meshalim were becoming increasingly popular in Jesus’ era.41 When one analyzes such material, it becomes clear that one needs to be able to distinguish between (1) allegory; (2) allegorical elements in what is otherwise not an allegory; (3) allegorizing of nonallegorical material either by altering the original text or by means of allegorical interpretation of the text (e.g., such as the medieval treatments of various of Jesus’ parables).42 Whatever the merits or problems of medieval interpretation of Jesus’ parables, it has no bearing on the question of the relationship of parable and allegory in Jesus’ day. It must also be stressed that parables in early Judaism regularly came with explanations or interpretations appended, and of seventy-one or so possible parables in the Synoptics, forty-two, or the majority, have some sort of explanation attached.43 It thus must not be automatically assumed that when one finds an explanation with a parable, it must necessarily be added later by the church. It may be a later addition, but this must be judged on a case-by-case basis. What is especially important to note is that Jesus’ parables do have allegorical elements, even the short ones. Thus, as we have seen, the bridegroom in the small parable in Matthew 8 is an allusion to Jesus himself. This fact does not give us warrant to try to find a symbolic meaning to every element in every parable of Jesus, or to allegorize them in some modern way. Most parables have only one or two or at most three points of comparison with reality, and it is interesting that it is precisely where you find an unrealistic element in a parable that a point often seems to be made about the Dominion. The Dominion far exceeds and transcends the bounds of normal reality. Thus, for example, when we hear of a miraculous yield of grain in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, we should not complain, “That’s not realistic.” The point is not mundane realism; the point is that something supernatural and eschatological is happening. It’s a God thing. Jesus’ parables, like his other words

209

210

Matthew 8:1–9:38

and deeds, are all about the way God is intervening in human lives. They speak of a reality that transforms mundane reality. This section of Matthew of course raises in an acute form the whole issue of miracles. In the first place, one may wish to ask— what is a miracle? The usual dictionary definition of a miracle being something that violates the laws of nature hardly seems appropriate if a miracle comes from the Creator of nature and its laws. It is, however, true that a miracle is by definition an extraordinary and unusual occurrence, one that goes beyond the usual happenings one experiences in day-to-day life. Moderns have had more trouble accepting some of the miracles of Jesus than others, attempting to explain the miracles by explaining them away. For example, healings are often accepted as part of Jesus’ ministry, albeit they are sometimes reduced to psychosomatic help of some sort, and exorcisms are seen as dealings with spiritual or emotional or psychological (but not supernatural) problems. On the other end of the spectrum comes naturalistic suggestions (e.g., when the boy handed over the five loaves and two fish, it prompted a spirit of sharing in the crowd, and they all shared until everyone had enough), which do not seem to do justice to the role of Jesus in these stories. Usually the miracles that have prompted the most objections as mythical tales of magic are the so-called nature miracles, such as the feeding of the 5,000 or walking on water. It needs to be said, however, that we do not have an exhaustive knowledge, even in our scientific era, of what is and is not possible in our universe. We are still learning the limits of what is normally possible. Furthermore, there is good reason to be uncomfortable with the suggestion that when God acts or intervenes in God’s own universe, it amounts to an intrusion, something that violates nature or nature’s laws. Surely the supernatural is something that goes beyond, not against, the laws of nature. Thus, I would say part of the posture of faith is not putting limits on what God can do in God’s own universe. This is a kind of open-mindedness many moderns often fail to achieve. It is not open-mindedness to rule out miracles on some sort of presuppositional basis that argues “everyone know miracles can’t happen, and so they never did and never do.” Beware of arguments about what “everyone” knows. To say “I have never seen or experienced a miracle” may speak more of one’s own impoverished and limited life experiences than of the limitations of the possible. And for every one person who makes such a statement, there are others who will urge that they have indeed personally experienced miracles.

Matthew 8:1–9:38

At the same time, we must be aware that ancient peoples did not have the knowledge we have of human physiology and of illness. For example, it is possible that some illnesses attributed to unclean spirits may have in fact been examples of epilepsy. Today we also know that fevers are symptoms of illnesses, not illnesses in themselves. There is thus a need to analyze critically what the New Testament says about illness and cure. Even so, and having done that, there are miracles that have nothing to do with cures or illness, such as raising the dead. There is then an irreducible amount of miracles in the Gospels, and explaining them away or dismissing them is not a viable way of understanding them. We must allow not only for the human element in these stories, but also the divine element, for Jesus was not only a great healer; he was one who himself experienced miracle, as the Easter stories make clear.

Notes 1 See

D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 200. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 262. 3 This story bears some resemblance to another story about healing at a distance in John 4:46-54, but it is likely a different story. See C. Keener, 263. 4 Though this is probably not a limitation the First Evangelist has in mind. 5 See A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988), 110-11. 6 However, the Lukan version of this story in Luke 7 has some Jewish elders coming to Jesus to speak for the centurion and on behalf of his son, so this story may not indicate that Jesus spoke Greek. 7 This is the famous “only miracle story in Q.” But as C. Keener, 264, suggests, it may have been retained in Q more for its climactic saying in Matt 8:11-12 than for the miracle itself. 8 Of course it is also true that slaves were expensive, being worth at least a third or more of a centurion’s annual salary, but this story suggests a personal concern for the slave’s welfare as well. 9 Though the Greek could be taken as a question (“Shall I come and heal him?”), this seems unlikely here. Jesus shows no reluctance to go to Gentile regions (cf. Matt 15:21). It is simply that Jesus’ mission is not to Gentiles, and so he asks if he should come. 10 See D. Hagner, 202. 11 These verses are found in another context in Luke’s Gospel, which may indicate that the First Evangelist himself has juxtaposed them with the miracle story about the centurion’s servant. 12 On the messianic banquet in early Jewish and early Christian literature, see Isa 25:6; Matt 22:1-14; 25:10; Luke 14:15-16; Rev 19:9; b. Pesah 119b. It is interesting 2 C.

211

212

Matthew 8:1–9:38 that the reference to those coming from the east and the west, as a phrase in itself, was understood to mean Diaspora Jews coming home to Israel in texts like Ps 107:3; Isa 43:5; Bar 4:37. 13 R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), 156. 14 D. Hagner, 208. 15 See the discussion in my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 99-100. 16 See in general my discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), here pp. 67-70, and Keener, Matthew, 270-71. 17 On Isaianic influence on the portrayal of Jesus in Matthew, see A. M. Leske, “Isaiah and Matthew,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant, ed. W. Bellinger and W. Farmer (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 152-69. 18 See the discussion in my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 248-50. 19 See G. Theissen, The First Followers of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), and the response of R. A. Horsley, The Sociology of the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989). 20 See the discussion in my The Christology of Jesus, 137-38. 21 See M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981). 22 Ibid., 7-9. 23 See, rightly, D. Hagner, 220. 24 Ibid., 221. 25 The standard and most helpful reference work on Jesus and exorcism is G. H. Twelftree’s Jesus the Exorcist (Tubingen: Mohr, 1993). 26 H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 102. 27 In Mark it is “Son of the Most High God,” which is a more historically believable acclamation in a pagan polytheistic setting. See my discussion in Gospel of Mark, 178-84, on this whole episode. 28 The name then might be a bit ironic, since a tax collector was constantly soliciting “gifts” from others. 29 See E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 174211. 30 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 225-26. 31 See my The Christology of Jesus, 71-72. 32 See D. Hagner, 244; C. Keener,301. 33 D. Hagner, 246-47. 34 See above pp. 205-06 where it was introduced earlier in the Matthean storyline. 35 See D. Hagner, 246-47. 36 On which see my The Christology of Jesus, 146-60. 37 On which see my Gospel of Mark, 40-49. 38 On this see my Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 147-50. 39 See C. Westermann, The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).

Matthew 8:1–9:38 40 See

R. E. Brown, New Testament Essays (Garden City: Image Books, 1968), 32023; Cf. B. H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist Press, 1989); and H. K. MacArthur and R. M. Johnston, They Also Taught in Parables (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). 41 Ibid. 42 See my discussion of A. Julicher’s errors and overreaction to medieval hermeneutics in Jesus the Sage, 159-60. 43 See J. A. Baird, Discovering the Power of the Gospel (Akron: Hampshire Books, 1989).

213

The Second Discourse— The Mission of the Twelve Matthew 10:1–11:1 The second discourse or block of teaching material is found in Matthew 10:1-11 and focuses on instructions for missionary work. Some of this material is particular to a mission to Jews, and it also assumes the system of standing hospitality that existed in the ancient Near Eastern context. There are of course also various eschatological aspects to the discourse. The material is directed to the Twelve in the first instance, but no doubt much of it would apply equally well to the First Evangelist’s Jewish Christian audience in their context. 1 [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 10–11]

We will have occasion later in the commentary to talk at length about how the First Evangelist presents the disciples and especially Peter, but here we want to make a few preliminary statements about certain tendencies before we look at the mission charge itself. Firstly, the First Evangelist only uses the term “apostle” once in his Gospel, at 10:2, and the term refers exclusively to the Twelve. We will explore the term apostolos later in more detail, but it literally means the sent out one, and it seems clear that Jesus envisioned this role as rather like that of the shaliah, the agent in early Judaism who represented the one who sent him and had a specific limited commission and authority to do specific things.2 The agent carries out the agenda of the sender, not his own agenda. The Jewish saying about the shaliah was that “a man’s agent is as himself,” and it was expected that such a one would be treated as though the sender had come in person, with the same honor and respect. Correspondingly, to disrespect or shame General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 10–11 In Matt 10 we have the beginning of a missionary discourse that is the second collection of Wisdom material in Matthew’s Gospel. This section might be considered rules for the road. The disciples of Jesus are sent out as learners to go to Israel alone and proclaim the good news and heal the sick—in other words to perform the same tasks Jesus performs. Matt 10:41 suggests that they will be seen as prophetic and righteous ones. The instructions given are like those Wisdom gives in how to be wise and righteous (Wis 7:27; Sir 24:33). Jesus here and even more clearly in Matt 11 is presented as Wisdom incarnate. As Matt 23:34 will later say, it is Jesus as Wisdom who has sent out prophets, sages, and scribes that have been rejected by Israel.

216

Matthew 10:1–11:1

the one sent was to disrespect or shame the sender himself. Rather clearly, the Twelve have a sort of derived authority, rather than innate or inherent authority. It should not be surprising then that the mission of the Twelve is described in the same terms as the mission of Jesus, as it is simply an extension of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 9:35-37 to 10:1-4).3 Furthermore, just like Jesus (cf. 15:24), the Twelve have a mission solely to Israel, and apparently only to the Galileans at this juncture (see below). I take the phrase “lost sheep of Israel” to refer to all Israel, but perhaps especially those most lost amongst Israel, though a case can be made that it refers to the lost northern tribes (i.e., Israel proper as opposed to Judeans). This conclusion is based on a close scrutiny of the use of the phrase in the Old Testament (cf. Jer 50:6; Ezek 34:1-16; Isa 53:6). This is true in spite of the apparent universalism at the end of Matthew 28, and in the sayings collection at several points. I take this to be historically correct. Jesus only directed his ministry to Jews, though he did not refuse to help others on occasion if he should happen to meet them or they came to him, seeking him out. Why? Because Israel must first be offered the opportunity to participate in the Dominion, the coming divine saving activity of God, as they were meant to be the light to the world. They would have the first opportunity to renew their relationship with God. This limit itself had a limit. It existed only until the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus was the last messenger to Israel and the disciples were the extension of that last eschatological outreach to Israel, which would not cease with the resurrection but would broaden to deliberately include the nations thereafter. In a teaching Gospel, it is not surprising to discover an emphasis on understanding, and one way the First Gospel differs from Mark is with its emphasis that the disciples do on occasion understand Jesus’ teaching. Thus at 13:51; 15:16; 16:9-12; 17:13 we learn that the disciples do in fact understand. The contrast is not a total one with Mark’s presentation, since in that Gospel the misunderstanding has particularly to do with the coming death and resurrection of Jesus. The First Gospel also does not suggest that the disciples understood those matters in advance of Easter. Nonetheless, in this Gospel the disciples are “you of little faith.” Faith in this Gospel seems to mean either (1) trust in Jesus’ power or ability to do something, such as a miracle or (2) faith in Jesus’ person, that he is who he seems to be. Understanding relates to Jesus’ teaching, faith to Jesus’ person and works. The First Evangelist distinguishes between the two.4 It is not then surprising that, as U. Luz shows, faith is the major focus in the miracle tales

Matthew 10:1–11:1

and understanding is the major focus in the teaching material. Understanding relates to ethics and doing; faith relates to Christology and the indicative of salvation through the coming of the Dominion in Jesus and his ministry. As Luz stresses, the disciples are presented as earwitnesses of Jesus’ teaching, whereas in Luke there is greater emphasis on them being eyewitnesses. Luz also suggests that the Son of David material indicates that the miracles were mainly meant to help Israel and redeem her. It is clear on the basis of Matthew 10 and 19:28 that Jesus specifically chose twelve, not merely because they represent the true community of Israel, symbolizing the twelve tribes, but because they were to have an eschatological role in relationship to Israel— judging. Their task was to free Israel, not simply be Israel in miniature. They were community in mission to Israel. It should be noted that in the First Gospel the term laos refers only to Israel, while ethnoi (Matt 28) refers to the non-Jewish nations. Does the First Evangelist see only the Twelve as Jesus’ disciples during his earthly ministry? While it may be fair to note that only the Twelve are specifically called disciples, nevertheless others were included in the teaching and learning and traveling. The word math∑tai refers to learners. It is not a technical term for ministers or the like. It is interesting that when this Evangelist gets down to describing what discipleship actually looks like (self-sacrificial love, bearing fruit), there are noticeable correspondences with the Fourth Gospel’s picture of discipleship (cf. Matt 13:35; 15:8-12, 46ff. to John 14–15). This is not surprising since these are the two Gospels most drawing on the sapiential traditions of early Judaism. With this background we can now examine some of the particulars of Matthew 10.

COMMENTARY The Twelve, 10:1–11:1

Jesus calls to himself twelve disciples (a phrase that suggests there were only twelve at this juncture) and gives them power over unclean spirits, power to cast them out, and power to heal every sort of disease. Verse 8 adds one more activity, raising the dead (some manuscripts omit this task, but these are mostly late ones).5 If the disciples are given the same power and authority as Jesus, then the deeds should match up rather closely. If the disciples can do the same things as Jesus, it follows that miracles in themselves

217

218

Matthew 10:1–11:1

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Sarcophagus of the Twelve Apostles Sarcophagus of the Twelve Apostles. Early Christian. S. Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna, Italy [Photo Credit: Scala / Art Resource, NY]

cannot be a definitive proof of Jesus’ divinity, or else it would prove the divinity of the disciples as well. To be sure, the disciples’ power is purely derivative from Jesus, but then Jesus’ power is depicted as coming from the Spirit since baptism. Matthew 10 in any case demonstrates that discipleship means to be like Jesus in word and deed and lifestyle. On a limited scale, such emulation was possible if one had the exousia of Jesus. [A Sapiential Reading of 10:1-42] Matthew 10:2 suggests a certain preeminence of Peter. In all such lists of the Twelve, he comes first and Judas Iscariot of course comes last. The First Evangelist by using the word “first” stresses that Peter A Sapiential Reading of 10:1-42 This is one long continuous discourse without a break. Jesus authorizes the disciples to do the same things he was doing, but notice it is only the Twelve, the inner circle he empowers and sends out, two by two. The sending them out in pairs is likely because of the Jewish belief that the truth of anything must be confirmed by the testimony of two witnesses. Here for the first time we have the names of the Twelve. The disciples are to go only to the lost sheep of Israel. The good news is for them in the first place. It is not clear whether this means all of Israel that is lost, or the lost amongst Israel, or even the northern tribes who were thought to be lost, i.e., the Galileans. The disciples are to take no resources with them but rather to rely on the system of standing Jewish hospitality in each town. The disciples are exhorted to act as sages—wise as serpents but innocent as doves (v. 16) and not naive about the potential for harm or the evil of some people. They do not speak for

themselves or of themselves, but the Spirit of the Father speaks through them, as is the case with Jesus (v. 20). They must expect persecution, rejection, and to be a cause of division and turmoil. Jesus did not come to bring peace, but rather the hour of decision, and so the division of the righteous and the unrighteous, the wise and the foolish (vv. 34-36). When persecuted, they are to flee to the next city, for there are more than enough such cities even just in Israel to last until the Son of Man returns (v. 23). V. 24 is crucial as it shows again the context of this Gospel. It is for those who are already sages in training, apprentices in the school of Jesus who is Wisdom, and they may expect the same kind of rejection and treatment the supreme sage received. The advice about anxiety from the first discourse is recapitulated here (vv. 28-31). V. 40 indicates that the disciples are agents and extensions of their Master, such that those who reject the agents have rejected the Master who sent them, and the converse is also true about receiving them.

Matthew 10:1–11:1

is the preeminent or “first” among the Twelve. This Evangelist presents the Twelve in pairs, which he does not likely get from Mark; it may be because the Twelve are sent out in pairs. There may also be something to the notion that since according to the Old Testament way of doing things the truth of anything needs to be confirmed by two witnesses, the disciples are sent out in pairs, as well as paired in Matthew’s list. Several names in this list cause difficulty. Problematic is Thaddeus, whose name does not appear in other lists and who seems to be replaced by Judas son of James in Luke 6:16 (cf. John 14:22). This might suggest that the Twelve was a more fluid group during Jesus’ life than we have previously thought, or of course Thaddeus could have another name. There is in any case a textual problem in regard to the name “Thaddeus.” Some manuscripts have “Lebbeus,” though these are mostly late manuscripts. Some manuscripts even have Judas Z∑løt∑s, but surely the more difficult reading is Thaddeus and it should be retained. We know nothing about this man, even whether he may be the same person as Judas Z∑løt∑s. It is noteworthy that the Nathaniel mentioned in John 1 is nowhere mentioned in these lists. Notice that in the First Evangelist’s list, we are told Matthew was a tax collector, and then we have Simon Kananaios, which surely does not mean Canaanite but probably goes back to the Hebrew word qana, which means zealous, hence Simon the Zealot. While this may be a comment on his temperament, it is more likely to be a comment on his politics. There is also a question about what “Iscariot” means. It could mean “man of Kerioth,” but more likely it means Sicarri or sekarya. If the latter, it would be Judas “man of falsehood” or “betrayer,” or man of the Sicarri (the dagger men amongst the Zealots). We are told clearly in v. 4 that he is the one who hands Jesus over (paradous in itself need not have a negative connotations, though it can mean “betray” or “hand over”). The First Evangelist leaves out the description of James and John as the sons of thunder but includes the reminder that Andrew was the brother of Peter. Verse 5 is important as it provides Jesus’ instruction of where he told the disciples to go—“not into the way of the Gentiles and do not enter the city [or more likely province] of the Samaritans.” This seems to mean avoid the roads that lead to Gentile territory and avoid Samaritan territory. If this command was given in Galilee, then it shut the disciples up in Galilee, for one could only get to Judea through either Samaritan or Gentile territory. This then leads to the possibility that “lost sheep of Israel” actually refers to the northern tribes that were seen as lost by the Judean Jews. Did Jesus see it as his earthly mission to bring the northern tribes back into

219

220

Matthew 10:1–11:1

the fold? Whatever may be the case, it seems clear that the sending out of the Twelve was for a mission to Galilee specifically. The disciples are to preach that the Dominion is near (eggiken, once more). This in turn suggests that the Dominion is brought near by preaching, teaching, and healing, by word and deed, as was the case with Jesus. Verse 9 gives the description of what the disciples were to take on this camping trip. The most basic instruction is “freely you have received, so freely give,” which seems to mean don’t charge for your services and for bringing the Dominion near. What the disciples have in terms of power, authority, and message they have been given freely, so they are to share it freely. But at the same time, there is another side to this—a workman is worthy of his maintenance (trophos, v. 10, means not just food but room and board). Thus while the disciples are expected not to charge, it was also expected that the listeners would respond freely and provide maintenance. This seems to amount to depending on the system of standing hospitality. They are not to acquire money (gold, silver, copper) for their belts, i.e., to store in their belts for their trip, which was the common practice. Nor are they to take two outer garments (presumably for warmth) perhaps because they will be staying in the houses of the villages they visit. Nor are they to take sandals or staff. The reason for this command was that Jesus expected his followers to be taken care of wherever they went to minister, but since the verb in question is kt∑s∑sthe, probably what is in view is not going out and acquiring more than what one already has. “Go as you are” is the motto. This would then not conflict with Mark’s allowance of carrying a staff (if one already has one). Verse 11 indicates they are not to plan ahead for lodging either. When they get to a town, they are to inquire of individuals who will let them stay with them, using their discernment (wise as serpents [i.e., shrewd or prudent] but innocent as doves [i.e., being people of faithfulness, integrity, honesty, patience]). They are not to move from house to house, but to stay in one place in a particular village, perhaps so they will be forced to move on and not become local celebrities when they have worn out their welcome in one home. It would shame the original host if they went to another house in the same town, so it was an honor and shame issue. Jesus is also implying that his disciples will live in a simple fashion so as to make clear they are not in it for the money. Jesus then is not urging asceticism and certainly not for its own sake, but rather simplicity and the willingness to move on faith and allow God to provide through others.

Matthew 10:1–11:1

Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.

221

222

Matthew 10:1–11:1

Verses 12-13 indicate a familiar custom. When one enters a place one offers shalom/well-being to the house. Notice that what is implied here is not mere words but rather words that conveyed some kind of actual blessing to the household, but this was only so if the household was worthy of it; if not the blessing returned to the giver. The dynamic power of the word is clear, but also the benefit depends on how and whether it is received. Verse 14 indicates what to do if there are those who do not receive or listen to the disciples’ words and deeds—namely shake the dust off their feet as they leave town, which Shaking Off the Dust is a gesture of rejection and judgment on the Probably the action of Jesus’ disciples in place. Also note the saying implies they are shaking the dust off their feet has nothing to do with the later rabbinic gesture of wearing sandals. [Shaking Off the Dust] They are to shaking the dust off one’s feet when one leaves a have nothing to do with such a place again, and Gentile country because its soil was viewed as this suggests that the place is also cut off from soiled—unclean. the Dominion. This suggestion is likely in light of v. 15, which intimates it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for a town that has rejected the ambassadors of the Dominion. This whole passage requires an understanding of ancient Near Eastern hospitality practices and how they work. In that culture, when one invited a person into one’s home, one was honor-bound to do all one could to make the guest, even a stranger, feel comfortable throughout the visit. One was to provide for, care for, and protect the guest (cf. the actual stories about Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19—even at the risk of one’s own family and property). Only in such a setting would Jesus have given these sorts of instructions. His guidance presupposes a system of standing hospitality. That this discourse is composed of disparate elements is shown not merely by the fact that the material is found in various places in Luke and some of it in Mark, but also because when we get to vv. 16-42 the thematic grouping of the material becomes clearer.6 Verses 16-23 seem to belong together as a subunit, so we will treat them together. Note that the First Evangelist includes material here from Mark 13:9-13, and in particular material about persecution. This is perhaps not only because he knew there was rejection of the witness of disciples during the lifetime of Jesus, but also because persecution and even prosecution was an ongoing problem for the minority sect of Jewish Christians in the Holy Land. Persecution and prosecution are both opportunities for witness. The disciples go out apparently defenseless, as sheep amongst wolves, but they are equipped with the Spirit of God who will speak through them

Matthew 10:1–11:1

when they must bear witness. In Mark 13 it is clearer that Jesus is referring to situations after his lifetime, but the First Evangelist has grouped this material together here due to its relevance to the present situation of his audience. They were already having run-ins with synagogue rulers and were being dragged before town councils and Gentile magistrates, and it was good to remind them that Jesus sent the disciples out even though he knew in advance there would be opposition and resistance all along. There is nothing here about finding a friendly homogenous target audience or taking the path of least resistance! Verses 21-23 indicate that families will become divided “over me.” Brother will betray brother, children will rebel against parents, and parents will betray children. There will even be considerable hatred directed at the disciples. They are not to worry because if they persevere firmly to the end they will be saved. The saying in v. 23 must not be taken out of context. The context is the cities of Israel, which may mean the cities in Galilee. The underlying idea has to do with fleeing to cities of refugee from those who are persecuting or pursuing you. Jesus’ advice is when a disciple is persecuted in one city he should flee to another. The idea is that there are plenty of places to which to run if need be. The reference to the Son of Man coming could refer to Jesus himself showing up where they were witnessing during his ministry (notice, e.g., 11:1, which refers to him going out and teaching and preaching in the cities of Galilee after he has sent the disciples out two by two). There could however be a reference to the second coming of the Son of Man, and again the point is there will be plenty of places to run to in Israel until the Son of Man comes. This need not imply a clearly imminent return of the Son of Man, but rather speak to the numerous places to which his disciples could flee. It will be remembered that A. Schweitzer based his conclusion that Jesus expected the parousia of some Son of Man figure other than himself before his ministry was over largely on his interpretation of this saying.7 But clearly the First Evangelist, writing in the last couple of decades in the first century, did not think Jesus was referring to some sort of eschatological parousia during or shortly after Jesus’ earthly ministry. That time had come and long gone by the time he wrote this Gospel, and he is still using this verse to instruct his own listeners. Notice that the saying says nothing about the Son of Man coming on clouds or in glory or with angels. The coming could be a perfectly mundane one. I agree with S. McKnight that the original setting for this saying is more nearly exhibited in Mark than in Matthew, and that setting

223

224

Matthew 10:1–11:1

is probably in the events leading up to AD 70 rather than during the ministry of Jesus.8 Hagner suggests that what is meant is the Son of Man coming and judging Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.9 This is possible, but since this entire chapter is a mixture of sayings about ministry and the post-ministry period, and since only the First Evangelist adds what we find in 10:23, it would be better to see this saying as a word of encouragement without a time limit, stressing even in the late first century that Jewish Christians need to continue their witness in Israel, and they will have plenty of places to which to run, indeed enough to last even until Jesus’ return. Matthew 10:24-25 is important in a pedagogically-oriented Gospel like this one. The saying probably suggests that if the master teacher was persecuted and rejected and demonized, his disciples shouldn’t expect better treatment. Notice how servant and master are interchangeable terms with disciple and teacher here. The version of this saying in John 15:20 makes the persecution context clearer. We will say more about the use of the name Beelzebul for Satan later,10 but here it is sufficient to note that the name means “Lord of the house” and so there is a certain ironic appropriateness of calling a man who says he is the “head of the house” Beelzebul, though of course the term is being used pejoratively of Jesus.11 It is interesting that Jesus calls his disciples members of his household. This is the sort of terminology that rabbis might use of their followers who came to their house to study with them, and what this use here suggests is that Jesus sees himself in the mold of at least some other Jewish teachers and sages of his day. As Hagner points out, the First Evangelist likes using the term oikodespot∑s of Jesus or God (cf. here with 20:1, 11; 21:33).12 Jesus uses the language of family (brother, sister) to describe his disciples at various points, so it is in no way surprising he would use the language of head of the house and household to further describe his relationship with his disciples. Verses 26-31 try to encourage the disciples not to be afraid of their critics and persecutors. They are not to be afraid even of those who would take their physical lives, so long as they didn’t kill their spirits or souls. They are only to fear the one who can destroy both their bodies and their spirits in Gehenna. This reference to the body going down to Gehenna may surprise some, but it is consistent with one form of Jewish afterlife theology that suggested no one went to Gehenna until after they had been raised from the dead, faced the final judgment, and then as whole people either been condemned to Gehenna or allowed into the messianic kingdom. This line of thinking should be compared to the parable

Matthew 10:1–11:1

and its explanation in Matthew 25:31-46, where the eternal destiny of a person is not determined until after the Son of Man returns and executes final judgment. The “goats” are said to depart into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. This is an interesting way of putting things and suggests that Gehenna is seen as a place of punishment for Satan, fallen angels, and condemned human beings. The disciples are to proclaim what they hear in private in the most public of places, even shout it from the housetops. The revelation Jesus is conveying is meant to be an open secret now that the Dominion is breaking into human history. The reference to the sparrows and the worth of human beings compared to them in vv. 29-30 is an echo of what is said in the Sermon on the Mount about God’s providential care for his own, especially since humans are worth so much more than sparrows. Verses 32-33 indicate that there are eternal consequences to publicly acknowledging Jesus, namely Jesus will acknowledge such a person before the Father, but whoever disowns Jesus will be disowned before the Father (cf. 12:36-37; John 12:42; 1 Tim 6:12-13; Rev 3:5). The most important thing about this saying is that it makes how one reacts to Jesus and whether one is prepared to bear witness to him, even under the threat of rejection and death, the deciding factor in the coming judgment.13 In other words, Jesus calls for an unswerving allegiance and confession about himself, as early Jews expected they must muster up in regard to God. The implicit high Christology in this saying is remarkable. Verses 34-36 actually comport well with v. 21 and are in a sense an expansion of that saying. It may at first seem incongruous to say allegiance to the gospel of peace will lead to strife, but this is precisely what Jesus says here where the word “sword” is used metaphorically to describe the divisions caused in a family by some members becoming followers of Jesus and others refusing to do so. The first part of the saying suggests that Jesus understands why the disciples might expect that Jesus had come to bring peace. But in fact the disciples are told to expect hostility not only from strangers but even from members of their own families. It would appear that Jesus draws on Micah 7:6 for the description of the divisions in vv. 35-36. This is quite apt since the Micah passage is about times of strife and trouble, even internal strife in the family prior to the time of eschatological deliverance (cf. Jub 23:16-20; 1 En 10:02; 4 Ezra 6:24).14 Verses 37-39 bring out even more clearly the implications of what Jesus has been saying, namely that allegiance to and love of

225

226

Matthew 10:1–11:1

Jesus must be one’s top priority. Anyone who loves one of their own family members more than they love Jesus is said to not be worthy of Jesus. It is also added that the one who doesn’t take up his cross and follow Jesus is also not worthy of him. The saying in v. 39 is something of an exposition of v. 38—the person who affirms and seeks after his own life, his own priorities, his own selfcentered lifestyle, will in the end lose his life, but the person who gives up his life, both his life priorities and his life itself for the sake of Jesus and the good news, will discover that he has entered into the Dominion, into eternal life. Verses 40-42 provide the last of these sayings, and the concept of agency clearly underlies what is said. The person who receives one of Jesus’ disciples has in effect welcomed Jesus, and the person who has welcomed Jesus has even welcomed the one who sent Jesus— the Father. Furthermore, there are rewards for such positive reception of God’s messengers. If anyone receives and honors someone as a prophet, that person will receive the same reward as a faithful prophet, and the same applies if one receives a person as a righteous man. Indeed, even giving one of Jesus’ disciples a cup of cold water will not go unrewarded. Notice that here and in Matthew 18:6-14, Jesus’ disciples are called “little ones.” This discourse has had much to say early on about hospitality, and here it has something positive that the disciples can tell those who are offering them hospitality—namely that God will notice and they will be rewarded (cf. 1 Kgs 17:12-16; 2 Kgs 4:8-17). It is interesting that Jesus came to see his messengers as prophetic figures (cf. here to 5:11-12; 11:9; 13:17), and it may be that the First Evangelist uses the terms “prophet” and “righteous man” interchangeably (cf. 13:17; 23:29).15 In any case, both disciples and those who treat them well are said to receive rewards for honoring and welcoming the good news and those who come to share it with them. Matthew 11:1 is the end of this discourse properly speaking, indeed the clause that begins this verse in the Greek is the one the Evangelist uses to end all five of Jesus’ discourses in this Gospel (cf., e.g., 7:28). The verb here, however, is unique in this Gospel— diatassein. This verb can be translated “to direct or to command or order or instruct.” Jesus has been instructing, but the lessons taught are not optional for his disciples; they have the force of commands and directions. This saying is interesting not merely because it tells us Jesus had reached a juncture where he was finished instructing his disciples, at least on these particular matters, but also because Jesus goes forth

Matthew 10:1–11:1

to do teaching and preaching (notice preaching is again mentioned first) in the towns of Galilee. In other words, Jesus is not satisfied merely to instruct his own pupils; he teaches the public as well, and furthermore, Jesus sets his disciples a good example by itinerating and teaching his way through the towns to which he is also sending his own disciples. He models the behavior he expects. Notice nothing is said about him going forth to perform miracles. For the First Evangelist, “however, teaching and preaching are the more fundamental bases of the ministry of Jesus (and of his disciples, cf. 10:7).”16 This emphasis is partly because Jesus is mainly being portrayed as a sage rather than a wonder-worker in this Gospel, but there seems to be another reason as well. Jesus knows that if he heals a person’s body, that person will go on and die eventually anyway. There is only a temporary benefit to such a healing. But if he gives the person the good news and the person receives it, there is an eternal benefit. He or she will one day enter the Dominion of God and participate in the messianic banquet. Hence, the emphasis and priority must be the teaching and preaching. This verse then serves nicely as a transition away from the discourse and back to the narrative of the ministry itself.17

CONNECTIONS Being a Disciple

There are numerous lessons to be learned from this material about how followers of Jesus will need to operate in a hostile environment. One of the principles that underlies this material is that it is better to work in pairs, so that at least you have one person to support you wherever you go. You will notice in Matthew 10 that absolutely nothing is said about target audiences or deciding where you are going to go based on some sort of demographic survey. The idea here is that everyone needs to know that the Dominion is near, whether they are prepared to receive the news or not. There is nothing in this material that encourages empire building; indeed it is not even about church building. Most churches today are concerned about adding members to their numbers and better supporting their budgets. That is an inward and self-centered way of looking at things. It often assumes “if we build it they will come.” But here the primary concern is indeed the well-being of the others to whom one is reaching out, not the well-being of the group of which one is

227

228

Matthew 10:1–11:1

already a part. The lost are truly lost, and they need to be reached one way or another. The call to discipleship follows the call to repent and receive the good news about the Dominion and about Jesus. Sometimes we try to turn people into disciples before they are even ready to turn to Christ. In terms of the witnessing involved, you will notice that Jesus expects the Twelve to do pretty much everything he was doing— teaching, preaching, healing. The job description is not different. And furthermore, we may presume he made sure they were equipped to do what he asked them to do, not merely informed about what they ought to do. They may expect a great deal of rejection just as Jesus experienced rejection even at his base of operations in Capernaum.

Notes 1 D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 62. Cf. D. Senior, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 137-38. 2 See my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 126-37. 3 On the Evangelist’s view of the disciples in general, see U. Luz, “The Disciples in the Gospel of Matthew,” in The Interpretation of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 98-128. 4 See U. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1992), 38-42. 5 B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 27. 6 There is no agreement among scholars in regard to the structure of Matt 10, but topically the material hangs together rather well. 7 See my discussion in Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 39-42. 8 S. Mc Knight, “Jesus and the Endtime: Matthew 10:23,” SBL Seminar Papers 1986, 501-20. 9 D. Hagner, 280, but how would this have helped or comforted the hearers of Matthew’s Gospel, which was written after AD 70? 10 See below pp. 246-48. 11 See C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 325, n. 38. 12 D. Hagner, 282. 13 See C. Keener, 329, and D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, v. 1 (ICC; T & T Clark International, 2004), 214. 14 See the discussion in D. Hagner, 292. 15 See C. Keener, 332. 16 D. Hagner, 297. 17 See R. T. France, Matthew (TDNT; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), 191.

Jesus and His Inquisitors Matthew 11:2–12:50 The narrative material we find in Matthew 11–12 that leads to the third discourse in Matthew 13 involves a variety of stories in which Jesus has interaction with John’s disciples, the Pharisees, and finally his own family. The common thread throughout this material is that Jesus is misunderstood by various people, even those who ought to be his friends and supporters. In order to clarify who he is and what he is up to, Jesus resorts to several rhetorical strategies: (1) To John’s disciples he says “consider my deeds (and words)” and then concludes with a comment to the crowd that he himself is the Wisdom of God who will be known and proved right by his deeds (11:19). (2) To the Pharisees he reacts in a polemical manner and eventually refuses to offer them a validating sign. (3) When his own family asks to speak with him, he is demonstrable in pointing out that his disciples are his true family. In other words, we have a growing air or ethos of controversy as the narrative progresses in Matthew. In terms of Jesus’ self-understanding and also the Matthean outline, this section is critical. Up to now Jesus has been identified as Son of David and has called himself Son of Man. We have not yet reached the great acclamation of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. That affirmation does not come until Matthew 16. It is telling that here at this crucial juncture in the narrative, Jesus not only openly identifies himself as Wisdom, but he goes on to portray his relationship to the weary and burdened as that of Wisdom gathering her chicks. Even more pointedly, he says his yoke, not that of Torah, is light and his disciples are to pick it up and place it on their shoulders. He makes perfectly clear that he is uniquely privy to the mind of God, for the sages and the scribes of his day have not had revealed to them what has been revealed by the Father to Jesus the sage, who is the very Wisdom and Son of God. No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom he chooses to reveal the Father. We have here the fullest exposition by Jesus himself of how he views his own identity and role and relationship with God. I suggest it is from these pericopes in Matthew 11 that the Evangelist took his cues and decided to portray Jesus as Emmanuel, as God’s Wisdom come in the flesh, in a consistent way throughout this Gospel. This was his way of staying within a Jewish mode of discourse and yet making clear what we

230

Matthew 11:2–12:50

would call the divinity of Jesus, that he was so much more than yet another human messianic pretender or contender. We will say more on this as we examine Matthew 11 in more detail. Jesus and John, 11:2-19

In this section of material, which is taken over from Q (cf. Luke 7), we have three separate sets of traditions—11:2-61; 11:7-11; and 11:16-19. The first subsection is clearly a pronouncement story with the memorable saying coming at the end.2 What is especially interesting about this material is that while we have Jesus’ characteristic indirect way of answering the identity question, later in this chapter Jesus will more clearly and directly indicate who he is. Notice that here Jesus indicates something of his identity by citing material from Isaiah 26:19; 29:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1. The importance of this citation is that it shows that Jesus sees himself as more than a prophet. He sees himself as one who fulfills prophecy in and by his ministry. [A Sapiential Reading of 11:1-19] John’s query about Jesus’ identity comes from the period of time when he is in prison, and the query comes by means of John’s disciples. There is doubt about whether Jesus is the one who is to come or whether another after him or in addition to him should be expected. It would appear that the question arises because John expected the one who would follow him to be the one bringing the definitive judgment on Israel, although not without rescuing a certain remnant. Did John wonder if Jesus was the Elijah figure spoken of in Malachi 3:1? It is possible. If John did think this, Jesus quickly dismisses such an identification and replaces it with a more Isaianic vision of himself and his ministry. It is also possible that John was thinking about the Coming One referred to in Zechariah 9:9,which certainly shaped some messianic hopes at Qumran (cf. 1QS 9.11; 4QPBless.3). Jesus in any case did not seem to be carrying out judgment on Israel, though we are about to hear him A Sapiential Reading of 11:2-19 John the Baptist was the nearest point of comparison for Jesus and for others evaluating Jesus. Unlike John, however, Jesus was not merely a prophet of doom but a prophetic sage proclaiming good news and healing people, something John is never said to have done. Jesus describes John as the eschatological prophet referred to in Malachi who prepares the way of the Lord, which in turn makes Jesus the coming of God into his people’s midst. But in what form? Matt 11:4-5 should be compared to 11:19—Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, and this is referring to Jesus’ deeds. The beatitude in v. 6 is important: notice that it says “blessed are those who find no offense or scandal in me,” not merely “in my teaching.” Jesus is speaking as more than just a sage whose teaching is the most crucial thing.

Matthew 11:2–12:50

Christ Baptized by John the Baptist Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665). Saint John Baptizing in the Jordan River. Location: The J. Paul Getty Museum. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100-1923)]

pronounce a whole series of woes on certain cities. Rather, in fact, Jesus points out that he has been healing and helping people. If the emphasis in John’s message was coming judgment, the emphasis in Jesus’ ministry was on the in-breaking of God’s divine saving and rescuing activity. It is interesting that the composite Scripture citing the response of Jesus consists of six brief clauses and a closing beatitude, which if translated back into Aramaic has a poetic form.3 It would appear that Jesus learned his Hebrew Scriptures, then rephrased them in his spoken Aramaic, combining various sayings together. The emphasis in this citation is on the present fulfillment during Jesus’ ministry of various Old Testament hopes. Jesus has his own vision of what messiah was to be about, for messiah as healer was not a regular part of the profile for such a role in early Judaism. Most interesting is that Jesus chooses to omit the portions of the texts he is citing that refer to judgment (see Isa 29:20; 35:5; 61:2).4 By contrast, not only are miracles done but good news is preached to the poor. The final beatitude is also interesting, suggesting as it does that how one reacts to Jesus now, in particular if one is scandalized by him now, if one stumbles or takes offense over him and his message now, will determine one’s standing at the eschatological

231

232

Matthew 11:2–12:50

judgment later. It would appear that this beatitude has John specifically in mind. Jesus hopes John will not give up viewing Jesus as the Coming One. Two final comments are important. This story makes clear that Jesus did not begin his ministry after John died, but rather before. Notice however that we do not hear how John responded to Jesus’ answer. The story is a biographical anecdote told for what it reveals to the reader about Jesus. It is not told for its own sake. Matthew 11:7-11 makes clear that whatever doubts John may have had at one juncture about Jesus, Jesus had no doubts about John. He even calls him both more than a prophet and the “greatest person ever born,” a remark so stunning that it surely must be an authentic word of Jesus. If John was wondering if Jesus was the figure referred to in Malachi 3:1, Jesus scotches that rumor by making clear that it is John who fulfilled that role (see the citation of Mal 3:1 in v. 10). John, not Jesus, is the Elijah figure in question who is the one who goes before and prepares the way for the messianic figure. The remarks Jesus makes in vv. 7-11 are made to the crowd, and they confirm what we already knew—that John’s venue for his ministry was in the chalk wilderness near the Jordan, that the crowds came to him, and that his apparel was far from royal. So far as we know, unlike Jesus, John did not go around soliciting and selecting disciples. But the saying we find in 11:7-8 has more to it than immediately meets the eye. Herod Antipas was the one who wore royal apparel in this region, and even more tellingly Jesus is critiquing Herod as a reed blown in the wind, moving whichever way the political wind was blowing. Even more striking is the fact that Herod used a reed as an emblem on his coins before AD 26, and Jesus surely would have seen such coins as a resident of Galilee. Jesus then is contrasting John with his captor, Herod Antipas. Jesus has nothing good to say about the latter, a vacillating and corrupt ruler who did not even hesitate to build his capital Tiberias on a Jewish graveyard, trampling on Jewish sensibilities. By contrast Jesus has only good things to say about John.5 The question is—What does it mean to say John is both a prophet and more than a prophet? The most plausible answer is that he is seen as the final eschatological prophet who ushers in the final action of God for his people. This makes good sense, since it is clear Jesus believed the Dominion was already breaking in during his ministry. “The greatness of John thus implies something about the greatness of Jesus.”6 But what of the remark that John is the greatest human being ever born of a woman? Well, for one thing

Matthew 11:2–12:50

233

this is a contrast saying and so the remark does not stand alone. What Jesus goes on to say is that even the least person in the Dominion of Heaven is greater than John. The point of the saying then is that however great John is, and he is a great prophet, yet being able to be even the least of those who are in the eschatological Dominion is an even greater status, even in an honor and shame culture. This saying may suggest that at the time, Jesus did not think John was “in” the Dominion just yet, perhaps as a result of his doubts about Jesus. But this conclusion seems a bit too harsh in light of the next verse we must consider. It turns out this saying in v. 11 is about two ways of evaluating the human condition—those born of women and those reborn into the Dominion of God. Jesus constantly makes clear that what one is by faith is much more important than what one is by physical birth, even though his culture believed one’s identity was largely determined by geog- John the Baptist in the Wilderness raphy, gender, and generation (i.e., Hieronymus Bosch (c.1450–1516). Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness.Museo Lazaro Galdiano, Madrid, Spain. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] ethnicity). All else pales in comparison to the privilege of being able to participate in God’s Dominion. Perhaps Jesus has picked up and expanded on John’s contrast between what one is by birth and one’s status by repentance and faith. The material in vv. 12-15 makes clear that John should be seen as a transitional and indeed a sort of epoch-making figure. Notice first that Jesus says in v. 12 that the Dominion of God began to break into history from the time of John. But what does one make of the second half of this verse?7 The verbs in the second half of this saying always imply physical violence as a means of coercion.8 The saying as we have it in Matthew seems to mean that the Dominion currently suffers violence and violent men plunder it. [Synonymous Parallelism] This may refer to the actions of Zealots seeking to force the kingdom to come by attacking Romans. But it is not Romans

234

Matthew 11:2–12:50 Synonymous Parallelism The extensive discussion by Llewelyn in New Docs 7, 130-62, with illustrations from the papyri seems decisive. We are dealing with synonymous parallelism in the two clauses in v. 12, which he translates, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of Heaven is acquired by force and violent men plunder it.” He relates this same data to Matt 22:33-46, demonstrating that the practices of acquisition by possession (usucapio) are in play and that the parable is realistic.

who are said here to suffer violence, but rather the Dominion. In light of the incarceration of John, the saying could mean John and perhaps Jesus had suffered from having violent men lay hands on them, in John’s case to try to silence him, in Jesus’ to try to make him king (cf. John 6:15). This is not impossible as a reading of the text. But if Jesus is using negative language to talk about a positive thing, he might mean former Zealots, outcasts, sinners were storming the gates of the Dominion and eagerly grabbing hold of its riches. This makes sense in light of the response of Jesus to John when he was in jail. It must be remembered that Jesus had at least one or two former zealots amongst the Twelve.9 In any case, this saying attests to the volatile atmosphere in Galilee in which Jesus and John operated. It also makes clear that Jesus sees the Dominion as a present entity that can be acted on. Since the Dominion is already present, the turn of the era has already come. This helps us understand vv. 13-15 that state that the Law and Prophets were operative until and including John, and John is to be seen as the epoch-changing Elijah figure who brings that whole era to a close and opens the door on the new eschatological one (see below on 17:10-13). This makes sense in light of the sapiential treatment of the Elijah figure in Sirach 48:10. He was to come prior to the end of the era and help usher it in. This saying means Jesus did not see his work as a mere extension or continuation of either John’s work or of the agendas of the Law and Prophets. The new eschatological time has arrived. New occasions do indeed teach new duties and prompt new commandments. Jesus has served up a sage’s riddles in vv. 11-14, and he stresses that the period of the Law and the Prophets is over. Notice the word “all” in the phrase “all the Law and the Prophets prophesied until John.” Now is the period of eschatological fulfillment of what the prophets previously announced, promised, and predicted. Verse 15 makes clear that one has to open his ears and cogitate on what is said to truly hear and understand what Jesus is saying. But this is typical of all wisdom material that is allusive and metaphorical and is meant to tease the mind into active thought.

Matthew 11:2–12:50

235

Verses 16-19 provide us with another set of sayings that involve John, and once again we see the penchant of our author for grouping thematically similar material together. Here we have a saying about “this generation,” sometimes also called “this evil generation” (cf. 12:41-45; 16:4; 17:17). In these verses we have a not very flattering picture painted of the audience of John and Jesus, and we also have an implicit and explicit statement about John’s and Jesus’ contrasting styles of ministry. What we have here is another Wisdom saying in the form of a similitude.10 John’s fasting lifestyle is contrasted with Jesus’ feasting Wisdom—Son or Father? S. Gathercole has argued for translating lifestyle. John is accused of being demon-posv. 19 “Wisdom (i.e., God) has been sessed (perhaps because when you have someone absolved/disassociated from her actions (i.e., fasting in the wilderness, they are in the domain those of Jesus and John).” The problem with this where the devil was thought to dwell, and translation is that it does not fit what is said fasting makes one susceptible to temptation— about Wisdom elsewhere in this Gospel, which see Matt 4!). Jesus is accused of being a glutton associates Wisdom with the Son, not the Father. and a friend of tax collectors and notorious S. Gathercole, “The Justification of Wisdom (Matt sinners. John’s ministry is compared to 11:19b/Luke 7:35),” NTS 49 (2003): 476-88. mourning, presumably because he was calling the people to repent in dust and ashes. Jesus’ ministry is compared to a party where the worst sort of dinner and dancing guests are present, but the general populace will not come and join the feasting and dancing. Jesus himself is branded a glutton and a drunkard. The section concludes with the important Wisdom saying “but Wisdom is proved right by her actions.” [Wisdom—Son or Father?] The issue here is Jesus’ actions, and the point is that despite the criticism, his actions to save and bring even the marginalized into God’s Dominion will be vindicated. Likely in the background here is 1 Enoch 42:2 that says, “Wisdom came to make her dwelling among the children of human beings and found no dwelling place.” We may and should also compare the picture of Wisdom in Proverbs 9:1-6, which reads, Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn out its seven pillars. She has prepared her meat and mixed her wines; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids and she calls from the highest point in the city. “Let all who are simple come in here!” she says to those who lack judgment. “Come eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways and you will live. Walk in the way of understanding.”

Woe Oracles, 11:20-24

Jesus, who is both Son of Man and Wisdom in this section, has invited “this generation” to the party, but they would not come.

236

Matthew 11:2–12:50

The eschatological party has begun, and they will not participate. I have demonstrated at length elsewhere that Jesus did indeed present himself as a sage and as Wisdom during his ministry, and this saying is further clear confirmation of that thesis.11 But equally clear evidence of this can be found in the sayings that conclude Matthew 11, to which we will turn after looking at Jesus’ woe oracles. [A Sapiential Reading of 11:20-24] A Sapiential Reading of 11:20-24 Verses 20-24 present us with a series of woe It is not an accident that 11:20-24 mentions a series of woes on cities that have oracles. While v. 20 is a uniquely Matthean rejected Jesus/Wisdom’s deeds. Jesus’ wisdom introduction to these sayings, vv. 21-24 is Q and way goes against the grain of conventional material also found in Luke 10:12-15. There is wisdom, for he not merely seeks the least, the close parallel construction in these oracles, and last, and the lost. He even banquets with the bad here we get the sense of the degree of rejection and touches the untouchable to do so. Jesus experienced in the cities on the northwest corner of the sea of Galilee, from Chorazin being the furthest north, to Bethsaida down the coast, and finally to Capernaum, his home base, which was nearest to Tiberias. Notice the fact that Jesus is complaining about their lack of positive reaction to the many miracles he performed in these cities. If ever there was proof that miracles do not compel someone to have faith in Jesus, we certainly find it here. The point Jesus is making is that these cities are more culpable for hearing, seeing, and rejecting the good news and the Dominion than even those profligate infamous sinners in Tyre and Sidon (cf. Gen 18:20–19:29; Isa 1:9; Rom 9:29; 2 Pet 2:61; Jude 7), who had never had the benefit of seeing a miracle of Jesus. They would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, traditional ancient Near Eastern and Jewish signs of mourning and of sorrow for sin (see Dan 9:3; Jonah 3:6; Esth 4:3). As Hagner stresses, it must have been especially distressing that Jesus was even rejected or rebuffed in Capernaum where he apparently spent a considerable amount of time.12 One of the interesting features of this woe oracle is that whole cities are said to face the prospect of going either to Hades or to Heaven and to stand before the judgment when it comes on earth. The point, to judge from the Genesis stories, is that when a city is so characterized by wickedness and the rejection of God one can talk about a city facing judgment, just as a nation or people can be spoken of this way at times in the Bible. This stinging rebuke, even of Capernaum, stands in marked contrast to the appeal to the weary and burdened in v. 28 to come to Jesus.

Matthew 11:2–12:50

237

Jesus, the Prophetic Sage, 11:25-27

Matthew 11:25-27 is another crucial passage for understanding the Wisdom orientation of this Gospel and of Jesus himself. Again we are dealing with Q material, and Matthew 11:27 has even been called a thunderbolt out of a Johannine sky. While one can see the reason for this judgment, still it needs to be said that this is no alien material in the Matthean corpus. Both the Fourth and the First Gospel’s are sapiential in character, John’s Gospel more overtly so, but this saying is certainly suitable to the character of Matthew’s Gospel as well.13 The first thing to be said about 11:25 is that it suits the character of Jesus’ other pronouncements about reversal—the last becoming first and the like. Here however Jesus is contrasting how sages and scribes (called here the wise and the learned) have not had the truth about Jesus and the Dominion revealed to them, but instead those truths have been revealed to little children, which here as elsewhere in Matthew refers to Jesus’ unlearned disciples.14 This saying stresses that the wisdom Jesus has been speaking of and the wisdom he dispenses is revelatory wisdom, not wisdom deduced from the study of nature or human nature or human affairs. This brings to light something important about Jesus. He is that rare person Ben Sira spoke of—a prophetic sage. [A Sapiential Reading of 11:25-27] This sort of sage claims to be inspired just like the prophets, though the form of his discourse is sapiential. Notice for example Sirach 24:33, where we hear, “I will again pour A Sapiential Reading of 11:25-27 This is one of the most crucial passages out teaching like prophecy” and this sage is said for understanding the character of this to draw on prophetic material (Sir 39:1), as Gospel and its presentation of Jesus as both sage Jesus so obviously did. Furthermore, as Wisdom and Wisdom Incarnate. Jesus offers revelatory of Solomon 7:27 says, what happens when the wisdom that is hidden from the conventionally Spirit of Wisdom passes into the soul of a wise and intelligent and revealed even to infants. person is that she makes them “friends of God This passage is a deliberate echo of Dan 2:19-23 where another prophetic sage, Daniel himself, and prophets.” In early Judaism there was recogthanks God in a similar fashion for the wisdom nition that prophecy had been taken from the revealed to him. Here the royal Son who is the prophets and given to sages at some juncture true sage is the only one who can truly reveal the (see b. B. Batra 12a). Jesus is simply saying that heavenly Father. The Father language, which is this transition has happened in and through adopted from earlier Jewish Wisdom literature, him. As I have argued elsewhere, if one will carereminds us again that Jesus is seen as so intimate with the Father that he is the very fully analyze the sayings material of Jesus, the expression of the mind of God on earth. The vast majority of this material should be seen as wisdom to which Jesus is referring can be the utterances of a prophetic, even an apocabestowed on anyone and cannot be acquired by a lyptic sage, drawing on the riches of the three conventional wisdom study of nature or human traditions of prophecy, apocalyptic, and wisdom nature. This is similar to what we find in the other Wisdom Gospel—see John 5:20 and 14:7.

238

Matthew 11:2–12:50

and combining them in a form that is largely sapiential in character.15 Verse 26 tells us it was God’s good pleasure to reveal the Dominion and all “these things” to the uninitiated, the unlearned, the untutored. God humbles his people by sending them unlearned messengers who know more of God than the learned. What is of course ironic is that while the Twelve did not start off as learned, in the school of Jesus they learned a great deal, and in due course at least some became wise, such as Peter, and had a considerable ministry after Easter. Notice also the intimate language of Father used of God, who is also said to be Lord of heaven and earth. This sapiential saying indicates God all along had a plan to exalt the humble and lowly, in part by giving them the inside information of the Dominion. Verse 27 is the most crucial of these verses. Here we stand in the sort of apocalyptic and sapiential context that we find in Daniel 2:20-23. Daniel is the sage who thanks God for God’s unique and exclusive revelation to him. It appears likely to me that 11:25-27 was originally a unit. The crucial background to this pericope is in Proverbs 8:14ff. and in Wisdom of Solomon 2:13-16 and 4:10-15 where we learn that God entrusted divine Wisdom with the secrets or revelations of God and with the task of revealing them to humanity. Notice that in Wisdom of Solomon 2:13-16 it is said of the virtuous man, in particular Solomon, “He claims to have a knowledge of God and calls himself a son of the Lord . . . and boasts of having God for his Father”(cf. Sir 4:10). It appears that John 7:27 may independently provide us with a saying like this attributed to Jesus, and there the Wisdom context and content is equally clear.16 Notice that the unique relationship between Jesus and the Father is the basis of the claim to have unique knowledge of God and revelation from God and to be able to be a special revealer of God. Furthermore, only Jesus gives access to this knowledge of God, a claim similar to what we find made of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. In all likelihood this saying in Aramaic involved Jesus calling God Abba—the intimate term that connotes the uniquely intimate relationship that is the basis of the intimate knowledge and capacity to reveal the mind and will of God. One must compare the claims in Wisdom literature, which state that only Wisdom knows God and vice versa (cf. Job 28:1-27; Sir 1:6, 8; Bar 3:15-32; Prov 8:12; Wis 7:25-30; 8:3-8; 9:4-11). Jesus is assuming the place and roles of Wisdom, and in this chapter he has already implicitly called himself Wisdom Incarnate. We do not

Matthew 11:2–12:50

239

know when Jesus received the revelation he is talking about, perhaps at his baptism, but in any case he has not merely received it but passed it along. Notice the clear contrast—whereas Jesus knows all things God has revealed to him, no one else knows the Father at all in the way Jesus does. The claim is made here that was previously made about Wisdom—Jesus is the exclusive mediator of the true knowledge/wisdom of God, and he has a choice as to whom he reveals these things. “Take My Yoke Upon You,” 11:28-30

Matthew 11:28-30 concludes this highly sapiential portion of the First Gospel with an appeal to come and take up a yoke, learn from Jesus, and obtain shalom for one’s inner being. This text has both a precedent and a close parallel in Sirach 6:23-31. In Sirach it is clearly Wisdom’s yoke that the person is to put on, a Wisdom that elsewhere Ben Sira says has become incarnate in Torah. In Matthew it is Jesus’ yoke. It must be remembered how popular the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira was in early Judaism. Originally written in A Sapiential Reading of 11:28-30 Hebrew in the Holy Land, it was taken to Egypt Here the words of Wisdom about her by Ben Sira’s offspring and translated into Greek yoke as spoken in Sir 6:23ff. and where it had an ongoing and even wider influ51:26ff. become the words of Jesus himself. This ence, for instance on Philo. There is no reason saying makes clear that Jesus is offering his own yoke, which involves both old and new teachings, why Jesus could not have known Ben Sira’s work not simply the yoke of the Mosaic Law. Torah is since it had existed for more than a century seen as but one expression of God’s larger before Jesus began his ministry, and Paul a little Wisdom, and not the final or definitive one. Jesus’ later seems to reflect a knowledge of this imporperson, life, and teaching are seen as the clitant saying (2 Cor 10:1). [A Sapiential Reading of mactic expression of God’s wisdom and will. 11:28-30]

Jesus and his disciples are to be seen as like the scribes described in Matt 13:52, drawing on both old and new in presenting the Gospel. Jesus’ adaptation of Torah and his new teaching that goes beyond and in some cases replaces Torah can both be described as Wisdom. Jesus’ yoke, however, is light and his burden easy, even though it does involve the disciple assuming a yoke and a burden.

Jesus loved speaking in paradoxes, and here we learn of an easy yoke and a light burden! In Sirach 6:26-30 we hear the appeal in regard to Wisdom: “Come to her with all your soul” (v. 26), “for at last you will find the rest she gives” (v. 28), and “Her yoke is a golden ornament and her bonds a purple cord” (v. 30). In Sirach 51:26 we also have “Put your neck under her yoke,” but we already have in Sirach 6:24 “put your neck into her collar.” Surely some of Jesus’ audience would have known Ben Sira and would have concluded that Jesus was here speaking as the incarnation of God’s Wisdom. It is from Jesus that one needs to learn, and we hear of him that he is gentle and humble in heart.

240

Matthew 11:2–12:50

It needs to be borne in mind that Wisdom is seen in Ben Sira as the larger category, and one form of its expression is found in Torah. Another form is in the sayings of Ben Sira, amongst others. In other words, Jesus is not the first to see the Law within the context of sapiential ideas and discussion, Torah being just one form that Wisdom takes. If we ask what burden Jesus will alleviate his disciples of, one possible answer of course would be Torah itself, but since Jesus partially reaffirms Torah and sometimes intensifies it, it may be more likely that he is talking about the Pharisaic and scribal expansions on the Law in light of Matthew 23:4. What is especially amazing about this material is that no one before or after Jesus during the biblical era identified themselves with personified Wisdom. While Ben Sira Jesus’ Counter-order Wisdom invited disciples to come and study with him, in This is where Stanton becomes conthe end he pointed away from himself to the fused. He is right that the modifications yoke of Wisdom. He was clearly a much more of the Sirach material run directly counter to the understanding of traditional Wisdom about the traditional and conventional sage than Jesus. But Law, or about personified Wisdom. This is correct. Jesus spoke as Wisdom, and his yoke amounted Jesus is using traditional Wisdom ideas and to his binding his disciples to himself personally, images to serve up counter-order and revelatory as his family, not just to his teaching. He taught Wisdom about himself and his teaching being the about a counter order of reality that he believed source of Wisdom for God’s people. he was bringing into being in Israel. [Jesus’ G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People Counter-order Wisdom] Jesus saw himself in ways that (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), 370. ordinary human beings don’t view themselves. Further evidence of this can be found in Matthew 12. The Lord of the Sabbath, 12:1-14

This passage, indeed the whole chapter, has an air of heightening tension and increasing hostility to Jesus and his movement. In particular it is the Pharisees who time and again question and criticize what Jesus is doing. [A Sapiential Reading of 12:1-14] The material in Matthew 12:1-14 is largely derived from Mark 2:23-28, with the exception of vv. 5-7, which are unique to this Gospel and tell us things about the First Evangelist’s perspectives on these matters. Both Luke and the First Evangelist not surprisingly omit the problematic reference to Abiathar found in Mark 2:26.17 The issue in this controversy story is, in the first place, the issue of what amounted to work. There was not a problem with the disciples gleaning and eating a little grain, for Deuteronomy 23:25 (cf. Lev 19:9; 23:22) allowed the stranger or the poor person to do this. The issue has to do with reaping, which was prohibited on the

Matthew 11:2–12:50 A Sapiential Reading of 12:1-14 The controversy over the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath has to do with what constitutes work, which is banned on the Sabbath. Jesus is presented as sovereign over the Sabbath and suggests that the Law should be interpreted with a hermeneutic of mercy, and that there was a precedent in the life of King David for such behavior. Jesus adds that something greater than the temple (and by implication David) is present in this case, namely the eschatological saving activity of God in the person of God’s Wisdom who can discern what the new order requires. Jesus manifests the Spirit, which as God’s presence was thought to dwell within the temple. A further Sabbath controversy is found in vv. 9-14. The normal Jewish rule was that deeds that were not urgent could be postponed until after the Sabbath was over. Jesus however as the incarnation of the mind and intent of God interprets “Sabbath,” which means “cease” or “rest,” to be the perfect day to give a man rest from what ails him, in this case a withered hand. This prompts the plot by the Pharisees to destroy Jesus and his ministry.

Sabbath according to Exodus 34:21. Thus v. 1 makes clear why the disciples’ behavior was problematic—it was the Sabbath. Jesus then is questioned by the Pharisees as to why his disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath (v. 2).18 Jesus’ response to the criticism is telling. He points out in vv. 3-4 that David in a situation of hunger violated the Law by eating the show-bread (1 Sam 21). Hunger then is seen as a valid reason for superceding or overriding the rule on this occasion. The First Evangelist adds the further example of priests in the temple who on the Sabbath desecrate the day and yet are innocent (v. 5). Here, unlike the example of David from a narrative portion of the Torah, Jesus cites a rule from Numbers 28:9-10 specifically allowing priests to work on the Sabbath. The necessity for service in the temple on the Sabbath overrode the Sabbath regulations in regard to work.19 Jesus has thus pointed out two exceptional situations that warranted the suspension or overriding of the Sabbath rules. Jesus believes he has the authority as well to override such rules because “something greater than the temple is here,” which is to say in him and in his movement there is the presence of something that is greater than the temple, namely the divine saving activity. Indeed he will go on to say in v. 8 he is the Lord of the Sabbath, the one who can dictate what is and is not appropriate on the Sabbath. We may also bear in mind from the Markan source material that Jesus also claimed that the Sabbath was made for the aid of human beings; human beings were not made in order that the Sabbath might be observed. Verse 7 provides us with another Matthean instance of the citation of Scripture, in this case Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” This quotation seems to imply that the deeper principles of Scripture should take precedent over the ritual observances. Mercy on the hungry is more

241

242

Matthew 11:2–12:50

important that strict observance of the Sabbath rules, and notice that Jesus says his disciples are innocent. Two things need to be said about this story. The eschatological situation warranted a revamping of various things, as we saw in the Sermon on the Mount. New occasions establish new priorities. But here the matter is more personal. Something greater than Elijah, greater than Solomon, greater than the temple is in their midst. But what could be greater than these things except the direct presence of God in the person of Jesus? Without a remarkable self-understanding on Jesus’ part, such remarks and stories do not make sense in an early Jewish setting. In Matthew’s Gospel, one of the main ways of explaining this is by portraying Jesus as God’s Wisdom come in the flesh, the one who knows the very mind of God, knows what God’s priorities are, and can overrule the letter of the Law on various occasions for the sake of the underlying principles of God’s Word and God’s salvation plan. Only one who believed God had revealed such things to him could make such bold statements and take such controversial courses of actions.20 Verses 9-14 tell the tale of the healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath and in the synagogue, a double offense. Here again the First Evangelist is relying on Mark, in this case Mark 3:16, but he has significantly abbreviated the story, omitting all of Mark 3:3, all but one clause of 3:4, and about half of 3:5. Partly this follows the trend of the First Evangelist’s omission of emotional language, especially as predicated of Jesus. Instead, he inserts into his Markan story vv. 11-12a that provide a justifying illustration. Notice that the man with the shriveled hand was already in the synagogue. The Pharisees present are said to be looking for an opportunity to accuse Jesus of something (v. 10), so they ask the question if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Notice that the initiation of the healing process is begun before this question in Mark. Typically, Jesus responds to a question with a question (v. 11). He asks them if they would not rescue a sheep if it fell into a pit on the Sabbath. This was a common enough problem in Israel.21 The truth was that most Pharisees would allow for rescuing an animal on the Sabbath. But the difference is, it could be argued, that the man with the shriveled hand was not in some extreme situation. His healing could have waited until sundown, surely. It was not an emergency situation, and emergencies were what warranted making exceptions to the rule of no work on the Sabbath. Jesus however believed it was always lawful to do good on the Sabbath (v. 12). He believed the Sabbath was the perfect day to give a person rest from that which plagued him or her.

Matthew 11:2–12:50

After all, the essential meaning of Shabbat was to cease or to rest. So Jesus has the man stretch out his hand, and it is instantly and completely restored. Let us be clear that Jesus is not here arguing for doing just any and every kind of work (or recreational activity) on the Sabbath; rather his reasoning seems to be rather like that found in Jubilees 50:10-11. Things that amounted to good deeds that could be seen as a fulfillment of the intent of the Sabbath to give rest, restoration, refreshment were appropriate. According to v. 14 this action prompted the Pharisees to go out and start plotting to do away with Jesus.22 Both Matthew and Mark report that this caused Jesus to withdraw, though he was followed by the ill and injured. Jesus as God’s Chosen Servant, 12:15-21

While one can see that Matthew 12:15-16 can be said to be an abbreviated version of Mark 3:7, 8, and 12, once again the First Evangelist adds a Scripture quotation indicating that Jesus was fully justified in what he was doing, indeed he was fulfilling Scripture. The summary remarks in vv. 15-16 indicate Jesus withdraws but does not stop healing people. He does however tell them not to tell anyone “who he was.” These healing activities are said to be a fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah, namely Isaiah 42:1-4. Jesus then is once again clearly depicted as the Servant of Isaiah 40–55. In view of the fact that Isaiah 44:1, 21, and 49:3 all identify the Servant as Israel, this identification with Jesus is not just surprising, it seems unprecedented in this era. The later example from Targum Jonathan from the fifth century AD identifies the Messiah as the Servant in these texts, but that comes from well after our period and probably is in reaction to the use of Isaiah 40–55 in the Jesus movement. In my view, it is likely that this sort of applying of Servant Song material to Jesus, which is common in Matthew (cf. 3:17; 8:17; 20:28), goes back to Jesus himself ultimately and various of the hints in the way he used Isaianic texts (see, e.g., Mark 10:45b). [A Sapiential Reading of 12:15-21] The use of Isaiah 42 amounts to a somewhat free paraphrase from the Hebrew text, conforming or combining it somewhat with the language from Psalm 2 used at the baptismal occasion (Matt 3:17). It needs to be remembered that in Greek pais can refer to either a servant or a son, so it was easy to combine texts, one of which refers to a servant and one of which refers to a son. The LXX paves the way for such usage. The use of the text here reminds us of Jesus’ baptism when God’s Spirit did descend on Jesus.23 Notice

243

244

Matthew 11:2–12:50 A Sapiential Reading of 12:15-21 Matt 12:15 shows that while Jesus would continue to cure people, he was not deliberately trying to stir up controversy when he did so, nor to gain a reputation for himself as a healer, and so he ordered the cured not to make him known. This is said to be a fulfillment of Isa 42:1-4. Jesus did not come to be a debater or declaimer, but rather the Wisdom of God, and he did not come to forcefully conform others to God’s will and wisdom. He came to humbly serve and proclaim.

that this text indicates that the Servant, while proclaiming justice, will not be accused of protesting too much or quarreling with others. More to the point, he will be gentle on the weak, the weary, the tenderhearted, the bruised and abused, the downtrodden. This speaks to a theme we have already noted in this Gospel, namely Jesus’ deliberate reaching out to the marginalized of society.24 Verse 21 is especially important as it foreshadows the fact that “in his name the nations will hope,” the same one that v. 18 says will proclaim justice to these nations. There can be little doubt that our author believes in the mission to the Gentiles. It is just that he rightly sees it as inaugurated after Easter. Before then, the good news was for the Jew first.25 The Servant Songs convey an image of a messianic figure who is basically not seen as a Davidic warrior, but one who conquers through compassion and suffering. The Beelzebul Controversy, 12:22-37

The material in this section deals with the reaction on the part of the Pharisees to Jesus being an exorcist. Notice, however, that while the First Evangelist is clearly drawing on material from Mark 3, it is he who sets the context for the discussion by indicating that Jesus’ exorcisms raised the question amongst the people who saw him exorcize the deaf-mute, “Could this be the son A Sapiential Reading of 12:22-37 of David?” We have already seen in this comThe Beelzebul controversy shows that mentary how that title refers especially to Jesus’ exorcisms raised the question of Solomon, and one who is like Solomon,26 and whether Jesus was truly the Son of David—the one greater than Solomon but in the mold of here is where we stress the connection made in Solomon. Jesus’ exorcisms cannot be disputed, early Judaism between Solomon and exorcisms, so instead they are interpreted as evidence that thus making such a question about Jesus being a Jesus is in league with Satan. To the contrary, son of David in that mold a natural one. [A says Jesus, he performs his miracles by the Spirit of God that is upon him (cf. v. 18 to v. 28), and that Spirit work means the divine saving reign of God is breaking into human history. Not only the mind of God is being revealed, but the wise plan of God is being enacted by Jesus. Whoever blasphemes the work of God’s Spirit in and through Jesus faces judgment rather than forgiveness.

Sapiential Reading of 12:22-37] [Son of David]

The story begins with Jesus healing a blind and mute man who is said to be demon possessed. The healing happens on the spot, the man begins to see and to speak, which astonishes “the people” who were present. The

Matthew 11:2–12:50 Son of David The precise terminology “Son of David” is not attested before Pss. Sol. 17:23, and especially not in a messianic sense. Thereafter it seems to have become common diction in early Judaism (cf. b. San. 98a; y. Ta’an. 4.8.68d; b. San. 97a). We must give attention to 4QFlor. 1.11-13 where the promise to David is interpreted in the light of Amos 9:11 (see also CD 7.16). More directly relevant is the evidence from Qumran Cave 11 where Solomon, son of David, is associated with exorcisms by means of a recension of Ps 91, a Psalm that was clearly used for exorcizing demons later (cf. y. Sabb. 6.8b; b. Sheb. 15b; and especially y. Erub. 10.26). Part of the wisdom Solomon was thought to have gained was the knowledge of formulae and invocations that would aid in the exorcism of demons. The Aramaic Incantation Bowl inscriptions further attest to this practice. Finally, a contemporary of the First Evangelist, Josephus, says of Solomon (Ant. 8.45): And God gave him knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit of healing of human beings. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day. . . .

245

The quotation by Josephus is especially pertinent. Notice that Solomon’s forms of utterance made the demons leave and never come back. He calls this a great power that both effects exorcisms and relieves illnesses. I submit that when Jesus was asked to heal as Son of David, or performed an exorcism and the title “Son of David” was applied, the stream of thought has to do with the Solomonic tradition about being a great sage and having the wisdom to know how to perform such miracles. The fact that “Son of David” is a title that this Gospel writer highlights repeatedly in a way we do not find in Mark comports with our conclusion that this Gospel is deliberately presenting a sapiential portrait of Jesus. (See my discussion in The Christology of Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 156.) For a different reading of the sapiential material in Matthew see R. Pregeant, “The Wisdom Passages in Matthew’s Story,” in Treasures New and Old, ed. D.R. Bauer and M.A. Powell (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 197-232. One of the problems with his reading is that he takes too little of the Matthean evidence into consideration, and then he seems to overlook that Wisdom/Shekinah/Spirit were closely associated in Wisdom literature such as Wisdom of Solomon. Jesus as God’s presence on earth is not a separate tradition from Jesus as Wisdom incarnate on earth. The two concepts are fused in Wisdom literature.

Pharisees were apparently not present on this occasion. But v. 24 states that when they heard about this incident they did not deny something supernatural happened, rather they say that Jesus is able to do this by the power given him by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. Notice the contrast between the use of the Son of David title by those disposed to see this coming from a good source and the Beelzebul term by those thinking something nefarious is going on. This same contrast is found in 9:27-34. As we have seen before this name means “lord of the house” (contrast Jesus as Oikodespotes—“master of the house”) and the first part of it comes originally from the Canaanite storm god Baal. The variant “Beelzebub” actually means “lord of the flies,” which seems to have been a pejorative modification used by Jews to refer to this deity (cf. 2 Kgs 1:2). But the logic of the Pharisees’ remark is quickly shown by Jesus to be lacking. Why would Satan want to cast demons out of people? He would rather want them to possess people. It is interesting that Jesus in vv. 25-27 refers to Satan having a Dominion (cf.

246

Matthew 11:2–12:50

Rev 2:13) that consists of all the people over whom he has Dominion. He also uses the analogy of cities and households. Notice that Jesus supernaturally knows the thoughts of the Pharisees and so can rebut them easily. This means the Pharisees had not yet made these charges formally before Jesus or to other Image Not Available authorities, but perhaps just among due to lack of digital rights. themselves. Dominions, cities, or Please view the published houses divided against themselves commentary or perform an Internet can’t stand for long. Jesus thus search using the credit below. stresses that Satan would be working at cross purposes with himself if he empowered Jesus to perform exorcisms. Notice that Satan (cf. 4:10; 16:23) and Beelzebul are simply alternate ways of talking about the same being. Verse 27 adds the interesting fact that Jesus assumes the Pharisees also have exorcists amongst them. Satan and Beelzebub Jesus suggests that by their logic, Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830). Satan and Beelzebub dominating over nudes in fire. their own people might judge them Photo: Michèle Bellot. Louvre, Paris, France. [Photo Credit : Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY] for misunderstanding the source of the power to perform exorcisms. Verse 28 brings this segment to a close by Jesus making the bold statement that if indeed (as is true) he exorcizes demons by the power of the Holy Spirit, then the Dominion of God has broken into their midst or has come upon them. [God’s God’s Finger Finger] The Dominion is visible in the exorcisms The more primitive form of this saying because a person has been set free from one sort may be found in Luke 11:20, which of dominion or lordship, indicating a more refers to the finger rather than the Spirit of God. powerful and saving lordship has liberated the See my detailed discussion of this saying in The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, person in question. God’s divine saving reign is 1990), 201-204. It should be noted that only God manifested in their midst in the lives of people wields God’s finger, which is clearly an allusion to like this now healed blind and mute person. Exod 8:15 (cf. Deut 9:10; Exod 31:18; Ps 8:3). Jesus does not merely herald the coming of the Dominion; he brings it in. What is distinctive about Jesus’ interpretation of this exorcism is twofold. He combines exorcism with eschatology, and he combines

Matthew 11:2–12:50

247

both of these with a statement about what he is doing—it is “I” who have cast out the demon, though by means of the Spirit and power of God. What this augurs is the demise of Satan’s control over certain human lives. [Demise of Satan’s Control] Jesus believes such exorcisms are already evidence that the final Dominion of God is appearing on the human scene, and God’s Demise of Satan’s Control power is taking charge. Notice that in a plethora of early Jewish Verse 29 tells us about the binding of the texts this demise of Satan’s control is strong man and the liberating of his captives (cf. associated with the end of the age (Isa 24:21-22; 1 John 3:8). The implicit point here is that Jesus 1 En 10:4ff.; Jub. 23:39; 1QS 4.18-19; T. Mos. 10.1; T. Lev. 18.12; T. Jud. 25.3; Rev 20:2-3). is stronger than the strong man (cf. Isa 53:12) and so can set free those Satan has made captive. Far from being Satan’s minion, Jesus is Satan’s lord; he has power and authority over Satan (cf. Isa 49:24-25). The “ministry of Jesus is the beginning of the eschatological deliverance, the turning point of the aeons.”27 Verse 30 in its second half uses an agricultural metaphor to refer to the eschatological work Jesus is doing. Those who do not gather the harvest with Jesus are doing the opposite. The point Jesus is making is that if they are not for Jesus and working with him, then they are not working with the one who brings in the eschatological harvest, and it will all be for naught. Neutrality is not a possibility when the Dominion begins to break into human history. This verse is an implicit call to decision either to be for or against Jesus, to work with him or not. Verses 31-32 constitute two slightly different ways of saying the same thing. The subject matter is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which action constitutes an unforgivable sin. In early Judaism deliberate blasphemy against God was often seen as an unforgivable sin (cf. Jub. 15:34; 1QS 7.15-17,22-23). There has been confusion about this saying in regard to whether the Pharisees had already committed the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If they had, there would be no point in Jesus warning them about it. There is also an issue as to whether Son of Man should be written lowercase in v. 32 and see vv. 31 and 32 as exact parallels. Blasphemy against humans is forgivable; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not. The problem with this conclusion is that the First Evangelist elsewhere uses the Son of Man phrase in a titular sense to refer exclusively to Jesus, and that seems to be the case here as well. So what is the sense of this text? The Pharisees were in the danger zone, in danger of being so hard-hearted that when they criticized the work of Jesus they were in fact blaspheming God. Criticizing Jesus as a human being is not

248

Matthew 11:2–12:50

an unforgivable sin, but criticizing the Holy Spirit’s work in and through Jesus, and thereby calling good evil, is indeed blasphemy against God. Hagner puts it this way: “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit includes slander of the Son of Man—to oppose the Spirit is to oppose Jesus and his mission—but the blasphemy of the Son of Man need not, although it may, involve something quite so catastrophic as blasphemy of the Spirit.”28 Verses 33-37 bring us back to a favorite metaphor of Jesus, namely that of the tree and its fruit. The deeper point here is that a person’s words reveal something about who a person is. A tree is known by its fruit. This maxim is common in Wisdom literature (see Sir 27:6), and Jesus is adopting and adapting it. That the Pharisees are the subject of this critique is clear from v. 34 where we have the phrase “offspring of vipers” (cf. 3:7 and 23:33). The sentence “out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks” is an important saying. Jesus is making clear that eventually one’s words are going to betray one’s character. One may be able for a time to guard one’s speech, but eventually the truth will win out. The heart is seen as a sort of treasury out which one can bring either a wealth of good things or bad things, depending on what one has stored there. In short—garbage in, garbage out. One of the most convicting of these maxims is that a person will have to give account of every careless word that comes out of their mouths at the day of judgment. One will be acquitted or condemned on the basis of one’s own words. Jonah’s Sign, 12:38-45

In order to understand this material one needs to bear in mind that there is a difference between a request for a miracle out of some need, to which Jesus responds in a compassionate manner, and a request for a miracle to prove something about one’s self. The latter is some sort of validating sign, and the former is an act of compassion. This passage begins then with a request for a validating sign from some scribes and Pharisees. We may compare the request for a sign from heaven in Matthew 16:1. This could be a request for some sort of cosmic sign, a sudden comet or falling star and the like. In any event, the request is for some sort of compelling proof of who Jesus is (cf. John 6:30; 1 Cor 1:22). “Yet this is precisely the kind of miracle—a demonstrative display of power for the purpose of impressing—that Jesus would not perform.”29 Jesus responds by saying that such a request is characteristic of a wicked generation, and in any case the only sign they will receive is the sign of Jonah.

Matthew 11:2–12:50

Verse 40 provides the explanation of this sign. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and nights, so likewise will be the Son of Man. In other words, Jesus will offer them no such signs before his death and resurrection. This verse actually quotes Jonah 2:1, but only in the Matthean form of this saying (cf. Luke 11:30). The attempt to ground the story and teaching in Scripture is ongoing in this Gospel.30 [A Sapiential Reading of 12:38-45]

249

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Verses 41-42 have been placed here by the Evangelist presumably because of the reference to Jonah in the first saying. These sayings both comment on Jesus as the greater one—the first concludes Jesus is greater than Jonah, and the second that Jesus is greater than Solomon. But there is also a Jonah and the Whale negative contrast between Jesus’ James Lesesne Wells (1902–1993). Jonah and the Whale. n.d. Woodcut. [Photo Credit: antagonistic audience and the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC / Art Resource, NY] Ninevites who repented and the Queen of Sheba who came a long way and listened intently to Solomon’s wisdom. The question raised by these sayings is who could be both greater than Jonah and greater than Solomon, and the answer is someone who is both a prophetic sage and a son of David and thus a royal figure who embodies Wisdom in person. The audience is all the more culpable in view of the fact that someone greater has come to them, and yet they have not responded even as well as the audience of Jonah or Solomon. Worse still, the audiences of Jonah and Solomon are going to show A Sapiential Reading of 12:38-45 An analogy is drawn between the Son of Man and his fate and that of Jonah. The reference to the Queen of South who will rise up in judgment on those who judge Jesus (v. 42) for it leads to the saying identifying Jesus as the Wisdom of God: “she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, there is something greater than Solomon here!” Who could be greater than Solomon and his Wisdom? Of course it is Wisdom come in person as the incarnation and exegesis of the mind of God. Those who judge such a one, though Jesus cast out demons from them, will find the demons coming home to roost in their souls again.

250

Matthew 11:2–12:50

up at the final judgment and condemn “this wicked generation.” It may be that we should see here an implicit endorsement again of the Gentile mission. Gentiles may respond more positively to the Word than various Jews as in these two examples.31 What makes the rejection of Jesus especially blameworthy is he is the last chance for repentance and turning to God. Jesus is the final eschatological messenger of God who expected no messianic successors. “Who is My Family?” 12:46-50

Matthew 12 concludes with the abbreviated reference to Jesus’ family in vv. 46-50. The First Evangelist has abbreviated his Markan source as follows. He left out altogether the saying about Jesus’ family, thinking Jesus was out of his mind (Mark 3:21). He however adds the reference to Jesus pointing to his disciples when he says “here is my mother and brothers.” The largest change comes in v. 50 where instead of God we have Father in heaven, and instead of simply mother and brothers we have mother, brothers, and sisters. Whoever does God’s will is Jesus’ real A Sapiential Reading of 12:46-50 follower. Here we have the clear concept of the The important saying in these verses family of faith that is said to be Jesus’ primary makes clear that Jesus’ true family is his family. Of course his physical family could join disciples; whoever does the will of God is Jesus’ the family of faith, but here they are still conmother and brothers. trasted with one another and the question “who is my family?” is one Jesus means for his disciGeneral Comments on a Sapiential Reading ples to raise and answer.32 In the eschatological of Chapter 12 age, faith and doing the will of God create the What happens when counter-order wisdom meets resistance? Matt 12 primary family centered on Jesus. Here is more shows us as the author presents a series of conevidence of the radical character of Jesus’ troversy dialogues and narratives: controversies teaching.33 [A Sapiential Reading of 12:46-50] [General over the plucking of grain, over healing on the Sabbath, over exorcisms, and over the lack of a validating miracle or sign that Jesus was authorized by God. The first half of the chapter concludes with the dramatic statement about who Jesus is—the humble servant spoken of by Isaiah (vv. 19-21), while the second half concludes with a dramatic statement as to who Jesus’ family truly is (vv. 46-50). In both halves of the chapter the issue of demons and exorcism is addressed (vv. 22-32, vv. 43-45), suggesting that it was particularly because of the exorcisms that Jesus stirred up controversy, which is to say it was particularly when he acted as the Son of David, like Solomon, in his knowledge of the spirit world and how to deal with it.

Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapter 12]

CONNECTIONS Jesus, the (Great?) Communicator

One of the notable features of Jesus’ teaching is of course that he uses Wisdom speech, metaphor, analogy, parable, riddle, aphorism, maxims, and the like. This is actually good news in the post-modern situation where visual

Matthew 11:2–12:50 Jesus’ Pedagogy Some Christian educators have made the mistake of assuming we need to dumb everything down to communicate to the lowest common denominator. We hear clichés like “put the cookies on the bottom shelf” or “keep it simple.” I am struck by the fact that this was certainly not Jesus’ pedagogy, nor Paul’s for that matter. Jesus believed he should speak in sapiential, prophetic, and apocalyptic ways and tease the mind into active thought. His hearers were to be required actually to think about what he said.

images are important, and puzzles and secrets and riddles are more likely to stir the curiosity of the reader than not. [Jesus’ Pedagogy] Jesus would frequently not explain everything, and he would often answer a question with a question or give some other form of indirect communication. He believed as well that to a certain extent it was a matter of God revealing the truth to the audience. More explanation would not necessarily produce an “aha” moment. Equally importantly, Jesus did not strip his teaching or his preaching of its complexity or mystery. He served up hard concepts like the Dominion of God, Son of Man, or himself as both sage and Wisdom. And notice he did not enlist highly educated scribes to be his followers. He solicited ordinary people, and he expected them to cope with his modes of discourse. He expected them to know or learn the Hebrew Scriptures. He expected far more of his less educated and in some cases illiterate followers than we tend to expect of our more highly educated congregations. What is wrong with this picture? Jesus also told it like it was. His woe oracles were quite direct, and he didn’t engage in “happy” speech all the time. But at the same time he was profoundly committed to mercy and compassion, and he especially reached out to the marginalized, to the weary, to the downtrodden. He told his followers that he would expect much of them. They were taking up crosses and following him, taking up yokes, though he promised paradoxically a light burden.34 The Radical Jesus

Jesus believed, in view of who he was and in view of the eschatological situation, that he could change the rules in the middle of the game, and this drove his adversaries crazy. He believed he had the authority and power to do so. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, someone greater than Jonah or Solomon, someone (in a setting based on ethnic and family ties) who decided to redefine the primary family or unit of belonging, and he demanded the first and ultimate loyalty to himself before all others, even including

251

252

Matthew 11:2–12:50

one’s spouse and children. No wonder he also said he was likely to bring a sword rather than peace to many families. He was Son of Man but also Son of David, sage and Wisdom. No one made these kinds of claims, even indirectly, in early Judaism unless he had a very high image of himself or else he was crazy. Jesus had a Christology and it focused on himself, and everyone else he compared himself to, including John the Baptist, was seen as a lesser figure. Either he was a megalomaniac, or he clearly had a messianic self-concept. There is not much middle ground when one really analyzes the Matthean portrayal of Jesus. If the First Evangelist’s portrait is even reasonably close to conveying who the historical Jesus truly was, he was the most remarkable person to ever walk the earth. Jesus was a radical, and even today we struggle to keep up with him and to put his teachings into practice. But unlike most radicals, he was a radical with a huge compassionate Features of the Jesus Movement heart who was prepared to give his life, not Howard Clarke puts it this way: “Only merely for a cause, but for all of us, so we might Christianity had a leader who had lived have life and have it abundantly. Though his and died in historical time; only Christianity words could be severe, at the same time he could preached a faith that was open and accessible to be gentle and meek. He was, as E. Schweizer all; only Christianity generated a written literature to explain and defend its teachings; only once said, the man who fits no one formula. Christianity institutionalized its beliefs.” While some of these remarks are too exclusive, he is right that the movement Jesus spawned had remarkable and unique features. I would attribute this to the character and teaching and actions of its founder, who was in some ways unique, in some ways distinctive, and in all ways remarkable, and remarkably winsome.

[Features of the Jesus Movement]

The Pharisaic Movement

If you look up the word Pharisee in the English Dictionary, one of the definitions is “hypocrite.” This is in many ways unfortunate because, although there were certainly Pharisees who did H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers not practice what they preached and who were (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), more demanding of others than they were of 125. themselves, this criticism that Jesus applied to some Pharisees does not fairly characterize the whole movement and all of its practitioners. In fact, most ordinary Jews saw the Pharisees as pious good people trying to lead a reform or holiness movement to transform early Judaism, something many recognized was badly needed. The term Pharisee seems to derive from a Hebrew word that means either to separate or to interpret, probably the former, and so the term seems to mean the Separate Ones, so-called because they tried to distinguish themselves from less-observant Jews and from Gentiles by their careful observance of the Law. It would appear that this term was never a self-designation. They seem to

Matthew 11:2–12:50

have called themselves the “friends,” so Pharisee was a label put on the movement by outsiders, a label that stuck. The Pharisees first show up in early Judaism in the 2d or 3rd century BC, and by the time of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC), a Hasmonean ruler, they were quite influential, giving Hyrcanus guidance about how the Jewish law should be interpreted and lived out (see Josephus, Ant. 13.288-98). A dispute about Hyrcanus’s policies arose between a prominent Pharisee of the time and a Sadducee, and the latter won the dispute. Since the man (Jonathan by name) was a personal friend of Hyrcanus, this led to the diminution of the Pharisee’s influence. This bad blood continued during the time of Hyrcanus’s son and successor, Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC), and on his deathbed he advised his wife Alexandra, who was his successor, to make peace with the Pharisees, as they had a good deal of influence with ordinary Jews. What Josephus tells us is that the Pharisees’ primary concern was orthopraxy; they were seeking control over the interpretation of the laws that regulated everyday Jewish life. Part of their agenda was to try to apply to all Jews Levitical laws previously limited in application to priests. In other words, they believed in the priesthood of all believers concept, and they believed if all Jews would be that observant of the laws of clean and Pharisee [Illustration: Rick Danielson] unclean and the Sabbath and the food laws, then God would be better pleased with them, holiness would spread throughout the land, and they might even get the land back. It will be seen that this was a different approach to reforming early Judaism than Jesus had, and one could say the Pharisees and Jesus were leading dueling holiness movements. Josephus tells us that by the end of the reign of Herod the Great, which is to say about the time of Jesus’ birth near the turn of the era, there were about 6,000 card-carrying, self-identified Pharisees (Ant. 17.41-42), but their influence was out of all proportion to their numbers, and this continued to be the case right throughout the 1st century AD; indeed their power and control over Jews increased after the fall of the temple in AD 70 because the Sadducees’ power base was the temple, the priestly hierarchy, and the landed estates around Jerusalem, all of which was lost during the Jewish War, and the Sadducean movement never recovered. Josephus’s descriptions of the Pharisees suggest they were not

253

254

Matthew 11:2–12:50

Zealots, which is to say they were not revolutionaries. They believed reform should be brought about by education and indoctrinating ordinary Jews. They relied on scribes, the experts in interpreting the Law, to help promulgate their program with the masses. This is why we find scribes and Pharisees so often together in the Gospels. The scribes could give the authoritative interpretations of Torah, backing up the Pharisaic program. The Pharisees then were noted for their meticulous attention to the practice of the Law, especially in regard to dietary laws, ritual purity at meals, and Sabbath observance. It is no surprise that these are precisely the issues with which Jesus is at odds with the Pharisees. He did not agree that the laws that applied to priests in the temple should be imposed on ordinary Jews in their homes or synagogues. He also did not agree with their interpretation of the meaning of Sabbath and what could and could not be done on that day. But the Pharisees did not stop at claiming to have the right interpretation of the Law. They sought to apply the Law to new situations and problems by oral expansions on the Law called halakah and for the expansions on the narrative portions of the Old Testament haggadah. They believed these oral traditions were as binding as the Torah itself; indeed they believed the oral expansions were given beginning with Moses at Sinai. By this means, Pharisees and their scribes asserted extensive authority over Jews in both Judea and Galilee. Josephus also reports that the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, a certain degree of divine determinism or providence, and rewards and punishments in the afterlife (cf. J.W. 2.119-166; Ant. 18.11-25; 13.171-73, 297-98 cf. Acts 23:6-8). It needs to be understood that the oral traditions often were used to ameliorate the harsher aspects of the Law. The legalists in terms of insisting on a strict literal interpretation of the Law tended to be the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. But it should also be said that the Pharisees took their oral traditions seriously. M. Sanh. 11.3 in fact says, “It is more culpable to teach against the ordinances of the scribes than against the Torah itself.” The Pharisees were not priests, but rather laypersons, and they were not generally of the elite class of Jewish society, unlike the Sadducees who were of the priestly class (Zadok seems to have given them their name) and tended to be landed gentry of sorts in the Jerusalem area. It was the Sadducees who had control of the priesthood and the Sanhedrin, though there were Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Yet the Pharisees were so popular with the people that it was their interpretation of how the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement were to be done that the priests in the temple followed. They did not have direct political power but did have influence

Matthew 11:2–12:50

with the Sadducees and even more with the people. They had power out of all proportion to their numbers or official political control. Though Jesus shared the Pharisees’ robust beliefs in the afterlife including resurrection, his own teachings or oral traditions were in many ways different from and antagonistic to that of the Pharisees, not least of which was because of what Jesus claimed about himself and his role in regard to God’s Dominion. There is then no surprise and real historical plausibility in the stories of controversy and conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Slander

Lessons from Matthew 12:22-37 about the demonizing of other human beings are relevant in our own culture, where rhetoric counts more than facts and gossip more than truth. Slander is of course a sin, and as Jesus puts it in this story, it can even get to the point where God is blasphemed in the process. Jesus is not talking about what we ordinarily would call cursing today, using four-letter words. He is talking about the horrible practice of calling evil good and good evil. He is talking about the horrible practice of saying this person or that person is of the devil, when one is in no position to spiritually evaluate where that person is. Sometimes such demonizing gets so spiteful that when one can’t deny that a person has done remarkable deeds, one then falls back on the second line of attack, namely attributing that person’s fame, mighty works, etc. to the devil. There is a propensity among some Christians to readily demonize the powerful people they do not understand, especially politicians, foreigners, people of other religions, and the like. It is interesting that while Jesus was often critical about the hypocrisies and misdeeds of others, he never resorted to ad hominem attacks, attacking a person as a person. He stuck to the facts. And he was prepared to be gracious on many occasions. It was Jesus who scolded his disciples and told them, “He who is not against me is for me.”

