Earthquakes and Eschatology in the Gospel According to Matthew (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161596728, 9783161596735, 3161596722

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

534

Brian Carrier

Earthquakes and Eschatology in the Gospel According to Matthew

Mohr Siebeck

Brian Carrier, born 1981; MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; PhD in Biblical Studies from The Catholic University of America; currently serves as the Director of Discipleship at The District Church in Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-3-16-159672-8 / eISBN 978-3-16-159673-5 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159673-5 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Bianca and Lucía

Preface This monograph is a slightly revised version of my PhD dissertation submitted to the Catholic University of America in January of 2020. I am very much indebted to Professors Tobias Nicklas and Jörg Frey for their recommendation to publish this study in the WUNT II series. I am also grateful to Tobias Stäbler and Tobias Weiß at Mohr Siebeck for their invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript for print. Beyond measure is the debt of gratitude owed to my director, Professor Ian Boxall. One simply could not ask for better in an advisor. The Lord tells us that those who wish to be great must serve others, and by this definition Ian is one of the best. Humble, kind, generous, responsive, and encouraging, but with considerable erudition and critical insight, Dr. Boxall has had a profound influence on this study and this author’s scholarship and pedagogy in general. My respect and appreciation for him are nearly impossible to overestimate. So also, this work would be significantly impoverished were it not for the astute feedback of my readers, Professors Tobias Nicklas and John Paul Heil. I cannot thank Prof. Nicklas enough for the investment that he has made in my life and my scholarship. He has modeled for me what it means to be a scholar full of truth and grace. To Dr. Heil I must express thanks for the contributions he has made to this study and for teaching me about the close reading of texts. Finally, and preeminently, to express the gratitude that I have to my beautiful and precious wife, Bianca, my loving and gracious parents, Phil and Cathie, my brothers and best friends, Dave and Chris, and especially to my Lord and my God is to ask of words something that they cannot do.

Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................... VII List of Tables ........................................................................................... XIII

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................... 1 A. Purpose and Justification ......................................................................... 1 B. Scope and Structure ................................................................................. 9 C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology .............................................13 D. Methodology ........................................................................................... 22 E. Summary ................................................................................................. 34

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production ....................... 36 A. The Old Testament .................................................................................. 37 I. Earthquakes ........................................................................................ 37 1. Theophany ................................................................................... 38 2. Excursus: The Day of the Lord .................................................... 44 3. Non-Theophanic Divine Activity ................................................. 50 II. Anthropological Shaking ................................................................... 51 III. Other Shaking .................................................................................... 54 IV. Deuterocanonical Books .................................................................... 56 V. Summary ........................................................................................... 57 B. Early Jewish Literature ........................................................................... 60 I. Pseudepigrapha ................................................................................. 60 II. Qumran ............................................................................................. 63 III. Josephus ........................................................................................... 63 IV. Philo ................................................................................................. 65

X

Table of Contents

C. Early Christian Literature ...................................................................... 66 I. The New Testament ........................................................................... 66 II. Apostolic Fathers ............................................................................... 68 D. Greco-Roman Literature ......................................................................... 68 E. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 71

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea ............................................................ 73 A. Engaging the Majority Position .............................................................. 73 B. Resetting the Context .............................................................................. 77 I. The Kingdom of Heaven .................................................................... 82 II. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 5-9 ........................................... 85 III. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 1-4 ........................................... 88 IV. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 8:23-27 .......................................... 91 C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 ........................................................................ 91 I. Epiphanic Resonance ......................................................................... 92 II. Eschatological Resonance .................................................................. 99 III. The Matt 8:24 σεισμός as an Epiphanic and Eschatological Indicator 102 D. Conclusion............................................................................................ 108

Chapter 4: Shaken, and Stirred ......................................................... 109 A. Setting the Context ................................................................................ 110 I. The Return of the King ..................................................................... 110 II. The Contrast in Reception ................................................................ 112 III. The Characterization of Jerusalem ................................................... 116 IV. The Arrival of Judgment.................................................................. 118 V. Jerusalem’s Day of the Lord ............................................................ 124 B. The Shaking of Jerusalem ..................................................................... 131 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 139

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross ............................................... 141 A. Setting the Context ................................................................................ 142 I. The Cross as Christological Validation ............................................ 143 II. The Cross as Eschatological Divine Intervention ............................. 145 1. Divine Salvation ........................................................................ 145 2. Resurrection of the Dead ........................................................... 147 3. Victory over Death and Evil ...................................................... 148 4. Gentile Conversion .................................................................... 149 5. Restoration of the Human-Divine Relationship .......................... 151 6. The Temple’s Destruction.......................................................... 153 7. Divine Judgment ........................................................................ 154 III. Summary ......................................................................................... 156 B. The Earthquake at Calvary ................................................................... 156 I. The Earthquake and Christological Validation ................................. 156 II. The Earthquake and Eschatological Divine Intervention .................. 160 1. The Day of the Lord of Zech 14 ................................................. 165 2. The Day of the Lord of Isa 24-27 ............................................... 167 3. The Day of the Lord of Joel ....................................................... 170 4. The “Day of the Lord” of 1 Enoch 1:3-9 .................................... 173 III. Integration ....................................................................................... 175 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 179

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines........................... 180 A. The Earthquake of Easter ...................................................................... 180 I. Setting the Context ........................................................................... 180 II. The Easter Earthquake ..................................................................... 187 B. The Shaking of the Guards .................................................................... 189 I. Setting the Context ........................................................................... 189 II. The Shaking of the Guards ............................................................... 194 C. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 208

XII

Table of Contents

Chapter 7: Conclusions ...................................................................... 209 A. Purpose and Contribution of the Study.................................................. 209 B. Summary of the Argument ..................................................................... 210 Bibliography.............................................................................................. 215 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................................... 233 Index of Modern Authors .......................................................................... 263 Index of Subjects ....................................................................................... 267

List of Tables Table 1: Jer 23:19 LXX vs. Masoretic Text .................................................. 7 Table 2: Expanded Use of Anthropological Shaking Language in the LXX .............................................................................................. 58 Table 3: Literary Relationships Between Matt 5–7 and Matt 8–9 ................ 80 Table 4: Correlations between the Matthean Infancy Narrative and the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Scene ................................... 104 Table 5: Correlations between the Matthean Storm Stilling and the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Scene ................................... 106 Table 6: Comparison between Zech 9:9 and Matt 21:5 .............................. 119 Table 7: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and Ezek 37:1–14 LXX ............ 161 Table 8: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Zech 14 Day of the Lord ............................................................................................ 166 Table 9: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord ............................................................................................ 169 Table 10: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Day of the Lord of Joel............................................................................................ 171 Table 11: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the “Day of the Lord” of 1 Enoch 1:3–9 ....................................................................... 174 Table 12: Correlations Linking the Matthean Crucifixion and Resurrection Scenes .................................................................. 182 Table 13: Alternating Structure of the Matthean Resurrection Account ..... 195 Table 14: Characterization in the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Account ..................................................................................... 199 Table 15: Correlations between the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Account and the Matthean Account of Jesus’s Second Coming ..................................................................................... 207

Chapter 1

Introduction A. Purpose and Justification The late movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn is reported to have given the following advice for creating a blockbuster film, “We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax.” He likely would have approved of Matthew’s Gospel. While the Gospel doesn’t include an earthquake in its opening scene, it has a predilection for them. In total Matthew contains eight references to seismic activity.1 The first is the great earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο) at sea (Matt 8:24). Next is the shaking (ἐσείσθη) of Jerusalem when Jesus enters the city and initiates the week of his Passion (21:10). In 24:7, Jesus includes earthquakes (σεισμοί) as a portent of the end times. Shortly thereafter, he says that the powers of the heaven will be shaken (σαλευθήσανται) before the sign of the Son of Man (24:29). At the climax of the Gospel, the ground is shaken (ἐσείσθη) amidst a number of other apocalyptic phenomena when Jesus dies on the cross (27:51). These spectacles, and especially the earthquake (σεισμός), lead the centurion guarding Jesus and those with him to proclaim that Jesus was truly the Son of God (27:54). Finally, on the morning of Jesus’s resurrection, there is another great earthquake (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας) when the angel comes down to roll away the stone from the tomb (28:2). This scene causes those guarding the tomb to shake (ἐσείσθησαν) with fear to the point of resembling dead men (28:4). It is telling that the majority of these references are found only in Matthew. The fourth Gospel contains no references to shaking or earthquakes. All three Synoptics list earthquakes as a sign of the end times (Matt 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11) and contain the prophecy that the powers of the heavens will be shaken in the finale of this age (Matt 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26). However, the remaining six references to shaking and earthquakes are unique to Matthew’s narrative. Only in Matthew is the sea storm described as a σεισμός (8:24). Only in Matthew are the shaking of Jerusalem and its corresponding dialogue recounted in the triumphal entry scene (21:10–11). Only in Matthew is there mention of the earth quaking, the rocks splitting, and the dead rising

1

Justification for this scope will be provided in 1.B.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

from their tombs in conjunction with Jesus’s death (27:51–53).2 Furthermore, only in Matthew is the earthquake directly connected to the centurion’s proclamation of Jesus’s divine sonship (27:54).3 Finally, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke all make reference to an eventful encounter at the empty tomb, only in Matthew is there mention of an earthquake (28:2) and a shaking of the guards (28:4) in conjunction with the event. The exclusivity of these six seismic events suggests that they have a special role to play in Matthew’s Gospel. The suggestion is strengthened when one observes the narrative location of all six of Matthew’s unique seismic references. First, the majority of the unique Matthean shaking references occur at the climax of the story’s plot, the passion and resurrection narrative (27:51, 54; 28:2, 4; cf. 21:10).4 Even within this section, the shaking references are centrally located: two are intricately connected with Jesus’s death (27:51, 54) and two with his resurrection (28:2, 4).5 Second, all of the unique seismic references are connected to the motif of Jesus’s identity that is prominently featured in Matthew’s Gospel.6 In 8:23–27, the crisis of the sea quake and Jesus’s subsequent response prompt the witnesses to proclaim the Gospel’s first christological question, ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος (“what sort is this one?”). In 21:10, when the city of Jerusalem is shaken, it cries out a nearly identical christological question, τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; (“who is this?”). In 27:51–54, the earthquake leads to the question’s definitive answer: the centurion and those with him cry out, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος (“truly this was the Son of God!”). Following the earthquake and shaking of 28:2, 4, the women worship Jesus. Though not verbally expressed as with the centurion, the women’s action also constitutes a christological statement. Furthermore, the strong lexical tie between 28:2 (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας) and 8:24 (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο) suggests that the two passages should be taken together, thereby adding another link between the quake at 28:2 and the 2 All three Synoptics recount darkness and the tearing of the temple veil as accompaniments of Jesus’s death (Matt 27:45, 51; Mark 15:33, 38; Luke 23:44–45). 3 In Mark it is the way that Jesus dies that precipitates the centurion’s proclamation (Mark 15:39). 4 Though 21:10 may not form part of the passion and resurrection narrative proper (26– 28), it nevertheless is closely tied to this literary unit. In the words of W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997), 3:128, “21.1–11 is not just the entry into Jerusalem: it is also the entry into the remainder of the narrative. By anticipating upcoming events and introducing or reiterating certain themes, the passage strengthens the unity of Matthew 21–8 and prods the reader to interpret the text in light of itself” (cf. the helpful chart they provide on 3:127–28). 5 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols., WBC 33A-33B (Dallas: Word Books, 1993–1995), 1:221. 6 This motif runs through the entire Gospel but is especially pointed in questions (4:3, 6; 8:27; 12:23; 13:55; 16:13, 15; 21:10; 26:63; cf. 27:40, 42–43) and assertions (3:17; 8:29; 14:1, 33; 16:16; 17:5; 21:11; 27:37, 54) that directly relate to Jesus’s identity.

A. Purpose and Justification

3

christological theme. The unique seismic motif running through Matthew is therefore not a peripheral feature; rather, it lies at the very heart of the Gospel. There is yet another observation that betrays an intentionality behind Matthew’s unique seismic language: so great is his proclivity for earthquake imagery that he almost appears to have forced a σεισμός into the storm stilling context.7 Matthew refers to the event on the Sea of Galilee as a σεισμὸς μεγάς, a “great shaking” or a “great earthquake” (8:24). However, there is little in the scene to suggest that a seismic phenomenon is in view. While the boat containing Jesus and the disciples is tossed about, it is by waves rather than tremors. Granted, earthquakes do occur frequently in the Jordan Rift Valley, and some have even generated tsunamis in the Dead Sea or the Sea of Galilee.8 But even if an earthquake had occurred and generated the threatening waves, it is unlikely that such an event would also create wind, and Matthew makes it clear that pneumatic gusts are a central feature of the maritime chaos (8:26–27). Moreover, when Jesus puts an end to the crisis, he does so by silencing the wind and the waves, not the shaking of the earth (8:26, 27).9 Thus, a sea storm would appear a far more fitting description for the source of the disciples’ terror than an earthquake.10 Indeed, this is precisely how the event is described in both Mark and Luke; they state that it is a λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου (literally, “a windstorm” or “a hurricane of wind”) that descends on the Sea of Galilee.11 Matthew’s redacted use of σεισμός therefore does not appear a good fit for the context if taken at face value.12 7

See 1.D for a discussion of intentionality. Joel Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?” in An Early Reader of Mark and Q, ed. Joseph Verheyden and Gilbert Van Belle (Bristol: Peeters, 2016), 217; cf. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 7.24.12 and Plutarch, Cicero, 32.3 for earthquakes that created a tsunami. 9 Hagner, Matthew, 1:221; John Nolland, Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 370. 10 The majority of English translations share this conclusion, as evidenced by their translation of the Matt 8:24 σεισμός as “storm.” 11 Mark 4:37: λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου // Luke 8:23: λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου. 12 Having said this, it must be noted that in October of 2019 scientists discovered “stormquakes,” which are defined as storm induced “spatiotemporally focused seismic point sources with equivalent earthquake magnitudes that can be greater than 3.5” (Wenyuan Fan et al. “Stormquakes,” Geophysical Research Letters 46 [2019]: 12,909). Windstorms thus appear capable of creating seismic activity. In these instances, intense windstorms such as hurricanes and Nor’easters create waves both on the surface and under the surface of the sea. These subsurface waves (Rayleigh waves) exert pressure on shallow sections of the seafloor that translates to a ground motion detectable by seismometers. However, as Fan, “Stormquakes,” 12,914, points out, not all hurricanes generate stormquakes; the right local oceanographic and bathymetric conditions must also be in place. It is unclear if the Sea of Galilee provides these conditions and if the storms experienced on the Sea of Galilee are strong enough to generate the Rayleigh waves necessary to create a stormquake. It is also 8

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Many commentators explain away this incongruity by stating that storms fall within the semantic domain of σεισμός.13 Foundational to this position is BDAG, which provides two definitions for the term: (a) an earthquake; (b) a storm on a body of water.14 In support of the latter definition, BDAG lists Matt 8:24 and four Greek sources: Diodorus Siculus, Bib. Hist. 26.8, scholion on Plato, Timaeus 25C, Artemidorus, Oneir. 2.38, and Maximus of Tyre, Dialexis 9.6a; 11.7h.15 However, as multiple scholars have argued, BDAG is on shaky ground; all four of the Greek references it cites actually describe earthquakes, not storms.16 Diodorus Siculus merely reports that Rhodes had been leveled by a σεισμός; while Rhodes was an island, there is no reason to follow BDAG in assuming that the destruction had to result from a storm or seaquake instead of a geological earthquake. The scholion on Plato theorizes that earthquakes occurring in conjunction with sea flooding are caused by winds but does not describe an earthquake as a storm. The passage from Artimedorus discusses predictions of earthquakes and rain storms (σεισμός and ὄμβρος) but does not equate the two portended phenomena.17 Maximus of Tyre metaphorically describes the soul using images of waves and σεισμοί, but it does not follow that the terms are equivalent. This leaves Matt 8:24 as the sole example for BDAG’s alternative definition of storm. Support for the storm definition does not increase when one considers other sources. According to LSJ, the term σεισμός carries three meanings, none of which is a storm: (a) shaking, shock, an earthquake; (b) shock, agitation, commotion; (c) blackmail, extortion.18 Muraoka provides only a single definition, “vibration.”19 While both Louw and Nida and Wigram list two definitions, “earthquake” and “storm,” they can muster only Matt 8:24 for support of the

uncertain if a stormquake on the Sea of Galilee would be detectable apart from a seismometer. 13 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:71 n. 7; Donald A. Carson, Matthew, 2 vols., Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 1:215; Hagner, Matthew, 1:221; Craig S. Keener, Matthew: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 277; Nolland, Matthew, 370; Grant Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 313. 14 BDAG, 918. 15 BDAG, 918. 16 Günter Bornkamm, “σείω, σεισμός,” TDNT 7:199; Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?,” 218. For a more general discussion of limitations with regards to NT lexicons see John A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, Studies in Biblical Greek 8 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). 17 BDAG errs in making this equation on the basis of supposed parallelism with an unrelated passage that speaks of predicting thunderstorms and rainstorms (χειμῶν and ὄμβρος) through dreams of black figs (Oneir. 1.73) 18 LSJ, 1589. 19 Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Walpole: Peeters, 2009), 618.