255

256

Matthew 11:2–12:50

Notes 1 Most

scholars have recognized that the Matthean form of this story is more primitive and authentic. 2 I have dealt with the authenticity issues of this material in The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 42-43. 3 See J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York: Scribners, 1971), 20-21. 4 See my The Christology of Jesus, 44. 5 See the helpful discussion in G. Theissen, The Gospels in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 28-41. 6 C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 338. 7 Here again the Matthean form of the saying is nearer to the original than the Lukan form, it being the more difficult form of the saying. 8 See my The Christology of Jesus, 47. 9 Cf. C. Keener, 339-40. 10 On its genuineness see D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 309-11; B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 49. 11 See my Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 147-208. 12 D. Hagner, 314. 13 See my detailed discussion in The Christology of Jesus, 221-28. 14 See pp. 123-25 above. 15 See my Jesus the Sage, 158-60. 16 See my commentary John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1995), ad loc. 17 See D. Hagner, 327. 18 I have dealt with elsewhere the complaints of E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 263-68, that Pharisees would be unlikely to patrol grain fields in Galilee. See the discussion in my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 129-30, and my The Christology of Jesus, 66-67. 19 See C. Keener, 355-56. 20 See pp. 241-42 above on Matt 11. 21 See the discussion in C. Keener, 358. 22 Mark’s account (Mark 3) says they started plotting with the Herodians how to kill Jesus, which in Galilee was a possible combination of adversaries for Jesus. 23 See pp. 80-85 above. 24 See pp. 177-85 above. 25 See A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimension (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988), passim, for a careful nuanced treatment of this subject. 26 See pp. 43-45 above. 27 D. Hagner, 344. 28 Ibid., 347-48. 29 Ibid., 353. 30 The saying as it is found in Luke 11:30 may be closer to the original, where the preaching of Jesus and Jonah are compared. 31 D. Hagner, 345. 32 See C. Keener, 368. 33 See my discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 34 See above on his saying “let the dead bury the dead,” pp. 187-88.

The Third Discourse—The Paradox of the Parables Matthew 13:1-52 Matthew 13:1-53 presents us with the third major block of teaching material, composed of narrative parables. Chrysostom once noted that when Jesus spoke to the crowds there was some of this sort of material, but when he spoke to scribes and Pharisees, it was “many things in parables” (Homily on Homily on Matthew 47:1 Matthew 44.2). Was the more obscure As Chrysostom reminds us in Homily on wisdom speech reserved for those who Matthew 47:1, “the parables must not claimed to be experts in knowing God be explained literally, since many absurdities and his will? [Homily on Matthew 47:1] would follow. This even he himself is teaching here in thus interpreting this parable.” Though it was already perfectly clear from the previous two discourses that Jesus was a sage, using Wisdom speech with eschatological content, this discourse is unrelentingly sapiential in substance and in form, with some of these parables coming from Mark but some being uniquely Matthean. The first three parables come from Mark 4, as does the parable of the mustard seed, but into this mix the First Evangelist has interjected both the parable of the weeds (vv. 24-30) and the explanation of that parable (vv. 36-43). Our Evangelist has, however, chosen to omit Mark 4:21-29. Furthermore, after the initial parable of the soils and its explanation, we have two groups of three parables each in vv. 24-33 and 44-50, but we also have two blocks of explanations in vv. 10-23 and 34-43, which set these two blocks of parables off, not to mention the brief explanation in vv. 49-50 of the dragnet parable. [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapter 13] Notice too that the disciples come to Jesus more than once for an explanation of the parables (vv. 10 and 36). Explanations are for insiders, which is to say disciples.1 And this last remark explains the one major clear break in this whole material, namely v. 36 where Jesus leaves the crowds behind and thereafter teaches his disciples in private. What this means is that explanations are for the disciples, and this is even true in vv. 10ff. where the disciples ask for the explanation even though they are still in public. Parables however are both for outsiders and insiders, crowds and disciples. In terms of the unique parable of the weeds, notice the special emphasis on its explanation only coming in private even though the parable was told in

258

Matthew 13:1-52

General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapter 13 The third of the Matthean discourses is found in Matt 13, and this one focuses clearly on a form of wisdom speech of which Jesus was the most famous and frequent user—parables. The term we translate “parable” refers to a metaphorical form of speech meant to tease the mind into active thought. The term could refer to anything from a metaphorical one-liner (e.g., “Physician heal yourself”), to a riddle, to a proverb, to a brief narrative, which is what we normally think of as a “parable.” What distin-

guishes Jesus’ use of this form of wisdom speech is that he uses it to talk about the in-breaking reign or divine saving activity of God in and through his ministry. In terms of pedagogy the disciples are depicted as being capable of learning and understanding (see 13:51-52), even though they have little faith. In other words, they are portrayed as being like the “simple” in earlier Wisdom literature (see Prov 1–9). Growth in wisdom is possible for such people but it may require revelation from Wisdom herself from time to time. Peter is then portrayed as having received and expressed such Wisdom about who Jesus is in Matt 16.

public. Here we learn something of the sort of approach the First Evangelist wants his audience to take when it comes to “weeding.” We are meant to see in this chapter a key turning point in the narrative. In view of the rejection of Jesus by most of the outsiders, he increasingly turns to his disciples more exclusively and their training as teachers (see on Matt 13:52 below) and will only speak to the crowds cryptically in parables.2 The opposition to Jesus has built up to the point where this is necessary.

COMMENTARY The Parable of the Soils and the Soiled with Commentary, 13:1-23

It is probably no accident that the First Evangelist places this parable of the soils first in this collection, not just because he is following Mark 4, but also because it is a helpful commentary on the varied responses Jesus and his disciples were getting to the Dominion message. Notice that the Markan source for this parable is followed closely indeed, perhaps because of its paradigmatic and crucial nature, for it and its explanation set the tone and provide the context for interpreting Jesus’ parables in general. The one notable difference in the Matthean account is that the yields of grain are listed from highest to lowest in this Gospel, and the reverse in Mark. [A Sapiential Reading of 13:1-23] The parable of the different soils is a detailed analogy, or as we might call it an allegory. It is certainly carefully constructed, following the rule of three, and thus we have two sets of three seeds, three adverse conditions (path, thorns, rocky ground), three degrees of productivity. The standard view of the matter is that

Matthew 13:1-52

259

A Sapiential Reading of 13:1-23 The parable of the sower makes clear that the difference that determines reception of the gospel is the soil, i.e., the condition of the recipient. In this parable the seed and the sower are the same in each case, but the soil varies. The story could be a realistic representation of the response to Jesus’ ministry. Many did not respond favorably to his message, but the few who did produced remarkable fruit. The quotation of Isa 6:9-10 in vv. 14-15 suggests that reception of the message is not really possible unless one repents and becomes spiritually open to the message. It also suggests that Jesus deliberately spoke in this indirect or veiled metaphorical manner precisely because many were unprepared to hear and heed the message. The explanation given in vv. 18-23 makes clear that there are a variety of factors hindering hearing: Satan, the lure of wealth, trouble, persecution, worries.

while we have an allegorical interpretation of the parable in Matthew 13:18-23, this explanation is alien to the character of the parable itself and is a later imposition by the Evangelist’s source (i.e., Mark). This view, however, overlooks that a mashal could well have allegorical elements or virtually be an allegory, for there was no hard and fast distinction between parable and allegory in early Judaism.3 Thus, while it does appear that the First Evangelist, following Mark, has contextualized or pointed up his source material, it is doubtful that the old distinction between the parable of the sower and its alien allegorical interpretation will hold. Both Mark and the First Evangelist were simply explicating Image Not Available or expanding on a process already due to lack of digital rights. encouraged and inherent in the Please view the published 4 parable itself. Thus while Mark commentary or perform an Internet 4:13-20 does reflect Mark’s reausearch using the credit below. diencing and editing of the material, it is probably based on an application that came with the parable itself. The First Evangelist simply follows right along with his Markan source when it comes to the reaudiencing. This suggests that he thought his audience was not really experiencing all that The Sower different a problem in spreading 5 Sir John Everett Millais (1829–1896). The Sower, published 1864. Tate Gallery, London, the word than Mark’s. Great Britain. [Photo Credit: Tate Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY] There is little dispute that the parable of the soils goes back in some form to Jesus and suits the milieu in which he operated (cf.

260

Matthew 13:1-52

Little Controversy Notice also that there are no major textual problems, which may suggest there was little controversy about the meaning or thrust of this material among the scribes and copiests of this story.

the parable in 4 Ezra 8:41), but then the question must be asked—How personal is this parable? [Little Controversy] Is this in fact a commentary by Jesus on the failures and successes, the opposition to and support of his own ministry? J. Jeremias has suggested that it is.6 The parable then suggests considerable failure, ephemeral The Word of God Itself See rightly T. W. Manson: “It is emphatisuccesses with some, and finally lasting results cally not a mere sermon illustration for with some. We must keep steadily in view that the purpose of stating some abstract proposition Jesus’ parables are indeed parables about the of ethics or theology in a simple pictorial form for Dominion of God and his own role in bringing the benefit of the unlearned. It is the word of God it in. They are not merely stories or illustrations itself. . . .” of general moral truths, nor illustrations for T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 2d ed. preaching, but rather examples of the preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), of Jesus. [The Word of God Itself] In this particular 65. case the debate between whether the focus is on the seeds or on the soils misses the point that the parable is about the seed merging with the soil to produce a crop. The focus then is not only on one or the other.7 [Parables] The setting of this teaching session is once more beside the Sea of Galilee. The crowd is once again huge, indeed so huge that Jesus is Parables The effectiveness of a parable depends not so much on its aptness as an illustration (though the analogy must be close enough to seem fitting), but on how well it produces the desired response in the audience. Those who have two good ears must listen and respond appropriately. But we must bear in mind that as a form of counter-order wisdom, Jesus’ parables are intended to be unsettling, disturbing, sometimes even ominous and shocking. They are not told to reinforce the status quo like so many traditional proverbs were. Rather they alert people to the new and disturbing thing God is doing in their midst, which involves reversal of expectations, values, social standing, roles in society. C. H. Dodd’s suggestion that parables were meant to tease a person into active thought is also correct, which suggests that their application would not always be immediately apparent or crystal clear. Normally in early Jewish parables there are clear contrasts between good and evil, wise and foolish, moral and immoral, but this is not always the case with Jesus’ parables. He can, for instance, use a particular attribute of an immoral and unscrupulous character (the wicked judge) to illustrate a characteristic of God and his dealings with and saving activities on behalf of humankind.

Yet there is something that also needs to be said about the placement of this material. If J. Painter is right, then we should see these parables as Jesus’ response to the public challenge to his authority. Painter wrote, “The parables are instruments of judgment to those opposed to Jesus. But the parables are also told in a context emphasizing the need and importance of hearing and responding to Jesus, assuring the hearers of the certainty of the dawning of the kingdom.” Parables to outsiders and explanation of meaning to the insiders is how Jesus responds to the challenge to his authority. But this presupposes a certain kind of reading of Matt 13:14-15 and par. Ched Myers has suggested as well that “Jesus relies upon parables when faced with intense ideological controversy.” This suits the Matthean portrayal of things even better than the Markan one, as in the Matthean portrayal we have already had major controversy, rejection, and woe oracles before we get to Matt 13. J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 76; C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 172.

Matthew 13:1-52

backed into the boat. Verse 2 says literally that Jesus got into the boat and sat down. Sitting was the posture in Jesus’ culture of the teacher, and so even under awkward circumstances he assumes the posture of the teacher. We are told explicitly at v. 3 that Jesus deliberately taught the crowd many things in parables. This suggests that the First Evangelist, following Mark, only wishes to give us a small sampling of such teaching. He is editing his material down, not boiling it up. There can be little doubt that the First Evangelist intends us to see the parable of the sower as paradigmatic in some way, telling us something crucial about Jesus’ ministry. The reference to the sower or farmer “going out” is meant to echo the earlier language used to describe Jesus’ itinerating, thus it is Jesus who is seen as the sower in this parable.8 Some have sought to see the focus of this parable as being on the sowing, but this cannot be the whole truth, for what makes the difference in the story is the different types of soil. Notice that the sower, the seed, and the method of sowing are the same in each case. This strongly suggests that the point has to do with the reception of the seed—whether one is hard-hearted, soft-hearted, distracted or attentive will effect how and whether one receives the message Jesus is proclaiming. The parable is true to life in several respects. Firstly, it is true that a small landholder would likely plant on all the ground he had available to him, whether it had good soil or not. Secondly, there is clear evidence that sowing seed could and did precede plowing in Israel in this era (cf. Jub. 11.11; b. Shabb. 73b; t. Shabb. 7:2). The parable is about three sorts of failure and three degrees of success, and at least part of the point of the parable seems to be that no matter how much failure there is, it is the sower’s job to continue to sow in hope and leave the results in God’s hands. But there is also reassurance that there would be notable successes. It is not clear from the grammar of v. 4 that the First Evangelist means seed was strewn on the path, for the Greek here would normally be translated alongside of or beside the path, the point being that all available arable land would be used.9 The picture painted by Jeremias in regard to v. 7 of a farmer throwing seeds even among existing thistles is challenged by the parable itself that says thistles sprung up and choked the seed.10 J. Marcus helpfully suggests that we should notice that in regard to the failures each is lost at a different stage in the maturation process—the first seed scattered doesn’t even germinate, the second withers away as soon as it sprouts up, the third grows but seems to produce no fruit.11

261

262

Matthew 13:1-52

Jesus Preaching at the Sea of Galilee Gustave Doré (1832–1883). Jesus Preaching at the Sea of Galilee. 19th C. Engraving. (Credit: www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/)

Matthew 13:1-52

263

Hyperbole and Exaggeration G. Dalman, however, disputes this, pointing out that individual grains were known to produce thirty-five kernels on average with sixty being not unusual and a hundred kernels not unheard of. This may mean our parable is talking about an extraordinarily good harvest but not one that strains the story beyond verisimilitude. Yet Jesus’ parables frequently use hyperbole or exaggeration precisely at the point where they want to say something about God or the Dominion or grace. See, e.g., the parable of the woman and the leaven in Matt 13:33/Luke 13:20-21, where an enormous amount of dough is used. G. Dalman, “Vierlie Acker,” PJ 22 (1926): 120-36.

Verse 8 deserves close attention. A tenfold harvest would be considered a good one, but most scholars have suggested that a thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold one would be nothing short of miraculous. [Hyperbole and Exaggeration] As Jeremias points out, this suggests that the eschatological harvest is in mind. Now is the time of sowing and initial response to the sowing, not the final harvest. The parable ends with an exhortation—“let those who have ears listen attentively.” In vv. 10-11 we hear for the first time about the secrecy motif so far as it involves the disciples and the Dominion. The idea of private teaching is part of the secrecy motif. The mystery or secret of God’s in-breaking Dominion is given to the inner circle of followers. Thus we are to see the parables as to some degree protecting the incognito of Jesus when he speaks in public, at least until the time comes for public disclosure of the truth about him. This secrecy theme is present in Matthew, though it is less evident than in Mark for the good reason that it is spread out over more material and only crops up occasionally. The idea here is that Jesus picks his own moments for public disclosure, but he is Quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 always instructing his disciples about the secrets Much ink has been spilt on the interpreof the Dominion. [Quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10] tation of the quotation from Isa 6:9-10. Is Jesus is unveiling apocalyptic secrets about the point that Jesus’ parables have the effect rather than the purpose of concealing the truth the coming of God’s eschatological reign. from those not ready to perceive, and perhaps Understanding such mysteries requires close revealing the truth only to those who are (which attention and an open heart. Notice Ezekiel depends on what type of soil they are)? For 12:1-2 (which is closely similar to our text). In example, consider the closing lines of Daniel—“I that text, God is commanding a prophet to heard, but I did not understand. . . . None of the speak to his hard-hearted rebellious people in a wicked shall understand, but those who are paying attention will understand” (Dan 12:8-10). (See way that will make clear to them that they do rightly C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man not understand. Parables or allegories in such a [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988], 172). circumstance have a judicial function and reveal the people’s distance from God, much as uninterpreted tongues are said to do with the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 14. One of the functions of the parables then was to make the crowds aware of

264

Matthew 13:1-52

how unaware they really were of the Dominion situation and the urgency of it. For many the parables mainly served as stones of stumbling deliberately placed in Israel’s path, much like what Isaiah was instructed to do in Isaiah 6. There is perhaps some truth to this explanation, for it was necessary for the church to explain why so many of Jesus’ own fellow Jews rejected the gospel, but it must not be overlooked that Jesus operated in a context in which John the Baptist had already come and warned that judgment would fall on Israel unless it repented. At least some of the parables could have been fashioned by Jesus to serve the same purpose, for instance the parable of the vineyard. One must conjure with Jesus himself soberly reflecting in this parable and with this Old Testament citation on how many of his fellow Jews had not listened so as to hear and heed the good news he brought. The purpose of such apocalyptic rhetoric was not simply to be mysterious or enigmatic but to communicate in a way that would elicit whether one was responding in faith or not. “The parables were designed so that no response meant no perception, no understanding, no forgiveness.”12 The parables give insight to the open-minded but come as a judgment on the obdurate. Put another way, when dealing with a matter of new revelation, listening intently is the necessary prerequisite to understanding because no one has this knowledge already within them. Revelatory wisdom is what Jesus is offering, but the secrets are being dispensed to the little ones, which is to say to Jesus’ disciples. Verse 34 seems to mean that parables were Jesus’ dominant form of public teaching, but the parables were also a way for the disciples to learn from Jesus. It is interesting that, so far as we can tell, they did not seem to follow Jesus in the practice of creating parables.13 Verses 18-23 could perhaps be seen as a long Matthean footnote for the benefit of his own audience, but since he is simply adopting what he found in Mark, it appears he is content with the Markan explanation. In its present form, this explication and application seems to reflect the language of the early church, “The Word” And note that this is the only place in using words not elsewhere found in the teaching Mark where the phrase “the Word” of Jesus, but rather in the epistles (e.g., logos in appears on Jesus’ own lips; indeed it is the only the sense of gospel; cf. Gal 6:6, 1 Thess 1:6 [“The place in the Synoptics we find it on his lips. Word”]; proskairos 2 Cor 4:18 in the sense of short-lived; merimna meaning cares cf. 1 Pet 5:7; apat∑ Col 2:8 seduction). Verse 19 refers to the active work of Satan and perhaps reveals to us something of the First Evangelist’s view of the cosmic warfare that is going on in regard to the spread of the

Matthew 13:1-52

265

gospel. The activity of Satan is then likened to the activity of a scavenger bird (cf. Jub. 11.11). The failure here is blamed not on the seed nor even primarily on the soil but on the external intruder that comes and takes away the seed. This is typical of the apocalyptic perspective that stresses the role of the supernatural players in the human drama. Verse 21 would certainly be appropriate for a congregation facing persecution. We are told that these people are quickly scandalized (skandalizø); that is, they stumble over their commitment to the gospel when trouble or persecution arises. Here again we probably have a clue to the sort of context in which the Evangelist believes his audience is operating, but the description could also apply to Jesus’ own disciples during the latter stages of his earthly life and ministry. M. A. Tolbert suggests that the disciples and in particular “Rocky” are those who are represented by the rocky ground, for in the end they deny, desert, and betray. [Tolbert’s Opinion] Verse 22 refers to those, perhaps like the rich young ruler, who were overcome by worldly cares and the desire for wealth and so were not really able to truly become Jesus’ disciples (cf. Matt 6:24-25). The overall effect of this material on our evaluation of the disciples themselves suggests anomaly or tension. The disciples on the one hand are recipients of special knowledge, but on the other Tolbert’s Opinion hand they lack spiritual insight and underTolbert notes that the disciples fail standing. The First Evangelist does not want to Jesus precisely at the point when his go as far as Mark in portraying the obtuseness of persecutions begin at Mark 14:43-50. She also the disciples. Notice for example how he leaves argues plausibly that the scribes, Pharisees, and Jewish leaders are those represented by the path out Mark 4:13. Perhaps this is because his own from which the seed is extracted immediately. audience is more enlightened than Mark’s, and M. A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel (Minneapolis: this would be understandable since they have Fortress, 1989), 154. the advantage of knowing the Jewish heritage and Jesus’ milieu far better than Mark’s audience in Rome. Notice too how the First Evangelist has turned the citation of Isaiah 6 into a formula quotation (13:14), conforming it to what his listeners have come to expect, which is regular correlations and indications of how this story and Jesus’ ministry fulfill Scripture. Notice as well how in vv. 11-12 the First Evangelist adds the phrase “but not to them” to the Markan source, contrasting what is given to the disciples and what is given to the outsiders. Our Evangelist has added here in v. 12 what we find elsewhere in Mark 4:25, a maxim he will repeat in Matthew 25:29—“to those who have, more will be given and they will have an abundance, but to those who don’t have, even what they have will be taken away.”14 This is not a statement that should ever be taken out of context, as

266

Matthew 13:1-52

it would amount to Jesus endorsing some cruel economics indeed. The saying has to do with the secrets or understanding of the Dominion of God. Verses 16-17 offer us another beatitude of Jesus, which is similar to another piece of wisdom speech in Psalms of Solomon 18:6 (cf. 17:44). What is a striking contrast between the beatitude in Psalms of Solomon and the one here is that here the beatitude indicates that the eschatological blessings are already being seen and are accruing. The disciples live at a time of which prophets and righteous people had longed to be a part—the eschatological age with the dawning of God’s Dominion (cf. Luke 10:24). This was a blessing in itself. The Parable of the Weeds, 13:24-30

This uniquely Matthean parable begins with an odd formulation— “another parable he put to them saying. . . .” Here and elsewhere it is necessary to realize that Jesus is not comparing the Dominion to a man sowing seed, but rather is comparing some aspect or aspects of the story to some aspect or feature of the coming Dominion. It is the case with the Dominion like the case of darnel or weeds among good wheat. In the parable the man responsible for the planting has done his job properly. He was not careless in the sowing. He used good wheat seed. However, an enemy slipped in under cover of darkness and sowed weeds, literally here zizavia, which in all likelihood refers to darnel, a weed that looks so much like wheat in its early stages of growth so as to be virtually indistinguishable from wheat to the naked eye. The enemy works during the night when he will be unnoticed. Thus the appearance of the darnel is a mystery. This becomes important when one realizes that darnel represents evil or the Evil One. There is a mystery to where that or that one comes from. [A Sapiential Reading of 13:24-43] As Jeremias points out,15 it was not uncommon for farmers to try to weed out the darnel from the wheat, but in this story the farmer judges that the crop is too far along to weed it out at this juncture, as it would uproot not only the weeds but also much of the wheat. Characteristically, darnel wraps its roots around the good wheat like a clinging vine. Notice that in v. 26 we are told that the grain had not only sprouted but had born fruit, much too late to do weeding. There was a theory in Jesus’ day that darnel was wheat that mysteriously went bad in the process of growth and maturation, though of course this was not actually true. The farmer in this story was wealthy enough to have servants come to him as the master of the house and tell him of this sad

Matthew 13:1-52 A Sapiential Reading of 13:24-43 Here we have at the outset two more seed parables. The former stresses that wheat and weeds grow up together and the attempt to uproot the weeds may destroy the wheat. This may be a comment for the community not to overdo the weeding-out process involved in community discipline, but rather let God sort them out at the judgment. This is what the explanation suggests as well in vv. 36-43. The mustard seed parable contrasts small beginnings and large outcomes, but also since the mustard bush was a noxious weed that spread throughout a person’s field and was despised, this may allude to the way many reacted to the gospel and the way to which it was widely responded. The allusion to birds coming from afar to roost on the bush probably refers to Gentiles or foreigners. V. 32 also alludes to the permeating power of the gospel. Vv. 34-35 make clear how Jesus spoke as a sage and did so in fulfillment of yet another Old Testament text: Ps 78:2.

state of affairs. They are all shocked by the results. “Didn’t you sow good seed? How is it that darnel grew up?” Perhaps we are meant to think of these workers being disturbed because they are sharecroppers and this situation would leave them with a smaller share of things. The housemaster however is wise because he not only knows who is responsible for this dastardly outcome, but he knows better than to tell the servants to go and uproot the weeds at this juncture, doing so prematurely. Verse 30 brings us to the eschatological punch line—allow them to grow together until the harvest. Harvest is of course a traditional symbol for both final redemption and final judgment. It is a trueto-life feature of the parable that the house master suggests that at harvest time the darnel will be bound up in bundles and burned for fuel. In wood-poor Israel, weeds would be dried and used for fuel. The good wheat however was gathered into the granary. The Evangelist in fact provides us with the correct interpretation of this parable in vv. 36-43, and there is little reason to doubt that the explanation goes back to Jesus, as the field is not the church here, so this parable is not about the First Evangelist’s faith community or church. The field is the world. [Wheat and Chaff] The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast, 13:31-35

Here the First Evangelist returns to another source for two more parables. Mark 4:30-31 lies in the background, but there seems to have also been a Q version of this parable (cf. Luke 13:18-19 and Gospel of Thomas 20). The second parable, about yeast, is drawn from Q (Luke 13:20-21). The mustard seed parable and the yeast parable begin with a formula like that used by other Jewish sages—“to what is the matter like?” (m. Abot. 4:20; b. Pesah. 87b). The use of the term “like” makes clear that these parables are meant to be seen as com-

267

268

Matthew 13:1-52

Wheat and Chaff This parable is addressing two issues: (1) Despite the fact that the Dominion is already breaking into the world, there is a disturbing and continuing presence of evil. One form of Jewish expectation was that when the Dominion came, judgment would be the first act leading immediately to the final separation of the righteous and the wicked. Thus this parable explains how on the one hand the Dominion has come, but on the other evil has not yet been eliminated. Until then the world will continue to be Grains in Jerusalem Market wheat and tares. (It is some[Illustration: Rick Danielson] what hard to figure out why the normally orderly First Evangelist has not followed the parable immediately with the interpretation.) (2) This parable then foresees an interval between the timing of the coming of the Dominion and the timing of the last judgment. It also seems to suggest that Jesus did not encourage a sort of Amish approach to believing life—a self-induced separating the wheat from the chaff prior to the end. Rather the wheat and the darnel live side by side until God intervenes and sorts things out. The question this parable raises is, granted that it tells us the world will always until the end be a corpus ad mixtum, should we also accept that the community of God will be that way as well rather than a holy club? One clue that the answer is yes is that even amongst the Twelve there turned out to be one bad apple whom Jesus chose even though Jesus had some premonition of what he would be like and would do. Perhaps then the community of Jesus should be a hospital for sick sinners, not a museum for saints, for only God, as the parable implies, can truly separate the wheat from the chaff.

parisons of some sort as is normal for Jewish meshalim. They are not independent and freestanding stories. The familiar mustard seed parable has various interesting dimensions. In the first place, there is the saying in the Mishnah (m. Kil. 3.2) that warns never to plant a mustard seed in the garden. It was proverbial in that era that the mustard seed (whether we are dealing with white or black mustard is uncertain) was the smallest of all seeds (cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.35.2; Antigonus of Carystus 91). What Jesus is referring to here is a noxious bush that gobbles up space and will overrun other things in the garden, hence the warning against planting it. It becomes a large bush-like plant in which even birds or small animals can nest. It could attain a height of eight to ten feet (see b. Ketub. 111b). The reference to birds

Matthew 13:1-52

269

nesting is in fact an ironic allusion by Jesus to Daniel 4:21 where a beautiful tree is the subject, not a noxious bush. The contrast between small beginnings and a huge conclusion is intended to speak to the small beginnings of the Dominion in Jesus’ day, but also shares in the eschatological optimism in regard to what God has in store. It is possible that the birds in the branches are symbols of Gentiles coming home to roost in the Dominion once the bush gets big, but we cannot be sure of this (cf. Ezek 17:23; 31:6; Dan Mustard Seed Bush 4:9, 18).16 Leaven was almost universally seen [Illustration: Barclay Burns] in early Judaism and in early Christianity as a symbol of something unclean or evil (cf. 1 Cor 5:6). The key question to ask here is why the leaven is said to be hidden in the dough. We should compare the use of the verb kryptø elsewhere in this chapter (13:14, 44). The idea is of concealment. Jesus is reversing normal expectations. How can the Dominion of God be like something unclean that is hidden in the midst of something else that is large? It Image Not Available seems possible to argue that Jesus is due to lack of digital rights. talking about his “unclean” Please view the published kingdom message, his message that commentary or perform an Internet is embraced by the marginalized search using the credit below. and unclean, his message that in fact includes the notion that the clean and unclean rules don’t apply in the eschatological Dominion. Such barriers are being transcended or left behind. Notice that it is a woman who is kneading the leaven into the dough. Several medieval Christian commentators The Leaven Sir John Everett Millais (1829–1896). The Leaven, published 1864. Relief print on paper. suggested that the woman is an allu- Tate Gallery, London, Great Britain. [Photo Credit: Tate Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY]

270

Matthew 13:1-52

sion to Wisdom.17 They were on the right track. The woman is surely Jesus, fulfilling the role of Wisdom, working his “unclean” message into Jewish society, and being optimistic about the final eschatological outcome. To be noted as well is the huge quantity of flour into which the leaven was mixed. This is a parable of counterorder wisdom—proclaiming an eschatological state of affairs in which leaven, hiding something, and extravagant use of materials such as flour is seen as a good thing and will produce a surprising and blessed outcome. The explanation for the parable of the weeds (13:24-30) is delayed until vv. 36-43 and provides us with another piece of evidence that these parables are seen as having allegorical elements. The explanation is “in house” and for the disciples alone. The request for explanation makes clear that the disciples do not understand this parable any better than the crowds. In fact, what we have here is a thoroughgoing ancient allegory where the Son of Man is the sower, the field is the world, the good seeds that are planted are the people of the Dominion, and weeds or darnel are the people of the Evil One. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters the angels of God. The weeds are not pulled up and thrown into the fire until the end of the age. Notice that the Son of Man’s Dominion is said to be in the world, and it is he who sends the angels to do the “weeding out.” Notice that both everything that “scandalizes” and those who sin are said to be weeded out in v. 41 and thrown into the fiery furnace, “where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”18 It is apparently only after this, after the elimination of evil, that “the righteous will shine like the sun in the Dominion of their Father.” The kingdom of the Father and the kingdom of the Son are one and the same, and what is envisioned is the final realization of what is prayed for in the Lord’s Prayer— God’s Dominion come on earth once and for all and without any competition for evil; the Evil One will have been dealt with at the final judgment. Hidden Treasures and Net Gain, 13:44-50

In vv. 44-50 we have three brief but interesting uniquely Matthean parables. Here the message is quite different than in the previous parables. Here we are told about the joy of discovering the Dominion and its great worth. An interesting dynamic at work in these parables is that they are about the Dominion, the divine saving activity that Jesus is brokering, and so they are about events and only indirectly about Jesus the catalyst and change agent

Matthew 13:1-52

271

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

The Parable of the Devil Sowing Weeds Jacques de II Gheyn (1565–1629). The Parable of the Devil Sowing Weeds (Matth. XIII:25). 1603. Pen and brown ink, Photo: Joerg P. Anders. Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. [Photo Credit: Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz / Art Resource, NY]

bringing about these events. It is in him and in his ministry that the Dominion is seen to be coming. One view even has it that at this juncture Jesus was the Dominion, and it A Sapiential Reading of 13:44-50 could not be seen elsewhere other than in him. Here we find three more parables, the Elsewhere it was business as usual. Jesus is the first two of which refer to the finding of incarnation of God’s saving reign on earth. Yet the most valuable thing of all, for which one is this is not the whole story, for while Jesus prepared to sell all else in order to obtain it. This embodies the Dominion there is more to the conveys the value of obtaining or inheriting a place in God’s Dominion. The third parable again Dominion than just Jesus. For example, Jesus affirms that God will sort out the good and the expects others to enter and to serve the bad at the judgment. It is not the job of the fisher Dominion besides himself, so he does not cirof human beings to do that in advance with their cumscribe the Dominion in himself. [A Sapiential communities. Reading of 13:44-50]

Here again a comparative mechanism begins the parable to let us know: (1) this is a metaphor, not an exact literal description and so (2) the two things being compared are not assumed to be alike in all respects. Indeed they are only alike in one or two ways. When children are small they often read tales of buried treasure. Here is such a tale. With the economic and political uncertainties of the first century AD, it was not unusual to bury one’s valuables in a jar in the field. Jeremias suggests that this is what Jesus has in mind here, a jar with jewels in it, in a field that belongs to the owner of the jewels.19 Consider the example of the copper scroll at Qumran found in the ground.

272

Matthew 13:1-52

The story envisions someone finding a treasure, reburying it, going out and selling all they had, and buying the field. Later rabbinic law was clear on this point. If you bought a field, you also bought the contents that were found in the field. You will notice that the man in question is not a thief. He leaves the treasure in the field until he can buy the field and the treasure becomes his. This parable means for us not only to sense the great worth of finding the Dominion but also the great joy involved in doing so. Possibly there is also a secondary theme about the Dominion’s hiddenness, requiring a diligent search to find it. When one finds the Dominion, all else seems valueless or at least of much less worth and so expendable if that is what it takes to get the treasure. No sacrifice is too great to obtain it. There is evidence that Jesus told parables in pairs,20 using them as two ways of speaking about the same sort of truth or the same truth. One story would hit one person in the audience, and another would ring true for another person. So then the parable that follows in vv. 45-46 is a twin of the treasure parable. In this story the person involved is a trader, one who will recognize the great worth of such a pearl when he finds it. Unlike the previous parable the trader is seeking the object. We are told he found an expensive pearl. [Pearl]

The Parable of the Precious Pearl Domenico Fetti (1589–1624). The Parable of the Precious Pearl (Matth. 13, 44-46), 1618–1621. Workshop copy. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Pearl For example, we know that Caesar presented Brutus’s mother with a pearl then worth $400,000 and Cleopatra was said to have one worth $4 million. Thus a pearl could be of great price even in the first century AD.

Once again the man finds the object and sells all for the sake of the one thing. Joy is not mentioned in this second parable, which suggests that the main point of both of them was the great worth of finding the Dominion. No sacrifice is too great to obtain it. The parable in vv. 47-50 is of a different ilk, and actually it goes with the first parable we examined in this chapter. It is another tale of the separation and destruction of evil, which

Matthew 13:1-52

only comes at the end of the historical process. Again, Jesus is not saying the Dominion or the community of his followers is like a net. He is saying that what happens during a Galilean fishing expedition is rather like what happens in regard to the separation of good and evil when the Dominion has fully come on earth. There were two ways such fishing was done in Jesus’ day—either with a long net with weights dragged between two boats, or with the boat laying out the net and drawing it to shore using long ropes. On some occasions men would even wade out into the lake with a small weighted net and drag the net along toward shore. We are told that in this case all sorts of fish were caught. Once the nets were full, the fishermen went back to shore and separated the fish. The good fish would be put into a container, and the worthless fish (i.e., the kinds Jews could not eat) would be discarded. The term sapra means unclean rather than rotten fish. This for a Jew would include all fish without fins. Verse 49 explains the drift of this parable. What is described is the separation process at the end of the age when God’s angels will separate the evil from out of the midst of the righteous, but not before then. The fact that the worthless unclean fish are thrown into a fire should not be pressed in regard to lifelikeness. The point is this is what happens to wicked people, not unclean or worthless fish, and in any case it is just a metaphor indicating an unpleasant fate, rather like going to the dentist’s office where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth (as the text reads literally). Various scholars have seen vv. 51-52 as a concise description of our Evangelist, or at least what his vision of Jesus and his disciples was about. We have dealt with this text in the introduction.21 Here we note that the disciples boldly confess they do understand what Jesus has been teaching them in parables. Verse 52 should probably be seen as a brief parable in itself: “Because of this [understanding] all scribes schooled in the Dominion of heaven are like the house master who brings out/produces from his treasure both old and new.” It is possible that Jesus is referring to a scribe who was trained in the Old Testament and now also in the Dominion and the eschatological teaching of Jesus and so he is able to bring forth both the old and the new message of God. This would explain something about the character of this Gospel—both Torah and Dominion message. The truth is, however, that this is just as fitting a description of Jesus’ own ministry, for as this Gospel admirably shows, Jesus did reaffirm a lot of the Old Testament, but he also brought a new message, and sometimes he amplified, intensified, and annulled parts of the old message. The implication is that Jesus

273

274

Matthew 13:1-52

expected his disciples, like the First Evangelist, to do the same thing. The reference to “every scribe” would suggest the Evangelist is certainly included in this number. Possibly, as R. T. France has suggested, there is a dig at scribes who could only produce something old. Matthew 23:24 does suggest the existence of scribes who are followers of Jesus. The only question then is whether Jesus expects all his disciples to become like scribes, which the addressing of this material to all disciples would suggest. Or is this only a parable for a converted Bible scholar or theologian who formerly worked for the Pharisees or Sadducees? Possibly our Evangelist has included this tale as justification, legitimizing the way he has put together his Gospel, combining Old Testament material with the Jesus tradition. Verse 53 makes clear that the third discourse is now completed and there will be a return to narrative material.

CONNECTIONS The Problem with Parables

One kind of teaching material of Jesus that is often most open to abuse is the parables. All too often in sermons they are turned into thinly veiled allegories touting one or another of the preacher’s pet agendas. The only hedge against this sort of inflation of the parable that leads to distortion is careful and prayerful study of the text in its original contexts. These parables were told in the first instance about the in-breaking saving reign of God that was already happening in Jesus’ day. They are not about, for instance, how to develop a sound practice of farming or personal economics, though they sometimes have implications for such matters. For example, if you never weeded your vegetable garden, you might well never have a harvest of vegetables, at least in the part of the world where I grew up—the South. The parables do not teach a million points; they only teach one or a few per parable, and always the lessons had to have made some sense in Jesus’ own day. These were not stories told only for twenty-first-century Christians, any more than biblical prophecies were told only for us. In fact, these parables and prophecies had relevance for the very first-century followers of Jesus and for every generation thereafter. It is arrogant to assume that only we have the inside scoop on the real meanings of these texts. Indeed, I would stress that what the inspired text meant in its original contexts is still what the text

Matthew 13:1-52

means today. The application may be different, the significance for you personally may be different, but the text doesn’t have a different meaning than the one with which it started. While I am on this subject, I should add that I do not subscribe to the theory that meaning is in the eye of the beholder, and I especially do not subscribe to this when it comes to the inspired word of God. The text has a meaning, and it is our job through diligent study to try to figure out. We must constantly guard against reading into the text our own biases, tendencies, prejudices, and the like. Of course this presupposes that we know what personal axes we tend to grind. Taking the Failures Alongside the Successes

The parable of the sower, or better said “of the soils,” is one that those of us caught up in the American success syndrome need to read over and over again. It tells us there will be as many failures as successes when it comes to kingdom work. Kingdom work is more like playing baseball than playing football. In baseball if you get a hit one out of every three times you come to the plate, you may well be heading for the hall of fame. Kingdom work is like this. [The Planters and the Harvest]

The Planters and the Harvest I like the story of Adoniram Judson and his long years in Burma. He had studied the parables of Jesus closely, and he knew well that planting seeds and producing a crop could take a long time, and many years could go by with no hint of “success.” Judson was in Burma many years, close to twenty before anything appeared to happen with the tribes with whom he was working. Finally, one day the tribal chieftain had had enough of his Gospel messages and decided to burn him at the stake. Before they lit the funeral pyre, the chief looked Judson in the eye and said, “What do you think of your God now?” Judson’s reply was memorable. Without blinking, he said, “The future is as bright as the promises of God.” The chief backed up, thought about this for a moment, and set Judson free. “We will talk more of your God,” he replied. This was the turning point for Christian work in Burma in the nineteenth century. Like the later missionary Jim Elliott, Judson knew that “he is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep [his physical life] to gain what he cannot lose [eternal life].” Judson also knew that kingdom work was a team effort. One person might plant the seed, another water it, another fertilize it, another see the initial growth, and still another be present at the harvest. In a radically individualistic culture like ours, it is hard to swallow the news that God could care less about your individual success. He doesn’t care who, humanly speaking, gets the credit. He cares about who gets the cure, the help, the salvation. God sees things from a wide-angle lens, and he knows perfectly well that it’s all brag and no fact when someone who inherits a rich ministry turns around and claims credit for its seemingly instant results. God cares as much about the planters as those who are present for the harvest.

275

276

Matthew 13:1-52

Notes 1 On

the various conjectures trying to explain these structural features see D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993), 362-64. 2 See J. D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London: SPCK, 1969), 130-31. 3 See pp. 262-63 above. 4 One point that probably shows Mark made his contribution is the stress on sowing “the word.” One might have expected Jesus to talk about sowing the good news of the coming Dominion of God rather than the “word.” 5 Some of the material found in this section can be found in another form in my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 160-77. 6 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1963), 151. 7 See M. A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 153 and n. 42. 8 There are various awkward aspects to Mark’s telling of the story that the First Evangelist only partially smooths out, including some redundancies in the descriptions of what happens to the seeds, and the version in Gospel of Thomas 9 seems much more symmetrical. But precisely for this reason it is likely to be the later better edited form of the story. 9 See K. D. White, “The Parable of the Sower,” JTS 15 (1962): 300-307; J. Drury, “The Sower, the Vineyard, and the Place of Allegory in the Interpretation of Mark’s Parables,” JTS 24 (1973): 367-79. 10 J. Jeremias, 11ff. 11 J. Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 22. 12 J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 80-81. 13 There is precious little evidence outside the Gospels of parables in the New Testament, though a couple of Paul’s allegories in 1 Cor 10 and Gal 4 probably qualify. 14 This is actually a sort of wisdom saying we find in other early Jewish literature. See b. Ber. 40a; b. Sukkah 46a; b. Sotah 9b. 15 J. Jeremias, 224ff. 16 See C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 387-88. 17 See my more detailed discussion of this parable in Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 190-92. 18 See pp. 185-86 above. 19 J. Jeremias, 198. 20 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 35-46. 21 See pp. 6-10 above.

Narratives of Rejection and Acclamation Matthew 13:53–17:27 The long narrative section that leads up to the next discourse in Matthew 18 contains a wide variety of material, but the rising tide of criticism and rejection of Jesus is apparent throughout, and it leads eventually to Jesus having to disclose that he is going to Jerusalem and will be killed. Most of this material is derived from Mark, with the usual tendency to abbreviate and modify so it fits the new Matthean context. The section gets off to a sobering start with Jesus’ rejected in his hometown and John the Baptist beheaded. There are various controversy narratives along the way, and the section concludes with such a story, in this case about the temple tax. We must examine each story in turn carefully, but we are meant to hear the thunder rumbling in the distance already and the dark clouds moving in.

COMMENTARY Disowned at Home, 13:53-58

The themes of rejection and unbelief continue in this story, which is taken from Mark 6:1-6 and involves the usual Matthean abbreviations and stylistic improvements of Mark’s account. The most important changes involve omitting the reference to the Sabbath, changing the phrase “the carpenter” (Mark 6:3) to “the son of the carpenter,” and avoiding the phrase “son of Mary,” probably because it was pejorative in character and might suggest Jesus’ illegitimacy.1 The First Evangelist also rephrases the question about Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters, and reverses the order of the listing of Judas and Simon found in Mark. He also adds at v. 56 the word “all” before the reference to sisters. He deletes the phrase found in Mark 6:4—“and among his kinfolk”—perhaps because he saw it as redundant. Finally, he concludes the story with the comment that Jesus could not do many miracles there due to lack of faith, which ameliorates the way Mark puts it in Mark 6:4-5. [A Sapiential Reading of 13:53-58]

278

Matthew 13:53–17:27 A Sapiential Reading of 13:53-58 Jesus is described as a sage or scribe using both conventional and counter-order wisdom in his parables. His rejection at Nazareth is recounted. Notice that the crowd asks, “Where did this man get his wisdom?” The answer is a revelation from God, not from studying nature or human nature. Here Jesus is called the carpenter’s son (in Mark 6 he is simply called the carpenter), which comports with the emphasis in Matt 1 about his being grafted into Joseph’s genealogy. The hometown folk fulfill the sadder part of the parable of the sower, and Jesus offers the aphorism that a prophet is only without honor in his own region, among his wider kinship circle, and within his own home. He is speaking of how his own family did not understand or accept him as a prophetic sage sent from God.

We are told in v. 54 that Jesus began to teach in “their” synagogue, presumably the only such meeting place in this small village of Nazareth. The result of Jesus teaching in the synagogue is not accolades but astonishment or, as the Greek verb literally means, they were “knocked out” by what he said and had done. They ask where Jesus gained this wisdom and the power for the mighty works performed through his hands. Notice they neither dispute that he has wisdom nor that he performs mighty works. They are simply dumbfounded that these things come from a hometown boy like Jesus. It is part and parcel of our Evangelist’s portrayal of Jesus as a sage that even the obtuse and obdurate hometown folks recognize Jesus as a purveyor of wisdom. But their question reinforces the point that his is not a learned wisdom, but a wisdom revealed by God to him. He is an apocalyptic sage. More than simply a matter of familiarity breeding contempt, these questions come from the ancient mentality that geographical and hereditary origins determine who a person is and what their capacities will always be. They see Jesus as someone who is not merely exceeding expectations but rather is overreaching, and once more Jesus is embroiled in a controversy in the locale that is supposed to be sacred space. The issue seems to be suspicion about Jesus’ character—“uncertain origin implies uncertain character.”2 In v. 55 Jesus is called “the son of the carpenter.” In the Jewish world there was nothing shameful about this calling, but it might have suggested to many that Jesus was unlikely to be a scribe. Unlike Jews, elite Greco-Romans saw such manual labor as demeaning. Celsus for example in his polemic against Christianity sneers that this religion was founded by a carpenter (see contra Celsum 6.34, 36). Instead of the Markan phrase “son of Mary,” we find in this verse the less pejorative “isn’t his mother’s name Mary?” How could a child of Mary be able to interpret the Torah like this? It is Mark alone who records that Jesus placed his own family in the group

Matthew 13:53–17:27

with those who stumbled over his apparently ordinary or abnormal origins.3 The text as we have it in both Mark and Matthew seems to indicate that Joseph is deceased. It was a regular Jewish practice to continue to identify a child by the name of his deceased father, using the patronymic (see b. Yoma 38b). But Joseph is not mentioned by name here, only by his trade, which could include stone masonry as well as woodworking. The word tektonos literally means a builder. It is possible that they practiced their trade in nearby Sepphoris, where a great deal of building was going on and where there was a theater where hypocrit∑s, actors playing parts, could readily be watched. It is not impossible that this is where Jesus came by the term he applied to Pharisees.4 But what is not normally noted is that it was the job of the eldest son (in this case Jesus) to take over the family business when the father passed away. Jesus however left home and started itinerating. This left the next eldest, James, in charge.5 Some of the negative tone here may be due to the fact that locals felt Jesus was merely one of them and should not have abandoned his family and gone off on ministry tours with strangers. [Jesus’ Brothers] The verse concludes by saying that the audience was deeply scandalized by his remarks. The verb skandalizø can be said to refer to a deep religious offense.6 It is in the imperfect tense suggesting an ongoing condition—they were taking offense, or were being scandalized by him. It could perhaps also be translated “they were being caused to stumble” or “they were finding him to be a stumbling block.” Verse 57 is of interest to the First Evangelist in part because it reveals to us Jesus characterizing himself as a prophet, even if he is quoting a traditional maxim here (cf. John 4:44 and also the variant in Gos. Thom. 31 and P. Oxy. 1.5, which conflates this saying with the physician saying). But sadly it also focuses on the fact that Jesus has been rejected both in his own hometown and in his own household—i.e., even by the members of his own family. The saying also stresses that Jesus is operating in an honor and shame culture where one’s public honor rating and the “face” one has in one’s own home territory are important. Yet paradoxically Jesus must labor in a situation where those very people who should most honor him give him the least “face.” This must have cast a considerable cloud over Jesus’ ministry in a culture where kinship ties and affirmations by one’s kin were considered all important and where honoring parents involved accepting their evaluations of one’s self and work.

279

280

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Jesus’ Brothers Only in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are Jesus’ brothers referred to by name in the Synoptics. There have been three views concerning the relationship of these brothers and sisters to Jesus. The most widely held view in the Western church was that of St. Jerome, which he promulgated in AD 382 in a treatise against Helvidius where he asserts that the Lord’s brothers are cousins, being the children of a sister of Mary. The prominence of this view in later church history was largely due to the fact that both Jerome and Augustine advocated this view, though in their own times the matter was hotly debated. The view of Helvidius that prompted Jerome to speak was that they were Jesus’ flesh and blood brothers, being the children of Mary and Joseph after the time of Jesus’ birth. This view was also held by Tertullian and by several minor figures from before the time of Helvidius (e.g., Bonosus in Sardica and Jovinian in Milan). Finally, there was the view put forth by Epiphanius in AD 376–377 who held that these were children of Joseph by a previous marriage, a view also put forth in the Gospels of Peter and of the Hebrews, in the Proto-Evangelium of James, and by Clement of Alexandria. It is hard to doubt that the views advocated by Jerome and Epiphanius arose because of the growing belief in the notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary as well as because of the increasing asceticism of the early medieval church. The burden of proof must rest on those who wish to argue that the term “brothers” here means cousins in view of these facts: (1) The noun adelphos seldom if ever is used to mean cousin (anepsios is the normal word for cousin; cf. Col 3:10) in the New Testament or in classical literature. (2) The view of Jerome has the further problem that it also entails the belief that James the brother of the Lord was one of the Twelve, which contradicts the plain

sense of Mark 3:21, 31-35, which distinguishes Jesus’ physical family members from the Twelve. (3) Jerome’s view also involves the questionable assumption that John 19:25 is referring to two sisters in one family with the name of Mary, such that Mary of Clopas was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. (For a detailed discussion of these issues, see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 8890, and the notes there.) The Epiphanian view labors under the difficulty that if Joseph previously had other sons, Jesus could not legally be his firstborn or first in line for the Davidic throne, and it also depends on dubious and weak church traditions. The view of J. McHugh that these brothers are first cousins, being the children of Joseph’s sister and brother, is more plausible but still labors under the difficulty that nothing in the text suggests such is the case. The phrases “the son of Mary” and “a brother of James” are perfectly natural in view of the fact that James had brothers other than Jesus and Jesus is the son of Mary in question in this particular discussion. (But see J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [London: Darton, Longman, Todd, 1975].) In fact it could be argued that since there is only one article in the phrase “the son of Mary and brother of James,” then Jesus had the same sort of relationship to both Mary and the brothers and sisters. There is little evidence to tell us whether or not the brothers in Matthew 13:55 and the men mentioned in Matthew 27:56 are different or the same; but James and Joses were common names in the period, and thus they could easily be two different sets of brothers (something that is more clearly evident in Mark 15:40 where James is called “the little,” probably distinguishing him from the brother of Jesus). There is of course also a reference here to “all” Jesus’ sisters being here with us, which might mean present in the room.

Verse 58 stresses that such was the unbelief in his hometown that Jesus was unable to do many mighty works there. The focus then is not so much on Jesus’ inability but on the amazing lack of faith; clearly, though, the First Evangelist sees a connection between faith and healing as in the previous stories in this Gospel. We may perhaps put it this way—lack of faith limits the reception of help readily available from Jesus. “Jesus was not free to exercise his power in these circumstances.”7 In Matthew’s Gospel the Nazareth story begins a narrative section in a dark way. It will become even darker when we turn the page to Matthew 14 and hear of the demise of John the Baptist.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

281

John Loses His Head, 14:1-12

It is interesting that at this juncture in the Matthean outline, our Evangelist becomes content to follow Mark’s outline for the most part for the rest of his Gospel. The First Evangelist introduces Herod as the tetrarch and later calls him the king at v. 9, whereas Mark simply called him the king. Notably the First Evangelist omits Mark 6:15-16 altogether, and once we get to vv. 3-12 (cf. Mark 6:17ff.), he follows Mark rather closely except that he compresses the narrative by a third. It must have been no small enterprise to figure out how much to edit one’s sources so that all of Matthew’s Gospel could fit onto one scroll. More interesting is the fact that the First Evangelist says Herod, not merely his wife, wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the crowd who regarded John as a great prophet. Herod is painted in even more black tones in Matthew than in Mark. Finally, in order to make a segue to what follows, the First Evangelist rounds out his narrative with “and they [John’ disciples] went and reported everything to Jesus.” [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 14–17] [A Sapiential Reading of 14:1-12]

General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 14–17 The stories found in Matt 14–17 further substantiate that Jesus was a healer and was involved in controversy dialogues with Pharisees and others. Indeed, we are meant to see Jesus as a teacher increasingly at odds with other sages of the day. In Matt 14–16 both the deeds of the sage and the controversies of the sage come to the fore, rather than just the teachings, though they are not entirely absent. The section is framed by the discussion of the death of John the Baptist, for whom Jesus is mistaken at the outset of this section, and the death and resurrection of Jesus at the other. In the middle of the section we have two feeding miracles that make clear that Jesus is one who is somewhat like, but greater than Moses. Matt 17 adds the Transfiguration narrative, another exorcism, and the temple tax controversy on the way to the fourth discourse in Matt 18. A Sapiential Reading of 14:1-12 The story of the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod Antipas is portrayed as a foreshadowing of what would happen to Jesus. It is also presented as a flashback, for Herod is heard to comment that the powers at work in Jesus demonstrate he is John back from the dead. Notice that John’s disciples report what happened to Jesus after they had buried him (v. 12). The prophet without honor has been warned of a prophet’s fate.

To some scholars this story about the fate of John the Baptist seems an odd historical retrospective that digresses from the story of Jesus’ ministry, but this is not quite correct. It is the only ministry story in the First Gospel of any length that is not about Jesus, proving once more the author’s clear biographical intent in this work. Had this been a historical monograph, there would surely have been more episodes such as we find here. What prompts this story is indicated in 14:1. We are told that some thought Jesus was John the Baptizer risen from the dead. This might mean Jesus was relatively unknown in official Galilean circles until the Baptist was off the scene, initially standing in the Baptist’s shadow. This story then further clarifies matters for the Matthean audience by distinguishing the two men, while at the same time foreshadowing the sort of violent end Jesus would also meet. Thus we must not see this story as some sort of colorful digression but

282

Matthew 13:53–17:27

rather a story that sets forth the theme that righteous people often meet untimely ends in a dark and dangerous world. It also provides us with a historical explanation for Jesus’ withdrawal to a solitary place for a while on more than one occasion when life got tense (see Matt 14:13). In other words, this is the sort of tale a biographer would want to tell to sharpen the historical focus of his narrative and prepare the reader for the events involving Jesus that begin to be predicted in Matthew 16. We may also surmise that in historical fact, the death of John had a significant effect on Jesus’ ministry and his view of himself and his future. We may note the parallels between this story and other early Jewish martyrological tales in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31 and 4 Maccabees 5:1–6:30. Notice that in v. 9 Herod is called king, surely an ironic twist because though Antipas ruled Galilee from 4 BC to AD 39 and had pretensions to be a king, it was precisely the request to be called king by Rome and everyone else, the request for the title, that eventually got him sent into exile in AD 39 by a paranoid Caligula. In fact, he was tetrarch of the region of Galilee and Perea. Antipas must not be seen as a good Jew. Besides his forbidden marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, which was prohibited according to Leviticus 18:13 while the brother was still alive, Antipas also built his capital Tiberias on top of a pagan cemetery, something an observant Jew would never sanction. A good Jew would never even enter the city due to its uncleanness. [Marriage] In many ways he was a chip off the old block, being a son born to Marriage Herod the Great and his Samaritan wife There is some dispute over Antipas’s Malthace in 20 BC. marriage, for while Josephus says Antipas was married to Herodias, he also says It is clear from this story that Herod in fact Philip was married to Salome (Ant. 18.5.2) does not know Jesus, though he knows reports about him. He has heard the rumor that Jesus is John come back from the dead, and apparently this rumor originated in an attempt to explain the origin of Jesus’ power. The theory was that this power was at work in Jesus because he had come back from the dead. This way of putting things (“these powers are at work in him”) is especially apropos for a Greco-Roman audience that believed in certain humans as conduits for divine power. The portrait of John in v. 4 as one who criticizes an improper marriage suits the characterization of John as an Elijah figure (cf. 1 Kgs 19:1-2). In terms of the logic of the story, if indeed Jesus had arisen into the public eye once John was off the scene, it is understandable how Herod might think “The one who I beheaded has come back to haunt me.” At v. 3 the actual retrospective begins.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Herod said what he did because he had John arrested for protesting Herod’s sinful relationship with Herodias. But in fact Herod did not immediately do away with John once he was imprisoned. The imprisoning of John apparently was a compromise measure taken by Herod, and Mark’s account suggests he did so to placate Herodias. This seems historically likely to be the case because imprisonment was in general not in itself a form of ancient punishment; it was a way of holding a person until his case had been cleared or judgment had been rendered. [Location of Banquet]

283

Machaerus Fortress Machaerus (Meqaver) on the Jordanian Royal Road, was built by Alexander Iannaeus (ruled 103-76 BC) and restored by King Herod the Great. John Baptist was imprisoned and possibly beheaded in this fortress. Columns of Herod’s palace. Remains King Herod’s Promontory Palace, Caesarea Maritima, Israel (Credit: Deror Avi / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0)

Location of Banquet According to Josephus, John was imprisoned east of the Dead Sea in the fortress of Machaerus (Ant. 18.5.2). But it would appear that the banquet recounted here is in Tiberias since Mark tells us it is Galileans who come to the banquet. Perhaps Herod had John moved to Tiberias at some juncture, though clearly the journey from the Machaerius to Tiberias would take longer than an overnight trek (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.2). On the other hand, some, such as H. W. Hoehner, have suggested that the banquet was actually at the Machaerus.

Verse 6 depicts Herod throwing a birthday party to end all birthday parties. That this is a banquet done in a fashion bound to offend See H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, the religiously scrupulous 1972), 146-48. is shown by the fact that Herodias’s daughter does an apparently lascivious dance meant to arouse Herod and make him vulnerable to suggestion. The First Evangelist does not tell us the name of this daughter, but Josephus says it was Salome. If this is the case, it is Herodias’s child by previous marriage. But there is a textual variant in Mark’s account that suggests that the child is also named Herodias, which would be the daughter of Herodias by Antipas, or in other words the daughter of the incestuous union John had condemned. It is easy to understand why she also would have had enmity against John. The

284

Matthew 13:53–17:27

mother was already about age forty at the time of her marriage to Herod Antipas. In the spirit of and on the spur of the moment, Herod offers the girl who has danced in such alluring fashion “whatever she asks,” presumably not expecting her to take him up on the offer. Indeed the girl apparently has no strong feelings about the matter, as she has to be prompted by her mother in regard to what to request. Herod had foolishly sworn a solemn oath (v. 7), indeed v. 9 says various oaths, which he will do what he promised. The story may owe something to Esther 5:1-8 at this juncture, particularly the midrash on the story found in Midrash Esther 1.1921 where Vashti’s head is brought to the king on a platter. But when Herodias asks for John the Baptist’s head on a dish—a gruesome final course to a sumptuous feast—Herod goes from being very pleased to being very distressed. He does not want to appear to be an oath-breaker before the notables with whom he had regular dealings, and so he has John beheaded in prison. The head is brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who then carries it to her mother. [John’s Beheading] At the end of the tale (v. 12), we are told “John’s disciples” come and take the body of John away and bury it. The First Evangelist indicates they are the source of this story (v. 12b), for we know John’s disciples continued to exist as a definable group well into the first century AD and long after John’s death (see, e.g., Acts 19:1-12). L. Hurtado makes an insightful comparison, suggesting Mark is placing John’s death at this juncture, a comparison that also works for the Matthean account. Just as John’s ministry has foreshadowed Jesus’, so does John’s death, for (1) Jesus, like John, will be executed by civil Herod Antipas, Salome and the Head of St. authorities; (2) Herod, like Pilate later, hesitates John the Baptist to execute the person in question, but then Georg Schweigger (1613–1690). Salome shows the head of St. John the Baptist to Herod Antipas. c. 1648. Limestone sculpture. does so; (3) Herodias, like the chief priests later, Bode-Museum, Berlin, Germany. (Credit: Andreas Praefcke/Wikimedia Commons, PD-self) finally gets her way through scheming and pressure; (4) the disciples come and bury John’s Beheading John, like Joseph of Arimathea will do for Of this gruesome event, John Jesus.8 This tale then serves as an ominous Chrysostom remarks, “He cut off the head but he did not cut off the voice. He curbed warning about the fate of Jesus. The cross the tongue but he did not curb the accusation.” looms in the background from this point on in (Baptismal Instruct. 10.27)

Matthew 13:53–17:27

285

the narrative.9 It also illustrates the difference between Galilee and Judea. In Galilee a Jew named Herod Antipas had the right, granted by Rome to a client king, of capital punishment, a right Jewish officials in Jerusalem did not have. [Beheading]

The First Feeding of a Multitude, 14:13-21

The feeding of the 5,000, remarkably enough, is the only Galilean miracle of Jesus that is found in all four Gospels. The reason this account was seen as that important by all four Evangelists has been debated, but surely two reasons are because of its messianic overtones and its stupendous character. Manna falling from heaven pales in comparison to the multiplication of five loaves and two fish into an ample lunch for 5,000. The First Evangelist once more follows Mark (Mark 6:32-44) with some abbreviation, though less than the usual amount, which on average is about a third of each account. Our Evangelist omits Mark 6:34 about the crowd being a sheep without a shepherd, since he has already used it at Matthew 9:36, which lessens the degree of Mosaic overtones to the story in Matthew. We also see the Matthean tendency to ameliorate the unfavorable portrayal

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

John the Baptist and His Executioner Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528). Saint John the Baptist and His Executioner. Calotype. Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Great Britain. [Photo Credit: Victoria & Albert Museum, London / Art Resource, NY]

Beheading It may be of some significance that Herod had John executed in a form that was considered by Romans and others as the least grisly and painful and the most expeditious—beheading. This is the form of execution reserved for Roman citizens, who were not to be crucified. Unlike crucifixion, beheading was not a public shaming, nor was it intended to set a public example for other rebels. It was normally performed in a private space, as was the case with John. The knowledgeable hearer of the First Evangelist’s account would then realize that Jesus was “terminated with extreme prejudice,” to use a modern phrase.

286

Matthew 13:53–17:27 Luke’s Sources It is interesting that Luke also omits a good deal of the same material from his account, which has led to some considering the possibility that Luke knew and used Matthew’s Gospel as one of his sources, and therefore that there was not a Q document Matthew and Luke both used. This is actually a possibility worth considering. Luke then would be the last of the Synoptic writers to write, and his comment about “many” having written accounts before him of these matters (Luke 1:1-4) begins to make better sense.

of the disciples, this time by omitting the rather dimwitted question in Mark 6:37 about whether they should go and buy 200 denarii worth of bread (with what for money?), as well as Jesus’ response to the question. The christological focus of the miracle is enhanced in Matthew by the addition of Jesus’ words about the bread—“bring them here to me” (v. 18). Jesus is in charge and will take care of the matter. [Luke’s Sources] The First A Sapiential Reading of 14:13-21 Evangelist is apparently uninterested in what and 15:32-39 happens to the fish, as he omits Mark’s reference The feeding of the 5,000 should be comto their being handed out (Mark 6:41) and the pared to the parallel narrative of the leftover fish being collected later (Mark 6:43). feeding of the 4,000 in Matt 15:32-39. In both This may be said to heighten the Eucharistic cases, the miracle is not staged as a demonstration of Jesus’ power but is presented as an act of overtones of the story.10 In any event, this story compassion, and in both cases, the event tranis of course a miracle that involves a transpires in a deserted place where food was not scending of the way things naturally and readily available. Notice that in both stories Jesus normally happen. It makes little sense to speak prays and then enacts the miracle through his of Jesus contravening or violating the laws of “learners,” the disciples. Nothing suggests that nature here and in the story of walking on one story is about feeding Jews and the other about Gentiles. Both stories suggest Israel is lost water, when in fact we do not have an exhausand still wandering in the wilderness. tive knowledge of what is humanly possible or of what all of nature’s laws are. [A Sapiential Reading of 14:13-21 and 15:32-39]

Following Mark’s lead, the First Evangelist provides us with an interesting contrast between a gruesome feast and an ample supper. Jesus would not provide the same sort of sumptuous meal Herod had, but he would provide a far more palatable and satisfying one in various ways. One could say we have simple food for simple folks, and this turns out simply fine. [First

First Evangelist Notice that the First Evangelist, unlike Mark, makes the transition to this story not by mentioning Jesus’ teaching but by mentioning his compassion and healing (Matt 14:14). This is perhaps because the First Evangelist compartmentalizes the teaching into the six discourses and allows the narratives to be mainly about action and miraculous deeds.

Evangelist]

The story indicates at v. 15 that the day was waning and the disciples came to Jesus saying he should send the crowd away so they could go to the nearby villages and buy themselves something to eat. Quite clearly the disciples are not expecting a miracle or for Jesus somehow to

Matthew 13:53–17:27

287

provide for the crowd. Jesus however surprises everyone by telling the disciples, “They do not need to go away.11 You give them something to eat.” The disciples reply that they have only five loaves and two fish. The disciples evidently wanted to get away from the crowd, and that had Loaf of Bread initially also been Jesus’ An ordinary loaf of bread would have been about an inch thick and eight inches intent. Notice however across. that Jesus wants the dis- [Illustration: Barclay Burns] ciples to continue to be extenders of his ministry, to continue to be on duty as his agents even though they have returned to him. Now they are being asked to be shepherds of the people just as Jesus is providing for them and not merely preaching to them or healing them. Perhaps one could call this on-the-job training. It will be noted that throughout this story the focus is on the bread; the fish are sort of an afterthought, and it should be stressed that the story is about bread and fish, not bread and wine, and so it is doubtful that the First Evangelist had any major intent to portray this as a Eucharistic meal. To the contrary, it was a filling and satisfying normal supper, and the First Evangelist uses the verb eulogeø. The word eucharisteø in fact does not occur in this story. This tale is to be seen in light of Old Testament parallels, not New Testament ones. Five loaves presumably of barley bread and two fish are the raw materials for this supper. Jesus commanded the crowds to recline on the grass. The First Evangelist leaves out the idea that Jesus told the disciples to make them sit down in groups of hundreds and fifties, presumably sharpening the focus on Jesus himself as in charge here. It is interesting that he leaves out this possible Old Testament allusion. The arranging of the crowd in groups of fifties and hundreds mentioned in the Markan version of the story echoes Exodus 18:25 (Num 31:14) where Israel is arranged in groups of one thousand, five hundred, one hundred, and ten under their respective leaders. It is right to note that these same Old Testament texts were taken as a model for the eschatological groupings of Qumranites, and specifically in 1Qsa 2.11-22 it is seen as a blue-

288

Matthew 13:53–17:27

print for the messianic banquet. Now this omission of an echo of a Mosaic story is passing strange if it was really true that the First Evangelist wanted to stress that Jesus was like Moses. Though this is a deserted place, it is no desert, for we are told of the grass in v. 19 (thus also indicating Image Not Available a time in the spring when the predue to lack of digital rights. vious fall’s grain supplies would be Please view the published low at best). Jesus looks up into commentary or perform an Internet heaven (is he praying for a search using the credit below. miracle?), a gesture that may suggest his close relationship with the Father, for normally a Jew would bow his head and pray. We are then told that Jesus gave thanks and broke the loaves. Perhaps Jesus prayed something like the traditional Jewish blessing: “Praise unto thee, O Lord our Place of the Multiplication Miracle God, King of the world, who Steps leading from the Church of Tabgah into the Lake of Galilee, makes bread to come forth from Israel. The miracle of the multiplication of loaves and fishes is comthe earth.” Notice that the discimemorated here. ples’ food is being used to produce Israel. [Photo Credit : Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] this miracle. They must provide for the crowd as well as serve the food to them, for v. 19 says that when Jesus broke the bread, he gave it to the disciples. Notice that there is no focus on how the miracle transpired. Presumably the miracle happened when the food was distributed, but neither Mark nor the First Evangelist focus on the mechanics of the miracle. There is, furthermore, no clear indication that the crowd knows a miracle has transpired, though the disciples clearly do. The event then was to reveal to the disciples Jesus’ true character and also their true calling to serve the people. The crowd ate and was satisfied, and indeed there were twelve baskets full of bread scraps left over. God’s provision was more than abundant, and the food was collected so it would not be wasted. A kophinos was a small wicker basket used to carry a light lunch or odds and ends. Some have sought to make something of the number of baskets, but probably we are simply talking about the

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Jesus Feeds the Multitude Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794–1872). Jesus Feeds the Multitude. 19th C. Woodcut. Das Buch der Bucher in Bilden. (Credit: Dover Pictorial Archive Series)

Twelve’s own small baskets with which they would carry things. But nonetheless, this Twelve had symbolically served the people of God in the wilderness, and they should have recognized from this miracle that someone was in their midst who was more than an ordinary prophet. They should have also seen this as yet another indication of God’s eschatological Dominion breaking into their midst. There may also be an echo of 2 Kings 4:42-44 where a hundred people are fed on twenty loaves and there are leftovers. Whatever stories the disciples should have used to help them interpret this event, unfortunately they fail to draw the right consequences. If the crowd had been thinking of Jesus as among the northern prophets, certainly the similar story about Elisha would have come to mind. We are told that some 5,000 men ate at this messianic banquet in the wilderness, which was indeed an enormous crowd, and all the more so if women and children were also present in addition as is likely, and in fact our Matthean account at v. 21 says so explicitly, unlike Mark. In fact, this would have been a crowd well over the population of the city of Capernaum (about 2,000 people at that time). Perhaps we should think that Isaiah 25:6-9 is echoed here,

289

290

Matthew 13:53–17:27

which refers to God feasting with his people in the wilderness. Old Testament stories are alluded to here, but there is certainly no focus on Mosaic ones in Matthew 14, much less any quoting or fulfillment citations of Mosaic stories. The editing of the Markan story provides more of a singular focus on Jesus’ activities, and one could as well argue that Proverbs 9, where we hear of Wisdom preparing a meal for the simple, is as much or more in mind here as any Mosaic text. This is a difference between the Markan account that does have Mosaic echoes, and Matthew’s account that deletes them. Water Works, 14:22-36

Here we have the second sea miracle, though this one is even more mysterious than the stilling of the storm.12 In three of our Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and John—the story of walking on water immediately follows the feeding of the five thousand. While the First Evangelist certainly is drawing on Mark 6:45-52, in vv. 28-31 he relies on special Petrine source material. As with the feeding story, while the First Evangelist abbreviates the Markan account, it is less than he normally does. He omits for example the reference to Bethsaida in Mark 6:45 and the strange reference to Jesus being about to pass by the disciples’ boat (Mark 6:48). Most importantly he adds at v. 33 “they worshiped him, saying: ‘Truly you are the Son of God,’” which replaces Mark’s “they were very astonished” (Mark 6:51).13 [A Sapiential Reading of 14:22-36] [Petrine Material] A Sapiential Reading of 14:22-36 The walking on the water miracle story is taken over from Mark, but Matthew adds the element of Peter’s attempt to walk on the water in vv. 28-33. Jesus is initially mistaken for a ghost (bodies of water were viewed by Jews as the place where spirits and demons dwell), but Peter could not be mistaken for his master. Still it was only Peter who attempted to step out on faith and started walking toward Jesus until the elements of wind and wave frightened him. It is a story of walking by faith rather than in fear as a disciple of Jesus, and emulating him, even in his miraculous behavior. Peter is called “you of little faith” (v. 31), but the end result of the story is that all those in the boat, including Peter, venerated or worshiped Jesus as the divine Son of God. Vv. 34-36 are just another summary about the pursuit of Jesus by the crowds not for his wisdom, but as a healer.

As soon as the crowd had been fed and the food leftovers collected, Matthew 14:22 says Jesus compelled the disciples to get into the boat and head toward the other side of the lake. He would stay behind and dismiss the crowd and he went up on the mountain alone to pray. Meanwhile evening had arrived and the disciples were toiling against a fierce gale being well out into the lake. [Stadia] Sometime between three and six in the morning, Jesus finished praying and came to them, walking on the water. [Fourth Watch] [Mosaic Motif]

It has often been pointed out that walking on water is something only God can do in the Old Testament (Job 9:8; Ps 77:19), which means we should indeed see this scene as an epiphany revealing the divine character of Jesus, an

Matthew 13:53–17:27

291

Petrine Material A word should be said about the special Petrine material here (and elsewhere; cf. 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15; 17:24-27; 18:21 cf. 16:15-20) that does not come from Mark or any other Gospel source. Our Evangelist is beginning to stress Peter’s prominence and importance. If, as we have suggested, the First Evangelist wrote his Gospel in Galilee, and more particularly in Capernaum, there is no reason why he could not have access to oral traditions about Peter’s exploits, if not to a written source about the same. It is interesting that the author of 2 Peter has access to a story about Peter’s experience at the transfiguration (see 2 Pet 1:16-18) that seems to have been in writing, since the Greek style of the material around these verses in 2 Peter is different. If Christian worship was already occurring in Peter’s house in Capernaum in the 80s AD, this would be the likely spot for the Evangelist to find the Petrine traditions. Overall, there is not a massive amount of special Petrine material in this Gospel, which suggests we are not dealing with an overarching editorial agenda of our Evangelist but rather his incorporation of a special and limited amount of Petrine source material. It can be said that his integration of the Petrine material into this particular Markan story is somewhat awkward, which again suggests it comes from a different source rather than being a creation of the First Evangelist. The special M material is somewhat diverse, but it seems to have in common the fact that it goes back to one or more Galilean sources, specifically to the Holy Family and to Peter or Peter’s family. We may be thankful that this Evangelist had access to such unique material, as it adds in important ways to our knowledge of Jesus, his core disciples, and his family.

appropriate focus in a biography. Interestingly it is Wisdom of whom this ability to walk on water is predicated in Sirach 24:5-6, and it can be said with certainty that the portrayal of Jesus as the incarnation of divine Wisdom is an early christological thrust.14 Jesus’ act instilled terror. The disciples thought Jesus was a phantasm, a ghost, perhaps even a sea demon, since it was believed that demons dwelt in such places. Their response then was not to shout hooray but to scream in panic. Jesus responded to the crisis immediately, saying “Courage, ego eimi. Do not fear.” At this juncture we have the Matthean addition to the Markan storyline, but before we discuss vv. 28-31, it needs to be said that it is certainly possible that ego eimi here means no more than “It is I myself ” or “It’s me.” There was indeed the issue of identity raised at this juncture since the disciples thought they were seeing a ghost, and in the Matthean account this motif is heightened by adding the query of Peter as to whether it actually is Jesus. However, Psalm 115:9ff.; 118:5f.; Isaiah 41:4ff., 13ff., 43:1ff., 44:2ff., 51:9ff. suggest that such words coupled with an admonition to take

Stadia The Matthean account says the disciples were “many stadia” out into the lake. John 6:19 says 25-30 stadia, and since a stadion is about 185 meters, this means the disciples were a mile or two from shore. This would place them not far from the other shore if they were going east to west across the lake, which may explain the Johannine conclusion of the story that says suddenly they were at land. Fourth Watch The fourth watch is between 3 and 6 A .M. and is a Roman means of reckoning time. Jews only had three watches of the night. Mosaic Motif It is telling that the First Evangelist omits the Markan mention of Jesus being about to pass by the boat. This is probably an echo of the Moses saga, with Jesus in this case playing the role of God passing by while Moses watches, or perhaps in the Markan account we are even meant to think of Moses crossing the Red Sea. It is one thing to say the First Evangelist does not play up a Mosaic motif. It is another to note that he actually deletes such motifs from his Markan source material.

292

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Jesus Walks on the Water Julius Schnoor von Carolsfeld (1794–1872). Christ Walking on Water and the Calling of Peter. Woodcut for “Die Bibel in Bildern”, 1860. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

courage and have no fear appear to make up a formula of divine self-revelation. [I Am] Then too the walking on the water points us to the more theophanic interpretation of these words. Notice for example Psalm 77:19: “Your way was through I Am the sea, your path through the great waters, yet At Exod 3:14 God reveals himself to your footprints were unseen.” One must conMoses as eyeh asher eyeh, which is clude that while the disciples in the story simply sometimes translated “I am that I am,” but the take the words as Jesus’ way of identifying imperfect form of the Hebrew verbs there sughimself (and so again show their spiritual gests it should be rendered “I will be what I will be,” pointing to the future revelation in the Exodus imperceptivity), nonetheless the Matthean Sinai events. The background of “I am” utterances, audience was likely supposed to take these whether here or in Johannine literature, is more words as of a more pregnant ilk. Jesus is being likely to be the Isaianic material in Isa 40–55 and portrayed as a divine person, indeed as Wisdom the way God characterizes the divine character walking on the water as in Sirach 24. Moses there. See for example Isa 43, especially vv. 10ff. never walked on water. Verses 28-31, like Matthew 16:16-19 and 17:24-27, focus on Peter and his relationship with Jesus. Since the passage is marked by typical Matthean vocabulary, most scholars think the First Evangelist composed this passage, but most also think it is based on oral tradition.15 First of all, it needs to be said that Peter is the only

Matthew 13:53–17:27

293

disciple in this story who initially overcomes fear and is prepared literally to step out on faith and come to Jesus on the water. He asks Jesus to tell him to come to him. Jesus simply says, “Come.” If we ask what went wrong, Hagner is probably right in concluding that Peter lost concentration, distracted by the wind. His nerve and his faith failed as he gave way to fear. He panicked when he began to sink and cried out, “Lord, save me.” The story says that immediately Jesus reached out to him and caught him, and then after the rescue he said, “Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?” The sequel to this is that they both climb back into the boat. Peter then has become the poster child of both faith and too little faith, of faith giving way to doubt and fear Peter Attempts to Walk on Water but also of faith overcoming one’s François Boucher (1703–1770). Saint Peter Attempts to Walk on Water. 1766. Cathédrale initial fears. Saint Louis, Versailles, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] Notice the parallels between this story and the stilling of the storm in Matthew 8, where the cry for rescue in both stories is identical— “Lord, save.” Peter here, like all the disciples in Matthew 8:26, is said to be of little faith. The verb often translated “doubt,” diastazein, is found in the New Testament only here and at Matthew 28:17 in the post-Easter appearance story. It literally means to be of a divided mind. This was precisely Peter’s difficulty. He had some faith, but he also had fears. Concentration and single—mindedness and trust in Jesus are required. In this case, Peter needed to keep his eyes on Jesus and not focus on the frightening wind and waters. Real faith requires real concentration and not focusing on the difficulties. But when one is sinking and there seems to be no remedy, as Hagner says, “In the moment of most dire human need, there is but one cry, just as there is but one source of salvation.”16 According to v. 32, when they got into the boat, the wind ceased, not in response to a command but simply in response to Jesus

294

Matthew 13:53–17:27

getting on board. All of this taken together suggests we are to see the story as theophanic in character, and the First Evangelist makes this far clearer than Mark by concluding with the worship of Jesus right in the boat and the acclamation “truly you are the Son of God.” Only God’s divine offspring could do what the disciples had just witnessed. We should contrast this ending with the ending to the stilling of the storm story in Matthew 8:23-27, where the miracle simply prompts the question “Who is this masked man?” We should also note that all the disciples make this acclamation in a moment of worship; this makes Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in Matthew 16 less singular than it is in the Markan account. But in fact, we are building to the climax of confessions in Matthew 16:16, which is a major turning point in the whole Matthean narrative.17 What one will say impromptu when caught up in a moment of miracle and worship is one thing. What one says in the presence of pagan idols outside one’s comfort zone of Galilee, and when one is actually questioned about one’s faith in Jesus is another matter, as we shall see. This story is followed in vv. 34-36 by a brief summary passage (cf. Mark 6:53-56; John 6:22-25) indicating that Jesus and the disciples landed at Gennesaret, Jesus was recognized immediately, word spread to the whole region that he was there, and people brought the unwell to him. It is interesting that we are told they were begging only to touch the hem of his garment, and as many as touched it were made whole. Apparently we are to think such was the divine power of Jesus that people were instantly healed even if they merely touched his garment. We are however likely meant to see this as the magic-tainted faith of the weak, much like the woman with the hemorrhage (9:20),18 but since this is only a brief summary we are not told how Jesus viewed the matter, whereas in the earlier story Jesus elevated the woman’s understanding so that she knew her faith in Jesus had cured her. It is worth pointing out at this juncture that these brief Matthean summary passages (cf. 4:24-25; 8:16-17; 9:35; and here) remind us that part of the good news was healing, but it is not presented as Jesus’ main calling or primary focus.19 Coming Clean to the Pharisees, 15:1-20

Our Evangelist continues the back and forth motion of having stories that involve the revelation and acclamation of Jesus’ true character alternate with stories of controversy where Jesus is criticized and rejected. The First Evangelist is clearly following Mark

Matthew 13:53–17:27

295

again, this time Mark 7:1-15. Several of the changes he makes are understandable in view of his Jewish Christian audience. For a start, he deletes Mark 7:2-4 because unlike Mark’s largely Gentile audience in Rome, the audience in Galilee needs no detailed description of Pharisaic cleansing rituals. More importantly, the First Evangelist tones down Mark 7:15, which reads, “there is nothing outside a person which entering is able to defile that person.”20 Here we have “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person” (v. 11 and v. 17).21 By eliminating the words “nothing” and “is able to” and by eliminating the editorial comment in Mark 7:19 (“thus he declared all food clean”), the First Evangelist makes this radical teaching more “palatable,” shall we say, for the Jewish Christian audience in Galilee, without completely doing away with the teaching. He has Modification made Jesus’ comment more limited to things This modification might allow Jewish Christians to continue to keep the one eats (“what enters the mouth”). This would Levitical laws but to realize they could eat Gentile not eliminate, for example, corpse impurity. food, for example, or have fellowship with Gentile [Modification] Our Evangelist also moves the Isaiah Christians in their homes or settings without 29:13 quote, putting it after the illustration of becoming ritually impure. how the Pharisees violate God’s commandment. There is also another small but interesting change. Mark 7:10 has “Moses said,” but here we have “God said” (v. 4). This comports with what we have already noticed of the way our Evangelist edits out Mosaic allusions, references, and material from his Markan source.22 His christological interest lies mainly elsewhere. [A Sapiential Reading of 15:1-20]

The First Evangelist, like Mark, uses the clean/unclean discussion as the introduction and in effect the explanation for Jesus’ willingness to help even a non-Jewish woman, as recorded in 15:21-28. One of the especially striking things about this controversy narrative is that it entails a citation from Exodus and Isaiah, authorities Jesus’ opponents recognize. Jesus will play off the Pentateuchal and prophetic words against Pharisaic tradition about washing of hands and similar traditions. Matthew 15:1 begins with what appears to be an official delegation of Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem coming to investigate what Jesus is doing. Yet the bone is picked with Jesus’ disciples who eat with unwashed, and so ritually unclean, hands. They are said to violate the tradition of the elders. Strictly speaking, the washing of hands was only required before the breaking of bread. The practice involved washing with a handful of water. The issue however actually has to do with Jesus, who is seen as responsible for the behavior of his followers. It was Pharisaic practice to wash diligently before

296

Matthew 13:53–17:27 A Sapiential Reading of 15:1-20 Here we have another controversy narrative, this time over the disciples breaking the traditions of the elders in regard to hand washing. The interlocutors are Pharisees and their scribes (i.e., experts in the Law). Jesus counters with the charge that the Pharisees violate the commandment of Moses to honor parents in the ways they allow people to say certain funds are designated for other purposes. Once again a Scripture from Isaiah (29:13) is said to be fulfilled, only this time it is about the behavior of the Pharisees and scribes. The main issue is the last verse of the quote that they teach human traditions as if they were God’s word. In 15:10-20 Jesus enunciates a fundamental principle that shows he relates to the Mosaic Law with sovereign freedom. Here he says nothing that enters a person defiles them. Rather what comes from the heart and out of the mouth defiles a person. The Pharisees are characterized as the blind leading the blind (cf. the absence of this motif in Mark). Jesus here declares that the laws of ritual impurity no longer apply now that the Dominion of God is breaking in, but the moral law has been intensified in this situation. Jesus displays his wisdom by indicating what is binding on the believer in the new eschatological situation. Jesus offers a counter-order wisdom at odds with both Jewish tradition and Mosaic Law.

eating. In order to understand the Pharisees, one must recognize that they attempted to apply the Levitical laws for the cleanness of priests to everyone (see Exod 30:19; 40:13).23 Jesus’ return salvo will accuse the Pharisees not merely of violating the traditions of the elders, but of violating the word of God. Verse 3 amounts to a pointed rebuke. “Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions?” In the Matthean account, Jesus turns immediately to an illustration from the Pentateuch. The issue involves the matter of korban or dedicating of gifts to God, which prevents them from being used for other purposes. The First Evangelist leaves out the term korban found in his Markan account. What is important here is that Jesus is affirming the essence of a divine commandment (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9) at the expense of legislation that vitiated something at the heart of the Law—honoring father and mother. In this case it appears Jesus is attacking the misuse of the practice of making something korban or dedicated to someone. Jesus reminds his listeners that they are to honor both father and mother, which may be especially significant since some early Jewish teachers said the father was to be honored more than the mother (see m. Ker. 6:9). J. D. M. Derrett has shown that the term “honor” was often taken in early Judaism to mean provide financial support for (Prov 28:24).24 Notice that Jesus also asserts the negative form of the commandment to honor, saying the one who does the opposite of honoring by speaking evil of one’s parents should be executed (v. 4). Verses 5-6 indicate that the Pharisaic practice was to actually prohibit a person from reconsidering their pledge and so refusing to help their parents in extremis. Jesus calls this a clear vio-

Matthew 13:53–17:27

lation of God’s word. It is truly hard to imagine a more strongly worded way of enforcing the obligations of children to their parents, especially of dependent parents. At vv. 7-8, Jesus responds with a further stinging rebuke, quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 29:13. Here we have again the familiar Matthean critical term, “hypocrite,” applied to the Pharisees and scribes he addresses.25 The contrast in the quote highlights those who give lip service to God but whose hearts are far removed from him. Their worship is in vain, for their teachings are but the rules or commandments of human beings. Doubtless Jesus focuses on the latter part of the quotation. The point of the quote seems to be as follows: the Pharisees, in their concern for external observances, had substituted these practices for heart religion, which amounted to substituting the traditions of human beings for God’s word. The danger was that mere human traditions or interpretations of God’s word would be taken as the word itself, and one would be categorized as a bad Jew if one did not follow this halakah. Thus Jesus accuses them of neglecting the actual commandments of God to keep their own commandments. This amounted to more than mere neglect. It amounted to annulling or canceling out (∑kyrøsate) the commandment of God. What happens in such cases, according to G. Bornkamm, is that the Law has been separated from God himself and has become the real authority. Thus ironically the Law becomes an obstacle to real encounter with God because the means has been mistaken for the end.26 Sometimes humans of various religious traditions, including the followers of Jesus, have been able to hide behind legal observance and assume that this establishes their righteousness and God’s indebtedness to them. [Oaths] At vv. 10-11 Jesus takes his case to the crowd, calling them to him and making clear that what his disciples did was no accident nor was it a result of laxness. Rather it was grounded in principle. Verse 11 states unequivocally that what enters a person’s mouth does not defile them, rather it is the unclean things that come out of a person’s mouth that defiles them. If indeed one takes this statement in a straightforward manner, it means Jesus saw a significant portion of the Levitical law code as no longer applicable now that God’s divine saving activity, his eschatological Dominion, was breaking into human history. Jesus’ approach to holiness was not going to focus on the ritual part of the holiness code. One might say the Jesus movement and the Pharisaic movement were both holiness movements, but they disagreed on the proper approach to creating a holy people of God. Even the Matthean Jesus then is not merely declaring Pharisaic halakah defunct or

297

298

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Oaths In Jesus’ era it was indeed possible to declare (by means of a vow using either the term korban or konam) that one’s parents were proscribed from benefiting from some piece of property or material asset because it had been set aside for other purposes (for example, dedicated to the temple treasury). But in fact this procedure had come to be used in Jesus’ day simply to place property out of the reach of parental use, without the pious intent to set it aside for some religious purpose. Indeed, the term korban or “dedicated” may already have begun to have the force of an imprecation in Jesus’ day, which would explain the reference to cursing one’s parents in this text. There is furthermore the problem that oaths were taken so seriously in Jesus’ social setting that it was difficult if not impossible to repent of something said using an oath, even if it was said in haste or in a moment of anger (see, e.g., Mark 6:23), but we will remember Jesus elsewhere warned against his disciples taking oaths at all, perhaps precisely because in an honor and shame culture it was next to impossible to take it back or renege on an oath, even if it was a shot fired in anger (see Matt 5:33-37). Some early Jewish teachers

even believed if one broke an oath, one’s life would be forfeit and indeed one would stand in danger of the judgment of God on the last day (Philo, Hypoth. 7.3-5). The duty to fulfill a vow had been allowed to take precedent over the duty to parents. Jesus, however, takes the opposite view, strongly affirming the traditional obligation to honor parents, including providing them with financial support and removing obstacles to doing so. See the discussion in J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5,” JBL 78 (1959): 60-65, and M. Ned. 5.6; Babba Kamma 9.10. Korban was not originally an imprecation formula but a technical term in an oath. Cf. J. Bligh, “Qorban,” HeyJ 5 (1964): 192-93; Z. W. Falk, “Notes and Observations—on Talmudic Vows,” HTR 59/3 (1966): 31112. See also Philo, Spec. Laws 2.16; Josephus Ant. 4.73. The use of the term as an imprecation seems to be a development from about the time of Jesus.

invalid. He is declaring at least some portions of Leviticus obsolete as well. When all is said and done, Jesus believes not food but moral attitudes and “unclean” speech defile a person. At v. 12 the disciples come to Jesus and state the obvious—“Do you realize that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” This suggests they cared about the opinions of the Pharisees, who were widely revered by ordinary Jewish people. Here our Evangelist inserts three verses (vv. 12-14) from some non-Markan source, and the gist of the matter is a strong rejection of the Pharisaic approach. In the first sapiential saying, Jesus says every plant not planted by “my heavenly Father” [“My Father”] will eventually be pulled up by the roots, a not so veiled reference to eschatological judgment.26 That Jesus uses the phrase “my Father” indicates not only his special relationship with God, but his source of authority for critiquing the Pharisees so boldly. Here in v. 14 we have for the first time the reference to the Pharisees being blind guides, a “My Father” theme that will be amplified in Matthew 23:16Here and at 18:35 Jesus speaks of “my 24.27 The aphorism in v. 14b about the blind Father” for the only time in this Gospel. man leading the blind is an image of lostness and Otherwise it is “your” or “our” Father. futility, but more to the point the fact that they fall into a pit is a vivid image of leading someone straight to death, to the cemetery, to the grave, to the land of the dead, to Sheol.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

It is Peter, in v. 15, who steps forward and asks for an explanation of this little metaphorical saying, but in fact the answer is given about the earlier aphorism concerning clean and unclean. There follows a mild rebuke of not only Peter, who speaks as the disciples’ representative, but of all of them—“Are you [plural] still without understanding?” Jesus explains that food only goes into the stomach and then passes out of the body. Jesus’ point is that food, which enters a person, is not “dirty” ( i.e., people do not eat physically dirty things). Instead, it is one’s excretion that is considered “dirty”; what comes out of a person is what is unclean. The simple point of the comparison is the contrast between the “cleanness” of food versus the “filthiness” of excretion. The actual interpretation of the comparison will be given in the following verses.28 The sorts of things that do defile a person are listed at vv. 19-20. Here, as v. 18 suggests, the heart is seen as the source and center of human action, determining its character. This catalog of vices is thoroughly Jewish and traditional. Here we have seven items listed, and the similar list in 1QS 4.9-11 should be compared. The First Evangelist has only one item not listed in the Mark 7 parallel, “lies,” thus making this list include four items from the second table of the Ten Commandments—evil thoughts, all sorts of sexual immorality, thefts, murders, adulteries (these words are in the

Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind Pieter Brueghel the Elder (c.1525–1569). Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind. Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples, Italy [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

299

300

Matthew 13:53–17:27

plural), bearing false witness/lies, and slanders/blasphemies. J. Neyrey suggests that the list of vices here is based roughly on the Ten Commandments, and this is basically so.29 Notice that in the Matthean form of the list, unlike in Mark, we are focusing entirely on deeds rather than attitudes and deeds. Jesus in his own way heightens the demand for purity beyond what the Pharisees expected, but his approach involves strict moral purity. Personal sin, not food or eating with unwashed hands, is what now defiles, rendering them unfit for fellowship with God or other humans. In Matthew the story concludes with a sort of inclusion in v. 20, referring back to the initial question of the Pharisees. It is these sorts of activities, not eating with unwashed hands, that makes a person unclean. Jesus’ radical teaching here, even in its ameliorated form compared to Mark, can be seen as performative in nature, which is to say that “Jesus in our passage is not just holding a mirror up to nature, depicting what has always been the case, but actually changing things by his apocalyptic pronouncement that all foods are (now) clean.”30 Such a pronouncement is not unlike what we find in Genesis 9:3, where before the Mosaic Law but after the flood all animals could be eaten. The Faith of a Canaanite Woman, 15:21-28

The story of the Canaanite woman presents us with one of the hard sayings of Jesus. In this story we see Jesus crossing a variety of boundaries—geographical, ethnic, gender, theological. We may expect to learn something of Jesus’ view of Gentiles, indeed of Gentile women, in this passage.31 [A Sapiential Reading of 15:21-28] Here we have an instance in which the First Evangelist has significantly reworked his Markan source (Mark 7:24-30), using direct discourse from near the beginning of the story (v. 22) and adding fresh material, particularly vv. 23-24, which give the Matthean account a distinctive flavor, stressing Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Matthew the woman’s perseverance is heightened, as she is not even deterred by this pronouncement of Jesus about his focus on Israel. Other changes of note are that the First Evangelist adds a reference to Sidon alongside Tyre in v. 21. He deletes the reference to Jesus going into a house (found in Mark 7:24-25), longing for privacy but unable to keep his presence a secret. This is part of the First Evangelist’s tendency to delete references to Jesus’ emotions and in general a psychological profile of Jesus. Notice as well that we have the woman calling Jesus “Son of

Matthew 13:53–17:27 A Sapiential Reading of 15:21-28 It is instructive to compare and contrast this story with its Markan form in Mark 7:24-30. Here we have a woman who is said to be a Canaanite woman, and so definitely not a Jew. She calls upon Jesus as Son of David for healing for her daughter. The story in Matthew is cast as a contrast between the disciples’ irritation and lack of faith and the woman’s faith in Jesus, which is said to be great (v. 28 cf. Mark 7:29). V. 24, where Jesus says he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, reflects Jesus’ testing of the woman (and here lost sheep = Israel). The daughter of the woman is healed instantly, and this is followed by yet another summary about Jesus being sought for healing (vv. 29-31; cf. 14:34-36).

David” only in the Matthean account, again associating this title with healing and thereby with Solomon and the wisdom portrayal of Jesus in this Gospel.32 The reference to the daughter having an unclean spirit is now spoken of as a child suffering severely from demon possession. Importantly, the First Evangelist calls this woman a Canaanite woman from that region, rather than a Greek, a Syrophoenician woman. This is a telltale sign that our Evangelist, unlike Mark who is writing to Gentiles in Rome, will use terminology familiar to his own region of Galilee and to his Jewish audience.33 It is a clue to the provenance of this Gospel. As Hagner stresses, while the First Evangelist stresses here the exclusivity of Jesus’ present mission, he also shows again that Jesus will respond to the remarkable faith or trust in him exercised by a non-Jew.34 Indeed, once again this Gentile is portrayed as having greater faith than that of the disciples in some respects. The story begins with a desperate woman coming to implore Jesus to exorcize a demon from her daughter. According to v. 22, the woman cried out, “Lord, son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering greatly from demon possession.” The First Evangelist calls her a Canaanite, which would seem to focus on her religious affiliation. After her request, the Markan account proceeds directly to the saying of Jesus about the children and their food, while Matthew relates a three-part response, but in Matthew the disciples are presented in an unfavorable light, asking Jesus to send the woman away “because she keeps nagging us.” The net effect of the Matthean additions to the story is to stress Jesus’ Jewishness and the exclusivity of his mission. This is seen clearly in v. 24, which is unique to this account. Jesus says he was sent “only” (not merely “first”) to the lost sheep of Israel. At this juncture the woman kneels before Jesus and simply asks him directly for help. At this juncture she gets what seems to be a further rebuff. The response found in both Matthew and Mark is harsh: “It is not good to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.”

301

302

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Christ and the Canaanite Woman Jean Germaine Drouais (1763-1788). Christ and the Canaanite Woman. Louvre, Paris, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PDArt (PD-old-100-1923)]

Regardless of whether one thinks the term kynarion is diminutive or not, the use of the term is likely an insult or slur, especially when spoken by a Jew to a non-Jew. [Diminutives] It is not impossible that there is a reference here to the practice of giving unwanted bread that was not worth saving to the dogs,35 perhaps in particular to puppies or pet dogs.36 It is also possible that Jesus uses the dog remark because this woman is kneeling before him in a posture like a submissive animal.37 Insulted or not, the woman is still not put off by Jesus’ further rebuff, perhaps because she is so desperate for aid, or possibly we are to think there is something in the way Jesus put the matter that invited a rejoinder. Thus, she enters into the test Diminutives by in a sense accepting Jesus’ judgment on her: Diminutive forms are fairly frequent in “Yes sir, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that Mark (see e.g., Mark 5.41; 7.25,28), but fall from the master’s table.”38 This implies subnot in Matthew. There are examples of diminutives of contempt as well as diminutives of mission to Jesus’ categorization of her and even endearment. Kynarion may well mean “little dog” to his apparent refusal to help. Her inventiveness in this Matthean text. lies in her accepting the categorization as a dog See D. Smith, “Our Lord’s Hard Saying to the but finding a way for even an outsider, even a Syro-Phoenician Woman,” ET 12 (1900–1901): dog, to obtain what it needs in the bargain. 319-21; Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Syrophoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum,” NovT 15/3, 1973: 161-86.

[Woman’s Quotation]

Matthew 13:53–17:27

303

It may be germane to recognize that whether or not early Jews had dogs as house pets, there is no evidence that they were prepared to feed them, and thus the woman here would seem to be asking for pure grace, showing there was a way that even dogs could be fed. Notice that in Jesus’ final response to the woman in the Matthean account in v. 28, Jesus mentions her great faith as the reason she gains what she wants, unlike in the Markan account. There can be no doubt that faith, wherever it may be found, is something prized and highlighted in Matthew’s Woman’s Quotation It is possible the woman is quoting a Gospel. Notice how this woman compares well-known proverb (see Philostratus, favorably with the Pharisees and even the disciLife of Apollonius of Tyana, 1.19). ples earlier in this same chapter. This is the only story in all of the Gospels in which Jesus seems even mildly critical or cold toward a woman. This is not surprising, as elsewhere we find that Jesus even had women amongst his traveling disciples, something unprecedented in early Judaism (see Luke 8:1-3). While the First Evangelist does not focus as much on Jesus’ relationship with women as the other Gospels, even in this Gospel written for conservative Jewish Christians he is prepared to stress the great faith of a woman compared to that of the male disciples, who are said in this same chapter to be dull or lacking understanding, and even whose leader, in the previous chapter, was said to have little faith. Only two non-Jews are said to have great faith in this Gospel, and one of them is a woman.39 Healings and Feeding by the Sea, 15:29-39

The First Evangelist provides us with his last healing summary here in vv. 29-31, apart from the brief note at 19:2. This summary seems to be in lieu of Mark’s account of the healing of the deaf mute in Mark 7:31-37, which Luke omits as well. Our Evangelist does not refer to the Decapolis, as in Mark, but suggests this happens on a mountain or hill along the Sea of Galilee. There is then nothing in the Matthean account that follows to suggest a Gentile audience at the feeding of the 4,000. Emphasis is placed on the variety of people brought to Jesus for healing—the lame, the blind, the crippled, the dumb, and various others. These people were laid at the feet of Jesus, and he healed them. Again we have no description of the healing, just a statement of fact. There is no sign this Evangelist likes to play up or amplify the miraculous character of Jesus’ mighty deeds. The people are said to be amazed by all these healings, and they “praised the God of Israel.” This is a common Old Testament phrase (cf. Pss 41:13; 72:18; 106:48;

304

Matthew 13:53–17:27

1 Kgs 1:48) that is rarely found in the New Testament (besides here, see Luke 1:68; Acts 13:17). It is not the case that only Gentiles were likely to use this phrase, so this provides no hint that the First Evangelist has a Gentile audience in view.40 What is implied here is that God is faithful to fulfill promises such as those made in Isaiah 35:5-6, and Jesus is his agent of fulfillment. According to v. 32 this crowd was with Jesus for three days, and Jesus became concerned they would not even be strong enough to go home, and so having compassion on them he raised the issue of feeding them. His disciples once again seem to be struck by dullness, as they ask where in such a remote place one could find enough bread to feed such a crowd. This is how in Matthew the transition is made to the Basket with Bread between Two Fishes Mosaic from the ancient church of the Multiplication of the Loaves in Markan story of the feeding of the Tabgah, northern shore of Lake Genezareth, Israel. 6th C. Israel 4,000 (Mark 8:1-10), a story (Credit: Grauesel / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated) Matthew follows rather closely with minimal editing, but then it was already a short narrative. The high degree of similarity between this particular feeding story and the one in Matthew 14 (Mark 6:34-44) has led the preponderance of scholars to suggest there was only one such event, reported in various forms. Normally noted is Matthew 15:33/Mark 8:4, where the disciples make absolutely no reference to a previous feeding of this ilk, and it is difficult to believe the disciples would have so soon forgotten a miracle of that magnitude and nature. On the other hand, Mark himself (and Matthew who follows Mark in this) seems clearly to believe there were indeed two feedings. For instance, in Matthew 16:9-10/Mark 8:19-20, Jesus actually reminds the disciples of the two feedings. Then too, one must remember that in the telling and retelling of the stories of the Jesus tradition, stories of a similar ilk took on similar formal features when they were repeated in the teaching and preaching; indeed there was, not surprisingly, some cross fertilization of details between originally different stories, for example the two different anointing stories in the Jesus tradition (cf. below on Matt 26:6-13; and parallels, and Luke 7), which are sufficiently different to make

Matthew 13:53–17:27

it unlikely that they go back to one tale. Were the Synoptic relationships such that Matthew’s Gospel had been written first and Mark used Matthew, we might hypothesize that the feeding of the 4,000 is a doublet, since the First Evangelist has a certain penchant for doublets.41 But in fact it is the First Evangelist who is following Mark’s account closely, and Mark is careful and selective in his choice of narratives. It is uncertain whether we should make much of the different numbers involved here, both of the loaves used and of the participants, but they suggest two different stories. It seems clear that the First Evangelist is simply following Mark’s lead and accepts that Mark believed he was dealing with two different stories. The one big difference is that the Matthean account does not suggest a feeding of Gentiles, whereas Mark’s account does suggest such a conclusion, as the feeding is said to be on the east side of the Sea of Galilee.42 Verse 34 tells us Jesus asked his disciples how many loaves they had. The reply is seven loaves and a few small fish. Again Jesus instructs the crowd to sit down, this time on the ground rather than on the grass (v. 35).43 It is interesting that in this story when Jesus takes the loaves and fish, we do have the verb eucharisteø rather than eulogeø, following the Markan account and differing from the account of the earlier feeding. For whatever reason, this time we are told that seven baskets full of leftover bread are collected afterward, again following Mark. The First Evangelist tells us it was 4,000 men who were fed, but there were also women and children present (v. 36). The story concludes with the words that Jesus sent the crowd away and got in the boat and went to Magadan.44 [Magadan] The Tests and Yeast of Pharisees and Sadducees, 16:1-12

Following on the heels of the great feeding miracle, Matthew 16:112 comes across as extremely ironic. The Pharisees and Sadducees come testing Jesus (or tempting, depending on how one chooses to translate perizontes). The Sadducees appear here for the first time in this Gospel since 3:7. Sadducees would indeed be strange companions for Pharisees unless the Jerusalem authorities had finally taken notice of Pharisaic warnings and had come to check out Jesus’ ministry firsthand. Sometimes the enemy of one’s enemy turns out to be a friend in some particular cause, and the Sadducees may have feared a revolt in Galilee, especially after John the Baptist was beheaded and considering Jesus’ close associations with John. [A Sapiential Reading of 16:1-12]

305

306

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Magadan This seems to be a variant of the name Migdal, a town also called Magdala (as here), which is a town on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee (cf. Luke 8:2). The Markan account has Dalmanutha, which is an unknown name. It would appear our author knows his Galilean geography well enough to substitute a more familiar name.

The test these two groups offer takes the form of requesting a sign from heaven, but Jesus has just performed a notable miracle, like unto the manna from heaven miracle in the Old Testament. However, the Pharisees and Sadducees apparently did not recognize Jesus’ miracles as signs, and in any case it would appear that they were asking for a validating sign from heaven, not an act of compassion on earth. It is then not a matter of the Pharisees and Sadducees refusing to believe Jesus performed miracles; rather they doubted the miracles’ godly origins and wanted confirmation from above. Jesus of course refuses to perform such a sign, not least

Matthew 13:53–17:27 A Sapiential Reading of 16:1-12 Here we have a further controversy story. This time Jesus is tested by Pharisees and Sadducees. Again Jesus refuses to give a sign and refers only to the sign of Jonah (v. 4). Jesus refers to the yeast of his opponents, by which he means the permeating effect of their teaching, but his disciples who are spiritually hard of hearing think he is actually referring to real bread. The disciples are again castigated as being of little faith (v. 8). But at the end of the story after an exasperated Jesus remakes his point, they finally understand he is referring to their teaching.

because it is a request from those who refuse to have faith and would not likely gain faith if they saw a sign. Verses 2-3 offer another Wisdom saying, this time in the form of nature wisdom—“red sky at night, farmers’/sailors’ delight; red sky at morning, farmers/sailors take warning”—or the Galilean version of the same aphorism. Jesus’ complaint is that while his audience members are pretty good meteorologists, they can’t read the signs of the times. Jesus repeats a variant of the reply he has previously made to the Pharisees in Matthew 12, namely that he will not offer up a validating sign other than the sign of Jonah.45 Jesus then turns and leaves this audience. The call for a validating sign amounts to a radical denial of the summons to have faith. Jesus characterizes the Pharisees and Sadducees as being part of “this generation,” by which he means a generation characterized by wickedness, spiritual blindness, perversity. In the end, Jesus simply leaves them standing without giving them what they desire. “Built into the perception in the ancient world is the recognition that powerful people can perform mighty deeds. The more powerful the person, the mightier the deeds. This understanding avoids many aspects commonly assumed in the discussion of ‘miracles,’ which is a relatively modern concept.”46 The use of the term “generation” or even “this wicked and adulterous generation” deliberately echoes the Old Testament theme of Israel’s sin of doubting God in spite of the miracles God had performed for her, especially for the wilderness wandering generation (cf. Ps 95:8-11; Deut 32:5; Exod 17:2; Num 14:10-23). In Matt 16:5-12 Jesus warns his disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.47 Here again our author is following Mark (Mark 8:14-21) with abbreviations and minor emendations. The most notable change is that he has added vv. 1112 to round out the discussion in the same fashion he did with the washing hands discussion in Matthew 15. The light these verses shed is that they show leaven = teaching, and in this case corrupting, false teaching.48

307

308

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Leaven was in various contexts a synonym for corruption (cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; Gal 5:9) and was not identical with yeast, a healthy raising agent that was rare in antiquity. Here Jesus seems to be referring to the subtle corrupting power of the Pharisees and Sadducees. “Perhaps it is also its infectious, continuous operation that is referred to here (cf. Matt 13:33 . . .).”49 In this Gospel leaven seems to be equated with false teaching, while in Luke it is equated with hypocrisy. Again the disciples are seen to be obtuse, for they start talking about bringing too little bread with them on the boat trip (v. 7). They are thinking purely on the physical level. Yes, they remember well the details of Jesus’ miracles of feeding, but they do not understand beneath the surface what such a miracle signified. Their privileged position and in-house teaching should have led to understanding, but instead the disciples are still without understanding and suffer from spiritual hardening of the arteries. Jesus is aware of this discussion among the disciples, and so he addresses them once again as “you of little faith” (v. 8). Notice the close connection of faith and understanding. If they had had sufficient faith, their understanding would have been far better. Jesus then reminds them of the two feeding miracles. Verse 11 is blunt— “How is it that you don’t understand I am not talking about ordinary bread?” It may be doubted that there are any Eucharistic overtones to this story. Rather the subliminal message in a biography such as this one has to do with Christology, how the miracles reveal, though opaquely, who Jesus is. Finally, according to v. 12 the light dawns. They realize Jesus is referring to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which they are to guard against. Is this a sign of improvement over the previous times they were said to have little faith (cf. 6:30; 8:26; 14:31)? Perhaps not in view of Matthew 17:20.50 Jesus had a right to be concerned. He was training these disciples to be involved in and eventually even take over his ministry, yet they seemed to be making faith and cognitive progress very slowly. It must have been discouraging to say the least. Confession, Endowment, Transfiguration, 16:13–17:27

We are now working our way to the climax of the First Evangelist’s account of the Galilean ministry. Most scholars see Matthew 4:17–16:20 as the first major section of this Gospel, dealing with the Galilean ministry. [Healing of the Blind Man] But the climax brings both true revelations about Jesus and shocking pronouncements about his fate as he goes up to Jerusalem. We finally begin to have

Matthew 13:53–17:27 Healing of the Blind Man It is interesting that our Evangelist has omitted Mark’s story about the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26). Hagner suggests that he found the story less than compelling since the healing took place through a process, which might also explain the omission of Mark 7:32-35. D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 463.

the Passion predictions after the Caesarea Philippi episode, which in Matthew as in Mark is a major turning point. What is most crucial to bear in mind as we work through the rest of Matthew 16 and then 17 is that until the “who” question has been answered by Peter, the representative of the disciples, in a setting where he is not merely caught up in the excitement of the moment or the miracle, the “why” and “what” question about Jesus’ ministry cannot be raised and answered. Put more directly, until one knows who Jesus is, one cannot understand why he had to go up to Jerusalem, suffer many things, be killed, and then rise again. The ultimate purpose of the ministry and Jesus’ mission cannot be fathomed unless one truly knows who Jesus is—God’s divine Son, the Son of the living God. In both the Caesarea Philippi episode and in the transfiguration, this truth is hammered home as the Passion predictions begin to mount up.

True Confessions, 16:13-20 Hardly any ministry story is more familiar than the one about Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, north of Antipas’s territory of Galilee.51 It is a story that draws upon Mark 8:27-30 in its first part and on special Petrine traditions in vv. 17-19.52 [A Sapiential Reading of 16:13-20] [Philip’s Caesarea]

Jesus himself prompts the discussion, and you will notice that no one on his or her own was coming up with the idea that Jesus was Jewish Messiah or God’s unique Son. The question Jesus asks is the polling question—“Who do people say that I am?” In a culture where names were not mere labels but were considered at least clues to someone’s nature and character, the way people named Jesus was revealing of what they really thought of him. Not even as a result of Jesus’ miracles were people coming up with the idea that Jesus was Messiah, which is somewhat surprising since in the north there was the tradition about Elijah and miracles, and there had been some suggestion that John was an Elijah figure after whom came a greater one. Jesus, however, did not play out the messianic script along Davidic (or warrior) lines, and that confused various people. One

309

310

Matthew 13:53–17:27 A Sapiential Reading of 16:13-20 The great confession of Peter is followed by his rebuke and then a promise to him from Jesus that is not found in Mark. This in turn is followed by the first Passion prediction and a call to the disciples to take up their own crosses and follow Jesus. The confession in Caesarea Philippi is noteworthy as it is a city full of pagan shrines and yet in the midst of that setting Jesus is confessed. It is also noteworthy because it had a river flowing forth from an underground spring, which was seen as an opening into Hades, the underworld, and the river Styx. Thus when Jesus says the gates of Hades will not prevail against his community, he is referring to the fact that his community will never die out. The blessing of Peter in vv. 17-18 is important, and Jesus promises to build his community on Peter and people like Peter who make such a confession. He reminds Peter that he came to this conclusion about Jesus due to a revelation from God, not from human testimony. The play on words in v. 18 is between Peter called “rock” and the Greek term for a shelf of rocks, which would include Peter but not refer solely to him. The binding and loosing in v. 19 refer to binding some rulings on the community or setting them free from other ones, which is precisely what Jesus had been doing: setting them free from some of the Mosaic requirements and binding on them other ones.

of the more interesting things about this story is that Jesus is going to admit that human beings and mere human logic was not likely to come up with the right answer about the identity of Jesus—it required a revelation from above. This being the case, ordinary people, whether Jewish or well informed about Philip’s Caesarea Judaism, could not be faulted for lacking full The setting of this confession is surely important. Philip’s Caesarea, or as the understanding of Jesus. It was then not transparent Greeks had previously called it Panyas, named or immediately evident who Jesus was from his after the Greek god Pan, was a center of various words and deeds, however remarkable, and it would sorts of pagan worship since the Hellenistic age, appear that Jesus wanted it that way. In this way, and in Jesus’ day it was also a center for emperor only by his revealing himself in his own way and on worship, hence the renaming of the city. his own terms, or by God’s revelation, would even the disciples come to understand the mystery that was Jesus. Notice that while Caesarea Philippi involves the Twelve, the transfiguration only involves the three. In both cases this is revelation for a select group. But there was good reason for Jesus only to reveal himself to his inner circle. They had the opportunity of interpreting such a revelation in the large context of the ongoing relationship they had with Jesus and their knowledge of what he had been saying and doing over a considerable period of time, which included hearing him ask and answer questions about his identity. Notice how at v. 15 after sampling the opinions of the general public, which suggested Jesus was likely some sort of prophetic figure, Jesus then turns and asks the disciples who they say Jesus is. Notice the emphatic position of the word “you” in this verse—“but you [plural], who do you say that I am?” Peter, as so often is the case, responds as the representative and leader of the inner circle,

Matthew 13:53–17:27

311

“Son of the Living God” and he confesses Jesus to be Messiah. As far as The phrase “Son of the living God” is the Synoptic accounts go, only in Matthew do especially apt considering the setting, as we have the additional phrase of acclamation from a Jewish point of view Caesarea Philippi was “the Son of the living God,” and of course John’s a place where various dead or non-gods were Gospel does not record the Caesarea episode. worshiped. Of course, this phrase could also be This latter title indicates Jesus is more than just the Evangelist’s parenthetical further explanation of the meaning of the acclamation. “Son of God” a human being. He is rather a unique manifestawas certainly already a known phrase for Messiah tion of God, God’s very agent and Wisdom. It is in this era (see 4Qflor. 10-14), and it meant God’s no accident that the two titles “Christ” and “Son vice regent, the second in command. The phrase of God” come up again on the lips of the High “the living God” comes up elsewhere in Matthew Priest in Matthew 26:63, where the tables are (26:63) and is grounded in the Old Testament (Ps turned and Jesus is asked if he is these things. 42:3). God is called “the living God” in various places in the Old Testament—see Deut 5:26; Pss Both the ministry of Jesus and the Passion and 42:2; 84:2—and in intertestamental literature in Resurrection of Jesus suggest these acclamations pagan contexts to distinguish the real God from are true of Jesus. [“Son of the Living God”] the pagan ones—see 2 Macc 7:33; 15:4; 3 Macc It is in Matthew that we learn Peter’s confes6:28. The phrase at a minimum implies a special sion comes from the prompting of a revelation relationship between the person called Son of the of God, not from a flash of human ingenuity or Living God and the one true God, having more significance in Judaism than the comparable phrase Sherlock Holmes-like deduction. What then “son of the gods” would have in a polytheistic follows is the unique commissioning of Peter, context. which material is not found in the First Evangelist’s Markan source, so it must have come to him from his special Petrine source. It must be borne in mind, lest too much be made of what is said here, that the powers bestowed on Peter are also bestowed on the community of Jesus’ followers in Matthew 18, so one could conclude that Peter is simply seen as the representative of the group in his endowment. As Bornkamm has shown, there is no reason to see one of these texts (i.e., this text or the one in Matt 18) as source and the other as later Christian formulation; they both seem to come from the same source and layer of tradition and in light of the Semitisms in both texts seem to be early. [Semitisms]

Down through the centuries there have been various attempts, especially by Protestants, to explain away Matthew 16:18-20 or on the other hand to make so much of this passage that a whole theory of church hierarchy, apostolicity, and the like is derived from it.53 Does this passage have to do with some sort of authority invested in Peter alone as an individual, or is it more about him as a representative of a group, or should we focus on his faith or confession as the foundation of Jesus’ ekkl∑sia? This requires a closer examination. As for the meaning of this saying, the following should be stressed: (1) Jesus is saying that his community, once founded on

312

Matthew 13:53–17:27 Semitisms Notice how even in the introduction to this section we have the following Semitisms: (1) full name of Peter; (2) the phrase “flesh and blood”; (3) the “in heaven” phrase. Simon bar Jonah is said to be blessed by Jesus because he has spoken the truth, but it is a truth that has dawned on him because divine revelation has indeed been at work in this situation. (The name “son of Jonah” is interesting, and there have been various conjectures about it. One of the more creative ones is that since Jesus is a Jonah figure, as we have already seen in this Gospel, then Peter will be his son and join him in martyrdom, now that he has recognized who Jesus truly is.) See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC: Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 469.

confessing Peter, will never die out. This saying is probably not about spiritual struggles between the church and the devil, though that is not ruled out altogether. (2) It seems clear that the gates of death and the land of the dead, not the gates of hell, are what is meant in light of Isaiah 38:10; Job 17:16; Psalm 9:14 (13); Job 38:17, which again suggests this saying is about death, not spiritual battles with the devil. Death will not eliminate this community; indeed, it would help perpetuate it as we shall see. [Ekkl∑sia] The next point of importance is that Jesus calls this community “his.” This is important not least because in the Old Testament the community of faith is said to belong to God, not to the Messiah. This saying then may well imply something important about Jesus’ own self-understanding as one who fulfills a divine role. At 16:19 we hear of the keys of the Dominion and again the verb tense (“I will give”) is future. We have already heard of the gates of death, and now we are hearing about the gates of life, i.e., the entrance into God’s Dominion. As we have already noted, “Dominion of Heaven” is a typically Matthean phrase, but it is also typically Jewish. Very likely Isaiah 22:15-25 lies in the background here. In Ekkl∑sia Jesus uses the term ekkl∑sia of his followers in only two places in all the Gospels—here in Matt 16:18-20 and at Matt 18:17-18. It is likely, if the term and sayings go back to Jesus, that he would have used the term qahal or Aramaic kahla, referring to the assembly or gathered congregation. Here it is important to note the LXX use of the term ekkl∑sia for “the people,” “the assembly,” “the gathered congregation.” It is however possible that the Aramaic word Jesus would have used was kenista (see A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew [London: Macmillan, 1915], 241-43), which conveys more of the sense of the true people of God, a remnant concept possibly. This would suggest perhaps that Jesus saw himself as setting up an alternative community, alternative to the temple-centered one in Jerusalem. More clearly in Matt 18, the term ekkl∑sia seems surely to mean something like a single gathered group of disciples, something like a synagogue centered on Jesus and faith in Jesus where spiritual matters, including exclusion or excommunication, were settled. Notice that the same power of binding and loosing conveyed to Peter in Matt 16 is conveyed to the entire community in 18:18. Matt 18:1 makes clear that the whole section is addressed to the group of disciples, not to an individual named Peter.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Isaiah the address is to the steward who has hewn a habitation or tomb for himself in the rock, i.e., he has bought a one-way ticket to the gates of Sheol (cf. v. 18). This steward Shebna will then be deposed and disposed of and replaced with Eliakim, who then will have authority committed into his hand; a robe is placed on him and a girdle is bound to him. Eliakim is said to be a father to the “house” of Judah and to Jerusalem. To him is given the key of the house of David, which he may open and no one can shut and he shall shut and no one shall open. Of course in later Christian interpretation of Matthew 16, the text was thought to suggest that Peter was given the keys to the pearly gates—into heaven. But if the focus of Jesus’ saying was eschatological, it would not then refer to any authority Peter had before the eschaton and so would have nothing to do with any authority Peter might have over who got into the community of Jesus, which is distinctly on earth rather than in heaven. It would also follow, if the saying is eschatological, that it has nothing to do with John 20:23 either, which in any case is not directed to Peter in particular. The problems with the eschatological or heavenly interpretation is that Matthew 18:18 speaks of having this power on earth, as does Matthew 16, and it is merely confirmed in heaven. In both cases it has to do with decisions made on earth. Probably then the keys are a symbol of Peter’s authority in general, and the second half of the verse in Matthew 16 gives an example of making binding decisions about what is and is not permitted of the followers of Jesus. The problem with this sort of reading is that Peter does not seem to have historically exercised such authority after Easter. He was certainly not the head of the early church in Jerusalem when the Acts 15 counsel took place, and Galatians 1–2 suggests he wasn’t before then either. Perhaps one could argue that he was so until he left Jerusalem and left the church in the hands of James. Notice, however, that Peter in Acts 10 is called on the carpet by James over the Cornelius episode, and Galatians 2 as well suggests Peter acts on the basis of what he seems to think James wants of him. He was, as Paul calls him in Galatians 1–2, one of the pillar apostles in Jerusalem, but he is only one of the three. He was not the sole founder of this church, nor indeed of the church in Rome, which already existed before he got there.54 Peter may have been the first real “overseer” (episcopos) in Rome in the AD 50s or 60s, but in fact 1 Peter 5:1 speaks of his fellow elders, calling himself one of them, though they are in a different location. Notice in 1 Peter 1:1 he presents himself as one apostle of Jesus Christ, using the same terminology as Paul. There is, in fact,

313

314

Matthew 13:53–17:27

nothing in Matthew, 1 Peter, or Acts to suggest Peter was the first pope. Thus there is still a possibility that Jesus is referring to the eschatological role Peter will play when the Dominion comes finally and fully on earth. John 21 suggests that Peter would tend Jesus’ flock, and 1 Peter suggests he accomplished that task. If Acts 10 is to be taken seriously, a case could be made that Peter pioneered and helped found a largely Gentile Christian community, though Paul was to come to be known as the quintessential apostle to the Gentiles (see Gal 1). Some of this may be clearer if we ask what the First Evangelist’s view of the relationship of ekkl∑sia to the Dominion is. A clue may be found in Matthew 13:36-43, which must be handled carefully. In that saying we hear not only that the world is wheat and chaff to the end,55 but apparently also the Dominion of the Son of Man is as well, which is on earth, having in it evildoers until the day of judgment when the angels are sent forth to sort out the corpus ad mixtum. It would appear then that Jesus distinguished between the messianic Dominion that was already coming on earth and the Dominion of the Father, in that the latter was in the future and only had the righteous in it. Note the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 that the Son would one day hand the Dominion back over to the Father after he had subdued all the enemies. In Matthew 13:41, “Dominion” clearly refers to the realm over which Jesus exercises authority. But if in fact by “Dominion of the Son of Man” the First Evangelist means the world (notice v. 37, where we hear of the Son of Man sowing the seed in the world), then it is quite clear that ekkl∑sia and Dominion must be distinguished. Those who are true members of the ekkl∑sia and are true sons of the Dominion will be given a place in the Father’s eternal Dominion. As Matthew 25:34 makes explicit, that eternal Dominion is not inherited until the last day and until after the separation of the sheep and the goats when the blessed of the Father are finally bidden to come and enter and inherit that realm. From Matthew 22:11-14 and 25:14-30, we also learn that many are called but few are chosen even amongst those who are gifted by God and invited to the messianic banquet. Taken together, this suggests that the First Evangelist believes the community of Jesus is of mixed quality until the eschaton. The parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13:4750 comports with this conclusion. [Basileia tou theou and ekkl∑sia] All of this would suggest that Jesus saw the community of his followers as true Israel, the Israel that would in fact sit on thrones and judge the Twelve tribes. The idea here is certainly not of repudiation of the old Israel in any way. Jesus’ disciples were all Jews.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

315

Rather it is the concept of the righteous remnant called out of Israel to which nucleus others from the east and the west may join, even presumably Gentiles. Notice that nowhere in all of this discussion do we find any suggestion of a visible and invisible distinction or division within the community of the saved. What is suggested is Basileia tou theou and ekkl∑sia that a truly good fish will not be known for sure Schmidt sums up matters well: until the final weeding out. In order to enter the Dominion of the Father, one must first be in the The basileia tou theou and the ekklesia are community of Jesus, but the two entities are not not the same. They are not the same in the primitive community, which certainly identical or coterminous, nor is the community regarded itself as the ekklesia but which coterminous with the world, though the Son’s continued the proclamation of the basileia. realm or theater of operation seems to be during Nor are they the same in the preaching of his ministry. Jesus who promised the basileia tou theou Matthew 16 brings a reassuring note, for it is to his ekklesia, i.e., to the ekklesia founded Jesus who builds his community on the basis of by him. In this sense the post-Easter ekklesia too regarded itself as eschatologordinary, flawed, and vacillating people like ical. Peter. He authorizes and equips them to serve, K. L. Schmidt, “ekklesia,” TDNT, vol. 3, ed. G. giving them the power and authority to deterKittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 522. mine what is and is not allowed in that community. We hear nothing of any apostolic succession of people, a later idea in any case. But it is people like Peter whom God enables to make the good confession about Jesus. There is a rather complex theology of community and leadership developed here, and both derive from the acts and power and authority of Jesus himself. In the end, the First Evangelist would have us realize that it is precisely because Jesus is the origin of this, the Jesus who died and rose again, that no matter how low an ebb his community may reach, it will never die out. It will always rise again. As long as he goes on, there shall always be his community, his people, his Dominion.

The Church on the Rocks, 16:18-20 It is generally recognized in the scholarly community that whatever one makes of Matthew 16:18-20, it is quite Semitic and old in character, and it is possible it goes back to Jesus. Sometimes the term ekkl∑sia is seen as a red flag or as sign of the lateness of this material, but this word was by no means a specifically Christian term, for it had long been used in Greek literature to refer to an assembly or specific gathering of people, and originally it referred to the democratic assemblies in Greece. The term need mean no more than the gathered community of Jesus here. That the saying

316

Matthew 13:53–17:27

has an Aramaic origin is suggested not only because Simon is called “bar Jonah” here, an Aramaic patronymic, but also because the phrase “gates of Hades/Sheol” is a typical early Jewish phrase referring not to hell but to the gates of the land of the dead, the doorway into the grave so to speak, and the reference to binding and loosing is characteristic of early Jewish discussions about what one is “bound” to do and what one is freed or loosed to do. As we have noted, the use of the phrase “flesh and blood,” the use of the term “keys” in this way, and probably also the play on words between Cephas and Cepha (petros and petra in Greek) can been seen to go back to an Aramaic setting. We have of course independent testimony in Paul’s letters to Peter being called Cephas (1 Cor 1:12). It then becomes unlikely that this Jesus saying is actually a construct reflecting later “early catholic” interests in the church. We would not expect such interests in this most Jewish of Gospels anyway. It seems clear that here the First Evangelist had some early Aramaic traditions that went beyond his Markan source. Let us consider first the play on words—petros, petra. The form petra is interesting, being a feminine form of the noun and the right way to render kephas, which is also a feminine noun. It should also be noted that petros is a masculine noun, not surprisingly since it is used of a man here. I know of no evidence of either petros or kephas being used as a man’s name prior to this usage. This is something Jesus came up with. What follows from a close reading of the text is that petros and petra both have something to do with rightly confessing Peter. The wordplay would have been rendered inept if they did not in some way refer to the same object. In any case, we are dealing with a Jewish nickname (Kephas), which becomes the Greek translation name Petros or Peter. Notice that we do not find the two forms of the nickname juxtaposed—he may be called Simon/Simeon Peter, but not Kephas Peter in one sentence. We are not then dealing with a double name, like for instance John Mark, but rather a name and a nickname. The tense of the verbs here is also of importance. Oikodom∑so and indeed the following verbs are all in the future tense (in Aramaic this would likely mean some form of the imperfect, indicating action that was not yet complete or finished). The Greek rendering of this saying suggests Jesus did not found his own community during his ministry, but rather that would happen later, a conclusion that seems supported by the larger context, for example 16:21. Only after the death and resurrection of Jesus was his community properly founded. This suggests that Peter would play an

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Ascension with Christ Giving the Keys to Peter Donatello (1386–1466). Ascension with Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter, 1425-1450. Victoria and Albert Museum, London, Great Britain. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old)]

important role later, in addition to the role he played during the ministry of Jesus. The image of building something on a rock has plenty of Jewish precedent; indeed it even has precedent in the teaching of Jesus (see Matt 7:24-27). E. Schweizer has pointed out the important parallels in his commentary. For example, the rock on which the temple was built was thought of as sealing the gateway to Sheol, the underworld, and of course the temple itself was seen as the gateway to heaven. If this is alluded to in Jesus’ saying, then he is suggesting that he is building a different sort of temple on a different sort of rock. The problem with this conclusion is that the term “temple” does not come up here, and it also ignores the setting of the saying in Caesarea Philippi. An important prayer from the Qumran literature (1QH 6.23-28) speaks of the primordial flood assailing the hymnist and bringing his life to the gates of the underworld, not unlike we find in various Old Testament psalms. But the worshiper is rescued and brought within a secure city founded and built upon rock “amid sheltering gates that vouchsafe no entrance, and secure bolts that do not shatter.” It is not impossible that Jesus knew some such tradition as this and modeled his own saying on it to some degree. In addition, 4QpPs37.3(2)-16 speaks of a community being built by the founder of the Qumranite community, the teacher of righteousness. Jesus could be said to be charting his own similar though distinctive course with his own circle of followers. In other words, these words are not improbable on the lips of Jesus at this time in early Judaism. There is an interesting later rabbinic tradition in Greek in which Abraham is called a petra on which God will build

317

318

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Banyas Banias, Banias River. Spring of Banias river, one of the main tributory of the Jordan River. In the background Pan's cave, in which the river originated in ancient times until an earthquake blocked it.

this world, but it seems likely to be a polemical counter to the Jesus tradition from a much later time. What should be noted about that saying however is that again petra refers to a person, not a thing. We are of course familiar with the New Testament sayings where apostles are called or likened to stones (cf. Gal 2:9; Eph 2:20). Neglected in the discussions by Schweizer and many others is the fact that at Caesarea Philippi an underground stream surfaced and can still be seen today. There were traditions that this was one of the gates to the underworld and the river Styx. Both the saying of Peter and the saying of Jesus take on especial relevance and poignancy if they were given in the locale of all these shrines to other sons of the gods and next to the river thought to go into the underworld, and it seems to me that the other parallels are frankly more remote.

The Passion Prediction, 16:21-28 “The initial declaration that Jesus was God’s beloved Son (1:11) was followed ‘immediately’ by his temptation by Satan in the wilderness. Now the drama is played out again at a human level. Peter’s declaration that Jesus is the Messiah is followed by another attack attributed to Satan, this time working through Peter.”56 Though these comments are made about the Markan account, they could be applied equally well to Matthew. The First Evangelist, like Mark, has structured his narrative so that he stresses that Jesus faces a severe temptation at the three most crucial turning points in the narrative: (1) the beginning of the ministry; (2) at Caesarea Philippi where he is partially “unmasked” by a disciple; (3) at the garden of Gethsemane. In each case the nature of the temptation is to try to avoid what God wants Jesus to do and be. [A Sapiential

(Credit: gugganji / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated)

Reading of 16:21-28]

Matthew 13:53–17:27

319

A Sapiential Reading of 16:21-28 V. 24 says that following Jesus requires denying self and then taking up one’s own cross (not Jesus’ cross). V. 28 refers to Jesus appearing in glory, which is depicted in Matthew 17. Jesus is Wisdom incognito unless he reveals himself, but even when he does so, revelation is not enough. There must also be additional teaching as here. In the wake of the rising tide of opposition to Jesus’ teaching, Jesus finally reveals the inside knowledge that he is destined to die.

The First Evangelist has actually upped the ante in his treatment of the first Passion prediction, because he places it at the beginning of the second major section of his Gospel—at v. 21, which is set off by the phrase “from that time on Jesus began. . . .” We realize we have turned a page in the story, and Jesus is now setting his face like a flint to go up to Jerusalem. Thus, in this material we begin to hear of the necessity of Jesus’ suffering. The use of dei here probably indicates divine necessity. The point is both that Jesus’ future is part of God’s predetermined plan and also that his suffering and death are not optional. Furthermore, this language is apocalyptic in character. “The theological emphasis in this assertion is to strengthen the faithful in times of frightful suffering. This is the way dei is used. . . . The reader is to understand Threatening Forces that the sufferings of Jesus were a crucial part of S. Garrett aptly sums up what is transpiring in this narrative when she says the eschatological drama.”57 This may explain that here Mark, and we would add the First Jesus’ strong response to Peter’s rebuke. Peter Evangelist, gives us a glimpse of the forces that was acting the part of Satan and tempting Jesus threaten to lead Jesus astray. to go against the specific divine will that Jesus must go the route of the cross. [Threatening Forces] The severity of Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in Matthew 16:21 is the first of three similar Mark 8:33 [and Matt 16:23] corresponds to the magnitude of Jesus’ temptation prophecies. We must first present a comparative here: the rebuke is sharp because the chart and then analyze them in detail. The First temptation is profound. Although Jesus Evangelist is following the example of Mark’s knows where God’s path for him leads— threefold Passion prediction but with some through suffering, rejection, death, and modifications, for example the very first one is resurrection . . . he is sorely tempted to introduced by the non-Markan phrase “he must follow Peter in departing from this path. Jesus perseveres on the straight and go to Jerusalem”58 and is in the third person narrow in spite of temptation, but one rather than the first person. [The Passion Predictions] senses that his endurance is hard-won. It is immediately apparent that the third of S. Garrett, The Temptation of Jesus in Mark’s these predictions is the fullest and most specific Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 82. of the three, and the only one to mention Gentiles specifically. [Gentiles Killed Jesus] Some scholars have suggested that there was originally only one Passion prediction and that all three of these iterations go back to it. This is not impossible, but it would appear likely that some form of the prediction is probably authentic for several reasons: (1) Notice there is no reference to crucifixion, only that Jesus is killed. A later

320

Matthew 13:53–17:27 The Passion Predictions

Matthew 16:21 must suffer many things at the hands of the elders chief priests, scribes [blank] [blank] be killed [blank] [blank] on the third day be raised to life

Matthew 17:22-23 Son of Man to be betrayed into human hands [blank] [blank] [blank] they will kill him [blank] [blank] on the third day will be raised to life

Matthew 20:17-19 Son of Man will [blank] be betrayed to chief priests scribes, who will condemn him to death hand him over to the Gentiles who will mock, spit upon flog him, kill him on the third day will be raised to life

Christian creation would surely have wanted to use the language about Christ being crucified. (2) The last two of these Passion predictions speak of the Son of Man, and we know this was not the preferred terminology of the early church or even of the first Evangelist for Jesus. (3) In the Markan predictions, the concluding clause does not match up exactly with the Passion narrative account of a death on Friday and a resurrection on Sunday, unless one sees the phrase “after three days” as meaning something like after a while or after a couple of days, which it can mean. The First Evangelist solves this dilemma by having the Gentiles Killed Jesus phrase “on the third day” each time.59 (4) We do It is important to stress, since our not find here the later atonement theology of Evangelist has sometimes wrongly been the church, rather at most Jesus is portrayed as a accused of anti-Semitism, that the third Passion prediction makes evident that our author knows martyr to the cause. It would not have taken an and affirms that Gentiles killed Jesus. especially prescient person to come to the conclusion that Jesus would meet a violent end considering what he did and the volatile environment in which he did it, especially in light of what happened to Jesus’ friend the Baptist. The three Passion predictions do not simply duplicate but supplement one another, none of them telling the entire tale. Only the first mentions the suffering at the hands of the Jewish authorities explicitly, only the second and third mention the betrayal, only the third mentions the condemnation to death, the scourging, mocking and spitting by Gentiles, and we must remember that these three predictions would be heard in sequence when the Gospel was read aloud. Together these three predictions gradually reveal to the reader or hearer an ever fuller portrait of the Passion Narrative. Verse 21 indicates that Jesus began to explain the issue of the Passion. We should perhaps envision Jesus breaking it to the disci-

Matthew 13:53–17:27

321

ples gradually then. But Peter’s response in v. 22 to the first Passion prediction indicates he understands quite well what Jesus is saying; he simply doesn’t like it. He takes Jesus aside and says, “ Never. . . . This shall never happen to you!” He could hardly be more emphatic. There is no more time for veiledness or parabolic speech—Jesus is now explaining openly his mission and its means of fulfillment. As Peter had rebuked Jesus, so Jesus in v. 23 turns to Peter and rebukes him, saying, “Get behind me” (presumably meaning “take the place of a disciple, following me and my example”). Far from protesting Jesus’ destiny and getting in the way of the trip up to Jerusalem, he ought as a disciple to follow in Jesus’ footsteps, taking up his own cross and following Jesus. It is of course possible to see the use of the term “Satan” here as generic, simply meaning adversary, but the apocalyptic character of the narrative suggests a stronger reading. While Peter is not possessed, he is influenced by the forces of darkness to think in a merely human manner about the future of Jesus. So Peter unwittingly serves as Satan’s tool here, ironically at the precise moment when he also has gained a partial insight into Jesus’ identity. Jesus response however also suggests that it was a real temptation of Jesus not to go the direction he had just predicted, and that he was tempted to bypass such an experience is confirmed later in the Garden of Gethsemane. It is intriguing that the phrase opisø mou occurs in both v. 23 and v. 24. In the first instance, when coupled with a strong verb it means “get behind me” or even “get out of my sight,” but in the second case it means what it normally means elsewhere in the Synoptics, namely “after me,” which when coupled with the verb “to follow” means “to follow after me” (i.e., “be my disciple, follow my example”) or even “get in line behind me.” Peter has a choice—he can either be a hindrance or obstacle serving Satan and so be something Jesus must leave behind on the way to the cross, or he can be a follower of Jesus in which case he gets in line behind Jesus, takes up his own cross, and prepares for suffering as Jesus is doing. Notice though that at v. 24, the call of discipleship and cross bearing is directed to all Plutarch the disciples, not only to Peter. [Plutarch] It is worth noting that Plutarch reminds The cost involves great shame, even potenus, “Every criminal who is executed carries his own cross” (Sera 9.554b). tially public shaming, and all disciples must be prepared to bear that cost. There is however no reason why Jesus could not have meant this remark rather literally—“be prepared to die a shameful death by public execution if you want to be a follower of me.” Verse 24

322

Matthew 13:53–17:27

would not have sounded like a flowery metaphor to first-century people. Rather it would be seen as an invitation to come and die, an invitation to martyrdom. True enough, Jesus does not inculcate a martyrdom complex; he does not insist his followers lose their lives, but he insists they deny themselves and be prepared to die if that should be required to remain true to their faith in and following of Jesus. If indeed the reference to the cross is original, then it could even be said that Jesus invited his followers to take a walk on the wild side, for only criminals and revolutionaries and slaves were crucified. Crucifixion was justly called the extreme penalty and was reserved for the most hardened criminals and those committing treason against the state. Thus Jesus’ exhortation would not be seen as an appealing call to discipleship in its original setting. The exhortation means the disciple in principle gives up his right to his own life up front. He or she would be affirming a willingness to give all, even his or her very life, in order to follow Jesus. Verse 25 deals with the paradox involved in this sort of call to discipleship. This saying appears in four variations in the Gospels (cf. this verse to Mark 8:35; Matt 10:39; Luke 17:33; John 12:25) and was obviously important to the early church. Those who seek and want to preserve their life (psyche here has its Jewish sense of life rather than soul) ultimately must give it up anyway, and in fact wanting to preserve one’s life now has the opposite effect at the eschaton—one loses it then. Whoever loses their life for Jesus’ sake shall be saved.60 Then v. 26 speaks of the futility of gaining all worldly goods but losing one’s life. There is nothing worth the price of life; no one could ever give an equivalent to it (could this be an indirect comment against slavery and the buying of humans?). Here Jesus may have had Psalm 49 in mind. Verses 27-28 are different than what we find in the Markan source in Mark 8:38 and 9:1. Jesus says that when he comes in the glory of his Father with his messengers/angels, then he will render to each person according to what he has done (see also 24:30; 25:31 on the glory and Rom 2:6 on the payback). This surely refers to what will happen at the parousia. The saying in v. 28 however seems to be of a different ilk. For one thing, it is hard to imagine a Gospel writer, writing in the 80s and knowing that Peter and most of the rest of the Twelve are long since dead, including a saying in his Gospel that suggests the parousia is coming during the first generation of Christian believers. This saying has the amen to introduce it, vouching for its truth in advance. Notice that this saying does not say anything about seeing

Matthew 13:53–17:27

323

“Not Even the Son” Jesus come with angels and in glory, unlike the The best representatives of the previous verse. This verse simply speaks of some Alexandrian and the Western text 61 present not tasting death before they see the include the phrase “not even the Son,” though the Son of Man coming in his Dominion. What later Byzantine text does not, and indeed most of could this mean? There are several key factors to the later witnesses do not. consider. See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek Firstly, there is the issue of Matthew 24:36 that New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 51-52. in the earliest and best Greek texts of Matthew simply follows the text of Mark 13:32. [“Not Even the Son”] In other words, Jesus disavows knowing the timing of the second coming, but this saying speaks of an event Jesus knows will happen within a generation. A key factor seems to be the reference to Jesus’ Dominion, as opposed to the Dominion of Heaven/the Father. We are talking about the messianic Dominion here, something that has already been said to be breaking into human history during the ministry of Jesus.62 Thus, in terms of Matthean theology and the Matthean outline, the two most likely referents are either the transfiguration or the resurrection. Of those commentators who don’t think Jesus made a mistake about the timing of the second coming, most think a resurrection reference is meant. Seeing the risen Jesus, now fully empowered with resurrection power and being prepared to authorize and empower his followers, could be said to be seeing the Son of Man coming in his own Dominion, coming into his own, as we would say. This would not be an innocuous remark on this reading, as in fact one of the Twelve had died before the resurrection event transpired, someone who was present when v. 28 was spoken—Judas Iscariot. This was the view of both Luther and Calvin as well as a goodly number of modern commentators on Matthew, though it is a minority opinion. The second possibility is that we have an allusion to the transfiguration here, but that took place only six days later.63 Yet, the transfiguration can be said to be a parousia preview, as we shall now discover.

Transfixed and Transfigured, 17:1-13 Hardly any narrative in this Gospel is more mysterious than Matthew 17:1-13. What exactly was going on when a visit was paid to a “high” mountain? C. H. Dodd long ago showed that R. Bultmann was wrong that this was a retrojected resurrection appearance story, as it lacks most of the crucial formal elements of such a story, nor does it explain the presence of Moses and Elijah.64 If one compares the Markan and Matthean versions of this story, it is possible to argue that the First Evangelist is trying to portray

324

Matthew 13:53–17:27

A Sapiential Reading of 17:1-13 The transfiguration narrative involves only Jesus and the inner circle of the three. Jesus has a dialogue with Moses and Elijah, the two great prophetic figures of the Old Testament who made unusual exits from this earth. The numinous quality of the story is greater in Matthew than in Mark (see Mark 9). In Matthew alone we hear that Jesus’ face shone like the sun, that the cloud that overshadowed the three was bright, and that the voice from the cloud said he was well pleased with his Son (directly echoing Matt 3:17), that the disciples fell to the ground when they heard the divine voice and Jesus came and touched them and told them to get up and not be afraid, and that they are told coming down the mountain to tell no one about the “vision” they saw until after Easter. The disciples

are ordered to listen to the Son. Absent from this account is the Markan comment that Peter did not know what he was saying when he made the comment about building booths. Present is the comment that the disciples finally did understand that by Elijah Jesus was referring to John the Baptist, whose fate foreshadowed Jesus’. Peter is presented in a more favorable light here than in Mark. The transfiguration provides further information for the inner circle of the disciples about who Jesus truly is—the glorious manifestation of God himself on earth, God’s divine Son. In Wis. Sol. 7–8 Wisdom is said to manifest the fullness or effulgence of God’s glory. Notice that this is the First Evangelist, not Mark, that has the description of Jesus’ radiant face, echoing the description of Wisdom.

Jesus as the one greater than Moses. [A Sapiential Reading of 17:1-13] [Mark Versus Matthew]

On the other hand, there is also stress in the Matthean version of this story on Elijah, for only this Evangelist has placed the identification of John with Elijah after this narrative. Elijah of course was also known for his mountaintop experience at the same mountain (1 Kgs 19). But since Jesus is in the company of both these men, then the point would be he is like both of them, only greater. The story is not simply about portraying Jesus as the new Moses any more than it is mainly about portraying him as the new Elijah. The disciples are exhorted to listen only to Jesus, not to Moses or Elijah, which tells us something. Do Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets, i.e., the attestation of the whole Hebrew canon to Jesus? This would certainly suit the theology of the First Evangelist, but there were eschatological traditions in early Judaism about these two figures returning together at the end of the age (Deut. Rabbah 3.17). The document called the Assumption of Moses Mark Versus Matthew Note the following elements: (1) In Matthew only are we told Jesus went up on a high mountain, not unlike Moses on Sinai. (2) The First Evangelist alone adds the command “listen to him,” which may be an echo of Deut 18:15. (3) Some have seen in the precise time marker “after six days” an allusion to Exod 4:16, where after six days God speaks to Moses. P. Bonnard has, however, suggested that the allusion is to the Feast of Booths, which was six days after the Day of Atonement. This could help explain Peter’s suggestion about erecting booths. It would also suggest that Jesus predicted his Passion on the Day of Atonement! (4) Jesus takes three up on the mountain with him, which is similar to what Moses did with three at Exod 24:1, 9. (5) We are told Jesus’ face shone like the sun, which echoes Exod 34:5-9. (6) The glory cloud, the Shekinah glory, descends on this mountain as it did when Moses was on Sinai. P. Bonnard, Evangile selon saint Matthieu (Neuchatel: Delachaux and Niestle, 1970).

Matthew 13:53–17:27

reflects an expectation of an eschatological Moses figure. Malachi 4:5-6 was the basis of speculation about Elijah and his eschatological role, an idea heavily developed in the intertestamental period (m. Ed. 8:7; b. B. Metzi’a 3:5; Sir 48:10, especially involving the idea of Elijah as restorer of the people’s unity and hopes). The First Evangelist is careful to call this a “vision,” a term from apocalyptic discourse that often involves an inward or subjective experience, though the ancients all believed it had an objective origin.65 But this would then mean that it was a group visionary experience, which is not unlike the depiction of the upper room experience in Acts 2. Peter of course reacts as if the three in the cloud are real enough, but note too that only Jesus is present both before, during, and after the vision. In other words, he is not merely portrayed as part of the vision. The point of this experience is to inform the disciples about something concerning Jesus. Notice that this story follows the confession, the commission, and the prediction of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Here is something then that offsets the shock of the prediction of the Passion, reassuring them that Jesus should still be seen as God’s Son, even if he was going to be killed. If traditional messianic hopes had to be shattered, then they had to be replaced by new and better ones that were then confirmed and explained. But the transfiguration could also be seen as a time of confirmation for Jesus as well, for Moses and Elijah speak only to Jesus. Possibly they are present, as Luke’s account seems to stress, because they had already had extraordinary exoduses from life. Here then the disciples get a sort of sneak preview of Jesus in parousia glory after the ascension. Here in Matthew for the first time is there mention of the inner circle of the three whom Jesus deliberately takes with him up the mountain. This theme is introduced earlier in Mark (Mark 5:37), but the First Evangelist will allude to it twice more later (Matt 20:20; 26:37). They are seen as the representatives of the Twelve. Jesus takes charge here, leading them up the mountain after selecting the three to go. We do not know which mountain is referred to. [Up the Mountain] In the presence of the three, Jesus either did change or appeared to change visibly. (The verb metamorpheø can refer to a change in appearance or in essence. In 2 Cor 3:18 and Rom 12:2, it refers to a purely inward and spiritual change, but not here. Cf. Exod 34:29 and 2 Bar 51:3-5). Jesus’ face is said to shine like the sun, and his garment was white as light (notice the difference here from the more mundane description in Mark). The First Evangelist’s order of things suggests that Moses and Elijah appeared suddenly after

325

326

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Jesus had undergone metamorphosis. The suggestion in v. 4 may relate to the Feast of Booths, the first day of the Feast involving the setting up of the booths. This was the day of messianic and national celebration. The word sk∑n∑ actually means tent rather than booth, which may mean we are not to associate this with the Feast of Booths. Peter Mount Tabor apparently thinks it is Mount Tabor, the center of Galilee. View from the crusader castle Belvoir. Place incumbent on him to honor of the Transfiguration of Christ. Height above sea level: 568 M. Israel. the revered guests. The First (Credit: Hanay / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0) Evangelist’s “It is good that we are here” differs a little Up the Mountain from the Markan version. Traditionally Jesus and the three were thought to ascend Mt. Tabor, Notice how Peter is spared but if this happened near Caesarea Philippi, it could be on the ultimate high mountain in that region—Mt. Hermon. Notice the stress that Jesus took looking stupid by the omisthem up privately. This may suggest that what was revealed to them was not a sion in this Gospel of the public matter, at least at this juncture. remark “for he did not know what he was saying” and also the remark at the end of the story that the disciples did not understand what was meant. There can be little doubt that the First Evangelist wishes to portray the disciples in a more positive light than we find in Mark. While Peter is speaking, the Shekinah glory cloud overshadows the whole group and the voice of God comes forth from it. The words of God in Matthew are identical to those at the baptism.66 The point again is to confirm Jesus’ identity as God’s Son, this time to the three rather than to Jesus. Verse 6 indicates an attitude of fear or less possibly worship. The disciples hear the voice, fall down prostrate, and “fear greatly.” Schweizer sees a sort of resurrection motif in v. 7 where Jesus touches the disciples and says “rise and do not fear” (the key word means rise or wake up).67 The disciples look up and see only Jesus. Verse 9 is a crucial verse in the Matthean outline of things, not merely because of its command to silence, which we have seen before, but because here for the first time a time limit is placed on the silence—until the Son of Man rises from out of the dead ones.

Matthew 13:53–17:27

Verse 10 then is meant to reflect the fact that the disciples’ eschatological timetable has been totally confused by the past series of three events. Wasn’t Elijah supposed to come first before the restoration of all things? And yet Jesus is now speaking of resurrection before the restoration of all things. Notice that the Elijah restoration teaching is predicated of scribes, the theologians of the day. Verse 11 is somewhat awkward. Jesus says yes, the tradition is correct—“Elijah comes and restores all things, but in fact Elijah has already come and no one recognized him as such, and instead of his being allowed to fulfill his mission of restoration and preparation for Messiah and the coming of the Dominion, instead they killed him. They did Transfiguration to him what they wanted.” Hence there was no restoration even Raphael (1483–1520). Transfiguration, upper part with Christ. Pinacoteca, Vatican Museums, Vatican State. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] though Elijah had already come, so to speak. Furthermore, the Son of Man is also destined to suffer from their hands. These people would not be restored or saved. Verse 13 is simply an editorial comment that it finally dawned on the disciples that Jesus meant John was the Elijah figure. This story could then be called compensation, trying to encourage the disciples to overcome the shock of the Passion prediction and look beyond it to the glorious future for Jesus and God’s people. Healing and Revealing, 17:14-23 The story of the healing of the epileptic boy is yet another example of a narrative taken from Mark and severely abbreviated. Indeed it has been shrunk from twenty-eight lines in the Greek text to about ten, so almost by two thirds. Why it is included here in the Matthean outline is also not clear.68 The First Evangelist in fact gives only the basics of the story, omitting the dispute with scribes setting (Mark 9:14-16), the description of what symptoms the boy

327

328

Matthew 13:53–17:27

manifested (Mark 9:18a), most of the lengthy section including Jesus’ question prior to the healing (Mark 9:20-24), and the details of the exorcism itself (Mark 9:25-28).69 In addition, we may note that the saying in v. 20 of our story is also found in Matthew 21:21 (cf. Gospel of Thomas saying 48). [A Sapiential Reading of 17:14-23] Having come down from the mountain of transfiguration, Jesus and the disciples approach a crowd and a man A Sapiential Reading of 17:14-23 kneels before Jesus and makes a plea: “Lord, Jesus’ disciples are portrayed as inept exorcists due to their little faith. Some have mercy on my son” (vv. 14-15). This conmss. add v. 21, which says obstinate demons only trasts with the Markan account that starts with a can be exorcized with prayer and fasting. Jesus controversy involving the scribes, and then the suggests that even a tiny amount of true faith can father comes and calls Jesus “Teacher.” In move mountains. The second Passion prediction Matthew as well at v. 15 we have a more precise is offered at 17:22-23 and here again there is no description of what is wrong with the boy than mention of crucifixion, only of his being killed. in Mark—he is an epileptic and is suffering greatly. Indeed the boy is described as often falling into fire or water. The father sounds rather exasperated and desperate: “I brought him to your disciples, but your disciples weren’t able to heal him.” The Markan description of what the spirit did to the boy has led more than one scholar to think epilepsy was involved, a conclusion confirmed in the Matthean account. However, v. 18 suggests possession is the cause of the epilepsy, for it seems that there was some purpose to where the boy was caused to fall—in both fire and water. The demon was trying to destroy the boy. Notice at v. 17 how Jesus characterizes even the disciples as part of “this faithless and perverse generation.” Jesus is himself exasperated. “How long will I stay with you?” is no idle rhetorical question. It suggests Jesus may already be realizing he is near the end. The scene is yet another example of a dismal failure of Jesus’ closest followers. First the three fail to understand on the mountain and require further explanation coming down the mountain about Elijah, then the nine fail to carry out the sort of ministry Jesus had previously authorized and empowered them to do. In vv. 17-18, Jesus first tells the father to bring the boy to him, after the rebuke of the disciples. Then Jesus rebukes the demon, it comes out of the boy, and he is healed at that instant. Later, and in private, v. 19 says the disciples came to Jesus somewhat sheepishly and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive the demon out?” Jesus’ reply is what has now become a standard characterization of the disciples in this Gospel—they have so little faith.70 The narrative is then brought to a close with a small Wisdom saying in v. 20—if they even had faith as small as the mustard seed,71 they could say to this

Matthew 13:53–17:27

mountain “move from here to there,” and it would move. Indeed nothing would be too hard for them if they had such faith. Of course, there are limiting factors, namely Jesus is talking about doing Dominion work, helping and healing other human beings. He is not talking about self-aggrandizement or mere showing off to draw attention to one’s self. In other words, Jesus is thinking of things within the realm of the will of a gracious and wise God. There is also the further limiting factor of the faith of the recipients of such help, as Matthew 13:58.72 Many manuscripts add a further saying in v. 21 (including A2, C, D, L, W)—“But this kind does not comes out except with prayer and fasting”—a saying found at this juncture in Mark 9:29. But because the verse is lacking in crucial early manuscripts such as A*, B, Theta, 33 and others, and there is no good reason these manuscripts should leave it out if it was originally in the text, it probably was not a part of the original text of Matthew but was added later by scribes trying to match up the Markan and Matthean accounts of this story.73 At the end of this story in vv. 22-23 we have a separate tradition about a rendezvous between Jesus and the disciples in Galilee, on which occasion Jesus gave them the second Passion prediction.74 The First Evangelist is drawing on Mark 9:30-32 but omitting (1) the secrecy clause about Jesus not wanting anyone to know; (2) the phrase about Jesus teaching his disciples; (3) Mark 9:32, which says the disciples were ignorant of the matter and afraid to ask him about it. This is in any case the shortest of the three predictions, and the First Evangelist has made it even more succinct by his editing of the Markan account.75 The saying affirms for the first time that Jesus’ demise will involve betrayal. The Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men (i.e., the betrayer is not the executor), they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. Notice that crucifixion is not mentioned here or in the first Passion prediction in Matthew 16. It may be that originally Jesus assumed he would die at the hands of vigilantes who would stab or stone him. We are then told that the disciples were very sorrowful, something we will hear again when they are reminded about the betrayer at the last supper (see 26:22), and indeed the same verb is used of Jesus himself in the Garden of Gethsemane scene (26:37). Though the First Evangelist is not one to emphasize the emotions of Jesus, or for the most part those of the disciples, the closer we come to the Passion of Jesus, the more such displays and references may be expected, adding pathos to the account.

329

330

Matthew 13:53–17:27

It needs to be kept squarely in view that when early Jews spoke of resurrection, they were not in general thinking of a resurrection of a particular individual in the midst of human history. They were thinking of the general resurrection of the righteous at the eschaton. Thus, even if the Twelve grasped that Jesus was saying he would rise beyond his violent death, they probably would not expect it to be a private and personal event involving only him, nor for it to happen so quickly after death. A Taxing Situation, 17:24-27 Here is a story found only in Matthew’s Gospel, and it is one in which Matthew himself might have had a personal interest, especially in regard to finding out Jesus’ view of the two drachma temple tax. The story is appropriately placed at this juncture in the narrative because we are apparently meant to think the disciples are embarking on the last journey up to Jerusalem and to the temple, and more to the point they are doing so in spring when the two drachma tax was collected (in March, before Passover; cf. Josephus Ant. 3.8.2; m. Seqal. 1:1). Notice that this encounter is not with Sadducees or Pharisees but rather with tax collectors, and Jesus’ desire not to offend them is striking. In this story Jesus appears as a loyal Jew who, while he appears to think he is exempt from such a tax, nonetheless pays it. Notice how the story begins with Peter affirming that Jesus does indeed pay the tax. It A Sapiential Reading of 17:24-27 should be kept in mind that this story occurs Peter reports to tax collectors that his before the “render unto Caesar” story, which is master does pay the temple tax. Jesus implies that the children of the great king should not recounted until Matthew 22, so here is the be exempt from such a tax, perhaps referring to first glimpse in this Gospel of Jesus’ views on the his own disciples. Here Jesus shows concern not matter of taxes of any kind. This story was to give offense. But he tells Peter to go fishing for perhaps especially important to the First coins out of a fish’s belly, to pay the tax for Peter Evangelist because his community was Jewish and himself. Nothing is said about whether Peter Christian, and the relationship of Galileans with did so or not. Perhaps Jesus was joking, as is not uncharacteristic of such sages. the temple and their support for the temple was a sensitive matter.76 [A Sapiential Reading of 17:24-27] [Tax] [Temple Taxes and Tyrian Coinage] Tax Since the end of the Maccabean era, Jewish adult males throughout the empire had paid this tax. It was based on Exod 30:13-16, where we hear about a half shekel tax that all adult males, rich or poor, are to pay to fund the sacrifice “to atone for your lives.” This background may not be incidental to the explanation of Jesus’ response in our text, as we shall see.

The story begins in v. 24 in Capernaum, with Jesus and the disciples arriving back home. The collectors of the two drachma tax come to Peter and ask, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” This may reflect an atmosphere in Galilee of resistance to paying such taxes to a Judean institution, or perhaps there was an assumption that Jesus was some sort of radical prophet who

Matthew 13:53–17:27 Temple Taxes and Tyrian Coinage Sometime during the Hellenistic period, the right to mint coins was withdrawn from Jews in general, specifically the right of minting the more valuable silver coins. Observant Jews objected to the use of coins bearing effigies of Seleucid kings in any case. But when those kings were in decline, the wealthy town of Tyre seems to have seized the opportunity to claim it had the right to issue a silver coin of its own minting. This Tyrian coinage was minted for almost 200 years and mostly consisted of shekels and half shekels. The usual emblems on these coins were the head of the patron deity Heracles and on the back the Ptolemaic eagles with the legend “Tyre, the holy and inviolable,” a motto that may have been cribbed from the Maccabean shekel of Simon. The dates of this coinage are reckoned from 126 BC, and they were still very much in use in Jesus’ day. The last minting seems to have taken place in AD 56. In the standard treatment of the subject, S. Reinach stresses,

331

even today at numismatic shops in Jerusalem and elsewhere. There must have been many such coins in Galilee during Jesus’ day, as Tyre was close by, and since Capernaum was near the major trade route, we can imagine that many such coins could be found in a port and city like Capernaum. There must also have been many that were accidentally dropped or lost in the Sea of Galilee, lost by those traveling across the sea and coming into Galilee, as there was a great deal of traffic back and forth across this lake, even during bad weather. It is no surprise that the “Jesus” boat was found in this same vicinity stuck in the mud not far off shore . Obviously when a ship went down, the possessions people were carrying went down with them, including coins. The social setting then of this story lends it plausibility. (For an interesting study on how coins of the Roman imperial period can illuminate our study of the New Testament, see L. J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.) S. Reinach, Jewish Coins (Chicago: Argonaut Publisher, 1966), 21-22.

These coins, not withstanding their heathen types and Greek lettering, were of so exact a weight and so good an alloy that they enjoyed a large circulation in Judea and were even officially adopted as “sacred money”; that is to say, the rabbis decided that the annual head tax of one shekel due from every Israelite to the Temple treasury was to be paid in Tyrian money. Of course this money with pagan images would be exchanged at the temple for appropriately imaged coins (hence the money-changers in the temple). Thus the coin that Jesus is being asked about in Matt 17 is one with a pagan image on it. I have such a coin, minted sometime during the period 126–18 BC, but found in Galilee. They can be readily bought

Tyrian Shekels One with a portrait, the other showing a bird. The coinage of the shekels of Tyre began in 127 BC and lasted until 66 C. Israel. (Credit: Encyclopaedia Biblica / Wikimedia Commons, PD-US)

saw the temple as hopelessly corrupt, as the members of the Qumran community did. [Once-in-a-lifetime Tax] It is important to bear in mind that in Jesus’ day, this tax was not viewed as compulsory, so it became something of a litmus test of who Once-in-a-lifetime Tax was a really observant Jew. It should be obvious It is interesting that the Qumran comthat this story bears witness to the fact that our munity refused to pay the tax annually, Evangelist did not create stories about Jesus out but they did pay it once in a lifetime. See 4Q of thin air. After AD 70, which is to say during Ordinances.

332

Matthew 13:53–17:27

the time period when this Gospel was written, there is no reason for him to invent such a story, since there was no longer a temple in Jerusalem and no one was collecting the tax for that temple anymore. It is true that Jews in the Evangelist’s day were still being solicited for the two drachmas, but now the money was to go to Rome (see Dio Cassius R.H. 65.7.2). In the Evangelist’s day, then, the question was whether one would pay the tax even though it went to Rome instead of Jerusalem. Verse 25 indicates that Peter affirms Jesus does pay the temple tax, and Jesus, being the prophetic sage that he is, knows before Peter speaks that Peter has been dealing with this matter, and so he speaks first to Peter as he enters the Peter Hands the Tribute to the Tax Collector house: “What do you think Masaccio (1401 - 1428). The Tribute Money. Location: Brancacci Chapel, Santa Maria del Simon—from whom do the kings Carmine, Florence, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] of the earth collect duty and taxes, from their own sons or from others?” The reply in v. 26 is succinct—“From others,” says Peter. Jesus then presses the conclusion—“So then the sons are free/exempt.”77 This is an interesting remark. The idea is that the sons (and daughters) of God should not have to pay taxes to God their King. Is Jesus referring to all Jews in general, or does he have in mind himself, as some sort of special Son of God, and his own followers? We can come at the question from the other direction—Who are the others? The temple tax would not be collected from non-Jews, so then it would appear that the others must be Jews, and thus the “sons” are those who have the special relationship with God the Father like and through Jesus. “The disciples of Jesus are thus not obligated to pay taxes to their Father (cf., e.g., 5:16, 48; 6:1; 23:9). The implied conclusion is that they are free from the burden of the temple tax. Here again the surprising authority of Jesus over the commandment of Torah (Exod 30:13-14) is evident.”78

Matthew 13:53–17:27

333

Tax Exemption There were normally exceptions to head taxes of this sort. The Persians had exempted Jews from tribute (1 Esd 4.49-50), and Nero had exempted Greece (Plutarch, Mor. 568A). Thus Jesus was asking a question within the possible legal bounds of such a subject in his day. He is drawing on the well-known fact that kings normally exempted their own children from the taxes they levied (see C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 44).

In other words, Jesus sees himself and his eschatological movement as exempt from such taxes in view of their special relationship with the King—God the Father—and their role in helping bring in the eschatological saving reign of God on earth. [Tax Exemption] This brings up a further interesting christological point. In Jesus’ mind, the main claim he has to royalty is by being Son of God, not by being related to David. The “Son of David” language is applied to him by others, and in this Gospel it has to do with his being a royal figure like but greater than Solomon. As we shall see in Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus claims to have a status greater than being David’s offspring; indeed he claims to have a status of Jesus’ Mission being David’s Lord and so over David in power In the sense of claiming himself to be a and authority, based on Psalm 110:1. Jesus does different kind of king, Jesus is like the not portray himself as a messianic warrior figure Zealots who argued for a theocracy and for recognizing no king but God. The difference is that like David; to the contrary, he claims to be a Jesus saw himself as God’s special Son and very different sort of king, more like Solomon, emissary on earth, bringing in the Dominion in a more like the peaceful king of Zechariah, more very different and far more peaceful means. like the messianic figure of Isaiah 53, more like Healing, acts of compassion, and preaching and Wisdom in the Wisdom literature. [Jesus’ Mission] teaching were his weapons. One can see how Verse 27 brings us to a surprising conclusion Zealots like his own followers Simon or Judas would be attracted to Jesus, as he used some of to this story. It could have ended simply with the same theological ideas, but when they saw Jesus telling Peter to take the money from the his modus operandi for establishing the Dominion, disciples’ moneybag and pay the tax. Jesus says they might well have become disillusioned. This is he does not want to unnecessarily offend the likely what happened with Judas Iscariot. Jesus collectors, even though he does not feel theologin his last journey to Jerusalem did not live up to ically obligated to pay the tax.79 But this is not Judas’s expectations of the king coming to town and not merely cleaning house as a prophetic the way it ends. Jesus tells Peter to go fishing! sign, but actually calling for revolt against Rome He tells him to take the first fish he catches on and their Jewish collaborators. Jesus chose the the line, open the fish’s mouth, and find a shekel way of the cross rather than the way of the or four-drachma coin, enough to pay the tax for sword. two people—himself and Peter. Peter is finally instructed to take this particular money and use it to pay the tax for the two of them. We are dealing here with a miracle of divine provision, which of course comports with the sort of thing Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount about God providing what one needs (Matt 5:25-34).80 He sets the example of relying on

334

Matthew 13:53–17:27 Miracle? Can we really speak of the fish and coins as being a miracle Jesus performs, or is it a miracle of divine provision that Jesus simply has prophetic insight will come about? I suggest it is the latter.

God. But this story is also unique in that a miracle is foretold, [Miracle?] which provides a direct benefit for Jesus and Peter and no one else. Interestingly, and perhaps strangely, the story does not end with a concluding remark that Peter went and caught the fish and found the coin just as Jesus had said. Could Jesus have been joking? Is this aphoristic humor? It is possible. The actual miracle is not recorded, but presumably we are to assume it happened, otherwise it is unlikely the First Evangelist would have told us the tale. This interesting and strange story leads us to the fourth discourse in the Gospel of Matthew.

CONNECTIONS Taking the Bible at its Word

The materials in Matthew 13–17 are rich and varied and can be taught and preached in a wide variety of manners. One thing is clear about all this material: it is frequently so Jewish in character and so culture specific (e.g., the story about the temple tax) that unless one is prepared to give a modern audience some information about the context, learners are likely to miss the point of the stories and have endless questions, or worse, still read into these texts modern ideas foreign to the teaching and life of Jesus. A text without a context is a pretext for whatever you want it to mean. Since one of the stories in this section of the Gospel is about the faith of the Canaanite woman and how Jesus responded to her, it is fitting that I tell the following true story from my years as a Methodist minister in North Carolina. One day while minding my own business in the bustling metropolis of Coleridge, North Carolina (population about 300 on a good day), I received a call from a young man in one of my four churches, a Mr. Smith who was a new Christian. This man proceeded to ask me if it said somewhere in the Bible that breeding dogs was against Bible teaching. I was at first shocked by the question, but he explained that he had wanted to breed his hunting dogs, but his fellow carpenter on the job site had said the KJV states somewhere that one isn’t to breed

Matthew 13:53–17:27

dogs. I promised Mr. Smith I would get to the bottom of this matter expeditiously. I got out my KJV lexicon and concordance and proceeded to look up every last reference to “dog.” There was nothing of relevance in the New Testament, either in the metaphorical or literal references to dog. But I found a verse in the Old Testament that in the KJV read, “Thou shalt not breed with the dogs.” I immediately called up Brother Smith. I said to him, “I have some good news and bad news, friend.” “Give me the good news first, pastor,” he replied. “Well, the good news is that you can go ahead and breed your hunting dogs; the Bible doesn’t say anything against that practice.” “Good,” said Mr. Smith, “but what is the bad news?” “Well, there is this rule in the Old Testament that really doesn’t apply to Christians anyway since they are under the new covenant, but anyway it says one is not to have intercourse with foreign women.” There was silence at the other end of the line, and then Mr. Smith replied, “Well, I guess I am in the clear then, as my wife Betty is just from the next county, Chatham County.” This story aptly illustrates what so often happens when people, even Christian people who respect the Bible but have never been taught the importance of studying it in its original contexts, start taking the Bible at what appears to them to be face value. Being an Open-hearted Christian

In my travels to the lands of the Bible, I have had the privilege of making acquaintances and even friends with various Jews and Moslems. Some of them have been some of the kindest and most gracious and giving people I have ever met. I have learned from good Christian models how to treat others with respect and love them as Jesus loves them. I have enjoyed learning from those of other religions and befriending them. They do not deserve to be demonized any more than Jesus deserved it. We must heed the warning of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount that we must not pass final judgment on someone’s soul, lest we be judged with the same severity when the judgment day comes. This doesn’t mean we should not critically sift others’ ideas and concepts and critique them and their various sins and errors. As my grandmother once said, “Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” But to be a follower of Jesus also means to be openhearted. Many of the texts in this section of the Gospel of Matthew call us to such a posture.

335

336

Matthew 13:53–17:27 True Confessions

True confessions are a good and necessary part of being a follower of Jesus, especially true confessions about Jesus himself. This is made clear in Matthew 16. But no one should make the mistake of thinking a true confession is all there is to being saved or to following Jesus. Indeed, as we see in the case of Peter, making a true confession one moment and then impeding the work of God through Jesus in the next was perfectly possible. Peter was right about who Jesus was and wrong about the necessity of the cross and the resurrection. Theological Tune-ups

Peter’s wrongs bring up an important point that calls for humility. All of us could use some tune-ups in our theology and practice of the faith. None of us is omniscient, and all of us are playing with a deck that has some cards missing and some jokers in the deck as well. Peter is a perfect example of this larger truth. We are all disciples, that means “learners,” or to put it in a popular modern way, we are all Christians under construction. God is not finished with our understanding or our belief system or our behavior just yet. Recognizing this fact should produce a little more humility a little less of that lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance. Taxing Situations Take Their Toll

A detailed study of the nature and effects of taxes and tolls on those who lived in the Holy Land is still not fully possible, but important insights are now being gained from the examination of papyri from the period, especially papyri from Egypt, where the tax situation was similar to that in other provinces such as Judea. The first thing to remember is that while Judea was a Roman province, Galilee was not. It is not an accident that the discussion of “rendering unto Caesar” takes place in Jerusalem (Matt 22:15-22), whereas the discussion of the temple tax on all Jews anywhere takes place in Galilee (Matt 17:24-27). The light from the papyri helps us especially with the situation in Judea. Since Galilee had never been and was not a Roman province in Jesus’ day, but rather was a client kingdom, we might expect a rather different taxation system, perhaps following a Hellenistic model and perhaps also with less restraints. In either Judea or Galilee, there was a division of labor when it came to such collections of money. Toll collectors sat at borders, especially on trade

Matthew 13:53–17:27

routes such as went through northern Galilee, including Capernaum, and collected fees from tolls on goods being transported for sale in one direction or another, and there were tax farmers. Many if not most Jews despised both professions during times of any sort of occupation, whether it was direct Roman rule or a client kingdom situation. Those who undertook such jobs were seen as traitors, those who worked for the oppressors or the enemies. This is why Jesus’ fraternizing with such people was seen as shocking and in some cases even disgusting. Jewish zealots who advocated the violent overthrow of the oppressors and the retaking of the land would have been especially scandalized by such behavior on Jesus’ part. The helpful and detailed study of taxation by Stephen R. Llewelyn brings to light various important points, and we must dialogue with it at this juncture. One of the key insights is that, besides the objections to taxes imposed by foreign overlords in general, there was the further problem of the abuses of the system and outright extortion. The procurators in the provinces (whether senatorial or imperial provinces, such as Judea was) were in theory meant to keep in check Roman magistrates and prevent graft and corruption and collusion between magistrates and tax farmers. Basically the system of tax farming was used everywhere by everyone, both in provinces and in client kingdoms. In Hellenistic style, client kingdoms cities would impose taxes and pay what was due to the king, and perhaps through him to the emperor. Tax farmers were employed then by cities and kings, or in the provinces more directly by Roman authorities. But if you had a corrupt procurator for example, and Pontius Pilate was such a one, the potential for even more extortion by tax farmers was greater. During the time of the Roman Republic, senators and others who were governors of provinces had used their provinces as a way to enrich their own fortunes, and there was a good deal of extortion in the provinces by means of taxes and tax farmers. Tax farmers already got a bad reputation in the Holy Land even before Jesus’ day. But when Augustus came along, he instigated reforms because in his view it was in the emperor’s interest to keep the provinces flourishing, not bilk them of all their assets. This led to regulations on procurators and prefects as well as rules about the amounts of taxes that could be collected. For example, in the province of Asia, Caesar had gone to a method of direct tax collection by local civic officials rather than using Roman magistrates or the “publicans,” the tax farmers. Unfortunately, despite these reforms, the pressure on the emperor himself to gather revenues to support his ever

337

338

Matthew 13:53–17:27

increasing military expenses meant that despite the laws there continued to be graft, corruption, and extortion, and civic officials and tax farmers and toll collectors were part of a corrupt system that was inefficiently administered and controlled. The outcry against abuses is especially noted in Luke’s Gospel (see Luke 3:12-14; 18:914; 19:1-10), and it is no accident that tax farmers and/or toll collectors are lumped together with notorious sinners in various Gospels (Matt 9:10-11; cf. Mark 2:15-16; Luke 5:30; Matt 11:19 and par.; Matt 18:17; Matt 21:31). The First Evangelist seems especially interested in money matters, including in the matter of taxes, and concerned about the corruption and graft that surrounded dealing with money. It needs to be kept in mind that the use of money for ordinary paying of tolls and taxes, while it had gone on for a while, nonetheless was not the main way of doing commerce in antiquity; rather, people bartered with goods or services. Money was a reasonably recent invention, especially as it applied to day-to-day commercial affairs. The possible exception to this rule was the paying of taxes and tolls, where one did not have an ongoing relationship with the person in question, and they had to have a means of collecting what was due quickly and in a convenient form (not, e.g., by trading for grain, work, food, or the like). In short, tax collectors and toll collectors were viewed as those “just in it for the money,” not interested in giving something back to the community or being part of its reciprocity relationships. Thus they were ultra-corrupt, like notorious sinners. Tax farmers would go to a Roman or city official or king and buy the rights to collect taxes and/or VAT (value added taxes on goods) from a certain group of people or in a certain region. Rules stated that they could only demand taxes within a certain amount, which is to say there was a limit to how much they could charge and keep beyond the agreed amount that belonged to the official (see Luke 3:12-13). Sometimes the tax farmers would denounce a delinquent taxpayer to the officials (Luke 19:8), and it was the officials’ job to make the person pay. Tax farmers were not the enforcers of tax laws. It has been argued, and may be true of Judea, that from the time of Augustus only indirect taxes were sold to tax farmers (i.e., tolls, customs duties, trade or market taxes), and the rest was collected directly by Roman officials. Some have therefore thought Jesus’ “render unto Caesar” teaching given in Judea seemed to recognize Rome’s right to raise taxes and collect them directly. Furthermore, Jesus hung out with tax farmers and had one or two amongst his

Matthew 13:53–17:27

inner circle. But the “render unto Caesar” saying is more ambiguous than it might appear on the surface, not least because Jesus believed everything ultimately belonged to God, including all material things, and clearly he was not suggesting we should give only spiritual things to God and give all the money to Caesar. Jesus knew what Rabbi Gamaliel II (late 1st and early 2d century AD) complained about: “This empire gnaws at our substance through four things: its tolls, its bath buildings, its theaters, and its taxes in kind” (New Docs 8, 75). No doubt part of the frustration of Jews living in Galilee and traveling to Judea and vice versa was that there was no uniform tax code or system of collecting, and since there were also toll collectors, somebody was going to get you, quite literally coming and going. (There are a lot of toll receipts amongst the Greek papyri. For example, BGU 2305 is pretty typical for the middle of the first century AD—“Diogenes, superintendent of the customs house at Soknopaiou Nesos for the Memphis harbor-tax, to the desert guards. Didymos presented one donkey load, two measures of oil, total two measures. Year 11 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator on the 23rd of the month New Augustus” (New Docs 1, 81). As Llewelyn stresses, the system was fragmented and subject to numerous abuses. It is in this context that we must interpret the story of Matthew himself and his social role (the entire discussion in New Docs 8, 4796, is helpful). One can readily imagine that he collected customs from the fishermen who did a good business on the northern end of the Sea of Galilee. But he could also have collected revenue via a toll both in view of the locale of Capernaum and its proximity to non-Galilean territory (New Docs 5, 102-103). As such, he was a reflection of the social situation that was causing turmoil in both Galilee and Judea—a burdensome tax situation, absentee landlords or oppressive overlords of various sorts, insecure employment especially for day laborers, and thus the exploitation of labor (see Matt 20:1-16), not to mention compulsory public services (cf. Matt 5:41 and 27:32) (New Docs 5, 105).

Notes 1 See

my discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 88-90. H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 291; cf. his Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994),, 282-83. 2 R.

339

340

Matthew 13:53–17:27 3 Knowing

the later reverence for the Holy Family, it is not plausible that Christians would have invented this saying. 4 See R. A. Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). 5 On the light this sheds on this text, see H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2003), 99-103. 6 See E. Grasser, “Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI.1-6a): Notes on the Redaction and Theology of St. Mark,” NTS 16 (1969–1970), 1-23. 7 W. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 204. 8 L. Hurtado, Mark (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), 82-83. 9 On the historical substance of this account see C. Keener, Matthew, 397-98. 10 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 416. 11 A phrase found only in the Matthean account. 12 See pp. 191-93 above. 13 See D. Hagner, 421. 14 See my Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 147-208. 15 See, e.g., D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, v. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 496-508; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 321. 16 D. Hagner, 424. 17 See ibid., 425. 18 See pp. 204-07 above. 19 See D. Hagner, 426. 20 On the importance of this utterance for understanding the historical Jesus, see my Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 228-29. 21 See the later formulation in Gospel of Thomas saying 14,which seems clearly dependent on Matt 15:11 since the word “mouth” rather than “person” is used, unlike the Markan account. 22 See pp. 219-21 above. 23 See the discussion pp. 202-06 above. 24 J. D. M. Derrett, “Korban, O Estin Doron,” in Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 112-17. 25 On this term see pp. 145-46 above. 26 See G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 104. 27 Gospel of Thomas saying 40 has a later form of this saying, dependent on Matthew’s form. 28 The additional phrase “of the blind” may well be original, but it is omitted in B and D. See Hagner, 434. 29 D. M. Young, “Whoever has Ears to Hear” (diss., Vanderbilt University, 1994), 262. 30 J. Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” Semeia 35 (1986): 91-128, here p. 121. 31 J. Marcus, Gospel of Mark 1–8 (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 457. 32 It is possible that Luke found this story too offensive for his Gentile audience and so, unlike Matthew, omitted it. 33 On which see pp.21-24 above. 34 See my Gospel of Mark, 231-32. 35 See above on the Gentile centurion and his faith. 36 M. Hallah 1.8. It is not certain however that Jews domesticated dogs in this period.

Matthew 13:53–17:27 37 It

is not at all clear that the evidence of pet dogs in Greco-Roman settings is germane to this story, but it does seem likely that the diminutive form here means “little dog.” See New Docs 4, 158-59. 38 See A.-J. Levine’s suggestive essay, “Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Readership,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. D. E. Aune (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 22-41. 39 Judg. 1:7 may provide a partial background to this passage. In each case we are talking about a person in a desperate situation searching for the means of surviving. 40 See my discussion of this story in Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 63-66. 41 See rightly, D. Hagner, 446. 42 See pp. 289-93 above. 43 One may suspect that this is the First Evangelist’s schematizing of his account to make clear that Jesus’ focus and ministry was directed solely toward Israel. 44 A small telltale sign that this is a different story than the one in Matt 14. 45 Many mss. have here Magdala or Magdalan. See D. Hagner, 453. 46 Ibid. 47 J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 120-21. 48 Notice that Mark has the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod, an even odder combination. 49 See D. Hagner, 458. 50 E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, 161. 51 C. Keener, 423. 52 On its historicity, including the remarks to Peter by Jesus, see D. Hagner, 465-66. 53 The alterations of the Markan source are minor, mostly additions having to do with Peter’s name and the naming of Jesus as Son of the living God. 54 On which see H. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 138-41. 55 See now the commentary I and D. Hyatt have written, The Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 55 See pp. 268-72 above. 56 M. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 205. 57 W. Bennett, “The Son of Man Must,” NovT 17/2, 113-29, here pp. 128-29. 58 So also the third prediction in Matt 20:18, but in fact Mark has the reference to Jerusalem as well. 59 Which in fact the phrase certainly can mean. Notice that Luke also uses the “on the third day” phrase as does Paul at 1 Cor 15:4. This is a more specific form of expression. 60 Notice how the First Evangelist has omitted the Markan phrase “and for the sake of the Gospel.” 61 That is, not dying. See John 8:52; Heb 2:9 on this phrase. 62 See pp. 85-87 above. 63 See the discussion of all this in D. Hagner, 485-87. 64 See my Gospel of Mark, 255-65, for the discussion. 65 See my discussion in Jesus the Seer and the Progress of Prophecy (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 1-100. 66 See pp. 80-83 above. 67 E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, 348-51. 68 There is also the further conundrum of the significant parallels between the Matthean and Lukan accounts of this story, which do not go back to Mark. Here is

341

342

Matthew 13:53–17:27 another instance where an argument that Luke may have also used Matthew, rather than assuming a Q document, has a case to be made. 69 See D. Hagner, 502. 70 See the discussion pp. 191-93 above. Interestingly, it is only here in the New Testament that we have the noun form oligopistia as opposed to the adjectival form, which we have had in the previous occurrences in Matthew. 71 On which see pp. 269-70 above on Matt 13:31-32. On faith moving mountains, cf. 1 Cor 13:2. 72 See rightly D. Hagner, 505. 73 See B. Metzger, 35. 74 See the analysis of all three in [The Passion Predictions]. 75 See D. Hagner, 507. 76 Ibid., 510-11. 77 The word here, eleutheroi, often means free, but in this context it probably should be translated “exempt.” 78 D. Hagner, 512. 79 This is another small clue that he does not see himself as under the Mosaic covenant and its requirements any longer. 80 See pp. 130-38 above.

the Fourth Discourse—On Discord and Status Matthew 18:1–19:1 The fourth discourse in Matthew’s General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 18–25 Gospel is the most succinct, dealing for This section leads to the Passion the most part with in-house relationNarrative proper, which does not begin ships between followers of Jesus. Here until Matt 25, though the pre-passion events of we get further clarity about the commuthe last week begin to be recounted in Matt 21. nity ethic, and we get a large dose of In this section we find some narrative (such as how Jesus reversed the usual teaching the tales of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the action in the temple, and the withered fig tree about who had status, who were in Matt 21), but by and large what we find in models, and the like, particularly in the these chapters are more teaching discourses and Dominion. Partly this has to do with more controversy narratives (such as those in Jesus inculcating humility and forgiveMatt 19 about divorce, the place of children, and ness amongst his followers, partly it has the spiritual problem with wealth). Matt 18 to do with his vision that the normal seems clearly to be a fourth discourse composed largely of parables, and there are either one or status systems, including the patriarchal two more discourses in Matt 21–25 depending on ones, need to be deconstructed as a how one divides the material. Most would see manifestation of the Dominion, and Matt 24–25 as a separate and concluding eschapartly it has to do with Jesus’ view that tological discourse drawing on and adding to all people, regardless of their age or stage what is found in Mark 13. In this section then, of life, are people of sacred worth. The Jesus continues to be portrayed as the sage and as Wisdom right up to and including the last week content of this discourse is not monoof his life. The large bulk of this teaching is sapilithic. It includes some parables, but it ential in character, driving home the point that also includes other teaching material Jesus is like but greater than either Moses or such as Jesus responding to Q and A. Solomon. It is no accident that the title “Son of But it should be noted that in this disDavid” concludes the pre-passion narrative matecourse it is the disciples asking the rial in Matt 20:29-34. Jesus must be seen as the once and future king as one begins to read the questions. We know that we have passion material. reached the end of the discourse at the end of this chapter because the first verse of Matthew 19 reads, “When Jesus had finished saying these things. . . .” In Matthew 18:1-9 the First Evangelist is drawing on Markan material, while in 18:10-35 he relies on Q material and material from his own special source. [General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 18–25]

344

Matthew 18:1–19:1

A Sapiential Reading of 18:1-9 The teaching about childlikeness and about welcoming children and avoiding the converse (causing them to stumble) presupposes a context in which the disciples must humble themselves and place themselves in a mind-set where they are teachable like children and can even look at children as potential followers of Jesus. The woes in vv. 7-9 are reserved for those who mislead and teach children in a false way. The “little ones” could include not only those who are actually children but also neophytes in the faith. They are said to have guardian angels in heaven. Word Play If Jesus spoke in Aramaic, then there may also be a deliberate word play, for the word for child is the same as the word for servant in Aramaic—talya. If one wants to be first, he must be last of all and the servant/child of all. The term paidion usually refers to someone between the age of infancy and young adulthood.