A. Purpose and Justification

5

latter.20 Moulton lists only “earthquake” and metaphorically “extortion” as possible connotations.21 Lampe contributes only “earthquake.”22 Günther Bornkamm grants the possibility of alternate definitions when he states that the term σεισμός “usually means ‘earthquake;’” however, he fails to provide any alternative meanings and does not cite any examples beyond earthquakes.23 Pamela Thimmes, after conducting an extensive study of the biblical and Greco-Roman sea-storm type scene, claims that Matt 8:24 is the only instance where σεισμός describes a storm at sea.24 It thus appears that Matthew’s use of σεισμός in the sea storm context exhibits a Shakespearean type of novelty. One might posit that ‫רעש‬, the Hebrew word for “earthquake,” can occasionally refer to a storm, and thus by extension so also could its normal LXX translation equivalent, σεισμός. For example, it is sometimes claimed that the ‫רעש‬ of the Isa 29:6 theophany refers to a storm given the other phenomena described in the account.25 Thunder, whirlwind, and tempest are all unambiguously aspects of a storm, and the fire could be descriptive of lightning. The theophany is clearly that of a storm god. Given the context, ‫ רעש‬is taken as a reference to abysmal weather. However, such an interpretation is by no means the only one available. Far more likely is that ‫ רעש‬retains its fundamental sense of a physical shaking and describes the rumbling that accompanies thunder. Such rumbling can feel like an earthquake if one is close enough to the source of the meteorological agitation. In this sense, the thunder, the ‫רעש‬, the great noise, and the fire all describe components of the storm rather than the ‫רעש‬ describing the overall event.26 Support for this interpretation is found in the description of a storm by Josephus, “a mighty storm broke out in the night, with gale-force winds, a downpour of rain and continuous thunder and lightning, and a terrible rumbling of earthquake.”27 It follows that the ‫ רעש‬/ σεισμός 20

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 171, 181; George V. Wigram, The Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: Every Word and Inflection of the Greek New Testament Arranged Alphabetically and with Grammatical Analysis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983), 365. 21 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963), 571. 22 Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 1228. 23 Bornkamm, TDNT 7:196. 24 Pamela L. Thimmes, Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene: Convention and Invention (San Francisco: Mellen Research University, 1992), 145. 25 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, trans. Thomas H. Trapp, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 77; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL (London: SCM, 1974), 268; Schmoldt, “‫ר ַﬠשׁ‬,ָ rā‘as̆ , ‫ר ַﬠשׁ‬,ַ ra‘as̆ ,” TDOT 13:591. 26 Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 2:311. 27 Jewish War, 4.286. Cf., Hesiod, Theogony, 705, for a similar description.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

of Isa 29:6 does not describe a storm, though it is intricately linked with such an event. A meaning of storm has also been put forth for the ‫ רעש‬of Ezek 3:12, but should likewise be rejected. Schmoldt argues for the storm definition by equating the ‫ רעש‬of 3:12 with the “stormy wind” (‫ )רוח סערה‬of 1:4.28 He rests this claim on the overlap between the two theophanies. He notes that Ezekiel’s first theophany, where Yahweh comes with a stormy wind and a great cloud with flashing fire (1:4), features both the living creatures (1:5–14) and the wheels (1:15–21). Next, he notes that 3:13 is an expanded description of the great ‫רעש‬ of 3:12. Since the expanded description includes the sound of the wings of the living creatures and the sound of the wheels, Schmoldt concludes that the two theophanies are intricately connected. On the basis of this correspondence, he interprets the ‫ רעש‬of 3:12 as a probable reference to a storm (cf. 1:4). It is unclear, however, how Schmoldt is able to make this leap. While the two theophanies are certainly related, there is no reason to conclude that the ‫ רעש‬of 3:12 must describe a storm. If one were forced to draw a direct parallel for the ‫ רעש‬at 3:12, the sound of the waters, the sound of the voice of the Almighty (1:24), or the sound of the tumult of an army (1:24 MT) would appear a much better counterpart than the stormy wind of 1:4. A meaning of storm should therefore be rejected. Schmoldt’s storm interpretation of the ‫ רעש‬of 1 Kgs 19:11–12 (συσσεισμός in the LXX) is similarly unconvincing.29 He notes that the phenomena of the “anti-theophany” are listed in order of descending strength (wind, ‫רעש‬, fire), and argues that since an earthquake is not likely to be weaker than wind, the ‫ רעש‬must describe a storm in this context. Even if Schmoldt is correct about the descending order of the phenomena, it does not require that ‫ רעש‬cannot describe an earthquake in this context. The account dwells on the description of the wind, depicting it as an extremely powerful force that tears apart mountains and shatters rocks. It is entirely possible that such fury would possess more energy than a low level earthquake. Thus, it is unlikely that the ‫רעש‬ /συσσεισμός of 1 Kgs 19:11–12 describes a storm. There is, however, one instance where σεισμός may describe a storm. In Jer 23:19a σεισμός translates ‫סערה‬, a term that ubiquitously describes a strong wind.30

28

Schmoldt, TDOT 13:591. As will be discussed below, συσσείσμος can function as a close synonym to σεισμός in describing an earthquake (e.g., Sir 22:16), but alternatively can describe a storm (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:1); Muraoka, Lexicon, 663; LSJ, 1734. 30 HALOT, 762; DCH, 6:176. 29

7

A. Purpose and Justification

Table 1: Jer 23:19 LXX vs. Masoretic Text Jer 23:19 LXX (Old Greek) ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ὀργὴ ἐκπορεύεται εἰς συσσεισμόν, συστρεφομένη ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει.

Jer 23:19 MT ‫הנה סערת יהוה‬ ‫חמה יצאה‬ ‫וסער מתחולל על ראש רשעים יחול‬

The verse delineates the σεισμός/‫ סערה‬as wrath that will come upon the wicked in the form of a συσσεισμός/‫סער מתחולל‬. In the MT it is clear that the wrath is depicted as a storm: ‫ סער‬describes a strong gale, and it is said to be whirling around (‫ )חול‬as would a hurricane or tornado. The MT therefore states that the storm of Yahweh is a whirlwind of wrath that will twist upon the wicked. In the LXX it is less clear: since συσσεισμός can translate both ‫“( רעש‬earthquake;” 1 Kgs 19:11–12) and ‫“( סערה‬storm;” 2 Kgs 2:1, 11; Nah 1:3), it is not certain if an earthquake or storm is in mind in Jer 23:19. The fact that the wrath is said to “gather” (συστρέφειν) instead of “whirl” (‫ )חול‬upon the ungodly adds little to the verse’s lucidity. Two interpretations are thus possible. The LXX could follow the MT and state that the storm (σεισμός) of Yahweh is wrath that will gather upon the ungodly as a whirlwind (συσσεισμός), or it could shift the meaning considerably by stating that the earthquake (σεισμός) of Yahweh is wrath that will gather upon the ungodly as seismic destruction (συσσεισμός). Looking to Jer 30(37):23, which forms a near verbatim repetition of 23:19 in the MT, provides little assistance in the 23:19 LXX interpretive decision. In 30(37):23 the relationship between the LXX and MT is more conceptual than semantic: ὀργὴ κυρίου ἐξῆλθεν θυμώδης, ἐξῆλθεν ὀργὴ στρεφομένη, ἐπ᾿ ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει (“the hot-tempered wrath of the Lord has gone out, wrath turning about has gone out; it will come on the ungodly”). The presence of a stormlike whirling in 37:23 LXX could tip the scales towards a storm interpretation for 23:19 LXX; however, 37:23 LXX mentions neither σεισμός nor συσσεισμός and does not align semantically with the MT to the same degree as does 23:19 LXX. This renders any conclusions tentative at best. Even if one grants that the σεισμός of 23:19 LXX does describe a storm, the different translation choices of Aquila and Symmachus indicate that the LXX’s decision to use σεισμός in such a way may have burst the seams of the term’s semantic range.31 All of the above suggests that if Matt 8:24 is using σεισμός to describe a storm, it would represent either an unprecedented maneuver, or one that is exceedingly rare and stretches the term’s meaning to the breaking point. It should 31

In place of σεισμός, in the Syrohexaplaric translation of Paul of Tella, Aquila, and Symmachus both have turbo, which Ziegler suggest equates to καταιγίς (α ́) or συσσεισμός (σ ́) on the basis of their respective translation choices for Jer 37:23 LXX (Septuaginta: Jeremias; Baruch; Threni; Epistula Jeremiae [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976]), 265.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

be noted that such an awkward use of the term was by no means necessitated by limitations of the Greek language; in the LXX and NT alone one finds multiple words to describe a storm.32 The inelegance of Matthew’s lexical choice is further highlighted if one grants Markan priority: it would mean that Matthew has substituted σεισμός, a term that almost universally describes a physical shaking or an earthquake, for λαῖλαψ, a term that regularly means “storm” and is therefore much more apropos to the context. By making this change, Matthew has introduced ambiguity into his account, which goes against his normal redactional practice.33 In sum, when one surveys the contours of Matthew’s narrative terrain, one finds it laced with two interrelated and centrally located fault lines, one that concerns the shaking of the earth (i.e., the terrestrial fault line; 8:24; 27:51/54; 28:2) and another that describes the shaking of people (i.e., the anthropological fault line; 21:10; 28:4).34 In a narrative that appears so carefully and artfully written, the uniqueness of the seismic references, their location in the Gospel account, and the awkwardness of the 8:24 σεισμός collectively suggest an intentionality behind the inclusion of these interrelated seismic rifts.35 The purpose of this study is to explore that intentionality, to ascertain how Matthew’s interrelated seismic fault lines impact his literary landscape. In other words, this study will explore if a seismic subplot is indeed embedded

32

In the LXX, there are at least six different words used to describe a storm: θύελλα (3x), καταιγίς (29x), λαῖλαψ (7x), ὄμβρος (6x), συσσεισμός (9x), χειμών (7x). A similar amount of lexical variety is observed in the NT: θύελλα (1x), λαῖλαψ (3x), ὄμβρος (1x), χειμών (6x). 33 Matthew regularly increases clarity where it is lacking in Mark. For example, he adds the source of the quotation in Mark 4:10–12 // Matt 13:10–15, removes the potentially confusing reference to Mal 3:1 in a citation attributed to Isaiah (Mark 1:2–3 // Matt 3:3), and provides Pilate’s title in the crucifixion scene (Mark 13:1ff // Matt 27:2ff). Simple carelessness is not an adequate explanation for the use of σεισμός in Matt 8:24. As Günther Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew” in Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Percy Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 52–57, famously demonstrated, Matt 8:18–27 has been carefully shaped, with vocabulary playing a central role in the composition. 34 The interrelatedness of the terrestrial and anthropological seismic fault lines is evidenced by the shared σει* root as well as the above discussed situating of these fault lines along the Gospel’s plot line and christological identity arc. 35 An additional note of intentionality may be observed in Matthew’s redaction of the Markan reference to ἀνασείω in the trial scene before Pilate. Mark recounts that the chief priests ἀνέσεισαν (“stirred up”) the crowd so that they demanded the release of Barabbas in place of Jesus (15:11). This term, which usually describes psychological agitation, appears a good fit for the context. However, while Luke (23:5) follows Mark in the choice of vocabulary, Matthew has replaced ἀνασείω with πείθω (“to persuade”; 27:20). It is possible that this move was made to eliminate the occurrence of another word that can depict physical shaking; ἀνασείω can refer to the shaking or brandishing of a sword or shield (BDAG, 71). For a discussion of intentionality, see 1.D.

B. Scope and Structure

9

into the Matthean narrative, and if so, how that subplot relates to and informs the overall Gospel story.

B. Scope and Structure This study will focus solely on the shaking references that are unique to Matthew’s Gospel, those of 8:24 (σεισμός), 21:10 (σείω), 27:51 (σείω), 27:54 (σεισμός), 28:2 (σεισμός), and 28:4 (σείω). While the shaking references found at 24:7 (σεισμός), and 24:29 (σαλεύω) must also be counted part of Matthew’s overall seismic motif, for the reasons outlined below, discussion of these references will be integrated into the body of the study rather than given separate or extended treatment. Falling outside of Matthew’s seismic motif (and therefore outside of the scope of this study) are the references to the swaying of the reed (σαλεύω; 11:7) and the disturbance of Jerusalem (ταράσσω; 2:3). Given the terminology, it is clear that the 24:7 reference to σεισμοί must be included in Matthew’s overall seismic motif. Matthew’s employment of the term here is the only nonexclusive mention of a σεισμός in his narrative; in all three synoptics, σεισμοί are included with wars and famines as indications that the end times have begun (Matt 24:6–7; Mark 13:7–8; Luke 21:9–11). As such, the function of these phenomena is limited to that of stock eschatological images (cf. 2 Bar. 27:5–7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 9:3–4).36 Although it is one-dimensional, the 24:7 σεισμός reference nevertheless serves a critical function with regards to Matthew’s narrative because it unequivocally demonstrates that σεισμός can carry an eschatological connotation; the 24:7 reference thus functions as a sort of interpretive lens. At the same time, since the reference’s function does not extend beyond that of a stock eschatological image, the reference does not require a separate or protracted discussion. The 24:29 reference to the shaking (σαλεύω) of the powers of heaven should likewise be included within Matthew’s seismic motif. While 24:29 presents an exception in that it does not employ the σει* root, the terms σείω and σαλεύω are nevertheless closely related. Louw and Nida group σείω and σαλεύω together in same semantic subdomain, “to shake” (16.7), for which they provide the following gloss definition, “to cause something to move back and forth rapidly, often violently.”37 In the LXX, both terms are observed to function as translation equivalents for ‫רעש‬, though σείω is by far the more dominant of the two given that it has a narrower semantic range than σαλεύω and therefore

36 The fact that Jesus links the signs to the birthpangs of the end rather than the end itself does not mitigate the eschatological significance of the signs. 37 Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 212–13. Σείω and σαλεύω are the only terms listed in this field. Cf. Muraoka, Lexicon, 617, 618; LSJ, 1581, 1589; BDAG, 911, 918.