COMMENTARY Childlike, but Not Childish, 18:1-5

Rather than beginning with an unflattering debate between disciples about who is the greatest as in Mark, the First Evangelist presents us with disciples coming to Jesus and asking (v. 1), “Who is the greatest in the Dominion of Heaven?” Our Evangelist has omitted the background that shows what could have prompted such a question, probably as part of his program of sparing his audience the more negative aspects of the Markan portrayal of the Twelve. The issue here is the desire to be first or greatest and what amounts to greatness in the Dominion. Thus we are meant to see vv. 2-5 as object lessons for the disciples in true greatness. [A Sapiential Reading of 18:1-9] [Word Play]

Jesus says that unless his disciples turn and become like little children, they will not enter the eschatological Dominion of God. In view of the fact that a child was not seen in the early Jewish or Graeco-Roman world as a religious model for adults, this teaching is striking. To the contrary, if one reads Proverbs or some Graeco-Roman literature, Image Not Available the child is seen as willful, subject due to lack of digital rights. to various possible bad influences, Please view the published and requiring instruction and commentary or perform an Internet regular discipline.1 Here we have search using the credit below. another piece of Jesus’ counterorder and sometimes counterintuitive Dominion wisdom and logic. But there is more. Verse 4 says a person who humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Dominion of heaven. Humility here has to do Christ Pointing to a Child Ottonian ivory plaque with traces of polychromy and gilding. From the Court of Emperor with actions, not attitudes about Otto I (936–973) in Magdeburg, Germany. Louvre, Paris, France self. Jesus is not inculcating or [Photo Credit: Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY]

Matthew 18:1–19:1

encouraging feelings of low self-worth. To the contrary, the humbling Jesus refers to is the posture of a strong person, sure of himself, able to sacrificially step down and serve another, especially a child. One of the lessons here is that if we won’t humble ourselves, we are in no condition to get into the Dominion. The choice is between humbling ourselves and eventually being humiliated. Jesus is not encouraging emulating a child in every respect, but only in regard to humility. This involves not thinking too highly or lowly of ourselves, not being a status seeker or so self-centered that we are always looking for how we can move up the pecking order. Rather we are to exhibit a childlike indifference to the issue of greatness and to competition to be the greatest.2 Greatness paradoxically involves humbling oneself and even receiving and serving children. Verse 5 is about the welcoming and receiving of a little child, and it is promised that Jesus is welcomed and received when one does it. The verb “receive” is often used in contexts to refer to warm hospitality, the welcoming of a guest (cf. Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16). Jesus is saying to his disciples, his representatives, that they are to receive and so serve a child such as the one present for his sake. In serving the child, they are in fact serving Jesus, and of course this reverses the ancient protocol where slaves and children, indeed all the subordinate members of the household, were to serve the male head of the household. Jesus is not only identifying with the helpless or most vulnerable family member so they may be helped, but he is also trying to get his disciples to humble themselves, rid themselves of the usual hubris and power struggles for dominant position, and serve, even serve a child, a humiliating task in the minds of some ancients. It is clear from a passage such as this and the one we will discuss shortly in Matthew 19 that Jesus did not share some of the negative opinions about children that seem to have been prevalent in his world. Clearly this is not the response the disciples would have been expecting from Jesus. On Belittling the Little Ones, 18:5-9

The material in this pericope and in the following one in 18:10-14 is not about children in the usual sense of that word but rather about “the little ones who believe.” This would seem to refer to those who are babes or children in the faith, rather than referring to those who are chronologically young, though it might include children who believe. Jesus is concerned about leaders who mislead young believers into sin.

345

346

Matthew 18:1–19:1 Punishments Josephus tells us of an occasion when Galileans turned on some of Herod’s entourage and drowned them in the Sea of Galilee (Ant. XIV 15.10). Likewise in vv. 8-9 the punishments listed were well known in that day—cutting off the hand for theft, plucking out the eye for voyeurism, cutting off the foot of a runaway slave (cf. Josephus, Life 34,35; War II.21.10). H. Koester points out the parallel in Quintilian’s Institutes: “As the physicians cut off the members of the body which are estranged (from it) through sickness, thus also evil and corrupting people, even if they are related to us through bonds of blood must be cut off” (8.3.75). This intimates that the metaphor could be used to suggest a particular approach to community discipline, but this differs from the First Evangelist’s approach, which has to do with individual salvation. H. Koester, “Mark 9.43-47 and Quintilian 8.3.75,” HTR 71 (1978): 151-53.

Verse 6 would not necessarily have been seen as dramatic hyperbole in Jesus’ day, as some had been punished by drowning using such methods for certain serious offenses.3 An onikos is a large millstone used for grinding grain, not for a hand mill but of the sort turned by a donkey. Trial by water ordeal was known in antiquity, and the particular horror for a Jew of the millstone trial would be that the corpse would sink and be unable to be recovered for burial.4 [Punishments] The point then is that even these drastic remedies would be better than sinning and going into eternal fire.5 Verse 7 is a Matthean insert into the Markan source material, though it seems to have come from Q (see Luke 17:1). It is a woe oracle—woe to the world because of things that cause people to sin, and more specifically woe to the man through whom they come. Notice that Jesus suggests such things as sinfully misleading leaders “must come.” Jesus is not an idealist. He is trying to set up a paradigm of leadership for his community so that his leaders will lead the sheep, not fleece them; so they will lead them in paths of righteousness, not lead them down the garden path. Notice that in vv. 8-9 Jesus is speaking about disciples being concerned about their own eternal well-being. The “you” in these verses is singular and refers not to the effect of the conduct of a disciple on other young disciples but rather to the eternal consequences for themselves of their misconduct. “If your own hand causes you to sin . . .” is the gist of what is being said here. A drastic action like cutting off a hand and entering the Dominion is far better that the eternal consequences of habitual sin. While the First Evangelist omits the term Gehenna that is found in the Markan parallel, the concept is nonetheless here in the phrase “eternal fire,” a description that suits the source from which Jesus drew this language. [Gehenna]

Matthew 18:1–19:1 Gehenna The term Gehenna comes from the valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem where infants were formerly sacrificed to Molech (cf. Jer 7:31; 19:5f, 32:35). Josiah desecrated this pagan site during his reforms and consigned it to the burning of animal entrails and then to the burning of garbage or waste. It appears that it was still used for the latter purpose in Jesus’ day. At a burning garbage dump the maggots existed aplenty, feeding on carcasses, and the flame kept smoldering and burning. During the intertestamental period, what went on at this site began to provide stock images for hell (cf. 1 En. 27:2; 90:26f.; 4 Ez. 7:36), so Jesus was following an established practice.

Casting the Damned into Hell Hans Memling (1425/40–1494) Triptych with The Last Judgement, right wing (inner), detail: Casting the Damned into Hell. 1467–71. Narodowe Museum, Gdansk, Poland. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (Yorck Project)]

Needless to say, Jesus does not depict hell as an inviting prospect, though of course it is uncertain as to how far one should press this vivid imagery of eternal fire. Suffice it to say that Jesus believed hell to be a horrific and painful place. “The punishment of Gehenna is described in terms of unquenchable fire.”6 A Singular Lost Sheep, 18:10-14

In his introduction to the parable of the lost sheep, the First Evangelist offers us a saying unique to his Gospel. The rest of this passage and indeed the rest of this chapter has parallels in Luke, and so the source is apparently Q. Verse 10 serves as a sort of warning to the disciples to make sure they don’t treat with contempt or despise one of the little ones. To emphasize what great value these little ones have to God, we are told that their angels in heaven constantly behold the face of God, something human

347

348

Matthew 18:1–19:1 A Sapiential Reading of 18:10-14 The parable of the lost sheep is presented in the context of the discussion of the little ones. God does not desire that any of these little ones be lost.

beings cannot do and still live (cf. Exod 33:20). [A Sapiential Reading of 18:10-14] [Angels]

There may be an implied warning in this, namely anything that a person does to harm a little one will be immediately reported to God in person. While we are not quite to the place where we can talk about the concept of guardian angels, for these angels are at work in heaven and directed toward the face of God rather than protecting humans on earth, we do have the Angels idea of angels that represent these little ones It is interesting that in Jewish sources, before the throne of God.7 The long and short various texts indicate that only some of things is that disciples are to receive, esteem, angels see the face of God (cf. Isa 6:2; 1 En. and watch out for the little ones, making sure 14:21; and the references to the angels of the Presence in Jub. 2:2, 18 and 1 En. 40). Thus the they do not cause them to stumble. sense is that so important are these little ones Verse 12 begins with a question meant to that they have the top angels representing them cause people to reflect—“What do you in heaven, who have direct access to the “face” think?”—that is frequently used in this Gospel of God. (17:25; 21:28; 22:17, 42; 26:66). Jesus is by no means the first to use the imagery of wandering or lost sheep to characterize the people of God (Ezek 34, see especially 34:4;cf. Ps. 119:176; Jer 23:1-4; Isa 53:6; John 10:11-18). What is distinctive about this telling of the story is the notion of one sheep wandering off and being sought out. [Sheep] The issue in Matthew is what if one of the “little ones” goes astray. It is interesting that elsewhere in Matthew lost sheep are those who have not been a part of Jesus’ following (Matt 9:36; 10:6; 15:24). We should then see this as a story about how precious each follower is and how the shepherd/leader would or should go after any of them if one went astray. One of the keys to understanding Jesus’ parables is to ask at what juncture the story ceases to be true to life, because at that juncture one has reached the point of a Dominion issue. In this case, no shepherd worth his salt would leave ninety-nine sheep unprotected and go after one straggler unless he had other shepherds helping him and perhaps a good sheep dog. It is precisely where the story is unrealistic that we learn something about God and Jesus (see Matt 26:31) and the way Jesus’ corps of leaders ought to be as the Dominion is breaking in to human history. Verse 13 informs us that there is more joy in finding and retrieving the lost sheep than about the ninety-nine that stayed put. This shows that the real heart of Jesus’ ministry was seeking and

Matthew 18:1–19:1 Sheep That sheep would wander off and wreak havoc on other people’s land is clear enough from the papyri. See P. Hels 13: it happened while tending (my land) that I seized some sheep, not as it seems in a good state, which were found in the hay and fodder stored by me. . . . Since therefore they have devastated 12 arouras for which the tax in kind is 1 artbua of wheat, I ask that they be summoned [and] that after the indicated herdsmen have been produced, these (sheep) might be sold and the herdsmen meet with suitable (punishment) that upon the land no loss be brought. See New Docs 9, .

Sheep [Illustration: Rick Danielson]

saving the lost, a point Luke 19:10 makes directly in its version of this parable but one made more vociferously and frequently elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel. Some later copyists, unsatisfied with the Matthean text as it was, tried to insert Luke19:10 into the Matthean text after v. 10.8 Verse 14 brings the parable to a conclusion with a dramatic theological assertion—the heavenly Father is not willing that any of these little ones be lost. This shows God’s concern that apostasy not happen to any of the followers of Jesus, but it also stresses that going astray is possible for the followers of Jesus. On Recovering a Brother or Disciplining a Disciple, 18:15-20

Apart from v. 15, which has a parallel in Luke 17:3, this material is all from the First Evangelist’s special source. Notice that v. 18 is an almost verbatim rerun of Matt 16:19. This is as close as we get to a trouble-shooting handbook for dealing with problems in the community. It was obviously material that would soon prove useful in other Christian communities, for we find Didache 15.3 reflecting knowledge of this material soon after our Gospel was written, as does Ignatius’s Letter to the Ephesians 5.3. Notice that vv. 15-19 all make use of conditional statements, and the nature of the condition in Greek is a future more probable condition, with the

349

350

Matthew 18:1–19:1

exception of the condition in v. 19. Clearly we are not dealing with purely hypothetical situations here, nor are we dealing with a current crisis or rash of sinning in this Jewish Christian community. [A Sapiential Reading of 18:15-20] [Rules] The function of the discipline spoken of here is restorative, not punitive, but if the offending party refuses to A Sapiential Reading of 18:15-20 respond to the appeals and witnesses, then they This text deals with sin in the commuare to be treated as one would treat other outnity, which those who are involved should confront directly, using witnesses if necessiders, in this case pagans and tax collectors. sary. The authority to be a sage who can set forth Presumably this would mean being cordial but binding obligations and can loose from the same distant, not treating them with the warmth and is bequeathed to the whole community, not just hospitality expected between brothers and sisters to Peter as in Matt 16. in the faith. Verse 15 assumes a situation where a community member sins against another community member. We are not told what the sin is, but since the word hamartia is used only here, in v. 21, and at 27:4, it would seem that a serious matter is involved. The first remedy is to go personally to the individual in question and rebuke them in regard to their sin or fault. We are not talking about verbal abuse but rather clear direct confrontation. As the phrase “between you and him alone” makes clear, this should be a Rules private matter and encounter. We are told that if In various ways the rules we find here are not dissimilar to some of the rules in the brother “will listen,” which would seem to the Community Document from Qumran (cf. CD include hearing, accepting, repenting, and 9.2-8 and 1QS 5.25-6.1), and it is noteworthy that perhaps requesting forgiveness, then “you have in our material a deliberate attempt is made to gained your brother,” by which is meant this incorporate the Old Testament rules about the person is restored. Here is the tangible and practestimony of two witnesses verifying the truth of tical description of what the parable about the something in Deut 19:15. lost sheep suggests. Notice that this procedure is primarily for the benefit of the one who has sinned, though it is also meant to ease the pain of the offended party.9 But if this first effort fails, v. 16 indicates that a more substantial confrontation is to be undertaken. This time the offended party takes one or two witnesses along, and Deuteronomy 19:15 is quoted here. Clearly some of the Old Testament rules are still seen as binding in the Jewish Christian community the Evangelist is instructing. Notice that there is nothing here about going to a community leader or pastor and having them confront the sinner while the offended party hides behind someone else. No, the offended party must initiate this procedure and be involved in it every step of the way, even at the juncture when the community as a whole is told and the community rebukes the individual. The offended party tells the community as a whole. Notice that v. 17

Matthew 18:1–19:1

351

indicates there is a point at which this private matter should become the knowledge of the whole community, but only after two steps’ worth of efforts that kept the matter private were tried. [Rebuking] Notice that the requirement of two witnesses is in evidence elsewhere in early Christian circles connected with Paul (cf. 2 Cor 13:1-2; 1 Tim 5:19-20). Rebuking Verse 18 is of course a repeat of Matthew Jesus seems to operate rather like 16:19 except that here the verbs are plural and so another Jewish sage who in M. Abot either the leaders of the community or perhaps 3.11 ruled that publicly shaming a fellow believer, even if erring, excludes one from the life to come! the whole community is involved in binding The disciplinary procedure is to be done with and losing, and again the issue has to do with respect and love for all the parties. It is interesting things one is obligated to do and things one is that at Qumran, a record was kept of rebukes— released from having to do. John 20:23 perhaps 4Q477. It is also interesting that at Qumran the spells out more clearly what is meant, but same procedure was followed as here—first perhaps not. The issue here may be dealing with private rebuke, then before witnesses, and then before the gathered community. Public rebuke the rules for treating an unrepentant sinner. was a last resort (cf. Gal 2:14). Loosing might mean that one is free to stop trying to restore a recalcitrant person so that the one loosed is in fact the offended party, rather than being bound to keep trying. On the other hand, if what is meant is more like John 20:23, then loosing would mean forgiving the offender and binding would mean retaining their sins, still treating them as a sinner. This last interpretation comports with the clause about treating them as a pagan or a tax collector. But the momentousness of such decision-making in the community is emphasized by saying that if the community decides on freeing or loosing or forgiving the person, they are forgiven in heaven, and if not, they are not forgiven in heaven. Verse 19 broadens the concepts being dealt with here and talks about what happens when two or more agree about “any matter” on which they seek God’s face. Presumably this still has to do with any disciplinary matter, since the word “again” introduces this saying, and the two or three may refer to the witnesses mentioned above.10 The promise is given that “my” Father will give it, which seems to mean he will give the appropriate guidance in the situation. The “my” suggests Jesus’ concern with and involvement in the process. This then is not a cart blanche for two agreeing prayers to be able to get from God whatever they want. This has to do specifically with the disciplinary matters already discussed. In v. 20 a promise is given that wherever two or more come together in Jesus’ name, he will be present with them (cf. 1 Cor 6:1-6). The phrase “in my name” assumes that the community has submitted to the guidance and teachings of Jesus, and indeed this

352

Matthew 18:1–19:1

whole saying assumes the community would not take or make a decision that would besmirch the name of Jesus. This saying is meant to make clear that the community must always act as though Jesus is present guiding the decision-making, as in fact he is. Here we have an instance where, in light of Matthew 28:20, we are probably dealing with a saying of the risen Christ rather than a saying of Jesus during his earthly ministry. It has been placed here because of course this discourse is now addressing a community extant long after Christ is risen, and needing to be able to connect the wisdom Jesus gave both before and after Easter to his community. This saying reminds us clearly of the Wisdom Christology of our author. During his ministry, Jesus is the incarnate divine presence of God on earth sharing God’s word and Presence implementing God’s saving rule in various It is interesting that God’s presence was promised in early Judaism wherever places, and as the risen Jesus he is the very two or three gathered to study Torah (m. Abot. Wisdom of God always and everywhere present 3:2, 6; cf. m. Ber. 7:3), and elsewhere it is said with his community and giving guidance to that study of Torah invites the Holy Spirit’s presthem. The difference is that the divine characence (b. Mak. 23b; see C. Keener, A Commentary teristics of omnipresence and intangibility come on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: into play after Easter.11 [Presence] Eerdmans, 1999], 455). But here Jesus suggests that the gathering is in his presence, the presence of Wisdom, and so there is no mention of Torah here. (See rightly Keener, 456 n. 31, on Wisdom Christology arising from the historical Jesus. If v. 20 was originally a promise of the historical Jesus for the period after his death and resurrection, then Jesus could even have said this during the ministry.)

Lord Have Mercy, 18:21-35

The issue of forgiveness and its extent would of course be raised by community rules such as the ones in Matthew 18 discussed above. Here the issue is raised about the extent but also the limits of forgiveness. In early Judaism some sages limited forgiveness to three instances of premeditated sin, the repentance of which was apparently not genuine (see b. Yoma 86b; 87a). In early Christianity from just after our period there were stricter statements than even this Jewish ruling (see Hermas 2.4.1). [A Sapiential Reading of 18:21-35] The parable of the unmerciful servant is interesting in many respects, including that here Jesus speaks about a Gentile king and a Gentile court, which is unusual. We must keep in mind that these are extended metaphors or analogies and as such not all features in the parables have parallels outside the parable. For instance, Jesus is not really suggesting that God (unlike the king) is ignorant until informed about the behavior of any of his creatures. “The parable emphasizes that no one can offend our human moral sensibilities as much as everyone offends the moral sensibilities of a perfect God. The parable accordingly underlines the magnitude of

Matthew 18:1–19:1 A Sapiential Reading of 18:21-35 The parable of the unmerciful servant is told in the context of the issue being raised by Peter about forgiveness. Jesus the sage goes well beyond conventional wisdom, offering the counter-intuitive answer that one must completely forgive and continue to forgive as many times as it takes in order be like Jesus himself. Peter no doubt thought he was being quite generous when he said he would forgive someone seven times. The parable illustrates the line in the Lord’s Prayer about one needing to be forgiving if one expects to receive divine forgiveness. The forgiveness should not be grudging but should come from the heart (v. 35) lest one incur judgment for being un-Christlike in such matters.

God’s forgiveness.”12 The material in this parable should be compared to what has already been said in Matthew 6:12-15. While the parable is uniquely Matthean, its introduction in vv. 21-22 has a partial parallel in Luke 17:4. Once again the discussion is initiated by a question. Peter, apparently thinking he is being magnanimous and knowing that seven is the Hebrew number for perfection or a complete set of something, asks Jesus if forgiving someone seven times is sufficient. The general term for sin here is used, so Peter is speaking as broadly as possible in regard to how one might have been wronged. Here it appears that the repentance and asking for forgiveness of the sinning one is assumed. There is debate about whether Jesus’ reply means 77 times (see Gen 4:24 LXX) or 7 times 70 and so 490 times, but in either case the concept is not to put a limit on forgiveness but rather to suggest the expectation of unlimited forgiveness.13 “Unlimited frequency of forgiveness goes with the unlimited scope of forgiveness.”14 The parable is saying that since God’s forgiveness is inexhaustible and since disciples know they are regularly in need of such, so they too must cultivate the ability to continue to forgive without limitations. Notice how v. 23 begins. It says the Dominion of heaven is like a king who acts as follows. In other words the subject is how things work and ought to work within the Dominion and so by analogy within the community of Jesus. The issue here is actions, forgiving actions, rather than character portraits of God or human beings, though something is implied on that front as well. Notice that the king is the one who wants to settle accounts with his servants. Hereafter he is called the “master,” and the analogy is drawn with what goes on between a master and his servants in a household. God treats his own like family, albeit servants in the household (cf. Matt 25:19). The servant in question in vv. 24-25 owes an astronomically high sum—ten thousand talents (cf. Esth 3:9). [Talents] This poor servant owed the king more money than was even in circulation in the

353

354

Matthew 18:1–19:1

whole country at the time! This is yet another example of dramatic hyperbole, and it makes a Kingdom point—the sin debt we owe God is unrepayable since it is so enormous. The king at first decides that the only thing to do is to sell the servant and his whole family into slavery, at least to partially repay the debt (2 Kgs 4:1; Neh 5:3-5; Amos 2:6; 8:6; Isa 50:1). C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of This scenario makes clear that the man was not Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 458. a slave already, just a worker for the king. God’s servants are not slaves in the sense that their servitude is involuntary. The servant throws himself on the mercy of the king, prostrating himself before the king according to v. 26. He pleads, “Be patient, I will repay it all,” but the master knows this is impossible. Moved by compassion, he cancels the debt and lets the man go (v. 27). Verse 28 provides us with a sudden and unexpected turn of events. The newly forgiven servant leaves the master’s presence and immediately goes out and finds a lesser servant who owes him a mere 100 denarii, and he begins choking the man (cf. 24:49), demanding repayment. There were 6,000 denarii to a single talent, so we can see how miniscule this debt was compared to the wicked servant’s debt. The denarius was the average daily wage of a day laborer in that economy. Apparently the wicked servant had learned nothing from his encounter with the compassionate master.15 Verse 29 deliberately is almost a carbon copy of v. 26. The lesser servant falls to his knees and begs for patience, saying he will repay the sum.16 But the plea falls on deaf ears, and the wicked servant has the man thrown into debtor’s prison until the sum is repaid (cf. 5:25-26), which of course is foolishness since one can hardly earn money while in debtor’s prison. Verse 31 tells us the other servants were so distressed by this cruel action that they went and told the master everything that had happened. At vv. 32-34 we have the confrontation where the head servant is called wicked and is told that he should have been as forgiving as the master had been to him. Indeed the enormity of his crime was that he was asked to forgive far less, and he couldn’t even manage that. Accordingly, he was thrown in jail until his enormous full debt was repayed. The story ends with the warning in v. 35 that payment due will be extracted if one is unforgiving of others, and not just a grudging forgiveness is required but one that comes from the heart with all sincerity (cf. Rom 6:17; 1 Pet 3:4; Jub. 35:13).

Talents

The talent was the largest monetary unit of that day and setting. Josephus tells us (Ant. 17.11.4), for example, that 600 talents in taxes were collected from all of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee in 4 BC. 10,000 talents is a sum no one could ever repay, running into the billions of dollars, somewhere between 30 and 100 million days of labor for a day laborer.

Matthew 18:1–19:1

Notice the particularity of the remark “this is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you.” What this story bears witness to is what we have already noticed in the discussion of the Sermon on the Mount.17 There is a connection between our receiving forgiveness and our being forgiven. We are forgiven as we forgive, and if we are unforgiving we place an impediment in the way to our being forgiven by God. In fact this parable suggests we will not be forgiven at the final reckoning if we act this way. Of course, God’s grace and forgiveness goes before ours and enables us to be forgiving. But to deny the connection between our behavior as disciples and our ability to receive ongoing forgiveness from God, which we need daily, and final forgiveness is to misconceive the Christian life. Our behavior as disciples affects our relationship with God. The issue of forgiveness is but one illustration of this truth. Though God is longsuffering, even God has limits. So compassion turns to anger at the end of this story.18 God will not put up with the sinning and wickedness of ungrateful servants forever. There is and will be accountability in the end even for the followers of Jesus. Matthew 19:1 lets us know that on this somber note, the fourth discourse has ended. Jesus left Galilee and went to Judea on the other side of the Jordan (cf. John 10:40-42). Henceforth the teaching and the controversies will largely be with Jewish officials.

CONNECTIONS An Attitude of Entitlement

One of the major issues our culture deals with over and over again in the workplace, in the courts, and in the homes is the whole issue of entitlement—the sense that one is owed something. Sometimes this sense comes because people get caught up in reciprocity or “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” cycles. People feel, on the basis of the work they have done or the sacrifices they have made, that they are entitled to more and better compensation. We see this whole sense of entitlement in play throughout the fourth discourse and in the following section of Matthew’s Gospel. The problem is that our culture is much the same way—we want perks, rewards, compensation, and the like in many different forms. We feel it is owed to us. It is a self-centered orientation, and it has led to our society becoming increasingly litigious in order to get what we

355

356

Matthew 18:1–19:1

believe is rightfully ours. The problem with all this is that when it comes to property, for example, as Christians we ought to be aware that we don’t own anything—the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. We are at most stewards or caretakers of God’s property. We didn’t bring it into the world with us, and we can’t take it with us. We are only stewards when it comes to possessions in this world. If we really believed and lived by that credo, a lot of the sense of entitlement would simply vanish or be deconstructed in our psyches. But there is a further and deeper problem—that grace is not about what one is owed, and grace is supposed to be the basis of the Christian life, both the receiving of grace and the being gracious to others. By this I mean, for example, as Jesus says in this Gospel, that we are supposed to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and forgive those who have offended us, not take them to court or demand compensation. In fact, Jesus expects of us unlimited forgiveness of others, which of course is only likely to happen as we are receiving repeatedly the forgiveness we need and God offers us every day. To forgive is indeed divine; it’s not a natural or an easy thing, but it certainly is a requirement for being a disciple of Jesus. Grace can even penetrate the most self-centered of lives and transform them into gracious lives. Unfortunately, what we see of the Twelve is “men behaving badly.” Our culture is so profoundly narcissistic that we must indeed speak of the necessity of conversion of the imagination, the life patterns, the habits of the heart and of the body if we want to see this country act in more Christian ways. With slogans like “have it your way” and “looking out for number one” ingrained into our psyches, it is an uphill struggle to get even churches to stop looking at life in self-centered ways. My father used to help with the every member canvas at our home church in Charlotte, North Carolina. The canvas amounted to visiting church members in their homes and collecting their pledges for the coming year. He had a team of canvassers under him, and one was a young lawyer from Charlotte, very much into the lifestyle of conspicuous consumption and dressing for success. He wore Brooks Brothers suits and Gucci shoes and drove his ragtop Beemer everywhere. He was like many another successful Christian in that sort of heady environment. One of the people he was assigned to visit was a little old lady who lived on a fixed income in a trailer on the south edge of town. He had a hard time finding her place, but when he got there, he saw the yard full of weeds, the aging trailer, and the even older car in the gravel

Matthew 18:1–19:1

driveway, and he resolved simply to visit with the lady and not ask for a pledge. In truth, he was probably too ashamed to ask the woman for money considering the disparity between his lifestyle and hers. When he knocked on the door, she had been expecting him and had sweet tea and cookies ready. They had a nice visit about their church, and then he rose to go, and the lady said, “Wait here sonny, I want to go get my pledge off the refrigerator.” The young lawyer replied, “That’s alright ma’am, we understand you live on a fixed income, and. . . .” Before he could finish his sentence, the lady had marched out of the kitchen with her pledge, come right up to the much taller young man, grabbed him by the lapels, looked him right in the eye, said, “Don’t you take away my privilege of sharing in the ministry of Jesus,” and handed him the pledge. The young man retreated quietly and sheepishly. This story illustrates the grateful servant-like and giving attitude Jesus was looking for instead of the entitlement and compensation attitude he kept encountering even among those who were his longtime disciples.

Notes 1 See my discussion in my Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 13-15. 2 D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 517. 3 See especially J. D. M. Derrett, “Mark 9:42 and Comparative Legal History,” in Law in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 4-31. 4 Could such practices have caused the response of the disciples to Jesus when he walked on water—the sea being the locale where there were the spirits or ghosts of various unburied dead? 5 Substituted here for Mark’s reference to Gehenna. 6 M. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 232 suggests that it is the fire, not the torment that is unending. 7 See D. Hagner, 527. 8 Verse 11 is absent from the earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian, Egyptian, and Antiochian text types. It is clear it is borrowed from Luke 19:10 in later mss. See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 36. 9 See D. Hagner, 531. 10 See C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 455. 11 See D. Hagner, 533. By intangibility I mean Christ is present spiritually not bodily with the disciples, as is characteristic of God’s presence in general apart from the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry. 12 C. Keener, 458.

357

358

Matthew 18:1–19:1 13 See

the parallel in Luke 17:4, which says seven times a day! Hagner, 537. 15 On whether imprisonment for debt was a Jewish practice or not, see New Docs 7, 218-24. 16 The only real difference is the word “all” in v. 26, whereas here the servant simply says I will repay. 17 See pp. 127-54 above. 18 C. Keener, 461. 14 D.

lifestyles of the workers in the vineyard 19:2–20:34

COMMENTARY Marriage, Divorce, and Singleness, 19:2-13

That Jesus had finished his Galilean ministry and teaching did not mean he was through teaching, and here again we have a block of instruction that is introduced by a question, in this case about divorce. I have dealt with this material at great length elsewhere, and here I must simply summarize the Matthean presentation of the material.1 [A Sapiential Reading of 19:2-15] The story actually begins with a summary remark about large crowds following Jesus and his healing many (v. 2). This paints a picture of a Jesus whom the religious leaders must take seriously as one who is or could have major influence on the Jewish people. This would be especially troubling to those in rival holiness movements who focused on the laypeople, namely the Pharisees. The discussion here, since it is presented as a testing of Jesus by the Pharisees (v. 3),

A Sapiential Reading of 19:2-15 The teaching on marriage, divorce, and children also shows Jesus’ willingness to go both beyond and in some ways against conventional wisdom. He argues here for the basic position of no divorce for those whom God has joined together, with the exception being a case like that of Herod Antipas and Herodias who contracted an incestuous marriage that the Baptist condemned, as does Jesus. The heart of this teaching has to do with those God joins together, not just any sort of human coupling or official or legal marriage act. Besides limiting proper grounds for divorce more narrowly than all other early Jewish teachers, Jesus also enunciates a position of the goodness of remaining single for the sake of the kingdom, a wisdom he himself exemplified. This was a novel teaching since most Jewish sages took the command to be fruitful and multiply as incumbent on all able-bodied Jews. The teaching on children is somewhat novel as well because it suggests the kingdom belongs to them, which is to say they have a place in God’s saving reign and so can be embraced as part of the community of learners, capable of growing in grace and in the knowledge of God.

360

Matthew 19:2–20:34

comes in the form of a controversy narrative, and as it turns out it is not just the Pharisees who will object to Jesus’ teaching; the disciples do as well (see v. 10 below). Mark 10:2-12 serves as the basis for the Matthean presentation of vv. 2-9, but Matthew 19:10-12 is uniquely Matthean in character. The basic editorial changes of the Markan source consist of the following: (1) The narrative has been re-Judaized so that the discussion suits the Pharisaic inquisitor’s viewpoint, namely that Moses allowed divorce; the only question is what are the grounds of divorce, and so we have the phrase “for any cause” only in Matthew. It seems probable that our Evangelist knows the Markan account was edited to suit Mark’s Gentile audience, and so he reverts the discussion to what is more likely to have been its original character in a Judean setting, perhaps on the basis of Galilean oral traditions about what Jesus had originally said. In other words, I think the Matthean account is likely on the whole to be closer to the historical occurrence itself, with the possible exception of the exception clauses (but not necessarily, as we shall see). (2) The quotation of the Old Testament has been moved forward from where we find it in Mark to vv. 4-5 here and so comes as the initial response of Jesus to the Pharisees, which makes good sense. (3) The question by Jesus found in Mark—“What did Moses command you?”—is deleted in Matthew. (4) What is a response of the Pharisees in Mark 10:4 becomes a question in Matthew 19:7 as to why Moses commanded what he did. (5) Mark’s phrase “from the beginning” becomes in Matthew 19:8b “from the beginning it was not so.” (6) Mark 10:10 is omitted—the Markan private explanation motif. (7) There is the addition of the exception clauses in Matthew coupled with the deletion of the Markan phrase “against her” (Mark 10:11) and also Mark’s concluding word of Jesus (“and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” [10:12]), presumably because Jewish women in the Holy Land could not simply legally divorce their husbands, though they could precipitate such a divorce, whereas in Mark’s Gentile setting this was possible.2 Despite these various alterations, the Matthean account is actually close to the Markan one, being verbatim in various places, and indeed it may be close in spirit as well to the essential no-divorce position, which seems to have been Jesus’ shocking view (cf. 1 Cor 7:10-12; 6:16), a view few if any other early Jewish sages shared since it amounted to a rejection of Moses’ permission of divorce. The background for this discussion is found in Matthew 5:31-32.3 [The Divorce Debate in Early Judaism]

Matthew 19:2–20:34

361

The Divorce Debate in Early Judaism There was indeed already a debate raging in early Judaism about the grounds of divorce, including within Pharisaism, where there were several different views. (There were of course similar debates in the Greco-Roman world and apologetics done on behalf of the traditional patriarchal values by Augustus and many others. See for example the famous Laudatio Turiae inscription about the more than perfect wife, which even outstrips Prov 31. See New Docs 3, 33-36, 40-42.) The debate centered on the meaning and proper application of Deut 24:1. There was the school of Shammai who on the one hand took the phrase erwat dabar, which literally means “something indecent or unseemly,” to refer to some sort of marital infidelity. By contrast the school of Hillel interpreted the phrase more broadly to mean any unseemly act, even including burning the matzos! (cf. m. Git. 9:10; m. Ketub. 7:6; Josephus Ant. 4.253; Philo Spec. 3.30-31). The important point however is that both schools granted a man the right to divorce, even though it was regrettable (b. San. 22a). In all these discussions it is well to keep in mind that we are dealing with arranged marriages. A woman was passed from her father to her husband at or just after the point of puberty, under normal circumstances. An under-aged daughter could not even refuse a marriage arrangement her father made (see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984], 3). However, once she was considered “of age,” she could not be betrothed against her will. Jewish law said a wife could be obtained by intercourse, money, or writ (m. Kid. 1:1), but normally the matter was more civilized than this teaching seems to suggest. What we can say is, considering the early age of betrothals, it must have been rare for a woman to refuse a marital arrangement made by her family. In an honor and shame culture where there was nothing like modern dating and one’s marital partner’s traits could be a surprise that only came to light after marriage, it is no wonder people clung to divorce as a fundamental Mosaic right, a right of men, that is. m. Yebam. 13:3 states that women do not have the privilege of divorce even if their man causes an ‘impediment” to the marriage. m. Yebam. 14:1 says that a woman, unlike a man, could be divorced for reasons ranging from unchastity only (Shammai) to burning a meal (Hillel), and then there is the case of Rabbi Akiba, who interpreted erwat dabar in Deut 24 to mean one could divorce her if she was some unseemly thing and one found a fairer-looking woman! There was a further danger to a woman’s security in marriage, namely the Old Testament did not rule out polygamy; indeed various of the patriarchs practiced polygamy. While most early Jews could not afford to have multiple wives, and monogamy seems to have been overwhelmingly the normal practice, there are cases of polygamy in early Judaism, for instance with the brother of Rabbi Gamaliel who took a second wife because the first was barren. In fact, the Mishnah records rules for and cases of men betrothed to two women. There is no debate about the matter (m. Yebam. 3:10), and it is doubtful this should be seen as a purely hypothetical discussion. With rare exception, Jewish women in Galilee and Judea were not allowed to divorce their husbands (see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 133 n. 38). As long as the husband could pay the ketubah, which when connected with divorce was a sort of severance fee rather than a dowry or bride price, he could divorce his wife if one of the grounds for divorce had been met. A woman could sue for divorce in the court if her husband was impotent, had an unpleasant occupation, had leprosy, was unable to support her, or was to be apart from her for a long time (m. Ned. 11:12; m. Ketub. 5:5; 7:2-5; 7:9-10). She could also precipitate a divorce by leaving her husband and returning home. While a woman normally could not pronounce the formula of divorce, she was able to write out the bill of divorce. There were negative incentives in regard to divorce in early Judaism. R. Johanan interpreted Mal 2:16 to mean that a man who divorces his wife is hateful to God, while R. Eliezer said the altar shed tears when one divorced “the wife of your youth” (i.e., the first wife—b. Git. 90b). The Mishnah itself states that for a man to divorce was to shame one’s wife, one’s children, and one’s own character (m. Ned. 9:9). Furthermore, Jewish law, unlike Greek or Roman law, did not allow a husband to take the life of the wife if she became an adulteress. It is doubtful that material we find on this subject in the Mishnah should be treated as if it were only dealing with hypothetical or post-biblical situations. Nor is it compelling to bring into the discussion exceptional situations that existed in the Diaspora in Gentile countries where culturally different situations existed than in Jesus’ Galilee and Judea. The Pharisaic movement existed in part because it was felt that Judaism was under threat due to the culture of the dominant power in the region, under threat in their own country. In such a situation Jews were more likely to err on the side of caution when it came to compromises or the liberalizing of the law as practiced in Israel. Thus, when we examine the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees on divorce, this was no mere hypothetical discussion. We are dealing with the moral equivalent of dynamite, and if Jesus did not pass the “family values” test, he was in big trouble, especially with the Pharisees. What they may not have expected is that Jesus would be even stricter than they were when it came to the matter of divorce.

362

Matthew 19:2–20:34

In vv. 4-6 Jesus immediately appeals to an even earlier text in the Pentateuch than that found in Deuteronomy 24. He appeals to Genesis 1:27 and the creation order mandate. Jesus’ theology is that if God has joined two people together, no human being should be allowed to put them asunder. This presumably means no third party and neither of the two principals should be allowed to do so either. Human beings were made male and female in order to be united by God in a one-flesh union. They become a unit, a couple, no longer two but one. The key phrase is “what God has joined together” because of course humans then and now can join themselves with various others quite outside the will of God, and in early Judaism there was no (1) marriage certificate from the state; (2) marriage in a sacred building; (3) marriage by official clergy. In other words, the usual tests of what legally make a marriage a marriage in today’s world did not apply then. For Jesus, the main question was had they been joined together by God, and if so, then the ruling was no divorce. This naturally raises the question of the Pharisees in v. 7—why did Moses then command to give the wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus responds appropriately in v. 8 that Moses didn’t command divorce, he permitted it. Furthermore, he permitted it for a specific reason—“because your hearts were hard.” In other words, the Mosaic ruling was meant to limit not license divorce, and it took into account human fallenness. Jesus goes on to stress that this was not God’s original creation order plan. Jesus’ hermeneutics here then assume that the earlier the dictum in Torah, the prior and higher authority it had. What is also clear is that Jesus believes that now that the Dominion is breaking into human history, new occasions require revisiting the Mosaic provisions and permission and call for a turning back to God’s original design for humankind. Verse 9 provides us with the clear teaching that if one divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery against his first wife, because in God’s eyes the original one-flesh union is still in place no matter what new legal arrangements he has made. There is said to be one exception—m∑ epi porneia. The noun porneia is not the technical term for adultery, which we have in this verse—moicheia.4 As I have pointed out at length elsewhere,5 the term porneia, from which we get the term “pornography,” refers in the first instance to prostitution and the various sorts of sexual aberrations that might be involved in frequenting prostitutes, and then more broadly to a variety of sexual sins. When it has a narrow or specific sense, it refers to incest, not adultery.

Matthew 19:2–20:34

363

No Divorce It is possible that a Gospel written in Galilee It is inexplicable how Paul would have for a Galilean audience might be reminded of learned quite explicitly within twenty the cause celebre of Jesus’ day, the incestuous years of Jesus’ death that Jesus had taught no relationship between Herod Antipas and his divorce (1 Cor 7), if there was in fact a real excepbrother’s wife, Herodias. It is equally plausible tion for a relationship that had started as a proper marriage at the outset. historically that Jesus would comment on that sort of relationship in view of the fact that his friend John the Baptist had lost his head for critiquing that incestuous relationship. There is, thus, a plausible context in which Jesus may have said something on this matter. It is quite beside the point that Jewish law would not always or necessarily require a divorce for an incestuous union since it was not ruled out in Leviticus 18.6 Jesus is not bound by such Jewish rules; indeed he is setting up new imperatives for the Dominion, and he is intensifying the demands for fidelity in marriage on his own followers. [No Divorce] This is precisely why the disciples go ballistic in Matthew 19:10. The position of Shammai (no divorce except for sexual infidelity) they had heard before. This teaching was different and more radical. The point that needs to be stressed is that Jesus has already explained what marriage is—the relationship between a man and a woman whom God has joined together. The incestuous relationship between Herod and Herodias, or any such relationship of that sort, was not God’s original creation order design. It was not a proper marriage to start with. This should have A Higher Marriage Standard been clear to any observant Jew who knew the There are plenty of examples ancient horrible story of the rape of Tamar and the and modern in which men and women get themselves legally married without the moral lesson it taught. Thus in essence Jesus is blessing or guidance of God. Jesus is not talking saying “no divorce for relationships God has about secular marriages or pagan marriages or joined together as a marriage.” Couplings even marriages between badly misguided and between parents and children or brothers and troubled believers. He is speaking quite specifisisters or other close kin are not marriages in the cally about marriage in which “God has joined first place. Thus properly speaking there is no together” people. This is a minority of all marriages. The point is that Jesus is calling his allowance of divorce by Jesus for those in real followers to a higher standard in regard to marGod-sanctioned marriages. [A Higher Marriage riage or divorce than others. Standard] His view is fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness. We must speak of the latter at this juncture. The disciples react strongly to Jesus’ teaching on divorce. They say, if this is the situation between a man and woman, it’s better not to marry. Jesus’ teaching on this matter in essence takes away the male privilege of divorce, and the male disciples are upset. Jesus is in effect trying to ameliorate the effects of human fallenness on human relationships by going back to God’s original design for marriage and negating the Mosaic permission of divorce.

364

Matthew 19:2–20:34

Verse 11 shows that Jesus agrees that not everyone can accept his teaching about marriage “but only those to whom it is given.” This last clause is important. It seems to have precipitated some of the things Paul says about being married or being single in the Lord being a charisma or a grace gift. Jesus did not operate with the view that “be fruitful and multiple” was an obligation for every ablebodied Jew, or at least every healthy Jewish male. In this he interpreted Genesis differently than some early Jews. Jesus saw marriage as something “for those to whom it is given,” which is to say for those whom God has gifted to remain faithful in marriage so long as they both shall live. Jesus’ teaching on marriage is only for “those [disciples] to whom it is given.” There is however another viable option presented in v. 12. Verse 12 presents Jesus as saying that some are born eunouchoi from their mother’s womb, some are made that way by other human beings, and some make themselves eunouchoi for the sake of the Dominion of God. Jesus’ disciples would of course be familiar with eunuchs who were often part of ancient Near Eastern courts and served in royal households guarding various things, from harems to treasuries. Contacts with people from Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, or from the east could have brought the disciples into contact with, or at least knowledge of, such Eunuchs people. Since most early Jews would have seen The fact that eunuchs were sometimes eunuchs as people who had been blighted or considered blighted or cursed did not prevent Josephus, Herod, and others from using cursed by God, in view of the creation order them as teachers, doormen, and a host of other mandate to “multiply” (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.290services. See Josephus, Life 429; J.W. 1.488. 1), [Eunuchs] it is likely that while Jesus’ teaching on marriage was a shock, his teaching on singleness would have seemed even more stunning. The word agamos is the normal word used for someone who simply lives a celibate life, and that is not the word used here (cf. 1 Cor 7:8). The choice of the term eunouchos is surprising because it had negative connotations in many circles, especially Jewish ones. Normally this word means someone who is unfit for marriage due to castration or deformity. Certainly in the case of the first two classes of eunuch, the disciples would have understood Jesus to be speaking literally of the castrated. Of course, there is Origen, who thought the third class of eunuchs were also literally eunuchs. It is unlikely, however, in view of his Jewish context that Jesus was literally advocating castration for the sake of the Dominion. There is no good evidence that Jesus was an ascetic or favored this sort of sexual asceticism. To the contrary, in Matthew 19:2-9 we have heard him say one-flesh unions could be of God and thus good

Matthew 19:2–20:34

365

indeed. Furthermore, the early Christian use of the term of “spiritual eunuchs” by Clement of Alexandria and others requires explanation.7 Notice that the final sentence—“let the one who can accept this, accept it”— again implies that we are talking about something that requires a special calling or giftedness to accept. From a Jewish perspective, this saying goes from the least to the most offensive and objectionable case. The saying builds to a climax with the third group set apart from the first two, not only by “and” but also by the fact that the last remark could only be applied to the Dominion eunuchs, those who have a choice about whether they will be such or not. The first two categories had no choice in the matter. The motivation here then for accepting being a eunuch is the in-breaking eschatological saving activity of God and one’s furtherance of that cause. Notice that the reason for renouncing marriage or family in Jesus’ teaching has nothing to do with asceticism, ritual purity, or Qumranite ideas that sexual relationships made one impure. For Jesus there were two (but only two) equally valid callings in life—fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness for the sake of the Image Not Available Dominion.8 This latter calling is the one Jesus himself due to lack of digital rights. pursued, and indeed one could say this saying could have Please view the published served as Jesus’ justification to his own disciples and commentary or perform an others for remaining single. The new demands of the Internet search using the Dominion renew the original creation order plan of credit below. God, which did not make room for broken promises and broken relationships but rather assumed whole and healthy ones, whether a person was married or single. It also legitimized singleness in a way that allowed women to play roles in the community of Jesus that they otherwise could not have played in Palestinian Judaism (see Luke 8:1-3), namely as traveling disciples of a famous sage. Jesus was already envisioning the fulfillment of Isaiah Eunuch Priest 56:4 where it is said that eunuchs who chose what pleased God and who were previously banned from the temple A Eunuch-priest (part of a chain) Ivory statuette (early 6th BC) from the courts not only were allowed inside the inner sanctum and foundations of the Artemis Temple would be given a memorial and a name better than sons Ephesus, Turkey. and daughters—they would be given an everlasting name [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] that would never be cut off. In Jesus’ view, those who chose the Dominion and service to it would certainly have an everlasting name even if they had to forego marrying. The cut off were no longer cut off, the marginalized were no longer in the margins, the oppressed were no longer oppressed, and the outcasts were no

366

Matthew 19:2–20:34

longer cast out in the ministry of Jesus, for it was a foreshadowing and foretaste of the Dominion that was already coming. Jesus had come to seek and save the least, the last, and the lost and make them the first, the most, the found—yes, even the despised like eunuchs and tax collectors and notorious sinners and Gentiles. The Dominion belongs to Children, 19:13-15

With Jesus’ revisionist views on marriage and singleness in light of the dawn of the Dominion, it is no surprise that Jesus had a fresh take on children and their spiritual and even pedagogical potential. The material here departs little from Mark 10:13-16 except that our Evangelist omits Mark 10:15, but in fact the Matthean equivalent of that saying has already been given at Matthew 18:3. He also omits the phrase about Jesus’ indignation (Mark 10:14) and the fact that Jesus took the children up in his arms and blessed them, but he has altered the earlier Markan phrase “that he might touch them” to read “that he might lay hands on them and pray.” The narrative begins in v. 13 with the remark that “they” (perhaps parents) were bringing paidia, a word usually referring to young children (cf. John 16:21 to Gos. Thom. 22; but in Mark 5:39-42 it refers to a twelve-year-old) in order that he might lay hands on them and pray.9 But the disciples scolded or rebuked

Christ Blessing the Little Children William Blake (1757–1827). Christ Blessing the Little Children. 1799. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Matthew 19:2–20:34

those bringing the children. This may reflect a typical ancient attitude that young children were less important than adults and that important teachers shouldn’t be bothered by them. There are early Jewish texts that stress the immaturity of children (cf. m. Abot 3:11 and 4:20). The disciples had not remembered the lesson about receiving the child in Jesus’ name (Matt 18:5). Jesus says in v. 14, “Permit the young children to come to me and do not hinder them for ton . . . toiouton is the Dominion of God.” The Greek phrase quoted in the previous sentence seems to mean “these children who are brought to Jesus and those others who are of this sort.” G. R. Beasley-Murray rightly remarks, “Many normal occasions of the use of toioutos are intended to denote a class, of which the one mentioned in the context is an example. . . . It is impossible to make the primary reference of toioutoi [merely] a comparison with other individuals.”10 In other words, this text cannot simply refer to adults who are childlike to the exclusion of those who are actually young children being brought to Jesus. It can refer to the young children and to adults who come to Jesus in childlike fashion. “With an authority such as only God can claim, he promises the kingdom to those whose faith resembles the empty hand of a beggar.”11 Notice that Jesus says nothing about building or accomplishing the Dominion or making it happen, but only of these children and those like them belonging to it. Jesus is not romanticizing children or childhood as a time of innocence. His point is that children are content to receive something as a gift, and this is the proper way all people should receive the Dominion or divine saving activity of God. The pericope closes in v. 15 with an action of Jesus that indicates clear acceptance of the children and of the intentions of those who brought them. Jesus lays hands on the children. Thus it can be said that “Jesus uses the smallest member of the physical family as a model for members of the family of faith and gives children a place in the Kingdom. The evidence of Jesus’ positive attitude toward children, their place in the Kingdom, and how they might serve as models for disciples and be served by disciples seems to imply a positive estimation of a woman’s role as child-bearer and mother (as well as a positive estimation of the father’s role).”12 Of course this text is also a parade example demonstrating Jesus’ great concern for and compassion on the weak and most vulnerable members of society. Indeed the previous three passages show Jesus to be the protector of women, single people, and children, some of the most vulnerable members of society. In the first instance he protects

367

368

Matthew 19:2–20:34

women by forbidding divorce, thus giving them more social and economic security. In the second instance he makes single people stand on equal footing with the married. They are not simply potential marriage partners but people of sacred worth in their own right who can accomplish much for the Dominion, as Jesus himself had demonstrated. Finally, he protects children by showing them to be valid and valuable members of God’s Domain who should be welcomed with open arms. The Rich Young Man, 19:16-30

The next seeker or inquisitor of Jesus is a young man who is wealthy. The First Evangelist is once more following Mark, but he reworks the Markan account in Mark 10:17-22 more than is usually the case. Some of the most important and notable alterations seem clearly christological in character. For example, while Mark 10:18 has Jesus ask, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone,” Matthew 19:17 has “Why are you asking me about the good? There is one who is good.” This removes the possible implication that Jesus might be saying that he was neither good nor God. This is one of those clear passages where arguing that Mark used Matthew rather than vice versa makes no sense, knowing what we know about the increasingly high christological view the church took of Jesus. [A Sapiential Reading of 19:16-30] At v. 17c we also find a Matthean addition—“if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments”—and another at 18a when the young man asks, “Which ones?” At v. 19 the First Evangelist also adds the quotation of Leviticus 19:18. At v. 20 the First Evangelist identifies the man as young, something Mark does not say, and so he omits the Markan phrase “from my youth” in Mark 10:20. In the following Markan passage (Mark 10:23-27), the editing seems more characteristic, as it is mostly just a matter of A Sapiential Reading of 19:16-30 While youth is not an encumbrance to discipleship, wealth is clearly seen as such in the story of the rich young man. Wealth was a traditional topic for sages to discuss, as the book of Proverbs shows, but here Jesus’ counter-order wisdom suggests that rather than being a sign of blessing, wealth can actually be a hindrance to proper discipleship. The command in v. 21 says to sell all possessions and give to the poor and then come and follow Jesus. It does not say give all to the poor, but that once one has liquidated all one’s assets one can be more mobile and support the traveling fellowship of disciples (see Luke 8:1-

3). A rich person is said to be able to enter God’s realm or enter eternal life only by God’s grace. Salvation in any case is only a divine possibility, not a human one. The theme of heavenly or eschatological reward is also a regular one in wisdom literature, and Jesus assures Peter in vv. 28-30 that there are such rewards in the kingdom for those who have made sacrifices here. Jesus the sage foresees a day of remarkable reversal of fortunes where the last, least, and lost will become the first, most, and found, and those who were among the elite in this world will suffer the other sort of reversal of fortunes.

Matthew 19:2–20:34

abbreviating things (for example by omitting Mark 10:24). When the First Evangelist takes up Mark 10:28-31 in Matthew 19:27-30, he inserts a saying in v. 28 that was not found in Mark about sitting on thrones and judging. Our author turns Mark’s negative framing of a saying in Mark 10:29 into a positive one. He omits the list in Mark 10:30 as well. “Matthew, in his familiar practice, thus takes up much of Mark verbatim but also freely shapes the passage, making alteration and adaptations to suit his own perspective.”13 The story begins with v. 16 when a man comes up to Jesus, calls him “Teacher,” and then asks, “What good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?” Notice also the form of the question asked— “What must I do to obtain eternal life?” Verse 17 provides Jesus’ reply, namely, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments” This may be Jesus’ attempt to make clear to the inquirer that human achievement cannot make a person good, and only God is categorically good. Perhaps we are meant to think this man believed he and Jesus were good men because of their deeds, and notice how Jesus responds in terms of deeds. Verse 18 says the man asked which commandments he should obey. Jesus lists some of the commandments—prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, and false testimony and, on the positive side, honoring parents and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. It is perhaps most significant what he does not list—namely the Sabbath commandment. This deliberate omission may reflect Jesus’ view that now that the eschatological age was dawning, keeping a particular day as the Sabbath was no longer obligatory, for all days would now be holy unto the Lord. The young man replies that he has kept these commandments, and then he asks, “What do I still lack?” But Jesus apparently knows there is one major obstacle to his offering total devotion to God—his many possessions. Thus Jesus says at v. 21 that if the young man wants to be complete/perfect, he should go sell his possessions and give to the poor.32 Instead of such possessions the man is to have treasure in heaven and to come and follow Jesus. It appears that the young man may have thought that as long as he lived a good life and obeyed the major commandments, he was in good shape so far as eternal life was concerned. But keeping commandments can lead to a false sense of security, a sense that God owes one something. There is no substitute for obedience when God calls one to do something more than obeying the Ten Commandments. The First Evangelist is making clear that the

369

370

Matthew 19:2–20:34

demands of discipleship to Jesus go beyond the demands of the Law. Jesus’ disciples, it will be remembered, were called in Matthew 5:48 to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect, and so the young man is called to that high standard. The ultimate test of obedience then is seen as the willingness to assume the yoke of discipleship to Jesus. [Gospel of the Nazarenes] There may have been many early Jews in the position of Saul of Tarsus Gospel of the Nazarenes who claims that in regard to obedience to the Schweizer rightly reminds us of the later Law he was “blameless,” which must mean account of the story of the rich young having committed no willful violations of a man in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which involves two rich men. In that version, Jesus chalknown Mosaic Law, so that he could not be lenges their right to say the man has fulfilled the accused of being a lawbreaker (see Phil 3:6). Law and prophets if he is not also prepared for Perhaps this young man fell into the same catediscipleship to Jesus. gory. But not having broken a known law and E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark being innocent or faultless are of course two dif(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 213. ferent things, and then again going on to perfection is also another matter entirely. It is to perfection/completion of all God expects and requires that Jesus calls the young man. In Judaism, almsgiving was one of the three pillar virtues, but it presupposed one had assets from which to share. What Jesus says amounts to a rejection of conventional Jewish Selling Property Somewhat later Jewish literature conpiety that said it was all right to be wealthy so tains examples in which rabbis forbade long as one was also generous. [Selling Property] selling all of one’s property so one would not be Jesus is clearly enunciating a new Jewish ethic reduced to poverty and dependency on others (m. here, and it is not surprising that the young man Barak. 8:4; b. Ketub. 50a). is said to have gone away sad (v. 22). The bar had just been raised on what amounted to being a good or godly person, much less being a disciple of Jesus. The young man leaves saddened, and it is only at this juncture in the story that we are told he has great wealth. [The Rich Young Ruler?] Verse 23 is important and must be translated carefully: “I tell you the truth that the rich with great difficulty will enter the Dominion of Heaven.” Jesus does not say it is impossible. Verse 24 gives us Jesus’ famous aphorism that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the Dominion of God. This saying has some precedents in early Judaism in which we find phrases about an elephant going through the eye of a needle.14 This aphorism is not to be rationalized by some reference to a nonexistent needle gate in the city of Jerusalem.15 Some later scribes actually altered kamilos to kamelos, the latter meaning “rope” in hopes of making a deliberately hyperbolic

Matthew 19:2–20:34

371

remark seem less outlandish. But the precise point is to stress the great difficulty involved by means of the dramatic hyperbole so typical of Wisdom literature. Jesus is contrasting the largest animal and the smallest hole that an early Jew in Israel would likely think of (cf. b. Ketub. 67a). The point is that salvation is not obtainable through even strenuous human effort, trying to squeeze into God’s Dominion. The disciples for once, though they are astonished, understand this implicaImage Not tion of Jesus rather clearly and so ask who then can be Available saved. This verse suggests the disciples had the same due to lack of digital vision of salvation through human obedience or effort rights. Please view the as the young man did. Jesus then indicates that salvapublished commentary or tion, while it is impossible for humans by means of perform an Internet human effort, is possible through a gift from God. search using the credit With God, all things are possible. below. It is important to bear in mind that according to traditional Jewish wisdom, wealth is a sign of God’s blessing, as even a brief reading of Proverbs will confirm. Jesus however is not offering up traditional Jewish wisdom for the most part. He is offering counter-order wisdom, and in this case that means wealth is seen as a huge hindrance to entering the Dominion of God and so having eternal life. Jesus is in fact more critical of wealth and the wealthy than almost any other “For He Had Great Possessions” subject because of the negative spir- George Frederic Watts (1817–1904). 'For He Had Great Possessions.' 1894. Tate Gallery, itual effect wealth can have. London, Great Britain. Photo Credit : Tate Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY Whether it is his critique of The Rich Young Ruler? mammon, this aphorism, his While the First Evangelist calls the man rich and young, he maxim about those who store up does not call him a ruler. That is found in the Lukan parallel treasures on earth, or the parable of in Luke 18:18-30. the man who stored things away in barns, there is much in the teaching of Jesus and in this Gospel that warns of the problems of riches for fallen human beings. [“On the Use of Money”]

But Peter in v. 27 still obviously does not understand, for he reminds Jesus that unlike the rich young man, the disciples have left everything and followed Jesus. He then asks, “What then will there be for us?” Jesus indicates that no such sacrifice goes without its reward, though the reward is not salvation itself but rather family and nurture and judging roles within the Dominion of God. First, in v. 28 Jesus says that “at the renewal/regeneration of the

372

Matthew 19:2–20:34 “On the Use of Money” In my own tradition, it is interesting that John Wesley, whose blueprint for Christian life was the Sermon on the Mount, preached his sermon “On the Use of Money” more frequently than any other of his sermons except “Justification by Faith” during the 18th-century revival in the UK. He repeatedly warned his Methodists that if you make money and do not give all you can and do all the good you can with it, you may be a living person, but you are a dead Christian.

world” [“At the Renewal/Regeneration of the World”] when he sits on his glorious throne in the Dominion, the Twelve will also sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus envisions an earthly Dominion and special roles in relationship to Israel for the Twelve.16 This saying also makes clear that Jesus “At the Renewal/Regeneration of the World” does not identify the Twelve as Israel. The This phrase is intriguing and only found “judging” could refer to ruling, which is the in Matthew 19:28. What it makes clear is that Jesus does not have an otherworldly most likely meaning in view of the way the term eschatology when he is speaking of the final or is used elsewhere in Wisdom literature (see Wis ultimate state of affairs. Like the author of 3:8), but it could also refer to passing judgment Revelation, he believes in a new or renewed on Israel (cf. Matt 25:31ff; 1 Cor 6:3). Thus the earth, as the phrase suggests. In this regard, his Twelve are seen as having some sort of leaderviews seem quite similar to various of the ship role in relationship to Israel both in the Pharisees, the difference of course being the role he sees himself and his disciples playing in that present and at the eschaton. This saying seems renewed earth/world. to allude to Daniel 7:22, and it also indirectly suggests once more the special role Jesus had in relationship to Israel. The list of people and things Jesus offers in v. 29 is revealing about ancient social values—relatives and basic property (house and land) were the basis of survival and exisJohn Cassian tence. To cut one’s self off from all family and Near the mark about the meaning of property was to endanger one’s existence. Jesus Jesus’ saying about what the disciples says they will receive a hundredfold what they have given up are the words of John Cassian: have given up in regard to property and family. “You have each left but one father and mother and home, and as you have done so you have gained without any effort or care countless fathers and mothers and brothers, as well as houses and lands and most faithful servants, in any part of the world to which you go, who receive you as their own family, and welcome, and respect, and take care of you with the utmost attention.” (Conferences 3.24.26)

[John Cassian]

It is worth pointing out that this new family of faith is both affirming of gender equality (made up equally of brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers) and is inclusive of children. Instead of the reference to “ persecutions” or “for the sake of the gospel” as in Mark, we simply have here “for my sake” in v. 29, and then it is added that they will also inherit eternal life. Verse 30 seems to be an isolated saying that was simply attached here, though it suits the discussion on wealth. The verse deals with the matter of reversal of status and standing and so also a reversal of

Matthew 19:2–20:34

373

human expectations. Many of the first will be last in the Dominion, and many now considered least, last, and lost will be first in the Dominion. The Parable of the Vineyard Workers, 20:1-16

This uniquely Matthean parable continues the theme of rewards at the end of things. As with others of these parables, we have a reminder at the outset that there is a comparison being drawn. The Dominion is like what goes on in this story. The point of analogy is not the “man” per se, but the story. There is of course also an analogy drawn between the master of the house and Jesus and between the vineyard workers and the disciples in one or more respects. The vineyard was frequently the A Sapiential Reading of 20:1-16 symbol for Israel (see Isa 5:1-7; Jer 12:10), as it The parable of the workers in the vineis here. [A Sapiential Reading of 20:1-16] [Parable of the Vineyard Workers]

yard makes clear that in the end all will be treated at least fairly, but that divine generosity and mercy goes beyond fairness to ministering to people at the point of their need. Those hired last were just as much in need of funds to feed their families as those hired first who worked all day. No one should be envious when God is generous to others because divine generosity is not merely a matter of reciprocity.

The parable is about day laborers who would be hired by the day to bring in a harvest, in this case of grapes. The normal pay for a day laborer was about one denarius or drachma, and that is precisely what is offered to them in this story. The story begins in v. 1 with the owner going out early in the morning to hire the first workers. When the grapes get ripe, there is a need to pick them as quickly as one can to get the maximum yield. Verse 2 tells us the owner agreed to pay the workers the usual day wage and sent them into his vineyard. At the third hour (i.e., on Roman reckoning of time 9 a.m.), the owner goes back into the marketplace in his village and finds other day laborers standing around doing nothing. It must have been difficult and in some cases humiliating to stand around, hat in hand, hoping to be hired, and not being able to leave the marketplace for fear of missing an opportunity to work that day. To this second group of workers, the owner sent them into the vineyard promising to pay them “whatever is right” (v. 4). This phrase probably means they would receive pay proportionate to the time they worked. At noon and 3 p.m., the owner again went and hired day laborers, making them the same bargain as group two—namely to pay them what was right. Though it may seem surprising to us, the owner, according to v. 6, went out again at 5 p.m. and still found day laborers standing around in the marketplace. He is puzzled and asks, “Why have you been standing here all day doing nothing?” Their reply is simple—

374 Parable of the Vineyard Workers It is interesting that there is a later rabbinic version of this parable, possibly based on the Matthean version (J.T. Ber. 2.5c, 15) with a different twist in the end, namely that those hired at the end earned the same amount as those hired early because they accomplished as much in a shorter time as those who worked through the day! Our parable does not suggest this was the case. The Parable of the Vineyard Domenico Fetti (1589–1624). The Parable of the Vineyard. Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Matthew 19:2–20:34

“Because no one hired us.” To this group he promises nothing, except he gives them permission to go and work in his vineyard. The life of a day laborer was such that even a little pay might buy food so his family could eat a bit that evening or the next morning. So they also go into the vineyard. From the owner’s point of view, he was going to do whatever it took to make sure that crop of grapes was harvested on this particular day. If the story takes place in either June or September, sundown would come somewhere around 6 to 7 p.m. According to v. 8, when evening came the owner told his foreman to call the workers in from the fields. It was normal to pay day laborers in the evening (Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14-15). This may suggest they had not finished yet, but we are not told. The owner tells the foreman to pay the workers in the reverse order in which they were hired. Verse 9 tells us that each of the workers hired at 5 p.m. received a full day’s wage. We are not told what happened in regard to the pay of those in the middle, but when those hired first came, they were expecting more than a denarius since they had worked twelve or more hours that day. Yet each of them also received a denarius, and when that happened they began to grumble against the owner. They complained directly, saying, “These workers whom were hired last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.” Twelve-hour workdays were only common during harvest time.

Matthew 19:2–20:34

The way the owner replies is interesting. In v. 13 he calls these workers “friends.” He reminds them he is not being unfair because he promised one denarius and he paid one denarius, so this is not a justice issue. He then says, “Take your pay and go. I wanted to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have a right to do what I want with my money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” Generosity goes beyond justice, and the owner chose to be generous to those hired last, perhaps because he knew they had the same human needs as those hired first. The grumblers are not reacting to injustice but to generosity, and about that they have no right to complain.17 Notice that there is a contrast between the first and last hired. Hagner suggests that since the emphasis is on the generosity to the last, the Dominion message here has to do with Jesus’ attention to the last, to the marginalized, to those left out, to those no one else wanted or would hire.18 This makes good sense, especially in view of the emphasis in this Gospel on Jesus being sent to the least, last, and lost of Israel. Could the parable have actually been prompted by Peter’s concern about what rewards there would be for a disciple/vineyard worker like himself, chosen first, and making major sacrifices? It is possible. The bottom line is that God’s grace always challenges those who think purely on the basis of merit or what has been earned. Notice the questions of Peter and others about rewards or payback. The Third Passion Prediction, 20:17-19

We have analyzed the passion predictions earlier.19 Verse 17 tells us Jesus took the disciples aside in order to tell them this as they were going up to Jerusalem. This was a private announcement, and unlike what we saw in Matthew 16, we are told of no reaction by any of the Twelve. This passion prediction begins with the words “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem” in v. 18. Normally that would be a joyful note for any Jew heading to a festival in the city (see e.g., Ps 122:1), but in light of what Jesus proceeds to say, its sets a pall over the remainder of the trip. There is a sense of the inevitability in the prediction when one is already in Judea and well on the way to the city (see 19:1). And the prediction is met with stony silence. The distinctive feature about this prediction is the word that Jesus will be turned over to Gentiles to be mocked, flogged, and killed. This is an ominous note as, for the first time, it suggests that Jesus will be subject not merely to an injustice, but to Roman “justice,” which only trotted out capital punishment for

375

376

Matthew 19:2–20:34

those committing treason or leading slave revolts, in other words for serious crimes against the state. Basically, Jesus is sharing the horrifying news that he, the disciples’ master, will be publicly shamed and killed. Jesus was not going to A Sapiential Reading of 20:17-19 Jerusalem to do what most expected of mesThe second passion prediction makes sianic figures. Instead of triumphing over the clear it will be Gentiles who will execute overlords, he was going to be abused and killed Jesus even though he is initially betrayed into the by the Roman Gentiles. This little paragraph hands of Jewish leaders. Matthew’s Gospel keeps the listener or reader of Matthew focused should not be seen as an exercise in antion the trajectory of the plot. There will be two Semitism, and it should not be used for such causes. more such predictions in Matthew 20:28 and 26:2. [A Sapiential Reading of 20:17-19] Jockeying for Position, 20:20-28

One could hardly imagine a less appropriate time to ask for the box seats in the Dominion than shortly after a passion prediction, and yet that is the way this story is placed in the Matthean outline, and in this our Evangelist is simply following the lead of his main source in Mark 10. In fact we have seen how Peter had asked about rewards after the encounter with the rich young man in Matthew 19, and now only a chapter later we have the other two of the inner circle of the Twelve asking for places of honor in the Dominion. M. Casey is right to relate this request to the Q saying about the Twelve judging Israel in the eschaton (Matt 19:28/Luke 22:30).20 This puts the Zebedees’ request in a proper perspective. They were asking for seats of honor when the Twelve, rather than even the Patriarchs, would be seated in judgment of Israel. [A Sapiential Reading of 20:20-28]

Despite the attempts by the First Evangelist to spare the Twelve, compared to the way they come off in Mark’s Gospel, the leaders of the Twelve could hardly look much worse than what we find here, except of course for one thing—a mother is involved in the Matthean (but not the Markan) account and our author is ashamed and deliberately fails to use the personal names of these two disciples, though their identity is not in doubt since v. 20 refers to “the mother of Zebedee’s sons” (cf. 4:21; 10:2). Are we meant to think that the “sons of thunder” put their mother up to this request, or is she just ambitious? Whatever else one can say, she certainly appears sincere.21 No sooner has Jesus told the disciples he is going to make the ultimate sacrifice than James and John’s mother comes asking for the chief seats in Dominion. Verse 20 says she came with her sons,

Matthew 19:2–20:34 A Sapiential Reading of 20:20-28 The request for the box seats in the kingdom for the Zebedees is made by their mother in Matthew (unlike in Mark, where they make it for themselves). Jesus tells them to follow another paradigm of greatness, not the Gentiles’ model of lording it over others and demanding perks for themselves but rather the model of the Son of Man who self-sacrificially gives his life a ransom for the many. It is forgiveness and self-sacrifice that breaks the vicious circle of reciprocity and the divisions created by self-aggrandizing behavior (see v. 24).

falling down before Jesus and asking a favor of him. Jesus simply replies, “What do you want?” She says, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit on your right, and one on your left in your Dominion/Reign” (v. 21).22 These verses indicate clearly how far away from Jesus’ way of thinking about true greatness James and John (and their mother) are, despite all the time and special teaching they had received from Jesus. These brothers could be seen as classic examples of blind ambition. Notice that in v. 22, Jesus ceases to talk to the mother and addresses the sons directly, saying, “You (plural) don’t know what you’re asking.”23 It was not enough for them that they were promised to sit on thrones; they had to request the preeminent seats amongst the Twelve. No wonder it is said that the ten are miffed at the Zebedee boys afterward. Perhaps the journey up to Jerusalem gave them the idea that Jesus was about to set up his Dominion. It is not completely certain whether they are asking to have the best seats at the mes-

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Christ and the Family of Zebedee Bonifazio de' Pitati (1487–1553). Christ and the Family of Zebedee. Galleria Borghese, Rome, Italy Photo Credit: Scala / Art Resource, NY

377

378

Matthew 19:2–20:34

sianic banquet or are asking for thrones on either side of the King when he is enthroned as eschatological judge (cf. 13:26 and Luke 22:30), though the throne saying in Matthew 19 favors the latter conclusion. The seats on the right and the left of the host were of course the chief seats of honor at a banquet (see 1 Kgs 2:19; Ps 110:1; 1 Esd 4:29; Sir 12:12; Josephus Ant. 6.11.9),24 and as a second possibility this might be what the request is about. On the whole the connection with suffering suggests a scene of judgment is in view, as Casey has suggested. Verse 22, as we have noted, presents Jesus as saying that James and John have no clue what they are asking for. He will tell them that the road to such glory must go through suffering, and so he must ask if they are willing to pay the price to get to the position of glory. “Leadership belongs only to those who learn and follow the way of nonviolence—who are ‘prepared’ not to dominate but to serve and to suffer at Jesus’ side.”25 The saying about drinking from the cup I will drink is loaded with Old Testament allusions. The cup is surely a reference to the cup of God’s wrath poured out on sin (cf. Ps 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Lam 4:21; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5.13—“for me only God has mingled the cup [of martyrdom]”). Thus, the image here is an image of suffering and death. James and John say rather glibly that they are prepared to drink of such a cup. Were they thinking of the drinking of the Passover cup? Verse 22 was taken, early on in church history, to mean that these two would be martyred, and it may well be implied when Jesus says they will undergo such a drinking. At a minimum, it implies they will suffer for their allegiance to Jesus (cf. Acts 12:2). Verse 23 indicates that seats in the Dominion are assigned not by Jesus but by the Father, and will be given to those for whom they are prepared. This may intimate that God already has someone else in mind for these seats. Naturally, as v. 24 indicates, the other disciples are indignant at this self-aggrandizing action on the part of James and John, for in their view it amounted to an attempt to grasp at positions of power and authority. They were angry “perhaps not because their own attitudes were any different but because the two brothers had stolen a march on them.”26 Jesus then tells a brief parable to indicate what sort of leaders he wants in God’s Dominion—servant leaders. Jesus’ vision of leadership is not of a person who lords it over others or wields authority like the rulers of the Gentiles, but rather one who is the servant and slave of all. If his disciples want to be great, let them be a servant,

Matthew 19:2–20:34

and if they want to be first, let them be a slave. Verse 28 is in many ways a key verse so far as understanding the theology of the cross in this Gospel is concerned. Jesus came not as a glorious one but as a humble Son of Man, one who comes to serve rather than be served. His example of leadership was diametrically opposed to the examples set by secular authorities. But, in fact, Jesus came not merely to offer any sort of service but rather to offer the greatest service of all to humankind—to give his life (psyche clearly means life here, not soul) as a lytron anti pollon. I agree with those who say it seems likely that Isaiah 53 lies in the background here.27 The evidence from the papyri is clear—lytron means ransom28 and was often used in the context of buying slaves out of slavery. Here Jesus is depicted as the ransom given in place of the many (i.e., everyone but himself ). This passion prediction is in fact the only singularly focused passion prediction, for it includes no mention of the resurrection. Here, as Painter points out, unlike in the earlier passion predictions, we have not merely a statement of what will happen to the Son of Man but a statement of the purpose of why he came.29 The purpose is stated both negatively and positively. The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and indeed to give his very life in that service. This links Jesus’ own vocation with what was said earlier to be the disciples’ vocation. [Lytron] While it is possible that the phrase “the many” is a technical term for “the elect” as it seems to have been used at Qumran (see 1QS 6.1, 7-25; CD 13.7; 14.7), it is doubtful that Jewish Christians knew Qumranite theology about the many, and if they did, it is unlikely they would have endorsed it.30 More likely, the First Evangelist, closely following Mark, is simply contrasting the one who made the sacrifice with the many for whom he was the substitute. This in turn means the contrast is not between “many” and “all,” as if Christ died only for some, but rather between the “one” Christ and “the many” beneficiaries.31 There are of course two senses in which it is true to say Christ did not die for all: (1) he being the substitute did not die for himself; (2) ultimately since only some accept the benefits of his suffering, he died for them. Elsewhere we learn in this gospel tradition that a minority of people enter by the narrow gate.32 Eyesight to the Blind, 20:29-34

The very last pericope before the Passion Narrative proper begins is another miracle story. The miracle is once more connected with the

379

380

Matthew 19:2–20:34 Lytron The term lytron is a mercantile term. It should be translated ransom and refers to the deliverance by purchase of a slave or prisoner of war or of some object one wants back (see Lev 25:47-55). Clearly the idea of equivalence, a quid pro quo, is in the background here. Furthermore, the preposition anti should likely be taken to mean “in place of” or “as a substitution for.” Here we have enunciated the notion of substitutionary atonement. Jesus came to set people free from the wrong sort of servitude so that, like himself, they might become free servants of God, exchanging all false masters for a true one. There may be here an allusion to being ransomed from the power of Satan, in view of the references in this Gospel to exorcisms.

title “Son of David,” which not coincidentally is the same title Jesus will be greeted with when he enters Jerusalem in Matthew 21. Our story here is based on Mark 10:46-52, though in Matthew we are dealing with two unnamed blind men rather than one named Bar-Timaeus, and it should be noted that this story parallels the earlier Matthean story about healing two blind men in Matthew 9:27-31. Besides the doublet and the lacking of the name found in Mark, there are also the following departures from the Markan account: (1) the opening sentence “and they came into Jericho” is omitted; (2) the First Evangelist does not mention that the blind men were beggars, though the story implies it; (3) the First Evangelist omits the phrase appended to Jesus’ name “the Nazarene” (Mark 10:47); (4) Mark 10:49b-50 is omitted, which relates how the crowd informed Bar-Timaeus Jesus was calling him and how he leapt up, throwing off his mantle; (5) surprisingly, since the First Evangelist usually omits Mark’s references to Jesus’ emotions, here he adds “moved with compassion Jesus touched their eyes” in v. 34, but this seems to replace Mark’s “go your faith has healed you” (Mark 10:52). What needs to be stressed is that our narrative here in Matthew 20 is much closer to the story in Mark 10 than the earlier Matthean narrative in Matthew 9:2731.33[A Sapiential Reading of 20:29-34] Other than exorcisms, the one miracle Jesus’ performed that is not recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures is the giving of sight to a blind person. This miracle is referred to in some of the Isaiah material, which deals with the restoration of the A Sapiential Reading of 20:29-34 kingdom to and in Israel, and that material was Jesus performs another act of compaslater seen as messianic in character by some sion. Just as the disciples rebuked the early Jews (see Isa 61:1-2 LXX). We need to Canaanite woman for requesting a miracle of continue to bear in mind that we are working Jesus, so here the crowd does so, but here Jesus stops and gives them back their sight, and they however within a particular sapiential stream of are said immediately to begin to follow him, the messianic expectation, associated with a healing Son of David. royal figure and one who even does exorcisms,

Matthew 19:2–20:34

and the only such figure in early Jewish lore about the Davidic line is Solomon, who is portrayed as both healer and exorcist (cf. 1 Kgs 4:29-34; Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5; T. Sol. 20.1).34 Out story begins in v. 29 with Jesus and the disciples leaving Jericho and heading up the steep Jericho road to Jerusalem. Pilgrims from Galilee, to avoid Samaria, would often cross over the Jordan in the north, follow the trade route south, and then cross back into Judea at Jericho and go to Jerusalem that way. This is presumably what Jesus and his disciples did. The name of the city is perhaps mentioned to indicate that Jesus is now not far from Jerusalem (about fifteen miles) and so nearing his goal. It may be significant that only here, right before going up to Jerusalem, is Jesus called “Son of David.” There is some evidence this may be a messianic title that was used in the Judean desert region and particularly at Qumran (see 4QFlor. 1.10ff.). While the term “Son of David” in Psalms of Solomon 17–18 refers to a militaristic figure like the original King David, this hardly suits Jesus, nor does it explain why those needing healing would acclaim Jesus this way—here it is two blind men sitting on the side of the road who, when they hear Jesus is passing by, shout, “Lord, son of David, have mercy on us.” This Son of David is one who comes with mercy not wrath, and he will enter Jerusalem on a donkey not a war charger. He fulfills the Isaianic promises about healing and deliverance (cf. Isa 29:18; 32:1-3; 35:1-10; 61:1-4). According to v. 32, Jesus stops, calls the blind men, and asks, “What do you want me to do?” They answer, “Lord, we want our sight.” In Matthew the story ends with the touching remark about how Jesus had compassion on them, touched their eyes, and immediately they received their sight and followed Jesus. It is interesting that 2 Samuel 6:5 seems to indicate that taking away the blind was a prerequisite for David entering Jerusalem. If so, then Jesus, that latter-day Son of David, has removed the blindness rather than the blind as he goes up to the holy city. This is the last real positive miracle Jesus performs outside of Jerusalem, and it is no accident that it reinforces the Wisdom Christology of this Gospel by showing again what sort of Son of David Jesus was and what sort he was not. While the crowd had rebuked the blind men for badgering Jesus (v. 31) and told them to be quiet, this only caused them to shout louder. The blind men have asked the right sort of thing of the Great Physician, for this Son of David is the one to fulfill texts like Isaiah 35:4-5 or 61:1-4 about the blind receiving sight. The story is full of irony, for it is the blind men in this crowd who could see

381

382

Matthew 19:2–20:34

Christ Healing the Blind at Jericho Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665). Christ Healing the Blind at Jericho. Louvre, Paris, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100-1923)]

Jesus for who he was, and not the disciples or the crowds. Notice Jesus’ view of these suppliants is not the same as the crowd who sees them as an annoyance or a deterrent.35 Perhaps we are meant to see these blind men as the paradigms of disciples, and like disciples they are said to “follow Jesus” (v. 34), even though that way involved going up to Jerusalem. There is indeed considerable irony in the last few stories that lead up to the Passion Narrative, for it is others such as the blind men who more nearly model discipleship, knowing that their relationship with Jesus amounts to depending on his mercy and then following him, whereas the inner circle of the Twelve is demanding an account of the perks they will receive for the sacrifices they have made, or box seats in the Dominion and so a high status for all eternity. It is on this sobering note that the First Evangelist turns to the Passion Narrative itself. We have been well prepared for what is to come—more misunderstanding by the Twelve, and then, even worse, desertion, denials, and betrayal.

CONNECTIONS Issues of Marriage and Divorce

Without a doubt, Jesus’ teaching about divorce is tough. “No divorce” in a culture full of broken relationships where divorce is as

Matthew 19:2–20:34

common in the church as out of it is a tough sell. Whatever differences Jesus had with the Pharisees on other issues, on this one he appears to make them look moderate and lenient by comparison. There is however a reason for this, and it has to do with Jesus’ evaluation of the age he is living in, namely the age when the Dominion of God is breaking in. Jesus believes that in previous times God made provision for human hard-heartedness, but now was the time to call people to a higher righteousness. Yet one needs to be aware of the context in which Jesus is operating. He is talking to committed monotheists, and primarily he is talking to his followers. He is talking to an audience that marries within the community of faith and sees itself as accountable to God for its behavior. More to the point, he is talking about a relationship that he believes God is actively bringing about. God is said to be the one who joins the couple together. This is an important theological point, for it is clear from Jesus’ commentary on other relationships that he believes not all such unions are joined together by God. In fact, in view of Matthew 19:11-12, it would appear that he was actively suggesting more Jews should consider the option of not marrying at all, a radical teaching since many early Jews believed the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” was an imperative intended for every able-bodied Jewish person. Notice the phrase at the end of Matthew 19:11, where Jesus says not everyone is able to receive his radical teaching on permanent lifelong marriage, but “only those to whom it is given.” The same applies to radical singleness. Jesus has turned marriage as manifest destiny into marriage as a calling for those to whom it is given. The effect of his radical teaching is more options for women and men beyond marriage and more security especially for women within marriage, for they could not be divorced. The key reasons Jesus approaches the issue of marriage and divorce as he does is because of his view of the nature and meaning of the creation order. Jesus dates the original separateness of male and female to the beginning of creation. Neither Jesus nor the Pharisees nor the First Evangelist presuppose androgyny in the Genesis story. Marriage is not a recapturing of the unity of an original androgynous being. Adam didn’t start out bisexual. Jesus’ creativeness is seen in making the one-flesh union the reason why someone shouldn’t divorce one’s mate. The two become one and remain one even if there is a formal act of divorce. This is why the subsequent remarriage is seen as adultery. Jesus may also be novel in suggesting that a man commits adultery against his own wife.

383

384

Matthew 19:2–20:34

Christian Divorce D. English offered these words of wisdom on this difficult issue: Yet any who have experience of pastoral care for married people will know that, sadly and tragically, people do choose badly, make mistakes, change dramatically, fall out of love. To one happily married, or to one not married at all, there may seem to be inconceivable developments. . . . Yet the fact is that marriages do lose their inner core of meaning. People do feel trapped. Deteriorating relationships do destroy

the participants. Society’s pressures, increasing mobility, non-Christian standards and lifestyles all militate against stable marriage. In such a situation the Christian church must find a way to hold up, teach, prepare people for, and sustain couples in the original divine purpose of one man, one woman for life. Yet at the same time it has to find ways of showing the deep compassionate sympathy and understanding of Jesus towards those for whom life has not turned out according to the highest ideals. D. English, The Message of Mark (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 174-75.

The upshot of this teaching, if it was heeded, would be fewer broken families. But it needs to be added that the church especially needs to do a better job of promoting singleness as a viable life calling. One of the reasons why too many marriages within the church end in divorce is because well-meaning Salvation as a Gift people have pressured many into marriage who The story of the rich young man has are not equipped or prepared. Human beings are captured the imagination of many, perfectly capable of coupling themselves including F. Buechner, who once offered the following modern paraphrase of Jesus’ famous together in marriage apart from the will of God. camel and needle saying: “It is harder for wealthy In fact, it happens all the time, and indeed it North Americans to enter the Kingdom than for happens within the church. Thus it needs to be Nelson Rockefeller to get through the night reiterated that Jesus’ strict teaching of “no deposit slot of the First National City Bank”! It is a divorce” applies to those that God has joined daunting saying, and it often leads to a series of together. [Christian Divorce] attempted qualifications and a lot of shuffling feet. But this misses the point entirely. Salvation is not a human self-help program, but even so there are some things one can say or do or be that make it more difficult to receive salvation as a gift.

Being the Rich Young Man

Human impossibilities are not divine impossibilities, although it can be said that there are F. Buechner, Telling the Truth: The Gospel as even some things God cannot or will not do Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale (San Francisco: (such as go back on his word or be unfaithful to Harper and Row, 1977), 63. his promises). There are a plentitude of warnings in Matthew’s Gospel about the seductive and spirit-killing qualities of wealth. The question is will we understand they apply to all disciples, including us, not least because by world standards almost all Americans are wealthy, or will we continue to practice selective obedience to the call to discipleship? If we do that, we are more like the rich young man who went away sad than like those who gave up all and followed Jesus. [Salvation as a Gift]

Matthew 19:2–20:34

Notes 1 See

my Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 18-32, and the notes there. On the Markan presentation of this material see my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 274-78. 2 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 546. 3 See pp. 225-27 above. 4 See the discussion above on Matt 5:32. 5 See my “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” NTS 31 (1985): 571-76. 6 Pace C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 468-69. 7 On all this see my discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 30-31, and the notes there. 8 Against D. Allison’s argument in Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). 9 On blessing being conveyed by touching see Gen 48:14. 10 G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 327. 11 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 207. 12 B. Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 16. 13 D. Hagner, 564. 14 The text does not say give all to the poor, though this may be implied. 15 This however comes from a later period in Jewish literature, but see b. Ber. 55b. 16 As a note in a ninth-century AD commentary on Mark suggested. 17 On the importance and authenticity of this saying see my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 141-42. 18 See C. Keener, 483. 19 D. Hagner, 570-73. 20 See pp. 376 above. 21 M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 193-218 22 On the possibility that the ambitious mother was actually involved, see New Docs 6, 50. 23 On Jesus’ Dominion as distinguished from the Father’s, see 13:41 and 16:28 and pp. 271-74 above. 24 In other words, in the Matthean portrayal of things, it appears Jesus thinks the brothers put their mother up to this request, and so he decides to deal directly with their blind ambition. 25 Since this is a joint request, it is apparently left in Jesus’ hands which side Jacob or John would get. 26 C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 278. 27 M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 247. 28 See the study of this phrase in my Gospel of Mark, 288-90. 29 See New Docs 2, 90; New Docs 3, 72 30 J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 150. 31 This is because of the missionary consciousness manifested in this Gospel, especially Matt 28. 32 See rightly E. Schweizer, 222. 33 See pp. 207-09 above.

385

386

Matthew 19:2–20:34 34 See

D. Hagner, 585-86. It is possible that the story in Matt 9 is an edited form of our same story here in Matt 20, with the latter version being closer to the original. If this is so, it suggests our author was not in contact with eyewitnesses who could have told him that the various oral versions of a healing of the blind miracle were just that—variant versions of the same story. 35 See the discussion above pp 370-71.

The Triumphal Entry and Temple Teachings of Jesus the Sage Matthew 21:1–23:39 As has been his bent throughout this Gospel, our Evangelist continues to follow his Markan source and plot and insert into it a variety of other material, sometimes from Q and sometimes from his own special source. Properly speaking, the events of what we call Passion Week begin in Matthew 21, and the rest of the narrative until after Easter is set in Jerusalem. The narrative begins with actions (entry, action in the temple, withering of fig tree) and then quickly turns to teachings in the form of controversy dialogues and also our last teaching discourses in which Jesus dispenses his wisdom primarily on eschatological matters. The bulk of this is teaching material, thus leaving the reader with a final impression of Jesus’ wisdom and of what a great prophetic sage Jesus was. What is not usually recognized is that all the sapiential material is set up by the way Jesus is presented in the first narrative in Matthew 21—namely as King Solomon coming to town. To this narrative we must first turn.

COMMENTARY The Triumphal Entry of the One Greater than Solomon, 21:1-11

As the Passion Narrative begins, and if we read Matthew’s account side by side with Mark’s, we are left with a great appreciation for the First Evangelist as an editor of his source material, compressing and smoothing out the Markan account and deftly integrating much more teaching material. Perhaps the most poignant and significant story of a Jewish royal figure’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem in the midst of opposition and controversy is found in 1 Kings 1:32-40, a story about Solomon riding into town on a donkey and being anointed king in succession to David.1 [A Sapiential Reading of 21:1-11] [1 Kings 1:32-40]

388

Matthew 21:1–23:39 A Sapiential Reading of 21:1-11 In the triumphal entry Jesus comes as Zechariah’s king of peace on a donkey, a humble form of exaltation (Zech 9:9). Jesus is portrayed as a king and is praised as son of David (contrast Mark 11:10). The crowds do not quite get the picture as v. 11 shows, for they only identify him as a prophet from Nazareth, not as the all-wise king from the lineage of David.

The story in part in 1 Kings 1 is about Adonijah, who had set himself up to be king. This story is set at a time when David is dying and the successor to the throne is in doubt, and so like our story it has an ominous under-current, including an implication of great danger to Solomon himself. Besides the riding into the city on the donkey, the acclamation, the rejoicing, and the like, one needs to keep steadily in view the name of this king—Solomon, whose name comes from shalom, the word for peace and well-being. He was David’s “peace child,” and if ever there was a royal figure who was meant to be both king of peace and also a sage of the Davidic line, this was the man. It is of course true that our Matthean narrative quotes and alludes to Zechariah 9:9-10, but what is often not noticed is that the promised eschatological king who comes in righteousness and having salvation and gentle and riding “on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” is also the king for whom God is going to take away the weapons of war, and “he will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” [Zechariah 9:9-10] I submit that this apocalyptic prophetic word is Christ Riding a Donkey drawing on the portrait of Solomon, part of which Statue of Christ Riding on the Ass. Circa 1480, Southern Germany (possibly Ulm). Limewood and pine, painted we have quoted (see also 1 Kgs 3–11), and we and gilded. (Credit: Valerie McGlinchey / Wikimedia must bear in mind that Solomon reigned over Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0 UK) 1 Kings 1:32-40 King David said, “Call in Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada.” When they came before the king he said to them: “Take your lord’s servants with you and set Solomon my son on my own donkey and take him down to Gihon. There have Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout ‘Long live King Solomon!’ Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah.” Benaiah son of Jehoiada answered the king: “Amen! May the LORD the God of my lord the king so declare it. As the LORD was with my lord the king so may

he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!” So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David’s donkey and escorted him to Gihon. Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!” And all the people went up after him, playing flutes and rejoicing greatly, so that the ground shook with sound (cf. 2 Sam 15:30 where we read of David’s triumphant return to Jerusalem riding over the Mount of Olives on a donkey; see also 2 Sam 16:1ff.).

Matthew 21:1–23:39

389

Zechariah 9:9-10 the Holy Land when its boundaries were at the Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! maximum extent. Shout loud, O daughter Jerusalem! This whole Solomonic tradition both in Lo, your king comes to you; 1 Kings and in Zechariah guides the way our Triumphant and victorious is he, First Evangelist portrays the entry of Jesus into humble and riding on a donkey. on a colt, the foal of a donkey. Jerusalem, including even the way he edits or He will cut off the chariot adds to the Markan account. For example, at from Ephraim Matthew 21:8 he adds the phrase “to the son of and the war-horse from Jerusalem; David” after the word “Hosanna,” and he then and the battle bow shall be cut off, deletes Mark 11:10a, “Blessed is the kingdom of and he shall command peace to the our father David that is coming.” The First nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, Evangelist is following the “son of David and from the River to the ends of the (Solomon)” messianic traditions, not the earth. “messiah like our father David” traditions. The addition of Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21:4-5 simply provides further confirmation of the portrait of Jesus as the greater than Solomon, peaceful sage/king coming to town. The clincher that this is what the First Evangelist is up to is the use of the verb epikathizø in v. 8 [7], found nowhere else in the New Testament and used twice in the LXX of 1 Kings 1:38, 44 of Solomon riding his donkey to be anointed king. Most importantly, it must be noted that almost all of the important emendations of the Markan account by the First Evangelist serve the agenda of portraying Jesus as sage and Wisdom, like but greater than Solomon. Notice that it is no accident that the narrative in Matthew 21 includes three parables-in-action/prophetic signs—the riding into town on the donkey, the symbolic action in the temple, and the cursing of the fig tree (the only punitive or negative miracle in the Gospels). These are the only three actions before Jesus begins his controversy dialogues and his final discourse in this Gospel. They set the stage for this teaching material. In short they present Jesus as a prophetic sage, like but greater than Solomon the temple builder, for this is Jesus who announces the end of this corrupt temple and the in-breaking of the eschatological age both in symbolic action and in word, as we shall see. In the Matthean outline, this is the first significant recorded trip of Jesus to Jerusalem, though there are hints (23:37; 26:55) that he has come before as an adult. Notice that according to v. 1, Jesus comes first to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, a place whose name means house of figs.2 This village apparently was on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives. [Mount of Olives] The story seems to begin with Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of the existence of a waiting animal. This is wisdom well beyond

390

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Mount of Olives It is entirely possible that Jesus, like many other pilgrims, camped on the Mount of Olives at festival time, since it seems to have served as the KOA camping ground for pilgrims, especially during Passover when the city went from being 50,000 people to 500,000. This is why Jesus retired to the Mount of Olives in the evenings and why we find him there in the Garden of Gethsemane. This familiar camping spot used for several days by Jesus and the Twelve explains why Judas was so readily able to find Jesus at night. But it also appears that Jesus stayed with friends in Bethany some—namely, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (see below on Matt 26:6-13 and the parallel in John 12).

Road to Jerusalem leads from the heights of the Mount of Olives down to the Kidron Valley and then rises up again to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israel. Panorama of Jerusalem’s Eastern Hill and the Kidron Valley. (Credit: Ian Scott / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-2.0)

Solomon’s kind. If the village opposite Bethphage means Bethany, then this may simply be a story about Jesus knowing about the resources he could use at his friends’ house. They would know well who “the master” was, who was in need of it, and they would not have hesitated to let him use the animal. Kyrios in v. 3 probably should be translated “master,” a term of respect referring to Jesus as the master teacher rather than “Lord” at this juncture. We are dealing here with the notion of impressing or commandeering of an animal into service, which was a regular procedure in the extant transportation system. A legitimate claimant could borrow an animal in this fashion if he had higher status (i.e., was a master teacher).3 What is distinctive about the Matthean account compared to Mark at this juncture is that in Matthew there are two animals instead of one—both a donkey and the foal of a donkey are requisitioned in Matthew. [Jesus’ Ride] There was a tradition in early Judaism that great teachers or royal figures might requisition an animal when the need arose. Hagner, taking his cue from Mark 11:2, which tells us that Jesus rode an animal on which no one had

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Jesus’ Ride Matthew’s Gospel says in v. 7 that when the disciples brought Jesus the animals, “he sat on them”! Thus, the prophecy in Zech 9:9 quoted in vv. 4-5 is said to be quite literally fulfilled. (Notice that John 12:15 also quotes the Zechariah portion of the text at this juncture. This is hardly surprising since the Fourth Gospel also presents Jesus as Wisdom and as prophetic sage. See my John’s Wisdom.) But, in fact, this quotation is a composite citation of Isa 62:11 and Zech 9:9, and an interesting and odd one at that, partially drawn from the LXX of both the Isaiah and Zechariah text, and the last six words drawn from the Hebrew of Zechariah. (see D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004], 119). Does our Evangelist know both texts of the Scripture? As a scribe, this is certainly possible, and there is nothing improbable about a young foal being tethered with its mother on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, the Greek text does not clearly say Jesus sat on both animals. The nearest antecedent to “them” is the multiple cloaks that are said to be laid on these animals. The text may mean no more than Jesus sat on several cloaks on one of the animals, likely the mother donkey. B. Witherington, John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1995).

ever sat before, points out that a foal was normally broken or introduced into service while accompanied by his or her mother (see m. B. Bat. 5:3), and all the more so if the animal was going to be used in a noisy crowd. The two animals were seen as a single inseparable unit. It is hardly plausible to argue either that a Jewish Evangelist like our author wouldn’t recognize parallel construction in Zechariah 9:9 or that he actually envisioned Jesus riding two animals at once.4 This act is both deliberate and deliberately symbolic, for Jesus nowhere else rides in a way that places himself above the others, and the choice of animal is important. Jesus chose not a war horse, but a donkey, which was an animal associated with royal coronations and kings on parade in the city. But the choice of animal, while it has royal associations, nonetheless is associated with gentleness and humility. This acted parable or prophetic sign act was indeed meant to say something about Jesus himself. It was a symbolic and indirect calling card, but at the same time it was a repudiation of a sort of Davidic messianism that Jesus did not come to enact. Verse 8 by contrast involves a symbolic gesture by the crowds, but who are these crowds? Are these Galileans who came with Jesus to Jerusalem and had seen his mighty acts before? Are they simply people who recognized the prophetic signal in Jesus choosing to ride into town on this particular animal? We are told that the crowd laid cloaks and branches from trees on the ground. The action of spreading a cloak was a way a poor person could, so to speak, roll out the red carpet for someone noteworthy, and it was used to honor kings in Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 9:13). The cutting down of

391

392

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Entry of Christ into Jerusalem Caravaggio da Polidoro (1490/1500-1543). Entry of Christ into Jerusalem. (558E). Location :Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Uffizi, Florence, Italy. [Photo Credit: Scala / Art Resource, NY]

Donkey Later Jewish literature stresses that the donkey is an animal whose use in a festival or ritual setting always has a messianic quality. See b. Ber. 56b, and b. San. 98a.

branches was another sign of homage or respect for royal figures, and if they were in fact palm branches (cf. John 12:13), there were Maccabean overtones (cf. 1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7). It must be remembered that this crowd is going up to a festival, and thus when we get to v. 9 it is possible to make too much of what is said for the good reason that pilgrims would regularly sing the Hallel psalms and the psalms of ascent or going up to Zion (cf. Pss 118, 125–135), so some of the chanting may be precisely of this nature without the crowd fully realizing who Jesus was or his significance. The first acclamation, however, is important—“Hosanna to the son of David” (contrast Mark 11:9-10). From the Matthean perspective, Jesus is being acclaimed, in light of the healings that were done and in light of his present prophetic gesture, to be the latter-day Solomonic messianic figure. [Donkey] We are apparently meant to think that at the least this crowd came up from Jericho with Jesus and saw what he did there and what he is doing now. The second acclamation is from Psalm 118:25-26, which originally could refer to any pilgrim who was going up to Zion and was used for one pilgrim to encourage another one by repeating it. [Hallel Psalms] Here it takes on fresh meaning when used

Matthew 21:1–23:39

393

Hallel Psalms as an exclamation about Jesus, as he is the one Psalm 118 was the last of the Hallel who comes in the name of the Lord in a special Psalms and was chanted at all the major sense. We then have the exclamation “Hosanna festivals. in the highest.” The word høsanna in fact is the Greek form of a Hebrew exclamation that means “save we pray thee.” In the first of these exclamations, the First Evangelist has made something explicit that at most was only implicit in Mark. Verses 10-11 bring us to the point where we have distinguished the residents of the city who ask “Who is this?” which is not a mere request for a person’s name, but rather “What should we make of this man?”5 when Jesus enters the city, which we may contrast with the crowds who came with Jesus, perhaps many of them Galileans who proudly announce, “This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.” The whole city is said to be stirred by what is happening (cf. 2:3). While the crowd’s acclamation falls short of making completely clear who Jesus really is, nonetheless, Jesus’ symbolic act coupled with the raucous crowd must have raised the temperature of the city a few notches and raised the blood pressure and anxiety of the Jerusalem Jewish officials. Prophets coming to town during a festival had the potential of stirring up trouble, especially since the town was temporarily ten times more populous than normal and that many times more difficult to police. Since the Greek of v. 11 reads “the prophet Jesus” with the definite article, some have seen an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:18, Jesus being seen as the great eschatological prophet that Moses predicted would one day come. We know that at Qumran there was hope and expectation that the prophet would come in that era. Whatever else we may want to say about this event, E. P. Sanders’s remarks as a careful scholar are on target: “the entry was probably deliberately managed by Jesus to symbolize the coming kingdom and his role in it . . . performed . . . for the sake of the disciples.”6 [A Sapiential Reading of 21:12-22]

Jesus and the Temple of Doom, 21:12-17

As we have come to expect, the First Evangelist’s presentation of the episode in the temple is more abbreviated than Mark’s account. For one thing, there is no surveying of the temple on one day and then coming back and doing the prophetic sign act the next. Those who have doubted the historicity of the story have totally missed the point, which is that Jesus as a prophetic sage is performing an enacted parable or prophetic sign act. As a real attempted cleansing of the temple, it would have fallen well short of its goal, and in any

394

Matthew 21:1–23:39 A Sapiential Reading of 21:12-22 Here Jesus performs two prophetic sign acts indicating that there was spiritual corruption and lack of fruit at the heart of Israel. Again here, this time in the temple, Jesus is acclaimed to be the Son of David, this time by children (v. 15). Here two acts of a sort of violence or judgment are predicated of Jesus, but only the mind of God could know the heart of Israel and whether it was sterile or fruitful and whether its sanctuary was corrupt or pure.

case it is not clear that “cleansing” is signified by this action. [A Sapiential Reading of 21:12-22] [Herod’s Temple and Solomon’s Wisdom]

The Matthean portrayal of Jesus’ action in the temple depends on Mark 11:15-17, but he has placed this story before the cursing of the fig tree rather than in the middle of the story as in Mark. In Matthew the temple action is the first major thing Jesus does when he gets into Jerusalem. The second half of the Matthean portrayal of this event is basically unique to Matthew, and there especially we find his distinctive notes, so something should be said at this juncture about his presentation. Once more it has to do with his christological portrait of Jesus as sage/Wisdom/ like but greater than Solomon. [Solomon] In the Matthean portrait, why is Jesus so angry in the temple? In part it is because the place is so corrupt that Jesus foresees its doom within a generation. In part it is likely also because Jesus came to this place to teach in Solomon’s Portico during the festival, on the outer edges of the temple precincts, to offer wisdom just as Solomon had done (see Matt 21:23), and he discovered impediments and obstacles and distractions in the way. According to the First Evangelist, Jesus also came and performed miracles associated with Solomon’s wisdom in the temple precincts, such that even the blind and lame would be healed there (Matt 21:14); in the Old Testament, the blind are nowhere said to be healed by any previous kingly or prophetic figure. Jesus came to proclaim and usher in the divine saving activity, the Dominion, right in the place where God was thought to be most present, and what did he find? According to the First Evangelist there were even children in the temple precincts when Jesus did such wonderful things, shouting, Solomon Consider the Solomonic background for a moment. It was said of Solomon that people of all nations came to listen to his wisdom, sent by the kings of all nations to hear him (1 Kgs 4:34 cf. Mark 11:17). It is said of Solomon that he was the one to build the temple, not his father David because David was a warrior, whereas Solomon was a man of peace and wisdom (1 Kgs 8:17-19), and it must be remembered that even Gentile rulers such as the Queen of Sheba, whom Jesus himself mentions as an eschatological witness, came to visit Solomon and his newly built temple and palace and hear his wisdom.

Matthew 21:1–23:39

395

Herod’s Temple and Solomon’s Wisdom There were, without question, a variety of opinions about Herod’s temple in early Judaism. Some at Qumran who saw this temple as hopelessly corrupt and doomed (4QFlor. 1.1-12), which was also the opinion of the person who wrote 1 En. 89:73–90:29. The problems had in part to do with the fact that Herod, an Idumean (Edomite) was the one who had it built on a grand and Hellenistic pattern that made Solomon’s temple seem small. There was also the further issue that it was specifically a Judean temple in terms of the hierarchy and priestly lines that controlled it. As S. Freyne has shown, attitudes in Galilee were different than those in Judea about a variety of subjects: (1) Many of the Galileans did not agree with the Pharisaic regulations on the paying of the half-shekel temple tax, following rather the Sadducean position on this matter. (2) Galileans were not scrupulous about tithing. (3) There was also the issue that many Galileans did not go to the festivals as regularly as Judeans, not surprisingly since it involved considerable travel on foot, though many did make regular pilgrimages from Galilee (Josephus, Ant. 118-120; Luke 13:1). There were of course people who were critical of some of the practices in the temple but who were not critical of the Herodian temple apparatus as a whole. No one disputes that Jesus was probably critical of the temple in some way. Whether he saw it as hopelessly corrupt and doomed is much debated. There is evidence in Josephus for the eschatological expectation that a messianic figure would do something about the temple as a means of legitimating a messianic claim (see J.W. 6.283ff.; Ant. 18.85ff.). Jesus’ action in the temple reflects the fact that he felt he had the authority to do what he did. The great temple builder was of course Solomon, and if it is the case that Jesus said something like “destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days,” something that his trial even in the Synoptics indicates he did say (see Matt 26:61 and par.), then again there seems to be something fundamental going on here that presents Jesus as someone like and yet greater than Solomon. This man even has the authority to put up the advance notice of condemnation in the temple, declaring that the wrecking ball is coming. N. Hamilton has suggested that Jesus’ wrath was directed against the entire economic function of the temple, including the sale of birds, the exchange of money, the delivery of goods to vendors, the buying and selling of cattle and lambs, the depositing of money or valuables in the temple, and the like. There is likely to be some truth to this, as some of the economic activity in the temple was recent and apparently lined the pockets of the high priest and his entourage, whereas previously many of these transactions had taken place outside the temple precincts and even on the Mount of Olives. It has also been suggested that Jesus was upset because the area of the temple that had now become a stockyard was the only place where strangers and foreigners could come and pray. The material in Isa 40–66 was important to Jesus as he reflected on the purpose of his ministry, and Isa 56 seems to have been an important text for Jesus. Not only do we find in it the unusual positive remarks about eunuchs, but we also hear this: “Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, The LORD will surely exclude me from his people . . . foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him . . . these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer . . . for my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations” (vv. 3-7). Jesus quotes these words in combination with Jer 7:11 in the Court of the Gentiles where he took action against the various vendors. It needs to be stressed that whatever the nature of Jesus’ action in the temple, it seems to have been the last straw that led to his trial and condemnation, both by Jewish and Roman officials. Any violence or action such as Jesus took in a major temple would have been seen as a threat to law and order in that part of the empire. Temples of all sorts were protected by the Romans during the age of the empire. It is no accident that the Antonia Fortress directly adjoined the temple precincts, and guards watched what went on in the temple from the tops of the walls of the fortress. After all, even in the temple in Jerusalem, sacrifices were offered for the emperor (though obviously not to the emperor). Impeding or withholding or interrupting the process of sacrifices was taken by Romans as the final sign of revolt against the empire and was enough to get Jesus in hot water, but taking a symbolic action that depicted coming judgment on the temple operations was the coup de grace. Adding that he would be the one to raise up its replacement was of course a claim to be a king, like unto Solomon, something our Evangelist has been stressing throughout his Gospel. 2 Sam 7:13 and Zech 6:12 were both thought to indicate that messiah would build the final eschatological temple. Jesus implicitly claimed to be that figure on this occasion, and it should also be noted that Exod 15:17 suggests God himself would be the builder of the structure. Jesus is not opposed to the temple per se; he is opposed to this temple, which indeed he views as beyond cleansing and spiritual repair, just as those at Qumran also thought. S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Notre Dame: U.of Notre Dame, 1980), 277-81; N. Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964): 365-73; B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 107-16.

396

Matthew 21:1–23:39

“Hosanna to the son of David,” which is to say, hosanna to the royal one who is like but greater than David’s greatest son— Solomon. Finally, 2 Samuel 7:13 also promised that the Davidic messiah would one day build the eschatological temple, just as Solomon had done before. Matthew 26:61 tells us Jesus said something about the temple being destroyed and rebuilt. Now we are prepared to consider the particulars of this story. Apart from small changes, the First Evangelist follows Mark closely in the first half of his presentation. Jesus in v. 12 is said to enter the temple and drive out all who were buying and selling there, overturning the tables of those selling doves and exchanging money. Nothing here is said about animals being driven out. It may be suggested that Zechariah 14:21 lies partially in the background, for that eschatological prophecy speaks of a day when there will no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord. Verse 13 provides a rationale from Scripture for Jesus’ forceful action and is a verbatim quote from the LXX of Isaiah 56:7 minus the words “for all the Gentiles,” which are included in Mark 11:17, not surprisingly in view of Mark’s Gentile audience. The second half of the composite quote comes from the LXX of Jeremiah 7:11, and there the issue is specifically judgment on the temple because it has become a den of bandits, which might mean he is critiquing making the temple a nationalist stronghold.7 Actually the temple, while no doubt having its graft and corruption and thieves, was not a safe haven for revolutionaries or zealots, whom the temple hierarchy adamantly opposed in order to remain in power. More likely this enacted parable is supposed to be commentary on the corruption in the temple precincts, hence the need to throw out not just the immoral or the revolutionaries but all those buying and selling there. [Extortion in the Temple] Verse14 is the only place in the Synoptic Gospels where we are told of Jesus performing healings in Jerusalem, much less in the temple precincts. This underscores his identity as the Son of David/Solomonic figure (see above). The access of the blind and the lame to the temple precincts was limited to the outer or Gentile court (cf. Lev 21:18-19; 2 Sam 5:8; CD 15.15-17; m. Hag. 1:1), and the relevant Qumran text say the blind, deaf, and dumb were excluded from the congregation and the messianic banquets (1Qsa 2.5-22). Pharisaic rules prohibited such people from appearing before the Lord to make sacrifice to comply with Deuteronomy 16:16 (see m. Hag. 1:1). It would appear that these people followed Jesus into the temple, and Jesus welcomed them. Again we are meant to think of all of Jesus’ actions in the temple taking place in

Matthew 21:1–23:39

397

that court, and it is well to ask why because he and the Twelve could have gone inside to the court of the men, and he could have worshiped and taught them there. But Jesus’ ministry was not merely for the benefit of men, or even of Jews, though he focused on Jews during his earthly ministry. Verse 15 records the indignant reaction of the chief priests and scribes to Jesus’ “wonders” or healing miracles and to the response of the children shouting “Hosanna to the son of David.” According to v. 16, they confront Jesus about it— “Do you hear what these children are saying?” Apparently we are meant to think the children were carrying on with the chant they had heard while Jesus was entering the city. The Christ Driving the Moneychangers out of the Temple Hallel was taught to children (t. Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669). Christ Driving the Moneychangers from the Temple. 1626. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, Russia. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Sotah 6:2-3). Their question PD-Art (Yorck Project)) implies that Jesus too should have been upset with the chilExtortion in the Temple dren’s chanting about him in If we ask how extortion could happen in the temple, the answer is simple—the animals could be sold for whatever this way. Jesus admits he has price the people wanted to charge since they had a captive audience heard them and quotes from of people who didn’t want to walk a mile or more to the Mount of Psalm 8:3 (LXX): “From the Olives to buy an animal and then drag the animal through the crowds lips of children and infants, you to the temple. The moneychanger for his part could juggle the have ordained praise.” This exchange rate for the Tyrian shekels. The priests did not stop this psalm adds the phrase “for the since they apparently got a cut from such exchanges. sake of your enemies,” which would be apropos in this situation. Here is where we get the expression “out of the mouths of babes.” Jesus’ point is that the officials should be listening to the children, who more nearly understood who he was than the Jewish religious leaders themselves. This episode is abruptly terminated in Matthew at v. 17, which tells us Jesus suddenly left and walked out

398

Matthew 21:1–23:39

of the city a mile and a half to Bethany, where he spent the night, presumably with his friends Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. The Cursing of the Fig Tree, 21:18-22

This enacted parable has only one part in the Matthean outline, so we get both cursing and withering in the same scene, and as in Mark it depicts the coming judgment on unfruitful Israel. This way of presenting the material means our Evangelist omits Mark 11:1819 and 25 altogether. He also omits Mark’s description that “it was not the season for figs.” Obviously the First Evangelist adds v. 19, which says “and suddenly the tree withered.” The second half of the pericope has parallels in John 14:13-14; 15:7; 16:23. The reference to moving a mountain should be compared to Matthew 17:20. It should be stressed that the disciples continue to be obtuse, showing no interest in the symbolic meaning of the withering of the fig tree but only being interested in how Jesus did it.8 Verse 18 informs us that after Jesus spent the night in Bethany, he returned to the city early in the morning and saw a fig tree beside the road. When he went and inspected it, it had nothing on it but leaves. Jesus said to the tree, “May you never bear fruit again!” and immediately the tree withered. This punitive miracle has upset many, as it is the only example of Jesus using his power to curse or to harm, but Jesus is not simply zapping a poor tree for no good reason; rather, it is an enacted parable. While Matthew has left out Mark’s comment that it was not the season for figs, which would have misled some in antiquity and has certainly misled many in modernity, it needs to be said that there were two crops of figs on such a tree—one in the spring that appeared in April (the male fruit that was more bitter but still edible) and one in the fall (the sweet female fruit that was regularly harvested). While only a truly hungry person would eat the spring fruit, the point in regard to this tree is that it offers only leaves. It is sterile, not even producing the less palatable spring fruit. We are meant to have in mind a text like Micah 7:1 where the fruitless or barren fig tree is an image of the morally and spiritually barren people of God. Jesus’ curse involves a judgment oracle of sorts— the tree will never again bear fruit of any kind. This is a picture of the coming judgment on Israel. The disciples are left amazed in v. 20 and ask, “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” Our First Evangelist adds verses 21-22 from a non-Markan source. Jesus again comments on his disciples’ faith. If they have faith and no doubt, not only could they do such a thing to a fig

Matthew 21:1–23:39

399

tree, but they could even move a mountain, having it throw itself into the sea. Verse 22 says if you believe, whatever you ask for in prayer will be granted. There is a chance that the reference to the mountain is to Mt. Zion, and we should see this as a further ominous word about judgment on Mt. Zion.9 It could also be a reference to the Mount of Olives from which one could see the Dead Sea. In either case, then, this saying is in its right place here. One could perhaps hear an echo of Zechariah 14:4, 10, which refers to the eschatological leveling of the Mount of Olives. More probable is a reference to Zechariah 4:6-9 where Zerubbabel’s obstacles to building a proper temple are compared to a mountain, apparently old Mt. Zion. Jesus then would be saying that God will remove the obstacle, which is Mt. Zion, to the building of the new people of God. Jesus, like Zerubbabel, must raise a new temple for the people of God.10 The Authority of John and Jesus, 21:23-27

Here in this controversy narrative our Evangelist follows his Markan source closely with only minor emendations.11 An examination of the material in this and subsequent controversy dialogues in Matthew 21–25 makes evident that Jesus’ primary clash is with the religious leaders of A Sapiential Reading of 21:23-27 The authority of Jesus for his words and early Judaism, not with ordinary Jews per se. It deeds is challenged in this controversy is no accident that the two groups mentioned in story, and Jesus answers a question with a ques21:23 (the chief priests and the elders mention, as did many other sages. He refuses to give tioned again at Matt 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20) a clear answer after his hearers refuse to were indeed along with the scribes the leaders of acknowledge the authority of John and his the Sanhedrin.12 The clash then is with those baptism by pretending not to know where his authority came from. Jesus received anointing who eventually would condemn Jesus on a and recognition in the presence of John and so fateful Thursday during Passover week. Thus we set out on his royal road, which has led finally to are meant to see the playing out of the drama Jerusalem, where he is again proclaimed Son of forecast by Jesus in the passion predictions. But David. this is not all. We are now returning to the issue of Jesus’ authority, an issue raised by the Jewish authorities already as early as Matthew 9:3. The issue is framed here in v. 23 by the second form of the question “Who gave you this authority?” Notice it is not disputed that Jesus has power/authority.13 The issue is its source. Is it from God or from some human source, or even worse from some nefarious supernatural source, as was suggested earlier in Matthew?14 [A Sapiential Reading of 21:23-27] What is crucial about this first controversy dialogue that begins at vv. 23ff. is that Jesus links his ministry and the evaluation of it to

400

Matthew 21:1–23:39

John’s. The authorities want to know by what authority Jesus had been doing these things, presumably especially including his action in the temple. It was not uncommon in early Jewish discussions to answer a question with a question, as Jesus does here (cf. b. San. 65b). Jesus’ solidarity with John indicates that they both stand together as harbingers of the new eschatological action of God. The decision one makes about the forerunner will affect the decision one makes about the One who follows John. Jesus in a sense stakes his own authority on that of John. The authorities are depicted here as a craven bunch, not wanting to alienate the crowds but nonetheless eager to get rid of Jesus. This indirectly suggests that the crowds supported, at least superficially, John and Jesus. The First Evangelist, who is closely following Mark here, has no intent to romanticize the ”masses” who will show their fickleness all too soon; John’s Authority Notice the reference to that authority rather, he seems to suggest that the Jewish leadbeing “of heaven,” a Jewish circumlocuership is both politically isolated and even tion for “of God,”which strongly suggests this fearful of the people it purportedly serves.15 discussion originated in a Jewish context. The Thus they are both calculating and prepared to leaders were not really ignorant of John and his lie, for when they say they don’t know whether authority, they were simply unwilling to acknowlJohn’s baptism is of God or not, they are simply edge it. The verb dielogizonto in v. 25, though, can be used in a neutral sense of “reasoning”; it also refusing to answer. [John’s Authority] has as a possible meaning “equivocate.” It always Jesus thus refuses to play their game and reveal is used in Matthew in a setting of controversy and his source of authorization. What is indicated is ideological confusion (cf. 16:7-8), as is true in that the authority John and Jesus had was bound Mark. up in their similar proclamation (see Mark 1) and similar living out of the eschatological action and the Dominion of God coming. This threatened the status quo, and as in the case of John, some authorities felt it necessary to eliminate Jesus in order to secure their own positions. Verse 27 indicates that the controversy ends in stalemate. The authorities say they don’t know where John’s authority came from, and accordingly Jesus says he won’t tell them by what authority he acts. But of course Jesus’ actual answer cannot be in doubt since John’s authority is said to be “from heaven.”16 This is in a sense a classic example of a clash between authority figures who believe in humanly derived authority (by blood lines, family connections, etc.) and someone who has independent or charismatic authority that comes from some divine source.

Matthew 21:1–23:39

401

The Parable of Two Imperfect Children, 21:28-32

This uniquely Matthean parable,17 and its application, actually continues the controversy with the priests and elders and leads them to a form of self-indictment. This is the first of three parables in a row highly critical of the Jewish leadership. In v. 28 Jesus immediately involves the listeners, asking for their thoughts about what he is about to say. Clearly the use of the vineyard metaphor again18 makes clear that Israel and those who work for and in it are the focus of discussion. Notice how the parable itself begins similarly to the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Here, however, it is said, “There was a man who had two tekna,” rather than sons. This should probably be translated “children,” though it could mean sons since it is “men’s work” in Jesus’ A Sapiential Reading of 21:28-32 culture that he is talking about. The father goes The parable of the two sons makes clear to the first child, perhaps the eldest, and tells that what really matters is what one does. The analogy is drawn between the religious him, “Go today, work in the vineyard!” The leaders who said they followed God but did not child responds rudely, bluntly, and inapproprirepent or listen to John’s message about ately—“I will not!” [A Sapiential Reading of 21:28-32] [Children’s Obedience]

impending final evaluation, and the sinners and tax collectors who did not make such grandiose claims and yet repented and believed what the Baptist said about coming judgment.

Thus we are clearly dealing with a rebellious child, perhaps a teenager, as tekna can refer to an adolescent child. But in fact the rebellious Children’s Obedience child thinks better of his impertinence and goes One of the main themes of Wisdom litand works in the vineyard according to v. 29. erature is the need for children to obey It is not clear whether the father already their parents instructions (cf., e.g., Prov 4:1-2), and the later sapiential material in Ben Sira goes knows of his first child’s eventual obedience, but even further by stressing that obedience is always in any case v. 30 says he tells the second child to the only appropriate response of a child to his go into the vineyard, and this child responds father (Sir 3:3-11). verbally in a way Ben Sira would have been proud of. It is respectful and implies immediate action. “I am, sir” is the literal Greek, and it is short for “Behold, I am here, sir.” He might as well have said, “Your wish is my command.” But in fact the second child does not go and work in the vineyard. Jesus then in v. 31 asks the pointed question to the authorities: “Which of the two did the will of the father?”19 The response of the authorities is the obvious one—the first child. But suddenly they are trapped into a comparison of their actual behavior and that of tax collectors and prostitutes! The latter presumably are the impertinent children who later, under John’s urging, repent and go work for the lord of the vineyard, where as the second child is represented by these authorities who heard John preach; indeed, it is said, “John came to you to show you the way of righteousness,” and they gave John lip service but did not do what he demanded they

402

Matthew 21:1–23:39

do. Even worse, after these officials saw various tax collectors and prostitutes repenting and doing better, they still were not shamed into repenting and doing what John required of them. The narrative halts at this abrupt juncture, without any word of the response of the authorities. The implication is that while these authorities said all the right things to people like John, they themselves refused to repent, roll up their sleeves, and go work in the vineyard (cf. Matt 23:3). Jesus refers to this disjunction between word and deed when he uses the term “play-acting” or, as we would translate it, “hypocrisy.”20 The receptivity of sinners is contrasted with the obvious obduracy of the religious leaders, a common Gospel motif to say the least (cf. Matt 9:10-13 to Luke 7:29-30 and John 7:48). Notice the contrast between the first son who “changed his mind” and, using the same phrase, the Jewish leaders who would not change their minds (vv. 29 and 32). But it wasn’t simply that they needed to change their minds; as the story ends we are told that these authorities also needed to believe John and then act on the course of righteous behavior he urged. It is one thing to understand and give mental assent or even lip service to something a prophet says. It is another matter all together to “believe him,” by which Jesus means put feet in motion in the right direction to demonstrate one’s assent. The Parable of the Tenants and Messengers of the Absentee Landlord, 21:33-46

The Matthean and Markan form of the parable of the vineyard (contrasted with the Thomas form to some degree—saying 65) has a background in Isaiah 5, where Israel is God’s vineyard, and in the agrarian crises facing farmers in Jesus’ day and venue (cf. Ps 80:1-3; Jer 2:21). The criticism leveled in this parable is against the cultivators, the leaders of Israel, not the vineyard itself, whereas the vineyard is critiqued in Isaiah 5.21 One of the most volatile of all social situations in Israel was the phenomenon of absentee landlords holding property in the Jordan valley and elsewhere, something that had been going on to some degree for nearly 300 years before the time of Jesus. It had been a bone of contention for a long time. J. D. M. Derrett shows that the action of the tenants in this parable is explicable in terms of Jewish law, where possession was nine-tenths of the law when it came to land. If the possession of the current landholders had not been disputed for a period of time, they could claim to be the true owners.22 [A Sapiential Reading of 21:33-46]

Matthew 21:1–23:39

403

A Sapiential Reading of 21:33-46 We must be careful not to “over-allegorize” This appears to be a parable told specifithis parable, for it is a judgment saying with a cally against the leadership of Israel, particular point. God had sent Israel many serindicating that they were not only tilling the vinevants (notice how servant is synonymous with yard of Israel poorly, but they were also rejecting prophet in Jer 7:25f.; 25:4; Amos 3:7; Zech the emissaries of God that God sent to them to demand his due from them, including God’s Son 1:6), but Israel had abused them. There is whom they also killed, so they could own the shocking violence in this parable, with one vineyard for themselves. This prompts the servant from the first group being beaten, attempt by Pharisees and chief priests to arrest another killed outright, the third one stoned, Jesus, though they feared the crowd’s reaction. and the same happening to the second group of servants. Finally the son is sent on the theory that he will be respected, but not only do they take him, throw him out of the vineyard, and kill him, but they also shame him by not giving him a decent burial; indeed even more shockingly he is shamed by being thrown over the vineyard wall and killed and left for the carrion crow. The conclusion of the parable is deliberately eschatological—the owner will return and deal with the cultivators. There was indeed a sort of squatters’ rights situation in Jesus’ day such that if the only legitimate heir met his demise, it was possible for the land to be claimed by those who seized it.23 The implication of the parable is that whoever has rejected the vineyard owner’s son has rejected the vineyard owner. We must consider some of the particulars of the Matthean form of the parable.24 Firstly, Matthew 21:33 refers to Jesus speaking another parable rather than in the plain speech he used to address the disciples from time to time. Even at the end, Jesus continued to teach as a sage, and his public form of discourse did not change. This is of course part of Jesus’ strategy all along according to Matthew 13, part of his apocalyptic rhetoric, yet in this case the Understanding Parables Schweizer’s insightful remarks about meaning seems all too clear to his interlocutors. [Understanding Parables]

At the beginning of the parable, the First Evangelist’s Greek is close to the LXX of Isaiah 5:2, and it is instructive to compare the Matthean version to the simplified form not only in Thomas 65 but in Luke 20, where the echoes of Isaiah 5 are scarce (though compare Luke 20:9).25 I would suggest that we see in Luke and in Thomas two forms of the deJudaizing of the tradition to make it more user-friendly for a more Gentile audience.26 It is intriguing that in early Jewish handling of Isaiah

Mark (and the First Evangelist) apply equally well to Jesus, for he “does not regard parables as pedagogical aids to illustrate what otherwise would be difficult to comprehend. For . . . a parable is a way of speaking about God, to which a mere intellectual response is not possible. The only person who can understand a parable is one who is willing to accept or to reject its message. It must produce either faith or disbelief.” E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 240.

404

Matthew 21:1–23:39

5:1-2, the tower and the winepress were seen as figures for the temple and its altar (cf. 4Q500; Targum Jonathan and the Tosefta see t. Me’il. 1:16; t. Sukkah 3:15). In vv. 35-36 we seem to see a drawing on the popular notions about a string of rejected prophets in Israel (cf. Matt 23:29-35). Verse 37 assumes a setting where honor is considered more important even than life. The owner sends his son to the vineyard on the premise that even the scoundrels now running the vineyard will respect the owner’s own child. There may also be the additional legal angle that the owner thought sending his son (who could most readily be his legal representative) would provide his last chance to reestablish his legal claim on the land.27 The tenants in turn could have assumed that the son was coming to claim his inheritance itself not just fruit from the land, in which case this must imply the owner was dead, and if the son was killed the land would be ownerless and subject to being claimed by the tenants.28 This seems to be the logic of the tenants in v. 38, where they say, “Here’s the heir. Come, let’s take him and kill him and take his inheritance.” Myers astutely points out that the accusation against the tenants (which is to say the religious authorities) implicit in this parable is not merely that they failed to manage the vineyard properly, but they have even had the arrogance to try to claim ownership of the vineyard.29 Thus, the killing of the son must be seen as an attempt to eliminate a rival claimant of the vineyard. In other words, the religious authorities knew that Jesus was a real threat to their control and authority over the temple and thus over the people of God. That Jesus would tell such a parable shows he was prepared to make an implicit claim of “ownership” of the vineyard and at the same time deny that the existing authorities justified such a claim. Kingsbury, in his careful analysis of this parable, correctly points out that Jesus is claiming for himself the identity revealed to him at baptism and transfiguration (3:17; 17:5) and doing so as a public claim before the Jewish authorities. It “is the aim of Jesus in this parable to make God’s evaluative point of view concerning his identity his own and to confront the Jewish leaders with it.”30 This makes clear enough that our Evangelist is not urging on us a messianic secret theme, or at least not anymore once Jesus gets to Jerusalem, and even the authorities seem to get the point of the parable rather clearly. Perhaps we are meant to see this as being the basis of Caiaphas’s query later of whether Jesus is indeed the Son of God.

Matthew 21:1–23:39

405

It is intriguing to see what Matthew and Luke do with the end of the parable. They have the son cast out of the vineyard and then killed rather than the reverse as in Mark. This likely reflects a Christian rearranging of the story to fit the facts about Jesus’ crucifixion outside of Jerusalem. This in turn speaks in favor of the primitiveness of the story in its Markan form.31 Verse 40 serves up a rhetorical question, inviting the audience to contemplate how the owner will respond to the shocking abuses of his servants and son. It is interesting that in God’s Judgment Matthew, unlike Mark, the authorities then It is not hard to understand why, on the answer the question. They respond that the basis of a parable like the one in Matt owner will “bring those wretches to a wretched 21:33-46 and the teaching in Matt 24, it was concluded in the early church that the judgment that end” (NIV), and they add that he will rent the befell Jerusalem in AD 70 was God’s response to vineyard to other tenants who will give him his the rejection and death of Jesus by the Jewish share of the crop at harvest time. [God’s Judgment] leaders (see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.7.7-9). The material in Matthew 21:42-46 comes from Mark, except v. 43, which seems to come from the special Matthean source, and v. 44, which comes from Q. [Matthew 21:44] Possibly the two traditions (the preceding parable and these verses) are linked together by means of a catchword connection since there may be a wordplay on ben (son) and eben Matthew 21:44 (stone), a wordplay that at least M. Black thinks V. 44 seems to have a parallel in Luke 20:18. There is, however, the possibility may go back to Jesus himself, as he sees these that v. 44 was not an original part of this Gospel two traditions being originally only one tradisince it is omitted by D, 33, Eusebius, and several 32 tion from Jesus. [Christ the Stone] other witnesses. However, the Lukan saying An allusion to the resurrection was found at differs enough that this verse is not likely an insersome point in the Hallel psalm Psalm 118:22tion by a scribe from Luke’s text. 23, as the psalm was interpreted See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek eschatologically. In Matthew the citation in v. New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 42 is a verbatim quoting of the LXX. It is pos1971), 47. sible that in the psalmist’s context the reference is to one of the stones meant for Solomon’s temple, which was rejected in the construction of the sanctuary but became the keystone in the porch arch (in which case we should definitely translate kephal∑n gønias as headstone or keystone) or head of the corner and so a stone that is above, not cornerstone). [Cornerstone] This metaphor makes even more apparent what was implicit in the parable, namely that Jesus was referring to Christ the Stone himself and his audience’s rejection of him. It is The likening of Christ to a stone was a interesting that the scribes or Torah lawyers were popular theme in early Christianity (Acts sometimes called builders, and they may be 4:11; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6-8 cf. Eph 2:20; alluded to here. Notice that the First Evangelist Barnabas 6.2-4; Justin Dial. 36.1). once again uses his favorite introductory phrase,

406

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Cornerstone The word of course literally means the head of the corner, which could be a headstone joining two walls, but more likely means the headstone or keystone, the highest stone in an arch. In any case the use of the term “head” makes it unlikely we should see a reference to some sort of foundation stone here.

Arch with Headstone [Illustration: Barclay Burns]

“have you not read in the Scriptures” (cf. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31). Verse 43, which begins with “on this account,” refers back to the parable itself and the conclusion to it offered by the authorities, not the immediately preceding Scripture quotation. The Dominion will be taken away from these Jewish authorities and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Verse 44 is a riddle and seems to serve as a warning of judgment—the one who stumbles over this stone (i.e., Jesus) will be shattered, as will the person on whom the stone falls. The first half seems to allude to Isaiah 8:14-15 about the stone of stumbling, but the latter half seems to be based on Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45. In either case these are images of judgment and destruction. The latter makes sense with the translation of the Scripture referring to a stone that is overhead and can fall on a person. Jesus is either seen as underfoot or overhead, and in either case like a rock that causes those who reject it to be shattered. Verses 45-46 provide the response of the chief priests and the Pharisees33 to these grim wisdom teachings. They realize Jesus had aimed these sapiential darts at them, and they began to look for a way to arrest him, though they were afraid of the crowd because the people held Jesus to be a prophet. Notice that they did not fear Jesus’ evaluation of himself or the disciples’ evaluation of him, but that of the larger mass of people who at least saw him as some sort of prophet. Notice the official’s fear mentioned in v. 26 as well. The last thing they wanted was a riot during festival time. The Wedding Banquet, 22:1-14

The format of this narrative, like various other parables in this Gospel, is a brief introduction followed by the relating of the parable and then finally (in vv. 13b-14) commentary or explanation. [Allegorical Versions] This parable seems to come from the special Matthean source, but it has a variant in Luke 14:15-24. The

Matthew 21:1–23:39

407

Allegorical Versions wording of these two texts however is very difThe tendency in interpreting parables ferent, and one might argue that vv. 11-14 are like this one and the wise and foolish from M and vv. 1-10 are from an oral version of virgins in Matt 25 is to assume that the allegorical the same material found in Luke 14. The elements in the story are later additions of the parable in its present form is thoroughly Evangelist. This is by no means necessarily the case since early Jewish meshalim often had such Matthean in language and style. Note for elements, as I have shown in Jesus the Sage. It is example that in Luke it deals with the master of thus a mistake simply to assume that the less a house having dinner, but here with a king who allegorical version of our parable in Matt 22 found held a wedding banquet. Since there are various in Luke 14:16-24 is likely to be closer to the origextra-biblical parables about kings in early inal. To the contrary, Luke’s version has been Judaism, it appears that our form of the parable Hellenized and de-allegorized in all likelihood. But see New Docs 9, 66. in Matthew is more likely to be near to the original one Jesus told.34 Of course, it is possible B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994). that Jesus himself did variations on a theme when telling parables. One of the most noticeable differences between the Matthean and Lukan accounts comes when one compares the description here in v. 5 of one going to a field and one to a business to the lengthy description in Luke 14:18-20, and in addition the First Evangelist does not include a third example of refusal. The strictly Matthean conclusion in vv. 11-14 has a close parallel, at least for v. 13 in Matthew 8:12, for we find verbatim the same phrase about the casting “into the outermost darkness; there, there will be weeping and the grinding of teeth.” Notice, too, that Matthew 22:14 is found also in Epistle of Barnabas 4.14, another small clue of the provenance and date of origin of this Gospel. [A Sapiential Reading of 22:1-14] [Epistle of Barnabas] Verse 1 provides us again with a standard introduction as if a new beginning is being made, letting us know that Jesus’ public discourse was in parables. Verse 2 draws the analogy between the situation of a king who has a wedding banquet and the Dominion. We need to continue to bear in mind that the analogy is with the action or situation in the parable rather than primarily with people in the parable. For example, this king is in various ways not like King Jesus or God the Father, in particular in his vengeful response to being snubbed. We have already seen the analogy between the

A Sapiential Reading of 22:1-14 The parable of the wedding banquet is meant to illustrate that while the originally included guests refused to come and the originally excluded people did come, whoever comes to the messianic banquet must come prepared, as represented by the wearing of the proper garment. The life to come cannot be entered save in the proper spiritual condition, and just because one is among the elect people of God does not guarantee one a place at the kingdom table. Election is a corporate concept here, not an individual one.

408

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Epistle of Barnabas The Epistle of Barnabas, an early Christian document, likely dates to the end of the first century AD, as it refers to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, but it also speaks of hopes of its soon being rebuilt, which surely must place it before Hadrian built his pagan city there, and likely before the Bar Kokhba revolt that prompted Hadrian’s action. In other words, it comes from the turn of the New Testament era or shortly thereafter. Its profoundly Jewish character suggests it originated in or close to Galilee or Judea.

eschatological reunion and a wedding banquet in Matthew 9:15, a theme that comes up elsewhere in the New Testament as well (cf. Rev 19:7-9). It needs to be stressed that attendance at a wedding banquet was a major social obligation in Jesus’ culture, far more so than at an ordinary banquet. Even more to the point, as earlier Wisdom literature stresses, when one’s social superior or patron, much less one’s king, invites you to dinner, attendance is certainly not optional (see Sir 13:9-10). So we are talking about bad behavior in this story.35 In essence the invitees are shaming their patron and superior, which is a major faux pas in an honor and shame culture. The king is clearly a Jewish one, and in v. 3 he sends out his servants to invite the “sons of the Dominion,” i.e., the Jewish people. The verb here translated “will not come” is in the imperfect, which suggests a repeated or ongoing unwillingness (see Matt 23:37). The imagery in vv. 4-5 is close to the imagery we find in Wisdom’s call to come to her banquet in Proverbs 9:2-5. The animals have been slaughtered, including bulls, so this is a major feast, and when the invitees do not respond to the first invitation he sends out another set of servants. In light of the parallel with Proverbs 9, I would suggest that these later servants beckoning the Jewish people are John and Jesus, and especially Jesus since he is the one who dined with all sorts of people, even the ne’er-do-wells of Jewish society, and since both he and John spoke of the eschatological events breaking into the present. Unfortunately, those who were invited “paid no attention,” even though the king graciously offered a second invitation.36 In effect, they ignored the joyful reality that was being announced, and they did not recognize the bridegroom, so why should they think it was time to celebrate a wedding? There is an interesting but later Jewish story about a tax collector who has a dinner and invites the town notables, who all refuse to come, and so he turns around and invites the poor to keep the food from going to waste, thus recouping some of his honor (p. Hag. 2:2, no. 5). Verse 6 indicates that while some were guilty of bad manners and boorish behavior, others responded wickedly by seizing the servants

Matthew 21:1–23:39

409

and shaming them, even killing them. Unlike the immediately preceding parable in Matthew, here the response of the protagonist is not left to the hearer’s imagination. Verse 7 brings up the painful memory of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 for the audience of this Gospel. While in my view it is likely that Jesus did predict the demise of the temple,37 it is possible that our Evangelist has amplified what was originally said about the judgment on the wicked and rude responders to the invitation. Soldiers are sent, the murderers are dealt with in kind, and their city is even burned. This may be derived from stock imagery of the sacking of a city; however, it is hard not to hear in this a memory of what actually happened to Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. In light of the parallels in Judith 1:7ff. where we hear of King Nebuchadnezzar having the same response to a refusal of an invitation through servants to join him, we should see this as a stock motif in such Jewish parables and one that Jesus himself may well have used. Verses 8-9 says the king is undeterred by what has happened and so sends his servants to go and gather “passersby,” those who simply are passing through town or the region, and invite them to the dinner. And so the servants gathered both bad and good passersby who were passing through town and heading out into the country. This might allude to Gentiles, but it seems more likely to allude to the fact that Jesus invited the righteous and the unrighteous into the Dominion, and he dined with both groups as he shared the inbreaking of the Dominion (cf. 9:13 and 21:31). The end result is that coming to the dinner table are unlikely guests, including outcasts from Jewish society and perhaps even foreigners, Gentiles. But lest one think there are no entrance requirements for dining at the eschatological banquet, we have vv. 11-12. Though there was an open invitation, it did not mean there were no requirements and protocol to be followed in order to dine—namely one needed a wedding garment. The man queried about the Polloi lack of a wedding garment does not respond The Greek term polloi does mean and is bound hand and foot and cast out into “many”; however, it can be a Semitizing utter darkness. The parable ends with the use of the word, and the parable itself suggests it reminder that while all/many [Polloi] are called, means “all.” only some are chosen. Lest we think this has See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson something to do with predetermination or preReference, 1995), 632. destination, the criteria for exclusion has to do with the person’s own failure to bring and wear a wedding garment, not the king’s failure to give him one! Furthermore, the original group the king chose to dine excluded themselves by refusing to come, and they were judged. Whatever being chosen means here, it

410

Matthew 21:1–23:39

The Tribute Money Titian (Tiziano Vecelli) (1490-1576). The Tribute Money: Christ and the Pharisee “Give unto Caesar...” 1516. (Matthew 22:15-20). Gemäeldegalerie, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, Germany. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-oldauto)]

does not include the notion that people are included in the banquet regardless of how they have behaved and responded to the invitation. The chosenness of the first group was conditional on their response to the king’s invitation (see Ep. Barn 4:14; 2 Esd 8:3, 41; 4 Ezra 8:1; 2 Bar. 44:15). This sort of approach to the idea of election is characteristic of what one finds in early Judaism. The concept of an unconditional election seldom comes into play when one is dealing with individuals. In fact, the term “the elect” simply becomes a cipher for followers of Jesus, as we shall see in Matthew 24:22-31.38 Furthermore, it is quite unconvincing to argue that the wedding garment refers to the resurrection body or anything other than the moral and spiritual and theological prerequisites to entering the Dominion, as is clear from Revelation 19:8, which says, “Fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.”39

Caesar’s Taxes, 22:15-22

The First Evangelist now returns to following Mark’s narrative, and he does so quite closely with only minor alterations in the story about paying taxes to Caesar.40 While the form critics would call this a pronouncement story, from a historical and rhetorical point of view the story needs to be seen as a chreia focusing on a famous saying of Jesus.41 Its proper setting is surely Judea, where such a question would be most pressing since it was there that the Romans imposed the tax in AD 6.42 Here we have seemingly strange bedfellows juxtaposed, the Herodians and the Pharisees. They come to try to entrap Jesus (pagideusøsin). [Pagideusøsin] They hope to trip him up in his words and so find a way to get the people to repudiate him or at least get him in trouble with the authorities. Thus

Matthew 21:1–23:39

411

Pagideusøsin we are meant to see the question asked as a Note the change to a more common malicious one, not a question from a truth word, compared to the Markan account seeker. Verse 16 provides the only mention of where a rare word is used that means literally “to the disciples of the Pharisees in the New snare animals.” See Matt 12:14, where already Testament. Here the inquisitors attempt to Pharisees were plotting in regard to Jesus’ appear as though they are engaging in friendly demise. conversation, when actually they are seeking some kind of incriminating remark by Jesus. Jesus is regularly addressed as Teacher by non-disciples in this Gospel (9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:24, 36), and of course this is one of the major ways Jesus is portrayed in Matthew—as a teacher, but not just any sort of teacher; as a sage who has wisdom, not merely as a scribal exegete who expounds on the law. Remarkably Jesus is said here to be “true” and to “teach the way of God in truth.” This is a clear example of irony because the inquisitors do not believe this, but the Evangelist’s audience clearly knows this is an A Sapiential Reading of 22:15-22 accurate characterization, however rhetorical on Here we have another attempt to stump the lips of these inquirers. [A Sapiential Reading of the sage and entrap him in his own 22:15-22]

The function of the question in v. 17 then is to make Jesus speak the truth, and on the surface it appears to be an apt and tricky question that could indeed entrap Jesus if he gave any one of the stock answers. In fact, the question is daring Jesus to be forthcoming and honest on the basis of his reputation of speaking the truth and of being no respecter of persons [“To not look into a face”], though of course ironically it is actually a correct analysis of Jesus’ character. Notice also the use of the verb “permitted” at v. 17, by which is meant permitted by Mosaic Law to pay the census coin to Caesar. [K∑nson] Were Jesus to give a simple yes answer to the question, he would be seen as a traitor in the eyes of the people, while a negative response would suggest Jesus was a revolutionary who would need to be dealt with for the crime of treason or sedition. In short, the question seemed to put Jesus in a no-win situation, but as we shall see his response is so clever that he springs the trap, for he in fact avoids saying precisely what was owed to Caesar and what to God.

words, but he wriggles free once again with the famous saying “Render unto Caesar. . . .” It is a deliberately ambiguous response because as Jesus has said elsewhere the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, so technically nothing belongs to Caesar by rights. Jesus could be suggesting that we give Caesar back his worthless coins with his image on it, but we, created in God’s image should render ourselves to God. “To not look into a face” The phrase literally is “to not look into a face,” and Gundry suggests this may involve a play on words; namely, Jesus does not look at coins with images of the emperor on them. R. H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 693. K∑nson The word k∑nson here means poll tax, a form of tribute imposed in AD 6 with various reactions by Jews. The Herodians supported it in principle, the Pharisees seem to have resented it and even resisted it but not violently, but the more zealotic Jews would not pay the tax on principle.

412

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Verse 15 says that Jesus saw their “wickedness” or evil intent.43 Thus he responds, “Why do you test me, hypocrites?” That Jesus has to ask for a denarius to be brought to him indicates he does not have one and perhaps would not carry one with him. This fact in itself would likely make a favorable impression on the crowd or common people, for it meant Jesus was not an obvious collaborator with the Roman oppressors. [The Face on the Coin] It is not clear from v. 19 whether the Herodians or Pharisees had the The Face on the Coin coin on them (the former group was more likely To use such a coin, much less to pay the to have carried it without qualms), but if they tax, implied recognition of the claims did, it would show their hypocrisy in asking and authority of the one on the coin. such a question. It may also be the basis on which Jesus suggested to them that in effect, if they were going to use Caesar’s money then they had to pay the price. Presumably we are to think they had already settled the question in their own minds, and so were simply trying to draw Jesus out on the matter. Bear in mind that the emperor controlled the production of gold and silver coins in the empire, and they were indeed officially his property. What makes this discussion especially poignant and pointed is that the required poll tax rendered unto Caesar had sparked the revolt of Judas the Galilean in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.118), and thus Jesus’ pronouncement here and his handling suggests he was not like Judas.44 Jews had to use such coins to pay the tribute, and Jesus does not seem to oppose their doing so. Jesus asks whose eikøn is on the coin and what the inscription says. In Jesus’ day Tiberias was the emperor and the inscription read, “Tiberius Caesar, son of divine Augustus,” implying at least Tiberius’s quasi-divinity. On the obverse side the coin read “pontifex maximus,” indicating that Caesar was the high priest, the highest religious figure in the empire. Tiberias reigned from AD 14–37, and during that reign it was the common understanding that the coins actually belonged to Caesar since he minted them. The denarius was a small silver coin worth about fifteen or so cents. [Image]

On this reading, Jesus is clearly not a revolutionary. Rather he thought the state had certain limited though legitimate claims on its inhabitants to which one must respond obediently and render the required goods or services. Some obligations the state imposed were then seen as not in conflict with one’s obligations to God (cf. Rom 13; 1 Pet 2:13-17). This reading of the text would also suggest that Jesus was opposed to a reestablishment of a theocracy. The problem with this reading of the matter is that when Jesus says “repay unto God the things that are God’s,” he can only be repudi-

Matthew 21:1–23:39

413

ating, at least implicitly, Caesar’s claims to divinity. Divine honors belong to God alone, and God’s claims are higher and prior to that of any earthly ruler. Indeed Jesus does not imply a neat distinction between God and state, for in Matthew 24 he is going to make clear that nations rise and fall under God’s hand, for God is sovereign over all. Furthermore, it would appear that Jesus would certainly have agreed with the psalmist when Denarius he said the earth is the [Illustration: Barclay Burns] Lord’s and the fullness thereof, in which Image case nothing, properly Perhaps there is an alluspeaking, belongs to Caesar! sion to Gen 1:27 in the use of the term “image” (see Hurtado). If this Myers puts it this way: “no Jew is correct, the point of Jesus’ reply would seem could have allowed for a valid analogy between the debt Israel owed to Yahweh and to be that we bear God’s image and owe one sort of loyalty to God, while the coins bear any other human claim.”45 On this reading, Jesus’ Caesar’s image and one owes a different response could be seen as ironic, suggesting in effect degree and sort of loyalty to him (so Augustine, “give Caesar back these worthless pieces of metal he Sermons on New Testament Lessons 43; claims, [Dangers of Money] but know that we are to Tertullian, Idol. 15). render to God all things since God alone is divine L. Hurtado, The Gospel of Mark (New York: and to God belong all things.”46 “Rather than being Harper and Row, 1980), 180-81. a counsel of submission to earthly rulers, it is more likely to be a comment on the relative insignificance of the issue in light of the in-breaking dominion of God.”47 Whether one paid the tribute or not neither hindered nor helped the coming of God and the divine eschatological reign. Finally, the fact that Jesus is willing to handle the coins must count against the view that he was a zealot, for a zealot would not likely even touch the coins since they contained “graven images.” Whatever the precise nuances of Jesus’ response, it could not be construed as seditious. Jesus might even have seen it as a religious duty to hand Dangers of Money Notice the small regard Jesus has for Caesar back his “unrighteous mammon.”48 money elsewhere (in Matt 6:24 and Further to the theme of the immediately preLuke 16:9), or indeed his warnings about the ceding two parables, here Jesus exhorts the dangers of money as an obstacle to entering Jewish inquirers about their own gross neglect God’s Dominion (Mark 10:25; Luke 16:19-31). of duty, in particular in regard to hearing the exclusive and primary call of God to give God absolute allegiance and be prepared to enter the Dominion. It is no wonder that in the Matthean account, even the inquisitors were astounded not merely

414

Matthew 21:1–23:39

by the cleverness of Jesus’ reply but by the authority it assumes to exhort even the leaders of Israel (v. 22). Conjugal Bliss at the Eschaton?, 22:23-33

The story in Matthew 22:23-33 has often been misread to suggest that Jesus expected an eschatological state of affairs that involved the transcending of human sexual differences and the cessation of marriage.49 This however is an unlikely reading of this narrative. It also seems most unlikely that this passage is a church creation in view of both the nature of the discussion (Levirate marriage) and the dialogue partners involved (Sadducees). Sadducees [Sadducees] Furthermore, in early church discusThe Sadducees are mentioned only by sions about resurrection, the focus was not on name in the Markan parallel, and they the state of angels so far as we can tell (see Rom are so mentioned here because the issue touches 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; Phil 3:21). [A Sapiential Reading on a particular belief of theirs, namely that there will be no resurrection (see Acts 23:8 and Josephus, Ant. 18.1.4; J.W. 2.18.14).

of 22:23-33]

The question raised by the Sadducees is a deliberately puzzling one, posed to expose or even ridicule a belief deemed erroneous by the questioners, and it appears they are drawing on a preexisting Jewish tale (see Tobit 3.710). It is based on the requirements of the law listed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (cf. Gen 38:18). Both the question and Jesus’ response (which refers to A Sapiential Reading of 22:23-33 Another controversy dialogue is offered angels, in which, like the resurrection, here where the Sadducees attempt to Sadducees apparently didn’t believe) reflect a sittrap the sage in regard to the issue of resurrecuation in the time and location of Jesus, not tion. In their view, no doctrine that conjured up later or elsewhere. The Matthean account, the possibility of one woman with seven huswhich follows Mark closely, can be divided into bands could be believed. Jesus’ response is that two major parts—the Sadducees’ question (Matt at the resurrection there will be an eternal state of affairs and there will be no more marrying or 22:24-27) and Jesus’ responses first about the giving in marriage nor any need for Levirate marnature of the resurrection state (Matt 22:29-30) riage, which served the specific function of raising as well as about the reality of the resurrection up a seed to keep the family line from dying out. (22:31-32).50 Jesus’ sagaciousness once more astounded the It must first be seen that the question of the crowds who heard and confounded his interlocuSadducees in vv. 23-28 is surely hypothetical. tors, silencing them. This can be surmised not merely because of the large number of brothers and Levirate liaisons referred to but also because Levirate marriage seems to have been largely in disuse in Jesus’ day.51 [Levirate Marriage] The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was

Matthew 21:1–23:39

415

Levirate Marriage The function of Levirate marriage was to “raise up a seed” for the deceased brother who had died without a proper heir, in particular a male heir. Thus the family name and line would be enabled to continue. Once the Levir had performed his duty with the brother’s wife, he was under no obligation to treat her like his own wife. In other words, Levirate marriage was not seen as on a par with real marriage, nor was it seen as resulting in a polygamous situation.

single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact that prompts the question—Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection? The Sadducees’ question is predicated on the assumption that the life to come has significant continuity with this life, at least in regard to the matter of marriage. Apparently it was their view that it was impossible to believe in a notion like resurrection that led to the ridiculous situation of a woman having to choose between seven husbands! Jesus’ response, which begins at v. 29, suggests that the Sadducees are ignorant of both the content of the Hebrew Scriptures and of the power of God. Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms gamousin and gamizontai is important for they refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member (cf. CD 7.6-7).52 Thus the First Evangelist, following Mark, has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological state. This is surely not the same as claiming all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state. [Marriage in Heaven?] Jesus then would seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of Levirate marriage. In the eschatological state after the resurrection, we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Marriage in Heaven? Levirate marriage existed precisely because of See Tertullian, Mon. 10, who specifically the reality of death. When death ceases to denies that God will separate in the next happen, the rationale for Levirate marriage is life those whom he has joined together in a holy gone as well. When Jesus says in v. 30 that union in this one. people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Gen 6:1-4!), but rather they will be like angels in that they are unable to die (see 1 En. 69:11 cf. 15:6-7). [Marriage and Angels] Thus the question of the

416

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Marriage and Angels There is, interestingly, evidence that some early Jews believed angels didn’t marry—see 1 En. 15:7. There was furthermore the belief that the dead became angels after the resurrection (cf. 1 En. 51:4; 104:4; Bar 51:9-10). On the discontinuity of this world and the world to come (including the assertion that there will be no begetting), see b. Ber. 17a.

Sadducees is inappropriate to the conditions of the eschatological state. I would suggest that Jesus, like other early Jews, likely distinguished between normal marriage and Levirate marriage. In Matthew 19 we have seen that Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with Levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line). Thus, Jesus is intending to deny about the eschatological state “that there will be any natural relation out of which the difficulty of the Sadducees could arise.”53 The argument, however, continues with Jesus supporting the reality of resurrection in vv. 31-32. Jesus’ argument that the patriarchs are still alive, based on the use of the phrase “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” is a fairly common example of the way early Jews would press the literal sense or what seemed to be a fundamental underlying assumption behind such a phrase. The belief that the patriarchs were still alive is also found in texts like 4 Maccabees 7:19 and 16:25. Jesus does not cite a late Jewish text about the resurrection of the patriarchs, but rather focuses on a text from the Pentateuch the Sadducees would accept as Holy Writ. [Sadducees and the Resurrection] The point is that the text seems to imply the patriarchs were still alive, and more to the point implies something about God who is the God of the living. The biblical God had made promises to these patriarchs, and since Sadducees and the Resurrection they had not all yet been fulfilled, it must be Schweizer writes, “The Sadducees were the priestly party, i.e., the Jewish arisassumed they are still alive. “It is absurd to assert tocracy. The only authority which they recognized that God pledges himself to a dead person unless was the ‘Law,’ i.e., the first five books of Moses. this implies that the person is raised to life.”54 Therefore they did not consider the doctrine of the Underlying the entire discussion is a profound resurrection to be scriptural since it does not belief in the power of God and God’s ability appear until Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2. . . .” even to overcome death or summon the dead E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark back to life. Jesus in essence accuses the (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 246. Sadducees not only of bad exegesis, but of a failure of nerve, a failure to believe in a God whose yes to life is louder than death’s no and whose power is great enough to create something out of nothing. Indeed, as we shall see,

Matthew 21:1–23:39

power is so much a characteristic of God that the word is used instead of the divine name in Matthew 26:64 (drawing on Ps 110:1). Jesus’ refutation of the Sadducees reflects his strong feelings about resurrection and about the power and faithfulness of God to his people. Finally, we have in this story one more piece of evidence, though oblique in this case, that Jesus did not approve of patriarchal systems that left women bereft of social security or treated them merely as commodities or vehicles to fulfill men’s desires for the propagation of their names.55 The Sadducees believed in resurrection of a sort—raising up an heir for a brother. Jesus believed in a very different and more powerful sort of immortality—raising up the dead.56 The Great Commandment, 22:34-40

This text provides us with another controversy narrative where Jesus is again tested, this time by a Pharisee. While in Mark there is no air of hostility involved in this story, but rather someone who is a genuine seeker of knowledge who admires Jesus’ responses under pressure to the Sadducees and others and who responds well and wisely to Jesus’ teaching, this is not at all clear in Matthew in view of the editing of the Markan material. For example, all of Mark 12:32-34 is omitted, including the happy concluding remark that the inquirer is not far from the Dominion of God. This does not fit with the Matthean crescendo of hostility in these chapters as we press on toward Golgotha.57 More surprising, however, is the omission of the opening words of the Shema, clearly found in Mark: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Our author also omits the phrase “and with the whole of your strength” (Mark 12:30) instead of “with the whole of your mind” in view of the fact that the latter is found only in the LXX while the former is in the Hebrew text (cf. Deut 6:5). Verse 34 in our account is a Matthean addition suggesting that the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were no friends, took turns testing Jesus. Most importantly, the First Evangelist appends v. 40: “On these two commandments hang the whole of the Law and the Prophets.” This then is an important remark in understanding the Evangelist’s view of Jesus’ view of Torah.58 [A Sapiential Reading of 22:34-40] There was in early Judaism a great deal of dispute about how to rank the 613 commandments (248 positive commands, 365 prohibitions) in the Hebrew Scriptures in terms of importance, and even more debate as to which one was the most crucial or paramount of

417

418

Matthew 21:1–23:39 A Sapiential Reading of 22:34-40 Jesus’ hermeneutic is unveiled here. The entire Law hinges on its central commands to love God and neighbor. God is to be loved whole-heartedly, which is the greatest commandment. But this is impossible without the aid of God, hence the word of Augustine: “give what you command, Lord, and then command whatever you will.” Once again Jesus as the incarnate expression of the mind of God knows exactly what is the heart of the matter and how God sees things.

these commandments, which then could be used as a hermeneutical tool to interpret the rest. Thus the question the Pharisaic scribe raises in v. 36 is not a merely hypothetical one (unlike the question raised by the Sadducees), but an inquiry about the “first” commandment. [Scribes] Jesus responds with the latter portion of the Shema (Deut 6:4-5), which is perhaps as close as one can get to a Jewish confession of faith.59 It was the morning prayer for every good Jew from at least the second century BC. Note too that Jesus combines Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 (the latter here cited in verbatim agreement with the LXX), Scribes Here we have evidence that the First which combination also had precedent in early Evangelist, like Mark, knew there were Jewish circles.60 Notice that at v. 37 we have the scribes who were also Pharisees, but not all addition of the phrase “and with the mind,” Pharisees were scribes or experts in the Law. which is not in the Hebrew original. It is interesting that v. 38 says Deuteronomy 6:5 is both the first and the greatest commandment, and yet v. 40 will go on to stress that all the Law and Prophets hang on both the Shema and Leviticus 19:18. It is possible that this latter remark means the imperatives of the Law and the Prophets can’t be fulfilled apart from these two commandments.61 Notice the converse of this comment in Matthew 7:12 as applied to the Golden Rule. It appears more likely to me that we are on the right track in interpreting these hermeneutical remarks about what is of most importance in the Law and what is the hinge or fulcrum of the Law if we note that Philo, in Decalogue 19-20, 50-51, 106-10, 121, 154, indicates that the Decalogue is a summary of the Law and that the commandments to love God and love neighbor are a summary of the Decalogue. There is no discussion of fulfillment here; the discussion is about the first, the greatest, and what the Law and the Prophets hang on. Nor is this a discussion with disciples; rather, it is a discussion with other Jews. Here it seems Jesus is trying to help his audience see what is most important, and having realized what is most important, one should interpret the rest of the Law and the Prophets in a manner consistent with these “first” and “second” imperatives. In a sense the discussion is like the Corban discussion62 in that Jesus is trying to

Matthew 21:1–23:39

419

stress that a certain kind of use of the Law and Prophets has led to a violation of the most fundamental commandments. Jesus is not saying that the Shema and Leviticus 19:18 are the only commandments; he is trying to assert a hierarchy of values and ethical responsibilities. Other lesser commandments hang on these two and should be interpreted and applied in ways that are consonant with these fundamental obligations. It is notable that Leviticus 19:18 is quoted more than any other Old Testament text in this Gospel (cf. 5:43; 19:19; 22:39). This cannot be an accident. There is, perhaps, a problem in the Matthean community with love of one’s neighbors, both non-Christian Jews and Martyr’s Death Compare the story about R. Akiba who perhaps also one’s fellow Christians. Jesus’ statedied a martyr’s death in AD 135 while ments about the Law should be compared to reciting the Shema and stated “To love your that of Hillel’s summary (40 BC–AD 10): “what neighbor as yourself . . . this is a great general you yourself hate, do not do to your neighbor” principle of the Law.” See Sipra 89b. (B.T. Sab. 31a). [Martyr’s Death] This is clearly saying a good deal more and is more positive than this maxim.63 In the Matthean form of the story, matters end abruptly with v. 40 and with no final response by the Pharisaic scribe (cf. Mark 12:34). David’s Son or David’s Lord, 22:41-46

The discussion with the Pharisees continues with v. 41, only here the tables are turned with Jesus asking them a question. Jesus poses a riddle in vv. 43-46, going on the offensive so to speak. This pericope reminds us once more of the biographical focus of this Gospel,64 and thus of the great importance to our Evangelist to answer in various ways the question of who Jesus was. Notice that here, as in Matthew 16:13, Jesus takes the initiative when it comes to the issue of his own identity. Jesus comes closer to revealing his identity in public here than in any of the earlier chapters of Matthew, and it is not incidental that he does so in the temple (see 21:12), which is to say in the place where people come to encounter their God and his truth and redemption. In the Matthean account we have direct address to an immediate audience of theologically astute listeners, not just comments made to a crowd. The result is that vv. 42-43 in Matthew are not found in this form in Mark. Verse 46 is borrowed from Mark 12:34b, which was originally the ending to the story about the great commandment question. [A Sapiential Reading of 22:41-46] To be specific Jesus asks, “What do you think about the messiah? Whose son is he?” Their reply is direct: “The son of David.” As we have had multiple occasions to note in this commentary, one could

420

Matthew 21:1–23:39 A Sapiential Reading of 22:41-46 Here we have Jesus prompting a discussion about David’s son and David’s Lord, with the suggestion that it is more important that one be David’s Lord, which of course only God is according to Ps 110:1, which is quoted. Jesus is implicitly claiming to be not only David’s son, but also someone even greater—David’s Lord.

make several things of that phrase—did for instance it mean he would be like David, or would he be like the kingly son of David, namely Solomon?65 But, says Jesus, on the face of it this seems to Messianism contradict Psalm 110:1 messianically underIt is possible though not certain that stood. [Messianism] The precise phrase “Son of Jesus introduces for the first time the David” is apparently not attested before Psalms notion of understanding Psalm 110:1 messianiof Solomon 17:23, but there is evidence from cally. Against this conclusion is the fact that we may trace the beginnings of messianism back to Qumran (4 QFlor. 1.11-13) where the promise 2 Sam 7 and 22, which is to say it is traced back to David (see 2 Sam 7) is interpreted in light of to David and his progeny. The author of Ps 118 Amos 9:11 (cf. CD 7.16; b. Sanh. 96b).66 Verse may have been looking forward to the ideal 43 is interesting for it indicates Jesus’ clear belief Davidic king and called him adonai (not Yahweh), in the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures, as seeing him as being given the seat of executive well as in the Davidic authorship of this psalm, power as God’s right-hand man. It is not plausible to suggest that Ps 110 dates from the like various other early Jews (see 4 Ez. 14:22). Maccabean period not least because it is found in Possibly the reference to the Spirit in this early Psalter collections such as the one at fashion suggests that the psalm is to be underQumran. We have independent evidence in Matt stood eschatologically, prompted by the insight 26:64/Mark 14:62 that Jesus used this psalm given by the eschatological Spirit.67 The person messianically. in question is given the place of honor and power next to God, and the image of enemies being put under his feet is the image of the victor placing his foot on the neck of the conquered,68 a not uncommon ancient Near Eastern gesture to indicate total domination on the one hand and total capitulation and submission on the other. It suggests an absolute power of life or death over the one in the prone position. This tradition of citing Psalm 110 messianically and eschatologically is also found in 11QMelch. The sapiential riddle is offered up in v. 45.69 How can David’s Lord be David’s son? Is Jesus here repudiating the Davidic origins of messiah, as some have suggested? This seems unlikely since elsewhere he doesn’t repudiate the title Son of David; indeed it is repeatedly affirmed in this Gospel even by Jesus, albeit indirectly.70 Jesus may well have repudiated certain popular early Jewish notions about the Davidic messiah, for instance that he would simply be a normal, though God-empowered human being like David himself. It is best to say that Jesus is repudiating the adequacy, not the accuracy, of assessing the Messiah by means of his Davidic descent. The

Matthew 21:1–23:39

point is that in Jesus’ view the Messiah is more than, not other than, Son of David. In this Gospel this amounts to saying Jesus is both sage and healer like Solomon, but also greater than Solomon, being Wisdom come in the flesh to earth. Notice that Jesus only raises, he does not answer, this question. The implication however seems to be that the scribes’ notion of messiah is far too mundane. He is a much greater figure than the original David, not merely a chip off the old block. Indeed, he is a transcendent figure, exercising lordship over even David.71 We must, indeed, conjure with the likelihood that the Matthean Jesus might be alluding to the fact that he himself was supernatural in dignity and origins and destiny. The focus, however, is on the character rather than the identity of the Messiah in this pericope.72 One may ask however whether the complete citation is not of some relevance to Jesus’ situation, in which case the motif of combat and victory may allude to Jesus’ verbal victories over his scribal foes.73 The Matthean story ends with the remark in v. 46 that no one was able to come up with any rebuttals and from that day on Jesus was not tested with questions. “Being over-awed by a wise speaker’s wisdom was a common motif in narratives meant to glorify their protagonists (e.g., 1 Esd 4:41-42).”74 Woe Is You, 23:1-39

There has been no end of debate about what one is to make of Matthew 23, not only because it has been difficult to figure out whether it should be seen as part of the final Matthean discourse that follows in Matthew 24–25,75 but also because its almost exclusively negative tone and tenor sets it apart from all the other discourses in this Gospel, as does its apparent focus on just one narrow target audience beginning with v. 13 and continuing through the rest of the chapter. I am of the opinion that Matthew 24:1 signals the end of this polemic against the Pharisees and their scribes, and it is followed by the eschatological discourse in Matthew 24–25, which is directed to a different audience in a different venue, namely the disciples.76 Since our author is not much concerned to portray Jesus as a figure like Moses, there is no need to force Matthew 23 into the Procrustean bed of the five-discourse model. Jesus is portrayed as greater than Moses, Solomon, and a variety of other figures in this Gospel, and his offering six rather than five discourses is one more piece of evidence supporting this conclusion.77 [A Sapiential Reading of 23:1-39]

421

422

Matthew 21:1–23:39

A Sapiential Reading of 23:1-39 This discourse is given in the temple, and Jesus offers the divine wisdom. Notice that teachers and rabbis are especially castigated at the outset of this material, and Jesus’ disciples are commanded not to accept the title rabbi, father, or teacher, for there is only one final and authoritative teacher—not Moses or Solomon, but the Christ (v. 10)—thus his followers must always remain learners. Those who exalt themselves will be humbled and vice versa. Jesus repeatedly condemns play-acting—that is what the word we translate “hypocrite” actually means. The dichotomy between appearance and reality and word and deed draws his most profound criticism. Notice how in v. 34 Jesus as God’s presence on earth is said to be sending prophets, sages, and teachers to Israel but they are rejected

and in some cases executed. One must choose between two sorts of teachers. Vv. 37-39 portray Jesus as Wisdom, like a mother bird gathering her chicks. Matt 17:2 has prepared for this conclusion of the discourse. Jesus promises to leave the house desolate, because if he leaves, the presence of God has been removed from their midst. While Solomon did build a house for God, Jesus is the presence that must fill that house or else it is left desolate. Henceforth the presence of God is to be found in the midst of the community of Jesus’ followers (28:20). In Matt 21–23 Matthew has masterfully tied together his chief ideas about Jesus: Solomon’s greater son is not merely son of David, he is David’s Lord, the very presence of God in his temple, and like Wisdom in Sir 24:8-12.

As for the sources of this discourse it appears once again that the First Evangelist has assembled material from various sources and placed it here because of the thematic connections dealing with Pharisees and scribes and their flaws. Much of this material shows up in different settings in Luke 11:46-52 and 20:43-47 and in Mark 12:37-40.78 In regard to this discourse, one may say that it is a tour de force sampler of four different forms of sapiential expression—(1) exhortation (vv. 2-12); (2) woes (vv. 13-33); (3) sapiential commissioning and prophecy (vv. 34-36); (4) a lament (vv. 37-39). In terms of subject matter, once we get to the real woes, vv. 14-22 deal with the teaching of the scribes, while vv. 23-28 deal with the life of the Pharisees, and vv. 29-32 seem to be directed against the nation as a whole. Each woe begins with the stereotypical formula—“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites because. . . .” While the word ouai could mean as little as “alas,” here in a denunciation it must surely mean “woe” or “cursed” (cf. the series of woes in Isa 5:8-23; Hab 2:6-19). It needs to be stressed that this condemnation of Pharisees who are hypocrites is a criticism of the worst exponents of Pharisaism, not all its exponents. Indeed, in Matthew 23:2-3 the Pharisaic quest for righteousness is deemed laudable.79 In a famous passage in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sotah 22b; see also y. Ber. 9:5) we also find a condemnation of six types of hypocritical Pharisees. The issue there as here is the failure to practice what one preaches, and in both cases we are dealing with Jews criticizing their own. It is right to assume that many Pharisees were and would be dismayed with hypocrisy within their own ranks. Matthew 23, however, once it was taken out of the context of an in-house heated debate and

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Self-identity In terms of the function of this polemic within the Matthean community, Stanton says it is to help establish a sense of self-identity over against the Pharisaic and synagogal wisdom movement. He puts it this way: “Matthew’s anti-Jewish polemic should be seen as part of the self-definition of the Christian minority which is acutely aware of the rejection and hostility of its ‘mother’ Judaism”

423

(157). For a minority struggling to gain its voice and firm up its boundaries, it is as important to indicate what movement it is not a part of in early Judaism as well as what movement it is a part of. The Jesus movement therefore is set over against at least some of the Pharisaic movement here. G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 1992), 156-57.

critique, became a ready tool for anti-Semitism, both inside and outside the church. [Self-identity] Yet in its original context this critique is similar to the polemics of various Old Testament prophets who were challenging their own people, and Textual Issues particularly their religious leaders. This material In v. 4 some manuscripts add “and hard then must be examined and handled carefully. to bear,” which intensifies the reading [Textual Issues]

Verses 1-3a in fact set the stage for what follows in this discourse. We are told that this discourse is addressed to the crowds, which apparently include Pharisees and their scribes (see vv. 13ff.) and to the disciples. This then is a multi-audience discourse. The Pharisees will be critiqued, but the crowds and disciples are to hear or overhear the discourse. What this suggests is that we are talking about a public shaming of the Pharisees. This may suggest that our own Evangelist and his audience were living in close proximity not merely to a synagogue, but in a thoroughly Jewish environment where the Pharisaic movement was the dominant cultural force in the religious life of the region. [The Pharisaic Movement]

but is a phrase absent in our earliest and best manuscripts. Furthermore, the whole of v. 14 may well be added on the basis of Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47, but they are absent in our earliest and best Alexandrian manuscripts. See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 49-50.

The Pharisaic Movement We know that after AD 70, Pharisaism was in the ascendancy, and we also know that they made various places in Galilee centers for Pharisaic learning, including in the region of Capernaum and Tiberias by the Sea of Galilee. This might account for the inclusion of the material in this Gospel. The Jesus movement and the Pharisaic movement were continuing to be at odds with each other in Galilee long after Jesus’ day.

Verse 2 informs us that the Pharisees and their theologians sit on Moses’ seat. This at a minimum means they had assumed the role as the authoritative interpreters of the Mosaic law (M. Aboth 1.1). It is possible that a literal seat in the synagogue is being referred to since we have evidence from synagogues in the region, particularly at Chorazin, of isolated stone seats for authority figures such as the synagogue elder or president.80 Sitting was the authoritative posture of a teacher, and on various occasions others were expected to stand while he taught. There may be an allusion to Exodus 8:13 where Moses sits down to judge the people. [“Sit in the Seat of X”] Thus Jesus instructs both the Jewish crowds and his own disciples to listen to the teaching of the Pharisees. The audi-

424

Matthew 21:1–23:39 “Sit in the Seat of X” The phrase “sit in the seat of X” also can mean be the successor or replacement of the person mentioned, and perhaps there is a hint of that here. Perhaps what is meant is that Jesus is endorsing their teaching in so far as it says what Moses’ teaching said. This would not imply an endorsement of all their halakah and oral traditions of other sorts. One must remember in any case the regular use of “all” as dramatic hyperbole in sapiential exhortations and discourses, as here.

ence is in fact told to obey everything they tell you. Since crowds are mentioned first in v. 1, this remark may be primarily addressed to them. Jesus’ main complaint was not what the Pharisees taught but in regard to how they practiced their faith. The warning in v. 3 is “but do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Verse 4 is important on several counts, not the least of which is that this saying is a direct contrast to the Wisdom saying Jesus spoke about himself offering light burdens and an easy yoke (Matt 11:28-29).81 It would appear that this is a complaint about Pharisaic halakah, but is it just because their teaching based on the oral tradition is so demanding? No, Jesus is suggesting that they are being too strict on others while being too lenient on their own failings (cf. 5:18-20; 15:1-20). “The Pharisees found ways to circumvent direct teachings of Torah when necessary.”82 In fact, they had built up an elaborate fence around Torah in order to aid Jews in obeying Torah and protect the Torah from misuse and misinterpretation. Ironically, however, this expansion of rules and regulations, which were solemnized as if they too were the very word of God and so were often strictly enforced, not only made the observance of the Law more burdensome, it often took the focus off of the main thrusts of the Law in regard to love and justice and other crucial matters (see 22:38-40).83 The expansion of the Law through oral tradition surely must have also frustrated many ordinary Jews and led them to despair of being observant Jews in regard to keeping the Torah itself, because they did not think all the Levitical laws previously applied to priests could or should really be observed by those not living a priestly lifestyle in a priestly setting. Lastly, having a rule for every occasion took away from a person the individual ability to develop the moral reasoning necessary to be able to make their own mature decisions in ambiguous situations or situations where they could not consult a scribe or a Pharisee. The net effect of the Pharisaic approach was to make the people dependent on them for understanding and living out God’s word.

Matthew 21:1–23:39

The culture in which Jesus lived was an honor and shame culture, and the establishment of public honor was incumbent on the male members of the family. We might call this showing off, but in that culture it was seen as a necessary part of establishing the honor of one’s own family name. It was easy then to fall into the trap of doing some religious things like praying in public just so others would notice and your religious honor rating would go up. This is precisely what Jesus is complaining about in v. 5, suggesting that the modus operandi of the Pharisees is that everything they do is done to be seen by other people—whether it is the way they

[Illustration: Barclay Burns]

Phylacteries Phylacteries were small boxes, often made of leather, that contained passages of Scripture and were strapped to foreheads or forearms, thereby allowing one to obey literally Deut 6:8; 11:18 and Exod 13:9. The tassels each had a cord of blue attached to them and were supposed to be affixed to each of the four corners of a garment as a reminder to obey God’s commandments (cf. Num 15:37-39; Deut 22:12). Jesus himself wore the tassels (9:20; 14:36) signaling his intent to obey the Law.

425

426

Matthew 21:1–23:39

dress, making their phylacteries wide and tassels long, or where they sit, taking the seats of honor at banquets and in synagogues (cf. Jas 2:1-4), or the way they allow themselves to be greeted in public as “rabbi” (cf. 6:1, 5, 16). [Phylacteries] The issue here is not just that those criticized loved the praise of others,84 but that they got caught up in the honor challenge cycle of trying to establish their own honor and that of their family in public, competing with others for such honor. Thereby the desire to please and obey God and honor God’s name ceases to be first priority, and one rather becomes preoccupied with establishing one’s own name. At vv. 8-12 Jesus turns to his own disciples to tell them how by contrast they are to behave, compared to the behavior of the Pharisees. They are not to allow themselves to be called rabbi, which is especially striking because in 13:52 they have been exhorted to become sages and scribes trained for the Dominion. The idea here is that while they should become experts in God’s word, they should not use that to gain face or to further or encourage their own public recognition. But there are two other reasons as well—there is only one master tutor, Jesus, and everyone else in Jesus’ following is in parity positions as a brother or sister. There should be no jockeying for position or seeking to exalt oneself over one’s fellow disciples.85 Verse 9 says the term of respect “father” should not be used of anyone on earth (cf. Acts 7:2; 22:1; Gal 1:14 Katheg∑t∑s and of course the use of the term “father” of the B. W. Winter shows that the term in P patriarchs), only of the heavenly Father. Nor are Oxy 2190, which dates to the last third they to allow themselves to be called “tutor” of the first century A.D. indicates the more specific meaning tutor, rather than just teacher. (kath∑g∑tes, only here in all of biblical literature including the New Testament), [Kath∑g∑tes] as B. W. Winter, “The Messiah as Tutor: The Meaning of katheg∑t∑s in Matt 23.10,” Tyn. Bul 42 there is only one real private instructor who (1991): 151-57. gives instruction outside the context of a formal school. The idea here is that God and Christ are to be honored by using such names as Father or Tutor/Master/Rabbi, whereas human beings, if they have such names, will use them to set up a pecking order or stratification amongst the followers of Jesus, and this is not a good thing. It is also implied that only God and Jesus are to be honored as real authority figures in the community. Jesus’ community is supposed to be led by servant leaders, who are busy humbling themselves, not seeking to establish their own honor, and if they do exalt themselves, God will humble them at some juncture not specified here. Notice that we seem to be having a discussion about what might be

Matthew 21:1–23:39

called a new form of the Shema—“There is one Father, God, and there is one Tutor/Master/Rabbi, Jesus.”86 Verse 11 has a close parallel in Matthew 26:26-27 reminding that the greatest of Jesus’ disciples will be a servant, and v. 12 reminds that those who seek the path of self-exaltation and personal honor will be humbled. Eschatological reversal seems to be promised here, and it should be noticed that this theme is prominent in earlier Wisdom literature (Prov 29:23; Job 22:29). b. Erub 13b also suggests that those who exalt themselves will be humbled by God, and whoever humbles himself God will exalt. The woe oracles that begin at v. 13 and continue through v. 33 are clearly enough directed not to the crowds in general or the disciples, but rather to the Pharisees and scribes or teachers of the Law in particular. There is a specific structure to these woes. For one thing there are seven of them, a complete set according to Hebrew symbolic use of numbers, suggesting those whom Jesus is criticizing are completely corrupt (cf. Matt 13 where we have seven parables). The first two woes (vv. 13-15) illustrate or further articulate v. 4, while vv. 25-28 relate to vv. 5-7. The final woe in vv. 31-33 provides a pungent and potent climax to the seven, accusing the scribes and Pharisees as being the successors to those who murdered the prophets. It is not accidental that these woes are positioned where they are, just prior to the eschatological discourse where judgment is announced for Jerusalem and its supporters.87 This material comes from Q88 and from special M. Ultimately, however, this form of material is to be found in prophetic and apocalyptic material (1 En. 94:6–95:7 lists seven woes; 1 Sam 4:78; Isa 5:8-22 list six woes; Hab 2:6-20 and 1 En. 96:4-8; 99:11-16 list five; 1 En. 100:7-9 lists three; 1QS 2.5-9 lists two cf. Rev 8:13–9:21).89 Jesus is presented once more in this section of the Gospel as a prophetic or apocalyptic sage, someone who stands at the confluence of the sapiential, prophetic, and apocalyptic traditions and draws on all of them. [Comparison Chart] Most commentators have noted the contrast between the beatitudes at the beginnings of Jesus’ public teaching (Matt 5) and the woes here at the end of his public teaching, which is apt since in the Sermon on the Mount some of the same subjects came up as we find here. What has not so often been noted is that oath curses or woes often came at the end of a treaty or covenant document as sanctions to prevent disobedience to the treaty/covenant. Perhaps these woes, in Jesus’ setting, should be seen as similar warnings, hoping to produce repentance. But at the end of the first century AD these look like anathemas, and they have the rhetorical function

427

428

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Comparison Chart D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies present us with the following helpful chart: Matthew 23 V. 13, key (woe 1) V. 15, proselytes (woe 2) Vv.16-22, oaths (woe 3) Vv. 23-24, tithes (woe 4) Vv. 25-26, cup (woe 5) Vv. 27-28, tombs (woe 6) Vv. 29-33, murder (woe 7)

Luke 11 V. 42, tithes (woe 1) V. 43, seats and greetings (woe 2, cf. Matt 23.6-7) V.44, tombs (woe 3) V. 46, burdens (woe 4, see Matt 23.4) Vv. 47-48, murder (woe 5) V. 52, key (woe 6)

D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 283. I have modified the chart a bit.

of warning the audience of Matthew to stay away from such teachers. Put another way, they have the function of being boundary-defining utterances, giving the Evangelist’s audience a clear sense of who they are and how they should practice their religion over against these Pharisees and scribes. Note that these in Matthew 23 are neither the first nor the only Woe woes in Matthew (cf. 11:21; 18:7; 24:19; There is a form of the v. 13 woe in 26:24). They are however a distinct set of woes. Gospel of Thomas saying 39. It is The first woe in v. 13 is a sort of heading for however misleading to suggest that it supports all that follows, summing up the essence of the the primitiveness of the Lukan form of the saying, critique—the Pharisees are misleaders rather which speaks of a key of knowledge, for two good reasons: (1) Thomas is probably dependent on than leaders who neither enter the Dominion Luke, not an independent witness to the saying; nor open the door so others may go in. In fact (2) knowledge was of course a major topic in they shut the door so others do not enter.90 This Gnostic literature, even as early as the Gospel of is the opposite of what Peter and the disciples Thomas. would and should do (see Matt 16:18-19). The Pharisees then are held responsible for being deceptive and for being bad shepherds who not only do not lead the sheep into the Dominion, but in fact prevent them from entering it. [Woe] In short, they are being accused of preventing some people from having everlasting life. There has been an unending debate about v. 15 with some scholars denying altogether that Pharisees proselytized.91 It is possible that this saying here refers to Pharisees trying to recruit and convert Jews to their own halakic traditions, rather than to the conversion of Gentiles. [Jewish Proselytism] It is hard to imagine our author including this saying in his Gospel if he did not at least believe such things were happening in his and his audience’s milieu and time.

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Jewish Proselytism While there may not have been any systematic recruiting of Gentiles by Pharisees, it is hard to doubt that some would have realized that they needed allies in the Gentile world, and as Josephus says of the Jews in Antioch, they “were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves” (J.W. 7.45). Jesus here is accusing Pharisees of more than simply welcoming proselytes; he is suggesting they recruit them, whether the reference is to non-Pharisaic Jews or Gentiles. One possible inducement to conversion was that a person could start his life over again, even divorce his pagan wife if she did not also convert. But the social stigma that circumcision carried seems to have been too great for most Gentiles to convert, especially if they wanted to continue to go to the public baths. In fact, there is good evidence of various Jewish people seeking Gentile converts in the course of their other work (cf. b. Sanh. 99b; notice how in b. Sabb. 31a and perhaps in m. Abot 1:12 Hillel is associated with proselytizing). For example in the apologetical works of 1st-century Jews (see Josephus, Ant. 20.17, 34-36 and Ag. Ap. 2.210) there were efforts in this direction, and clearly enough the Graeco-Roman criticism of such conversions of Gentiles indicates there was recruitment perhaps especially in the Diaspora (see Tacitus; Hist. 5.5; Dio Cassius R.H. 57.18.5; 60.6.7; Horace, Sat. 1.4.141-44). Thus categorical remarks about Pharisees not recruiting Jews or Gentiles to their persuasion are surely wrong, though there is no good historical evidence of a concerted systematic centrally organized effort to bring about conversions of non-Pharisees. See J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1997), 155.