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

better aligns with ‫רעש‬.38 The semantic overlap of the terms is well illustrated by LXX Judg 5:4–5, Nah 1:5, and Job 9:6, all of which utilize σείω and σαλεύω in parallel to describe earthquakes.39 Hebrews 12:26–29 also serves as a fitting example as it utilizes σείω and σαλεύω interchangeably to express the same idea. In addition, the similarity between σείω and σαλεύω extends beyond describing a vigorous physical oscillation; both terms can also be taken metaphorically to describe emotional agitation.40 Thus, from a lexical standpoint, there is good reason to include the 24:29 σαλεύω reference within Matthew’s seismic motif. The case for the inclusion of the 24:29 σαλεύω reference is further strengthened when one considers the context in which the reference occurs. Following Mark nearly verbatim, Matthew links the shaking (σαλεύω) of the powers of heaven with two other astrological phenomena, the darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars (24:29).41 A similar combination of events is also featured at Jesus’s crucifixion: in addition to the shaking (σείω) of the earth (27:51), there is a darkening of the celestial bodies (27:45). Moreover, as will be argued in the body of the monograph, it is highly likely that both 24:29 and Matthew’s crucifixion scene are closely connected to the prophetic Day of the Lord. In addition, it would appear that numerous scholars also find a close conceptual and semantic relationship between the two terms given their endorsement of Hag 2:6, 21 (which utilizes σείω) as an intertext for Matt 24:29 (σαλεύω).42 Hagner’s comments regarding probable intertexts for Matt 24:29 are illustrative of this scholarly trend, The fourth line, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται, “and the powers of heaven shall be shaken,” finds no direct parallel in the OT but is similar to the statement in Joel

38

Σείω is the normal translation equivalent for the verb ‫( רעש‬19 times) and σεισμός is the normal translation equivalent for the noun (11 times). Σαλεύω twice functions as the translation equivalent for the verb ‫( רעש‬Ps 18[17]:8; 77[76]:19). The wider semantic domain of σαλεύω is evidenced in the LXX: σαλεύω serves as the translation equivalent for 22 Hebrew terms, while σείω plays this role for only four (six if one counts Isa 15:5 and Job 9:28, though these occurrences likely reflect mistranslations). For further discussion of both terms see chapter two. 39 Both terms regularly describe earthquakes in the LXX (e.g., σείω: 2 Sam 22:8; Isa 13:13; Jer 8:16; σαλεύω: LXX Ps 17:8; Amos 9:5; Mic 1:4). This function is less common for σαλεύω in Greco-Roman literature, though still possible (e.g., Aeschylus, Prom., 1080). See chapter two. 40 LSJ, 1581, 1589; BDAG, 911, 918; Muroaka, Lexicon, 617, 618. Though for this connotation they do not share the same semantic subdomain in Louw and Nida (25.233 vs. 25.242; Lexicon, 314–15). 41 Mark 13:24–25; cf. Luke 21:25–26. 42 Nolland, Matthew, 983; Donald Senior, Matthew, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 271; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 487.

B. Scope and Structure

11

2:10: “the heaven will be shaken” (σεισθήσεται); cf. Isa 34:4: “the heaven will be rolled up like a scroll” (cf. Isa 13:13; Hag 2:6; 2:21: “I will shake [σείω] the heavens”).43

It follows that the 24:29 reference to the shaking of the powers of heaven should not be divorced from the Matthean seismic motif. At the same time, it is also not necessary to itemize the 24:29 seismic reference as an object of individual focus. A primary driver of this decision is the avoidance of redundancy: the 24:29 reference contains the same OT background as that which will be discussed in conjunction with the earthquake at Jesus’s death. In addition, unlike the unique Matthean shaking references that are grounded in the foundational narrative plane pertaining to Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection (8:24; 27:51, 54; 28:2, 4), the 24:29 shaking reference is located in a purely eschatological context. As such, it relates more closely to the one-dimensional σεισμός reference at 24:7, with its primary contribution consisting of its function as an interpretive lens.44 Though the reference to the swaying reed (σαλεύω; 11:7) shares the same vocabulary as the 24:29 reference to the shaking of the heavenly powers, unlike 24:29, it has been excluded from Matthew’s seismic motif and correspondingly from the scope of this study. This decision is driven by the reference’s function in the Matthean narrative. Featured in both Matthew (11:7) and Luke (7:24), the swaying reed has been interpreted literally,45 as a metaphorical description of character,46 and as a veiled reference to Herod Antipas.47 Regardless of which of these views is the most plausible, what is important for the present discussion is that all three interpretations view the swaying reference as encapsulated within a generic expression. In other words, it is the overall image conveyed by the expression, not the swaying reference specifically, that matters 43

Hagner, Matthew, 2:713 (Greek terms original). Proximity to the 24:7 reference is also suggested by the fact that neither 24:7 nor 24:29 is unique to Matthew. 45 Those who hold a literal interpretation believe that Jesus utilized a readily available image of papyrus reeds growing along the Jordan River (cf. Job 40:21; Ps 68[67]:30) to say that the crowds would not have gone into the desert to see what is commonplace. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:247; Nolland, Matthew, 454–55; Erich Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium, 2nd ed., HNT 4 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1927), 9. 46 The metaphorical interpretation posits that Jesus drew upon connotations of papyrus as frail (Matt 12:20; Isa 42:3) or as weak and pliable (Lucian, Herm. 68; 3 Macc 2:22; 1 Kgs 14:15) to create a metaphorical foil when describing the Baptist’s character: unlike tall papyrus reeds that are easily pushed about by the wind, John is not easily swayed by public opinion (cf. Matt 14:3–4). Cf. Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 426; Keener, Matthew, 336–37; Hagner, Matthew, 1:304; Ulrich Luz, Matthew, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. James E. Crouch, 3 vols., Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001–2007), 2:138; Gundry, Matthew, 207. 47 Herod wore nice clothing (Matt 11:8) and had his coins embossed with the papyrus plant. Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 26–42. 44

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

for the production of meaning. It follows that the 11:7 σαλεύω reference has nothing to add to the Matthean narrative beyond serving as a literal description or a figure of speech.48 It should therefore be excluded from Matthew’s seismic motif and from the scope of this study. The reference to the disturbance of Jerusalem (ταράσσω; 2:3) should likewise be excluded from Matthew’s seismic motif and from the study’s scope.49 Though 2:3 is clearly related to 21:10 given the shared references to all of Jerusalem being agitated (ταράσσω, 2:3/σείω, 21:10) on account of Jesus,50 the term ταράσσω differs from σείω and σαλεύω in that it does not fundamentally describe a violent shaking motion.51 While ταράσσω is observed to describe an earthquake on occasion in the LXX (only 2 Sam 22:8 // Ps 18[17]:8; Isa 24:19; Amos 8:8; Jer 4:24), in contrast to σείω and σαλεύω, such instances constitute connotative outliers.52 The semantic distance that exists between ταράσσω and σείω is significant enough to suggest that 2:3 should be differentiated from Matthew’s seismic motif. The above considerations result in the following outline for the monograph. Chapter two will attempt to reconstruct Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia with regards to his seismic terminology (σείω, σεισμός, and σαλεύω) in order to understand what connotations this language could carry in the Matthean narrative. The OT will be the primary focus of this survey, for as the numerous formula citations evidence, it is the Jewish Scriptures that lie at the heart of Matthew’s Gospel. The LXX will be prioritized in particular, since a Greek rather than Hebrew version of the OT likely provides the most relevant

48 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:247, suggest that the reference to clothing at 11:8 could allude to Davidic-messianic expectations and the shaking reed at 11:7 to God blowing back the Sea of Reeds in the exodus (“did you go out to see a man repeat the wonders of the exodus?”). This is unlikely, as it is clear that Jesus intends these illustrations to be antithetical to the 11:9–15 characterization of John as herald of the eschatological age, an event that Matthew ties to both exodus imagery and the Davidic messiah. 49 What will be argued for 2:3 also applies to the disturbance (ταράσσω) of the disciples (14:26). 50 In 2:3, Herod and all of Jerusalem (πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα) are stirred (ἐταράχθη) on account of Jesus’s birth. In 21:10, the entire city (πᾶσα ἡ πόλις) of Jerusalem is shaken (ἐσείσθη) when Jesus arrives. 51 In contrast, it describes a stirring motion (usually with water) or emotional agitation; LSJ, 1581, 1589, 1757–58; BDAG, 911, 918, 990; Muroaka, Lexicon, 617, 618, 671. Though Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 212–13, capture all three terms under the domain “non-linear movement,” ταράσσω is separated from σείω and σαλεύω as a separate subdomain: ταράσσω (16.4); σείω, σαλεύω (16.7). 52 These occurrences of ταράσσω equate to approximately 5% of the total occurrences of the term in the LXX. In contrast, σείω and σαλεύω describe earthquakes or other violent physical shaking in roughly 50% and 30% of their total occurrences, respectively.

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology

13

background for the first Gospel.53 In addition to the OT, the survey will also encompass early Jewish literature, early Christian literature, and Greco-Roman literature from the second century BCE to the second century CE. Chapters three through six will then examine Matthew’s unique shaking references in their specific contexts. Chapter three will explore the σεισμός of the sea storm pericope (Matt 8:24), chapter four the shaking (σείω) of Jerusalem in the triumphal entry (21:10), chapter five the earthquake at the crucifixion (σείω in 27:51, σεισμός in 27:54), and chapter six the σεισμός of the resurrection (28:2) and the shaking (σείω) of the tomb guards (28:4). Chapter seven will function as a conclusion that draws the study together.

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology This study represents the first comprehensive treatment of Matthew’s shaking language. While Matthew’s fondness for earthquakes is often noted, discussion of seismic imagery is usually confined to Matt 8:24; 27:51, 54; and 28:2. Moreover, while these three references receive ample attention, they are almost always treated in isolation from each other and from the Matthean narrative as a whole.54 This state of affairs, which presumably reflects the atomistic tendencies of the historical critical methods that previously characterized Matthean scholarship, is especially pronounced in the case of the 8:24 σεισμός.55 Consequently, as one might expect, interpretation of the 8:24 maritime quake varies widely. Most frequently, the 8:24 σεισμός is interpreted metaphorically as a description of the eschatological trials that confront the church.56 53

This is a reasonable conclusion given the fact that the Gospel is written in Greek for Greek speakers; Nolland, Matthew, 29. Although Matthew’s era exhibits a degree of textual fluidity, the LXX remains “the best representation we have of the Greek textual traditions that Matthew and his audience may have known;” Brandon Crowe, The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew (Boston: de Gruyter, 2012), 35. 54 For exceptions see below. 55 Composition criticism represents an exception to these atomistic tendencies, though the method never achieved a prominence comparable to earlier forms of redaction criticism that focused on individual changes that the author made to his sources. 56 Günther Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57; Jean Duplacy, “Et il eut un grande calme … La tempête apaisée (Matthieu 8, 23–27),” BVC 74 (1967): 19; Thomas M. Suriano, “Who Then is This?,” Bible Today 79 (1975): 454; John P. Meier, Matthew, NTM 3 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980), 89; Daniel Patte, The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 122; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:69, 71; Vincent Mora, La Symbolique de la création dans l’Évangile de Matthieu, Lectio Divina 144 (Paris: Cerf, 1991), 150; Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Stilling of the Storm (Matthew 8:23–27)” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville, ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury (St. Paul: Word & World,

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

It has also been construed as a storm,57 a symbol of chaos,58 an eschatological indicator,59 the Day of the Lord,60 a theophany,61 and a translation error.62 Interpretation of the 27:51/54 and 28:2 quakes is more uniform. Almost all scholars see both of these events invested with eschatological significance and recognize a connection between the quakes of 27:51/54 and 28:2. The 27:51/54 quake is almost always interpreted as a form of divine intervention,63 though it has also been construed solely as an eschatological indicator.64 The 28:2

1992), 107; Luz, Matthew, 2:20–22; Nolland, Matthew, 370; Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, The Gospel of Matthew, CCSS (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 130; Matthias Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, NTD 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 142. 57 Francis Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 215; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 205; Carson, Matthew, 1:215; Keener, Matthew, 277 n. 46; David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 244; Osborne, Matthew, 313; Gerhard Maier, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 2 vols., HTA (Witten: SCM, 2015–2017), 1:474. 58 David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 100; Soon-Ja Park, “La tempête apaisée,” Sémiotique et Bible 99 (2000): 38–39, who labels it as “confusion” or a “mixing” of the natural order. 59 Xavier Léon-Dufour, Études d’Évangile: Parole de Dieu (Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1965), 168; Patrick James O’Donnell, “A Literary Analysis of Matthew 8: Jesus’ First Gentile Mission” (ThD diss., The Iliff School of Theology, 1979), 147–49; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, 2 vols., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 1:317; Senior, Matthew, 102; Bernard Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty,” Bib 68 (1987): 175; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, SP 1 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 120. 60 David Bryce, “Sailors, Seismologists and Missionaries: Matthew 8:23–27,” Lutheran Theological Journal 36 (2002): 4. 61 Gundry, Matthew, 154–55; Maria Riebl, Auferstehung Jesu in der Stunde seines Todes?, SBB (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978), 69–70. 62 Günther Schwartz, “‘Ein großes Beben entstand auf dem Meer’? (Matthaus 8,24),” BibNot 74 (1994): 31–32. 63 Luz, Matthew, 3:566–67; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:476–77; Patte, Matthew, 387, 389–90; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:629; Senior, Matthew, 333–34; Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 2:759; Nolland, Matthew, 1213; France, Matthew, 1079; Osborne, Matthew, 1044, 46; Konradt, Matthäus, 447; Catherine Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile, SNTSMS 167 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 207–08, 213–14. For divine intervention specifically as judgment see Garland, Matthew, 260–61; Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1121–22; Maier, Matthäus, 2:649; Meier, Matthew, 352. For divine intervention specifically as redemption see Turner, Matthew, 670. For divine intervention as the Day of the Lord see Riebl, Auferstehung, 45–47, 77–78. 64 Bornkamm, TDNT 7:199–200; Harrington, Matthew, 400, 401, 403; Keener, Matthew, 686.

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology

15

σεισμός has similarly been interpreted as a sign of divine intervention;65 it has also been viewed as an angelophany66 or solely as an eschatological indicator.67 The significance of the shaking language in Matt 21:10 and 28:4 has largely been overlooked. Almost all scholars interpret σείω in 21:10 as psychological agitation without making any note of the term’s seismic connotation. The eclipse of the term’s seismic import is almost surely due to the fact that σείω can connote psychological agitation68 as well as the parallel formed between the ἐσείσθη of the “all the city” in 21:10 and the psychological stirring up (ἐταράχθη) of “all Jerusalem” in 2:3. Of the few scholars who have recognized the significance of the 21:10 vocabulary, little is said beyond a mere observation. For example, Luz simply notes that the reference to σείω in 21:10 “makes one think of an earthquake” without additional elaboration.69 Dietrich Gewalt goes somewhat further; he argues on the basis of OT theophanic connotations that σείω is employed in Matt 21:10 to cast the Jerusalem entry as an epiphany scene.70 He also notes an important correlation between the shaking of 21:10 and the earthquake of 27:51/54, arguing that in both episodes a seismic event generates a reaction in the city and the temple.71 Unfortunately, however, he does not expand further on this observation.72 The seismic connotation of the 28:4 shaking reference has likewise received little attention. It is typically interpreted in a straightforward manner as a manifestation of the guards’ fear; Matt 28:4 reads, “from fear of him [the angel] the guards were shaken (ἐσείσθησαν).” While the lexical choice of σείω to describe the guards is frequently highlighted, the explanation of the lexical significance is almost unanimously restricted to the play on words that the σείω of 28:4 creates with the σεισμός of 28:2. Some have posited that there may be a deeper

65

Luz, Matthew, 3:595; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:493; France, Matthew, 1099; Konradt, Matthäus, 454; Maier, Matthäus, 2:672; Nolland, Matthew, 1247. 66 Nolland, Matthew, 1247, though with the recognition that it ultimately points to the action of God; possibly Keener, Matthew, 700–701. 67 Bornkamm, TDNT 7:199–200; Harrington, Matthew, 409, 410–11; Hagner, Matthew, 2:869; Senior, Matthew, 340; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:664–65; Bruner, Matthew, 782; Osborne, Matthew, 1065–66; David Hill, “Matthew 27:51–53 in the Theology of the Evangelist,” IBS 7 (1985): 78–79. 68 BDAG, 918. 69 Luz, Matthew, 3:10; cf. Meier, Matthew, 234; Beare, Matthew, 415; Bruner, Matthew, 357. Gundry, Matthew, 411, only asserts that the shaking of 21:10 depicts the glory of the resurrected Christ without offering further explanation. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:127, speculate that the reference may be intended to allude to Zech 14:5. 70 Dietrich Gewalt, “Die Heilung Blinder und Lahmer im Tempel (Mt 21,14),” DBAT 23 (1986): 158. 71 Gewalt, “Die Heilung,” 158. 72 An epiphanic interpretation is also reached by Riebl, Auferstehung, 69–70 (as will be discussed below).