Verses 16-22 present us with a woe on “blind guides” who make rules about swearing by various aspects of the temple precincts. Lest we think Jesus is referring to someone other than the Pharisees here, he has already used this phrase of them specifically in Matthew 15:14 (cf. 23:24). Here we find real casuistry—one is allowed to swear in the name of the temple without it being a binding oath, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, then one is bound to keep one’s oath. Or again anyone who swears by the altar is not bound to keep the oath, but if he swears by the gift on the altar, that person is bound to fulfill their oath. In both cases, Jesus suggests that the temple and the altar are greater than the things in or on them, making such things sacred, and therefore the Pharisees had their priorities misplaced in terms of which was more important. Jesus suggests such distinctions are misplaced, not least because anyone swearing by the altar is also swearing by whatever is on the altar, and furthermore, a person who swears by the temple swears by the God who dwells in it, just as anyone who swears by heaven is actually swearing by God’s throne and by God who sits on it. Jesus is referring here to the practice of using circumlocutions to avoid taking God’s name in vain or swearing in God’s name. Jesus’ main point then is that any such oath is binding without the exceptions Pharisees sought to enumerate (see m. Ned. 1:1).92 Apparently

429

430

Matthew 21:1–23:39

Valid Oaths D. E. Garland has offered the insight that the opponents here regarded as valid only oaths employing the divine name, divine attributes, or the word korban: “This explains why in our passage . . . the gold of the Temple and the gift of the altar could be considered valid as part of an oath formula because the people were in the habit of dedicating things to the Temple with the word korban . . . it can therefore be inferred that in vv. 16 and 18 the Temple gold and the altar gift were binding as part of an oath because they were connected with the term korban, while the Temple and the altar, though holy objects, were illegitimate substitutions in an oath formula.” In any case, it would appear we have contrasted here two different views of what sort of holiness really matters.

they had also allowed non-binding oaths using the phrase the throne of God. Notice that Jesus is here arguing on the basis of the Pharisees’ own assumptions as to what was valid and legal. Jesus himself has already said to his own disciples that oaths are totally unnecessary (see 5:34-37). [Valid Oaths]

Notice that Jesus does not dispute that ritual holiness could be transferred to objects on the altar, for example. Indeed, he says the great thing (temple or altar) sanctifies the lesser thing. His prime concern however is with moral sanctification or holiness. The fourth woe found in v. 23 has to do with tithing one’s crops, which is of course mandated in the Law (Lev 27:30; Deut 14:22-23), but the D. E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 crops we are dealing with here are not the major (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 135. ones (grain, olives, grapes) but the minor spice or herb crops (mint, dill, cumin). The Old Testament law was about tithing the things that come forth from the earth, and grain, wine, and oil are specified in Deuteronomy.93 Here is another example of how the Pharisees would take an Old Testament commandment and globalize its application, even to minor herbs and spices, when the Law only required tithing of T∑n Pistin grain, the fruit of the trees, and the “seed” of the While t∑n pistin could refer to “the faithfulness,” the definite article is odd if that land. Notice that m. Sanh. 9:1 exempts certain is what is meant here, though if there is an alluherbs from tithing requirements. sion to Hab 2:4 “faithfulness” may be the proper Jesus does not in fact object to the tithing of translation. However, nowhere else in this Gospel the herbs and spices in itself. What he objects to does the term pistis mean anything other than is the hypocrisy of doing this when one is “faith.” neglecting the far weightier matters of doing justice, practicing acts of mercy, and upholding “the faith.” [T∑n Pistin] These fundamental Jewish virtues are of course frequently mentioned and commanded in the Old Testament (Isa 1:17; Jer 22:3; Hos 6:6; Zech 7:9-10; Mic 6:8). It needs to be born in mind that this sanctioning of tithing is for Pharisees and perhaps for our Evangelist’s Jewish Christian audience. It should not be seen as a blanket requirement of tithing for all followers of Jesus, including those not observing or choosing to be under the Mosaic covenant. It would appear from the widow’s mite story in Mark 12:41-44 that Jesus urged his disciples to practice sacrificial giving, not merely tithing. Verse 24 complains that the Pharisees are straining a gnat out of their drinking cup with a strainer (following Lev

Matthew 21:1–23:39

431

Killing on the Sabbath 11:23) but swallowing a camel. This aphorism y. Sabb.107 offers an interesting and involves a word play between the Aramaic word somewhat related remark, “he that kills for gnat (qalma) and the Aramaic word for a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as he who kills a camel (gamla). The point is that they are camel.” dwelling on minutiae and neglecting the more important aspects of the Law. Even more crucial, both gnats and camels were considered unclean, so Jesus is suggesting that the Pharisees are swallowing whole major violations of the Law while being scrupulous about minor details.94 [Killing on the Sabbath] The division of the Law into weightier and lighter matters is a common hermeneutic that does not distinguish Jesus from some other early Jewish teachers.95 Like various Old Testament prophets, Jesus believes the weightier matters include things like justice, mercy, and faithfulness (cf., e.g., Amos). Verses 25-26 bring up another noticeable inconsistency, namely their detailed concern for external cleanness as opposed to internal cleanness. Here apparently there is a reference to the outside of cups and dishes (cf. Mark 7:5), but notice the contrast—the “inside” is said to be filled with greed and self-indulgence. From Matthew 15:11-20 we have already gathered that Jesus’ real concern is with inward or moral cleanness rather than ritual cleanness. Jesus urges that this inward purity must come first, and then there is time and place to be concerned with outward or ritual purity, or perhaps he means that once one is clean within, one is also clean without (see, e.g., John 13:10-11). This critique of the Pharisees is not unlike what we find in Assumption of Moses 7.710. Here only do we have the phrase “blind Pharisee” (singular—cf. John 9:40). Much the same point is made in the sixth woe in vv. 27-28. Tombs were often whitewashed (cf. Acts 23:3) so they might be readily seen and so Jews could avoid contact with them since corpses and anything they touched conveyed a week’s worth of ritual uncleanness (Num 19:16 cf. Luke 11:44). “The paradoxical result was that tombs . . . ‘filled with the bones of the dead and all sorts of uncleanness’ were in this way actually ‘outwardly’ . . . rendered ‘beautiful.’”96 In fact, they were sometimes even subject to ornamental plastering or decorating (koniama can mean “to plaster”). Though it is a stretch, it is even possible that what is referred to is the decorating of an ossuary, which could be beautiful on the outside but inside contained only bones.97 In any case, the analogy is then drawn with Pharisees themselves who appear to be righteous but inwardly are filled with hypocrisy, dissipation, and corruption. Of course to accuse a Pharisee of uncleanness would be

432

Matthew 21:1–23:39

the ultimate insult since they were so meticulous about purity laws. Notice too that there is a difference between contrasting words with deeds and contrasting heart condition and attitude with outward appearance. [Schema dikaiosynes] On the one hand Jesus is critiquing the former, but in some of these woes he is also critiquing the latter. The theme of tombs continues in vv. 29-32. Here however we are told that Pharisees participated in the building and decoration of the tombs of prophets and the righteous, such as one finds in the Kidron Valley next to the Mount of Olives. These Pharisees claim that had they lived in olden days, they would not have participated in the murder of such saints. But these people by their hostile reaction to John the Baptist and Jesus show that actually they are the spitting image of their ancestors who did away with the prophets and the righteous ones. There is a pungent exhortation at the end of this saying—“fill up the measure of your fathers”—that means carry on the legacy of your ancestors. Here Jesus is anticipating perhaps what will happen to him. The concept here has to do with the idea that when humanity or an individual reaches a certain level or quantity of wickedness, then God finally must and will act (cf., e.g., Gen 6:1-4 and 1 Thess 2:14-16). Jesus seems to have seen the general rejection of his ministry as the final straw that would bring judgment on “this generation.” To this is appended v. 33 where the Pharisees are called snakes and the offspring of vipers (an apt analogy in light of the previous connection with the murderous ancestors), followed by the rhetorical question “How will you escape Gehenna?” The reference to the murdering of the prophets in the previous saying leads to a prophecy in vv. 34-36 that such things will soon happen again or happen to “this generation.” In some ways this material would be more appropriate if found in Matthew 24, but it seems to serve as a precursor or preparation for the prophecy found there. This prophecy is about the disciples of Jesus, who are here characterized as prophets, sages, and scribes (which in the former two cases aptly describes Jesus and in the latter most case describes our Evangelist). Jesus envisions his followers carrying on the tradition of being prophetic sages, or prophets and sages and experts in the word, and suffering the same fate as such prophets and teachers. It needs to be noted that in the parallel passage in Luke 11:49, it is the Wisdom of God who sends these messengers to God’s people. It is hardly a surprise that Wisdom would send out such people as her messengers. Our Evangelist simply has this saying in the voice of Jesus, for the good reason that he envisions Jesus, not

Matthew 21:1–23:39

433

someone else or some abstract entity or personification, as the Wisdom of God.98 The “I” in v. 34 is emphatic here—“I myself am sending. . . .” Rejection was the normal fate of such prophetic and sapiential messengers sent from God (cf. Jer 7:25-26; 25:4),99 and we have already seen in 10:17 a similar warning. Here we are told that some of these messengers will be killed, even crucified, some scourged for false teaching in the synagogue and chased from town to town. Verse 35 then asserts that all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zechariah, who was murdered between the temple and the altar, will come upon “this generation.” Abel is of course the son of Adam referred to in Genesis 4:8-10 as being murdered by his brother, but there has been a lot of debate as to who this Zechariah is. Is this actually a reference to Zechariah the prophet (Zech 1:1), and if so why Zechariah Note that sometimes in early Jewish do we have no evidence in that book or elsecontexts the two most well-known where of his violent death in such a grisly Zechariahs were fused and confused in people’s fashion? A more likely conjecture is that the minds. We may however be dealing with an early Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, who was textual error, as Jerome says that in the Gospel of murdered in the court of the house of the Lord the Nazarenes the phrase here was rendered and who was the son of the high priest Jehoiada, “Zechariah son of Jehoida” (see McNeile). Interestingly, Origen and Chrysostom and others is in mind.[Zechariah] What needs to be kept in say the reference here is to Zechariah the father mind is that his murder is the last one recorded of John the Baptist, something that comports of a messenger of God in the historical books of with the notion of John’s father being somewhat the Old Testament, and 2 Chronicles was prophetic in Luke 1. But would he also, like the indeed the last book in the “Writings” and so biblical figure, have had a father named the last book in the Hebrew canon. Thus, this Barachiah? mentioning of Abel and Zechariah amounts to A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 340-41. saying that “this generation” will be held responsible for the murders of such figures from A to Z!100 In both cases, their righteous blood cries out for revenge (cf. 2 Chr 24:22; Gen 4:10). This verse needs to be kept in mind when we get to the blood cry at the trial of Jesus before Pilate.101 Apparently we are to think of the Pharisees and scribes as representative of “this generation,” which in Matthew 27:25 will be represented by all the people there present. The Lament for the Lost City, 23:37-39

This passage is found nearly verbatim in Luke 13:34-35 and so was likely in Q. This pericope needs to be seen in light of 1 Enoch 42 where we read of the rejection of Wisdom and her return to God, and one also needs to keep steadily in view that it was largely the role of women to be the town criers or lamenters. In fact there were

434

Matthew 21:1–23:39

even professional female mourners in early Judaism. Jesus is here depicted as portraying himself as this rejected female figure, in this case in the guise of a female animal. That this saying is grounded in Wisdom material can be seen by comparing Proverbs 4:20-33.102 The literary form of this saying is a lament, and if retrojected back into Aramaic, it manifests the distinctive Kina rhythm of a dirge.103 Jesus says he would have gathered Jerusalem’s children to him as a hen gathers her young, and we are reminded of God’s lament over his wayward children in Hosea 11:1-6 (cf. Jer 31:15). But those who have the history of killing the prophets and stoning those sent to them would not receive Wisdom’s warm embrace and protection from the coming eschatological storm. Verse 38 thus warns that their house (i.e., the temple; cf. Jer 22:5) is left to them desolate, just as in Ezekiel when God left the temple and the people were judged and taken into exile (cf. Ezek 8:6, 12; 9:3, 9; 11:23 and see Bar 4:12). Verse 39 warns that Jerusalem will not see Wisdom/Jesus again until they are prepared to receive him and say “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.” The quote here is a verbatim from Psalm 118:26 (LXX), and it needs to be borne in mind that

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Christ Lamenting over Jerusalem Sir Charles Lock Eastlake (1793-1865). Christ Lamenting over Jerusalem. 1842. Tate Gallery, London, Great Britain. [Photo Credit: Tate Gallery, London / Art Resource, NY]

Matthew 21:1–23:39

when that same text was cited in Matthew 21:9, Jesus was hailed as Son of David—the one like and yet greater than Solomon. Here that theme is carried forward as we see Jesus on the outskirts of Jerusalem, being rejected as God’s Wisdom at the heart and religious center of the country. As in Revelation 1:4, here we have the idea that at the return of Wisdom even those who have rejected him will have to recognize him for who he is, whether in joy or in remorse (see 1 En. 62:5-6, 9-10). Thus the coming rejection of Jesus, the coming destruction of the temple, and the second coming of Wisdom are all alluded to here, preparing us for the eschatological discourse in Matthew 24–25.

CONNECTIONS Dealing with the Content of Matthew 21–23

We have in these chapters some of the most familiar of all Gospel material and some of the least familiar as well. If it was not perfectly clear before Matthew 21, it is certainly clear in this section that the Gospel is some sort of teaching tool, for when Jesus gets to Jerusalem the Passion Narrative slows to a halt in order to present four and a half chapters of discussion, discourse, and soliloquy that rivals John 14–17 in degree of teaching content. And it is not just any sort of content; it largely has to do with early Jewish discussions about messianism and eschatology, which on the whole bear little resemblance to many modern discussions of such matters, not least because all of the events Jesus foresaw leading up to the demise of the temple already transpired before this Gospel was even written, and as for the still outstanding events like the return of Christ, the resurrection, and the last judgment, Jesus himself says no one, not even he himself while on earth, knows the timing of those events. How do we deal with this sort of material 2,000 years later without on the one hand totally ignoring matters eschatological or on the other hand giving way to idle and baseless speculation about times and dates of the second coming, which this material discourages us from doing? These are the sorts of questions this material raises, but there is more. What are we to make of a king who comes to town to die rather than to take over, to live out his own remarks on nonviolence in Matthew 5–7 rather than to fulfill the expectations of either Jews in general or his own followers in particular? What are we to make

435

436

Matthew 21:1–23:39

of a king who presents himself as already greater than Solomon even when he has built no temples and conquered no earthly territories? One thing is for sure—there is more sapiential teaching material in this Gospel from the historical Jesus than what we find from the historical Solomon in 1 Kings and Proverbs and Ecclesiastes put together. Jesus is presented as the prophetic sage par excellence in this material. But how does one preach and teach this material today? For one thing, it would be necessary to explain to a congregation what the Dominion of God is, the character of Wisdom literature, and what one is to make of aphorisms, riddles, parables, maxims, and the like. Parables are not illustrations for modern preaching; they were Jesus’ main chosen form of public discourse. For another thing, it is necessary to help a congregation understand the character of Jesus’ culture and how it differed in various important ways from our own. Jesus did not speak in English, he did not teach in a free country, he did not live in a free market capitalistic society, he did not address Christians, and he did not himself begin a ministry to Gentiles; indeed, he said he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. Some discussion of these things and the character of an honor and shame, reciprocity culture that did not stress individualism would be important to helping any audience make sense of Jesus’ teachings in these chapters. Historic Pharisaism, Modern Judaism, and Matthew 23

The Gates of Hell Auguste Rodin (1840-1917). The Gates of Hell, 1880. Bronze. Situated at the Kunsthaus in Zürich (Switzerland). (Credit:Roland zh / Wikimedia Commons CC-BYSA-3.0)

Particular care, of course, must be taken in handling the material in Matthew 23, not least because all four modern forms of Judaism are descended from Pharisaism, and even a simple equation of historic Pharisaism, never mind modern Judaism, with hypocrisy is a caricature. Furthermore, unless justice is done to the fact that Jesus says his audience

Matthew 21:1–23:39

437

should listen to the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees but not behave as they behaved, one has not allowed our Evangelist to make his point about the relationship between the teaching of Jesus and that of the Pharisees. Hell

There is little teaching or preaching, even in conservative churches today, about hell. This may in part be because we live in a culture where we don’t like to talk about any kind of accountability, never mind final accountability, for our behavior. We want no-fault relationships, no-fault divorce, nofault auto accidents, nolo contendere legal verdicts, and the like. No wonder we do not want The Gates of Hell (detail) to talk about some people going to Auguste Rodin (1840-1917). The Gates of Hell, 1880. Bronze. Situated at the Kunsthaus hell forever. Yet if there is a God in Zürich (Switzerland). (Credit:Roland zh / Wikimedia Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0) who cares passionately about justice, it would be surprising if there was not some form of final accountability for those who prefer their sin to his remedy for the human dilemma. At a minimum, whatever our own personal views of hell, we must not impose them on Jesus or misrepresent his views, which brings up another important point. Most people reading this commentary would like to have a userfriendly Jesus, an approachable Jesus. A Jesus who is threatening and who warns of coming judgment and hell does not produce warm feelings. Those of us who love Jesus need to do our best to avoid the tendency to whittle down or lop off the hard edges of his teaching. If there are parts of his teaching that make us uncomfortable, perhaps we should allow that to tell us something about where we are and what we believe rather than saying Jesus could never have said something like that. The human tendency to minimize what we find disturbing or painful or hard to swallow needs not to be given free reign when it comes to Jesus’ teaching. Jesus must be allowed to have his say, whether we are happy with his words or not.

438

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Jesus’ View of Taxes

One of the issues that could be explored on the basis of Matthew 22:15-22 is Jesus’ view of taxes, a matter that could also be considered on the basis of his teaching on the temple tax issue. We have seen that Jesus is not enunciating some sort of two-spheres teaching, as he believes that God, the creator of all things, is the one to whom all honor and glory is due. Caesar does not have an equal or even a subordinate claim on human beings compared to God’s claim. Indeed Jesus may even be suggesting that Caesar’s money has graven images on it and should simply be returned to him, not because believers owe it to the emperor to pay him taxes, but because one does not owe him the allegiance the coins suggest he deserve! Like fans throwing a home run ball from the opposing team’s batter back onto the playing field, Jesus may be saying no more than that in regard to those coins—“return to sender.” Certainly a teaching about the separation of church and state cannot be derived from this text, since there was no church yet, and there was only an autocratic empire, not a democracy, as the modern sense of statehood or state craft for that matter did not exist.

Notes 1 See

D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 112. 2 Could this be significant for the story in vv. 18-22? 3 See J. D. M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt,” NovT 13 (1971): 241-58. 4 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 594-95. 5 D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 127. 6 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 308. 7 See D. Hagner, 601. 8 Ibid., 605. 9 See W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980). 10 See C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 505-506. 11 See D. Hagner, 608. 12 The First Evangelist omits the scribes here and in various other places from his Markan source, and some have suggested it is because he was one. But, in fact, in Matt 26:57; 27:41; and already in 16:21 we find them in a negative context. 13 Exousia conveniently can mean either. 14 See pp.194-96 above. 15 See rightly C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 307.

Matthew 21:1–23:39 16 D.

Hagner, 610. vv. 31-32 compare Luke 7:29-30 for a parallel of some ideas. 18 See pp. 377-79 above. 19 This phrase is applied to God in Matt 7:21 and 12:50, and of course indirectly here. 20 On which see pp. 26-27 above. 21 On this entire parable, and on Jesus’ use of allegorical elements in his parables, see rightly K. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Tübingen: Mohr, 1983), and see New Docs 6, 92-97. 22 J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 286ff. See also New Docs 7, 130-62, on acquisition by possession. 23 See J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 2d ed. (New York: Scribners, 1963), 74-75. 24 On the original form and its authenticity see my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 213-14. 25 See my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 213-14. 26 See the discussion about the social situation referred to in this pericope by J. D. Hester, “Socio-Rhetorical Criticism,” JSNT 45 (1992): 27-57. 27 See J. D. M. Derrett, 288. 28 See J. Jeremias, 308. 29 C. Myers, 309. 30 J. D. Kingsbury, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary Critical Observations,” JBL 105/4 (1986): 64355, here 653. 31 M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 276. 32 See M. Black, “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” NTS 18 (1971): 1-14. 33 For the linking of these two groups see Matt 27:62. 34 In other words, we are dealing with yet another example of how Luke has modified and de-Judaized his source material for his Gentile audience. We may note as well the parallel in Gospel of Thomas 64 where we also find the parable de-Judaized. The allegorical elements in this Matthean parable are characteristic of early Jewish parables in general, and also of Jesus’ parables. 35 See C. Keener, 519-20. 36 D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 198-99. The chart on these pages in terms of the tradition history of this parable suggests that Matthean form is the latest form, with Luke and Thomas preserving a form nearer to the original. This is forgetting that the less Jewish and more Gentile character of those forms of the parable are less likely to reflect Jesus’ original teaching, and it especially overlooks the parallels with the Wisdom’s feast material, which lies in the background here. Wisdom is no ordinary figure. She is the personification of the mind of the one who is the King of the universe. 37 On which see pp. 453-55 below. 38 On the close parallels between this parable and the immediately preceding one in Matthew, see D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 196-97. It appears likely our Evangelist has edited his material to highlight these parallels. 39 Against D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies,204. 40 See D. Hagner, 634. 41 On the authenticity of this narrative see my Christology of Jesus, 101-104. On Jesus’ rhetoric see R. H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 694: “In Jesus’ universe of discourse, what counts as argumentatively persuasive is not logical validity, exegetical accuracy, or the like but cleverness, wordplay, oneupmanship.” 42 See F. F. Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 249-63. 17 On

439

440

Matthew 21:1–23:39 43 See

D. Hagner, 634. C. Keener, 525. 45 C. Myers, 312. 46 See now the discussion by D. T. Owen-Ball, “Rabbinic Rhetoric and the Tribute Passage (Matt 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26),” NovT 35/1 (1993): 1-14, who stresses the forensic character of this narrative and analyzes it in terms of later rabbinic patterns of argumentation. 47 B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 102. 48 See F. F. Bruce, 262. 49 See my discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 32-34. For a recent argument that Jesus was an ascetic, see now D. C. Allison, Jesus: The Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). 50 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 245, in fact argues that Jesus answers both the Pharisees’ question (about the nature of the resurrection) and the Sadducees’ question (about the reality of the resurrection). 51 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 152 n. 184. The similar material in Tobit 3:8; 6:9-12; 7:12-13 also suggests we are dealing with a purely hypothetical question. 52 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 153 n. 191. 53 J. Denny, “The Sadducees and Immortality,” Exp 4th series 10 (1894): 401-09, here 403. 54 E. Schweizer, 248. 55 See, e.g., E. Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroads, 1985), 144. Jesus does not claim that “sexual differentiation and sexuality do not exist in the ‘world’ of God, but that ‘patriarchal marriage is no more,’ because its function in maintaining and continuing patriarchal economic and religious structures is no longer necessary. . . . The Sadducees have ‘erred much’ in assuming that the structures of patriarchy are unquestionably a dimension of God’s world as well.” 56 See R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 701. 57 See D. Hagner, 645. 58 In view of some of the minor agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark once again in this text, some have posited a Q version of this story, though one could also argue Luke knew Matthew as well as Mark and chose to follow Matthew in some respects. 59 There is evidence from after the New Testament era that a good Jew would recite the Shema plus Deut 11:13-21 and Num 15:37-41. 60 See Test. Issachar 5.2; 7.6; Test. Dan. 5.3; Test. Reub. 6.9. cf. the discussion by J. B. Stern, “Jesus’ citation of Dt. 6:5 and Lv. 19:18 in the Light of Jewish Tradition,” CBQ 28 (1966): 312-16. 61 See D. Hagner, 647. 62 See pp. 302 above. 63 See the discussion in D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, vol. 3, 244-47. 64 On the authenticity and details of this pericope see my The Christology of Jesus, 18991. 65 See pp. 12-14 above. 66 See also D. Flusser, “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. 7:1,” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 99-109. 67J. Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 13233. 68 This text and its images were commonly predicated of Christ in early Christianity. See Acts 2:34-35; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:13. 44 See

Matthew 21:1–23:39 69 I

have stressed in Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994) that Jesus’ public form of discourse was most often sapiential in character. Riddles were of course one form of Wisdom speech. An audience is present in this story, which in turn means this is not private teaching for the disciples. 70 See pp. 393-94 above. 71 For an interesting and perhaps independent treatment of this same Ps 110:1 in Christian messianic fashion see Ep. of Bar. 12:10-11 and the discussion by J. Marcus, 13132. 72 See rightly F. Neugebauer, “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mark 12:35-37 parr.) Und der Menschensohn,” NTS 21 (1974–75): 81-104. 73 See J. Marcus, 136-37. 74 C. Keener, Matthew, 534. 75 So various scholars, most recently Gundry and Blomberg. 76 See D. Hagner, 654. 77 See the discussion on Matthean structure pp. 19-21 above. 78 See the chart in A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 329. 79 On Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees see my The Christology of Jesus, 56-81. 80 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, 268. 81 On which see pp. 240-47 above. 82 C. Keener, 541. 83 See D. Hagner, 660. 84 Ibid. 85 See pp. 238-40 above. 86 See D. Hagner, 661. 87 Ibid., 664-65. 88 See Luke 11:39-52 where we have six woes, but no parallel to the second and third woes here, and the fifth woe is turned into another form of the saying in Luke. 89 See my Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), ad loc. 90 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, vol. 3, 285. 91 See for example M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994), 80-89; S. McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). 92 See D. Hagner, 669. 93 This sort of discussion provides clear confirmation that our author is interested in history, since there was no more tithing of this sort after AD 70. 94 See D. Hagner, 671. 95 It is interesting that several later Christian scribes copying the Lukan parallel here, perhaps concerned about applying Jesus’ teaching on tithing to Christians, omitted these verses. See E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 434. 96 Ibid. 97 See H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2002) on ossuaries. 98 Cf. D. Hagner, 674. 99 It seems to me clear that the Matthean form of this saying is surely on the whole closer to the original than the Lukan form, which refers to apostles and to Zechariah leaving off his patronymic. See Luke 11:49. 100 Of course this has led to the debate as to whether the last book of the Writings and so the Old Testament canon was fixed by our Evangelist’s day, never mind by Jesus’ day. For an affirmative answer at least in regard to the former, see R. Beckwith, The Old

441

442

Matthew 21:1–23:39 Testament Canon of the New Testament and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 211-22. 101 See below pp. 505-07. 102 On the authenticity of this saying, see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 46-47, and the notes there. 103 See C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), 13746, especially the last page.

The Final Discourse— Apocalypse Then Matthew 24:1–25:46 Much of the material found in Matthew 24–25 is derived directly from Mark 13, however the two parables that end Matthew 24 (vv. 37-44 and 45-51) are drawn from Q, as is the parable in Matthew 25:14-30. There is in addition some unique material found in Matthew 25:31-46. The actual prophetic reflections come in 24:436, which are then punctuated largely by a series of parables in 24:37–25:46. One of the features of this discourse taken over from Mark but also characteristic of such material is the dual emphasis on both the imminence of some events and the unknowableness of the timing of the second coming. What is on both the near and the far horizon is seen as eschatological events, but the timing of the end of those eschatological woes and tribulations and the return of Jesus is neither known nor speculated. Indeed, the parables added to the Markan material emphasize the possibility of a considerable interval before the bridegroom comes and thus the need for both preparation and waiting. What is especially interesting is how little the Markan discourse has been edited, even though our Evangelist is writing considerably later in the first century and after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This means our author, while he thinks some of the events recorded in this chapter were fulfilled in AD 65–70, also thinks that the cosmic signs and the return of Christ are still in the future. In other words, he has not given up on the future eschatology enunciated by Jesus. [A Sapiential Reading of 24–25] One of the first things that becomes apparent from reading the discourse in Matthew 24–25 in its entirety is that our Evangelist, like Mark, is suggesting that Jesus believed the destruction of the temple was seen as God’s eschatological judgment, not merely a punitive action by the Roman authorities. This is in part why it can be connected to other later eschatological acts of the Son of Man when he returns. In other words, this discourse involves a theocratic reading, not a zealot’s reading of the climax of the Jewish war. This judgment also applies to the First Evangelist’s presentation in Matthew 21–23, where it is intimated that how Jewish officials reacted to Jesus determined their own fate with God.

444

Matthew 24:1–25:46

A Sapiential Reading of 24–25 All along the teaching discourses have prepared the audience not only to receive Jesus as the true teacher about past, present, and future, but also to fulfill the great commission to teach and baptize, which will come at the climax of the book in Matt 28. These chapters provide the last large block of teaching talking about the events that will lead up to the fall of the temple (including wars, earthquakes, false prophecies, and the like). The signs on the earth precede the fall of the temple, but the signs in the heaven precede the coming of the Son of Man at some undetermined time in the future. The audience is warned that no one knows the day or hour of that coming, but when one sees “these things,” the preliminary events leading up to the destruction of the temple, one can know its demise is at hand. The chapter is then divided into two parts dealing with these things (preliminary events leading up to the temple’s demise) and what will happen after those days (final events including cosmic signs leading to the return of Christ). The parables in Matt 25 encourage preparation for the coming of the bridegroom in the first case (the parable of the wise and foolish virgins) and then tell of the rewards and punishments that will be dished out once the return of the King has happened (parable of the sheep and goats). The former parable contrasts the usual pair contrasted in Wisdom literature—the wise and the foolish, which in this case means the ones with foresight and those without. It is not an accident that we find the parable at this juncture in a sapientially oriented Gospel. The second parable is notable for its emphasis that whatever has been done for the indigent and imprisoned has been done as service to Jesus. Concern for the poor and oppressed is one of the standing topics of Wisdom literature as the book of James shows. These parables warn the disciples to get on with the tasks they have been given, all the while keeping one eye on the horizon and being spiritually prepared for what is to come.

The judgment they planned in regard to Jesus is the judgment the temple leadership endured in AD 70. It is correct to stress the hortatory character of this material, which is only what one would expect in a sapientially oriented Gospel. It is exhortation backed up by interpretation of eschatological events.

COMMENTARY The Beginning of the End, 24:1-51

Cubit

According to v. 1 Jesus and the disciples emerge from the temple precincts (hierou must refer to the temple precincts, while naos is the specific word for sanctuary) and are calling Jesus’ attention to its buildings.1 This is hardly surprising when some of the stones were 25 by 8 by 12 cubits, in other words huge. [Cubit] They were also bright white in color, and Josephus tells us they were ornate. The temple would have A cubit was about a foot and a half long. covered some one-sixth of the whole city’s space. In the sunlight it would have appeared like a white mountain of marble decorated with gold. Though it has often been remarked that the temple was unfinished in Jesus’ day, Josephus at least indicates the building was begun about 20 BC and the sanctuary at least

Matthew 24:1–25:46

was finished within eighteen months and the outer buildings within eight years (Ant. 15.11.5-6), though he elsewhere refers to work being done on the building in AD 62. John 2:20 indicates that building went on for some forty-six years, so perhaps there was minor work continuously done well after the building was basically finished. Nevertheless, Jesus says it will be pulled down without leaving one stone on another, a prediction that apparently Johanan ben Zacchai also made, forecasting the temple’s destruction in forty years (b. Yoma 39b). There was of course a longstanding prophetic tradition of predicting the temple’s destruction (Jer 7:14; 26:6; Mic 3:12). When Jesus arrived back at the Mount of Olives, the inner circle of the disciples (Peter, James, John, and Andrew) asked him privately from the nearby hill when (pote) the temple destruction will be, and then what the sign would be of “your coming and of the end of the age.”2 Jesus was asked for the sign that heralds both the parousia and the very end. Jesus in turn begins by answering the first question, speaking of the preliminary events that lead up to the destruction of the temple and emphasizing that the end is not yet, and indeed such events are only the beginnings of the birth pangs. Notice that v. 4 begins with a de, which may be significant. They began to ask him when and what would be the sign, but Jesus began to warn them to watch out lest they be misled about false ones coming in Jesus’ name saying “I am the messiah.” This might mean messianic pretenders are going to come claiming to be Jesus’ redivivus, perhaps even claiming divine status. We should see this as referring to various messianic pretenders in the age leading up to the temple’s destruction, not in our own day. Unfortunately, though, many a Jew was to be misled by such people including the Zealots, and ironically, rather than saving Israel, this was to lead to the destruction of the temple. Wars and reports of wars are not to disconcert the disciple. Notice the use of dei in v. 6, likely indicating that this is part of God’s eschatological plan, and so the disciple should not be alarmed. He should also not be misled to think this is the end. Indeed, nation will rise up against nation (cf. Isa 19:2), there will be earthquakes and famines. Yet all of this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. The word odinon should be examined in light of Old Testament usage where the term is used in contexts that refer to judgment and Israel’s sufferings, likened to a woman in labor (cf. Isa 13:8; 26:17; Mic 4:9f.; Hos 13:13; Jer 4:31; 6:24). Notice that Jesus says this is only the beginning of the travail, suggesting some

445

446

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Hatred Because of Christ Notice that this is different than what we find in Mark 13:9, where the disciples appear before the local Jewish counsel and receive the synagogal discipline. It would appear that our Evangelist believes that the time when witnessing in the synagogue will happen or work is in the past. The hatred by all nations, perhaps, reflects a time when the Gentile mission has reached many different non-Jewish people groups. B. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 344-45.

sort of extended process. The point is not to worry because all of this is within God’s eschatological plan. It is striking how the various items mentioned here are the same as those mentioned in Revelation 6. This then may be a stock list of disasters and travails in apocalyptic prophecy. The disciples must concentrate according to v. 9 on preparing themselves, for they can do something about how they will react when they will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death and even be subject to hatred “by all nations because of me.” [Hatred Because of Christ] This last remark makes clear that the subject here is not general abuse but rather specific punishment for evangelizing. In any event, the point is they will be witnessing in a hostile environment. Verse 10 stresses that many will turn away from the faith of Jesus due to the persecution, and v. 11 adds that many false prophets will arise and deceive many people. Verse 12 avers that because of the increase of wickedness, the love of human beings will grow cold. The theme of witnessing even in a hostile situation is carried on in v. 13. While this last verse has often been seen as prophecy after the fact, it need not be if Jesus even occasionally passed over into Gentile territory, as Mark and Matthew both suggest, and witnessed to non-Jews, thus providing a paradigm for his followers. Jesus adds that it is necessary that “this” Gospel of the Dominion must be preached to the whole world (which surely here means all the Gentile nations) as a testimony or witness to all the nations, and only “then” the end will come. This saying is important, even in its modified form in Matthew (cf. Mark 13:10 where there is the word “first”) because it indicates that our Evangelist, writing in the 80s or later, believed an ongoing human activity, namely evangelism and its progress, will affect the timing of the second coming and the end. This comports with our earlier conclusion that this Gospel does not suggest Jesus taught that the second coming would happen within the lifetime of the Twelve.3 Beginning with v. 15, the discussion returns to the temple. What is referred to here can only be understood by referring to Daniel 9:27 and the LXX of Daniel 12:11, the latter of which may be a reference to the altar of Zeus erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in

Matthew 24:1–25:46

447

Abomination 168 BC (cf. 1 Macc 1:54-59). The phrase in In Matthew, unlike in Mark, the “abomiquestion likely means an abomination that nation” could be an allusion to Titus’s causes or results in desolation, that is in abanerection of the Roman standards in the temple donment of the temple by God. Less probably that were then sacrificed to, coupled with an one could translate it an appalling sacrilege. The acclamation of Titus as emperor (Josephus, J.W. 6.6.1). Originally, of course, the Daniel text was gender of the word “abomination” is neuter; the thought to refer to when Antiochus Epiphanes word “standing” is a perfect participle that erected a pagan altar or image of Olympian Zeus agrees with the noun and so definitely suggests in the Jerusalem Temple in AD 167. something or an event. [Abomination] The First See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Evangelist, unlike Mark, tells us specifically Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According where this phrase comes from, remarking that it to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T was “spoken of by the prophet Daniel.”4 Clark International, 2004), 345. Josephus tells us how the Zealots took over from November 67 or spring of AD 68, at which time they allowed criminals to roam the temple including in the holy of holies and even to murder others in the temple. As a sort of sick joke, a man named Phanni was invested as high priest. It may be this last fact that Mark thinks Jesus was referring to, for he adds the parenthetical remark “let the reader understand.” The phrase seems to mean “take note, you already know what this refers to.” If Mark was writing in late AD 68, this note would be most germane. The First Evangelist, however, writing at a later time, may well be referring to the desecration perpetrated by Titus when the temple was taken and Roman standards were brought into the holy precincts. For him, as for Mark, the destruction of the temple is confirmation not only that God has judged Israel but that God’s designs and plans will henceforth be centered on Jesus and his followers.5 When the sacrilege takes place, it is time to flee from Judea, for its destruction is imminent. This advice is in fact the opposite of usual Jewish and ancient Near Eastern advice, which thought of safety within the city walls, not least because Jews often thought God would not allow his dwelling place to be destroyed. The point of v. 17 is that if you are on the roof praying and the time comes to flee, flee; don’t even go into the house to get a cloak, simply go down the outside stairs from the roof and run.6 Likewise, if you are working in a field, just run away. Jesus foresees that the time of destruction will be most difficult on those most vulnerable and immobile—those who are pregnant or those who have newborns, according to v. 19. The reason they are to pray it does not happen in winter is not only because of the exposure to the elements when camping out, but also because winter is the season when streams would be swollen and hard to ford, especially if one is in a hurry. Verse 20

448

Matthew 24:1–25:46

also mentions prayer that the event does not transpire on a Sabbath (something not mentioned in Mark), presumably because one might not be able to feel comfortable fleeing while carrying anything along, since that would amount to work. [“On the Sabbath”] Verse 21 speaks of Prophecy unparalleled suffering and persecution, not preIt is interesting that Eusebius says there viously witnessed “from the beginning of the was a prophecy that warned the Jewish Christians to flee the city in time. They are said to world until now.” [Prophecy] Notice in v. 22 the ei have fled to the Decapolis, to Pella. This may be followed by an. When an is present with past an authentic tradition, but it is not clear whether tense verbs in a conditional statement, it indiEusebius is speaking about a prophecy of Jesus cates an unreal condition. In other words, the or a new prophecy of a Christian prophet in the elect are not truly in danger from such circum60s. stances. God will cut short the days of severe distress, so some may be rescued. The sense of sozo here as in 4 Ezra 6:25 and 7:27 is “rescued” “left alive,” a common meaning of the term in Jewish and indeed in Greco-Roman contexts.7 The time has been cut short because of the elect whom God has chosen. Is this a reference to Christians or to godly Jews? Perhaps most likely it is a reference to the Jewish followers of Jesus, in particular as it turned out those who escaped with their lives from the final destruction of Jerusalem. We are not told on what basis the elect are chosen here, and it will be noticed that the author refers to an elect group, not to isolated elect individuals. In the Old Testament the phrase “the elect” is often used of Israel in general (Ps 105:6, 43; Isa 65:9), but in Jewish literature from just before or during ei dynaton kai tous eklektous the time of Jesus “the elect” refers to the rightThe phrase ei dynaton kai tous eklektous is also found in Mark 13:22, except that eous few (1 En. 1:1; 62:8; 1QS 8.6; 1QH 2.13). here in Matthew we have the additional word During all these birth pangs the followers of “even.” Unlike ei with an, which refers to an Jesus are to keep their minds on the real task of unreal condition (see above), the simple ei with witnessing to the authentic Christ and not be dynaton indicates a possible condition. This saying distracted by false claims of a messiah appearing is drawing, clearly enough, on Deut 13:1-5 (probhere or there. It is allowed that such false mesably the LXX version) where Israel is warned about false prophets that can even deceive Israel, sianic and prophetic figures (cf. Deut 13:1-5) the elect. would arise and even perform signs and wonders to deceive even the elect “if possible,” [ei dynaton kai tous eklektous] something Jesus himself refused to perform for the skeptics. Verse 25 closes this particular section of the discourse, indicating that Jesus has warned his followers about all these things in advance so they will be prepared and know what to do and how to interpret such events. “On the Sabbath” Whatever we make of the additional phrase “on the Sabbath,” it shows that the First Evangelist’s audience is concerned still with Sabbath observance.

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Verses 26-28 do not come from the Markan source. Verse 26 is unique to this Gospel, and vv. 27-28 are Q material. In essence, v. 26 is an expansion or a repetition of the warning found in v. 23. It was widely believed that messiah might well show up in the Judean wilderness, which is no doubt one reason the Qumran community moved there (cf. 1QS 8.12-14 to Josephus J.W. 2.13.5). What seems to undergird the warning not to look for messiah in the wilderness or in some secret room or place seems to be the notion that messiah would initially be present secretly (see John 7:27). The disciples are neither to believe nor to act on such groundless speculation. Verse 27 says that by contrast to the messiah in secret idea, the Son of Man’s coming will be as visible and evident as a huge bolt of lightning flashing from one end of the sky to the other (see Luke 17:24; Zech 9:14). The parousia of the Son of Man will be no obscure or hidden event. The term parousia, which we find here and at vv. 37 and 39, literally means presence or coming and was to become a crucial term in Pauline vocabulary about the return of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13),8 and elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. 2 Pet 3:4; 1 John 2:28). Verse 28 is another sapiential riddle—wherever the carcass is, there will be the vultures. But what is this observation drawing an analogy with? In Luke 17:34 it appears to explain where one may find the one taken away for judgment, or alternately the one left. In light of Revelation 19:17-21 the imagery suggests a judgment scene (cf. Job 39:27-30; Hab 1:8). When the Son of Man returns, judgment will happen (cf. vv. 30, 39, 51; 25:30, 46). But in this Matthean context it would seem to refer to the immediate and obvious character of the parousia—as obvious as vulture’s circling in the sky over a carcass.9 It is possible however that we have here an allusion to judgment on the birds of prey, i.e., the eagle that represents Rome who had destroyed the temple and continued to enslave God’s people.10 Verses 29-36 return to the close following of the Markan source, with the exception of v. 30a. Our author wishes to speak of the sign of the Son of Man, who himself would not perform validating signs. Jesus is now talking about a different subject, namely what will happen “in those days, following that suffering.” [Suffering] The subject matter has turned to the real climax of human history. Unlike Mark, our author says the events he is about to recount will happen “immediately” (eutheos) after the distress of those days. There has of course been no end of debate as to what “immediately” might mean, and it is true that in Mark it frequently seems to mean no more than “soon thereafter” or even “next” for it is used

449

450

Matthew 24:1–25:46

The Last Judgement William Blake (1757-1827). The Last Judgement. Pen and watercolour of William Blake’s A Vision of the Last Judgment, 1808. Plate 109 in Bentley, G. E. The Stranger from Paradise. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Matthew 24:1–25:46

451

Suffering J. Painter rightly points out that the discourse does not say how long the suffering will last, only that God has shortened it. This in turn means the discourse does not assert a specific period of time after which the end must come. It is only insists on the fact of the end and the reality of the preliminary events, the latter of which will transpire (including the temple’s destruction) within a generation. J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 177.

some forty times before the Passion Narrative in Mark to give the narrative a sense of motion and rapid pace.11 As has been rightly pointed out, unless this Evangelist was writing before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, it is hardly likely that he would tell his audience in the 80s or later that the parousia happened immediately after the fall of the temple. But, in fact, it needs to be stressed that Matthew 24:29 follows 24:26-28, where the subject has been in part the second coming, a coming that will Cosmic Signs involve distress and judgment (hence the vulture Hagner’s suggestion that the early saying). I must thus conclude that in the Christians couldn’t separate the eschaMatthean outline, “immediately” refers to a tological events surrounding the imminent demise time “immediately” after the parousia, not of the temple from the imminent return of Christ seems most unlikely. immediately after the fall of the temple, however distressful that was. In short, the D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 711-12. cosmic signs mentioned in v. 29 follow immediately the return of the Son of Man. [Cosmic Signs] So there will be heavenly phenomena accompanying the coming of the Son of Man. It needs to be borne in mind that the phrase “in those days” has clear eschatological associations as texts like Jeremiah 3:16, 18; 31:33; Joel 2:28; Zech 8:23 suggest. On the heavenly phenomenon one needs to compare Isaiah 13:10; 34:4; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Amos 8:9. Furthermore, signs in the heavens are commonly associated in the Old Testament with the Day of the Lord (Isa 13:10; 34:4; Ezek 32:7-8; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15 cf. Rev 6:12-14; 8:12) and so here as well. The question of course is how literally one should take this language since it is in most respects the traditional language used of a theophany, though now presented with a more apocalyptic flavor. The point of such language is clearly that creation reacts, all heaven breaks loose when God comes down. There may also be something of the notion also found in Romans 8 that suggests the fate of creation is bound up with the fate of humankind. That something cataclysmic is being described is sure, but one must bear in mind that this same sort of language is used when describing the fall of Babylon, and we may be sure all the stars did

452

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Emperor Titus Destroys the Temple in Jerusalem Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665). The Conquest of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus. 1638-1639. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons,PD-Art (PD-old-100-1923)]

Temple’s Destruction It is interesting that some of the church fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechetical Lectures 15.15, suggest that even the reference to the temple’s destruction refers not to the events of AD 70 but to events that are yet in the future from the time in which they lived. Cyril of Jerusalem took the abomination that makes desolate as a reference to the Antichrist’s activity.

not fall from the sky on that occasion, nor is likely that God only acts when there are eclipses! As Hooker says, the language here is “more than metaphorical, less than literal.”12 By this I take her to mean the author is describing cosmic phenomena, but he is not giving an exact or scientific description of the phenomena. Nor is he merely suggesting times were bad by hyperbolically employing heavenly metaphors. Nonetheless, the basic point is that the final coming of the Son of Man will be an earth-shattering event. What is described is seen as real, but the terms used for the description are hyperbolic in character, indicating the significance of the event and the importance of the person referred to. [Temple’s Destruction] These cosmic signs seem to be what is meant by the phrase in v. 30—the sign of the Son of Man—for it is said to appear in the sky. This sign does indeed indicate the end of world history as we know

Matthew 24:1–25:46

it, and so we are told the nations will mourn as they realize judgment is coming in the person of the Son of Man. The Son of Man riding on a cloud chariot with power and great glory is much like various Old Testament descriptions of God’s coming (cf. Ezek 1 and various of the Psalms), only in this case the function and role of the deity is taken by the Son of Man. The Son of Man will come to gather or rescue some from all parts of the earth but to judge and condemn others. Actually, the angels will be the gatherers, collecting people from the four corners of the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other, a theme found in texts like Deuteronomy 30:4-5 and Isaiah 60:4ff. (cf. the coming together of all nations in Mic 4:1ff.). The point is that no one and nowhere will be overlooked in the search for the saved. At v. 32 the message again shifts. Here Jesus is once more talking about some event for which there are earthly, not heavenly, indicators that something is about to happen. This event can only be the destruction of the temple. The phrase “all these things” here as in Matthew 24:2 and in Mark 13 refers to all the events that lead up to the destruction of the temple. There is thus an A, B, A, B pattern to the discussion of events here in Matthew, as in Mark, with A being a reference to the events leading up to and including the demise of the temple and B referring to the parousia, the cosmic signs that accompany it, and the judgment and salvation that follow it.13 It must be kept in mind that earlier the withered fig tree had been a symbol of God’s judgment on Israel; in particular the fig tree story is juxtaposed with Jesus’ prophetic sign act of coming judgment on the temple in Matthew 21.14 This suggests that the same topic is being addressed here, in which case we are back to discussing “these things” and the days leading up to the destruction of the temple. The Mount of Olives would be a good place to tell this parable since it was loaded with fig trees and at Passover in the spring the sap would begin to rise and the branches would grow tender and begin to break into leaf. This is the harbinger of summer’s arrival. This is to be seen as a sign that judgment is near. The proper translation is “it is near,” and the reference is not to the coming of the Son of Man but rather to the judgment of the temple. In Luke 21:31 Luke supplies the subject “the Dominion of God,” which is said to be near. Verse 34 and its phrase “this generation” have been contorted in various ways and given various meanings (is it referring to “this race”?), but such exegetical gymnastics are unnecessary if the parable goes with vv. 1-28 rather than vv. 29-31. Elsewhere when

453

454

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

God the Creator The Second Coming of Christ, symbolized by the empty throne, and two lambs, symbols of the apostles, suggesting the imminence of Paradise. Byzantine relief. 4th C. Skulpturensammlung und Museum fuer Byzantinische Kunst, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. [Photo Credit : Werner Forman / Art Resource, NY]

“Not Even the Son” While the majority of witnesses omit the phrase “not even the Son,” including the later Byzantine witnesses, it is included in the best representatives of the Alexandrian and Western text types. It is understandable, considering the great popularity of this Gospel, in fact being the most used and widely known Gospel in the 2d through 4th centuries, that this phrase might be deleted for doctrinal reasons by various scribes. See rightly B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 51-52.

the First Evangelist or Mark use the phrase “this generation,” it refers to Jesus’ contemporaries (see Matt 11:16; 12:41-44; 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19) and is not a generic ethnic reference to a race of people.15 From a biblical point of view a generation was about forty years, and not coincidentally it was that length of time between the time of Jesus’ death and the destruction of the temple. Clearly the tauta panta of v. 34 should be related to the same phrase in Jesus’ initial question (v. 2). Thus this verse was fulfilled quite literally around AD 70. Verse 35 seems to be a way of Jesus saying the world will fail before his words fail, or, put another way, his word is more permanent and lasting than the universe. Jesus thus alternates between describing events on the near horizon (all these things) and those more remote, and finally he concludes with a resumption in vv. 36-51 of the topic discussed in vv. 29-31. Some later scribes of course had problems with v. 36, which asserts that there is something Jesus did not know about matters eschatological, but the more difficult reading must be accepted here. [“Not Even the Son”] What is especially telling about this saying that points to the inclusion of the “not even the Son” phrase is the word “only” predicated of the Father. If only the Father knows, then not even the Son knows. The point of v. 36 is that no one except God the Father who made the divine plan knows the timing of the coming of the Son of Man.16 Notice that those ignorant are listed in ascending order of closeness in knowledge to the Father—no humans know, neither do any angels, nor does even the Son know. In view of the earlier indicators in Matthew that Jesus is presented as a more than merely mortal figure, this saying is probably meant to suggest that Jesus saw himself as closer to God than the angels, at least in terms of knowledge of God’s will and plan. This comports with our Evangelist’s portrayal of

Matthew 24:1–25:46

455

Jesus as the Wisdom of God come in the flesh. The upshot of this is that if the master does not know the timing of the parousia, neither do the disciples and so they should not speculate. The use of the phrase “day or hour” in this verse simply means the time in general. The author is not suggesting that Timing everyone including Jesus knew in general the Jesus is not distinguished from either timing of the parousia, but they simply didn’t the angels or the human beings in what he knows about this particular matter of timing, know what day or hour specifically it would and therefore it is futile to try to argue he knew happen! This conclusion rules out the artful and when in general it would happen, but no other somewhat humorous dodge suggesting that mortal or angel did. while Jesus did not know the exact time of the parousia he knew the general time it would transpire, namely within a generation if not sooner. [Timing] Verses 37-41 do not come from the Markan source. In vv. 37-39 the suddenness of the second coming is compared to the rapidity with which Noah’s neighbors were overwhelmed by the flood (see Gen 6:5-24). Other early Christian writers also used the story of the flood as a warning to their audience (2 Pet 2:5; 3:6). Prior to the flood, people were carrying on with all the normal kinds of human activities, including getting married right up to the point when Noah entered the ark. They knew nothing about and were totally unprepared for what was to come when Noah shut himself and his family up in the ark. Similarly, nonbelievers will be completely surprised and unprepared for the parousia of the Son of Man. Notice the use of the language “took them all away” in v. 39. This prepares for the language about one “taken” and one left behind in vv. 40-41. The “taken” ones are the unfortunate ones, swept away by judgment. The ones left behind Left Behind or left standing are the fortunate ones, like I have come to the conclusion that Noah. Notice that there is one example those “left behind” are the fortunate involving men and one involving women, sugones, while those taken are taken away in or by judgment, as the Noah analogy makes clear. The gesting that judgment will affect everyone. The saying about the angels gathering the elect is Matthean version involves two men in a field, remote from this saying compared to the immediwhile Luke has two in a bed. Grinding was a ately preceding Noah story. task usually done shortly before dawn. [Left B. Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus Behind] Whatever time of day is envisioned, the (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), participants are unprepared for the judgment 45-46. that overtakes them. The parable in vv. 42-43 involves a story of a man who has an unexpected break-in at his house in the middle of the night. Notice how the word “hour” (v. 44) and the word “day” (v. 42) are simply paralleled with the phrase “watch of the night” or time in v. 43. Verse 44 makes explicit what v. 32 made implicit—Jesus is talking

456

Matthew 24:1–25:46

about when the Son of Man or Lord is coming.17 Since no one knows the timing, one must always be ready. The image of the thief in the night suggests a sudden coming at an unexpected time when most are likely to be unprepared. The reference to the watches of the night coupled with the reference to sleeping point the narrative forward to the Gethsemane story and what will happen to the disciples beginning at that juncture. As Myers says, it is as if Mark and the First Evangelist are both saying to their own respective audiences, “We all live in a Gethsemane moment in human history; we must not be caught napping like the first disciples were when the crucial moment arrived.”18 The parable that concludes this chapter in vv. 45-51 is surely from Q, since Luke also has it in almost exactly the same form (Luke 12:42-46). This seems to have been used by our Evangelist to replace Mark 13:34-36. The issue here is who will be both a faithful and a wise or sagacious servant and be prepared for the return of the owner, whenever he shows up. Notice that in this parable the servant assumes the master will be away for a long time (v. 48). In fact, this little parable is simply the appetizer to the two large eschatological ones we have in Matthew 25 that bring this discourse to a conclusion. It is most like the one that immediately follows it in 25:1-13 in that it hinges on the issue of the timing of the parousia, whereas the real focus of the final parable is on the final judgment itself. Basically the First Evangelist seems to have done only a little editing of this parable, most notably in adding the concluding clause about weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 51 cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 25:30). A. J. Dewey has rightly noted the didactic quality of this parable and has suggested that we should see this as a prophetic pronouncement of Servant and Master Wisdom.19 This suits not only the character of This little parable is alluded to in the this material (notice the beatitude in v. 46, and Gospel according to the Hebrews (in notice that the desideratum is a servant who is Eusebius’s Theoph.), which shows the measure of both wise and faithful like his master), but its the impact of this Gospel. Even this little parable context, for we have already had Jesus offer a turns up and is used in other sources during or before the 4th century AD. lament in Matthew 23 as Wisdom; here we have him speak of the consequences of rejecting wisdom in regard to how to behave until the master returns. [Servant and Master] Verse 45 begins with a rhetorical question about who is the faithful and wise servant, and should be compared to the reference to the good and faithful servant in 25:21-23. Here as elsewhere in Matthew (cf. 7:24; 10:16; 25:2-9) the term “wise” characterizes

Matthew 24:1–25:46

what Jesus hopes for in his disciples and in regard to their conduct. In this parable and in the one that follows it, what amounts to wisdom is behavior that not only reflects a belief that the master will return, but behavior that honors the master and his instructions. Here we have a head servant put in charge of the task of distributing food to the household servants at the appropriate times (cf. Ps 104:27), which again is a matter of making wise and discerning choices appropriate for such a delegated authority. Verse 46 indicates that blessing will come to the servant who is found doing his job wisely and well when the master returns. The sapiential word “blessed” here and elsewhere in this Gospel refers to the happiness or deep contentment or even the favor the servant who obeys God enjoys (cf. 5:3-11; 11:6; 13:16; 16:17). The outcome of acting in an appropriate and blessed way is reward, as the beatitudes in Matthew 5 make clear. The reward for faithful service is even more and a larger service to undertake with more responsibility (cf. 25:21-23).20 The opposite of wise in sapiential literature is sometimes foolish (see, e.g., Matt 25:1ff and cf. Prov 8–9), but sometimes it is wicked, as here. We now learn in vv. 48-49 the consequences of wicked behavior while the master is gone. In this case the servant assumes the master will not come back for a long time, and so he thinks he has plenty of time to misbehave. He beats the lesser servants and eats and drinks with the drunkards. The assumed delay in the return of the master is what prompts the misbehavior. Verse 50 makes clear why no servant of the master should behave in such fashion—they must bear in mind that the master will be returning on a day when he is not expected and at an unknown hour. This is of course the major theme in regard to the parousia that runs right through Matthew 24–25 (cf. 24:36, 39, 42, 44 and 25:13). The unknown timing of the return is used as a sanction to motivate proper and wise behavior. Notice that our author assumes this sanction will still work with his audience in the late first century AD, though the undercurrent may be that some are concerned about why the parousia is taking so long to arrive (cf. 2 Pet 3:4). What our author is countering is the false assumption that the parousia was necessarily imminent, something that neither Jesus nor his earliest followers, such as Paul, ever taught.21 Verse 51 indicates that the punishment for this wicked servant will be swift and unsparing—he will be dismembered (cf. Dan 3:29) and assigned a place in the judgment with the hypocrites, which is to say he is going to Gehenna where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Notice that this warning is given to the followers

457

458

Matthew 24:1–25:46

of Jesus who do know and serve the Master, though in an immoral fashion. “For Matthew there is no worse group than the ‘hypocrites’ (cf. 6:2-18; 15:7; and esp. chap. 23).”22 It is even worse when, as here, Jesus is talking about hypocrites among his own followers rather than just in early Judaism in general.23 Notice, finally, that the issue here, as in the subsequent parables in Matthew 25, is not knowing the timing of the master’s return, but rather faithfulness and preparedness for his return whenever it may transpire. Parables and Stories on Wisdom and Good Judgment, 25:1-46

As we embark on a discussion of the final three parables (or better said, two parables and a parabolic prophecy) in Matthew’s Gospel, what we must notice about these parables from the outset is that not only are they in sapiential form, but they focus on two of what are the major themes of most sapiential literature—how to live wisely and the consequences of doing or not doing so. Once the exile happened to Judean Jews, the nature of Wisdom literature, like the nature of prophecy, by and large changed, reflecting this shock to the system of God’s people. Prophecy morphed into apocalyptic prophecy, which began to raise increasing issues about the other world and the afterlife, and Wisdom literature increasingly dealt with issues of why bad things happen to God’s people, even if they are godly (e.g., Job, Ecclesiastes). Not surprisingly, in the teaching of an apocalyptic sage like Jesus, who lived after the crossfertilization of these various traditions, there would be an emphasis on eschatological rectification of things rather than on earlier notions that if one lives a pious life, one will be healthy, wealthy, and wise in this lifetime. It is no accident that the climactic parable of the final discourse in this teaching Gospel is all about a king (notice 25:34) who like wise Solomon is able to separate the sheep from the goats, the pretenders from the contenders (cf. 1 Kgs 3:1628; 4:29-34). Throughout this Gospel we have seen the stress on Jesus as both sage and Wisdom come in the flesh, and in the final parable we will hear about Wisdom who has returned once more to earth to take the final reckoning and render final justice. It is this image that is meant to be etched in the hearer and reader’s mind as he or she works through the Passion Narrative, which thus turns out to be a story of regicide, the killing of the King of the Jews, who was not only their king but in fact was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel and offered only them wisdom and knowledge and healing and help.

Matthew 24:1–25:46

459

In other words, the sapiential portrait of Jesus in this Gospel ups the ante when it comes to the pathos of the Passion Narrative. Jesus does not die simply as a prophet or as Son of Man or even as one more messianic pretender. He dies as the ultimate Son of David, the one greater than Solomon, the King of the Jews. But here in advance, at the end of the last discourse, we will learn what the judgment of this wise ruler will be when he returns a second time to establish his realm in Israel and upon the earth. The hearer or reader is thus reassured that justice will in the end be done, even in regard to how people have treated or mistreated Jesus during his earthly ministry and during his absence from earth thereafter. The Wise and Foolish Virgins, 25:1-13 I have had occasion to deal at length with the parable of the wise and foolish virgins elsewhere, so here our concern must be on the meaning and use of this parable in its Matthean context.24 The subject of this parable is the celebration of the messianic banquet, here depicted as a wedding feast. It is interesting that only here in all the Gospel literature, other than perhaps in the story of the Canaanite woman,25 does Jesus offer any criticism of any women. It is entirely possible that we should see Matthew 25:1-13 as a twin parable to the parable of the talents in 25:14-30, in which case we have here complementary female-male parallelism in these parables, drawing on traditional roles each gender played. Jesus did sometimes tell parables in twins to indicate that both women and men will be involved in the Dominion and in this case in the messianic banquet (cf. Matt 8:11 and 22:1-14),26 and that they should be seen as equal in honor and grace, but also in dishonor and disgrace.27 It is interesting that in these first two parables in Matthew 25 the interval before the return of the bridegroom/master is alternately depicted as a period of waiting in the first case or of labor in the second. “There judgment comes to the slothful; here to those women who are not prepared. There the ques“and the bride” tion is of the outer life; here of the inner life. . . We have a significant textual problem at 28 . There of action; here of insight.” this juncture since many good manuOur Evangelist has provided us with a general scripts include the phrase “and the bride” here, introduction remark in v. 1 and a moralizing including Aleph, B, K, L, and many others. Yet we conclusion in v. 13. The Dominion is said to be have no mention of the bride later in the parable. It is thus likely that the phrase is a later interpolalike ten virgins who went out with their lamps tion in light of Christian theology about the church to meet the bridegroom. [“and the bride”] The scene being Christ’s bride. is in the evening when the wedding dinner See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek would normally be held, hence the need for New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, lamps. Jeremias has shown that the details in 1971), 52-53.

460

Matthew 24:1–25:46

regard to Jewish weddings of the period seem to be accurate in this parable.29 [Mohar] The positive character of this parable should be noted—it is an exhortation to be prepared so one may indeed participate in the wedding banquet, and it shows the consequences of lack of preparation. A. W. Argyle, “Wedding Customs at the Time of There are several interesting aspects to this Jesus,” ET 86 (1974–75): 214-15. parable. Firstly, Jesus chooses virgins to make his point, which makes sense in the Jewish setting where bridesmaids would certainly have been virgins. The torches they carry are presumably for the torchlight procession to the bridegroom’s house and perhaps for a torchlight dance in front of the house. The point to bear in mind is that these maidens would know there would be delays before the bridegroom would show up, and they would also know the oil on a torch only lasts for about fifteen minutes and must be replenished to keep the torch burning. In other words, they are without excuse for not being prepared. Notice that the issue here is preparation, not “staying awake.” No one is criticized for going to sleep, for both wise and foolish virgins fall asleep. Those who have the extra oil that they can use at a moment’s notice are prepared; those who do not are not prepared. The message is clearly that obedience through proper preparation and fulfilling one’s role in life is what is required. Implicitly, one also has actually to believe the bridegroom is definitely coming. The sapiential character of this parable, and its place in the flow of Wisdom literature, becomes especially evident when we note that we find the same verb used about the lamps of the wicked going out in earlier Wisdom literature (see Prov 13:9 and Job 18:5 LXX). Notice too that the wise virgins are also smart enough not to comply with the request to loan oil to the foolish virgins. Better to have five torches keep burning all the way to the bridegroom’s house than ten that go out somewhere along the way. The issue here is not selfishness but rather preparation and wisdom to know what it will take to get the task accomplished.30 Thus in the story vv. 10-11 suggest that when the bridegroom came, the foolish virgins could not accompany him to the house, but rather they had to go and get oil, and by the time they arrived at the bridegroom’s house the door was closed and the banquet had already begun. The message seems clear that preparation is allimportant unless one wishes to be left out of eschatological bliss. It may be to “over-allegorize” this parable to ask what the oil represents; however, in Revelation oil clearly enough is the spiritual substance and strength that comes from God’s word that nourishes Mohar

A. W. Argyle shows that even the delay of the bridegroom in coming is natural, as it was expected he would be haggling over the bride price (the mohar) for a good period of time to show her great worth.

Matthew 24:1–25:46

The Wise and Foolish Virgins William Blake (1757-1827). The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. Yale Center for Birtish Art. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-auto)]

and prepares the believer to endure to the end (see Rev 11:4—here the Law and the Prophets as represented by Moses and Elijah). The pleas in v. 12 for the door to be open are given only the curt answer: “I tell you the truth, I do not know you.” Thus behavior in this lifetime, while the bridegroom is away, will determine one’s acceptance or rejection at the messianic banquet. Verse 13 is a Matthean addition or summary conclusion to the parable that emphasizes vigilance and keeping watch since the timing of the second coming is unknown. This conclusion seems

461

462

Matthew 24:1–25:46

odd since the parable itself is about preparation, not about vigilance or keeping awake, and there is no criticism of the virgins for sleeping. It nonetheless shows the Evangelist’s concern for alertness, and it probably also implies our author believed it was possible that Jesus might return in his lifetime. The Parable of Men and their Investment Capital, 25:14-30 Here is yet another place in this Gospel where the issue of money and what we do with it comes to the fore, only this time we are not talking about money for taxes. Though in modern English the word “talent” refers to some native ability of a human being, here the word is used in its original sense of a large sum of money. But as we shall see, a talent is a two-sided coin—on one side it says ability and on the other side responsibility. The differences between the Lukan and Matthean versions of this parable (cf. Luke 19:11-27 and Mark 13:34) are considerable; indeed they are so significant that we may well be dealing with two different parables that have some things in common. Among the differences include who the overlord is, why he left on a trip, and the sum of money doled out. There is also little verbatim similarity of language or phrases. It is thus best to see these as two different parables of Jesus.31 The Matthean parable is already known to Justin Martyr (Dial. 125.1-2) and is also reflected in 2 Clement 8.5-6. Apart from the sums of money involved in our story, the scenario envisioned certainly often happened. A householder might well go on a long trip and leave his estate in the hands of household slaves who were already in charge of the management of the estate.32 Domestic slaves in many parts of Talent It is difficult to know exactly how much the Empire were allowed to earn money, and a “talent” was worth when this parable they could actually earn more wages and was written. The term talonton originally referred bonuses by managing the master’s estate well, to a measure of weight, but it came to refer to even in Israel (see y. Yebam. 7:1). Our Evangelist silver coins or coins worth a large amount of makes a special point of saying that the master money (cf. v. 18 to 27). One talent seems to have gave money to the slaves, each according to their been equivalent to 6,000 denarii, or 6,000 days worth of wages for a day laborer. This makes the abilities (v. 15). [Talent] The real issue here is the talent worth about a million dollars in today’s stewardship of the servants while the master of money, and so even the slave who received one the house is absent. Clearly, protecting the assets talent clearly was given a huge amount of money. of the master but doing nothing with them during the interim when he is away is not considered sufficient unto the day. Verses 16-18 make evident the difference in these servants. Both the man with five talents and the man with two talents immedi-

Matthew 24:1–25:46

463

ately go and invest them. But the man who received just one talent doesn’t do anything “immediately” (eutheøs). Instead he digs a hole in the ground and buries the money. Burying money was not an unusual practice in antiquity, especially where no banks were near or only a distant temple served as the bank for the region (cf. Horace Sat. 1.1.41-42).33 In an honor and shame culture based on reciprocity, the idea was for the servants to gain more honor and perhaps some reward by being industrious with the talents. To do otherwise was to shame the master, to betray his trust. And the excuse the slave gives is weak—if he had known in fact that the master was a demanding and merciless person, he should have been all the more diligent in what he did with the money. We are thus told that both the man with five talents and the man with two invested what they had and doubled the original amount of money. In fact, doubling an investment was regarded in that day as a reasonable return for the effort, nothing exceptional, and doing nothing to invest would have been deemed inexcusable.34 Verses 19-23 relate what happened to the two industrious servants when the master returned. Verse 19 speaks of settling accounts with them. When the master learns that five talents have been turned into ten, his praise is unstinting: “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness.” The response to the news about the Wisdom into a Full Vessel man with two talents gaining two more is idenThe principles at work here were enuntical. Since the praise and the reward for both is ciated in earlier Wisdom literature. For the same, we may assume that what the master example, Sir 21:12 says only those who are wise was really concerned about is what they did and act wisely will receive further wisdom and with what they had, not who made the most instruction. b. Ber. 40a in fact says God pours money. [Wisdom into a Full Vessel] It is possible that more into a full vessel but not into an empty one. sharing in the master’s happiness or joy here refers to sharing in his banquet, since the Aramaic word translated into Greek as joy can also mean feast.35 Verses 24-25 provide us with the different response produced when the third servant simply hands the original money back to the master. This servant doesn’t begin by speaking of the amount given him. Rather, he speaks of the master and his character flaws! It is said that the master is a hard man who reaped where he did not sow and gathered where he had not scattered seed. “Thus,” says the servant, “I was afraid and went out and hid the money.” He then thrusts the money back into the master’s hands and says, “Behold, here is what belongs to you.” But it does not seem to be merely fear of the master operating here; perhaps also he has fear of

464

Matthew 24:1–25:46

failure, fear of actually losing the master’s money. The truth was that banks were no less safe than burying something in the ground, and if one turned money over to an investor, one was not himself actually doing anything—the money was being used and invested by another, while the individual in question could continue with whatever else he was doing. Furthermore, the third servant takes no responsibility for his lethargy; he had not personally invested himself in the task. Notice the reference to the master getting “his own money back.” In vv. 26-27 the master explodes. The servant is described as both wicked and lazy or useless (okn∑re). Notice that wickedness here has nothing to do with misuse of the money or squandering it. What was squandered was an opportunity, and in Wisdom literature that is a significant sin. It is not an accident that in the book of Proverbs one of the major recurring negative figures is the “sluggard,” the slothful or lazy person. Industriousness is one of trapezit∑s the major virtues praised in Wisdom literature, The word trapezit∑s, banker, occurs only just as it is here. Thus the epithet means “you once in the New Testament—here at v. are a bad steward, and since you are lazy you are 27—but it is common enough in the papyri. useless.” Work and investing one’s self in posiSee New Docs 1, 53. tive ways is seen as a good thing in Wisdom literature. Verse 27 tells the lazy servant that at a minimum he could and should have put the money on deposit with a banker. [trapezit∑s]

Verses 28-29 give instructions to take the talent from the third servant and give it to the first one who has ten talents—“For those who have will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Those who do not have, even what little they have will be taken from them.” It seems clear that Jesus is drawing on and modifying an earlier Wisdom teaching—Proverbs 9:9—where Wisdom herself says if you instruct the wise they will be wiser still, and if you teach the righteous they will add to their learning. The underlying principle is that one should give more to the receptive and wise and they will make good use of it. Jesus, speaking as Wisdom here, enunciates his own general maxim in v. 29. It needs to be stressed that while the parable is using money as a metaphor, Jesus is talking about tasks and abilities and endowments bequeathed to the disciples and what they do with such opportunities. The issue is not that the rich get richer and the poor will inevitably get poorer. No one showed more concern or compassion for the poor than Jesus. The issue is how one has responded to what the master has given one, and even during the ministry Jesus is nowhere said to give money to his disciples!

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Verse 30 tells us of the fate of the useless servant. He is thrown out into utter darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, the metaphorical language that refers to damnation.36 While Jesus does not teach that one is saved by means of works, he does teach that one who is already a servant of the master will be lost if one fails to use the “talents” the master has given him. It is furthermore the case that Jesus does not believe there is only one tense to salvation—there is rather a present and future dimension to salvation, and the future dimension to it, which Jesus calls entering or obtaining or inheriting the Dominion, is most certainly affected by the behavior of believers. Apostasy of a believer or chosen one is viewed as possible, as is the loss of one’s rewards, even if one is saved as through fire (cf. 1 Cor 3:5-15). The Shepherd King Divides the Flock, 25:31-46 Appropriately enough, the last discourse material in Matthew is a story about final judgment. This story is unique to this Gospel and rounds out all of the Matthean Gospel on a clearly eschatological note. There can be little doubt that this Evangelist has not traded in Jesus’ future eschatology for more emphasis on the present eschatological situation, unlike what seems to be the case in Luke’s Gospel. A good case can be made that we should not see this as a parable but rather as an apocalyptic prophecy with some parabolic elements. This is only appropriate for an apocalyptic sage like Jesus.37 There was already of course a Jewish tradition about future judgment and the shape it would take in the later prophetic material especially (see Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7 and also the parables of Enoch), and there is no reason Jesus could not have contributed to this line of discussion. We have already seen ample evidence in this Gospel that Jesus viewed himself as a special Son of David, one like but greater than Solomon, and here at the end of the ministry, having ridden into town on a donkey like Zechariah’s king of peace, it would not be surprising if Jesus taught a parable about his future role as King, judging human beings. Notice that in 1 Enoch 69:27 it is the Son of Man who is portrayed as the final judge, as seems to be suggested in Daniel 7 itself.38 First Enoch 62–63 seem also to be standing in the background.39 Here, however, the judge is said to be Son of Man, shepherd, and King all rolled into one, and at least two of those images in the Old Testament refer normally to God, as does the task of being the final judge. In other words, we have Jesus portrayed as a plenipotentiary fulfilling the role of God, which comports with earlier material in this Gospel that portrays Jesus as

465

466

Matthew 24:1–25:46

both human and as more than human—as God’s Wisdom come in the flesh. In Jewish literature, when it came to the Gentile nations, they would be judged by how they treated Israel For the Least of These (4 Ezra 7:37), but here they will be judged by In Midrash on Ps 118:17 we hear: how they view Jesus. In the world to come it will be said to Structurally what is striking about this passage him, “What has been your work?” If then is the fourfold repetition of the list of needs, he says “I have fed the hungry” it will be always in this order: hungry, thirsty, stranger, said to him, “That is the gate of Yahweh” (Ps 118:20); “you who have fed the hungry, naked, sick, and in prison. This presents a short enter in the same.” If he says: “I have list of tasks that the true disciple is to be about given the thirsty a drink” it will be said to until the Son of Man returns. Here, too, tradihim, “That is the gate of Yahweh; you who tional Jewish teaching may be being used and have given the thirsty to drink, enter in the modified. [For the Least of These] same.” If he says “I have clothed the Verse 31 presents us with a judgment scene on naked” it will be said to him “That is the gate of Yahweh, you who clothed the earth in which the Son of Man comes with his naked, enter in the same.” angels from heaven (cf. Dan 7:14 and Zech 14:5) and sits on a glorious throne (so 1 En. Note: I have slightly modified the form that D. C. 62:5) on earth to execute justice and more Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical importantly to decide who will go on to eternal Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint punishment and who to eternal life (see v. 46). Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC: Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 418 give of this material. This is precisely the scenario as depicted in 1 Enoch 62 (cf. 69:27-29). The language of brother and sister shows that Jesus is addressing his own followers at least when it comes to the sheep who are on his right side (v. 40). [Brother and Sister]

Verses 32-33 have all the nations gathered before this judge, and he will separate the people one from another, not on the basis of ethnicity but on the basis of how they have responded to Jesus indirectly. By indirectly, I mean what is sugBrother and Sister gested that whatever good has been done to the Notice the absence of the language of brother and sister in v. 45 compared to “least of these”40 (Jesus’ followers) will be v. 40. accredited as if it has been done to or for Jesus himself. This is a variant of the idea of the notion that Gentile nations are judged on how they have treated Israel (see above), only here it is Jesus’ followers who are the “least of these,”41 and those on the right are believers while those on the left are not. The sheep are the ones who have behaved appropriately and are placed on the right; the goats have not and are on the left. In v. 34 we have the clear reference to Jesus as king.42 It is kings who sit on thrones and who judge, as Jesus does here. We were already told in 13:41-43 and 16:27 that he would be the one to hand out eschatological blessing or punishment. On Christ’s judgment seat we may compare 2 Corinthians 5:10, but it is not

Matthew 24:1–25:46

different from God’s (see Rom 14:10-12). Jesus is operating in loco parentis. Notice how the believers who are on Jesus “right” side, are called “the blessed of my Father,” intimating an intimate relationship with Abba.43 The Dominion is said to have been prepared for them in advance, indeed since the creation of the world, and is called the believer’s inheritance. There is the breathtaking concept implied here that God’s plan of redemption stretches back to the beginning of creation, because God knew in advance that humans would fall and need redemption, need to be rescued so they could inherit the Dominion. What is described in vv. 34-36 is the full range of hospitality that The Last Judgment should characterize good and Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1450–1516). Last Judgment. Central panel of triptych. Location: Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] wise behavior, in this case expressed by the followers of Jesus. This passage must be compared then to Matthew 18:6-14 where “the least among the believers” are called “the little ones,” and the subject there as here is the treatment of Jesus’ weakest followers or most disadvantaged by his other followers.44 Notice in v. 37 that the sheep are called the righteous. Clearly righteousness here has to do with their righteous deeds (cf. 10:41; 13:43, 49). In vv. 41-45 the same scenario is repeated except for the unrighteous. Verse 41 commands that the goats depart from the king (cf. 7:23) and go into Gehenna, here called the eternal fire (see 18:8) prepared in advance for the devil and his angels. This apocalyptic scenario is played out in detail in Revelation 20:7-15, and on the devil’s angels see Revelation 12:7-9 (cf. 2 Cor 12:7; 2 En. 10:4-6).45 The concept here is of eternal torment, not obliteration. The lost also call Jesus Lord in v. 44, but, as in 7:21-23, this does not decide the issue of their eternal destiny. Verse 46 refers to the final separation of the righteous and the wicked as in John 5:29 and Daniel 12:2. [Matthew the Main Gospel]

467

468

Matthew 24:1–25:46 Matthew the Main Gospel Verse 46 is quoted in Justin Dial. 76.5, providing another piece of evidence of how already in the 2d century the Gospel of Matthew was the main one known, used, and quoted in Christian circles.

It is on this sobering note that the final discourse ends and the Passion Narrative begins. Both demonstrate how seriously God takes the matter of sin and our response to Jesus and his Gospel.

CONNECTIONS Handling Apocalyptic Prophecy

A word about Matthew 25:31-46 is in order. Here we have what can be called apocalyptic prophecy. It clearly involves parabolic images of sheep and goats symbolizing difference sorts of people, which make clear that neither the author nor the audience looked for a literal fulfillment of these words. Jesus will not be returning to sort out the world’s flocks of animals! However, it also needs to be realized that however poetic some of the images are in this prophecy, it is intended to be referential. Jesus does envision a real second coming, he does envision a final judgment, he does envision eternal life and what we call hell. But like so much apocalyptic prophecy about the more distant horizon, it is in poetic and parabolic form. It doesn’t really get into specifics, and this text tells us nothing about the timing of these events. Indeed, we would not expect it to do so. In light of the saying in Matthew 24 about no one knowing the timing of the second coming, all such speculating should cease and desist on the basis of the authority of Jesus’ own word on the matter.46 Much of the problem of the mishandling of biblical prophecy in our time is that we have imposed modern hopes and expectations and preconceptions on ancient texts and so distorted their meaning. We have pressed them to tell us more than God has chosen to reveal. The truth is that God has revealed enough about the future to give us hope, but not so much that we do not have to have faith. We should be content with what can be said with some certainty, not be frustrated by the lack of particularity of Jesus’ prophecies about the end of the eschatological age.47

Matthew 24:1–25:46

Notes 1 In

Mark the size of the structure is commented on. the difference from Mark, which speaks of the sign of all being accomplished. 3 On which see pp. 326-30 above. 4 For a thorough canvassing of the six major interpretations of what Mark (and also Matthew) is alluding to here, see D. Ford, The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979). 5 K. E. Brower, “‘Let the Reader Understand’: Temple and Eschatology in Mark,” in Eschatology in Bible and Theology, ed. K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliott (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 119-43. 6 E. Schweizer, Mark, 273. 7 See my discussion of this matter in my The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 821-43. 8 On this whole subject see my Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press 1992). 9 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC: Nashville: Nelson Reference 1995), 707. 10 See the argument of W. Carter, “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:2731),” JBL 122/3 (2003): 467-87. The problem is unlike Revelation; we do not seem to find much anti-Imperial rhetoric elsewhere in this Gospel. 11 See my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). 12 M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 319. 13 See my discussion in Gospel of Mark, 338-50. 14 See pp. 391-400 above. 15 See W. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 480. 16 See my detailed discussion of this verse in Christology of Jesus, 228-33. 17 For an attempt to read Mark 13 as the record of the recent and continuing experience of the Markan community as it welcomes refugees from the Jewish war into its midst, see K. D. Dyer, “‘But concerning that day . . .’ (Mark 13:32). ‘Prophetic’ and ‘Apocalyptic’ eschatology in Mark 13,” in SBL 1999 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 104-22. The attempt founders, however, on precisely the B sections of this discourse. 18 C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 347. 19 See the discussion in A. J. Dewey, “A Prophetic Pronouncement: Q 12.42-46,” Forum 5 (1989): 99-108. 20 See D. Hagner, 724. 21 See my Jesus, Paul and the End of the World. 22 D. Hagner, 725. 23 C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 593. 24 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 41-44, especially on the authenticity of this parable. 25 But see pp. 305-07 above. 26 See pp. 413-14 above. 27 On which see in general my Women in the Ministry of Jesus. 28 W. D. Ridley, “The Parable of the Ten Virgins,” Exp 5/2 (1895): 342-43. 29 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribers, 1963), 171-75. 30 See D. Hagner, 729. 31 Ibid., 733. 32 C. Keener, 599. 2 Notice

469

470

Matthew 24:1–25:46 33 Which

sheds some light on the parable of finding a treasure, such as a pearl, in a field. See pp. 273-74 above on 13:44. 34 C. Keener, 601. 35 See J. Jeremias, 60 n.42. 36 See pp. 473-76 above. 37 See D. Hagner, 740; D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC: Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 418. 38 See my The Christology of Jesus, 234-40. 39 D. R. Catchpole, “The Poor of the Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Reappraisal of Matthew XXV.31-46,” BJRL 61 (1979): 355-97. 40 On this phrase being used in Matthew to refer to Jesus’ followers, see pp. 175-78 above. 41 See D. Hagner, 740-43. 42 See pp. 392-95 above. 43 See pp. 144-46 above. 44 D. Hagner, 742-44. 45 On which see my Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), ad loc. 46 See the useful study by U. Luz, “The Final Judgment (Matt. 25:31-46): An Exercise in ‘History of Influence’ Exegesis,” in Treasures New and Old, 271-310, which does a fine job of showing how the text has been understood and used and misunderstood and misused. In my judgment, the latter happens most frequently when the character of apocalyptic prophecy is misunderstood. 47 On the whole subject of the character and history of biblical prophecy, see my Jesus the Seer and the Progress of Prophecy (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).

The Demise and Rise of the Davidic King Matthew 26:1–28:20

COMMENTARY Premonitions and Plans, 26:1-5

The longest consecutive narrative in this Gospel is the passion and resurrection story we find in Matthew 26–28. The ominous character and tone of the story is made plain at the outset of chapter 26. In v. 1 we have the reference to Jesus having finished his discourse, and then immediately he reminds the disciples of two apparently contradictory things—the Passover is two days away, and the Son of Man will be handed over and crucified. The incongruence here has to do with the fact that the Jewish authorities would not want any judicial actions to be engaged in, and certainly not any executions of Jews during Passover time when so many different people would be in town (including Zealots), and of course having a corpse around on Passover, much less on public display, would be defiling. Furthermore, if it involved the public shaming of crucifixion, it would be a sordid reminder that Jews were not masters of their own fate in Judea. [A Sapiential Reading of 26:1-5] Nevertheless, we already hear in vv. 3-5 that the Jewish officials are plotting and planning as to how to do away with Jesus, though not during the festival, lest a riot break out. But what makes this story even more sordid and sad is that one of Jesus’ own inner circle, Judas, is in on the plot. As we shall see, there is a studied contrast between the act of devotion of the woman in A Sapiential Reading of 26:1-5 Bethany and the act of betrayal of The plot against Jesus is first Judas. Judas has not been mentioned in announced by Jesus to his disciples and then by Caiaphas to his, though they planned to this Gospel prior to now except in the wait until after the Passover festival. Jesus knew list of the Twelve,1 but in Matthew better than Caiaphas what would transpire. 26–27 he plays a major role, and only

472

Matthew 26:1–28:20

the First Evangelist gives us the story of Judas’s death at 27:3-10. In other words, his importance in this Gospel is confined to the Passion Narrative. It is interesting that the only notable materials our Evangelist adds to his Markan source in the Passion Narrative have to do with Judas, with the apologetic motif in regard to the guards at the tomb, or with the increase in clarity about some Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus (see, e.g., 27:4, 10, 24-25, 62-64). Otherwise, our Evangelist follows Mark quite closely. Like the birth narratives these final narratives in Matthew are laden with supernatural phenomenon and have a strong emphasis on Scripture fulfillment, not least because these were the events in Jesus’ life that required the most confirmation, explaining, and justification. But there is room for more comment. After Matthew 27:1, which goes with the preceding discourse in Matthew 24–25, ending it in the same way all the discourses ended except the one in chapter 23 (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1), our Evangelist adds in v. 2 the reminder that the Son of Man is to be crucified. There is a sense in which his prophetic words could be said to set these events in motion.2 The connecting of Passover with the death of Jesus conjures up for the audience the idea of a possible sacrificial significance to Jesus’ death,3 and notice that it is only in this chapter of Matthew where Passover is actually mentioned (see vv. 17-19). Passover feast fell on Nisan 15 in that year, which is to say it fell on a Sabbath day, so it was a doubly holy day. Jesus, thus, died on the eve of a double celebration of “well-being” and deliverance from death. Notice the specificity of timing—the Passover is two days away. The use of the term “then” at the outset of v. 3 intimates that we are to see the plotting referred to here as a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about his death just mentioned. Those involved in the plot are said to be the chief priests and the elders of the people (cf. 2:4; 21:23). They gathered in the high priest’s courtyard or palace (cf. 26:58, 69) with Caipahas, the high priest. While there has been reference to plotting against Jesus before (12:14; 22:15), in the previous mentions of this Pharisees were the instigators. Verse 4, however, tells us that those most in charge of religious life in Jerusalem are now involved in such plotting, an ominous turn of events. They are the ones with the close connection to the Roman authorities who reserved the power of capital punishment to themselves. “Deceit” is said to characterize this plotting, which casts a shadow on their character but also sheds light on Jesus, who is innocent.4 That a riot during the festival was a real

Matthew 26:1–28:20

danger and could actually lead to the attenuation of what power the high priests had can be seen from a narrative like Josephus’s Jewish War 1.4.3. Apparently, we are meant to envision that action would be taken to arrest Jesus either before or after the festival, but the action to have him executed would be delayed until after the festival, since now the festival was only two days away and furthermore pilgrims were already in town attending to preliminary rituals of purification (see John 11:55). Or were they thinking of rough and summary justice being done quickly and quietly before sundown on Friday? It is hard to tell.5 In any case the funeral music has already begun playing in the background at the beginning of Matthew 26, and this sets the stage for the story about Jesus’ anointing in Bethany. [Caiaphas and

473

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Caiaphas 19th C. Caiaphas, the high priest. Detail from the Sanedrian. 1885. Papier-mache, made by Francesco and Vincenzo Biangardi for the workers of the Testasecca sulphur mines. Foto: George Tatge. S. Pio X, Caltanissetta, Sicily, Italy. [Photo Credit : Alinari/SEAT / Art Resource, NY]

Annas]

The Royal Anointing of King Jesus, 26:6-13

How are we to relate Matthew 26:6-13 and parallels to Luke 7:3650? Should we see them as two forms of the same story or as two different stories, which through cross-fertilization probably at the stage of oral tradition have come to look more like each other than they did originally? I have argued elsewhere that there were originally two distinct anointing stories and that Luke’s story has perhaps been influenced by his knowledge of the Markan story. 6 Luke does not choose to include Mark’s story in his Gospel since the two stories have enough similarities that Luke believes only one such story of this type is required in his selective narrative.7 Especially telling for the conclusion that these are two different narratives is the fact that the woman in Luke’s story is identified as a notable sinner and the story in Luke 7 is not about a proleptic burial ritual at all. Rather, unlike the Markan tale, Luke’s story is about forgiveness of sins. By contrast, even a cursory examination

474

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Caiaphas and Annas Caiaphas ruled from AD 18–36 and was the sonin-law of the immediately previous high priest, Ananus, who ruled from AD 6–15 (his name was sometimes rendered in its shortened form, Annas). (Notice that neither Mark nor Luke mentions the name of the high priest, Caiaphas, which shows our author does have some independent oral sources of reliable historical information.) The latter seems to have continued to have strong influence and even some control over Caiaphas until he died in AD 35 (cf. Luke 3:2; John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6; Josephus, Ant. 18.35, 95), though ultimately it is the latter to whom Jesus is made to answer (v. 57). The suggestions here in Matthew about the dark and scheming character of Caiaphas (and Ananus) are fully warranted. Caiaphas had to be removed from office later (cf. M. Parah 3.5). The Qumran community saw this whole line of priests as hopelessly corrupt and compromised by being in bed with the Romans (1QpHab 9.4-5 cf. T. Levi 14.1; 2 Bar. 10:18). The Romans had absolute control in regard to who became and who was deposed from being high priests, which was contrary to Jewish law. For example, Governor Quirinius installed Ananus in the first place, and Vitellius deposed Caiaphas when Pilate was send into exile (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.26 and 18.95). We are not to think of these particular high priests as being fair-minded officials. (Notice that Josephus himself complained about corrupt

high priests in the midst of doing apologetics on behalf of Jews; see his Life 216.) It was also a descendant of Ananus who was to have James the brother of Jesus executed, taking advantage of the fact that Judea was between procurators with the new one not yet in place (see Shanks and Witherington, The Brother of Jesus, on this and on the Caiaphas ossuary). In fact some five sons of Ananus were high priests in the first two thirds of the 1st century. It was all kept in one corrupt family, with Caiaphas being the only son-in-law (and thereby the only one who got there by marriage, which made him subject to strong influence by Ananus). Caiaphas managed to rule for the longest tenure of any high priest during the 1st century, which suggests his political astuteness. It must be remembered that Roman authorities actually held the high priest responsible for maintaining order and controlling the Jewish crowds during a festival, and they had certain leeway during the festivals to move against disturbers of the peace (Josephus, J.W. 2.232-44; 6.300-309; Ant. 20.199-203; see the discussion in C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 61213). There was good reason then for plans to be made to deal with someone who had already created a disturbance in the temple precincts. H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2003).

of the Markan, Matthean, and Johannine stories makes apparent that we are dealing with the same story, for the similarities are of the essence of the tale.8 I would, however, suggest that the First Evangelist, following Mark, may have placed this story here for theological reasons (to help exegete the significance of the plot, the Last Supper, and Jesus’ demise), for the Johannine placing of the story in Bethany prior to the triumphal entry seems historically more probable.9 In fact, it appears that the First Evangelist, following Mark, presents us with a generalized account of the more primitive and detailed Johannine account.10 It is noteworthy the contrast between the extravagance of this woman over against the attitude of those who object to the act, namely the male disciples, something made clear in Matthew unlike in Mark (cf. v. 8 to Mark 14:3-4). [A Sapiential Reading of 26:6-13] We have already noticed one clarification that is made in the Matthean version of this story, and on the whole it can be said that what we find here is a close following of Mark with some of the usual abbreviations and stylistic improvements. Some of the unnecessary particulars of the Markan story are omitted, for

Matthew 26:1–28:20 A Sapiential Reading of 26:6-13 Jesus the sage was anointed for ministry at the beginning of the story and anointed for death at the end. What the woman did was a beautiful act of honoring Jesus and showing he was precious like the ointment and that one must seize the moments when they come to do something beautiful for Jesus. The woman’s deed would be taken up into the Gospel story. No good deed done for Jesus will go unrewarded as Matt 25:31-46 already made clear.

example in v. 7 the reference to pistic nard and to the breaking of the alabaster jar are left out. In v. 8 the phrase about the waste of the ointment is deleted, as is the specification of the worth of the ointment as 300 denarii. Also omitted are the scolding of the woman, the phrase “leave her alone,” the sentence “and whenever you want you can do good to them” (Mark 14:7), the sentence “what she could she has done.” Lastly, Mark’s “to the whole world” becomes in this Gospel “in the whole world” at the end of the story.11 The editing here is a good and typical example of the sort of mostly stylistic modifications the First Evangelist makes to his Markan source, shortening the Markan account again and again to make room for all the other material he wants to include on this scroll. In an ancient biography such as this is, it must be kept in mind that apart from Jesus, the subject of this “bios,” other people fall into the background and are not given personal attention. This characteristic of ancient biographies explains why on the one hand we are told that the woman’s deed will serve as a memorial to her wherever the Gospel is preached to the world, but on the other hand she is no more named than are the disciples who objected to her extravagance. It is what she did for Jesus, on whom the personal spotlight shines, not who she is, that is of consequence in such a biography. All figures are only mentioned in so far as they contribute to our understanding of the central figure. The fact that the name of the host is mentioned (Simon the [former?] leper) simply helps fix the biographical story in a precise locale, which is also typical of such narratives. [Reasons for Anointing] What the woman in v. 7 is said to pour on Jesus’ head is myron, clearly not oil, and here it is said to be expensive perfume. The vessel itself, though called an albastron, was not necessarily made of alabaster. More importantly, the perfume was worth a lot of money, which leads Hurtado to suggest “the substance may have been a family heirloom, something that could be sold in times of financial need.”12 If so, this woman is acting in a completely self-sacrificial way, using all her social security for the purpose of an act of devotion. Here is where we note that the combination in Matthew of mentioning Jesus is anointed on the head while omitting the

475

476

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Reasons for Anointing In early Jewish culture there were a variety of reasons for anointing a person. Anointing the scalp or skin with oil usually did not serve the same purpose as anointing someone with perfume, especially expensive and fragrant perfume. The latter was saved for romantic or cosmetic purposes or for burial rites (cf. Song 1:12; John 19:39-40; Luke 24:1).

Markan phrase “let her keep it,” which suggested observing some sort of ritual, makes the Matthean portrayal more clearly about a royal anointing, in this case a preparation for a royal burial with expensive perfume, which because of lack of time later will not be properly done to suit a royal figure. Anointing for burial was an activity in which women were regularly involved in Jesus’ age and culture, but in Jesus’ case they would be unable to perform the task in the rush to get Jesus into the tomb. Here we have a story about a dinner in a surprising place (the house of a leper) where a surprising event transpired. The locale says something about Jesus’ views on the matter of ritual purity, unless Simon was a former or future leper. Even if he were a former leper whom Jesus healed, there would still be the stigma attached and fear of such a person on the part of many, but not in the case of Jesus. [Simon the Leper/Pharisee?] We may perhaps see the act of hospitality by Simon as his grateful response to the healing by Jesus. Also we have here “another instance of the Jesus mission operating by household hospitality.”13 This was Christ in the House of Simon the Pharisee an important principle that carried Dieric Bouts the Elder (1415-1475). Christ in the House of Simon. C. 1460. Oil on oak. Location: Gemäldegalerie, room V. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] over into the early church. The house became not only the place for Simon the Leper/Pharisee? hospitality and rest but the venue in One can hardly imagine Simon the leper being the same which the gospel could be shared person as Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7) in light of the and in-house teaching offered on any Pharisaic concerns about ritual purity. Nor can one imagine if Simon day of the week. The mention in v. 9 the leper was healed by Jesus quite apart from ritual observance that he then went on to become a Pharisee! Finally, if Simon the of giving to the poor may be because Pharisee contracted leprosy and was healed by Jesus and not by during the festival a gift to the poor ritual cleansing, it would be hard to imagine that he would continue was expected, even required. to be a Pharisee instead of becoming a disciple of Jesus. There are When it came to the preparation of course a plethora of Simons in the New Testament (10) and in of a royal figure for burial, kings Josephus (19 or 20). People regularly named their children after the were anointed from the head down. Maccabean hero. The motive of the woman in any

Matthew 26:1–28:20

477

case seems to be devotional, and Jesus clearly interprets the act as preparation for burial. The Gospel writer, however, may see this act by the woman as an example of a woman playing a prophetic or priestly role, for prophets or priests performed royal anointings.14 More to the point, the act is seen as a symbolic prophetic act that previews what will happen to Jesus. Mark describes this event as a beautiful deed and so a paradigm for his audience to emulate. Extravagant love in the service of Jesus is always to be commended. [Prophetic Foresight] The question of Jesus in Matthew—“Why are you bothering this woman?”—is clearly enough implying that the male disciples should leave her alone and not trouble her about what she has done. Matthew 26:11 should be compared Prophetic Foresight with 9:15, for the remark is not meant to Notice the woman is not commended suggest that there should not be good deeds perfor her prophetic foresight, however, as formed for the poor but rather that the amount she probably had no thought of her act being anyof time one will have to perform acts of extravathing but an act of devotion. gant love for Jesus is limited. The poor by contrast will always be available to receive such acts of loving-kindness. Matthew 26:13 alludes to the worldwide mission of preaching the good news, spoken of as well in 24:14. This has suggested to many commentators that the saying is unlikely to go back to Jesus, but perhaps the original saying was something like “Amen, I tell you wherever the good news is proclaimed, what she has done will be told as her memorial,” and Mark and then the first Evangelist have more explicitly linked the saying to world evangelism by the church.15 It is ironic that the woman in effect unwittingly performs an act that amounts to a proleptic memorial to Jesus, but the story is originally told as a memorial to her! However, in the context of the Gospel it becomes a memorial to Jesus and his character as well. For our purposes, it is crucial to add that this story speaks of an anointing on the head in Bethany for non-hygienic purposes, which is to say Jesus was anointed near to the spot where Solomon was anointed, at the Gihon spring in preparation for his reign over God’s people (see 1 Kgs 1:28-53).16 But here was one greater than Solomon who would be lifted up on a cross rather than onto a throne and would become king paradoxically enough through his death, burial, and then resurrection. The sapiential portrait of Jesus in this Gospel is being brought to a climax. The Cost of Betrayal, 26:14-16 The portrayal of the betrayal in Matthew is darker than in Mark. For example, Matthew not only specifies an amount that Judas was

478

Matthew 26:1–28:20

prepared to take to betray Jesus (thirty silver coins—see Zech 11:13), but in Matthew, unlike Mark, we actually have the dialogue that indicates Judas’s greed quite clearly. “How much will you give me?” says Judas. In addition, the reference to Judas being one of the Twelve is moved to the beginning of v. 14 to make clear the heinous nature of this betrayal. [A Sapiential Reading of 26:14-16] Judas in v. 14 is introduced as Iscariotes, which is a more Grecized form of Mark’s Iskarioth. This seems to be a place name, perhaps Kerioth (see the reference to his father in John 6:71 with the same appellation), in which case Judas was the only Judean disciple among the Twelve.17 This might explain A Sapiential Reading of 26:14-16 his ready access to the chief priests. But there is Judas the betrayer is prepared to hand another and more ominous possibility. [Sikarios] Jesus over for even less a price than the Once Judas was given the thirty pieces of cost of the ointment with which Jesus had been silver, we are told he began to watch for an anointed—thirty silver denarii. opportunity to hand Jesus over to the authorities (v. 16). There is hardly anything more devastating than to have all your hopes that have been building for a long period of time suddenly snuffed out. Perhaps Judas had taken in the triumphal entry, the action in the temple, then the anointing right on the edge of Jerusalem, but when Jesus had silenced the woman’s critics, including Judas, and told them what she did was for his burial and not as a prelude to his taking over Jerusalem, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back, in Judas’s case. Whatever is the case, the Last Supper must have produced considerable distress and indigestion for Judas, and to that story we now turn. The Passover Plot, 26:17-35

Several factors about the beginning of this narrative seem strange. Firstly, there is the apparently clandestine nature of the Sikarios We may have here a form of the word sikarios (in Latin sicarius), which means assassin or bandit. Was Judas one of the Zealots who became disillusioned with Jesus when he arrived in Jerusalem and it became apparent he wasn’t going to take over the town in the way his ancestor David would have done? This is certainly possible, but note that John 6:71 gives his father the same appellation. Was he also a violent Zealot? To judge from John 12:4-6, money was a definite issue for Judas, for there we are told that it was specifically Judas who criticized the lavish act of this woman anointing Jesus, and we are also told Judas carried the money bag for the Twelve, and here

we learn that he betrays Jesus for the cost of a slave (Exod 21:32). Whether Judas was a Zealot or not, and I am inclined to think he was, just like Simon the Zealot, it is clear enough that when it becomes evident that Jesus has come to Jerusalem to die rather than to take over, Judas is prepared to hand him over to the authorities, presumably not just because he wanted money, but also because he could no longer adhere or agree to the path Jesus had chosen to travel. Perhaps in his mind a crucified messiah was a contradiction in terms, and since Jesus was prepared to go down without a fight, that surely proved he could not be the messianic Son of David Judas had envisioned.