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

significance to the term but provide relatively terse explanations.73 Others only state that the term is employed to cast the scene in an apocalyptic hue74 or recognize a curious resonance between the 28:4 description and apocalyptic literature.75 There have been few discussions of the Matthean shaking language that can be categorized as comprehensive. Robert Gundry provides a rare interpretive example in that his analysis includes all six of the unique Matthean shaking references. In his 1982 commentary, Gundry claims that all of the unique Matthean shaking references depict Jesus’s deity. The heart of Gundry’s interpretation is found in his discussion of the 8:24 σεισμός.76 There he claims that both the 8:24 σεισμός and the 28:2 σεισμός function “as a sign of Jesus’ majesty.” He reaches this conclusion in three steps. First, he asserts that the 28:2 σεισμός must display Jesus’s glory since it occurs in the resurrection account, where Jesus claims all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18). Second, he argues that the σεισμός of 8:24 must be closely connected with the σεισμός of 28:2 given the strong lexical tie between the two passages. He finds an additional point of contact between these events by way of the allusions that 8:23– 27 makes to Jonah 1. He reasons that since the Matt 8:24 description of the storm alludes to Jonah 1:4, and since Jesus utilizes the sign of Jonah to describe the resurrection (Matt 12:40), the storm stilling must also be connected to the resurrection by way of Jonah imagery. Third, he reinforces his theophanic interpretation by pointing to the theophanic connotation carried by earthquakes in the OT. Having presented this argument in his discussion of the 8:24 σεισμός, Gundry then transfers the theophanic connotation he has derived for the 8:24 and 28:2 quakes to all of the other unique seismic occurrences in Matthew’s Gospel (21:10; 27:51, 54; 28:4). For each of these other occurrences, he simply asserts that the σει* term is employed to depict Jesus’s deity without providing further substantiation.77 The implicit reasoning appears to be that all these occurrences must function in the same way as the 8:24 and 28:2 σεισμοί since all are unique Matthean redactions.78 By integrating all six of the unique Matthean shaking references into his interpretation, Gundry exhibits a rare degree of comprehensiveness. However, his interpretation is one that would benefit from added depth and support. For example, with regards to the 21:10 and 28:4 seismic references, Gundry simply asserts that they highlight Jesus’s deity. He does not explain how they do so, 73

For example, Gundry, Matthew, 588, simply asserts that the shaking is a sign of Jesus’s deity without further elaboration. 74 Harrington, Matthew, 410–11; Senior, Matthew, 340. 75 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1122. 76 Gundry, Matthew, 154–55. 77 Gundry, Matthew, 411, 576, 588. 78 Gundry, Matthew, 154–55, differentiates the 24:7 shaking reference because it is derived from tradition.

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology

17

nor does he mention if the verbal forms found in these passages provide a different nuance in their depiction of Jesus’s majesty than the nominal forms (8:24; 27:54; 28:2; cf. 27:51), which describe the shaking of the ground instead of the shaking of people. Along these lines, his interpretation would appear to render the shaking of 28:4 superfluous: if the shaking references function solely to depict Jesus’s deity, the quake of 28:2 would be appear to be sufficient for the resurrection scene. Furthermore, while the commentary format involves the constraint of brevity, Gundry’s explanation could be better integrated into the overall Gospel narrative. David Bryce has offered an interpretation that includes the earthquakes of Matt 8:24, 24:7, 27:51–54, and 28:2.79 Bryce’s contribution is unique in that it connects each of these Matthean quakes specifically with the OT Day of the Lord. Bryce argues that each time an earthquake (σεισμός) is mentioned in the NT, it signifies the theophany of the final judgment, the Day of the Lord.80 Bryce also observes that the σεισμοί of 24:7 clearly function as an eschatological sign, and asserts that the 27:54 and 28:2 quakes additionally carry this connotation. He then imports all of the above into the 8:24 σεισμός and concludes that it must signify that the disciples have entered “into eschatological time with the epiphany and judgment of God himself. The day of the Lord has come.”81 Though intriguing and insightful, Bryce’s argument is little more than a sketch. While correct, the connotative correlation that he makes between earthquakes and the Day of the Lord requires justification, and the role that the Day of the Lord plays in Matthew’s Gospel needs more precise and comprehensive explanation. Timothy J. Stone has provided an intriguing and insightful explanation regarding the literary function of the Matthean earthquakes (8:24; 27:54; 28:2).82 Stone begins by arguing that both Jonah 1 and Psalm 107 functioned as stories of exile and restoration. Noting the strong echoes of these passages in Matt 8:23–27, he concludes that the allusions cast the Matthean sea storm pericope in the same light, as a tale of exile and return.83 Stone claims that this interpretation is consistent with the surrounding context of Matthew 8–9, which also depicts a return from exile by way of the multiple allusions to Isaiah.84 Having laid this foundation, Stone then turns his attention to the death and resurrection of Jesus. On the basis of the lexical and thematic links that these passages share with the storm stilling, he argues that the crucifixion and resurrection should 79

Bryce, “Sailors, Seismologists and Missionaries,” 2–11. Bryce, “Sailors, Seismologists and Missionaries,” 4. 81 Bryce, “Sailors, Seismologists and Missionaries,” 4. 82 Timothy J. Stone, “Following the Church Fathers: An Intertextual Path from Psalm 107 to Isaiah, Jonah, and Matthew 8:23–27,” JTI 7 (2013): 37–55. 83 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 41–49. 84 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 51. 80

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

be viewed through the lens of Matt 8:23–27, that is, as a return from exile.85 The exilic return that Jesus enables involves both his voluntary plunge into the sea to atone for sins and to appease divine wrath, and a subsequent divine rescue in the form the resurrection.86 Crucial to Stone’s argument are the links he cites between the three passages. These links include the 8:24 reference to sleep (καθεύδω), which can also symbolize death (9:24; cf. 27:52), the 8:25 reference to arising (ἐγείρω), which can also symbolize resurrection (9:25; 10:8; 11:5; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9; 26:32; 27:52, 63–64; 28:6, 7), the question of 8:27 that is answered in 27:54, the allusion to Jonah (by way of Matt 12:40), and especially the earthquakes (8:24, 27:54, and 28:2). Stone claims that the primary function of the unique Matthean quakes is to lexically adhere the storm stilling account to the death and resurrection of Christ. By integrating the earthquake of Matt 8:24 with those of 27:54 and 28:2, Stone has taken a step beyond many commentators. His explanation of how these events interrelate is fascinating and enjoys the benefit of patristic support. However, his account also could benefit from expansion. For example, Stone does not include the shaking references of 21:10 and 28:4, both of which are also unique Matthean redactions and have strong intratextual connections with 8:23–27 and 27:51–54.87 Second, by construing the Matthean earthquakes solely as textual linking devices, Stone deprives his interpretation of the rich connotations that these events carry in the OT and other background literature. Third, a return from exile is not the only theme present in Matthew 8–9 or the Gospel as a whole. Thus, while Stone’s interpretation provides an excellent starting point, it is not comprehensive enough to fully address the seismic question. One of the more extensive treatments of Matthean earthquakes to date is Joel Marcus’s article on the historicity of the earthquakes in Matt 8:24, 27:54, and 28:2.88 Marcus recognizes Matthew’s unique penchant for earthquakes, probes the awkwardness underlying the contextual fit of the 8:24 σεισμός, and even briefly ponders the literary significance of the quakes at 27:54 and 28:2. With regards to the latter, he cites multiple passages from the Hebrew Bible and intertestamental literature to argue that the 27:54 and 28:2 earthquakes function as manifestations of the eschatological coming of God from his heavenly temple.89 Marcus’s article is perceptive and well reasoned. However, it also could be more comprehensive. For example, Marcus does not provide any discussion 85

Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 52–54. Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 54. 87 E.g., Matt 8:23–27 and 21:10 both ask a christological question in conjunction with shaking; Matt 28:4 and 27:54 both include mention of guards in conjunction with an earthquake. 88 Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?,” 217–49. 89 Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?,” 229–34. 86

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology

19

about the 8:24 quake’s theological background, nor does he attempt to connect this event with the quakes of 27:54 and 28:2. Absent also is a discussion of the shaking references of 21:10 and 28:4. Additionally, the article does not discuss how the theological connotations derived for the 27:54 and 28:2 earthquakes inform the Gospel narrative. Of course, to expect such content in an article that is historical in focus would be unfair to its intent. Maria Riebl likewise presents an extensive and integrated study of Matthew’s seismic language. Since her study is focused on the events that transpire after Jesus’s death (27:51b–53), her discussion of Matthew’s seismic motif is naturally focused on the references at 27:51, 54 and 28:2. Riebl recognizes that these earthquakes (27:51/54; 28:2) function along with a number of lexical correlations to tie Jesus’s death and resurrection together.90 Having surveyed the connotations of earthquakes in the OT and Second Temple literature,91 she concludes that the 27:51/54 and 28:2 references have a theophanic import and help to signify that Jesus’s death and resurrection are bound up with the Day of the Lord.92 With regards to the other Matthean seismic references (8:24; 21:10; 24:7; 28:4), Riebl recognizes their Matthean exclusivity (excepting of course 24:7) and observes a degree of their interconnectedness (8:24 and 28:2; 21:10 and 28:4). She argues based on narrative context that both the 8:24 (σεισμός) and 21:10 (σείω) shaking references emphasize the unique grandeur of Jesus.93 The 28:4 reference is treated only in passing and presumably is interpreted solely as a physiological manifestation of the tomb guards’ fear.94 Riebl’s is praiseworthy in multiple aspects. She correctly recognizes the collective motif formed by Matthew’s numerous seismic references and is right to interpret the various references both in light of each other and in light of their respective contexts. She additionally does well to consider the connotative significance of earthquakes by exploring their function in the OT and Second Temple literature. She further demonstrates considerable awareness in her treatment of Jesus’s death and resurrection. However, no doubt because of its focus on 27:51b–53, Riebl’s treatment of the Matthean seismic motif also suffers from limitations. Chief among these is the fact that the 28:4 reference receives essentially no discussion. Relatedly, there could be a more integrated interpretation of the seismic references. For example, Riebl does not provide a 90

Riebl, Auferstehung, 63–65. Riebl, Auferstehung, 25–29. 92 Riebl, Auferstehung, 45–47, 77–79. 93 Riebl, Auferstehung, 67–70. For 21:10, Riebl reaches her conclusion on the basis of the christological question of the city (21:10) that is posed in combination with the “fear motif” imparted by the 21:10 σείω reference. She reasons that since σείω describes fear in 28:4, which she interprets as an epiphany scene because of the angel, it must likewise describe fear in 21:10 and lend an epiphanic connotation. This connotation is confirmed by the question of the city; Jerusalem doesn’t recognize the magnificence of its awaited Messiah. 94 Riebl, Auferstehung, 69. 91

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

detailed explanation of how the 21:10 and 28:4 references relate to each other nor how they relate to the various earthquakes (8:24; 27:51/54; 28:2). Likewise, the 8:24 quake is treated more like an isolated incident than in conjunction with the quakes at Jesus’s death and resurrection. Riebl’s work therefore has much to commend but nonetheless warrants expansion. Another comprehensive treatment of Matthew’s seismic motif is that of Paul Hinnebusch in St. Matthew’s Earthquake.95 Written for a popular audience, this book only came to the present author’s attention after all but the finishing touches of this manuscript had been completed. In light of these two factors, this study does not engage with Hinnebusch’s work apart from the present discussion. Hinnebusch’s thesis is that Matthew utilizes the earthquakes of 27:54 and 28:2 and the darkness of 27:45 to depict the death-resurrection event as the Day of the Lord, citing specifically the Days of the Lord of Amos 8:8–10 and Joel 4:14–16 in support.96 In addition, he links Matt 27:51–53 with Ezek 37:7 given the shared images of earthquake and resurrection, and with Zech 14:5 given the shared references to an earthquake and holy ones. Hinnebusch posits that the stilling of the storm is intended to serve as a preview of, and an interpretive lens for, the death-resurrection event in light of the shared references to an earthquake (8:24; 27:54; 28:2), rising (8:26; Mk 16:6), and the fact that the sea connoted the forces of chaos and evil in Jewish culture.97 In other words, he claims that Jesus’s calming of the sea previews his defeat of evil on the cross by his death and resurrection. He additionally argues that the Matt 21:10 reference to the shaking of Jerusalem forms another preview of the death-resurrection event, in this case by portending the judgment that the city will experience at Jesus’s death.98 Supporting this claim are the parallels that he observes between Matt 21:10 and 27:54 (an earthquake and judgment) and the fact that both 21:10 and 27:54 concern the new age, the former by way of fulfilling the eschatological prophecy of Hag 2:6–7, the latter by fulfilling the eschatological Day of the Lord.99 95 Paul Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake: Judgment and Discipleship in the Gospel of Matthew (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1980). 96 Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 6–9. 97 Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 11–17. 98 Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 34–35, “The ‘earthquake’ agitation of all Jerusalem symbolizes the terror that its people will experience when Jesus’ kingship is fully manifested in his death and resurrection and when divine judgment is meted out by the destruction of the city at the hands of the Romans.” 99 Evidence for a Matt 21:10 allusion to Hag 2:6–7 is based on the fact that both Matt 21:10 and Hag 2:6–7 reference an earthquake in a context that relates to the temple and by the fact that Psalm 118, which is quoted twice in Matt 21–23, originally referred to the rebuilding of the temple (no support is provided for this claim; St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 3– 4, 123). Additionally, he points out that both Matthew and Haggai share the Immanuel theme of God’s presence (Hag 1:13; 2:4, 5; Matt 1:12; 28:20), that Matthew takes care to define

C. State of Research on Matthean Seismology

21

He equates the fear of Jerusalem in 21:10 with the fear of the tomb guards in 28:4 (surprisingly, he does not mention the use of σείω in 28:4), describing both as the terror of the wicked before the impending judgment of God, and differentiates it from the fear of the crucifixion guards in 27:54, which he interprets as a faith-producing awe. There is much to commend in Hinnebusch’s insightful reading of Matthew. He recognizes the unique seismic motif that runs through Matthew’s Gospel (though he neglects 28:4) and points out the additional connection that is formed between 8:24, 21:10, and 27:54 by way of the christological questionand-answer literary thread.100 He additionally recognizes the theophanic connotation that earthquakes carry in the OT, especially with regards to the OT Day of the Lord.101 His interpretation of Matthew’s seismic motif is fairly comprehensive and accurate. Nevertheless, owing likely to its intended audience, the argument suffers from a lack of depth and comprehensiveness. Sufficient justification is not provided for the majority of the book’s claims, points do not receive adequate elaboration, and the work never engages with scholarship. The omission of the 28:4 shaking reference from the Matthean seismic motif is an unfortunate oversight, and the interpretation could benefit from tighter integration with regards to the various Matthean seismic references and the proposed OT backgrounds. That being said, the independent but corroborative viewpoint that the work represents lends credibility to the interpretive argument that will be presented in this study. As this short survey has demonstrated, there is much to be gained from a comprehensive analysis of the Matthean shaking references. While there is widespread recognition of Matthew’s unique proclivity for shaking language, there is far less acknowledgment of the collective motif formed by the various references. The shaking references of 21:10 and 28:4 have largely gone unnoticed, and the 8:24 quake is often treated in isolation from the other seismic events. Apart from Stone, there has been little done to tie the earthquakes to the larger Gospel narrative.102 That being said, these previous efforts still Jesus’s relation to Zerubbabel (1:12; cf. Hag 2:23), and that Matthew depicts the nations offering their gifts when the magi visit Jesus, who replaces the temple (Matt 2:10–12; cf. Hag 2:7); St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 123–29. As further support for reading 21:10 as a preview of the divine judgment that Jerusalem will experience at Jesus’s death, Hinnebusch (St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 31–33, 37–38) points to Matt 2:3. He argues that 2:3 previews 21:10 by describing an emotional troubling of all Jerusalem that is coupled with its rejection of Jesus. He attributes the difference in verbs to the foreshadowing function of the 2:3 pericope. 100 Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 4–5. 101 Hinnebusch, St. Matthew’s Earthquake, 3–4, 6. 102 This state of affairs is likely a reflection of the more atomistic focus of methodologies such as source and redaction criticism that were predominant in previous generations of biblical scholarship.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

provide a solid interpretive foundation upon which to build when mapping out the contours of Matthew’s largely uncharted seismic fault line. In particular, Stone’s intertextual analysis of the 8:24, 27:54, and 28:2 earthquakes, Marcus’s discussion of Matthew’s earthquake background, and Riebl’s study that integrates both historical and intertextual elements will provide helpful starting points.

D. Methodology As the attentive reader will likely have surmised, the primary instrument that this study will utilize in the seismic mapping process is narrative criticism. Specifically, it will utilize a historically informed author-oriented narrative criticism that is complemented with redaction criticism.103 Narrative criticism is particularly well suited for the study of the Gospels because it takes seriously their form as narratives.104 The Gospels are not lists of propositional truth statements, sayings anthologies, extended theological essays, ethical tractates, or mere collections of tradition with appended summaries. Rather, they are best described as a subgenre of Greco-Roman biographies that is clothed in the conventions of Jewish apocalypticism and historiography.105 As such, they contain characters, settings, and events within the 103

For an effective application of this eclectic method see Joshua E. Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar: The Father and the Son, WUNT 2/402 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). For other eclectic approaches that prioritize narrative criticism see Warren Carter, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996); Robert H. Gundry, Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). For narrative critical readings of Matthew see Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988); David B. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story: A Study in Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel, JSNTSup 42; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992); Richard A. Edwards, Matthew’s Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text Connoted Reader is Informed (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997). 104 David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 3; Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 13, 29–30, 70; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols., (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 1:8; C. Clifton Black, “Depth of Characterization and Degrees of Faith in Matthew” in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 28 (Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 608. 105 The genre classification of the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies (bioi) derives primarily from their focused presentation of the life story of a prominent individual (who is characterized by words and deeds) in a prose narrative format of a particular length. The current mainstream acceptance of this classification is due primarily to the work of Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, SNTSMS 70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); cf. Charles H. Talbert, What

D. Methodology

23

matrix of a meaningfully developing plot that climaxes in the death and resurrection of Christ.106 This entails that meaning in the Gospels is inseparably bound up with their narrative form.107 A ready example of this is found in Christology: the Gospels do not describe who Jesus is by simply recording his various traits and titles; rather, they illustrate these characteristics by incarnating them in the story-world of the text.108 As Ulrich Luz argues, the contextualization of christological titles within Matthew’s narrative generates a transformation in their semantic fields.109 Luz later states more pointedly, Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, LEC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 46–76; Dirk Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 22 (Tübingen: Francke, 1997); Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, 59–66. However, the biographical classification has not gained universal acceptance (e.g., Adela Yarbro Collins, Is Mark's Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre [Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1990] and “Genre and the Gospels,” JR 75 [1995]: 239–46; Marius Reiser, “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der antiken Literaturgeschichte,” ZNW 90 [1999]: 1–27; Luz, Matthew, 1:14–15; Nolland, Matthew, 19–22). These scholars rightly recognize that the Gospels situate the life story of Jesus within the larger narrative of salvation history, relating it regularly to the OT and focusing on God as well as the figure of Jesus, and furthermore contain apocalyptic features that were foreign to Hellenistic bioi. As such, the Gospels are better understood as a particular subgenre of bioi. Elizabeth Shively, “Recognizing Penguins: Audience Expectation, Cognitive Genre Theory, and the Ending of Mark's Gospel,” CBQ 80 (2018): 279 n. 24, provides a helpful qualification when she describes Mark’s Gospel as “a subgenre of Greco-Roman biography, that is, a biblicalhistorical biography in apocalyptic mode.” Cf. Loveday Alexander, “What is a Gospel?,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen C. Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 13–33; Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 18–35; Hagner, Matthew, 1:lvii-lvix; Keener, Matthew, 22. 106 Robert C. Tannehill, “Tension in the Synoptic Sayings and Stories,” Int 34 (1980): 148. 107 This remains true even if one does not reach the same conclusions argued above for the Gospel’s genre. One only need recognize that the Gospels are cohesive narratives as opposed to fundamentally fragmented texts. 108 For example, rather than merely stating that Jesus is humble, the Synoptics demonstrate his humility by recounting the way in which Jesus entered into Jerusalem. Cf. Larry Chouinard, “Gospel Christology: A Study of Methodology,” JSNT 30 (1987): 28, 32; Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, 48. 109 Ulrich Luz, “Matthean Christology Outlined in Theses,” in Studies in Matthew, trans. Rosemary Selle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 83. Dale C. Allison, “Structure, Biographical Impulse, and the Imitatio Christi,” in Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 147, makes the same comment with regard to Jesus’s speech, “Much of Jesus’ speech demands a narrative. The form cannot survive without the latter. As with the book of Jeremiah, content demands context. Speech requires biography.”

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

Matthew’s christology as a whole is narrative in character. The Matthean Jesus story is the new story of God’s presence with his people. Originally the christological titles functioned predicatively, stating who Jesus is. In Matthew the reverse is true: the Matthean story of Jesus functions predicatively and redefines the content of the traditional honorific titles. It “liquifies,” so to speak, the “solid” meaning of the traditional titles.110

What is true of christological titles is also true for earthquakes. The narrative soil in which each of the Matthean shaking references is planted entails that a harvest of their meaning cannot be separated from a consideration of literary elements such as plot, conflict, characterization, setting, and point of view.111 In studying these features, narrative criticism treats the text as a unified, coherent whole and considers each episode in relation to the overall story. A primary implication of the narrative critical method employed in this study is therefore the interpretive emphasis that is placed on narrative context. Rather than interpreting each Matthean shaking reference as an isolated event, as has been the tendency of modern scholarship, this study will relate the various references to each other and additionally to the Gospel’s plot and characterization. The divergence between modern scholarship and this study’s approach is well illustrated in the case of the Matt 8:24 σεισμός, which will be discussed at length in chapter three. Though cognizant of Matthew’s other earthquakes, most scholars do not bring these events to bear in their discussion of the 8:24 σεισμός. Following Bornkamm, many focus solely on the immediate context of 8:18–27 and interpret the event through the lens of discipleship, concluding that it must serve as a symbolic representation of ecclesiastical trials. In contrast, this study will argue that the 8:24 seismic event and the storm stilling should be situated within the larger context of the kingdom of heaven that is developed over the Gospel’s first nine chapters. This altered framework yields an entirely different interpretation of the event than does Bornkamm’s narrower focus. The narrative criticism utilized in this study is classified as an “author-oriented” as opposed to “text-oriented” or “reader-oriented” narrative criticism because the study seeks to discover what Matthew intended to communicate to 110 Luz, “Matthean Christology,” 85 (emphasis original). Cf. Luz, “Der ‘Christus’ der Matthäusgeschichte” in Christ of the Sacred Stories, ed. Predrag Dragutinović et al., WUNT 2/453 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 3, “Matthäus kennt keine Christologie, die an christologischen Hoheitstiteln mit einer festen Bedeutung orientiert ist. Vielmehr erzählt er eine Christo-‘Logie’, wobei sich die Bedeutung der Titel, die er aus der Tradition übernommen hat, im Laufe seiner Erzählung verändert. Es ist primär seine Geschichte und nicht die Tradition, welche den Sinn dieser Titel bestimmt” (emphasis original). 111 Stephen D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 10; Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 25; Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 5; Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).

D. Methodology

25

his readers by way of his seismic references.112 As the nomenclature suggests, the differentiation between these approaches is one related to ends versus means; all three employ the same method but do so in pursuit of different aims. The method, which is described as constructing the response of the implied reader, consists of following the map created by signals embedded in the text in order to arrive at the text’s intended destination, i.e., the meaning of the text or the “expected reading” of the text.113 The embedded signals can take the form of a direct narratorial address (e.g., Matt 24:15; John 20:30–31; Luke 1:1– 4), but more generally are embodied in literary features such as point of view, plot, characterization, and dialogue.114 On a micro-level they can also be encoded in grammar and word choice. Author-oriented narrative criticism assumes that these signals are representative of the actual author’s intentions; that is, that the response of the implied reader strongly corresponds to the meaning that the actual historical author intended to communicate to the actual historical readers.115 It thus derives the response of the implied reader to ascertain authorial intent. This is opposed to reader-oriented narrative criticism, which derives the response of the implied reader for a general sense of how readers are expected to react to the text in the interest of better understanding how and why individuals and communities adopt different reading strategies, and text-oriented narrative criticism, which treats the meaning of the text as an end in itself and relates it to neither actual author nor actual audiences.116

112 The terminology is that of Mark Allan Powell, “Narrative Criticism: The Emergence of a Prominent Reading Strategy,” in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 26–43. 113 The implied reader is an ideal theoretical construct that possesses perfect awareness of the text’s encoded signals as well as the necessary background knowledge and values to understand and assent to them. Thus, the response of the implied reader equates to the response suggested by the text. 114 In the words of Robert Tannehill, Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 1:8, “the story [was] constructed in order to influence its readers and particular literary techniques [were] used for this purpose.” Tannehill’s comment is about Luke but is equally applicable to all four Gospels. David Rhoads, Mark as Story, 1, makes a similar comment, “the writer has told the story in such a way as to have certain effects on the reader…The author…developed the characters and the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness…to generate certain emotions and insights within the reader.” In their intent to influence the reader, the Gospels were no different from other ancient bioi, whose intended effects included the impartation of moral lessons, the encomium of a subject, the imitation of exemplary figures, and the presentation, attack, or defense of a particular viewpoint. Cf. Burridge, What are the Gospels?, 145–47; Keener, Matthew, 4. 115 Powell, “Emergence,” 28; cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 42–45; Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 12. 116 See Powell, “Emergence,” and Mark Allan Powell, “Literary Approaches and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Methods for Matthew, ed. Mark Allan Powell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 55–56, 64.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

It is in the interest of both the means and the end that this study integrates redaction criticism into its author-oriented narrative critical approach. Like author-oriented narrative criticism, redaction criticism also seeks the end of recovering authorial intent. Furthermore, by juxtaposing Matthew’s Gospel with that of his Markan source to explore what textual signals Matthew has chosen to include in his narrative and how he has chosen to arrange them, redaction criticism greatly assists in the means.117 Its comparative glance provides valuable insight into how Matthew has designed his textual map, and thus greatly assists author-oriented narrative criticism in following the map to arrive at the text’s intended meaning.118 The benefits of including redaction criticism in the approach have already been demonstrated above: it is the relative absence of shaking language in Mark and Luke that truly highlights the presence of such a theme in Matthew. It should be noted that not all share the optimism of author-oriented narrative criticism and redaction criticism regarding the potential for recovering authorial intent. As many have pointed out, Markan priority is only a theory,119 117 Since it assumes the widely-accepted theory of Markan priority, this study will primary juxtapose Matthew’s Gospel with that of his Markan source. Luke’s Gospel will be consulted as a parallel (vs. source) text where appropriate to provide an additional point of comparison. 118 The value of complementing a narrative critical approach with redaction criticism has been noted by Tannehill, Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 1:6, and David Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism: Practices and Prospects,” in Characterization and the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism, JSNTSup 184 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 267. The approach employed in this study should be distinguished from composition criticism, a more holistic version of redaction criticism that emerged in the 1970s. Composition criticism also attempts to ascertain authorial intent through a narrative-level analysis that includes a consideration of redactional tendencies, but unlike the method used here, composition criticism begins with hypothetical reconstructions of the author’s theology or historical context and analyzes the text in light of these theoretical constructs. In contrast, the narrative critical approach of this study assumes the inseparability of content and form, i.e., it claims that meaning and theology cannot be divorced from the narrative context. Thus, rather than forming the starting point, narrative critical studies consider any theological inferences and reconstructions of historical context to be secondary derivatives of the Gospel text. In other words, it is the focus on the narrative that categorizes the method employed in this study as narrative criticism. For the difference between composition criticism and narrative criticism see Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 4–10. Also compare Kingbury’s narrative critical study of Matthew (Matthew as Story) with the composition critical study of William Thompson, Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Community: Mt 17,22–18,35, AnBib 44 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970). 119 Prominent arguments against Markan priority include but are not limited to alternating agreements in Mark between Matthew and Luke, and patristic testimony regarding Matthean priority; cf. William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, 2nd ed. (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1976); Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study of the Synoptic Problem (Missoula: Scholars, 1977); David L. Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the

D. Methodology

27

an uncertainty that renders redaction criticism’s contribution tenuous.120 Others have questioned the coherence of the gospel narratives or any narrative in general, thereby undercutting narrative criticism’s fundamental assumption of a unified story and consequently its derivation of meaning.121 Additionally, the absence of the original autograph entails the possibility that the version of the text under study contains later emendations not representative of the historical author’s intentions. Furthermore, as narrative critics have admitted, rather than yielding a singular “expected response,” texts are open to a range of expected readings; one can never separate the reader from the meaning derivation process.122 Finally, some have questioned if an author’s intentions can or should be recovered from any text in general.123 Interpretation of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1999); David B. Peabody, Mark as Composer, NGS 1 (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987); Allan J. McNicol, David L. Dungan, and David B. Peabody, eds., Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew; A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996); David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol, eds., One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke; A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002). 120 Powell, “Emergence,” 29. 121 Petri Merenlahti and Raimo Hakola, “Reconceiving Narrative Criticism” in Characterization and the Gospels, 13–33; cf. Rhoads, “Practices and Prospects,” 266–68, 270; Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, 1.xiii; Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 33–38. 122 Powell, “Emergence,” 24, “In practice, then, narrative criticism allows for discernment of what I call ‘polyvalence within perimeters,’ the perimeters being set by what would accord with expected responses attributable to the narrative’s implied reader.” Cf. Rhoads, “Practices and Prospects,” 269. 123 This question has impacted the field of biblical studies primarily by way of the New Criticism literary movement that flourished chiefly in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s and is represented most prominently in William K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468–88. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that “the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” (“Intentional Fallacy,” 468); they posit that the meaning of a poem derives from the text alone. In other words, they argue that even if one could determine what the author intended to say (i.e., the design or plan that was in the author’s mind) either through direct conversation with the author or the recovery of external information such as notes, journals, or correspondence, this information is irrelevant for interpretation. The text is autonomous; it says what it says regardless of what was intended. In other words, what the author meant to say may not be what the author actually said. The intentional fallacy is thus the erroneous identification between an author’s psychology and the semantics of the text. Another critique comes from Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Texas Christian University Press, 1976). Ricoeur is skeptical about the possibility of recovering authorial intention from a text. He argues that in spoken discourse, the meaning of the discourse equates to what the speaker intends and this meaning can be

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

Though important, these observations should be taken as cautionary rather than prohibitive. While Markan priority remains only a theory, it is a widely accepted theory with considerable evidence in its favor and thus can be considered a reasonable working assumption for this study.124 While Matthew’s understood by the listener because the speaker is available to provide clarification. In Ricoeur’s words, because the speaker is present, “in the genuine sense of being-there, of Dasein...the subjective intention of the speaker and the discourse’s meaning overlap each other in such a way that it is the same thing to understand what the speaker means and what his discourse means.” In written discourse, however, the author is no longer available for comment and the words of the text consequently take on a life of their own: “The authorial meaning becomes properly a dimension of the text to the extent that the author is not available for questioning. When the text no longer answers, then it has an author and no longer a speaker. The authorial meaning is the dialectical counterpart of the verbal meaning, and they have to be construed in terms of each other.” In other words, because the author is not present, texts inherently exhibit semantic autonomy, so that “the author’s intention and the meaning of the text cease to coincide…[t]he text’s career escapes the finite horizon lived by its author. What the text means now matters more than what the author meant by it” (Interpretation Theory, 29–30). Among other critiques, one can also cite Jacques Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” Glyph 1 (1977): 172–97; Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in Authorship from Plato to Postmodernity: A Reader, ed. Seán Burke (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995), 125–30; Michel Foucault, “What Is an Author?” in Textual Strategies, ed. Josué V. Harari (London: Methuen, 1979), 141–60. Responses to deconstructionist critiques can be found in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 198–452; Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 153–70. 124 Arguments in favor of Markan priority include the fact that almost the entirety of Mark’s Gospel is contained in Matthew’s account, much of it verbatim (and relatedly, that Mark lacks key events contained in Matthew such as an infancy narrative and the Sermon on the Mount but devotes significant space to what are generally considered inconsequential details); Matthew’s Greek is more polished than Mark’s; the Markan narrative sequence is generally followed by Matthew and Luke and never simultaneously rejected by them; it is easier in most cases to explain why and how Matthew redacted Mark rather than vice versa (e.g., Matt 13:58 vs. Mark 6:5); Matthew’s popularity in the early church evidences that the church saw no need for an abridgement of Matthew. For an expanded discussion see Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg: Continuum), 19–45; Christopher M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal, SNTSMS 44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Matthean scholars who endorse Markan priority include Luz, Matthew, 1:15; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 98–114; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:521; Hagner, Matthew, 1:xlvii; Nolland, Matthew, 5; Gundry, Matthew, 2–5; Keener, Matthew, 8–9; France, Matthew, 20–22; Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000), 14–15; Donald Senior, What are they Saying about Matthew? (New York: Paulist, 1983), 17–19; John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 10–12; Konradt, Matthäus, 20.