Matthew 26:1–28:20

479

Judas Receiving Payment for His Betrayal Giotto di Bondone (1267-1337). Judas Receiving Payment for his Betrayal. Scrovegni Chapel, Padua, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

preparations. On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which preceded the Feast of the Passover by a day according to Exod 12:18, but practically speaking the two festivals blended together as part of the same week of celebration), [Nisan 14] the disciples ask Jesus where he wants preparations to be made to celebrate Passover. Jesus gives cryptic instructions to go into the city to “the” man and tell him that the teacher says he is ready to celebrate Passover “with you,” without telling them who “the” man is. Secondly, there is the matter that the master seems to be sending them to prepare for a Nisan 14 Notice that in Josephus J.W. 5.99, Passover prior to the appropriate time. Lastly, Nisan 14 is called the Day of there is Jesus’ remark about celebrating “with Unleavened Bread. France is probably right that you” as if Jesus already had a predetermined “the first of the azyma” means the onset of Nisan person and familiar place in mind. Yet the disci14 on the evening before Passover Day. Therefore, ples obey Jesus without question here, as if Jesus celebrated it on Thursday night. Jesus’ orders are not cryptic.18 It is interesting R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Leicester: that while in the rest of Matthew 26 we find refInterVarsity, 1985), 185-86. erences to the Twelve, in vv. 12-16 we find

480

Matthew 26:1–28:20

A Sapiential Reading of 26:17-35 The Last Supper portrays the paradox of profound intimacy and profound betrayal within the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, making the betrayal even worse. So confident is Jesus of the outcome of his death and that it will be salvific that he distributes symbolically the benefits of the death in advance of his dying! The forgiveness of sins will become available to all who will receive it. Jesus also has confidence that he will one day drink the fruit of the vine again in the kingdom. So great is Jesus’ insight and wisdom

that he can even see a happy outcome for the disciples and himself beyond betrayal, denial, desertion, and death on a cross. Notice the dramatic juxtaposition of the affirmation of the scattering of the sheep with the promise of reunion in Galilee in vv. 31-32. Wherever they may run and seek to hide, Jesus will be there before them to meet them there. Peter swears he will never desert Jesus as do all the others, but it is an illfated promise.

references only to the disciples, presumably including Judean disciples. In fact, it is my view that “the man” in question is one of Jesus’ Judean disciples, familiar to the Twelve, perhaps even the Beloved Disciple. Normally the meal was to be taken within the old city walls, but if this meal was done a day early and clandestinely, it may well have taken place somewhere like Bethany, though Jerusalem proper is perhaps more probable, depending on how much risk the disciples and Jesus were prepared to take on this occasion, especially now that Jesus was persona non grata with temple officials in Jerusalem after his action and teaching in the temple. There are many imponderables in this story, and the First Evangelist’s omission of Mark’s mention of a prearranged signal of finding a man with a water jar on his head who will lead them to the house does not help with clarification. The Markan account clearly suggests a prearranged signal and rendezvous. The Matthean account suggests that the homeowner will be partaking of the feast with Jesus and the disciples. In any event, in v. 19 we are told that Jesus’ disciples prepared a Passover meal. Notice also that in Matthew but not Mark, Jesus warns that “my time is near,” sounding rather like the Johannine Jesus. This implies that Jesus is doing this meal now, knowing his time is running out. [A Sapiential Reading of 26:17-35]

Perhaps we have here an indication that Jesus had been to Jerusalem before and there was a familiar place where he took meals within the city (for the Passover had to be eaten, if at all possible, within the holy city), and in fact arrangements complete with secret signal had been made in advance for he and his disciples to show up in a particular house on that night.19 The likelihood that this is a correct conclusion is increased by a careful reading of the Fourth Gospel, which suggests not only that Jesus made repeated trips to Jerusalem during his ministry, but also that he had a Judean disciple with whom he was close especially, the Beloved Disciple (not one of the Galilean disciples), in whose house he reclined as a guest at the head of the “table” during Passover week.20 Since the

Matthew 26:1–28:20

The Last Supper Nikolai Ge (1831-1894). The Last Supper, 1863. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Passover meal seldom finished before midnight and needed to be taken within the city walls of Jerusalem, this meant Jesus would have had to remain within the jurisdiction of the priestly authorities late into the night. Indeed, if there is any validity to the tradition about the upper room being on Mt. Zion, he would have been taking Passover within a stone’s throw of Caiaphas’s house. This was a dangerous situation. The Jewish way, of course, was to reckon a day from sundown to sundown, the Roman way from midnight to midnight. By the Roman way of thinking, the first day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) and the day of the slaughter of the lambs (Nisan 14) were one and the same, for the former began on the evening of the latter.21 [A Passover Meal?] [To Pass Over or to Passover?]

The story of the meal is told in even more succinct fashion here than in Mark. Verse 20 says Jesus came with the Twelve in the early evening to recline at table. That it says the Twelve came with Jesus may mean the two sent ahead to prepare the way were disciples who were not among the Twelve, perhaps Judean disciples. The first remark from Jesus’ lips in this Gospel (v. 21) is that one of the

481

482

Matthew 26:1–28:20 A Passover Meal? There is much to commend in some of A. Jaubert’s suggestions that the meal Jesus had with his disciples was a Passover meal celebrated not on the normal day but rather earlier, perhaps following the calendar found in Jubilees and perhaps at Qumran. Though I disagree with her that this Passover day was Tuesday rather than Thursday, I think she is correct that Jesus was crucified as John says on the day of the slaughter of the lambs—Nisan 14. I further think part of the confusion comes from the fact that the Johannine account depicts a meal taken earlier in the week, which was not a Passover but a Greco-Roman style banquet, complete with extensive symposium, which is to say with teaching. See my John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1995) on John 13 and cf. A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (New York: Alba Press, 1965).

Twelve is going to betray him. It would appear that this meal was taken exclusively with the Twelve. [Meal with the Beloved] The announcement can only have had a chilling effect on the whole proceedings, for we are talking about the deepest sort of betrayal, as is made more evident by the citation of Psalm 41:9-10 in John 13:18, though one could just as well have cited Psalm 23—“thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.” Ancient hospitality customs were such that a guest sitting at table was sacrosanct and protected from harm from anyone else present. Thus in the most intimate setting we have the beginning of the gravest sort of betrayal. The story is full of irony, for despite all this celebrating and bonding over a meal, the participants were going to betray, deny, and desert Jesus soon indeed. To Pass Over or to Passover? It is easy to get embroiled in controversy as to whether the Last Supper was in fact a Passover meal. In my view it was, though it was celebrated early. The earliness may be one good reason why it was celebrated in secret, for this would have meant the disciples or their friends would have had to slaughter the lamb themselves, not have it done in the temple precincts. Yet they were in Jerusalem! This circumvention of the sacrificial protocol would itself have been an affront to the priestly authorities. Sacrificing animals for the feast outside of Jerusalem was of course not an unknown practice, for we find it at Qumran, at Mt. Gerizim, in the Diaspora, and presumably in Galilee as well by those who were devout but unable to go up the ninety or so miles to the festival in Jerusalem. It is, however, strange that neither the lamb nor the rite of purification is mentioned in these verses here in Matthew that describe the meal. Is this because Jesus celebrated the meal with the other Passover elements but without the lamb? He was, of course, as we shall see, reinterpreting the

Passover elements in a new way, and so one cannot argue that it is impossible that other innovations (e.g., no lamb) might have also been involved. Still it seems unlikely that the meal would have been held without the lamb, which was the main course, so to speak. Thus, we must conjure with an “illegal” Passover meal, celebrated early and without the due process of the temple sacrificial rites, for the lamb had been slaughtered and dressed elsewhere. (If Jesus indeed had relatives down the road in Bethlehem, where lambs were raised for sacrifice in Jerusalem, could he have relied on them to perform the sacrificial act?) This is yet another piece of evidence supporting the view that Jesus was a radical Jew, unafraid to alter tradition and even set aside portions of the Torah as no longer binding in the wake of the coming of God’s eschatological saving activity. For a fresh discussion arguing that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, see Casey, Aramaic Sources, 219-52, which includes a strong argument for an Aramaic substratum to this story.

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Meal with the Beloved It is my view that the meal portrayed in John 13 involving the Beloved Disciple himself was taken earlier in the week, while this clandestine Passover was, indeed, taken on Thursday night and likely involved only the Twelve plus Jesus. There would likely also have been servers involved, perhaps the Beloved Disciple’s family members if this meal transpired in the same spot.

According to v. 22 the disciples were extremely sad about Jesus’ words, and notice how each one asks Jesus in turn what amounts to a question seeking exoneration—“You surely don’t mean me, do you, Lord?” Notice that their being upset comes from the accusation against one of the Twelve, not in the first instance from the horrible prospect of what this meant for Jesus’ fate. The Twelve continue to be a self-concerned bunch. Jesus was to go forward to the cross without his inner circle, his closest allies and support group. In the highly stratified world of male culture, at a meal the people closest to the guest of honor or host were considered the most important guests. It is then a measure of the depth of the perfidy that Jesus says in v. 23 that the one who has dipped the bread in the bowl with him would betray him. The First Evangelist strangely makes nothing of this, but there may be an implicit presenting of the story drawing on a text such as Psalm 41:9. Verse 24 expresses aptly the horror of the matter. While it is true that it was part of the divine plan that the Son of Man must die as a ransom for many, nevertheless this does not exonerate Judas who acts of his own volition to betray Jesus. About him Jesus says it would have been better if he had never been born. To make matters perfectly clear, the First Evangelist adds v. 25 to the Markan account, where Judas says, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Notice the contrast with v. 22 where the others called Jesus lord or master. Notice also that in v. 49 Judas uses the term again, and he is the only disciple to call Jesus this. We should compare Matthew 23:7-8 where Jesus tells his disciples they are not to solicit this title, unlike the Pharisees. Judas is thus portrayed as an outsider here.22 Jesus’ response “you have said it” should be seen as an affirmation, and importantly we find this same phrase (su eipas) at v. 64 and 27:11 on Jesus’ lips again in regard to the question of Jesus’ own identity. Judas’s identity as the betrayer and Jesus as the Jewish messiah and King of the Jews are confirmed by Jesus using these same words.23 Verses 26-30 provide us with the actual description of the Last Supper meal itself. The account differs little from the Markan one, except that at v. 27 Mark’s statement is turned into an imperative “drink of it, all,” in v. 28 the clarifying words “for the forgiveness of sins” are added, and in v. 29 “the Dominion of God” becomes “the

483

484

Matthew 26:1–28:20 “this—my body” Thus, for instance, this would mean that he said something like “this—my body,” for the verb “is” (the copula; elsewhere in Matthew the copula means symbolic equivalence; it does not involve a literal equivalence or an identity statement—see Matt 13:19-23, 37-39) found in the Greek would not be in the Aramaic, and furthermore the phrase “my body for you” probably cannot be said in Aramaic any more than the phrase “my blood of the covenant” can. See E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 301-303.

Dominion of my Father.”24 We also have the direct command to “eat” here, not found in Mark, and thus making a perfect parallelism with the command to drink. Notice, too, that Jesus does not bless the bread, but rather blesses God for it, and note the cup prompts something different, namely a giving of thanks to God. The first thing that needs to be said about Jesus’ reinterpretation of the elements of the Passover is that he does not reinterpret the lamb itself or the bitter herbs. Rather he focuses on the bread and the wine. Secondly, it is hard to make too many fine points about the words of institution on the basis of the Greek text since it is likely Jesus spoke in Aramaic. [“this—my body”] Notice that Jesus here, as in the Markan account, does not offer these words before he breaks the bread. What can be gathered from the reconstruction of the original is that Jesus was giving in advance to his disciples, in symbolic form, the benefits of his death and asking his disciples to take them into themselves. Jeremias puts it this way: When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread . . . and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating; the common “Amen” and the common eating of the bread of benediction unite the members into a table fellowship. The same is true of the “cup of blessing” which is the cup of wine over which grace has been spoken, when it is in circulation among the members: drinking from it mediates a share in the blessing.25

It seems clear that Jesus saw his death as the act that instituted or ratified the new covenant, even though the word “new” in v. 28 seems not to be an original part of our text but is rather a scribal attempt to conform our text to Luke 22:20 or 1 Corinthians 11:25. Thus, this meal, while it could be said to foreshadow the eschatological banquet (on which cf. Isa 25:6; 65:13; 1 En. 62:14; Bar 29:8) is actually about instituting a new covenantal relationship

Matthew 26:1–28:20

485

between God and God’s people. This assumes that the old one was no longer in force or enforceable, or at the very least that it needed replacing. [Symbolic Discourse] The story is once again laden with irony since the implication of the theological assertion about the expiating blood of Jesus poured out for many (v. 24) is that death (the ultimate pollutant in the Jewish purity system) is the means of ultimate cleansing.26 It is the shedding of the blood, not just the blood itself, that inaugurates the covenant, which is to say it is the sacrifice of Jesus that does this, as was true in Old Testament treaty ratification situations. The reference to “for many” in v. 28 probably alludes to Isaiah 53:12, and so once more Jesus is seen as The Redeemer the suffering servant in this Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). Study of Christ for the Last Supper. [Credit: Wikimedia Gospel.27 It may also be that the Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] Matthean adding of “for the forgiveness of sins” alludes to Jeremiah 31:34 where forgiveness is said to be a benefit of the new covenant. If indeed this story accurately represents Jesus’ Symbolic Discourse understanding of things (whatever the particuFor suddenly we realize that Jesus is not lars about the authenticity of the words of after all participating in the temple-ceninstitution), what astounding faith and trust tered feast of Passover (note that Mark never must Jesus have had to have believed his death mentions the eating of lamb). Instead he is exprowould accomplish such a thing, and then to be priating its symbolic discourse (the ritual meal) in so supremely confident that he could symboliorder to narrate his new myth, that of the Human One who gives his life for the people. cally distribute the benefits of that death in advance of it happening! This high moment C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 363. must be compared to his moment of struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane, which follows shortly thereafter in both Matthew and Mark. The words of institution would surely have been taken by the Twelve as symbolic, for that is how they would have understood the original interpretations of the elements of the Passover, but there must have been grave difficulties in accepting the “this is my

486

Matthew 26:1–28:20

The Last Supper Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640). The Last Supper. Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

blood” saying and then drinking the wine since partaking of human blood was seen as abhorrent by early Jews; indeed it would likely be seen as drinking someone’s very life or life force (cf. John 6:5; 1 En. 98:11). Even if the saying were seen as purely symbolic, it still would have surely offended the sensibilities of the disciples. Verse 29 is significant not least because it indicates that Jesus expected to be present at the messianic banquet in God’s Dominion. While the statement seems to echo some of the Passover liturgy, its sentiment should be compared to 1QSa 2 where we find the Qumranites looking forward to partaking of a meal in the last days in the company of an anointed priest and the Messiah of Israel (cf. 1 QS 6). Notice that Jesus anticipates sharing in no more Passover meals, or at least not drinking any more wine, until the kingdom comes. This might be compared to traditional

Matthew 26:1–28:20

vows of abstinence while undergoing some holy process or period (cf. Num 6:4; 30:2; 11QTemple 53-54). He will drink it new then, a statement on the discontinuity between Jesus’ life at present and the eschatological state of affairs (cf. Isa 25:6; 2 Bar. 29:5-8; Matt 8:11; Luke 14:15; Rev 19:9). “Placed where it is, the saying suggests that [the Evangelist] perhaps sees the death of Jesus as being in some way instrumental in bringing about the arrival of God’s kingdom.”28 Verse 30 refers to the singing of a hymn, and it was indeed customary to sing some of the Hallel psalms at Passover celebration (Pss 113–14 before the meal, and Ps 115–18 after it). This reference supports the view that Jesus partook of no ordinary meal on the last night of his earthly life but rather of a celebratory and sacred one. He and the disciples then go out on the Mount of Olives, which is perhaps where they were camping. Verse 31 deals with the general desertion of all the Twelve and links it to a prophetic Scripture—Zechariah 13:7. Notice the difference between the way the verse is cited here and the way it is in the original where it reads “strike the shepherd. . . .” Here we have “I will strike the shepherd,” which stresses that it is by God’s design and action that this happens to Jesus.29 The First Evangelist adds words to the quotation not found in Mark, namely “of the flock” to make it conform more to the text of the LXX, but perhaps also to make clear the effect of Jesus’ death on his own flock of disciples. Notice that often the statement of fulfillment of Scripture comes at those junctures where the story takes an unexpected turn, as here with the reference to the disciples’ desertion. The setting of this series of happenings is both natural and surprising. On the one hand, it was normal for pilgrims to camp on the Mount of Olives and so Judas would know the vicinity where Jesus would likely be. Yet on the other hand, this is the same locale where Jesus predicted the fall of the temple, and soon Jesus will be betrayed here—a far cry from the military victory predicted in Zechariah 14 for the shepherd when he came to this locale. Or is it? [Use of Zercharia 9–14] Every time in this Gospel when Jesus speaks of his passion, it provokes a crisis among the disciples and a flurry of verbiage follows.30 Verse 32 is an exceedingly important verse from the point of view of Matthean theology as it points to a positive conclusion beyond the cross. Indeed it points to the sort of reunion in Galilee we see depicted in Matthew 28. The desertion of the disciples will not mean the end of their following of Jesus. The verb proagø can either mean “go ahead of ” (and thus go there before the disciples go), or it could mean “go at the head of ” (and thus lead a group to

487

488

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Use of Zechariah 9–14 J. Marcus reads the use of this Scripture text in the following suggestive fashion: The allusions to Zechariah 9–14 in Mark 14:22-28 [and Matt 26:31], then, may well be read . . . in such a way that they provide a contrast to the interpretation of those passages circulating in Jewish revolutionary circles known to them. Instead of seeing the arrival of the kingdom of God in the appearance of a triumphant Messiah figure on the Mount of Olives, a miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from the Gentile armies that surround it, and a resanctification of the Temple through its cleansing from pagan influence, Mark would see the arrival of the kingdom of God, paradoxically, in the deliverance of Jesus to his Jewish enemies on the Mount of Olives, his humiliating death at the hands of Gentiles in Jerusalem, and the proleptic act of Temple destruction that accompanies that death [see Matt 26:51].” J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord, 161.

Galilee). Matthew 28:7 needs to be compared at this juncture, and it suggests the former interpretation is correct. The verse also serves as a promise not only that Jesus’ future will involve vindication by God, but also that the disciples will be regathered as a group. As was true in Matthew 16, Peter fixates on the part of Jesus’ predictions which refer to the coming desertions and the death of Jesus, rather than on the promise of resurrection and regathering. In v. 33 Peter strongly affirms that though all others may be offended (or embarrassed) and so put off by Jesus’ message (picking up on the prediction in v. 31 that this very night they will all fall away), and so desert him, Peter himself will not do so. Peter’s remark however provokes an even darker rejoinder just as was the case in Matthew 16. Jesus offers another “amen” saying, testifying strongly that the same night Peter will deny Christ three times before the cock crows. [Cockcrow] Verse 35 provides an equally strong rebuttal by Peter: “Even if I must die with you, I will never disown you.”31 The verb aparn∑somai is a strong one and really means “to disown,” i.e., to divest oneself of an association one had previously. Interestingly, we are told that all the other disciples chimed in at this juncture, affirming the same thing. But of course all of them, including Peter, will do just the opposite of what they say, under pressure. Augustine put it well when he said, “God knows in us even what we ourselves do not know in ourselves. For Peter did not know his weakness when he heard from the Lord that he would deny him three times” (Tractate on John 32.5). The Garden of Evil, 26:36-46

The First Evangelist continues to follow the Markan Passion Narrative quite closely with some of the usual abbreviations and

Matthew 26:1–28:20

489

stylistic emendations. The following modifications are of note: (1) In v. 39 the Markan phrase “that if it is possible, the hour might pass from him” is left out, as Image Not Available is the first clause of the prayer “all due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published things are possible to you” in the commentary or perform an Internet same verse and the Aramaic word search using the credit below. abba. (2) In v. 40 he omits the first question to Peter—“Simon, are you sleeping?” (3) In v. 43 he omits the statement about the disciples, “and they did not know what to answer him.” (4) In v. 45 The Rooster and Saint Peter Denying Rooster and Saint Peter Denying. Detail from "Saint Peter's denial". Mosaic (6th). S. the Evangelist omits Mark’s “it is The Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] enough.” (5) Most of the Matthean additions are minor, but in v. 42 the Cockcrow There was actually a watch of the night called “cockcontent of Jesus’ prayer is added, crow”—between 12-3 A.M. though it varies little from what we find in v. 39.32 The net effect of the changes is that Jesus’ humanity is even more on display in the Matthean account than in the Markan one. This narrative is not by accident circumstantial because we have come to the hour of decision for Jesus himself. In a sense, all that follows is decided in this hour. [A Sapiential Reading of 26:36-46] At v. 36 we are told that Jesus and the disciples went to a place called Gethsemane (which means oil press), and thus into a grove of olive trees. Only John’s account calls it a garden (John 18:1). Jesus first tells the disciples to sit at a particular place while he goes “over there” to pray, but he takes Peter and the two sons of Zebedee with him. In the Matthean portrayal, Jesus is not depicted as praying all that frequently (but see Matt 14:23 on his praying alone at night and cf. the public praising of God in 11:25-27). According A Sapiential Reading of 26:36-46 The Gethsemane story in the Matthean story becomes a dramatic portrayal of wrestling with God’s will and then finally accepting it. In Mark one is not told what Jesus said to God the second time he went away to pray. Here Jesus on the first occasion asks if it be possible that the cup (referring to the expression of God’s judgment in and by the cross) be removed from him, yet not as Jesus wills it. But on the second occasion he says “if it is not possible it be removed, thy will be done.” On both occasions Jesus addresses God in the most intimate terms as “my Father.” He is said on the third occasion to have spoken the same thing as on the second one. The disciples, including even Peter, are not able to watch and pray with him. They fail to do as he asked and show how far they are from being complete disciples.

490

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Garden of Gethsemene Garden of Gethsemane on the western border of the Kidron Valley. Here the Apostles fell asleep. There are still some very ancient olive trees here. (Credit: Garden of Gethsemane, Mount of Olives, Jerusalem. Tango7174 / Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0)

to v. 38 Jesus becomes extremely sorrowful and anxious. He takes on the role of the righteous sufferer of the Psalms (Ps 55:4-5 cf. Pss 41:6-12; 42:5LXX). He says “my spirit is very sorrowful unto death.” [Psych∑] Here surely there is an allusion to Psalm 42:6. Jesus is so sad he could simply die of a broken heart, not Psych∑ least because of how badly the disciples were going Here psych∑ refers to the inner life to fail him.33 He urges the three to stay and keep of the person. The phrase “sad unto watch with him. In v. 39 Jesus goes a little distance death” is like our phrase “sick to death.” It away, throws himself facedown on the ground means he has reached the limit to which his (a gesture suggesting utter supplication and submissadness can go. sion and also earnestness), and prays, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will but as you will.” Why is it that Jesus asks for this reprieve? Is it because he is afraid? Is he simply a frightened human being or a reluctant martyr? [Why Jesus Suffered] Two clues suggest another interpretation, one here and one at the scene on the cross. Here there is the reference to the “cup,” which refers to the cup of God’s wrath.34

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Why Jesus Suffered It is interesting that later church fathers (perhaps in part because of notions about God being impassable?) try to avoid the notion that Jesus suffered in regard to his own fate. For example, in Ignatius, Eph. 7.2 and Poly. 3.2, we find the comment that Jesus in himself is free from suffering but suffers on our behalf. This seems to be an attempt to avoid the conclusion that Jesus might be concerned about himself and his own demise.

At the cross Jesus speaks of being God-forsaken. It is then not so much the suffering itself that Jesus shrinks from, but rather facing abandonment by the one he has known as Abba all this time and, even more daunting, facing the wrath, the judgment of God on the cross. He dreads, as any human would, undergoing such judgment and punishment. As Garrett stresses, Jesus is undergoing a real and severe test or temptation, and the emotive language in the narrative is meant to indicate this fact. It requires great endurance for Jesus to pass such a test when his every natural inclination is to let the cup pass.35 Perhaps the most crucial part of this passage is the “nevertheless” clause—“nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.” This “yet” or “nevertheless” suggests that at this juncture Jesus is not sure what God’s will is, and perhaps he is exploring whether

Christ’s Agony in the Garden Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov (1806–1858). Christ’s Agony in the Garden. Watercolor. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

491

492

Matthew 26:1–28:20

there might be another way for God’s will and Dominion to come. As Schweizer says:, “Jesus’ sovereignty is that of one who has been victorious in temptation. And so Jesus’ willingness to obey is more impressive because he walks this path consciously and deliberately.”36 There are several apparent echoes of the Lord’s Prayer in this prayer—the Father address,37 the emphasis that God’s will be done, and then after the prayer Jesus’ emphasis on the disciples not falling into temptation.38 Perhaps the First Evangelist wanted us to see the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6 as indeed Jesus’ own prayer, one he could pray, but also one he gives to the disciples. Jesus himself prays three times to God, which was customary for a Jew to do when in distress (cf. 2 Cor 12:8; Dan 6:10, 13). Jesus returns and finds the disciples asleep three times. Is this a parallel of Peter’s threefold denial? In any case, it shows the lack of readiness of these disciples for what is about to transpire. They should have stayed awake and prayed not to fall into temptation. Notice that Peter is chided directly in v. 40, the first time he returns and finds them sleeping. Jesus urges the disciples to watch and pray lest they fall into temptation. Falling asleep is not the temptation; rather it appears that giving way to some evil is, such as deserting Jesus or responding to his arrest inappropriately. The saying about the spirit being willing and the flesh weak in v. 41 refers not to the human spirit but rather the Holy Spirit, which is literally eager/ready (prothymon) to help. This conclusion is supported by the Old Testament text to which Jesus here alludes—Isaiah 31:3 and possibly Psalm 51:11-12. Human flesh, however, is oh so weak. Notice that Jesus is concerned for them and their trial, even in the hour of his own greatest trial. Verse 42 says Jesus went away a second time, and this time his prayer is a little different. Notice that he says, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, your will be done.” This suggests he has been wrestling in prayer and is now closer to accepting that it is God’s will for him to drink the cup. We are meant to see the progress of a soul in this Matthean account, as Jesus is now more resolved to face what is coming. It is important to note that at first Jesus prayed for something that turned out not to be God’s will for him, and thus it was a fully human prayer. He was battling the temptation to avoid the cross and so the outpouring of God’s wrath on sin. When Jesus returns to the disciples in v. 43, they are once more sleeping, and our Evangelist omits the Markan notion that they are sleeping from sorrow, saying instead they are sleeping because their eyes are heavy. Verse 44 simply says Jesus goes away again and prays the same

Matthew 26:1–28:20

thing as he did the second time. Again he returns to find the disciples asleep, and now he asks them, “Are you still sleeping and resting?” There is no more time for pleading or cajoling the disciples or even for warnings. The “hour” is said to be near. The reference to the hour, however, reminds us once more of the apocalyptic language Jesus tended to use, for “the hour” is one appointed and determined by God, and indeed usually refers to the hour of the consummation of God’s final judgment (Dan 11:40, 45 LXX). It is time for the Son of Man to be betrayed into the hands of sinners, which could mean Gentiles or possibly bad Jews and Gentiles. In either case it is a negative comment on those to whom he is handed over, and there may be an allusion to Isaiah 53. Thus Jesus rouses the disciples, saying, “Rise up, let’s go, here comes my betrayer.” Jesus knows clearly what treachery is about to befall him. And the worst trial of Jesus is yet to come. Gethsemane was “but the prelude to the final, most severe time of trial that he will undergo in his suffering and death at the hands of sinners.”39 It is no ordinary test he will face, but the eschatological test that involves evil at its worst and God’s very judgment on evil (cf. Rev 3:10). The true and final confrontation with the powers of darkness actually comes on the cross when Jesus experiences our God-forsakenness, which at the same time entails our embracing of the darkness. Arresting Developments, 26:47-56

The Matthean account of the passion continues to follow Mark’s account closely. The major differences are that our Evangelist omits Mark 14:51-52, the peculiar tale about the young man running away naked once his toga was seized, and he adds vv. 53-54 presumably from his own special source. There is also a notable addition at v. 50 where we have the sentence “But Jesus said to him: ‘Friend, for this you come.’” We also find in v. 55 the addition of the phrase “in that hour.”40 The depth of the treachery is made clear in various ways in the Matthean account including right from the beginning in v. 47, stressing that Judas was one of the Twelve. We are told a great crowd came with him carrying swords and clubs and wooden clubs. They came “from” the high priests and elders of the people, presumably sent by them. We have in this account no mention of Romans (cf. John 18:3, though even there it could be a reference to temple guards or police). The sign of identification would be a common form of oriental greeting—a kiss on the cheek. Judas is leading the posse, for we are told he

493

494

Matthew 26:1–28:20

instructs them that the one he is about to kiss should be taken and led away. Verse 48 strongly suggests that, had this not happened, the arresters would not have known which man was Jesus, which again suggests that these are hirelings, not the officials who had seen Jesus before. The First Evangelist inserts the traditional Greek greeting at v. 49 (chaire) and the title “rabbi,”41 and then the text says Judas kissed him warmly or with every show of affection, as this is what the compound verb kataphileø implies. Either this is the worst perfidy, or Judas perhaps thought he was helping Jesus realize his goal of martyrdom. [A Sapiential Reading of 26:47-56] [Judas, One of the Twelve]

Verse 50 is much debated. Is it a statement or a question? It seems to be the former, in which case it reads, “Comrade, do what you are here for.” The First Evangelist does not tell us which of the disciples reacts with violence to the seizure of Jesus, but it is clearly one of the disciples. The Evangelist signals that something surprising is about to happen by the word “behold” or “look” in v. 51 to introduce the remark that one of the disciples reacted with violence. This was unexpected of a disciple of the prince of peace. We are also not told here, unlike in John, the name of the high priest’s servant who has his ear severed off. Nor are we told that Jesus heals it in Matthew. Our Evangelist simply focuses on the lesson in this A Sapiential Reading of 26:47-56 The arrest of Jesus involves betrayal in the form of the most intimate act, a kiss that is used to identify Jesus for his captors. V. 50 may either read, “Friend, do what you came for” or “Friend, what have you come to do?” In either case, Jesus still loves Judas and calls him friend. Violence breaks out but Jesus quells it. He is a sage who counsels peace, and so here we find the famous “he who lives by the sword” maxim. Violence is unnecessary because God’s angels could certainly intervene, but this was not the fulfillment of God’s wise plan to redeem the world.

Betrayal by Judas Judas’s kiss - mosaic in Monreale Cathedral (Credit: Sibeaster / Wikimedia Commons, PD)

Matthew 26:1–28:20

495

Judas One of the Twelve The early church fathers were often puzzled by the choice of Judas as one of the Twelve. For example, consider the remarks of Ephraem the Syrian answering why Judas was chosen: “To show his perfect love and his mercy . . . he therefore washed his feet, [those very feet] by means of which he had arisen and gone to [Jesus’] slayers. Jesus kissed the mouth of him who, by means of it, gave the signal for death to those who apprehended him. He reached out and gave bread into that hand that reach out and took his price, and sold him unto slaughter” (Commentary on Tatian’s Diatesseron 2.219).

for believers about nonviolence when it comes to the cause of Jesus. The crucial element in the teaching comes in the word of Jesus, “all those drawing the sword will perish by it” (v. 52). This is another wisdom saying, and like such maxims they are not universally true, rather they are often true. In Matthew 5:39-42 Jesus had enunciated a teaching on nonviolence, and here in this section Jesus is seen as one who lives out his credo (by contrast to his critique in Matt 23 of hypocrites). There is a possible allusion to Isaiah 50:11 in v. 53 (cf. Rev 13:10). The point is that if Jesus had wanted to use force, he could have called upon more than twelve legions of angels from his Father in heaven, not upon a few inept and unprepared disciples. [Fighting Angels] Jesus seems to have something similar in mind here. But the resistance of the disciples will in fact amount to resistance to God’s will, for God wills this to Fighting Angels In 1QM 7.6 the Qumranites envisioned happen. Verse 54 asks rhetorically, “But how angels fighting with the righteous for a then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it cause. must happen this way?” Jesus seems to be alluding to Isaiah 53 here. These three verses are the addition to the Markan narrative that show our own Evangelist’s special concerns not just for Scripture fulfillment by Jesus, but for the message of nonviolence. Then in v. 55 Jesus lectures the crowd of arresters. They could have taken him while he was teaching in the temple day after day, but instead they manifest the wickedness and shamefulness of these dealings and the darkness in their hearts by doing it under the cover of darkness and in a clandestine way. They have come out like a band of robbers set on stealing what is not rightfully theirs. This lecture includes the rhetorical question about whether they thought Jesus was leading some sort of violent rebellion, since they came with a mob and numerous weapons. Verse 56 indicates, however, that even their modus operandi fulfills Scripture, and possibly Isaiah 53:12 is in view. Notice in particular the reference to the writings of the prophets. The end of this verse then tells us sadly that all the disciples deserted Jesus and fled, all apparently except Peter (see below on v. 58).

496

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Special Session of the Sanhedrin, 26:57-75

Once again our Evangelist is following his Markan source closely. Here there are no lengthy additions or omissions, presumably because of the crucial nature of this part of the story. There are however a few subtle alterations and additions. For example, in v. 58 we are told that Peter follows Jesus to see how it will end, and we are also told the name of the high priest—Caiaphas.42 There are a few more additions in vv. 63-67 that we will attend to when we discuss those verses; here it is important to notice that in v. 64 instead of Jesus responding “I am” to the high priest’s question about his being the messiah, we have instead the more indirect affirmation “you have said [it].”43 The actual trial scene is made more dramatic by the Matthean additions.44[A Sapiential Reading of 26:57-75]

According to v. 57 Jesus is taken to Caiaphas, where the scribes and elders had assembled. There has been no end of debate about the trial of Jesus, including whether it should A Sapiential Reading of 26:57-75 even be seen as a trial. J. Blinzler’s dated but still Jesus the sage becomes Jesus the compelling study The Trial of Jesus argues caresilent before the high priest’s interrogafully for the fact that there was some sort of trial tion, and his response in v. 64 seems deliberately and perhaps also a pre-trial hearing due to the enigmatic and sage-like, reading either “you have said it” or “that’s what you say” or “it is as you special circumstances.45 Are we, however, meant say” in response to the query about his being the to see the events at Caiaphas’s house as a formal Christ, the Son of God. But then he warns that the trial? If so it breaks several of the later rabbinic tables will be turned and reversal will happen rules about such proceedings. What is especially even to Caiaphas when the Son of Man returns to uncertain is whether the rules put together by judge him. Peter then, who with some courage Rabbi Meir in the second century AD already had followed Jesus to the high priest’s house, under pressure cracks and denies Jesus three applied before the fall of the temple in the first times in the progress—first a simple denial, then century AD. Particularly in question is the a denial with an oath, then the calling down of section m. Sanh. 4-7. m. Sanh. 4:1 says such curses on himself and a denial. When the cock trials must transpire in the daytime and furthercrows, the first/last faithful disciple goes out and more that a guilty verdict requires a two-day weeps bitterly. trial. If, however, we are dealing with a pre-trial hearing at night, rather than a trial, looking for a legal reason to deliver Jesus to Pilate, these rules would not apply in any case. Jews did not have the right of capital punishment in Judea at this time, except in extremis, for example if someone desecrated the temple, going into an area where a Gentile for example was forbidden, he was subject to being killed on the spot. This however was more a matter of vigilante justice rather than a formal proceeding leading to execution. The historical issues here are complex, but my assessment is this: (1) There was a proceeding that went on long into the night, with

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Jesus Before Caiaphas Giotto di Bondone (1267–1337). Christ Before Caiaphas. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

the outcome or verdict coming in the early morning. (2) It may not have been a formal trial, which would explain both its location in Caiaphas’s house and its unusual way of proceeding. Possibly the meeting was an attempt to try to produce a charge upon which the Romans would act. (3) The narrative as it stands suggests the proceedings were difficult, emotional, and lengthy, and were it not for the high priest playing a sort of trump card at the end, using a solemn oath to try to force Jesus to indicate who he thought he was, they still might not have concluded in favor of handing Jesus over to Pilate, as the witnesses gave conflicting testimony. (4) Jesus seems to have been silent until the end of the proceeding, until under oath the high priest addressed him. The First Evangelist begins the account in v. 59 by having Peter sitting in the courtyard with the attendants or servants. He omits the Markan bit about him warming his hands on a fire. This house had to have been of some size, for we are told it had a courtyard and an outer gate, where we find Peter trailing along at some distance. The quorum for the Sanhedrin was twenty-three, so there

497

498

Matthew 26:1–28:20

must have been a banqueting or meeting hall of some size if the trial actually took place at this locale. This same v. 59 in Matthew shows our Evangelist wants to stress the shady nature of the proceedings by telling us they sought “false” testimony against Jesus so as to have him put to death. Though this is no doubt rhetorical hyperbole, it nevertheless means the basic intent of this emergency meeting called on the eve of the festival was prejudicial. Justice was not the aim of this assembly. The majority of the audience was surely not open to the possibility of Jesus being exonerated. Indeed, they wished to see the opposite happen. The members of this assembly would have included the high priest and his family, the elders who were members of prominent families in the Jerusalem area, and the scribes, some of whom would have been attached to Pharisaic groups. Nonetheless, the dominant orientation of the group would surely have been Sadducean and would have had a special concern for the temple. It is thus no surprise, if Jesus was believed to have made some threatening remark about the temple being destroyed, that this group would want to have seen Jesus out of the way. Presumably what is meant when it says the witnesses were prompted to give false testimony is what the Markan source suggests—they were prompted to say enough to convict Jesus, but not so much that they deliberately perjured themselves. But they couldn’t find any false witnesses who would be forthcoming and say that Jesus had said, “I am able to destroy the temple and in three days rebuilt it.” Even if Jesus did put it this way, it would be a claim about his power, not an actual threat to the temple. Thus further accusations were necessary before any sort of verdict could be decided. Perhaps there were genuine witnesses who heard about but misunderstood Jesus’ prediction that the temple would be destroyed (Matt 23:38; 24:2). Clearly enough in this Gospel he seems to take an anti-temple stance (cf. 12:6; 21:12-13). If one reads John 2:12ff. and Acts 6:14 carefully, they seem to imply that Jesus had, in fact, made an utterance close to what he was accused of. Looked at more closely, even the Johannine account only has Jesus say “If you destroy this temple . . .,” and in Acts the words are on the lips of those seeking to have Stephen executed, who are not to be trusted. Thus, at worst the witnesses had Apocalyptic Discourse misunderstood what Jesus said. [Apocalyptic One wonders if we are meant to think Discourse] These accusations produce no outcome. Judas had told someone something The problem for the Sanhedrin was that the two about Jesus’ teaching in his apocalyptic diswitnesses had to agree in detail before a guilty course. verdict could be pronounced. Add to this the

Matthew 26:1–28:20

consternation caused by Jesus’ refusal to grace these false charges (cf. Ps 27:12; 35:11) with a rebuttal (for he would be expected to answer the charges), and we have a frustrated assembly. In Matthew the high priest forces the issue by adjuring Jesus “by the living God” to say whether he is the messiah, the Son of God. Jesus indirectly confirms it (“you’ve said it”) but then refers to himself and his future role in his preferred manner, calling himself the Son of Man. It may be important that Matthew has here “from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Father and coming upon the clouds of heaven.” This is a conglomerate citation of Psalm 110:1 combined with Daniel 7:13. R. T. France suggests that perhaps “coming on the clouds” is an alternate way of talking about continually reigning in heaven, not a reference to the parousia. But this is probably to press ap’ arti too far, as McNeile says, for that phrase need mean no more than “in the future.”46 What we can say is that the sitting at the right hand of God and coming to judge even the Sanhedrin involves a not so veiled claim to play a divine role. Thus, the reaction of the high priest in v. 65 is to be expected and indeed might have been thought to be mandatory when one hears what one believes to be clear blasphemy. According to M. San. 7.5, a tearing of the robes was appropriate for the high priest at hearing blasphemy. Thus, what follows is natural. “Perhaps the tearing of the high priest’s garments points forward to the tearing of the sanctuary curtain in 15:38; certainly at this moment the fate of both Jesus and the temple is sealed.”47 Verse 66 seems to be like a formal verdict—the council says Jesus is deserving of death. Thus, the high priest is asking the Sanhedrin to pass judgment on Jesus. According to Leviticus 24:16, death was indeed the penalty for blasphemy in any case, but once again the later rules found in the Mishnah are not followed here. Verses 67-68 are an abbreviated version of the mocking found in Mark. The First Evangelist even leaves out the blindfolding, though it is implied in the urging to prophesy—something messiah was supposed to be able to do. To be spit on was a considerable indignity. But Jesus simply endures it silently, along with the taunting and cuffing. It maybe that the First Evangelist is portraying Jesus as the righteous sufferer who suffers in silence (Ps 38:13; 39:9; Isa 53:7). Only a few words are necessary about vv. 69-75. The account of Jesus’ trial is sandwiched between two halves of the telling of Peter’s demise, with one story commenting on the other (not unlike the way the woman’s anonymous loyalty contrasted with Judas’s treachery earlier in Matt 26). Jesus’ faithfulness and truthfulness to

499

500

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin Byzantine (476-1453). Jesus Before the Sanhedrin: det. of the Three High Priests. Byzantine fresco, 14th cent. Monastery Church, Ohrid, Macedonia. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

the end is contrasted with Peter’s unfaithfulness and dishonesty.48 Once again we are dealing with a heavily ironic situation for just as Jesus is being denounced as a false prophet, his prophecy about Peter’s denials is coming true! The Matthean account of Jesus’ reaction and testimony is clearly meant to be contrasted with the witness, or lack thereof, by Peter whom, under less pressure from a slave girl, denies Jesus. It is truly a sad contrast. Our Evangelist portrays Peter doing the pilgrim’s regress, both physically and morally. First he is in the courtyard of the house, then at its gate, then outside. He seems to be steadily retreating. First he feigns not to understand what they are saying to him, maybe claiming he doesn’t understand their accent. When

Matthew 26:1–28:20

501

Hakam further pressed under oath he claims not to Peter is using the technical form for a know Jesus. Then, finally, it appears he curses legal denial of something (see m. Sabb. Jesus or himself and says again he does not VIII.3). Possibly Peter used the Galilean Hebrew know the man. [Hakam] Notice that Peter is said hakam instead of the Judean yada when he said to deny before everyone that he knows what he did not know Jesus, and so he was recognized as Galilean both by his accent and his choice of they are talking about. Peter is recognized words. because his Galilean dialect makes it evident where he is from. But no sooner had Peter finished swearing and cursing than the cock crowed, and he went out and wept bitterly. For all his protestations, he could not escape the truth that Jesus had foreseen for his life. Even in his denials, he fulfilled the words of Jesus, thus vindicating Jesus. It was a bitter pill to swallow when he let himself and his Master down so much. Thus while Peter was busy denying he even knew Jesus, Jesus was affirming his own identity. It was an awful thing for Peter to swear to God that he did not know God’s Son.

Innocent Blood and Guilty Blood, 27:1-10 Just when we thought the disciples’ part of the story could not get much more grim, with Peter denying Jesus three times, we are then regaled with the story of Judas hanging himself. This story is not found in Mark; indeed it is found in no other Gospel, though there is a different account in Acts 1:15-20.49 Our Evangelist then had a special interest in chronicling the demise of the betrayer, perhaps to show God’s control over this whole process and that Scripture is even fulfilled in the sad ending of Judas. But first our Evangelist must relate what happened to Jesus immediately after the trial. [A Sapiential Reading of 27:1-10]

Following the Markan account closely, it appears that 27:1 is meant to convey the idea that there was a second Sanhedrin meeting in the morning, involving all the chief priests and elders. They took counsel together and reached a decision about Jesus. The First Evangelist adds to his Markan source the words that they took counsel “against Jesus so that they might put him to death.” Our Evangelist also adds that the person to whom Jesus is handed A Sapiential Reading of 27:1-10 In addition to Peter’s denial, Judas goes out and hangs himself, having been seized with remorse and returning the blood money. He recognizes his sin and his betrayal of the innocent sage. Mark does not have this tale, and as Matthew has it, it does not suggest that we should view Judas as eternally destined for such an end; instead he shows signs of a change of heart— remorse, repentance, a return of the ill-gotten gains. Suicide is not said to be the unforgivable sin, and no prophecy is mentioned as being fulfilled by his act of suicide.

502

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Place of Peter’s Denial Vast burial place with many chambers underneath the Church of Gallicantu, supposedly the place of Peter's denial. Jerusalem. [Photo Credit : Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

over is the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. It would seem that we should see the verdict rendered here as more formally official than what we hear in Matthew 26:66, or perhaps this is the conclusion to the meeting that began at night. The execution of the death penalty was not however in the hands of the Jewish authorities (see John 18:31b). This is why we are told of the handing over to Pilate in v. 2. We know for a fact that Roman trials were normally convened at dawn, so it was imperative for the Jewish proceedings, whatever they amounted to, to be done by then. Who was Pontius Pilate? He was of the equesRoman Province trian class (a knight), which means he had some This Roman province included Judea, property but was not a true patrician. Knights Samaria, and Idumea. governed the small and sometimes more troublesome areas of the empire. Prior to the reign of Claudius, these governors were called prefects, not procurators, due to the classification of the province. Pilate was the fifth “prefect” of Judea, from AD 26/27–36. [Roman Province] If we examine carefully the historical records (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2; 18.3.1-2; 18.4.1-2; J.W. 2.9.2; Philo, Legat. 299-305), it is perfectly clear that Pontius Pilate was an anti-Semitic, self-centered bureaucrat given to the misuse of power. Though he normally lived in Caesarea Maritima, he would

Matthew 26:1–28:20

have been in town for the festival, making sure the crowds were under control. Pilate had antagonized the Jewish temple authorities in the past not only by trying to requisition money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct, but also by trying to place Roman standards with the eagle on them (a graven image) within the holy city. In both cases he had had to back down. But in Luke 13:1 we are even told of a grisly act against Galileans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, showing not only brutality but also disrespect for the holiness of the Jewish sacrificial offerings. Pilate was not exactly given to a fair-minded and sensitive approach to the treatment of Jews, and we should not expect him to be concerned about being fair to Jesus and his case. It is far more likely in fact that Pilate’s delaying tactics and saying he could not find a reason to condemn Jesus was because he wished to tweak the noses of the high priests and make clear he himself was in control and would decide the issue, however much they might try to pressure him. We are talking about the kind of jockeying for control that went on in such power politics, when Jews could not settle their own affairs since they were an occupied people. There is, of course, nothing in our text that leads to the conclusion of the later Christian work, the Acts of Pilate, that suggests Pilate was so affected by Jesus’ testimony he later became a Christian (and indeed a saint in the Coptic church). After Jesus’ day, Pilate was removed from office due to Jewish complaints directly to Rome. The story of Judas’s suicide is full of Matthean vocabulary and stylistic traits, which suggests our author composed this account on the basis of oral traditions, writing it in his own way. The Jewish and scribal character of our author is especially in evidence in this story because when he draws on Zechariah 11:12-13 here, he quotes it as if yoser (potter) could be read as oser (treasury), which, of course, is perfectly possible since no pointing or vocalizations were likely found in the Hebrew text our author knew. Jewish creative or midrashic handling of Scripture like this was possible, since the original text only had the consonants of a word, and the exploring of the possibilities was a regular practice enjoyed by scribes in that era. “If the priests prevented the money from making it to the ‘treasury,’ Scripture would be fulfilled when it reached the ‘potter.’”50 But this is not all, for our Evangelist also wants his audience to link this to Jeremiah 32:6-14 and interpret the two Old Testament texts together in a cross-fertilizing kind of way. There is also an issue of Jewish Law, which must be understood to deal with this story. According to Jewish Law, the penalty for

503

504

Matthew 26:1–28:20

falsely betraying or bearing false witness against someone is that you are to get the penalty the witness tried to obtain for the one they bore witness against (Deut 19:1621; 11Qtemple 61.7). Perhaps Judas was thinking of this when he hanged himself, since the Jewish authorities refused to have any further dealings with Judas and would not accept responsibility for helping him deal with his sin and guilt. The story also bears some resemblance to the story of Ahitophel, who hanged himself after he had betrayed David (2 Sam 7:22-23). Our Evangelist seems likely to have this story in mind, as Judas is being portrayed as the one who betrayed the Son of David, King Jesus. While it is true that in some circumstances both Jews and Pontius Pilate Greco-Romans might view suicide Antonia Ciseri (1821–1891). Behold the Man. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PDold-100)] as an honorable end to life (on Jews see 4 Macc 17:1), it is probable that we are not meant to view Judas’s end that way. While Judas shows repentance and should have remembered Jesus’ teaching about forgiveness, this narrative stresses Judas’s responsibility for his actions, and the suicide here is portrayed a shameful act, an act of despair, not an honorable death (cf. Philo, Mut. 61-62). [Opposition to Suicide] The story begins in v. 3, telling us that when Opposition to Suicide Judas heard Jesus was condemned, having had a There was in general a strong opposition change of heart (metamel∑theis), he went to the to suicide amongst early Jews under temple and returned all of the thirty pieces of most circumstances (see Josephus, J.W. 3.374silver with the confession, “I have sinned 82), and Judas was not under any pressure to because I have betrayed innocent blood.” Judas renounce his faith or to do any further heinous seems to be aware that there is a specific stateacts. It is also true that the authorities were shown to be as much if not more responsible for ment in the Pentateuch about this very matter: what happened, but that hardly absolves Judas. “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed See the discussion in C. Keener, A Commentary innocent blood” (Deut 27:25). The response of on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: the authorities in v. 4 is curt and direct—“What Eerdmans, 1999), 659-661. is that to us, you see to it!”51 In other words,

Matthew 26:1–28:20

505

they are taking no responsibility for this moral dilemma raised by Judas. Judas must attend to his own guilt himself. They could have suggested various recourses, or even sacrifices for sin, but instead they threw the matter back in Judas’s face. He in turn, according to v. 5, threw the silver back into the temple, and then we are told he went off and hanged himself. This is in no way elaborated on, but simply reported matter of factly without any moralizing on the eternal fate of Judas. [ap∑nzato] Our author is in fact more concerned with the even more reprehensible behavior of the Jewish officials who according to v. 6 do not throw away or give away the money but engage in casuistry to decide what to do with it. They show no moral concern for Judas and his fate, but they are concerned that they not appear to be misusing blood money! They could not put it in the temple treasury because as they themselves admit, it is blood money. But since they admit that, they also admit they are guilty of bribing someone to betray a Jew unto death. In other words, they are as guilty of Deuteronomy 27:25 in one sense as Judas is. Instead they Judas Hangs Himself choose to use the money to buy a field to James Tissot (1836–1902) Judas Hangs Himself. Brooklyn be turned into a graveyard for foreigners Museum, New York City, New York. (v. 7). Verse 8 is the comment of the [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] Evangelist that the name of this field has accordingly been called the Field of Blood to this day, or Hakel Dama, a fact to which Acts 1:19 also bears witness, though it offers

ap∑nzato The crucial verb here (ap∑nzato) is found in Tobit 3.10 (cf. Nah 2:13, where it can mean strangling rather than hanging). For our purposes, what is crucial is that this verb is used in the LXX version of the story of the demise of Ahithophel in 2 Sam 17:23, and so our author is deliberately playing up the parallel with the story of a man who betrayed King David. Jesus, a Davidic king, also suffered such a betrayal. The verb in itself is a general term that relates to doing away with one’s self; it need not require the translation “hang.” This being the case, there may not be a conflict with Acts 1:18, for the First Evangelist may not be telling us exactly how Judas did away with himself, only that he did so.

506

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Field of Blood As for the location of this field, it seems to be at the south end of the Hinnom valley, perhaps where it and the Kidron valley meet, and this was a location from which clay was extracted to make pots.

a different derivation or etymology of the name, connected to the manner of Judas’s death. [Field of Blood] The last fulfillment quotation in this Gospel found in vv. 9-10 provides us with a variety of problems as modern exegetes, as the discussion above has already hinted. There are stories about a potter in Jeremiah 18:1-12 and 19:1-15 and a story about the buying of a field with seventeen shekels of silver in Jeremiah 32:6-9, but nowhere are these two things connected in Jeremiah. Zechariah

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Judas's Remorse Judas's remorse, a shekel-bag in his hands. Mosaic (6th). S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy. Photo Credit : Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY

Judas’s Change of Heart This event must have transpired after Jesus was handed over to Pilate and perhaps even during the second trial of Jesus, for the Jewish officials could hardly be both in Caiaphas’s house and in the temple at the same time.

Matthew 26:1–28:20

507

11:7 deals with a shepherd doomed to slaughter who is valued at thirty shekels of silver and instructed to throw the money to a potter.52 Numerous suggested solutions to the problem have been offered,53 none of them wholly satisfactory. [Attribution to Jeremiah] The point of the quotation, in any case, is that even what happened to the blood money was not unforeseen by God and the Scriptures, and thus came to fruition or was fulfilled as the Scriptures foretold. It is however important that, even if we view what the Evangelist has done here as exegetical gymnastics we cannot repeat or reduplicate, the historical Attribution to Jeremiah events themselves in regard to what happened to It was customary, when one was using the Scriptures in a midrashic way and Judas have forced our author to go back to the dealing with a conglomerate quotation, to give Old Testament and try various creative and credit for the quotation to the more famous of the homiletical ways of handling the text in order to sources, or in this case prophets. Jeremiah was show that this was foretold in Scripture. This certainly viewed as one of the major prophets, story is not prophecy turned into a narrative, for unlike Zechariah. It is understandable, then, how no one or even two prophecies look like this ideas and phrases from these two prophets, when blended together, are then attributed to story. It is rather a case of history forcing a Jeremiah, even though Zechariah seems to be scribal reassessment of the prophecies and what the primary source of the material. they foreshadowed. [Confirmation about the First Evangelist]

The King and the Prefect, 27:11-31

See rightly R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 651; D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004P), 568-69.

The astute reader will note that the arraignment or initial hearing before Pilate is much like the one before the Jewish authorities (26:59-66). Jesus admits to being the King of the Jews but will say nothing to answer the charges against him. In both instances this maddens the officials, for a man was expected to defend himself in these proceedings. There was no defense attorney, though there might well be a prosecuting attorney in such a situation. Jesus refuses to answer trumped up charges, making final judgment hard for Pilate to render. Our Evangelist adds the opening sentence in v. 11 to the Markan source since he has added the story about Judas. In v. 16 our Evangelist omits Mark’s description of Barabbas as an insurrectionist but adds in v. 19 the message from Pilate’s wife to the prefect. At v. 20 the phrase “but they should destroy Jesus” is added to the Markan source. There is a third question added to Pilate’s inquisition of Jesus at v. 21,while Mark only has two. Verses 24-25 are unique to the Matthean account, drawn from some special source. Basically our author continues to follow Mark closely. [A Sapiential Reading of 27:11-31]

508

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Confirmation about the First Evangelist The story of Judas’s suicide, as much as any other in the Gospel of Matthew, confirms to us that the First Evangelist was a Jewish Christian scribe and was creative while still remaining conservative in his handling of the Old Testament Scriptures, Mark, Q, and his special material.

If we ask the question where Pilate would have dealt with Jesus, the question then becomes where would Pilate have stayed when he came to Jerusalem. There are really only two options—Herod’s Palace or the Antonia Fortress where the Roman troops were garrisoned. The term Praetorium can be applied either to a military fort or to a princely residence, so it does not help us decide the issue. In John 18:28 we hear that the Jewish officials refuse to enter the Praetorium, as it would make them ritually unclean, but at the fortress they would not likely have been allowed even to enter. [In the King’s Palace]

It must also be remembered that the troops of Pilate in Jerusalem who stayed at the fortress were neither Romans nor Jews but were drawn from Roman citizens and auxiliaries in A Sapiential Reading of 27:11-31 the region, including from Syria, Samaria, and Jesus is again the silent sage when other areas that did not have cordial relationfalse accusations are made about him before Pilate. When Pilate seeks to release Jesus, ships with Jews. Such soldiers would have no the crowd chooses Barabbas instead, choosing a compunction in regard to flogging or executing son of the father (which is what his name means) a Jewish rebel. instead of the Son of the Father. They are porPilate sits while Jesus stands before him in v. trayed as having chosen poorly and compounded 11, and he asks Jesus point blank, “Are you the their error by urging Jesus to be crucified and king of the Jews?” Jesus responds without hesitasaying may his blood be on their heads. This should not be seen as characterizing all Jews in tion, “you said it” or “that’s what you just said,” their reaction to Jesus, only those on this occabut in any case it amounts to an affirmation. sion who were goaded by the authorities into The Greek does not merely mean “Those are their act—just as Jesus the sage had predicted. just your words.” Our Evangelist is intent on The story is laden with irony as the real King of portraying Jesus as a king. Presumably Pilate had the Jews is mocked as if he were a false king of been prepped on the charge against Jesus. Here the Jews. But it is not the affirmations of humans but rather the affirmations of God at the baptism, is where we note that claiming to be a messianic at the transfiguration, and in the resurrection that figure was not quite identical to claiming to be a determine and reveal the truth of the matter. king. Pilate’s question is about the more political of the two claims, the one that could result in a conviction for high treason, since only Caesar or one of his client kings could claim to be ruler; and in Judea there were no longer any client kings, so only Caesar was king in an imperial province like Judea. The high priests and elders begin making various accusations, but Jesus is silent and gives no answer. Pilate is surprised and so asks Jesus if he does not hear the testimonies being brought against him, but again Jesus does not dignify false charges with an answer—he remains

Matthew 26:1–28:20

509

In the King’s Palace Philo (Legat. 38) sheds light when he informs us that the governor stayed in Herod’s Palace, which makes good sense (see also Josephus, J.W. 2.14.8 and 15.5), and this palace was situated in the northwest corner of the city, not next to the temple. Thus, this encounter between Jesus and Pilate transpires in a king’s palace.

silent, not responding even to a single charge, to the great amazement of Pilate. Pilate was used to people groveling, being highly defensive, or being clever rhetorically, but stony silence amazed him. Something was wrong with these proceedings. Jesus’ silence may have caused the Evangelist’s audience to remember the description in Isaiah 53:7-9. Here, nearing the end of this Gospel, we have a Gentile ruler wondering greatly at the silent Christ just as near the beginning of the story Gentile great ones, the magi, rejoiced. Notice that they, like Pilate, will receive warning in a dream about foul play. Jesus is a king to be recognized and is supposed to be revered, even by Gentiles. Our author makes the connections necessary so that the portrayal of Jesus as a royal figure is clear from start to finish in this Gospel. We are told at v. 15 that the prefect was accusdesmion tomed to releasing a prisoner at the paschal feast The term desmion is an important one here, as it normally means a person held each year, presumably to keep peace with Jews for interrogation and not yet brought to trial. Thus who did not care for the rough justice of we are not dealing with Pilate trying to pardon Romans. It should be noted that Romans were someone already convicted of a crime under noted for giving clemency (cf. Josephus, Ant. Roman law. Only the emperor could pardon a con20.9.3). It may be the case that this was a local victed and condemned man. In Roman law there custom Pilate instigated to mollify Judean Jews were two sorts of amnesties that could be granted. One was called abolitio, the other indulwhom he had upset by his previous mistakes in gentia. The former involved the acquittal of one Judea (see above), for he had gained a reputanot yet condemned, and Jesus would surely have tion for cruelty, and perhaps he was in no mood fallen into that category at this juncture in the proto cultivate that image at this volatile time and ceedings. season. [desmion] Our Evangelist seems to want to highlight the contrast between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas. On the one hand we have Jesus the innocent king, the one called Messiah and Son of God, and on the other hand we have Jesus whose last name is Son of the Father (bar-abbas), or less probably son of the rabbi. Which Jesus then is to be released? [Barabbas’s Other Name?] Notice that Barabbas is called epis∑mon, which means notorious or infamous. There is a clear contrast then between these two Jesus figures. Thus the irony is that someone who was a real threat to Pilate, a notorious revolutionary or terrorist, was about to be released, and someone who was not would be executed.54 We are told at v. 18 that Pilate knew it

510

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Barabbas’s Other Name? There is a textual problem here, as many manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, D, L, W) do not give Barabbas’s other name as Jesus. However, it is difficult to believe later scribes would have added the name Jesus to this verse and have appended it to a criminal.

See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 56; D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC: Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 820 n. a.

was due to envy (jealousy of his following?) that the priest wanted to get rid of Jesus. This is only part of the story. Before Pilate can pass judgment, v. 19 says a message comes to him from his wife about a bad dream, and she tells her husband, “Have nothing to do with this righteous man.”55 This verse is found only in Matthew. Romans certainly placed great credence in warnings or omens that came in dreams. The text says Pilate’s wife suffered a great deal while sleeping, suggesting a nightmare. The dream was about “that righteous man” and indicated that her husband should not get pressured into condemning him. “The dream serves as a divine vindication of Jesus.”56 However, the crowd was urged by the high priests and elders to ask for Barabbas. Verse 22 maybe attempting to show Pilate’s weakness by letting the crowd decide the verdict rather than taking control of the situation. The clamor for crucifixion needs to be interpreted in the context of a people who had lost sovereignty over their own country, including the right to use capital punishment. Furthermore, it appears that the Jews wanted a Roman form of punishment, one that would shame the victim and his movement. Probably the high priest and elders thought that to have Jesus executed in this fashion would do away with his following altogether, for Jews would deduce that Jesus had been cursed by God. The cry of the crowd is “let him be crucified,” not “crucify him” as some translations read. In v. 23 the tense of ekrazon suggests that What Is the Truth? they cried repeatedly and all the Nikolai Ge (1831–1894). What Is Truth? (Christ before Pilate).[Credit: Wikimedia more for crucifixion. We are then Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

Matthew 26:1–28:20

511

Washing Hands told that Pilate realized it was futile to resist this This gesture is based on a proverbial tidal wave of words, and fearing that a riot was expression known not only in Jewish but about to happen, he took water and washed his also in Greek literature. Deut 26:6-8 reads, “Then hands before the crowd. [Washing Hands] all the elders of the town nearest the body shall In v. 24 Pilate says, “I am innocent of this wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall declare: ‘Our one’s blood, you see to it.” Notice in v. 25 that hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes there is no verb, thus the laos say “his blood . . . see it done. Accept this atonement for your on our heads and those of our [present] chilpeople Israel whom you have redeemed, O LORD, dren.” The First Evangelist may have had and do not hold your people guilty of the blood of Jeremiah 26:8-9 in mind here as being fulfilled. an innocent person.’” Thus Barabbas was released, perhaps another example of how Jesus substitutes for sinners, for otherwise Barabbas would have been executed. It is interesting that the handing over of an innocent man for execution, if he was not a Roman citizen, did not violate Roman law. Verse 27 suggests it was inside the Palace called the Praetorium, but it might possibly mean in the courtyard of the Praetorium. Once there, the whole speiran, which may mean a cohort (600 men) or possibly a maniple (200-300 men) were present to escort him. Perhaps this meant the soldiers Pilate brought with him when he came to the city. In any case it denotes a considerable number of soldiers (cf. John 18:3). Verse 28 says Jesus is flogged (apparently publicly) and led off to be crucified, but not without Pilate’s soldiers having some sport with Jesus. They assembled a mock escort of a whole cohort for the King of the Jews, and then, striping him, put the scarlet cape of the soldier upon him. Here the First Evangelist is more technically correct than Mark’s comment that it was a purple cape. The reed represents a scepter and the thorns a crown. It is possible that the spiny material used to make the crown was intended to represent the radiant crown of rulers, in which case the spikes would be pointed outward, not inward toward Jesus’ head. Hellenistic kings wore a laurel wreath on their heads, but Lane suggests the crown of thorns (made out of the acanthus bush or of palm spines) was meant to emulate the famous many-pointed or diadem crown.57 Jesus was then struck with a reed and spit on as an object of disgust (see Isa 50:6). In other words we are dealing with mockery and shaming more than cruelty. They mocked him by kneeling before Jesus and ridiculed him by saying, “Hail, King of the Jews,” but Jesus did not respond. They spit on him and took the reed and hit him over the head, after which they took off the soldier’s cape, reclothed him in his himation, and led him out to the slaughter. [Flogging]

512

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Pontius Pilate Washing His Hands Jörg Breu the Elder (1475–1537). Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Jesus before Pontius Pilatus; panel of the Melk Altar (1502); museum of the Melk Abbey, Austria. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

The King of Pain, 27:32-66

It was not an unusual occurrence for someone to help a person carry their cross, or more properly said their crosspiece, but it would appear that Jesus was so weak from the flogging that he could not even manage to do that. Simon of Cyrene was literally commandeered and forced to carry the cross by those escorting Jesus to Golgotha. The First Evangelist does not mention the man’s Flogging Flogging was a usual practice before crucifixion intending to weaken the victim so he would go without a struggle to his execution. Not infrequently, if the floggers were sadistic, the flogging alone would kill the man, for it usually involved whipping him with the infamous cat of nine tails or flagellum, which had bits of sharpened bone and lead and hooks that tore the flesh of the victim. It was not an uncommon practice if the person to be dealt with was a nonRoman. The point was to inflict pain (punishment) and further humiliate the victim (cf. Acts 22:25). Possibly Isa 53:12 LXX is in the background of this verse. Jesus underwent a good deal before he got to the cross, and it is not a surprise he died quickly. There are parallels in this account to a similar incident that happened in Egypt a bit later in the first century. Philo (Flacc. 36-39) tells us that when King Agrippa (who at the time was recognized by Rome as king of the Jews) arrived in Egypt, the populace ridiculed him by means of laying hold of a demented person named Carabas on whom they put a crown and a royal robe, and they gave him a scepter and addressed him as “lord.”

Matthew 26:1–28:20

513

children as does Mark, perhaps because they were unknown to his audience. Acts 6:9 seems to refer to a synagogue of freedmen from Cyrene, which was in Africa (in modern-day Libya). Possibly Simon was a member of this synagogue, but more certainly he is likely to be the first and only black African referred to in the Gospels. [A Sapiential Reading of 27:3266]

At v. 34 we are told that someone tries to give Jesus a drink of wine mixed with bile or gall. Mark has myrrh instead of bile. Myrrhed wine was something that would lessen the pain, being a narcotic, but it would also prolong the agony as one would last longer with the pain masked. Myrrhed wine would be given as an act of kindness, and there were cases in which the women of The Mocking of Christ Jerusalem provided this for some Alexandre Cabanel (1823–1889). The Mocking of Christ. 1845. Oil on canvas. École supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Paris, France. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art who were on crosses outside the nationale (PD-old-100-1923)] city. Our Evangelist goes to some lengths to rephrase things in light of the Psalms, both the dialogue and the narrative, because he envisions the very fabric of the Psalms being fulfilled in what was happening to Jesus. In this case, Psalm 69:21 LXX is the reason for the change to gall from myrrh. It is possible that what set in motion this process of rephrasing the passion account in light of the Psalms was the fact that Jesus himself uttered Psalm 22:1 from the cross. The Evangelists then followed Jesus’ lead, and the First Evangelist also followed Mark’s lead, re-envisioning the story in light of the Psalms. There is then an interaction of historical event, historical account, and reflection on the Old Testament in these stories. Once Jesus tasted this concoction, he refused it. What is interesting about this verse is that it implies Jesus did not know, until he tasted it, what was being offered to him. Jesus is depicted in all his humanity on the cross.

514

Matthew 26:1–28:20 A Sapiential Reading of 27:32-66 In the Matthean portrayal of the crucifixion, Jesus is called not only the King of the Jews (v. 37) but also the King of Israel (v. 42, not in Mark). Matthew emphasizes that he dies as true royalty. There is only one word from the cross in Matthew as in Mark; the cry of desolation as the beginning of Ps 22 is quoted. But there is in addition the statement that Jesus’ death led to an earthquake that broken open tombs, and many arose from the dead, signaling that the death of Jesus was the eschatological event known as the last judgment on sin and paradoxically the event that would cause many to be made alive again. Notice v. 53 likely says they did not appear to anyone until after the resurrection of Jesus, suggesting his resurrection triggers the resurrection of the saints. The witnesses at the cross to Jesus’ passing are the centurion and then finally the female disciples mentioned in this Gospel at the end of the section at 27:55-56. The women were last at the cross, first at the tomb on Easter, and first to see the risen Jesus. They are portrayed as more faithful and spiritually perceptive than the male disciples, some of whom even after the resurrection and appearance to them in Galilee are still said to doubt (28:17). The story shows that Jesus must be viewed through the eyes of faith; even the resurrection appearances could not force someone to believe. The burial is undertaken not by family members but by Joseph of Arimathea, who is said to be a disciple and a rich man. The female disciples witness the burial. Only Matthew adds the apologetic motif of the guard at the tomb, but it is not historically unlikely. There is a cover-up attempt after the fact when the guards go and report the empty tomb, but they did not see Jesus risen. The story they were to tell was that the body had been stolen, and the Evangelist says the story still circulated in his day (see 28:15).

Verse 35 depicts the ordinary and normal practice of Roman executioners being allowed to keep the possessions of the executed. If they took Jesus’ himation, he would be left with nothing on, save perhaps a loincloth, but in fact many were deliberately crucified in the nude as part of the humiliation and shaming. Perhaps in Jerusalem, since nakedness was a big issue in early Judaism, there was some concession to the cultural ethos. The Jewish practice of one about to be stoned was to permit a loincloth (M. San. 6.3), which may have been the case with Jesus (though the Roman control of the process seems to suggest otherwise). [The Extreme Roman Penalty]

We are also told that the guards sat down and kept watch over Jesus. Here again the casting of lots for Jesus’ clothes fulfills a verse from a psalm—Psalm 22:18. The normal practice was for the one who was to be executed to wear a placard or titulus around his neck as he processed through the city, and normally they would take a circumlocutious route to the place of execution so everyone could see the shamed person and what his crime was. Eventually the placard would be tacked up on the cross with the victim. Much ink has been spilt on whether Jesus would have died on a T-shaped cross or on one shaped like a small “t” with a top notch above the head of the victim. This last must be considered likely, since we are told you could read the charges over Jesus’ head. The

Matthew 26:1–28:20

515

titulus is said to read in Matthew, “This one is Jesus, the King of the Jews.”58 Thus Jesus is killed for claiming kingship. John 19:20 tells us this inscription was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, probably as Pilate’s sneer at the Jewish authorities. This would be written on a wooden board whitened with chalk on which letters were written in ink specifying Jesus’ crime. This inscription is important, for it indicates clearly that Jesus had to have done or said something, however badly misinterpreted, to justify this charge

The Extreme Roman Penalty Death on a cross was a horrendous way to die, for it was basically by means of suffocation that one expired, or possibly a combination of exhaustion and suffocation and exposure to the elements. Eventually the man could no longer hold up his chest cavity, and the result was suffocation, often after great gasps for breath. This practice was even considered barbaric by some great Roman writers, and of due to lack of digital rights. course Roman citizens were exempt Please view the published from such a form of execution, which commentary or perform an Internet shows that the sentiment of horror was search using the credit below. likely rather widespread. Cicero expresses the sentiment well. After calling crucifixion the grossest and most cruel and hideous sort of execution, he adds, “If we are to be threatened with death, then we want to die in freedom; let the executioner, the shrouding of the head, and the very name of the cross be banished from the body and life of Roman citizens, from their thoughts, eyes, and ears!” (Verr. V.64, 66). Golgotha Nails were often used for crucifixion, Nikolai Ge (1831-1894). Golgotha. Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia. [Photo Credit : Scala / Art and of course this means of impaling a Resource, NY] person on a board also caused blood to flow and so hastened death. In all probability, what Jesus was expected to carry was the crossbar of the cross, which, once one was impaled on it, was dropped into a slot in the vertical beam that was already set in the ground. At that point, the person’s feet would be secured either with nails or ropes. The reason for the nails seems to be the prevention of escape, for in non-celebrity crucifixions or during a war there would frequently not be a guard, and often people lived for a good while, sometimes long enough to be taken down from a cross, especially under cover of darkness. The cross would sometimes be only a few feet off the ground, allowing friends to approach the victim and attempt a rescue. In Jesus’ case, however, the reference to a pole on which he was offered a drink in a sponge suggests Jesus was rather high off the ground. Also the scornful remark (v. 32) to come down may indicate some height. It was Roman law that executioners had the right to the possessions of the one executed, but in Jesus’ case there would have been precious little. Here Ps 22:18 is seen as fulfilled.

Image Not Available

516

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Titilus

of being King of the Jews. In other words, the idea that Jesus was Messiah or King could not have been an invention of the early post-Easter community. Verse 38 refers to two bandits (lestai) being crucified with Jesus, and this probably means they were regarded as revolutionaries as well because the punishment for theft was not crucifixion. Possibly we are meant to see an echo of Isaiah 53:12. Jesus is in the company of a variety of sinners—pagan sinners, religious sinners, and even condemned criminals—all of whom mock him and for all of whom Jesus died. We are even told that passers-by abused Jesus, wagging their heads. This surely alludes to Psalm 22:7, where the adversaries wag their heads at the psalmist’s plight. The taunt was “the one who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself if you are the Son of God, and come down from that cross.” The way this taunt is worded, it is reminiscent of the temptation Jesus faced at the beginning of his ministry, where he also heard “If you are the Son of God. . . .” But paradoxically, it was precisely by staying on the cross, rather than coming down from it, that he was demonstrating he was the Son of God, fulfilling God’s will. He came to save others, not himself. The irony is thick at this point in the story, where Jesus is addressed by all the right titles but in all the wrong ways because those who are using them understand them to mean something different than Jesus did. It has seemed unlikely to some that v. 41 could be true, for it speaks of the religious officials watching Jesus die. Perhaps if they wanted him off the scene that badly, it is not so unlikely, not least because some people survived crucifixion, and some were taken down off their crosses on the same day they were nailed to them. It all depended on who was watching and for how long. So these officials are present to make sure Jesus dies. Notice that their taunt makes clear that Jesus had in fact helped others, though now he seemed helpless. Notice as well that they call him the King of Israel. Seeing, however, is not believing, and even if Jesus had come down from the cross, some would have attributed it to a trick of the devil, like Jesus’ other miracles. The demand for proof reveals a heart not ready to exercise faith.59

[Illustration: Rick Danielson]

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Verse 43 is another scriptural commentary taken from Psalm 22:2, 69:9, and more important for our purposes Wisdom 2:1020. Jesus is being portrayed as the Solomon figure who was spoken of in that chapter as undergoing severe testing to see if indeed he was the royal figure he claimed to be. Jesus is greater than Solomon because he even passes the test on the cross when his life is on the line. Verse 44 mentions the taunts of still others, this time the others on the adjacent crosses, but the First Evangelist, unlike Luke, does not elaborate. The emphasis here is on Jesus being the righteous but much maligned sufferer as in the Wisdom and Psalms texts. One of the more remarkable facts about the story of Jesus’ death is how reserved the description of Jesus’ actual crucifixion and dying is. There was much room for gory elaboration, as was the case in Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ, but the Evangelists avoid it. We are told that from the sixth to the ninth hour there was darkness, which is to say, from noon to 3 P.M., at which point Jesus likely died. This probably implies Jesus was nailed to the cross prior to noon. There are three sorts of signs in this story that bear witness that this is a cataclysmic event—signs cosmic, cultic (the temple veil), and eschatological (the dead are raised). It is difficult to know to what degree the Evangelist meant for these signs to be taken literally, or whether they should be seen as literary ways to punctuate the significance of the event, indicating that all heaven and earth and even the dead experienced a change as a result of this event. Some have objected that Jesus was not crucified in the rainy season when the sky might be dark for a lengthy period of time, but in fact it can still be rainy in early April in Jerusalem. Others have complained that Passover happens at the time of the full moon, when there would not have been an eclipse. Notice how in Amos 8:9-10 darkness expresses mourning for an only son, and the context of those verses also indicates that darkness signifies the judgment of God, as it does here. Jesus’ death was an event with cosmic consequences. [Darkness at Jesus’ Death] Notice, however, that unlike the earlier apocalyptic moments in this Gospel, there is no voice from heaven speaking to Jesus, answering his cry.60 Darkness at Jesus’ Death In the later apocryphal Gospel of Peter (15-27), it is said to have become so dark that many thought night had come and went to bed. It further states that when Jesus’ body was laid on the ground, the earth shook greatly, and this coupled with the sudden reappearance of the sun so shocked the nation that it perceived the wrong it had done and mourned the coming destruction of the city.

517

518

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Calvary Nikolai Ge (1831-1894). Calvary (Golgotha or Crucifixion). Musee d'Orsay, Paris, France [Photo Credit : Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY]

The point here is that all the surrounding environment is reacting to this theophanic and earth-shattering and tomb-rattling event, much as we find described in the Psalms when we hear God came down and the hills skipped like lambs. God is changing the nature and fate of humanity here, and the universe reacts. Especially difficult is the uniquely Matthean bit about holy ones coming out of their graves and walking around in the city. The point seems to be that Jesus’ death triggers eschatological events. Verse 53 is in any case awkwardly worded—did they come forth from their graves when Jesus died but not go into the city until after his resurrection, or was their rising simultaneous with Jesus’ rising (noting the use of meta)?

Matthew 26:1–28:20

The First Evangelist, following Mark, only includes the cry of dereliction from the cross, among Jesus’ last words. Our Evangelist says Jesus cried out in a loud voice and shouted, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me,” citing Psalm 22:1. In Psalm 22 it is an appeal to God to hurry up and intervene on the part of the one who is or at least feels God-forsaken. What is especially interesting about the Matthean version of this is that God’s name is in the Hebrew form (Eli, Eli, contrast Mark, who has Eloi), but the rest of the utterance seems to be in Aramaic.61 Most commentators have suggested that Jesus would say the whole verse in Aramaic, but there are perhaps two reasons why this might not be so. Firstly, the pronouncing of God’s name, even in a scriptural quote, was a

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

Darkness at the Death of Christ Limbourg Brothers 15th C. Darkness at the Death of Christ. Illuminated miniature from the Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry: The Hours of the Passion. 1416. Musée Condé, Chantilly, France. [Photo Credit : Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY]

519

520

Matthew 26:1–28:20

sacred matter, and so perhaps we are meant to think Jesus spoke in a reverential fashion even from the cross, using the original sacred language he would have learned as a child. Secondly, it is more likely that someone would mistake these words for a calling on Elijah if they were spoken in the Hebrew rather than in the Aramaic form. Elijah was thought to be one who would come and rescue the righteous. The cry of dereliction, quoting Psalm 22:1, is not just a matter of reciting apt poetry or reciting a psalm that ends on a positive note. Jesus does not quote the ending; he quotes the beginning, and he is embodying his own experience in scriptural language as so many Jews before and after him did. This suggests not only that he was a devout Jew, but that indeed he felt abandoned, forsaken on the cross. Perhaps the Evangelist would have us think God did for a time abandon Jesus, turning his back on the Son so that Jesus might experience the full brunt of the wrath Jesus’ Separation from God against and punishment for sin. Jesus here expeIf one thinks in Trinitarian terms, it is riences our utter lostness and alienation from hard to conceive how the Son could be God, in our place, the alienation any sinner separated from the Father, and yet in some experiences. [Jesus’ Separation from God] manner it was true. See J. Moltmann’s classic study The Crucified God. Moltmann raises the At v. 48 we are told that when Jesus cried out, question of whether we are meant to see Jesus someone must have thought he needed a drink dying even in his divine nature, and if not could and so carried a sponge full of sour wine or wine this death have more efficacy than a normal vinegar to slake his thirst. This was a gesture of martyr’s death? What would seem to give the kindness, as wine vinegar was the thirst death eternal efficacy is surely the involvement of quencher of its day, rather like Gatorade. It was the eternal in this event in some way. This is a theological conundrum worth pondering. Perhaps the regular fair soldiers and agricultural workers since a normal martyr was still a sinner, unlike would drink under a hot sun, and it was called Jesus, Jesus’ death had a different quality as a poska. Some, according to v. 49, must have blameless and innocent sacrifice? assumed that this would just prolong the agony so there was the shout to leave him alone and watch to see if Elijah comes. Verse 50 indicates a certain altering of the Markan source. Jesus again shouts in a loud voice, showing he still has strength, and here the verb “let go” refers to Jesus’ spirit. Jesus gives up his life voluntarily; it is not taken from him. He does not die from exhaustion or the elements or the ordeal in general. He deliberately returns the life breath to the one who gave it in the first place. Verse 51 speaks of the rending of the curtain of the temple from top to bottom, indicating its tearing was not a human accident but something supernatural. The question is whether this should be seen as a judgment event or an event that marks the turn of the era or both? [Curtains for Jesus]

Matthew 26:1–28:20 Curtains for Jesus If the rending of the temple curtain signifies judgment, then perhaps as in Ezekiel 10–11 we are meant to think of God’s presence abandoning the building. From henceforth, according to the next chapter, Jesus would be the locus of God’s presence on earth, not the temple. Jesus would be Emmanuel, God with us forever and ever, and so be the focus and locus of worship. Perhaps also we are meant to think the old sacrificial system had just become defunct in light of the rendering of the ultimate sacrifice being offered. God now no longer needed to be secluded from his followers in the holy of holies, as sin had been dealt with and God could be reconciled to his people. In other words, the rending of the curtain, if it was the curtain that separated the holy of holies from the next court on the temple, would signify the end to the separation of God and humankind. The idea would then be that all people now have more direct access to God since sin has been dealt with. If however the curtain in question was the curtain between the court of the priests and the sanctuary itself, it might signify that Gentiles now have access to God. All of these ideas are possible, but the First Evangelist leaves no asides or commentary at this juncture, so we are left to wonder what the symbolic significance of this event is. There may be some connection with v. 54 where the first person to recognize Jesus in death as Son of God and properly respond to these events is a Gentile centurion, who fears greatly when the earth shakes but makes a true confession, (even if it means no more than truly this was a son of the gods, or a semi-divine one who died nobly and so with divine favor; clearly enough this seems to be how Luke views the event where the exclamation proclaims Jesus a righteous man). But the Evangelist’s audience is surely meant to see in this a harbinger of Gentiles confessing Jesus to be the Son of God, especially in light of the commission in the next chapter. Perhaps there is a clue in the Greek term used for curtain. The Greek word katapetasma was used for both temples’ curtains, the one between the holy of holies and the holy place, and also the one that separate the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts where only Jews could

521

go (cf. Exod 26:33, 37 LXX and Josephus, Ant. VIII. 3.3). We know that Herod the Great had hung a magnificent curtain in the main entrance to the temple visible from the forecourt (cf. Matt 27:51, 54). Josephus, J.W. 5.3, refers to a disturbance and some Zealot activities but not specifically of the rending of the veil, yet Josephus does indicate there was some sort of astonishing event in the temple about forty years before the temple was destroyed, which is to say in the year of Jesus’ death. Hebrews 6:19 may suggest the knowledge of a tradition that said the veil to the holy of holies was rent, meaning God’s presence would not longer be confined there now that Jesus had made it available everywhere. (The later embellishment in Gospel of the Nazarenes 21 is also interesting. There the huge lintel of temple is itself split and a multitude of Jews are said to be converted on the spot.) In any event, I take katapetasma to mean inner curtain, as is most natural if one takes naos in Matt 27:51 in its ordinary sense of inner sanctuary, not merely the temple precincts. (M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992], 378 makes the good point about the rending of the veil possibly being seen as the breaking down of barriers, and thus the confession of a Gentile immediately after signals God’s Spirit is loose in the world and even Gentiles can be saved.) Thus some sort of statement is being made about judgment on the temple and its authorities as a result of Jesus’ death, with God’s presence leaving the temple as in Ezekiel 10–11. Painter makes the interesting point that at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the heavens are rent and the Spirit comes down upon Jesus. Here there is just about the opposite, for Jesus cries out that he is God-forsaken, and the temple veil is rent with the Spirit of God leaving the premises and thereby dooming it. t. Levi 10:3 supports the suggestion that we should see this as an apocalyptic judgment sign against the temple authorities. Also favoring this interpretation is the fact that the same verb eschisth∑san, “to split open,” is used to describe the rocks being split open as to describe what happened to the temple veil. Earthquakes are an important apocalyptic sign in this Gospel (cf. 24:7; 28:2), and so is the splitting open of the curtain.

Verses 52-53 indicate that the earthquake opened tombs, and some of the dead came forth. Possibly Ezekiel 37:13 lies in the background, which speaks of Israel knowing their God is Lord when he brings people forth from their graves, a passage apparently read at Passover time in synagogues. The way the First Evangelist

522

Matthew 26:1–28:20

describes this event is interesting—“many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised to life.” This must surely refer to righteous Jews who died before Jesus’ death. Thus the death of Jesus is seen to break the power of death itself.62 The Image Not Available Greek grammar would allow for due to lack of digital rights. two interpretations of when this Please view the published event happened—at the point of commentary or perform an Internet Jesus’ death or after his resurrecsearch using the credit below. tion. Notice that the text actually says these righteous ones entered Jerusalem and were seen by many! If we are to see this as a historical event, we must conclude that these people went on to die again, and so though they were raised, they did not receive Roman Soldier Offering Vinegar on a Sponge to Christ an immortal resurrection body as Roman soldier offering vinegar on a sponge to Christ. Detail from an ivory portative altar Jesus did. The theological point from the lower Rhine (late 11C.). [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] the Evangelist is making is somewhat clearer—the death and resurrection of Jesus triggers and inaugurates the eschatological events. [Historical Difficulties] Once we have had the declaration in v. 54 by a Gentile centurion that Jesus died as the Son of God, which points us forward toward the Great Commission to go to all nations in Matthew 28, vv. 5556 then present us with an odd list of named verifying witnesses to the death of Jesus, odd because only women are mentioned. The First Evangelist follows Mark closely, though abbreviating and rearranging things a bit, leaving out Mark’s “and there were many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.” We are told there were in fact many women present and that they had followed Jesus from Galilee and served him. Historical Difficulties See the helpful discussion of the historical difficulties in Hagner. It is hard to know how early the Pharisaic tradition existed that suggested that when messiah came over the Mount of Olives, the hill would split open and the dead would arise, a tradition still believed by the ultra-orthodox today who desire to be buried close to the summit of that hill because they believe this tradition. D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC; Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 850-52

Matthew 26:1–28:20

The most important of these are listed first—Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of James and Joseph, because they also witnessed the burial (27:61), they went to the tomb Sunday morning (28:1), and they were the first to encounter the risen Jesus (28:9). [Miryam] The importance of these women can hardly be overestimated as they turned out to be the prime witnesses of the what was to become the heart of the Christian creed—the death, burial, empty tomb, and resurrection of Jesus. These women are said to have watched the crucifixion from a distance, which was presumably all that was possible at that juncture in view of the soldiers present, but we are not told how great a distance. The third woman said to be present is the mother of the Zebedees who has been mentioned before in 20:20. It is hard to know whether this is the same person Mark calls Salome, which is the third woman he lists

Mary Magdalene Guido Reni (1575–1642). The Penitent Magdalene. Walters Art Museum. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PDold-100)]

Miryam Though we usually have the translation “Mary” here, the Hebrew name is “Miryam” after the Old Testament prophetess.

523

524

Matthew 26:1–28:20

at the cross, but she may be since our Evangelist does follow Mark closely, especially his Passion Narrative account. The witness of women in general in Jewish and in GrecoImage Not Available Roman culture was due to lack of digital rights. considered suspect, and Please view the published so it is not likely that commentary or perform an Internet Mark or the First search using the credit below. Evangelist would invent the notion that these women were the sole or prime witnesses to the end of Jesus’ life and the beginnings of his new resurrection life,63 especially when Dead Christ, Supported by an Angel and by Joseph of Arimathea in neither Mark nor Andrea Schiavone (1520-1563). Dead Christ, Supported by an Angel and by Joseph of Arimathea. Canvas Matthew are they actu1555. Gemaeldegalerie, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden, Germany [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY] ally spoken of prior to this point in the narrative (though Mark alludes to them following Jesus in Galilee in Mark 15:41). Furthermore, these women are being portrayed as true disciples—those who have served Jesus, have been loyal to follow him even to the end of his life and to his grave, and so we may be meant to see a contrast with the inner circle of three male disciples here. In fact, we may say that the three named women present the alternative to the three named men, the inner circle, for they are faithful to the last. What Myer says about the Markan account applies equally well to the Matthean account: “This is the last—and given the highly structured gender roles of the time, surely the most radical—example of Mark’s narrative subversion of the canons of social orthodoxy. The world order is being overturned, from the highest political power to the deepest cultural patterns, and it begins within the new community. It will be these women, the ‘last’ become ‘first,’ who will be entrusted with the resurrection message.”64 Verse 57 says Joseph of Arimathea requested the body of Jesus. Only our Evangelist mentions he was a wealthy man (perhaps to

Matthew 26:1–28:20

show the fulfillment of Isa 53:9), and then he tells us he had been discipled by Jesus, which goes beyond Mark’s comment, omitted here, that he was waiting for the Dominion of God and also that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Probably the reference to having a new rock-cut tomb implies his wealth even in Mark’s account. Notice too that our account has left out Pilate’s surprise that Jesus is already dead and his checking with the centurion to see that it is so. The begging (∑t∑sato) for the body from Pilate would have required some boldness, especially if Joseph was really a member of the Sanhedrin. Nonetheless, he takes the risk, and Pilate orders that the body be handed over. Only the First Evangelist tells us the body was wrapped in clean linen, showing attention to the issue of ritual purity and also the love and care this man took in attending to Jesus’ body even on such short notice. He is put in an unoccupied, new tomb with a stone rolled in front of it. What the text does not say is equally significant. There is no mention of family members being at the cross in this Gospel,65 nor any family members being involved in his burial or tomb visitation thereafter. This would be indeed a shocking oversight since in early Judaism one of the prime responsibilities one had to a parent or a sibling or a child was to see they got honorable burial. Jesus, by his horrible, public humiliating death, had shamed the family, and his family in turn did not honor him in death. This is not entirely a surprise, since we are told in John 7:5 that the brothers did not believe in Jesus during the ministry, and Mark 3:21-35 implies they did not understand Jesus nor were they part of his following during the earthly ministry.66 The burial in any case must surely have been done in a hasty fashion, as sundown was coming. [Burial] Verses 62-66 and Matthew 28:11-15 have been inserted into the Markan outline by our Evangelist, and there can be little doubt that the insertion is for apologetic purposes, making clear that Jesus’ body was not stolen once it was put in the tomb. The purpose of the narrative, however, does not settle the historical issue. It is clear enough from reading later Jewish polemics about the death and resurrection of Jesus that one of the oft-heard refrains was that the body was stolen (cf. for instance Celsus in his

Burial Josephus, J.W. IV.317, emphasizes how it was important to Jews to get any deceased person, including a victim of crucifixion, buried before sundown. This is presumably because of the problems of ritual impurity associated with corpses, and also out of respect for the dead lest the deceased body be further desecrated by animals or insects.

525

526

Matthew 26:1–28:20

debate with Origen). This material is included here in this Gospel to squelch such criticism, and it suggests that our author lives in an environment where such criticism of Christian belief might regularly be heard. Galilee, the home region of Jesus, is a likely spot for such criticism.67 What is interesting both about the polemics and the apologetic response is that both sides agreed that the tomb was empty and the body not to be The Tomb found, but they differed as to the [Illustration: Rick Danielson] reason why. The empty tomb was of course open to various possible interpretations, especially if you didn’t have an angelic tour guide and interpreter when you visited it. Without the resurrection appearances, which except for Saul of Tarsus were only received by followers of Jesus, grave robbing is an understandable interpretation of what happened, since it was a frequent occurrence. [Grave Robbing] The tomb of a criminal was doubly unclean, and not just because of corpse impurity. According to the early Jewish rules, another, due both to purity and honor reasons, would not use it. Some have found vv. 62-66 hard to believe because they say the Jewish authorities came before an unclean Gentile ruler to request a guard on the Sabbath, the day after preparation.68 But these were exigent circumstances, and perhaps they acted in this way due to fear, having heard about Jesus’ predictions that he would rise from the dead. Notice that resurrection of some sort was connected with Jesus’ temple saying, which was reported at the Grave Robbing trial, though in garbled form. They call Pilate It is interesting that in the 40s a notice kyrie here, but they call Jesus planos, which was posted in Nazareth by Emperor Claudius warning against grave robbing. Could means imposter or deceiver, which is just the this have been in response to the debate in early opposite of the truth in our author’s view. Thus Judaism about what happened to Jesus’ body? the authorities request the sealing of the tomb (by a rope that would be sealed to the stone, closing the tomb and the outside wall of the tomb cf. Dan 6:17), and the guarding of the tomb, a double precaution. The mentioning of the third day was important in Jewish theology because it was believed that the spirit of the deceased departed from the body after three days. This is why the tomb needed to be sealed for that length of time. By then the body was certainly only a corpse, and the stealing of the body

Matthew 26:1–28:20

527

and claiming Jesus was alive after that point would involve a vain assertion. The leaders feared the deception of Jesus’ resurrection would be worse than the deception of his messiImperative Greek Verb ahship. Pilate complies with the request and says Reading the Greek verb as imperative. If it is indicative, it means “take your own “take custodians, guards.” [Imperative Greek Verb] guard.” Thus the Matthean account insists the tomb was sealed and also guarded. Sunday Morning Surprises for All, 28:1-10

While Matthew is still dependent on his Markan source for this story, he does not follow it as closely as he has in the Passion Narrative. It is my view that we should not see Matthew 28:9-10 as a Matthean addition to the story, but rather as drawn from his Markan source, which, in my view, certainly did not end at Mark 16:8, as has been convincingly demonstrated by N. C. Croy.69 In my view, Mark included the verses we find in Matthew 28:9-10, and at least some of Matthew 28:16-20, thus recording an appearance first to the women in Jerusalem and then to the Eleven and others in Galilee. [A Sapiential Reading of 28:1-10] It needs to be noted that neither in Matthew nor in Mark, our two earliest Gospels, do we have an account of the resurrection event itself. The writers are not interested in the miracle for its own sake. What we do have are accounts of the results of the resurrection of Jesus, namely his appearances to various disciples. Unlike the sealing and guarding of the tomb stories, this story is not apologetic in character, or at least not in the same way as the sealing stories, because no appearances of Jesus to Jewish or Roman authorities or non-disciples are ever recorded. This is not a small point, especially when Matthew 28 is going to stress that the followers of Jesus must be missionaries to the nations. Matthew 28:1 omits the Markan remark about the women coming to the tomb to anoint the body. Here the two Marys are said to come and look at the tomb. This is followed in the uniquely Matthean v. 2 by the report of an earthquake caused by the angel of A Sapiential Reading of 28:1-10 Jesus appears to the women who see both the empty tomb and the risen Christ first. They are to tell the male disciples to get moving to Galilee, where they will see him. Unlike in Mark where the women simply flee in fear, here they are said to flee in fear but with joy at the announcement that he was not there, but rather risen (the empty tomb being the negative counterpart to the bodily resurrection). The women are also said to be the first to worship the risen Lord (v. 9), and they are encouraged by him to witness to the brothers. Bearing witness is one of the essential tasks of the true disciple.