D. Methodology

29

Gospel is episodic in nature and may have been composed under different notions of unity than those espoused by modern narrative critics, it displays considerable literary artistry and coherence.125 Though the original Gospel text is not extant, the text that has been transmitted shows remarkable stability from an early date. While there is always uncertainty involved in the textual transmission of meaning, such ambiguity is overshadowed by the general efficacy of human communication. As Dale Allison states, literary texts, as the products of human beings, creatures whose public and private lives are pervaded by intentions, have the intentions of their authors encoded in them; and if we can often comprehend intentions while conversing with living human beings, we can do the same while reading sentences on a page.126

Allison’s comment is helpful here for two reasons. First, it serves as a reminder that most texts are communicative acts by a communicative agent.127 In contrast to the claims of the New Criticism movement, texts are not simply artefacts lacking a referential function or aesthetic ends in themselves.128 125 Luz, Theology of Matthew, 1–6, describes Matthew’s Gospel as a “coherent book” that should be read from beginning to end in light of its plot, narrative signals, prophecies, key words, repetition, inclusions, and cross-references. Scholars affirm the coherence of Matthew’s plot, even if they differ over its precise outline; e.g., Kingsbury, Matthew as Story; Frank J. Matera, “The Plot of Matthew’s Gospel,” CBQ 49 (1987): 233–53; Mark Allan Powell, “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel,” NTS 38 (1992): 187–204. In addition, studies such as Dale Allison’s “Foreshadowing the Passion” in Studies in Matthew, 217–36, highlight the significant degree of internal coherence that the narrative displays. Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 2–3, “The majority of recent critics agree that the author of the first Gospel has crafted his narrative with rather careful deliberation.” Rhoads, “Practices and Prospects,” 266–68, provides a helpful reminder that the Gospels need not display perfect coherence to be analyzed with narrative criticism. 126 Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 2; cf. 1–8. 127 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning, 202–3, “Let us henceforth think of meaning not as something that words and texts have (meaning as noun) but rather as something people do (meaning as verb). Better said: a word or text only has meaning (noun) if some person means (verb) something by it. ‘Meaning,’ like the word ‘act,’ refers not only to what is done but to the process of doing it…Meaning, therefore, is not an indeterminate thing, much less the intermediate state of a sleeping text that must be wakened to life, but a determinate action. What characterizes ordinary language is less the ‘freeplay’ of a sign system than a ‘rulegoverned form of behavior.’…For, with the notion of meaning as a form of action, the author returns, not in his or her Cartesian guise as an all-determining self-conscious subject, but as a communicative agent.” Cf. Jeannine K. Brown, Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007); Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse. 128 Barton’s critique of New Criticism and Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative with regards to this point is helpful, “The belief that a text is essentially an artefact, rather than a vehicle for conveying information or ideas, must take one of two forms. Either it must apply to all texts, even those which their authors would want to see in some other light (say as historiography, or some other kind of verbal discourse); and in that case New Criticism

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

Moreover, because texts are communicative acts by a communicative agent, there is a logical correspondence between meaning and intention. Using an analytical approach, Peter D. Juhl argues the following, there is a logical connection between statements about the meaning a literary work and statements about the author’s intention such that a statement about the meaning of a work is a statement about the author’s intention.129

Juhl illustrates this claim in his discussion of irony. As he points out, to classify a statement as ironic is to make a statement about authorial intention, for it presumes knowledge of what an author intended to say by a given statement.130 In addition, Juhl demonstrates that interpretive arguments that involve textual features, such as the function of themes or the coherence of a text, must by definition appeal to authorial intention; it would be illogical to argue that a motif has a certain function in a work if that work had been randomly generated by a machine.131 One cannot separate meaning from a text’s nature as a communicative act. As Juhl summarizes, “the meaning of a literary work is essentially like the meaning of a person’s speech act.”132 The second reason why the above cited comment from Allison is noteworthy is the considerable degree of optimism it displays concerning the ability of texts to transmit an author’s intended meaning.133 While critics are correct that becomes hard to distinguish from structuralism. Or – and this will strike most people as more sensible – only some texts are correctly seen as ‘artefacts,’ as beautiful verbal objects, rather than as discourse conveying something beyond itself. In the second case we shall find ourselves asking how the two kinds are to be distinguished; and before we know where we are we shall be trying to find out which kind the author was trying to write. Then we shall be perfectly free to ask such natural questions as, Was St. Mark trying to produce a work of art, or to inform his readers about Jesus? But we shall not be New Critics after all” (John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. and enl. ed., [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 166). Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 166, is also correct to point out that New Criticism was focused on poetry in particular as opposed to literature in general. “Like most literary critical theories…New Criticism may have tended to speak as though it had discovered the final truth about all possible combinations of words on paper, but in fact it was devised with quite a narrow range of texts in mind, and very quickly led to a preference for the kinds of texts most amenable to its methods. Biblical critics have, I suspect, been less quick to see this than have their colleagues in literary studies, and so have applied what amounts to a New Critical approach with too heavy a hand to biblical texts for which it is rather ill-suited.” 129 Peter D. Juhl, Interpretation: An Essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 12 (emphasis original). 130 Juhl, Interpretation, 63. 131 Juhl, Interpretation, 66–89. 132 Juhl, Interpretation, 240. 133 As Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 148, notes, this optimism has been shared across the field of biblical studies for centuries, “All historical-critical work in biblical studies, it is not too much to say, depends on this notion [that we can learn from a text what its

D. Methodology

31

the potential for misinterpretation increases in written discourse,134 to conclude that an author’s intended meaning cannot possibly shine through a fog of words and sentences is surely an overstatement.135 From a pragmatic standpoint, what use would be served by scholarly books and articles, emails, birthday cards, traffic signs, or civic and criminal laws if these entities were not ultimately tied to an author and an intended meaning? Rather than jettisoning the notion of authorial intent in textual interpretation, it is better to pursue it with humility and caution, recognizing that the potential for misinterpretation is ever present, just as it is with the interpretation all human speech and action. Here too Allison proves a helpful guide, This is not to say that intent is everywhere retrievable. All too often obscurities cannot be banished … Nor is it to deny that knowledge of an author’s intent is anything other than author intended to communicate]. The great, and liberating, achievement of biblical criticism has been to establish, for a large number of texts, what the original author(s) meant as against what the text had traditionally been taken to mean by the Church, the synagogue or precritical interpreters.” This optimism continues to permeate biblical scholarship; for evidence of its continued existence one need not look further than the common assertion found in almost every commentary on Matthew’s Gospel that by way of the introductory genealogy and the numerous fulfillment citations, Matthew is claiming that Jesus fulfills the story of Israel. 134 See especially Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 142– 44, correctly critiques Ricoeur’s distinction between spoken discourse (which assumes the speaker is present to provide clarification) and written discourse (which assumes the author is not). He notes that in some instances, such as a lecture, the speaker is present but the listener is not able to ask for clarification and thus the potential for misunderstanding is similar to Ricoeur’s account of written discourse. On the other hand, written discourse can allow for the type of clarification that Ricoeur reserves for spoken discourse (e.g., exchanging letters or scholarly conversations that take place in journals). While Ricoeur would protest that the quote from Allison cited above on page 41 is mistaken in assuming such continuity between written and spoken discourse, it is interesting to note that in practice, Ricoeur seems closer to Allison than to his own theory: in his introduction to Interpretation Theory (xi-xii), Ricoeur appears to assume that the reader of the book will be able to arrive at the same, or at least a similar, understanding of his argument as the audience of Texas Christian University who encountered the argument as spoken discourse in the form of lectures given between 27–30 November 1973. 135 For critiques of Ricoeur, see Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning, 214–17; Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 130–52. For additional arguments regarding the recoverability of authorial intention see Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 148–79; Lynn M. Poland, Literary Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics: A Critique of Formalist Approaches (Chico: Scholars, 1985), esp. 65–97; Gerald Graff, Literature against Itself: Literary Ideas in Modern Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 129–49; Frank Lentricchia, After the New Criticism, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 213–54; Denis Dutton, “Why Intentionalism Won’t Go Away” in Literature and the Question of Philosophy, ed. Anthony J. Cascardi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1987), 194–209; Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 500–521.

32

Chapter 1: Introduction

provisional (all historical knowledge is such) or to affirm that the object of interpretation is someone else’s mind, however construed. What I do maintain is that an author gives a text its ‘core of determinate meanings,’ or substantive content must thus cohere with the author’s intentions, and that consequently those intentions have a special claim on our attention.136

Thus, while one must always cross the bridge of assumption to travel from the response expected by the text to the intention of the actual author, in the case of Matthew’s Gospel the chasm separating the two does not appear insurmountably vast. In other words, although the conclusions generated in this study cannot be said to correspond exactly with the intentions of the historical author, they would still appear to provide a reasonable estimation. A final characteristic of the author-oriented narrative criticism employed in this study is that it will be historically informed. Though some have argued that narrative critical studies should bracket out any information that is not present in the text,137 it is widely recognized that a responsible narrative criticism must be historically literate.138 As Mark Allan Powell explains, narratives contain information on two levels, that of (a) the story setting, “things revealed within the narrative itself” and (b) the discourse setting, “matters that would have been common knowledge in the world that produced the story – things that the historical author probably would have assumed ‘everybody knows.’” 139 The significant temporal and cultural divide standing between the Gospels and the modern interpreter entails that the narrative’s discourse setting cannot be reconstructed without consideration of historical context. The primary way that this study will cultivate historical awareness is by striving to maintain a constant and acute sensitivity to the way that Matthew’s Gospel is influenced by the Jewish scriptures. As Graham Stanton correctly observes of Matthew, “the OT is woven into the warp and woof of this gospel.”140 From the first until the last, the first Gospel is saturated through and

136

Allison, The New Moses, 3. Edwards, Matthew’s Narrative Portrait of Disciples; Wimsatt and Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy.” 138 Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 29; Rhoads, “Practices and Prospects,” 268; John R. Donahue, “Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a Sackgasse?” in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament, ed. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight, JSNTSup 109 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 45; Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 28–29, 44, 48. 139 Powell, “Emergence,” 24 n. 11; cf. Powell, “Literary Approaches,” 65–66. An example of knowledge relating to the story setting would be knowledge of the fact that Jesus makes multiple predictions of his crucifixion prior to it taking place, while an example of knowledge relating to the discourse setting would be knowledge of what crucifixion entailed, why it was practiced, and how it was perceived. 140 Graham N. Stanton, “Matthew,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars, ed. Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 205. 137

D. Methodology

33

through with the language and symbolism of the OT.141 This comes as no surprise, for as the genealogy and plethora of fulfillment citations make clear, Matthew is engaged in the massive project of demonstrating how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus represents the fulfillment of Israel and the OT. As R. T. France has aptly stated, these two aspects form only the tip of the iceberg with regards to Matthew’s fulfillment project, The formula-quotations are simply one expression of the total fulfillment theology which undergirds Matthew’s presentation throughout, surfacing sometimes in formal quotation, sometimes in verbal echo, sometimes in the way the story is told so that any reader acquainted with the Old Testament will be set thinking about ongoing patterns in the work of God.142

It follows that a proper understanding of Matthew’s Gospel, and his seismic references in particular, cannot be divorced from a consideration of relevant background in the OT. Furthermore, as France’s observation indicates, such consideration will have to take into account means of communication that are more subtle than formula quotations. To this end, the method put forth by Richard Hays for discerning intertextual allusions and echoes will be of particular assistance.143 In short, Hays provides 141 Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 43, “The symbols of the NT are fundamentally those of Judaism, to the extent that the first Christian writings can fairly be considered part of the first-century Jewish literature.… The framework, or symbolic world, shared by all Jews was that found in Torah.” Cf. Donald Senior, “The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Re-Assessing Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament with the Passion Narratives as a Test Case,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 89–115; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:29–57; Warren Carter, “Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15–16,” JBL 119 (2000): 503–20; Richard Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel, SNTSMS 123 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 14–24; Ulrich Luz, “Intertexts in the Gospel of Matthew,” HTR 97 (2004): 128–30; Crowe, The Obedient Son, 6–38; Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 10. 142 Richard T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 184–85. 143 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32; Hays, Echoes in the Gospels, 10–12. Ultimately Hays does not differentiate between echoes and allusions; he classifies the latter as more obvious and therefore more indicative of authorial intention (Echoes in Paul, 29). Intertextuality can be defined as “the study of how a given text is connected with other texts (broadly understood) outside of itself and how those texts affect the interpretation of the given text;” B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise, “Diverse Strategies for New Testament Intertextuality” in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts, ed. B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016), xii. That being said, it is noted that definitions of intertextuality can vary considerably; Wim J. C. Weren, Studies in Matthew’s Gospel: Literary Design, Intertextuality, and Social Setting, BibInt 130 (Boston: Brill, 2014), 91–106.

34

Chapter 1: Introduction

seven criteria for identifying an echo or allusion of a source text within a receptor text: (1) availability of the source text to the author and/or original readers; (2) volume: degree and prominence of lexical or syntactical overlap between the source and receptor texts; (3) recurrence: additional uses of the source text elsewhere in the receptor text; (4) thematic coherence: degree of conceptual correspondence between the source and receptor texts; fit of the echo in the argument of the receptor text; (5) historical plausibility: rejection of anachronistic interpretations; (6) history of interpretation: extent that other readers, both critical and pre-critical, have heard the echo; (7) satisfaction: an admittedly subjective criterion relating to the resonance of the interpretation with the modern reader. As Hays demonstrates in his own work, this method can bring into interpretive focus sections of the OT text that are not directly cited in the receptor text but nevertheless exert an influence. This study will therefore utilize Hays’s method when exploring Matthew’s discourse setting, though with two qualifications. First, in light of Leroy Huizenga’s reminders about textual instability and additional sources of tradition beyond the OT, this study will differ from Hays by allowing for the potential of allusions and echoes from sources other than the OT and LXX in particular.144 Second, given Hays’s reminder that not all intertextual connections originate in the mind of the author, this study will exercise caution in correlating echoes and allusions with authorial intent.145 Only those that meet the majority of Hays’s criteria will be considered in the interpretive project.

E. Summary In sum, Matthew’s narrative terrain is uniquely laced with two interrelated seismic fault lines, one concerning the shaking of the earth (8:24; 27:51, 54; 28:2), the other concerning the shaking of people (21:10; 28:4). Found only in the first Gospel, these unique fault lines run parallel to Matthew’s plotline and christological identity motif (e.g., 8:27; 14:33; 16:16; 21:10; 27:54). They form the heart of a larger Matthean seismic motif that additionally encompasses the earthquakes (24:7) and cosmological shaking (24:29) of the eschatological discourse. The goal of this study is to ascertain what literary function is served by Matthew’s seismic motif, i.e., what Matthew intends to communicate by including 144 Leroy A. Huizenga, The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew, NovTSup 131 (Boston: Brill, 2009), 61–63. However, Matthew’s preoccupation with the OT suggests that the majority of echoes and allusions will come from that source. 145 Hays, Echoes in Paul, 26–29, lists five potential sources: (1) the mind of the author, (2) the original readers, (3) the text itself, (4) any individual reader, (5) a contemporary community.

E. Summary

35

the seismic references in his Gospel.146 To this end, the study will employ a historically informed author-oriented narrative criticism that is integrated with redaction criticism to analyze the relationships that Matthew’s seismic references have to each other and to the overall narrative, with a specific focus on the references that are unique to Matthew’s Gospel. More specifically, the study will explore intratextual relationships relevant to Matthew’s seismic references, assess how the references relate to literary devices such as plot and characterization, and probe what background (primarily the OT) may animate their expression. Owing to its task and method, this study is well positioned to contribute to the field of Matthean scholarship, which has tended to isolate Matthew’s seismic references under the influence of historical critical methods. Having sketched the outline of Matthew’s seismic motif in this introductory chapter, the study will now turn to a discussion of the conceptual framework that undergirds Matthew’s shaking language.

146

One could instead formulate this goal by way of the following questions: Is a seismic subplot present in the Matthean narrative? If so, what does it tell us, and how does it relate to the overall Matthean narrative? Though not a trivial endeavor, establishing the historicity of the σεισμοί that Matthew reports is irrelevant to the task at hand.

Chapter 2

Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production To ascertain why Matthew has painted a seismic rift into the landscape of his Gospel narrative, it is helpful to examine the palette from which he drew in the act of composition. In other words, to better understand the narrative logic underlying Matthew’s shaking references, one must first reconstruct Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia for shaking language.1 With regards to shaking, the encyclopedia represents the full range of potential connotations that such terminology carried in Matthew’s culture; as such, it delineates the spectrum of interpretive options for Matthew’s shaking references. By observing which of these encyclopedic connotations display significant resonance with the Gospel’s narrative context, one can obtain a reasonable estimation of how such language is employed in Matthew’s Gospel.2 This chapter will attempt to reconstruct Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia for shaking language; subsequent chapters will analyze the Gospel narrative to locate the seismic resonance. Given that the encyclopedia represents the full spectrum of cultural knowledge for shaking language, its reconstruction necessitates an examination of both the biblical and nonbiblical traditions that are representative of Matthew’s culture. This chapter will therefore survey the connotations that shaking language carries in the OT, early Judaism (Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Josephus, Philo), early Christianity (the NT, the Apostolic Fathers), and GrecoRoman literature (from 200 BCE to 200 CE). This list has obviously been organized along etic lines; the above categories would not have been recognized as such by Matthew. In addition, a number of the texts that will be canvassed postdate Matthew’s Gospel. None of this is problematic, however, since the primary purpose of the survey is to establish the range of shaking connotations that existed in Matthew’s cultural milieu rather than to establish literary dependence.

1

The concept of the cultural encyclopedia, also referred to as an encyclopedia of production, was pioneered by Umberto Eco. For a helpful summary of Eco’s theory, see Huizenga, The New Isaac, 21–41. 2 Thus, the narrative context remains the primary determinant of meaning. Cf. Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 29.

A. The Old Testament

37

That being said, with regards to the OT, it is appropriate to consider cases of literary dependence.3 The fulfillment quotations alone provide unequivocal evidence of Matthew’s heavy reliance on the Jewish scriptures to present the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the continuation and fulfillment of Israel’s story.4 Given Matthew’s primary engagement with this corpus, the connotations carried by shaking language in the OT merit the most extensive discussion and must be considered the primary influence on Matthew’s narrative. The reconstructed seismic encyclopedia will be organized primarily along the lines of terrestrial and anthropological shaking, since Matthew’s seismic motif prioritizes both earthquakes (8:24; 24:7; 27:51, 54; 28:2) and the shaking of people (21:10; 28:4). In addition to these two primary sections, a third “catch all” section will also be included to discuss shaking occurrences that are neither terrestrial nor anthropological in nature. Matthew’s references to the shaking of a reed (11:7) and the shaking of the powers of heaven (24:29) would fall into this third category.5 With regards to the shaking language, the survey will focus on the terms σεισμός, σείω, and σαλεύω, since they constitute the seismic vocabulary of Matthew’s Gospel.6 Although earthquakes and human shaking can be alternatively expressed (e.g., LXX Ps 45:3: ταράσσω; Jer 4:24: τρέμω; ταράσσω), the fact that all of Matthew’s unique seismic references employ either σείω or σεισμός indicates that the specific terminology is important. In addition, restricting the scope to σείω, σεισμός, and σαλεύω serves pragmatic interests by keeping the project manageable. Other seismic expressions will be considered on occasion, including references in non-Greek texts, but will not constitute the focus of the study.

A. The Old Testament I. Earthquakes7 Like the land of Palestine that it often describes, the literary landscape of the OT is frequently subject to earthquakes. The majority of the tremors are located in the Psalms and the Prophets but are by no means confined to these areas. 3

This chapter will present relevant OT passages, while later chapters will explore literary dependence on a case by case basis. 4 Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 17–19; Crowe, The Obedient Son, 6–10; Hays, Echoes in the Gospels, 10. 5 As argued in 1.B, the 11:7 reference does not belong to Matthew’s seismic motif. It is mentioned here solely to illustrate the classification of encyclopedic references. 6 For justification of this claim see 1.A and 1.B. 7 As stated above, the survey has been organized according to etic rather than emic categories. The Deuterocanonicals, which form part of the LXX, will be treated as a separate category in 2.A.IV for ease of reference.

38

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

Though an earthquake can simply describe a natural geological phenomenon (Amos 1:1), most earthquake references in the OT convey a deeper significance.8 As the Psalms especially make clear, the earth is fundamentally characterized by stability, a trait that is derivative of its Creator and Sustainer, The LORD is king, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed, he is girded with strength. He has established the world; it shall never be moved (οὐ σαλευθήσεται; ‫)בל־תמוט‬ (Ps 93[92]:1; cf. Ps 96:10; 1 Chr 16:30).

An earthquake therefore represents one of the most poignant expressions of a threat to the divinely established structure of reality. On occasion, this undesirable situation can be figuratively attributed to an anthropological source. Proverbs 30:21 lists four situations that cause the earth to be shaken (σείεται; ‫)רגזה‬, all of which relate an unnatural reordering of human affairs. Likewise, Ps 82:5 states that the foundations of the earth are shaken (σαλευθήσονται; ‫ )ימוטו‬because humans walk around in the darkness of ignorance. Much more prevalently, however, the shaking of the earth is caused by God himself. Nearly every earthquake that occurs in the OT is linked to either the appearance of God or a non-theophanic description of his intervention. When God is said to shake the earth, it is predominantly an expression of his incomparable power and majesty: only the one who endows the earth with stability is able to upset its foundations. Along these lines, earthquakes also describe the magnitude and significance of God’s intervention: so great are the repercussions of God’s action that the very foundations of reality are disturbed. 1. Theophany Richard Bauckham has suggested that a paradigmatic event underlying the OT’s robust association between earthquakes and divine intervention is the Sinaitic appearance of God (Exod 19:16–20).9 In this instance God descended upon the mountain of Sinai as fire, with smoke billowing upward as from a furnace. His appearance was accompanied by a thick cloud, lightning and thunder, the sound of trumpets, and moreover by a trembling (‫ )חרד‬of the entire mountain (Exod 19:18) and of the entire camp of Israel (19:16). The occasion behind this theophany was the founding of Israel as a nation through the bestowal of the Mosaic Torah and the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant; 8

It should be noted that even the geological reference of Amos 1:1 ties into a more comprehensive seismic theme that runs throughout the book of Amos and carries over into the Book of the Twelve. See Katharine J. Dell, “Amos and the Earthquake: Judgment as Natural Disaster” in Aspects of Amos: Exegesis and Interpretation, eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Andrew Mein (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 1–14; R. Reed Lessing, “Amos’s Earthquake in the Book of the Twelve,” CTQ 74 (2010): 243–59. 9 Richard Bauckham, “The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John,” NovT 19 (1977): 224–26; cf. Lessing, “Amos’s Earthquake,” 244.

A. The Old Testament

39

moreover, it marked the first and only time that the entire nation interacted directly with God. The theophany is thus pivotal in its importance. It is interesting to note, however, that the shaking in this scene is not described by ‫רעש‬, the typical Hebrew term for an earthquake, and in the LXX it is not mentioned at all. Additionally, as Bauckham recognizes, in the Deut 5:4–5 retelling of the event, neither the MT nor the LXX records seismic activity. These observations would appear to attenuate the link between the Sinai event and other seismic theophanies. However, as Bauckham points out, the magnitude of the Sinai quake grows in later retellings of the event (e.g, Ps 68:8; 77:17), and by 4 Ezra 3:18 has become the focal point of the incident.10 An earthquake is also connected with a theophany at Mount Sinai in the experience of the prophet Elijah. As God once directed Moses (Exod 33:21– 23), so also he directs Elijah to stand out on Mount Horeb (Sinai) so that Elijah can witness God passing by. When Elijah positions himself, a series of phenomena unfold that are reminiscent of God’s appearance before Israel on Sinai (Exod 19:16–19): there is a great wind, an earthquake (συσσεισμός; ‫)רעש‬, and fire (1 Kgs 19:11–12). Though God is repeatedly stated to not be present in these spectacles, this only indicates that God’s presence is not contained in the phenomena. The elements still form part of the theophany; they simply play the peripheral role of setting the stage for his appearance rather than encapsulating it.11 A more prominent connection between an earthquake and a theophany is found in the Song of Deborah, which describes the salvific advent of God as being accompanied by excessive shaking and rain, LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the region of Edom, the earth trembled (ἐσείσθη; ‫)רעשה‬ and the heavens poured, the clouds indeed poured water. 5 The mountains quaked (ἐσαλεύθησαν; ‫)גזלו‬ before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel. (Judg 5:4–5; cf. Ps 68:7–10; 77:16–18; 114:7)

10 Bauckham, “Eschatological Earthquake,” 224–25. One should add to this that the Sinai theophany is also highlighted as a seismic event in Heb 12:26 and possibly Judg 5:4–5. 11 Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1996), 276; Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 453, 457 n. 2; Lissa M. Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, ApOTC 9 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 254. Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 232, states that each of the phenomena manifests divine power but simultaneously conveys the impossibility of capturing God’s presence within a form. Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Waco: Word, 1985), 237, considers the phenomena part of the theophany.

40

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

While the Judg 5:4–5 description of God’s advent may draw upon the events of the exodus,12 what is more important to note is how these verses highlight earthquakes as a predominant manifestation of a particular type of theophany, the march of the divine warrior. Likely stemming from ancient Near Eastern cosmological myths, the divine warrior motif is one that stretches across the entire Hebrew Bible.13 In addition to its paradigmatic appearance in Judg 5:4– 5, it is also featured paradigmatically in Exodus 15, which describes God as a man of war who manipulates the Red Sea to devastate his martial opponents. Key features of the divine warrior motif include either a cosmic battle or a divine military procession that is accompanied by various cosmic phenomena (such as earthquakes), establishment of God’s temple in Zion, and mention of his reign.14 In Psalm 18 (// 2 Sam 22), the divine warrior’s appearance is described through an interweaving of images from the exodus event, the Sinai theophany, and Judg 5:4–5. David states that his distressed cry prompted a divine procession marked by massive seismic activity, then the earth reeled and rocked (ἐσαλεύθη καὶ ἔντρομος ἐγενήθη; ‫)ותגעש ותרעש‬, the foundations of the mountains trembled and quaked (ἐταράχθησαν καὶ ἐσαλεύθησαν; ‫ירגזו‬ ‫)ויתגעשו‬, because he was angry. (Ps 18[17]:8)

God’s coming is also marked by smoke and fire (18:8), the darkness of thick rain clouds (18:11), and an array of lightning and thunder (18:13–14).15 With regards to Matthew’s Gospel, it is interesting to note that God’s deliverance is described as rescuing David from mighty waters (18:6) and is said to involve a maritime reproof, “Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the

12 Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 208, finds a reference to the Red Sea in the water imagery of Judg 5:4 and the shaking of Mount Sinai in Judg 5:4–5. Trent C. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 138, instead speculates that the imagery may be derived to function as a polemic against the Canaanite storm god Baal of Mount Zaphon in the north. 13 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 93; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 8–63; Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 300. For the use of the divine warrior motif in the OT, see Ps 2; 9; 29; 46; 47; 48; 65; 76; 97; 104; 110; Isa 11:1–9; 34:1–35; 42,10–16; 43,16–21; 51,9–11; 52,7–12 in addition to the examples discussed below. 14 Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 300; Miller, The Divine Warrior, 117. The cosmic battle is frequently depicted as a Chaoskampf, where God squares off against the primordial sea (Ps 29:10; 65:7; 77:16–20; 89:9–10; 104:3, 5–9; Isa 51:9–11). 15 Cf. Ps 97:2–5, which also links a theophany of Israel’s God with the shaking (ἐσαλεύθη;‫ ;ותחל‬97[96]:4) of the earth, clouds and darkness, lightning, and fire.

A. The Old Testament

41

foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke (ἐπίτιμησις), O LORD, at the blast of the breath of your nostrils” (18[17]:16; cf. Matt 8:24–26). The prophets likewise link earthquakes with a theophany of the divine warrior. Habakkuk 3:6 says that at the coming of God to enact judgment on Cush and Midian and rescue his people, the earth was shaken (ἐσαλεύθη; ‫)וימדד‬, the nations trembled (διετάκη; ‫)ויתר‬, the mountains were shattered, and both the nations (3:12) and sea were divinely trampled (3:15). A similar set of images is found in Nahum 1, where God is said to come in wrathful judgment. His appearance once again involves a rebuke of the rivers and sea (1:4) and is described as generating massive seismic upheaval (1:5). The mountains are said to quake (ἐσείσθησαν; ‫ )רעשו‬before him and the hills to waver (ἐσαλεύθησαν; ‫)התמגגו‬. His wrath pours out like fire and breaks rocks in pieces (αἱ πέτραι διεθρύβησαν; ‫ ;והצרים נתצו‬1:6). His way is in the whirlwind, clouds, and storm (1:3). Micah records similar phenomena in conjunction with the coming of the divine warrior (1:4). He declares that the mountains will shake (σαλευθήσεται; ‫ )נמסו‬and dissolve like wax near the fire (1:4) when God appears in judgment to punish Israel and Jacob for their sins, leaving Samaria a heap of ruins (1:5– 6). Isaiah also connects seismic imagery with the divine warrior’s advent. God’s judgment upon Babylon is described as the Day of the Lord, a day that involves the darkening of the heavenly bodies, the trembling (θυμωθήσεται; ‫ )ארגיז‬of the heavens, and the shaking (σεισθήσεται; ‫ )ותרעש‬of the earth from its foundations (13:13; cf. 13:6, 9). On this terrible day the divine warrior comes with his army to fight against all sinners and leave Babylon a desolated waste (13:5). However, for the people of God, the coming of the divine warrior on the Day of the Lord represents God’s compassion and restoration to the promised land (14:2). Isaiah 24 presents a similar scenario but one that is expressly universal in scope; in this instance God promises to overthrow the entire world order. The judgment described in this Day of the Lord passage is again connected with the wrathful march of the divine warrior, “For the LORD comes out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity” (Isa 26:21; cf. 24:17, 21). The magnitude of the judgment is such that cosmic terms are needed to describe it, For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble (σεισθήσεται; ‫)ירעשו‬. 19 The earth is utterly broken (ταραχῇ ταραχθήσεται; ‫)רעה התרעעה‬, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken (- ; ‫)מוט התמוטטה‬.