528

Matthew 26:1–28:20

the Lord coming down to Jesus’ tomb, rolling back the stone, and sitting on it, a sign that God is in control of what is happening, and no obstacle is going to stand in the way of vindicating Jesus. This is the first time we have heard about this special angel since Matthew 1:20-24 and 2:13-19. Angels are almost always a sign of divine activity either in progress or about to happen, and when it is “the angel of the Lord,” we are talking about some major work of God. The First Evangelist not surprisingly then omits Mark 16:3-4 where the women wonder how they will gain access to the tomb since it is closed with a big stone in front of it. Verse 3 says his appearance was like lightning and his clothes as white as snow (cf. Dan 10:6; Matt 17:2), and not surprisingly the guards became so afraid that they shook and became comatose. “The irony is not to be missed: the ones assigned to guard the dead themselves appear dead while the dead one has been made alive.” 70 Also unlike the Markan account, the women do not enter the tomb, but rather according to v. 5 the angel speaks to them and tells them not to be afraid, “for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he is risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He is risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” The angel has not opened the tomb so Jesus may come out; indeed no one has seen Jesus come forth from the tomb in this story, unlike the later apocryphal Gospel of Peter. One of the remarkable aspects of this speech is that Jesus is called “the crucified one” even though now he is “the risen one.” The participle “crucified” is in the perfect tense, indicating an event in the past that has lasting impact on an ongoing basis. Jesus is now permanently the crucified one, while at the same time being the risen one, and this is so not least because he was raised in the body that had been crucified.71 Verse 8 indicates that the women, though afraid, were also filled with joy and were not disobedient to the angelic command, running to tell the disciples. This stands in contrast to Mark 16:8, which simply says the women fled due to fear and for the time being said nothing to anyone. But this flight is interrupted by an appearance of Jesus himself, the first of two in this Gospel. Jesus greets them (chairete, the everyday greeting used in that culture; cf. 26:49), and they grab him, grasping his feet and worshiping. They are depicted as the first Christian worshipers in this scene. In fact, this motif is important, because this is the normal gesture when one expresses submission and homage to a king. King Jesus then is treated as royalty here. Notice while we have no description of the

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Image Not Available due to lack of digital rights. Please view the published commentary or perform an Internet search using the credit below.

At Christ's Empty Tomb The Two Women and an Angel with a Halo and a Staff at Christ's Empty Tomb (Luke 24:1-12). Mosaic (6th). S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, Italy. [Photo Credit: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY]

appearance of the risen Jesus here or elsewhere in this Gospel, nevertheless Jesus is depicted as having a material body that can be grasped. This is not a surprise since resurrection was almost always viewed as something that happened to a physical body in early Judaism.72 In v. 10 Jesus tells them not to be afraid but rather to go and proclaim the news to the male disciples (the text says “my adelphoi”) so they may go to Galilee and “there they will see me,” as promised in Matthew 26:32. These women then are also the first to be commissioned to proclaim the Easter message about Jesus, and they do so to Jesus’ handpicked male disciples—the Eleven. [A Summary]

The Wrong Guard, 28:11-15

The First Evangelist introduces the guards at the tomb once more at vv. 11-15, though of course they were mentioned in passing at 28:4 after their introduction in 27:62-66. As so often, our Evangelist lets us know something significant is happening by introducing his remarks with idou, behold/look (cf. 28:2). This uniquely Matthean addition to the Easter story likely testifies to

529

530

Matthew 26:1–28:20 A Summary In my view, this is a summary of the same story we find at length about Mary Magdalene in John 20, where we also have grasping of Jesus by one of these women (Mary Magdalene) and a commissioning to go tell “my brothers” (John 20:17).

the fact that the empty tomb was a hot topic in our author’s day and context and false interpretations of it had to be ruled out. Here, too, our author shows his hand in v. 15 where he distinguishes himself and his audience from the Ioudaios, the Jews who were still circulating problematic stories about the body of Jesus even in his day. By this term he apparently means non-Christian Jews of course, unlike himself and his audience who are Jewish followers of Jesus. The guards go into Jerusalem and explain what has happened, to their shame. They report to the high priests rather than Pilate, perhaps because they had been doing a favor for the high priests, who were the ones actually concerned about the matter, and so they had to answer to them. They are honest enough to report “all that had happened,” but perhaps they could do so with impunity since the high priests couldn’t punish Roman guards in any case. This causes a crisis among the priests and elders who call for a council meeting to decide what to do. The irony of the story is meant to be heavy, because those who are so busy worrying about Jesus’ followers perpetrating a fraud about Jesus are about to perpetrate one themselves. First we are told that they got plenty of money and bought the silence of the guards in regard to the truth of the matter. Sleeping on guard duty was in fact a punishable offense, even punishable by death, but not when we are talking about Roman soldiers doing a favor for those who have no power or authority to punish them in that way. Of course, if the soldiers had told Pilate, that was another matter. He could have executed them. This was how the soldiers got extra pay, and they did not have to worry about being punished. The Jewish authorities reassured them that if Pilate asked about the matter, they would reassure Pilate all was well. This solution was much better than the alternatives. The story that was concocted was in fact not at all farfetched. Grave robbing was an endemic problem in all of these cultures in the empire, especially in the eastern end of the empire. There is, however, a big hole in the story—if the guards were asleep when the body disappeared, how did they know the disciples took it? I suppose the soldiers would assume a flawed story is better than no story, but remember that the very story our Evangelist wishes to rebut is the one about disciples stealing the body. The soldiers were

Matthew 26:1–28:20

531

The Resurrection Andrea del Verrocchio (1436-1488). The Resurrection, detail: Sleeping guards at the tomb (Matthew 27: 62-66) Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)]

in any case only witnesses to the empty tomb, not to the risen Jesus. We see this same Jewish polemic about the disciples stealing the body still going on in the second century as reported by Justin Martyr (Dial. 108) and Tertullian (Spect. 30).73 Apparently the high priests felt they knew Pilate well enough that they assumed they could even satisfy him with some sort of bribe. The Great Commission of the Great Sage, Emmanuel, 28:16-20

To O. Michel we owe the suggestion that Matthew 28:16-20 provides the key for interpreting the entire Gospel of Matthew.74 Against this conclusion I would argue that while we do have some of the major themes here of the Gospel re-presented, and a drawing together of threads, we cannot really call this passage the key to interpreting this complex work. Michel stresses that this Gospel shows Easter faith may begin with seeing, but it continues with believing and hearing or understanding and obeying, thus the visual aspect is played down somewhat. Jesus’ resurrection appearance is nowhere described; neither is the resurrection event itself.

532

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Notice also the absence of the following features found in other resurrection stories: (1) Jesus eating; (2) Jesus’ ascension; (3) the apparently purely positive response of the women to encountering the angel at the tomb; (4) the reference to the giving of the Spirit. Bearing these things in mind, we can now look at the exegetical particulars here. [A Sapiential Reading of 28:16-20] Verse 16 says the Eleven went to Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. Some of the Eleven who saw him fell down and worshiped as the women had before, but others of them doubted.75 [Edistasan] The story does indeed show that seeing does not necessarily lead to believing. This is an important lesson the Evangelist wishes to teach. Secondly, the ou etazato in this verse probably means where he commanded them to meet, not where he gave them commandments. Thus, we have no clue what mountain is meant, and since it is not said to be a mountain where Jesus gave commandments there is no reason to overplay the allusion to Moses here. In view of the way v. 18 begins with proselthon, this suggests that Jesus was first noticed at a distance and then drew nearer. Perhaps it was the distance Edistasan factor that led some to be ambivalent at first. The verb edistasan, in fact, means being This verb is important for another reason as of two minds about something, being pulled in two directions. The translation “ambivawell. Some have assumed we are to envision the lent” would be better than “doubting” then. disciples seeing Jesus in the sky or from heaven, ala the ending of The Greatest Story Ever Told. But the text does not warrant this conclusion. This story is not like that of Paul’s vision in Acts 9, 22, and 26. It is quite true that this text, especially if read in light of what Jesus said to the high priest, may suggest that Jesus has already been exalted to the right hand of God and assumed full power, as though he has gone to heaven and then come back down. But this is to forget that Jesus has been portrayed as both divine and human in this whole Edoth∑ Gospel, been portrayed as the Wisdom of God, Edoth∑ is an aorist verb and can be and he had earlier thanked God that already all timeless, but more likely it refers to the things had been committed to him (Matt recent past. 11:27). Notice that Jesus has become the plenipotentiary—all power/authority in heaven and on earth had been given him. [Edoth∑] Jesus has been exalted and empowered, but on earth, and he has returned to the disciples (which equals the A Sapiential Reading of 28:16-20 The Eleven go to Galilee, and Jesus appears as promised. Here Jesus says he has been given all authority, and then he authorizes his disciples to make disciples of all nations, which is said to involve baptizing in the Trinitarian name and teaching to obey all Jesus commanded. But Jesus does far more than just authorize and empower his “learners”; he promises to be with them, Immanuel, as the divine power and presence and wisdom of God until the close of the age. They will never be bereft of him again. Thus the Gospel closes with a presentation of Jesus as God’s Wisdom, his wise presence who dwells within God’s people and guards and guides them. They are called to live and call others to live according to the counter-order wisdom of Jesus the sage. The Gospel for learners is also the Gospel for teachers, but ultimately there is only one teacher, one sage, one Wisdom—Jesus himself.

Matthew 26:1–28:20

533

Eleven here). Jesus is enthroned as the ruler of the world by his resurrection, which was also his exaltation. Jesus is alluding to Daniel 7:14 and his fulfilling the commission given there to the divine Son of Man. During his ministry Jesus had acted by the power of the Spirit, but now the Father has allowed him to resume using his divine power as the omnipotent God he is. [Totality] Christ Appearing to His Disciples at the Mount of Galilee Previously Jesus had Duccio di Buoninsegna (1260-1318). Christ Appearing to His Disciples at the Mount of Galilee. From limited power and authority, the upper section of the Maesta altarpiece. Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena, Italy. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art(PD-old-100)] his mission was limited to the lost sheep of Israel, and his disciples were likewise constricted. But now since Jesus has all power and authority over all peoples, his disciples must likewise broaden their field of operation to include the nations, all the nations that Jesus now rules. Totality Verse 19 has caused all sorts of historical Michel rightly emphasizes, “The present problems, and most scholars see it as a composition expressly emphasizes the motif of conclusion, completion, totality as is clear Matthean formulation. But though it does sumfrom the use of all people . . . everything . . . and marize some of the main themes of this Gospel, all authority . . . all nations . . . everything I comthis does not mean it could not have manded you, always.” an historical basis. Nevertheless, note the O. Michel, “The Conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel,” Matthean elements: (1) the reign of the exalted in The Interpretation of Matthew (London: SPCK, Son of Man (cf. 13:41); (2) the making of disci1983), 39. ples (cf. 27:57); (3) the injunction to teach Jesus’ commands (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount); (4) a contrast between what had been the case during the ministry and what is now the case since the resurrection. It is of course frequently argued that if Jesus had actually said go to all the nations, then there would have been no debate about Paul’s calling and mission work. This is not necessarily so. It could be that this commission was originally understood to mean go to the Diaspora, and in particular to the Jews in all the nations in the known world. Luke includes an equally clear command in Luke 24 and Acts 1, yet we see clear hesitations about a Gentile mission even as late as Acts 15. No doubt it took years to work out all the implications of Jesus’ teaching. But

534

Matthew 26:1–28:20

in any case the issue was not whether Gentiles could be disciples of Jesus; the question was on what basis. Did they need to become Jews first? There was also the missional issue of whether Gentiles would just be allowed to come in or whether Jesus’ disciples would go out and recruit them. The interpretation of v. 19 requires close attention to the structure of the sentence. The main verb here is not “go” but rather “make disciples.” It is also worth stressing that the emphasis is on teaching rather than preaching. So this is not quite the Great Commission to go out and preach to or evangelize the nations, though we should not rigidly exclude such ideas here. My point however is the one a scribe would want to make and is making here. The chief means of making disciples is teaching. Another point to note is that the baptizing is mentioned first and then teaching. If this is some sort of chronological ordering, then the point would be to get them initiated into the community by an entrance ritual and then instructing them thoroughly. Notice that Jesus is the one who is recommissioning the Eleven and reaudiencing their ministry. Now they are no longer to confine themselves to Israel, but rather are to go to the nations, and this surely includes the majority population of those nations, not just the Jews. They are to be approached deliberately and intentionally. These new disciples along with the Eleven are called to observe not just some of Jesus’ teaching but “all that I commanded you.” No wonder this Gospel places so much stress on Jesus’ teaching material and on obedience and discipleship! The basis of the new community is seen to be the teaching. It is this that preserves the continuity of the community from the time of Jesus to the time of the Matthean community and beyond. But Jesus has not simply left them in the lurch to do it on their own, for v. 20 also says his powerful presence will be with them always, as long as human history continues, until the end of the age. Here we have a deliberate sapiential rounding off of this Gospel with a motif from its beginning in Matthew 1:23—Jesus as Immanuel. And as Immanuel, Jesus will be the community’s guide and guard, their Wisdom to help them understand his teaching. Thus, the basis of the new community is (1) the presence of the risen One, who is the royal One, the Sage who is Wisdom, and now clearly, as divine one who is greater than David or Solomon; (2) the continued teaching of his teachings; and (3) the task of making disciples. This is the perspective of the scribe who wrote this Gospel.

Matthew 26:1–28:20

In conclusion, we must deal with the part of this passage that seems most likely to be post-Easter, indeed, most think late first century—the baptismal formula. We note first the preposition eis, which can mean “into,” including the meaning “into the account of ” or “into the possession of,” and that may well be the sense here. Baptism puts the baptisand in the position of belonging to God. It is thus a rite of passage from one owner to another. Secondly, we note that the word “name” is in the singular. God is a unity, and so we hear of just one name, not three, despite the three ascriptions that follow. The implication is clear enough that all three forms of the divine name that follow can properly be called God. We should have expected this when the Son was already called Immanuel, God with us, in Matthew 1. Baptism can only be into God’s name, the one who becomes the convert’s Lord. While there is no full-blown Trinitarian theology in the first century AD, [Theos Not the Trinity] there is the raw stuff of such a belief in this text and in doxological texts like 2 Corinthians 13:14 or in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, and there is no reason why such beliefs could not have existed in the 80s. Didache 7 suggests the Trinitarian formula must be earlier than the second century AD since we find it being readily used in that document, which may be from the end of the first century, or at latest the early second century AD. There should be no suggestion that this is a later theology imposed on the New Testament; rather we should talk about the organic growth and articulation of a belief already implicit and in some places explicit in the New Testament. In my view, the idea ultimately goes back to Jesus suggesting that he was the Wisdom of God come in the flesh and more than just a sage. He was the one to whom God had given all revelation and knowledge. He was the one on whom the Spirit dwelt. As Michel admits, the holy name of God and his presence are handed on to the community and are only available to the community in christological form—through the risen Jesus, Immanuel, these truths and realities and power are available. And thus this Gospel appropriately ends on a note of both Christology and discipleship, its two major thrusts, and the conceptual umbrella that holds the two together is wisdom—a wisdom Christology and a wisdom pedagogy and teaching. Theos Not the Trinity Note that the term theos never means the Trinity in the New Testament. It always refers either to the Father or to the Son. See my discussion in The Many Faces of the Christ. B. Witherington, The Many Faces of the Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1998).

535

536

Matthew 26:1–28:20

CONNECTIONS The Use of Matthew’s Gospel

In order to understand how this Gospel should be meaningfully used in the church today, perhaps we should say a word about how it is actually used. It is a measure of the diversity of material found in this Gospel that it can be the source book for the pattern of living of the Amish and the Mennonites (Matt 5–7 especially), and at the same time it can be the source of the Roman Catholic papal theology grounded in Peter. The book has been used parenetically, ecclesiologically, and in many other ways as well. But how should it be used? In view of the fact that Matthew 5–7 is said to be directed to the disciples, it is hard to deny that the mandates laid down there should be applied to Christians. In short, I do think this material should be taken as a guide for Christian living, even today, which requires that we de-inculturate ourselves and struggle to pursue a simpler though not necessarily antiquarian lifestyle. One can also say that what is predicated of Peter in Matthew 16 is predicated of all disciples in Matthew 18, so it hard to see an endorsement of any exclusive role for Peter and his successors in this Gospel. One can quite readily use this Gospel as a christological source book76 or as a tool for training young believers a sort of catechism of Christian living, which would readily comport with what was likely its original use by the First Evangelist. We may also learn an approach to salvation history from this Gospel, namely that we should be looking for fulfillments of God’s words rather than primarily new predictions. Certainly too the creative use of the Old Testament in this Gospel provides a warrant for a homiletical and Christian use of the Old Testament as well. In general it may be said that this Gospel spurs us to a useful way of viewing the relationship of the Old Testament and New Testament, in terms of promise and fulfillment, rather than seeing the teaching of Jesus as a reinforcement of Torah. As we have noted, Jesus’ sapiential and eschatological approach to the Law does not allow us simply to say he was a Torah-true Jew. This Gospel of course raises in an acute fashion whether one is to see the followers of Jesus as at least the primary form of true Israel. It would appear that the Matthean Jesus suggests this is the correct view, but if so, how then are we to view modern Judaism? Was the destruction of the temple simply to be seen as a judgment on a particular form of Judaism? This would seem to be the conclusion of

Matthew 26:1–28:20

our Evangelist writing in the 90s who talks about the Law and Prophets going on until all is fulfilled and speaks of Jews needing to listen to and heed the teaching of the Pharisees. But this then means they have already paid and do not need to keep paying. It must be stressed that this Gospel, while it provides a severe critique of hypocrisy, does not offer any encouragement to anti-Semitism. Rather it encourages its own audience to be more Jewish, not less. The re-Judaizing of the Markan material in various places makes this evident, though the application originally may have been just to Jewish Christians. Furthermore, there is nothing in this Gospel that encourages a replacement theology—Gentiles replace Jews as God’s people. Rather the mission to Gentiles is endorsed in addition to the witnessing to Jews, though the author is not sanguine that either witness will be received without opposition and persecution. His view seems to be that God has not withdrawn his promises to Israel nor transferred them to others, but God has now said that they are to be fulfilled in and through Jesus. This Gospel would certainly be an excellent place to begin the discussion on what understanding and obedience should look like to be a true disciple. What is the importance or even necessity of obedience in the life of a follower of Jesus? How does it affect one’s eternal state of affairs, if at all? This Gospel repeatedly raises the issue of the problems of apostasy, whether moral or theological, and suggests that entering the Dominion of God in the end requires obedience, entering the narrow way. What determines this issue seems to be the response of the disciple to the imperatives, not the preordained choices of God, hence the exhortation to all Christians to strive to enter by the narrow way. It is fair to say however that this Gospel should not merely be seen as a discipleship handbook. The First Evangelist unfortunately tends to be overlooked or underestimated as a theologian. Of course Jesus is the focus of his biography, and so Christology, and particularly a sapiential Christology portraying Jesus as sage and Wisdom, is present throughout the work. But it is indeed Christology related in such a way to make clear its implication for ecclesiology and discipleship. It is not theologizing for its own sake. Our Evangelist also sees it as his job to relate the events in the life of Jesus to Scripture, using a fulfillment schema most often. Furthermore, the Evangelist’s portrayal of Jesus is balanced— there is focus on Jesus’ words but also focus on his deeds, even attending to both in the Passion Narrative. It is not a surprise that this Gospel was the runaway favorite of a church trying to instruct

537

538

Matthew 26:1–28:20

The Yellow Crucifixion Paul Gaugin (1848–1903). The Yellow Christ. 1889. Oil on canvas. Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (Yorck Project)]

Matthew 26:1–28:20

its own on the meaning and message of Jesus. Our author tells the whole story from birth to death and beyond, yet he leaves the reader with much more than just history or just story. He leaves the reader example after example of how to go and emulate Christ, how to live in a way that pleases him. The Sermon on the Mount is a masterpiece of editing disparate material for a specific purpose. In a compelling way, our author even shows how Jesus himself lived out his own teaching enshrined in that discourse—turning the other cheek, going the extra mile to Golgotha, bearing another’s burden, and sacrificing himself for others. Jesus prayed and practiced what he taught and preached, even when under severe duress in the Garden of Gethsemane. Perhaps most of all and best of all, this Gospel is able to stress the continuity of Jesus then and now—Immanuel, still the exegesis of the mind of God, still wise and offering wisdom even to those under persecution, prosecution, and execution. Yet still he calls them to go out and teach and baptize and disciple all sorts of people. Essentially what our Evangelist has done, drawing heavily on his sources, especially Mark, is reaudienced his material, showing how the Jesus tradition can be used in new settings and in different situations. This shows that the author’s principle conviction is not just that the Gospel is eternally true, though he believes that, but that it is also a livable and useful truth—we too are called to fulfill all righteousness as Jesus did, and this call is not Law, but Wisdom. It would be my hope that you the reader have gotten a glimpse of the word’s worth in this study, seeing it even as a guide for living and loving faithfully today. It is both education and inspiration of who Jesus is, who his disciples are called to be, and what they must do. Information and application are presented in the context of inspiration with the guiding orientation of Wisdom—God manifest in the flesh and living out the divine design so that the world might have life and light in great abundance. The Marks of the Matthean Passion Narrative

We must stress how closely the First Evangelist’s narrative follows Mark’s. Every Markan narrative is included and in the same order with only minor exceptions (Mark 14:3-4, 12-25, 40, 56-59, 67; 15:7, 21b, 44-45; 16:1-5). It is also clear in the case of the major additions of Judas material and the guards story that both sorts of materials are inserted into the prearranged narrative, which means they are secondary additions. This leads to the conclusion that the

539

540

Matthew 26:1–28:20

First Evangelist, and perhaps also his audience, had ready access to all of Mark’s material either in written or in oral form. This suggestion gains further strength from the observation that the reason our author feels free to abbreviate Mark’s account is because he can assume his audience already knows much of it. A good example of this is where the First Evangelist can say to his audience that the disciples went to prepare the Passover at so-and-so’s house. This opens yet the further possibility that the reason the First Evangelist is able to give his Gospel such a sapiential and parenetic slant is because he assumes the audience has the basic historical material and outline from Mark. Thirdly, it seems quite likely that some of the special M material comes from a Jerusalem source, some comes from a Galilean source, and in particular the Judas and the guard material comes from a Jerusalem source, whereas the birth materials and some of the Galilean teaching material come from a Galilean source. Our author then has done some traveling in the Holy Land to acquire such data, and one may envision that he came up with his copy of Mark from the family of John Mark in Jerusalem (see Acts 12).77 It is true that the special material has something of an apologetic bent, especially the special passion and resurrection material, for there is a strong attempt to show Jesus really died, he really was buried, and he really arose. N. Dahl sums up as follows: “about four-fifths of the Matthean Passion narrative recasts Mark. Many of the differences are hardly based on deliberate corrections but are simply the adaptation of the language and narrative style . . . to Matthew’s characteristic mode.”78 This mode includes the use of more Semitisms, the inclusion for instance of Eli rather than Eloi shows that sometimes the First Evangelist corrects Mark back to what was a more likely original reading. But another notable feature is the changing of the Markan narrative sentences into direct address, thus Mark’s “and they drank all of them from the cup” becomes in Matthew “drink ye all of this.” It is right to conclude, as Dahl says, that Matthew is much less of an independent author than say a John or even a Luke, in fact “he is rather a preserver of traditions, a scribe . . . and he stands within a living tradition” (44-45). Dahl also rightly notes the various parallels between the Matthean and the Johanine Passion narratives, which may be due to shared oral traditions, or perhaps the Fourth Evangelist has actually read Matthew at some juncture, though he does not use it to compose his own Gospel in the way the First Evangelist uses Mark.

Matthew 26:1–28:20

541

Dahl rightly stresses the following themes in the Matthean Passion Narrative: (1) Jesus suffers as messiah and is characterized as the righteous sufferer of the Psalms (and Isa 52–53). Here however is where we point out that that the righteous sufferer is usually seen to be David, and so Jesus as Son of David is engaged in royal sufferings like his ancestors, including Solomon (see Wisdom of Solomon). (2) Irony is heavy throughout the narrative. (3) Emphasis is placed on the exemplary value of positive or negative characters in the narrative, the good example of Jesus bearing witness as opposed to the bad example of Peter denying. (4) Some emphasis is placed on the blood guilt of the Jewish authorities and their cronies for Jesus’ death, along with an attempt to blame Pilate and Romans somewhat less. (5) Jesus as sage is stressed both in the passion material (Matt 26:1) and in the The Crucifixion resurrection material in Matt 28. Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528). The Crucifixion. 1511. National Gallery of Art, Washington, The risen Jesus tells the disciples DC. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Art (PD-old-100)] “teach them all I commanded you.” It seems that the First Evangelist sees the future of ministry as being word-centered and thus pedagogical in character, with an emphasis on teaching. This conjures up images of an aurally based community, relying a lot on oral Gospel traditions and careful scribal teachings.

542

Matthew 26:1–28:20

Notes 1 See

pp. 397-401 above. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 485. 3 See D. Hagner, Matthew (WBC: Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1995), 754. 4 Ibid. 5 See D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3 (ICC: Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004), 439. 6 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 110-14. 7 Ibid., 110. 8 On the historical substance of the Markan story see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 111 and the notes, and R. H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 80914. As J. Painter, Mark’s Gospel (London: Routledge, 1997), 180, says the Matthean form of the story, as is usually the case, is an abbreviated version of the Markan account with the one further specificity of telling us it was the disciples who objected to the waste of the perfume (Matt 26:8). 9 On the probable independence from the Markan account of the Johannine version of the story, see my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 112-13. 10 I have argued in detail in my John’s Wisdom (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1995), 1ff., that the Fourth Gospel represents the memoirs of a Judean disciple of Jesus (not John the son of Zebedee) who was an eyewitness to the events that transpired in Jerusalem, Bethany, and in general the environs of the holy city. Mark by contrast represents the account of someone who was not likely an eyewitness to the anointing, an account he retrieved from the Petrine preaching or teaching. 11 See D. Hagner, 756-57. 12 Hurtado, Mark (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), 216. It is interesting that C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 358, suggests that this is a wealthy woman since she has such expensive perfume. 13 J. Painter, 181. 14 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 113, and E. Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroads, 1985), xiv. 15 See my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 114, and the notes. 16 On the relevance of this story for the portrayal of Jesus in this Gospel, see pp.391-94 above. 17 See my The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 97-98. 18 Which in itself favors the clandestine explanation, with the disciples in on the secret plan, rather than the prophetic foresight explanation, which only Jesus has. 19 See Hurtado, 220-21: “Such secrecy was required, probably, because Jesus knew the authorities were looking for an opportunity to arrest him away from large public gatherings.” 20 See my discussion in John’s Wisdom, 1ff; 235ff. 21 See M. Hooker, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 334. 22 See D. Hagner, 768. 23 This phrase is close to our “you’ve got it,” affirming someone else’s correct remark. 24 D. Hagner, 771. 25 J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), 232. 26 On which see J. Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” Semeia 35 (1986): 91127, here 115. 2 E.

Matthew 26:1–28:20 27 See

also pp. 382-84 above. 343. 29 As Hurtado, 232, points out that the whole context of Zech 13 bears close scrutiny, for it also speaks about a new people of God being created as result of God striking the shepherd who stands next to him (13:7-9). 30 W. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 511. 31 This is about as strong a form of denial as is possible in Greek. See Hurtado, Mark, 232. 32 D. Hagner, 780-81. 33 See Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 10.36: “But a sadness even unto death implies that death is the completion, not the cause, of the sadness.” 34 See Isa 51:17; Jer 25:17ff.; Ezek 23:31ff. 35 S. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 89. 36 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1975), 315. 37 The difference being that here of course it is “my Father” and in the Matthean form of the prayer it is “our Father.” 38 Hooker, 348-49. 39 Garrett, 91. 40 See D. Hagner, 787-88. 41 On which see pp. 217-30 above. 42 On whom see pp. 476-78 above. 43 Clearly this is a phrase our Evangelist likes since he uses it three times in this portion of the Gospel. See pp. 429-30 above. 44 See D. Hagner, 795-96. 45 See J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus (Westminster: Newman Press, 1959). 46 Contrast R. T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), p.185 with A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 402. 47 Hooker, 357. 48 E. Schweizer, Mark, 320. 49 There is a later fictionally elaborated account in Papias fragment 3, which was preserved by Apollinarus of Laodicea. See. R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1408-409. 50 C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 657. 51 Notice how Pilate in similar fashion in 27:24 absolves himself of responsibility by saying “see to it yourselves.” 52 A few minor witnesses attribute this quotation to Zechariah—22, Syriac Harcleon margin, and some Armenian manuscripts—so surely these are attempts at a correction. 53 See D. Hagner, 813-15. 54 Whether we should call Barabbas a zealot or not depends on one’s analysis of the Zealot movement; see my Christology of Jesus, 81-88. In my view there was a Zealot movement well before the Jewish War, as M. Hengel, Die Zeloten, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1976), argued. 55 The apocryphal Acts of Pilate (appendix) tells us her name was Procla. 56 D. Hagner, 823. 57 Lane, 559. 58 Mark simply says it said “The King of the Jews,” and since our Evangelist likes to use the phrase “This is . . .” or “This one . . .” when he points out Jesus’ identity (cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5 to the Markan parallels), this is clearly his addition to the label. 28 Hooker,

543

544

Matthew 26:1–28:20 59 See

pp.187-90 above. Myers, 389. 61 It is of course difficult to be sure since we have here a transliteration in Greek. 62 D. Hagner, 850. 63 On this see my more detailed discussion in Women in the Ministry of Jesus, 118-23, and on the validity of women’s witness in early Judaism see pp. 9-10. 64 C. Myers, 396-97. 65 The Fourth Gospel mentions Mary, but she is apparently taken away to the Beloved Disciple’s home before the taking down of the body of Jesus. 66 See H. Shanks and B. Witherington, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2003). 67 See pp. 21-24 above on the provenance of this Gospel. 68 Why does the Evangelist describe this day in this manner? Is it because his community no longer observes the Jewish Sabbath on that day, but perhaps on Sunday? 69 See N. C. Croy, Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel (Louisville: Abingdon, 2003), and cf. my The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) on Mark 16:8; also R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), and F. Neirynck, “Les femmes au tombeau: Etude de la redaction Mattheenne (Matt. Xxviii.1-10), NTS 15 (1968–1969): 168-90. 70 D. Hagner, 869. 71 See for example the imagery in Revelation where he is depicted as the slain but triumphant lamb. 72 The definitive study now on the whole matter of resurrection in early Judaism and early Christianity is N. T. Wright, Resurrection and the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 73 On the historicity of this story, see D. Wenham, “The Resurrection Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel,” TynBul 24 (1973): 21-54. 74 See O. Michel, “The Conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel,” in The Interpretation of Matthew (London: SPCK, 1983), 30-41. 75 Is this a reference to Thomas? 76 See my The Many Faces of the Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1998). 77 B. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 78 N. A. Dahl, “The Passion Narrative in Matthew,” in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. N. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 42-55. 60 C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allison, D. C., and W. D. Davies. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary Series. 3 volumes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark International, 2004. Allison, D. C. Jesus of Nazareth: The Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. ———. The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1999. The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. M. Simonetti. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Argyle, A. W. “Wedding Customs at the Time of Jesus.” ET 86 (1974–1975): 214-15. Aune, D. E., ed. The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Baird, J. A. Discovering the Power of the Gospel. Akron: Hampshire Books, 1989. Barnett, P. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999. Batey, R. A. Jesus and the Forgotten City. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Bauckham, R., ed. The Gospel for All Christians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bauer, D. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Bauer, D. R., and M. A. Powell, eds. Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Bauman, C. Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for Its Meaning. Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 1985. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament and Its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Betz, H. D. The Sermon on the Mount. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Black, M. “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” New TestamentS 18 (1971): 1-14. Blomberg, C. Matthew. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Bonnard, P. Evangile selon saint Matthieu. Neuchatel: Delachaux and Niestle, 1970. Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Broer, I. “Die Bedeutung der ‘Jungfrauengeburt’ im Mattausevangelium.” Bib Leb 12/4 (1971): 248-60. Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah. London: Chapman, 1977. ———. The Death of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ———. New Testament Essays. Garden City: Image Books, 1968. Bruce, F. F. “Render to Caesar.” In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

546

Bibliography Burney, C. F. The Poetry of Our Lord. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925. Burridge, R. What Are the Gospels? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Carter, W. “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:2731).” JBL 122/3 (2003): 467-87. ———. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001. ———. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. Catchpole, D. R. “The Poor of the Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Reappraisal of Matthew XXV.31-46.” BJRL 61 (1979): 355-97. Chauncey, M. A. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Clarke, H. The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003. Collins, J. J., and G. E. Sterling, eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Collins, J. J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1997. Derrett, J. D. M. “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt.” NovT 13 (1971): 241-58. ———. “Law in the New Testament: The Syrophoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum.” NovT 15/3 (1973): 161-86. ———. Studies in the New Testament. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Deutsch, C. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah, and Discipleship in Matthew 11:25-30. Sheffield: JSOld Testament Press, 1987. Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. France, R. T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985. ———. “Scripture, Tradition, and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew.” In Gospel Perspectives 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOld Testament Press, 1981. 201-37. Garland, D. E. The Intention of Matthew 23. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Gathercole, S. “The Justification of Wisdom (Matt 11:19b/Luke 7:35).” New TestamentS 49 (2003): 476-88. Goulder, M. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. Guelich, R. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Nashville: W. Publishing Group, 1982. Gundry, R. H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ———.Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ———. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Hagner, D. Matthew. Word Biblical Commentary. 2 volumes. Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1993, 1995.

Bibliography Haines-Eitzen, K. Guardians of Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hawkins, J. C. Horae Synopticae. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Hayes, J., and S. Mandell. The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander to Bar Kochba. Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1998. Hengel, M. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Hoehner, H. W. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Horsley, G. H. R. and S. Llewelyn. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. North Ryde, N. S. W., 1981– Horsley, R. A. The Sociology of the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London: SCM, 1966. ———. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971. ———. The Parables of Jesus. 2d edition. New York: Scribners, 1963. ———. The Sermon on the Mount. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. ———. “Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew’s Christology.” CBQ36 (1974): 44-64. Keener, C. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kingsbury, J. D. Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ———. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary Critical Observations.” JBL 105/4 (1986): 643-55. ———. The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13. London: SPCK, 1969. Leske, A. M. “Isaiah and Matthew.” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant, ed. W. Bellinger and W. Farmer. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998. 152-69. Levine, A.-J. “Anti-Judaism and the Gospel of Matthew.” In Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, ed. William R. Farmer. Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. ———. The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History. Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1988. Luz, U. Matthew 1–7. Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1992. MacArthur, H. K., and R. M. Johnston. They Also Taught in Parables. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990 Machen, J. G. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1948. Marcus, J. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Massaux, E. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990. McKnight, S. A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. McNeile, A. H. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan, 1915. Menken, M. J. J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. Leuven: Leuven Press, 2004.

547

548

Bibliography Metzger, B. Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London, New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Why Doesn’t God Answer Prayers?” BR (April 2004): 14-19, 43. Neirynck, F. “Les femmes au tombeau: Etude de la redaction Mattheenne (Matt. Xxviii.1-10).” New TestamentS 15 (1968–1969): 168-90. Orton, D. E. The Understanding Scribe. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Overman, J. A. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew. Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1996. ———. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Perkins, P. “Peter: How a Flawed Disciple became Jesus’ Successor on Earth.” BR 20/1 (February 2004): 12-23. Richardson, P. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Schussler Fiorenza, E. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroads, 1985. Schweizer, E. The Good News according to Matthew. Translated by D. Green. Louisville KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1975. Senior, D. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. Shanks, H., and B. Witherington. The Brother of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper, 2003. Smith, D. “Our Lord’s Hard Saying to the Syro-Phoenician Woman.” ET 12 (1900–1901): 319-21. Snodgrass, K. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983. Stanton, G. N. “The Fourfold Gospel.” NTS 43 (1997): 317-46. ———. A Gospel for a New People. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. ———, ed. The Interpretation of Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Stendahl, K. “Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Matt 1–2.” In Judentum, Urchristentum Kirche: Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester. Berlin: Topelman, 1960. 94-105. Strange, J., and H. Shanks. “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 8/6 (November 1982): 26-37. Suggs, M. J. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979. ———. The Gospels in Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Tolbert, M. A. Sowing the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Trobisch, D. The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Twelftree, G. H. Jesus the Exorcist. Tubingen: Mohr, 1993. Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

Bibliography Wenham, D. “The Resurrection Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel.” Tyn Bul. 24 (1973): 21-54. Westermann, C. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Wink, W. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Winter, B. W. “The Messiah as Tutor: The Meaning of kathegetesin Matt 23.10.” Tyn Bul 42 (1991): 151-57. Witherington, B. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ———The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992. ———. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. ———. Jesus the Seer and the Progress of Prophecy. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. ———. John’s Wisdom. Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 1995. ———. The Many Faces of the Christ. New York: Crossroad, 1998. ———. “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New TestamentS 31 (1985): 571-76. ———. New Testament History. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. ———. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. Women in the Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1984. ———, and Laura Ice. The Shadow of the Almighty. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wright, N. T. Resurrection and the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Young, B. H. Jesus and His Jewish Parables. New York: Paulist Press, 1989.

549

index of modern authors

A Allison, D. 10, 35, 36, 40, 75, 76, 128, 157, 172, 228, 340, 385, 428, 438, 439, 440, 441, 447, 466, 470, 507, 542 Argyle, A. W. 460

B Baird, J. A. 213 Barnett, P. 112 Batey, R. A. 340 Bauckham, R. 36 Bauer, D. 35, 77, 112 Bauman, C. 114, 164, 169, 172, 173 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 367, 385 Beckwith, R. 441 Bennett, W. 341 Betz, H. D. 173 Beuchner, F. 384 Black, M. 439 Bligh, J. 298 Blinzler, J. 496, 543 Blomberg, C. 35, 36, 441 Bonnard, P. 324 Bornkamm, G. 173, 340 Broer, I. 54 Brower, K. E. 469 Brown, R. E. 54, 75, 213, 507, 543 Bruce, F. F. 439, 440 Bultmann, R. 323 Burney, C. F. 172, 442 Burridge, R. 35

C Carter, W. 35, 469 Casey, M. 385, 482 Catchpole, D. R. 470 Chauncey, M. A. 35

Clarke, H. 2, 33, 34, 54, 75, 112, 167, 173, 212, 252, 341 Collins, J. J. 34, 36, 429 Croy, N. C. 527, 544

D Dahl, N. 540, 544 Dalman, G. 263 Davies, W. D. 10, 24, 35, 36, 40, 75, 76, 172, 228, 340, 428, 438, 439, 440, 441, 447, 466, 470, 507, 542 Dean, M. E. 172 Denny, J. 440 Derrett, J. D. M. 172, 296, 302, 340, 357, 402, 438, 439 Deutsch, C. 16, 35 Dewey, A. J. 456, 469 Dietz, S. 100 Dodd, C. H. 323 Dunn, J. D. G. 85 Dyer, K. D. 469

E Eliezer, R. 361 English, D. 384

F Falk, Z. W. 298 Fishbane, M. 34 Fitzmyer, J. A. 298 Flusser, D. 440 Ford, D. 469 France, R. T. 53, 54, 75, 89, 172, 212, 228, 274, 479, 499, 543 Freyne, S. 395

G Gale, A. M. 36 Garland, D. E. 430

Garrett, S. 319, 543 Gathercole, S. 235 Goodman, M. 441 Goulder, M. 34 Grasser, E. 340 Guelich, R. 117, 124, 139, 171, 172 Gundry, R. H. 34, 54, 112, 204, 339, 411, 439, 440, 441, 542, 544

H Hagner, D. 21, 35, 75, 76, 112, 178, 202, 211, 212, 224, 228, 248, 256, 276, 309, 312, 340, 341, 342, 357, 358, 385, 386, 409, 438, 439, 440, 441, 451, 469, 470, 510, 522, 541, 542, 543, 544 Haines-Eitzen, K. 1, 34 Hamilton, N. Q. 395 Hayes, J. 63 Hengel, M. 212 Hester, J. D. 439 Hillel, 419 Hoehner, H. W. 283 Hooker, M. 341, 357, 385, 439, 469, 521, 542, 543 Hurtado, W. 340, 413, 542, 543 Hyatt, D. 341

I Ice, Laura 172

J Jaubert, A. 482 Jeremias, J. 172, 173, 256, 260, 263, 266, 276, 439, 459, 469, 470, 542 Johanan, R. 361

552

Index of Modern Authors

Johnson, M. D. 16, 35, 54 Johnston, R. M. 213 Julicher, A. 213

K Keener, C. 13, 34, 35, 53, 54, 75, 76, 184, 191, 211, 212, 228, 256, 276, 333, 341. 352, 354, 357, 358, 385, 438, 439, 440, 441, 469, 470, 474, 504, 543 Kepler, J. 58 Kingsbury, J. D. 36, 54, 276, 404, 439 Koester, H. 346 Kreitzer, L. J. 331

L Lane, W. 340, 469, 511, 542, 543 Leske, A. M. 212 Levine, A.-J. 2, 34, 35, 176, 183, 211, 256, 341 Llewelyn, S. R. 337 Luz, U. 27, 31, 32, 36, 37, 75, 216-17, 228, 470

M MacArthur, H. K. 213 Mandell, S. 63 Manson, T. W. 155, 173, 260 Marcus, J. 261, 276, 340, 440, 441, 488 Massaux, E. 36 McHugh, J. 280 McKnight, S. 223, 228, 441 McNeile, A. H. 47, 54, 312, 433, 441, 499 Menken, M. J. J. 36 Metzger, B. 41, 54, 112, 194, 228, 323, 342, 357, 405, 423, 454, 459, 510 Meyer, B. 108 Michel, O. 533, 544 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 35 Myers, C. 260, 263, 385, 404, 413, 438, 439, 440, 469, 485, 543, 544

N Neirynck, F. 544 Neugebauer, F. 441 Neyrey, J. 340, 542

O Orton, D. E. 8, 34 Overman, J. A. 25, 36 Owen-Ball, D. T. 440

P Painter, J. 260, 276, 341, 385, 451, 521, 542 Perkins, P. 36 Pregeant, R. 245

R Reinach, S. 331 Richardson, P. 63 Ridley, W. D. 469

S Sanders, E. P. 189, 198, 212, 256, 438 Schmidt, K. L. 315 Schussler Fiorenza, E. 440, 542 Schweitzer, A. 170, 223 Schweizer, E. 92, 112, 212, 252, 340, 341, 370, 385, 403, 416, 440, 441, 469, 484, 541, 543 Scott, B. B. 172 Senior, D. 35 Shanks, H. 36, 37, 54, 340, 441, 474, 544 Smith, D. 302 Snodgrass, K. 439 Stanton, G. N. 34, 54, 240, 423 Stendahl, K. 54 Sterling, G. E. 36 Stern, J. B. 440 Strange, J. 36 Suggs, M. J. 16, 35

T Telford, W. R. 438 Theissen, G. 212 Tolbert, M. A. 265, 276 Trobisch, D. 34 Twelftree, G. H. 212

U Updike, J. 115

V Vermes, G. 34

W Wenham, D. 54, 75 Westermann, C. 212 White, K. D. 276 Wink, W. 112 Winter, B. W. 426 Witherington, B. 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 53, 54, 63, 75, 112, 170, 172, 196, 212, 213, 228, 245, 246, 256, 276, 280, 339, 340, 341, 342, 357, 361, 385, 391, 395, 407, 440, 441, 442, 446, 455, 469, 470, 474, 482, 535, 542, 543, 544 Wright, N. T. 544 Young, B. H. 213 Young, D. M. 340

index of scriptures

GENESIS 1:27 4:8-10 4:10 4:24 5:1 6:1-4 6:5-24 9:3 19 23:7 24:43 27:29 33:3 34:3 35:19 38:18 48:14

362, 413 433 433 353 39, 40 415, 432 455 300 222 63 43 63 63 42 70 414 385

EXODUS 3:14 4:16 4:19-20 8:13 12:18 13:9 14:13 15:17 17:2 18:25 20:7 20:13 21:17 21:24 21:32 22:25-26 24:1 24:9 26:33 26:37

292 324 75 423 479 425 191 395 307 287 134 129 296 136 478 136 324 324 521 521

30:13-14 30:13-16 30:19 33:20 34:5-9 34:21 34:28 34:29 40:13

322 330 296 348 324 241 90 325 296

LEVITICUS 5:3 179 11:23 431 13–14 179 14:45-46 178 14:57 179 16:29 200 17:14 179 18 363 18:13 282 19:2 139 19:9 240 19:12 134 19:13 374 19:18 137, 368, 418, 419 20:9 296 21:11 188 21:18-19 396 23:22 240 24:16 499 24:20 136 25:47-55 380 27:30 430 NUMBERS 6:4 6:6-7 12:12 14:10-23

487 188 178 307

15:37-39 15:37-41 15:38-39 19:16 27:17 28:9-10 30:3-15 31:14

425 440 203 431 207 241 134 287

DEUTERONOMY 4:19 64 5:26 311 6–8 91 6:4-5 418 6:5 417, 418 6:8 425 6:10-15 91 6:13 92 6:16 92 8:2-40 91 8:3 92 9:9 90 9:18 90 11:13-21 440 11:18 425 13:1-5 448 14:22-23 430 15:9 150 16:16 396 18:9-13 64 18:13 139 18:15 324 18:18 393 19:15 350 19:16-21 504 19:21 135 22:12 203, 425 23:21-23 134 23:25 240 24 362

24:1 24:12-13 24:14-15 25:5-10 27:25 30:4-5 32:5

133, 361 136 374 414 505 453 307

JUDGES 1:7 13:5-7 16:17

341 72 72

1 SAMUEL 4:7-8 12:1-4 15:27 21

427 209 203 241

2 SAMUEL 5:2 5:8 7–13 7 7:13 7:22-23 12:1-4 12:20 15:30 16:1 22 24:8

65 396 395 420 396 504 209 148 388 388 420 63

1 KINGS 1 1:16 1:28-53 1:32-40 1:38 1:44

388 63 477 387 389 389

554

Index of Scriptures

1:47 1:48 2:19 3–11 3 3:6-15 3:16-28 4:29-34 4:34 8:17-19 10 11:17 11:40 17:12-16 18 19 19:1-2

63 304 378 388 44 83 458 381, 458 394 394 58 69 57, 69 225 91 115, 324 282

2 KINGS 1:2 1:8 4:1 4:8-17 4:42-44 5:7 9:13 24:17 25:26

245 69, 110 354 225 289 178 391 197 69

1 CHRONICLES 29:11-13 142 2 CHRONICLES 24:20-22 433 24:22 433 NEHEMIAH 5:3-5 354 11:17 197 ESTHER 3:9 4:3 5:1-8

353 236 284

JOB 9:8 11:18-19 17:16 19:5 19:2 22:29 28:1-27 38:17 39:27-30

290 191 312 460 191 427 238 312 449

PSALMS 2:7 4:4 8:3 9:14 22 22:1 22:2 22:7 22:18 23 24:3-6 27:12 35:11 38:13 39:9 41:9 41:9-10 41:13 41:6-12 42:2 42:5 42:6 49 50:14 51:11-12 55:4-5 69:9 69:21 72:10-11 72:18 75:8 77:19 77:19 80:1-3 84:2 89:8-9 91:11-12 95:8-11 104:27 105:6 105:43 106: 48 107:3 110:1

113 114 115–118 115:9 118 118:5

86 131 397 312 514 513, 519, 520 517 516 514, 515 482 123 499 499 499 499 483 482 303 490 135, 311 490 490 322 134 492 490 517 513 58 303 378 290 292 402 311 191 86 307 457 448 448 303 212 333, 378, 417, 420, 499 487 487 487 291 392, 420 291

118:20 118:22-23 118:25-26 118:26 119:176 122:1 125–135

466 405 392 80, 434 348 375 392

PROVERBS 1–6 1—9 1:20-23 1:20-30 3 3:24-26 4:1-2 4:20-23 8–9 8 8:1-5 8:10-16 8:12 8:14 9 9:1-6 9:2-5 9:9 11:22 13:9 14:29 15:1 22:9 25:21 28:24 29:23 30:19 31 72:10-15

114 258 114 21 196 191 401 434 457 196, 238 97 21 238 238 197, 290 235 408 464 156 460 131 131 150 138 296 427 42 361 67

ECCLESIASTES 12:9-10 9 12:11 9 SONG OF SOLOMON 1:12 476 6:8 42 10:15-21 176 ISAIAH 1:9 1:17 2:2-4 4:3 5

236 430 124 72 403

5:1-6 5:1-7 5:8-22 5:8-23 6 6:9-10 7:14 8:14-15 9:1-2 9:5-6 10:20 11:1 13 13:8 17:11 19:2 22:15-25 24:21-22 25:2-8 25:6 25:6-9 26:17 26:19 29:13 29:18 29:18-19 29:20 31:3 32:1-3 35:1-10 35:5-6 35:5 38:10 40–55 40–66 40:3 41:4 42:1 42:1-4 43 43:1 43:5 44:1 44:2 44:21 47:13 49:24-25 50:1 50:6

209 373 427 422 264, 265 263 41, 42, 43, 71 406 94, 114 42, 43 78 71 291 445 207 445 312 247 184 211, 484, 487 289 445 230, 416 295, 296, 297 381 230 231 492 381 381 230 231 311 186, 243, 292 395 77, 79, 107 291 85 243 186, 196, 292 291 212 243 291 243 64 247 354 511

Index of Scriptures 51:9 51:17 51:22 53 53:4 53:6 53:7 53:7-9 53:9 53:11 53:12

54:4-8 55:6 56 56:1 56:3-8 56:4 56:7 58:3-12 58:7 60:1-6 60:1-11 60:4 61:1-4 61:1 61:1-2 61:2 61:3 62:5 62:11 65:9 65:13 JEREMIAH 2:21 4:31 6:24 7:11 7:14 7:25-26 7:25 7:31 11:7 12:10 18:1-12 19:1-15 19:5 22:3 22:5 23:1-4 23:5

291 378 378 333, 493, 495 180, 186 216, 348 499 509 525 495 247, 485, 495, 512, 516 201 157 395 85 184 365 396 149 465 67 58 453 381 119, 121, 230 380 231 121 201 391 448 484

402 445 445 395, 395 445 433 403 347 506 373 506 506 347 430 434 348 72

25:4 26:6 26:8-9 26:21 29:13-14 31:15 31:31-34 32:6-9 32:6-14 32:35 33:15 41:17 43:17 50:6 EZEKIEL 1 84, 453 1–2 8:6 8:12 9:3 9:9 10–11 11:23 12:1-2 16:7-10 17:3-10 17:23 18:7 31:6 34 34:1-16 34:4 37:13 DANIEL 2:19-23 2:20-23 2:34-35 2:44-45 3:29 4:9 4:18 4:21 4 6:10 6:13 6:17 7 7:13 7:13-14 7:14 7:22

403, 433 445 511 69 157 68, 70, 71, 434 70 506 503 347 72 69 69 216

100 434 434 434 434 521 434 263 201 209 269 465 269 348 216 348 521

237 238 406 406 457 269 269 269 187 492 492 526 183, 187, 465 499 196 466, 533 372

9:3 9:27 10:6 11:40 11:45 12:2 12:11 HOSEA 6:6

236 446 528 493 493 416, 467 446

11:1-6 13:13

199, 241, 430 68, 69, 70, 75 434 445

JOEL 2:28-32 3:1

84 207

AMOS 2:6 3:7 8:8 8:9-10 9:11

354 403 354 517 78, 245

11:1

JONAH 2:1 3:6

249 236

MICAH 3:12 4:1 4:1-3 4:9 5:2 5:3 6:8 7:1 7:6

445 453 124 445 60 65 430 398 225

HABAKKUK 1:8 449 2:4 430 2:6-19 422 2:6-20 427 ZEPHANIAH 1:15 78 ZECHARIAH 1:1 433 1:6 403 3:8 72

555 4:6-9 6:12 7:9-10 8:17 9–14 9 9:9-10 9:9 9:14 11:12-13 11:13 12:3-4 13:4 13:7 14 14:4 14:5 14:10 14:21

399 72, 395 430 134 488 196 388, 389 391 449 503 478 78 79 487 487 399 466 399 396

MALACHI 2:16 361 3:1 77, 107 4:5-6 325 MARK 1 1–3 1–4 1:2-3 1:5 1:6 1:12-13 1:28 1:34 1:39 1:40-45 1:41 2:7 2:15-16 2:18 2:18-22 2:23-28 3 3:1-6 3:3-7 3:5 3:7 3:8 3:12 3:21 3:21-35 4 4:13

81, 400 72 114 107 109 110 88 97 97 19, 97 177 130 195 338 200 200 240 192, 206, 244, 256 242 97 130 243 243 243 250, 280 525 258 265

556 4:13-20 4:21 4:21-29 4:25 4:30-31 4:36-41 5:1 5:8 5:1-10 5:1-17 5:1-20 5:21-43 5:37 5:39-42 5:41 6 6:1-6 6:3 6:15-16 6:17 6:32-44 6:37 6:41 6:43 6:45-52 6:53-56 7 7:5 7:1-15 7:10-13 7:18-23 7:19 7:24-30 7:31-37 7:32-35 8:1-10 8:12 8:19-20 8:22-26 8:27-30 8:33 8:35 8:38 9 9:11 9:14-16 9:18 9:19 9:20-24 9:25-28 9:29 9:30-32 9:32 9:50

Index of Scriptures 259 123 257 265 267 189 194 194 193 10 192 202 325 366 301 278 278 1, 280 281 281 285, 304 286 286 286 290 294 299 431 295 188 99 295 300, 301 303 309 304 454 304 309 309 319 322 18, 322, 454 324 322 327 4, 328 454 328 328 329 329 329 123

10 10:2-12 10:10-12 10:13-16 10:14 10:15 10:17-22 10:18 10:23-27 10:24 10:25 10:28-31 10:29 10:30 10:45b 10:46-47 10:46-52 10:47 10:52 11:2 11:9-10 11:10 11:15-17 11:17 11:18-19 11:25 12:13-17 12:30 12:32-34 12:34 12:37-40 12:40 12:41-44 13 13:9 13:9-13 13:10 13:21-23 13:22 13:31 13:32 13:34-36 13:34 14:3-4 14:7 14:12-25 14:22-28 14:40 14:43-50 14:51-52 14:56-59 14:62

4, 134, 376 360 360 366 366 366 368 368 368 369 413 369 369 369 243 175 380 380 380 390 392 389 394 394, 396 398 398 440 417 417 419 422 423 430 222, 343, 443, 453 446 222 446 161 448 126 171, 323, 469 456 462 474, 539 475 539 488 539 265 493 539 420

14:67 15:7 15:21 15:23 15:41 15:44-45 16:1-5 16:3-4 16:8 LUKE 1 433 1:1-4 1:14 1:44 1:46 1:59-60 1–2 2 2:1-3 2:4-7 2:7 2:8 2:10 2:14 2:20 2:32 2:34 2:39-40 3:1-2 3:1-4 3:2 3:7 3:10-15 3:12-14 3:22 3:23 4 4:6 6:29 6:31 6:36 7 7:1-10 7:29-30 7:36-50 8:1-3 8:16 8:26-39 9:57-62 10:12-15 10:16 10:24

539 539 539 67 524 539 539 528 4

3, 30, 36 65 65 65 46 59 65 13 59 65 59 65 65 65 124 64 72 108 13 474 112 77 110, 338 85 77 94 93 136 149 122 211, 230, 304, 476 182 402, 439 473 187, 303, 365, 368 123 192 186 236 345 266

11:1-2 11:2-4 11:30 11:33 11:39-52 11:44 11:46-52 11:49 12:22-31 12:33-34 12:42-46 13:1 13:18-19 13:28 13:28-9 13:32 13:34-35 14 14:15 14:15-16 14:15-24 14:16-24 14:18-20 14:34 15 16:9 16:13 16:17 16:19-31 17:1 17:3 17:4 17:24 17:33 17:34 18:1 18:12 18:9-14 18:18-30 19:1-10 19:8 19:10 19:11-27 20 20:18 20:20-26 22:30 20:43-47 20:47 21:31 22:20 24 24:1

142 144 249, 256 123 441 431 422 432, 441 149 149 456 195, 395, 503 267 100 103, 184 187 433 407 487 211 406 407 407 123 401 413 149 126 413 346 349 353, 358 449 322 449 148 200 338 371 338 338 349 462 403 405 440 376, 378 422 423 453 484 533 476

Index of Scriptures JOHN 1 1:1–4:2 1:28 1:68 2 2:1-12 2:12 2:20 3:22–4:3 3:23 4:44 4:46-54 5:20 6:5 6:15 6:19 6:22-25 6:30 6:71 7:5 7:27 7:41-42 7:48 8:52 9:1-3 9:40 9:41 10:11-18 10:40 10:40-42 10:41 11:55 12 12:4-6 12:13 12:15 12:25 12:31 12:42 13 13:10-11 13:18 14:13-14 14:22 14:7 14–15 14–17 15:7 15:20 16:21 16:23 18:1 18:3 18:13

42 97 107, 108 204 28, 72 201 498 445 109 107 279 211 237 486 234 291 294 248 478 525 238, 449 64 402 341 195 431 155 348 108 355 108 473 390 478 392 391 322 93 225 483 431 482 398 219 237 217 435 398 224 366 398 489 493, 511 474

18:24 18:28 18:31 19:20 19:25 19:39 19:39-40 20:23 21 ACTS 1 1–4 1:15-20 1:18 1:19 2 2:34-35 4:6 4:11 6:9 6:14 7:2 8 9 10:28-30 10

474 508 502 515 280 67 476 313, 351 314

11:26 11–13 12 12:12 13:17 15 16:15 16:16 16:19 18:25 19:1-7 19:1-12 22 22:1 22:25 23:3 23:8 26 27:9

533 100 501 505 505 84, 325 440 474 405 513 498 426 105 532 183 104, 313, 314 22 22 540 378 304 313, 533 104 150 150 111 105, 111 284 532 426 512 431 414 532 200

ROMANS 2:1 2:6 8:29 9:29 9:33 6

155 322 414 236 405 106

6:17 11 12:2 13 14:4 14:10-12

354 100 325 412 155 467

1 CORINTHIANS 1 104, 106 1:12 316 1:22 248 3:5-15 465 3:10-15 163 4:5 155 5:6 269 5:6-8 308 5:12 155 6:1-6 351 6:3 372 6:16 360 7 105, 134, 363 7:8 364 7:10-12 360 9:5 185 10 276 11 106 11:25 484 12:4-6 535 13:2 342 14 263 15 314 15:4 341 15:23 449 15:25 440 15:49 414 2 CORINTHIANS 3:18 325 4:4 93 4:18 264 5:10 466 10:1 239 12:7 467 12:8 492 13:1-2 351 13:14 535 GALATIANS 1 100, 314 1:14 426 1–2 313 2 22, 26 2:9 318 2:15 198

557 4 5:9 6 6:6 6:16

276 308 100, 102 264 100

EPHESIANS 2:20 318, 405 4 106 PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11 42 3:6 370 3:21 414 COLOSSIANS 2:8 264 3:10 280 1 THESSALONIANS 1:6 264 2:14-16 432 2:19 449 3:13 449 1 TIMOTHY 2:8 171 5:19-20 351 6:12-13 225 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 46 HEBREWS 1:13 2:9 4:15 6 6:6 6:19

440 341 42 103 247 521

JAMES 1:13-14 2:1-4 4:11-12 5:9 5:12

89 426 155 155 134

1 PETER 1:1 2:6-8 2:7 2:12 2:13-17 3:4

313 405 30 30 412 354

558

Index of Scriptures

3:8-9 3:14 4:13 5:1 5:7

30 30 30 313 264

2 PETER 1:16-18 2:1-22 2:5 2:61 3:4 3:6

4, 291 161 455 236 449, 457 455

1 JOHN 1:8 2:28 3:8 3:15 4:1-3 5:19 5:29

155 449 247 130 161 93 467

JUDE 7

236

REVELATION 1:4 435 2:13 246 3:5 225 3:10 493 4–5 84 8:13–9:21 427 11:4 461 12:7-9 467 13:10 495 19:7-9 408 19:8 410 19:9 211 19:17-21 449 19:19 487 20:2-3 247 20:7-15 467

index of sidebars

Text Sidebars 1 Kings 1:32-40 388 Abomination 447 Active Faith, An 183 Allegorical Versions 407 “and the bride” 459 Angels 348 Anger and Wrath 131 Anti-Jewish Elements in Matthew? 9 ap∑nzato 505 Apocalyptic Discourse 498 Attempting to Overcome a Tempting 89 Attribution to Jeremiah 506 “At the Renewal/Regeneration of the World” 372 Avoiding Antipas 27 Barabbas’s Other Name? Basileia tou theou and ekkl∑sia Beheading Benefaction Bethlehem Biblos Geneseõs Brother and Sister Burial Burial Duties

510 315 285 205 72 40 466 525 188

Caiaphas and Annas 474 Cain’s Story 130 Chart of Matthew as Biography, A 14 Children’s Obedience 401 Christ the Stone 405 Christian Divorce 384 Chrysostom 153 Cockcrow 489 Comparison Chart 428

Confirmation about the First Evangelist Cornerstone Cosmic Signs Counter-order Nature of Jesus’ Wisdom Crucial Observations Cubit Curtains for Jesus

508 406 451 115 42 444 521

Dangers of Money 413 Darkness at Jesus’ Death 517 Date of Mark’s Gospel 30 Demise of Satan’s Control 247 desmion 509 Diabolos 91 Diminutives 302 Direct Interview for Biography 13 Discourse in Matthew 15 Disputed Borders 181 Divorce Debatein Early Judaism, The 361 Donkey 392 Doxology 142 Early Christian Editors Edistasan Edoth∑ ei dynaton kai tous eklektous Ekkl∑sia Enebrim∑th∑ Epistle of Barnabas Eunuchs Exhortation in the Temple Extreme Roman Penalty, The

187 532 532 448 312 205 408 364 397 515

Face on the Coin, The Father-Son Language Features of the Jesus Movement

412 87 252

Field of Blood 506 Fighting Angels 495 First Evangelist 286 Flogging 512 For the Least of These 466 Forgiving Sins 195 Form, Substance, Duplication, and Editorial Patterns in Matthew’s Gospel 204 Fourth Watch 291 Freedom over Mosaic Law 189 Fulfilling the Law 117 Gehenna 347 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 8–9 175 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 10–11 215 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapter 12 250 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapter 13 258 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 14–17 281 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Chapters 18–25 343 General Comments on a Sapiential Reading of Matthew 5–7 114 Gentiles Killed Jesus 320 God’s Finger 246 God’s Judgment 405 Golden Rule, The 159 Gospel of the Nazarenes 370 Grave Robbing 526 Greek-speaking Readership 10 Hakam Hallel Psalms Hanson’s Disease Harvest

501 393 178 207

560

Index of Sidebars

Hatred Because of Christ Healing of the Blind Man Herod the Not-so-Great Herod’s Temple and Solomon’s Wisdom Higher Marriage Standard, A Historical Difficulties Homily on Matthew 47:1 Hyperbole and Exaggeration Hypocrites

446 309 62 395 363 522 257 263 141

I Am Image Imperative Greek Verb In the King’s Palace

292 413 527 509

Jesus the Individual Jesus’ Brothers Jesus’ Counter-order Wisdom Jesus’ Mission Jesus’ Pedagogy Jesus’ Ride Jesus’ Separation from God Jewish Proselytism Jews and Gentiles at the Margins John Cassian John’s Authority Judas One of the Twelve Judas’s Change of Heart

200 280 240 333 251 391 520 429

Katheg∑t∑s K∑nson Kiddush Prayer Killing on the Sabbath

426 411 146 431

Left Behind Levirate Marriage Light Little Controversy Location of Banquet Luke’s Sources Lytron

455 415 124 260 283 286 380

Magadan Makarios Mark Versus Matthew Mark’s Miracle Stories Marriage and Angels Marriage in Heaven? Marriage Martyr’s Death Mashal Matthean Association with the First Gospel

306 120 324 3 416 415 282 419 208

176 372 400 495 506

6

Matthean Editing Matthean Form of Q Matthew 15:26-27 Matthew 21:44 Matthew 6:27 Matthew as Sapiential Presentation of Jesus’ Life Matthew the Main Gospel Matthew’s Source—“King” Meal with the Beloved Messianism Miracle? Miryam Modification Mohar Mosaic Motif Mount of Olives “My Father”

178 30 157 405 152 16 468 69 483 420 334 523 295 460 291 390 298

Nisan 14 No Divorce “Not Even the Sea” “Not Even the Son”

479 363 454 323

Oaths Once-in-a-lifetime Tax “On the Sabbath” “On the Use of Money” Opposition to Suicide

298 331 448 372 504

Pagideusøsin Pais Parable of the Vineyard Workers Parables Passion Predictions, The Passover Meal, A? Pearl Petrine Material Pharisaic Movement, The Pharisees v. Others Philip’s Caesarea Phylacteries Planters and the Harvest, The plerosai Plutarch Polloi Praying within One’s Heart Presence Prophecy Prophetic Foresight Psych∑ Punishments Purity Rules

411 182 374 260 320 482 272 291 423 25 310 425 275 126 321 409 143 352 448 477 490 346 183

Quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10 263 Reasons for Anointing Rebuking Rich Young Ruler, The? Ritual Impurity Roman Army, The Roman Province Romans and Anti-Semitism Rules

476 351 371 203 182 502 183 350

Sadducees 414 Sadducees and the Resurrection 416 Salvation as a Gift 384 Sanctifying God’s Name 127 Sapiential Reading of 1:1-17 40 Sapiential Reading of 1:18-25 43 Sapiential Reading of 2:1-12 56 Sapiential Reading of 2:13-18 69 Sapiential Reading of 2:19-23 71 Sapiential Reading of 3:1-12 78 Sapiential Reading of 3:13-17 81 Sapiential Reading of 4:1-11 86 Sapiential Reading of 4:12-17 94 Sapiential Reading of 4:18-22 97 Sapiential Reading of 4:23-25 97 Sapiential Reading of 5:3-12 119 Sapiential Reading of 5:13-16 124 Sapiential Reading of 5:17-20 126 Sapiential Reading of 5:21-26 129 Sapiential Reading of 5:27-32 132 Sapiential Reading of 5:33-37 135 Sapiential Reading of 5:38-42 136 Sapiential Reading of 5:43-48 138 Sapiential Reading of 6:1-18 141 Sapiential Reading of 6:19-34 149 Sapiential Reading of 7:1-6 155 Sapiential Reading of 7:7-14 158 Sapiential Reading of 7:15-23 161 Sapiential Reading of 7:24-29 163 Sapiential Reading of 8:1-4 177 Sapiential Reading of 8:5-17 180 Sapiential Reading of 8:18-22 186 Sapiential Reading of 8:23-27 189 Sapiential Reading of 8:28-34 192 Sapiential Reading of 9:1-8 195 Sapiential Reading of 9:9-13 197 Sapiential Reading of 9:14-17 201 Sapiential Reading of 9:18-26 202 Sapiential Reading of 9:27-38 204 Sapiential Reading of 10:1-42 218 Sapiential Reading of 11:2-19 230 Sapiential Reading of 11:20-24 236 Sapiential Reading of 11:25-27 237

Index of Sidebars Sapiential Reading of 11:28-30 239 Sapiential Reading of 12:1-14 241 Sapiential Reading of 12:15-21 244 Sapiential Reading of 12:22-37 244 Sapiential Reading of 12:38-45 249 Sapiential Reading of 12:46-50 250 Sapiential Reading of 13:1-23 259 Sapiential Reading of 13:24-43 267 Sapiential Reading of 13:44-50 271 Sapiential Reading of 13:53-58 278 Sapiential Reading of 14:1-12 281 Sapiential Reading of 14:13-21 and 15:32-39 286 Sapiential Reading of 14:22-36 290 Sapiential Reading of 15:1-20 296 Sapiential Reading of 15:21-28 301 Sapiential Reading of 16:1-12 307 Sapiential Reading of 16:13-20 310 Sapiential Reading of 16:21-28 319 Sapiential Reading of 17:1-13 324 Sapiential Reading of 17:14-23 328 Sapiential Reading of 17:24-27 330 Sapiential Reading of 18:1-9 344 Sapiential Reading of 18:10-14 348 Sapiential Reading of 18:15-20 350 Sapiential Reading of 18:21-35 353 Sapiential Reading of 19:2-15 359 Sapiential Reading of 19:16-30 368 Sapiential Reading of 20:1-16 373 Sapiential Reading of 20:17-19 376 Sapiential Reading of 20:20-28 377 Sapiential Reading of 20:29-34 380 Sapiential Reading of 21:1-11 388 Sapiential Reading of 21:12-22 394 Sapiential Reading of 21:23-27 399 Sapiential Reading of 21:28-32 401 Sapiential Reading of 21:33-46 403 Sapiential Reading of 22:1-14 407 Sapiential Reading of 22:15-22 411 Sapiential Reading of 22:23-33 414 Sapiential Reading of 22:34-40 418 Sapiential Reading of 22:41-46 420 Sapiential Reading of 23:1-39 422 Sapiential Reading of 24–25 444 Sapiential Reading of 26:1-5 471 Sapiential Reading of 26:6-13 475 Sapiential Reading of 26:14-16 478 Sapiential Reading of 26:17-35 480 Sapiential Reading of 26:36-46 489 Sapiential Reading of 26:47-56 494 Sapiential Reading of 26:57-75 496 Sapiential Reading of 27:1-10 501 Sapiential Reading of 27:11-31 508 Sapiential Reading of 27:32-66 514 Sapiential Reading of 28:1-10 527

Sapiential Reading of 28:16-20 532 Scribes 418 Sea of Galilee 191 Self-identity 423 Selling Property 370 Semitisms 312 Servant and Master 456 Shaking Off the Dust 222 Sheep 348 “Sit in the Seat of X” 424 Sikarios 478 Simon the Leper/Pharisee? 476 Sirach 39:1-11 8 Solomon 394 Son of a Carpenter 1 Son of David 245 Son of Man 196 “Son of the Living God” 311 Søt∑ria 191 Stadia 291 Star, The 65 Storms 192 Suffering 451 Summary, A 530 Symbolic Discourse 485 Synonymous Parallelism 234 Talent 462 Talents 354 Tax 330 Tax Exemption 333 Telønion 198 Temple Taxes and Tyrian Coinage 331 Temple’s Destruction 452 T∑n Pistin 430 Textual Problems 194 Textual Variants 41 Theological Implications of Jesus’ Baptism, The 85 Theos Not the Trinity 535 “this—my body” 484 Threatening Forces 319 Timing 455 To Pass Over or to Passover? 482 Tolbert’s Opinion 265 “To not look into a face” 411 Totality 533 trap∑zites 464 Understanding Parables Unintended Influences Up the Mountain Use of Zechariah 9–14

403 33 326 488

Valid Oaths

561 430

Was Christ Born on Christmas Day? Washing Hands Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth Wheat and Chaff Why Jesus Suffered Wisdom into a Full Vessel Wisdom Literature Wisdom of Solomon 1:1-15 Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-21 Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-24 Wisdom—Son or Father? Woe Woman’s Quote Word of God Itself, The Word Play “Word, The”

184 268 491 463 155 83 176 87 235 428 303 260 344 264

Zechariah 9:9-10 Zechariah

389 433

59 511

Index of Illustrations Adoration of the Magi by Buffet 56 Annunciation, The by Angelico 53 Arch with Headstone 406 Ascension with Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter by Donatello 317 Banyas 318 Baptism. Christ Baptized by Saint John by Poussin 231 Basket with Bread between Two Fishes 304 Bethlehem 60 Bronze coin of Herod Antipas 27 Caiaphas, the high priest (detail) 473 Cain and Abel by Levine 130 Calling of Saint Matthew by da Caravaggio 199 Calvary by Ge 518 Capernaum 26 Casting the Damned into hell by Memling 347 Christ and the Canaanite Woman by Drouais 302 Christ and the Family of Zebedee by de’ Pitati 377 Christ Appearing to His Disciples at the Mount of Galilee by di Duccio 533

562

Index of Sidebars

Christ Appearing to the People by Ivanov 82 Christ Blessing the Little Children by Blake 366 Christ Driving the Moneychangers out of the Temple by Rembrandt 397 Christ Healing the Blind at Jericho by Poussin 382 Christ in the Desert by Kramskoi 88 Christ in the House of Simon the Pharisee by Bouts the Elder 476 Christ Lamenting over Jerusalem by Eastlake 434 Christ on the Cross by Wierix 21 Christ Pointing to a Child (Ottonian ivory plaque) 344 Christ riding a Donkey (German School) 388 Christ Surrounded by His Ancestry (Byzantine) 49 Christ Teaching by Rembrant 20 Christ the Redeemer between Saints Francis of Assisi and Nicholas (anonymous) 74 Christ’s Agony in the Garden by Ivanov 491 Church of the Nativity 57 Codex Petropolitanus 2 Crucifixion, The by Duerer 541 Darkness at the Death of Christ by Limbourg Brothers 519 Dead Christ, Supported by an Angel and by Joseph of Arimathea by Schiavone 524 Denarius 413 Dream of Saint Joseph, The by Crespi 44 Emperor Titus Destroys the Temple in Jerusalem by Poussin 452 Entry of Christ into Jerusalem by da Polidoro 392 Eunuch Priest 365 Flight into Egypt, The by Duerer 70 “For He Had Great Possessions” by Watts 371 Fortress of King Herod the Great 61 Gadara Galilee, Samaria, and Judea Garden of Gethsemane Gates of Hell, The (detail)

193 221 490

by Rodin Gates of Hell, The by Rodin God the Creator (Byzantine relief ) Golgotha by Ge Grains in Jerusalem Market

437 436 454 515 268

Herod Antipas, Salome and the head of St. John the Baptist by Pascin 284 Incense Tree

67

Jesus and the Centurion by Veronese 181 Jesus Before Caiaphas 497 Jesus Before the Sanhedrin (Byzantine) 500 Jesus Feeds the Multitude by von Carolsfeld 289 Jesus healing the leper (mosaic) by Byzantine 178 Jesus Preaching at the Sea of Galilee by Doré 262 Jesus Stilling the Tempest by Doré 190 Jesus Walks on Water by Carolsfeld 292 Jonah and the Whale by Wells 249 Jordan River 110 Judas Hangs Himself 505 Judas Receiving Payment for His Betrayal by di Giotto 479 Judas’ Kiss (detail) 494 Judas’s Remorse 506 Last Judgement, The by Blake Last Judgment by Bosch Last Supper, The by Ge Last Supper, The by Ruben Leaven, The by Millais Loaf of Bread

450 467 481 486 269 287

Machaerus Mammon by Watts Mary Magdalene by Sirani Mocking of Christ, The by Decamps Mother of God, The by PetrovVodkin Mount Tabor Mountain of the Beatitudes Mustard Seed Bush Myrrh Tree

283 152 523 513 46 326 116 269 68

Palestine 23 Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind by Brueghel 299 Parable of the Devil Sowing Weeds, The by Gheyn 271 Parable of the Precious Pearl, The by Fetti 272 Parable of the Vineyard, The by Fetti 374 Paralytic walking away with his bed (detail) 196 Pharisee 253 Phylacteries 425 Place of Peter’s Denial 502 Place of Temptation 94 Place of the Multiplication Miracle 288 pl∑røsai 126 Pontius Pilate (anonymous) 504 Pontius Pilate Washing His Hands by Joerg the Elder 512 Praying Hands by Duerer 166 Redeemer, The by da Vinci 485 Resurrection, The by del Verrocchio 531 Road to Jerusalem 390 Roman soldier offering vinegar on a sponge to Christ (detail) 522 Rooster and Saint Peter Denying, TheRooster and Saint Peter Denying, The (detail) 489 Saint John the Baptist and His Executioner by Duerer 285 Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness by Bosch 233 Saint Matthew Inspired by an Angel by Rembrant 6 Saint Peter Attempts to Walk on Water by Boucher 293 Saint Peter Hands the Tribute to the Tax Collector by Masaccio 332 Sarcophagus of the Twelve Apostles 218 Satan and Beelzebub dominating over nudes in a fire by Lawrence 246 Sea of Galilee 24 Sea of Galilee 95 Sermon on the Mount by von Carolsfeld 122 Sheep 349 Sitting Scribe 7 Sower, The by Millais 259

Index of Sidebars St. John the Baptist by Rublev 79 Table of the Seven Deadly Sins, The (detail) by Bosch 133 Temptation of Christ, The by Patinir 93 Three Magi before King Herod 66 Titilus 516 Tomb 526 Transfiguration by Raphael 327 Tribute Money, The by Titian 410 Two Women and an Angel with a Halo and a Staff at Christ’s Empty Tomb, The (mosaic) 529 Tyrian Shekels 331 What Is the Truth? by Ge Wise and Foolish Virgins, The by Blake Yellow Crucifixion, The by Chagall

510 461

538

563

index of topics

A abba 12, 19, 127, 145, 238, 467, 489, 491 Abraham 40, 42, 49, 50, 51, 80, 102, 177, 184, 318, 416 Adam 41, 54n, 90, 383, 433 anti-Jewish elements (see also antiSemitism) 9, 423 Antioch 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 36n, 74, 112n, 429 anti-Semitism (see also anti-Jewish elements) 33, 183, 320, 423, 537 aphorisms 63, 126, 153, 250, 278, 299, 307, 370-71, 431 Aramaic 7, 26, 28-32, 36n, 39, 88, 89, 115, 124, 129, 138, 141-45, 147, 150-51, 159, 187, 199, 231, 238, 245, 312, 316, 344, 431, 434, 463, 484, 489, 519-20 version of Matthew 29-31, 39, 88, 115 Archelaeus 71, 76n

B baptism 80, 81, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112n, 399, 400, 535 of Jesus 3, 10, 31, 33, 80, 81, 8385, 90, 92, 218, 231, 239, 243, 326, 404, 508 Bethlehem 56-60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 482 biography, ancient 11-14, 43, 53, 291, 308, 475, 537 birth of Jesus 19, 20, 23, 42-53, 54n, 55, 56-60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 74, 78, 85, 113, 175, 253, 280, 472, 540

C Capernaum 26-28, 94, 180-81, 185, 187, 193, 195, 198, 207, 228, 236, 289, 291, 302, 331, 337, 339, 423 carpenter 1, 146, 277-78, 335 Christos 40, 64 Corban 2, 418

D David 16, 40, 42, 50, 56, 64, 162, 241, 245, 315, 333, 381, 387, 389, 394, 420, 421, 478, 504, 505, 534, 541 son of David 10, 12, 19-21, 39, 40, 41, 43-48, 50, 51, 52, 56, 58, 60, 68, 69, 85, 114, 175, 204, 205, 217, 229, 244, 245, 249, 250, 252, 301, 333, 343, 379, 380, 381, 388, 389, 392, 394, 396, 397, 399, 419, 420, 421, 422, 435, 459, 465, 478, 504, 541 Didache 29, 97, 104, 105, 142, 148, 157, 159, 349, 535 disciples 4, 6, 10, 15-18, 25, 31, 32, 66, 81, 90, 96-98, 102, 104, 105, 111, 114, 116, 117, 11922, 124-25, 127, 134, 136, 138-45, 148, 149, 153, 156, 161-63, 168-71, 184, 89, 191, 194, 197, 199, 200, 202, 204, 207, 215, 216, 218-20, 222-30, 232, 237, 239-42, 250, 255, 257, 258, 263-66, 270, 273, 274, 281, 284, 286-97, 298, 299, 304, 305, 307, 309, 311, 312, 315, 321, 322, 324, 32531, 333, 334, 343-48, 353, 355,

357, 357n, 360, 363, 364, 365, 367, 368, 370-73, 37-81, 384, 391, 393, 398, 403, 406, 411, 418, 421-23, 426, 427, 428, 430, 432, 441n, 444-46, 449, 455-57, 464, 471, 474, 475, 477, 479-84, 48-90, 492-95, 501, 514, 527-36, 539, 540, 541, 542n call of 4, 84, 97, 117, 129, 151, 162, 217, 310, 370 portrayal of 4, 10, 18-19, 41, 81, 124, 149, 152, 162, 180, 215, 217, 226, 258, 301, 303, 308, 326, 328, 329, 382, 524 divorce 4, 33, 43, 46, 114, 128, 129, 132-34, 170, 203, 343, 359-68, 382-84, 429, 437 Dominion of God 35n, 77, 79, 94-98, 100, 101-103, 119, 137, 147, 153, 159, 161, 168, 177, 184, 204, 227, 233, 246, 247, 251, 260, 266, 269, 276n, 296, 344, 364, 367, 370, 371, 383, 400, 413, 417, 436, 453, 483, 525, 537

E Easter 1, 4, 101, 103, 181, 191, 211, 216, 238, 244, 293, 313, 315, 324, 352, 387, 514, 516, 529, 531, 535 ekklesia 1, 315, Elijah 79, 91, 110, 115, 230, 232, 234, 242, 282, 309, 310, 324-28, 461, 520

F food laws 2, 253

566

Index of Topics

fulfillment of scripture 10, 45, 71, 73, 81, 94, 186, 242, 243, 265, 296, 396, 406, 472, 487, 488, 495, 501, 503, 507, 537

G Galilee 10, 22-28, 30, 32, 35n, 62, 71, 72, 76n, 77, 94, 95, 97, 98, 109, 112n, 116, 181, 83, 191193, 194, 204, 207, 219-21, 223, 227, 232, 234, 236, 254, 256n, 260, 262, 282, 285, 288, 291, 294, 295, 301, 303, 305, 306, 309, 326, 329, 331, 336, 337, 339, 246, 354, 355, 361, 363, 381, 393, 395, 408, 423, 480, 482, 487, 488, 514, 522, 524, 526-29, 532, 533 genealogy 1, 39-43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 278 genre, of Matthew 11-13, 53, 114, grammateus (scribe) 6-11, 17, 19, 28, 29, 34n, 162, 163, 187, 274, 278, 391, 508, 534, 540 Great Commission 10, 29, 81, 181, 444, 522, 531-34

H Herod Antipas 27, 35n, 72, 108, 109, 134, 187, 198, 232, 281-5, 309, 359, 363 Herod the Great 55-57, 59-72, 76n, 253, 282, 283, 395, 521 Holy Spirit 41, 52, 43, 45, 46, 52, 69, 80, 85, 90, 105, 111, 121, 157, 246, 247, 248, 352, 492,

I Immanuel (Emmanuel) 10, 12, 17, 20, 43, 44, 45, 47, 61, 71, 73, 90, 229, 521, 531, 532, 534, 535, 539

J James, book of 31, 134, 147, 444 James (brother of Jesus) 22, 25, 31, 279, 280, 313, 474 James (brother of Zebedee) 5, 97, 219, 376, 377, 378, 445 Jerome 25, 27, 280, 433 Jewish character of Jesus 11, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 40, 43, 49, 64, 102, 115, 131, 180-83, 185,

188, 203, 300, 302, 309, 330, 351, 364, 370, 431, 482, 483, 492, 508, 520, 535, Jewish tone of Matthew 2, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, 36n, 43, 45, 52, 53, 73, 83, 87, 96, 113, 114, 126, 141, 173n, 176, 182, 187, 193, 215, 229, 301, 303, 313, 316, 330, 334, 391, 423, 430, 503, 508, 537, Jewish Christians 10, 16, 17,20, 24, 30, 32, 45, 96, 114, 182, 193, 208, 215, 295, 330, 350, 430, 508, John (brother of Zebedee) 5, 97, 219, 376, 377, 378, 385n, 445 John the Baptist 27, 43, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 94, 96, 104, 105, 107-11, 112n, 134, 142, 161, 187, 197, 200, 205, 229-37, 252, 264, 277, 280-85, 306, 310, 324, 399, 400, 401, 402, 408, 432, 433, Joseph (of Arimathea) 6, 284, 514, 524-25 Joseph (the carpenter) 1, 40, 41, 43- 51, 56, 69, 71, 72, 73, 278, 279, 280, 284

K kingdom of heaven 2, 8, 9, 12, 17, 94, 96, 133, 162, 234, king of (the) Jews 43, 49, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 69, 76n, 458, 459, 483, 507, 508, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 543n

L Lord’s Prayer 1, 29, 31, 34n, 89, 100, 141-48, 149, 151, 157, 167, 270, 353, 492, 543n

M magi (wise men) 8, 19, 33, 44, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 76n, 509 Mary 40, 41, 43-52, 60, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 277, 278, 280, 390, 398, 523, 530, 544n Matthean community 51, 281, 292, 298, 324, 392, 394, 419, 423, 534

Matthean portrayal of Jesus 2, 12, 66, 81, 87, 92, 229, 252, 260, 421, 476, 489, 514, 536 messiah (messianism) 14, 40, 41, 42, 45, 52, 56, 61, 64, 93, 102, 121, 124, 183, 201, 205, 206, 231, 243, 309, 311, 312, 318, 327, 389, 391, 395, 396, 419, 420, 421, 435, 445, 448, 449, 478, 483, 486, 488, 496, 499, 507, 509, 516, 522, 541, miracle (story) 3, 51, 52, 115, 175, 176, 177, 181, 185, 191, 192, 194, 195, 204, 205, 206, 210, 211, 211n, 216, 236, 248, 250, 285, 286, 288, 290, 294, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 334, 379, 380, 381, 386n, 389, 398, 527, 416, 423, 424, 461 Moses 15, 16, 19, 55, 75n, 93, 115, 128, 129, 176, 254, 292, 296, 360, 362, Jesus and Moses 15, 16, 19, 21, 69, 90, 91, 117, 118, 126, 129, 134, 135, 136, 169, 177, 281, 288, 291, 292, 295, 324, 325, 326, 343, 393, 421, 422, 532

N Nazareth 27, 71, 72, 77, 94, 108, 187, 278, 280, 388, 393, 509, 526

O ologopistoi (“those of little faith”) 4, 152, 180, 342n

P parables 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17-19, 29, 43, 49, 113, 114, 123, 124, 147, 150, 158, 162, 163, 168, 201, 208, 209, 224, 234, 250, 257-61, 263, 264, 266-68, 27075, 276n, 278, 311, 315, 343, 347-50, 352, 353, 355, 371, 373-75, 378, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 401-407, 409, 413, 327, 436, 439n, 443, 444, 453, 455-62, 464, 465, 469n, 470n, Passion narrative (death of Jesus) 10, 106, 171, 343, 405, 471527, 540, 541, Peter 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 17, 22, 26-

Index of Topics 28, 30, 31, 33, 97, 180, 185, 187, 188, 197, 198, 215, 218, 219, 229, 238, 258, 280, 29094, 299, 309-19, 321-26, 330-36, 350, 353, 368, 371, 375, 376, 421, 428, 445, 480, 486, 488, 489, 492, 495-97, 499, 500-502, 517, 528, 536, 541, Pharisees 9, 17, 25, 62, 79, 80, 108, 110, 116, 127, 141, 154, 161, 168, 169, 197, 199, 200, 203, 204, 206, 229, 240, 24148, 252-55, 256n, 257, 265, 274, 279, 281, 296-98, 300, 303, 305-308, 330, 341n, 35962, 372, 383, 403, 410-12, 417-19, 421-33, 437, 440n, 472, 483, 537,

Q Q 18, 29, 31, 39, 77, 78, 88, 110, 111, 115, 120, 172n, 184, 186, 211n, 230, 236, 237, 267, 286, 342n, 343, 346, 347, 376, 387, 405, 433, 440n, 443, 449, 456, 530 Matthean form of, 10, 28, 30, 31, 88, 89, 173n, Qumran 12, 34n, 71, 79, 84, 106, 107, 137, 138, 143, 175, 230, 245, 271, 317, 331, 332, 350, 351, 379, 381, 393, 395, 396, 420, 449, 474, 482,

R Rahab 40, 50 resurrection 10, 14, 47, 93, 104, 108, 191, 216, 249, 254, 255, 281, 311, 317, 319-25, 327, 330, 336, 352, 379, 405, 410, 414-17, 435, 440n, 471, 477, 488, 508, 514, 518, 522-27, 529, 531-33, 540-41, 544n, righteousness 17, 34n, 40, 81, 8387, 114, 116-17, 119-20, 123, 127, 129, 140, 153-54, 180, 168, 297, 346, 383, 388, 401, 422, 467, 539 Ruth 40, 50

S sabbath 2, 32, 128, 185, 240-43,

250-51, 253-54, 277, 369, 431, 448, 472, 526554n, Sadducees 9, 25, 79-80, 161, 25355, 274, 305-308, 330, 414-18, 440n, sage 16, 18, 34n, 43, 58, Jesus as sage 8, 17-21, 23, 43, 44, 51, 64, 68, 94, 96, 97, 113-15, 117, 125, 126, 136, 158, 16163, 175, 178, 180, 183, 185-86, 201, 218, 227, 229, 230, 234, 236-38, 240, 245, 249, 251-52, 257, 267, 278, 281, 332, 343, 350-51, 353, 365, 368, 387-89, 391, 393-94, 403, 407, 411, 414, 421, 427, 436, 441n, 458, 465, 475, 494, 496, 501, 508, 531-32, 534-35, 537, 541 sapiential character of Jesus 8, 21, 114, 138, 147, 162, 200, 209, 245, 251, 257, 298, 387, 406, 420, 436, 441n, 459, 477, 536, 537 point of view 2, 7, 10, 16-21, 117, 118, 124, 125, 129, 153, 157, 163, 176, 238, 240, 534, 540 reading of Matthew 10, 15, 21, 40, 43, 56, 69, 71, 78, 81, 86, 94, 97, 114, 119, 124, 126, 129, 132, 135, 136, 138, 141, 149, 155, 157, 158, 161, 163, 175, 176, 177, 180, 186, 189, 192, 195, 197, 201, 202, 204, 215, 218, 230, 236, 237, 239, 241, 244, 249, 250, 258, 259, 267, 271, 278, 281, 286, 290, 296, 301, 307, 310, 319, 324, 328, 330, 343, 344, 348, 350, 353, 359, 368, 373, 376, 377, 380, 388, 394, 399, 401, 403, 407, 411, 414, 418, 420, 422, 444, 449, 471, 475, 478, 480, 489, 494, 496, 501, 508, 514, 527, 532 tradition 8, 9, 11, 139, 147, 162, 217, 234, 237, 380, 401, 422, 424, 427, 433, 457, 458, 460 Sermon on the Mount 3, 19, 30, 31, 113-71, 225, 242, 334, 335, 355, 372, 427, 533, 539, Sirach 7, 8, 11, 16, 87, 114, 148, 234, 237, 239, 240, 291, 292, slaughter of the innocents 56, 68-

567

70 Solomon 15, 16, 20, 21, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 68, 83, 87, 89, 97, 116, 149, 172n, 175, 180, 192, 204, 205, 238, 242, 244, 245, 249, 250, 251, 266, 301, 333, 343, 381, 387, 388, 389-90, 394, 395, 396, 405, 420, 421, 422, 435, 436, 458, 459, 465, 477, 517, 534, 541, son of David (see David, son of) son of God 12, 13, 17-20, 42, 43, 52, 56, 78, 83, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 189, 192, 194, 229, 290, 294, 311, 332, 333, 404, 496, 499, 509, 516, 521, 522, son of man 12, 17, 19, 187, 196, 218, 223-25, 229, 235, 247, 248-49, 251, 252, 270, 314, 320, 323, 327, 329, 377, 379, 443, 444, 449, 451-53, 455, 456, 459, 465, 466, 471, 472, 483, 493, 496, 499, 533, star, the 33, 55-59, 65, 70, 73, 74, Syria 2, 22, 30, 62, 97, 98, 181, 364, 508,

T Tamar 40, 50 tax collector(s) 4, 10, 23, 175, 198, 212n, 219, 332, 351, 408 temptation of Jesus 40, 41, 42, 85, 86-94, Twelve, the 5, 197, 217, 372, Torah 7, 8, 9, 62, 63, 90, 113, 114, 117, 126, 128, 159, 163, 187, 229, 239-41, 254, 273, 278, 333, 352, 362, 405, 417, 424, 482, 536 Transfiguration 4, 81, 281, 291, 308-310, 323-28, 404, 508

V virginal conception 41, 42, 43, 50, 51-53, 73,

W Western Church 1, 280 Wisdom 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34n, 41, 43, 47, 63, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 113, 114, 115, 116,

568

Index of Topics

117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 136, 139, 140, 142, 148, 149, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 171, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 186, 189, 192, 196, 197, 200, 204, 205, 209, 215, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 245, 248, 249, 250, 257, 258, 260, 264, 266, 270, 276n, 278, 290, 296, 301, 307, 329, 333, 344, 352, 353, 359, 368, 371, 372, 384, 387, 389, 394, 395, 401, 406, 408, 411, 421-24, 427, 432, 434, 436, 439n, 441n, 444, 456, 457, 458, 460, 463, 464, 480, 517, 532, 535, 539

Jesus as Wisdom 8, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 68, 78, 81, 124, 128, 177, 188, 195, 215, 218, 229, 230, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 249, 251, 252, 270, 291, 292, 311, 319, 324, 343, 352, 381, 389, 391, 394, 421, 422, 433, 434, 435, 455, 456, 458, 464, 466, 532, 534, 535, 537 wisdom discourses 114 Wisdom of Solomon 7, 21, 83, 86, 87, 89, 91, 176, 177, 192, 238, 245, 249, 541