42

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

20 The earth staggers (σεισθήσεται; ‫ )נוע תנוע‬like a drunkard, it sways (ἒκλινεν; ‫ )התנודדה‬like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again. (Isa 24:18–20)

In this event, the earth itself is caught up in God’s judgment because it has been polluted by the sin of its inhabitants (24:5). In addition to violently shaking it apart, God also promises to lay waste to the earth and make it desolate (24:1, 3). Beyond the terrestrial chastisement, God’s judgment is also said to include a darkening of the sun and moon (24:23).16 The return to darkness and destruction of the earth collectively represent an undoing of the created order and a return to primordial chaos. However, in addition to the destruction that the day brings for sinners, it also entails salvation for God’s elect (25:9).17 God promises to punish the chaos monster Leviathan, the great dragon of the sea (27:1) and to destroy death and wipe away every tear and disgrace (25:7–9). In addition, God states that he will manifest his glory before his elders (24:23),18 host a banquet for all nations on Mount Zion (25:6), glorify the nation of Israel (26:15), and even raise the righteous dead (26:19). In Isaiah 29, God causes Jerusalem to be surrounded by her enemies in a siege. Laid out before the city like a cloud of dust, these enemies threaten Jerusalem’s survival and lay low the city’s pride. At the point of certain doom, God appears, accompanied by a host of storm-related phenomena that includes an earthquake, And in an instant, suddenly, you will be visited by the LORD of hosts with thunder and earthquake (σεισμοῦ; ‫ )רעש‬and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire. (Isa 29:5c–6)19

The theophany represents the turning point in Jerusalem’s fate: God’s appearance causes the enemy to flee, leaving in their wake only the stain of a fearful memory (Isa 29:7–8).20 A similar situation is described in Ezekiel 38–39, which depicts the eschatological confrontation between God and his enemies as a great battle between God and the forces of Gog. The prophecy declares that in the latter days (i.e., the eschaton), God will cause the army of Gog to array itself in power and 16

Hebrew text only. Brevard Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 181, states that the judgment ushers in the dawn of the new age. 18 This also attests to a theophany in Isaiah 24. 19 As discussed in 1.A, σεισμός here represents the trembling of the earth from thunder as opposed to an overall description of the storm. 20 The scattering of the enemy indicates that this is a theophany of redemption, as opposed to a theophany of judgment; cf. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39, Westminster Bible Companion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 230; Childs, Isaiah, 217–18; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 264; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 67. 17

A. The Old Testament

43

might against Israel, at which point God will decisively intervene (Ezek 38:1– 18). The divine warrior’s appearance is said to generate a great earthquake that shakes the entire created order, For in my jealousy and in my blazing wrath I declare: On that day there shall be a great shaking (σεισμὸς μέγας; ‫ )רעש גדול‬in the land of Israel; 20 the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the animals of the field, and all creeping things that creep on the ground, and all human beings that are on the face of the earth, shall quake (σεισθήσονται; ‫ )ורעשו‬at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the cliffs shall fall, and every wall shall tumble to the ground. (Ezek 38:19–20)

In the final battle that ensues, God destroys Gog to usher in an age of peace, one that includes the manifestation of God’s glory to all nations (Ezek 38:23; 39:6–7, 21–23), an eschatological banquet (39:17–20), the restoration of exiled Israel (39:25–28), and a renewed relationship between God and his people (39:29). In the book of Joel, seismic activity is once again observed in conjunction with the appearance of the divine warrior on the Day of the Lord. In this book, a single Day of the Lord is narrated in two sections: Joel 2 outlines how the Day of the Lord will affect unrepentant Israel,21 while Joel 4 describes how it will affect the nations.22 Joel 2 utilizes the locust imagery of Joel 1 to describe the Day of the Lord as a fearsome army that is led against Israel with the divine warrior roaring at its head (2:11).23 The army’s approach is said to make the earth tremble (συγχυθήσεται; ‫ )רגזה‬and the heavens shake (σεισθήσεται; ‫)רעשו‬, and to darken sun and moon (2:10). The entity represents an unstoppable force

21 The sins requiring repentance are not mentioned in Joel. Those who repent are to be distinguished from the rest of Israel; these will find refuge on the Day of the Lord (Joel 3:5). 22 Paul-Gerhard Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheten, BZAW 366 (New York: de Gruyter, 2006), 174–78; Raymond Bryan Dillard, “Joel,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas McComiskey, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990), 1:277–78, 286, 294; cf. Ronald Simkins, Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book of Joel, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 10 (Lewiston: Mellen, 1991), who errs in reading Joel 1 as part of the Day of the Lord but nevertheless recognizes that a single day is in view in Joel 2, 3, and 4. It is not universally acknowledged that Joel presents a single Day of the Lord, however. 23 The historical locust plague described in Joel 1 (i.e., the present threat to the original audience) is used to foreshadow the ultimate threat facing Israel: the eschatological Day of the Lord; Dillard, “Joel,” 1:277–78, 286, 294; Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos, ed. S. Dean McBride, Jr., trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 40–42; David A. Hubbard, Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 25 [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989], 56 n. 14; Daniel J. Simundson, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 133–34, though this is not universally acknowledged (e.g., John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 69– 70).

44

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

that destroys everything in its path (2:3), including all who refuse to repent (2:11). Joel 4 utilizes much of the same imagery to describe how the Day of the Lord will be experienced by the nations. In this case, God is said to draw all the nations into the valley of Jehoshaphat where he sits ready to execute judgment. When they draw near, the sun, moon, and stars all cease to shine (4:15), and the divine warrior roars from Jerusalem, causing the heavens and the earth to be shaken (σεισθήσεται; ‫ ;ורעשו‬Joel 4:16).24 Thus, for Israel’s enemies, divine intervention on the Day of the Lord spells disaster (4:19). Joel declares that it is only the repentant, those who call upon the name of the Lord, that will be saved on the great and terrible Day of the Lord (3:5; cf. 2:11–12). For these figures, the Day of the Lord represents salvation and blessing, the receipt of God’s spirit (3:1–2), deliverance from enemies (4:1–16), and economic abundance (4:17–18).25 Zechariah 14 presents yet another episode in this theme. This passage also describes a divine drawing of Israel’s enemies to Jerusalem on the Day of the Lord. The city is once again brought low, though in this case its plight includes pillaging and the exile of half the city’s inhabitants. At this point, the divine warrior is said to appear on the Mount of Olives to do battle with the enemy and deliver his people. His stance upon the mountain causes it to split in two, creating a valley that serves as an escape route for the holy city’s remaining inhabitants. The urban residents are said to flee like they fled from the earthquake (σεισμός; ‫ )רעש‬in the days of Uzziah (Zech 14:5), at which point God and his army descend upon Jerusalem to reclaim the city and usher in an era of peace.26 2. Excursus: The Day of the Lord As the attentive reader will have observed, many of the seismic accounts discussed above are united by a shared conceptual framework, the Day of the Lord (Isa 13; 24–27; Ezek 38–39; Joel 2–4; Zech 14). The Day of the Lord motif extends beyond these specific passages to span the entire prophetic corpus and

24 Note the significant degree of overlap observed between 2:10–11 and 4:15–16; cf. Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, 175. 25 Note that cosmic imagery is also associated with the positive side of the Day of the Lord (3:3–4). Just as the historical locust plague (Joel 1) foreshadows the eschatological threat to Israel (Joel 2:1–11), so also the economic recovery from the historical locust plague (2:18–27) foreshadows the blessing that can follow the eschatological Day of the Lord (3:1– 5; 4:1–18); Wolff, Joel and Amos, 60; Dillard, “Joel,” 1:278, 294; Simundson, Joel, 139–40. 26 While the σεισμός in this eschatological account technically refers back to the historical geological event of Amos’s day (Amos 1:1), the reference nonetheless adorns Zech 14 with seismic significance. Furthermore, even if the earthquake had not been explicitly mentioned, the cleaving of the mountain in two surely represents a seismic event.

A. The Old Testament

45

even acts as the central organizing concept of the Book of the Twelve.27 Given its prevalence and especially the strong correlation it displays with earthquakes, it will be fruitful to briefly explore the Day of the Lord concept. The specific phrase ‫“( יום יהוה‬the Day of the Lord”) occurs on 16 occasions in the Hebrew Bible, all of which are translated in a straightforward manner in the LXX.28 In addition, a variety of other expressions are also utilized to reference the concept.29 Among these alternatives are ‫“( יום ליהוה‬the day to the Lord”),30 ‫“( יום אף יהוה‬the day of the wrath of the Lord”),31 ‫“( יום נקם ליהוה‬the day of the vengeance of the Lord”),32 and ‫“( ביום ההוא‬on that day”).33 When one 27 Rolf Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1997 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 420–32; idem, “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 186–97; Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve, JSOTSup 97; BLS 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990); Lessing, “Amos’s Earthquake,” 253. 28 Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18 (2x), 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14 (2x); Mal 3:24. The LXX translates ‫ יום יהוה‬with ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου in Isa 13:6, Amos 5:18, and Zeph 1:14, ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου in Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, and Zeph 1:7, and ἡμέρα κυρίου in Isa 13:9, Ezek 13:5, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 3:4, 4:14, Obad 15, Zeph 1:14, and Mal 3:24. 29 For a more comprehensive list of expressions see James D. Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul R. Redditt and Aaron Schart (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 193–95; Richard H. Hiers, "Day of the Lord,” ABD 2:82–83; Nicola Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn: Ein Beitrag zur Gerichtserwartung im Neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 28–30; Tobias Nicklas and Michael Sommer, “‘Der Tag des Herrn ist schon da’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – Ein Schlüsselproblem zum Verständnis des 2. Thessalonichbriefs,” HTS Teologiese Studies 71 (2015): 3–4. 30 Isa 2:12 (ἡμέρα κυρίου); Ezek 30:3 (ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου); cf. Zech 14:1 (ἡμέραι ἔρχονται τοῦ κυρίου). 31 Zeph 2:2 (ἡμέραν θυμοῦ κυρίου), 3 (ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς κυρίου); Lam 2:22 (ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς κυρίου); cf. ‫“( יום עברת יהוה‬the day of the wrath of the Lord”): Ezek 7:19 (n/a); Zeph 1:18 (ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς κυρίου). 32 Isa 34:8 (ἡμέρα γὰρ κρίσεως κυρίου); cf. ‫“( היום ההוא לאדני יהוה צבאות יום נקמה‬that day to the Lord God of hosts, the day of vengeance”): Jer 46:10 (ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡμέρα ἐκδικήσεως). 33 The expression ‫ ביום ההוא‬occurs 206 times in the Hebrew Bible, with the majority of occurrences (170) in the prophets; Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH,” 194. Outside of the latter prophets, the phrase almost universally references past events and does not describe the Day of the Lord (e.g., Gen 26:32; Exod 5:6). Within the prophets, especially the latter prophets, it often points to a future event, and in many, but certainly not all, cases describes the Day of the Lord (e.g., Isa 2:11, 17, 20; 24:21; 25:9; 26:1; 27:1–2; Ezek 38:10, 14, 18, 19; 39:11; Hos 1:5; Joel 4:18; Amos 8:3, 9, 13; Obad 8; Zeph 1:9, 10; 3:11, 16; Hag 2:23; Zech 9:11; 12:3; 13:1; 14:4). One can readily observe the equivalence of the phrases ‫יום יהוה‬ and ‫ ביום ההוא‬in the book of Amos, which correlates both expressions with darkness (Amos 5:18, 20; 8:9); cf. Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” 205; Wendebourg, Tag des Herrn, 28–29.

46

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

considers the extent of the various references, which point to numerous different events, it quickly becomes apparent that “there is no ‘one’ Day of YHWH” but rather an assortment of different Days of the Lord that all belong to the same conceptual framework.34 Though it varies in the specific forms of its expression, in every instance the Day of the Lord describes a dramatic act of divine intervention.35 The significance of the intervention is such that it alters the course of history, either at a national (e.g., Jer 46:10) or global level (e.g., Isa 24–27). The motivation behind the divine intrusion is likewise uniform; it is always a response to human wickedness.36 The Day of the Lord is the administration of divine justice, which is meted out to correct the course of history by addressing human wickedness. As such, the Day of the Lord inescapably involves divine judgment and spells disaster for those who array themselves against the will of God. In many cases, it is the pagan nations who face divine judgment on the Day of the Lord. For example, Obadiah decrees a Day of the Lord against Edom (Obad 8), Isaiah announces days of the Lord against Assyria (10:20, 27), Babylon (13:6, 9), Egypt (19:16), and Edom (34:8), while others describe a Day of the Lord that involves judgment on all the nations (Ezek 38; Joel 4; Zech 12, 14; Zeph 2; 3:6, 8).37 However, it is not only gentiles who are targeted by the Day of the Lord. Amos warns Israel that it will experience God’s wrath on the Day of the Lord unless it repents (Amos 5:18, 20). Likewise, Isaiah describes a Day of the Lord against Judah (3:7, 18) and a Day of the Lord against Israel (7:18, 20), and Joel declares that Judah will experience the Day of the Lord along with the nations (Joel 2, 4).38 In the case of Malachi, the Day of the Lord is not delineated along nationalistic lines but rather at the level of the individual (Mal 3:17– 34 A. Joseph Everson, “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, 168 n. 10; cf. James D. Nogalski, “Recurring Themes in the Book of the Twelve: Creating Points of Contact for a Theological Reading,” Int 61 (2007): 125; Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, 281. 35 Nogalski, “Recurring Themes,” 126; Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 174, “the day of the Lord signifies first and foremost Yahweh’s intrusion into human affairs.” Harold H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament (New York: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1950), 179 (cited in George Eldon Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism [Waco: Word, 1964], 54–55), describes the Day of the Lord “as the time of the divine breaking into history in spectacular fashion. While God was believed to be always active on the plane of history, using Nature and men to fulfil his ends, the Day of the Lord was thought of as a day of more direct and clearly manifest action.” 36 Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn, 74–75, describes this as rebellion against divine authority. In some accounts, the specific grounds for intervention are not explicitly mentioned. 37 Cf. Jer 47:4 (note the σεισμός in the prior verse); 48:41; 49:22, 26; 50:27; Ezek 21:29; 30:9; Zeph 2:1–15; 3:8. 38 Cf. Ezek 7:10, 19; 13:5; Zeph 1:7–8.

A. The Old Testament

47

21).39 Regardless of the recipient, in almost every scenario the judgment is administered directly by God himself. It is for this reason that the Day of the Lord concept is so tightly intertwined with the divine warrior motif: the Day of the Lord describes the coming of God as divine warrior to implement justice by battling against his enemies, the wicked. In these scenarios, the divine warrior is either said to appear on his own (e.g., Isa 26:21; Ezek 38:19; Mal 3:1) or at the head of an army (e.g., Joel 2:11; Zech 14:5; Isa 13:4–5); in either case, the coming of God as divine warrior forms the focal point of the image. The Day of the Lord concept is thus closely tied with judgment and theophany.40 Though it is undoubtedly a great and terrible day (Joel 3:4; Mal 3:23), representing judgment and destruction for the wicked, the Day of the Lord is also an occasion for rejoicing: for the righteous, the event means salvation and blessing.41 For example, Joel, Zechariah, and Haggai all declare that the destruction of the nations on the Day of the Lord will be accompanied by salvation and flourishing for the people of God (Joel 4; Zech 12; 14; Hag 2:21–23). In the Day of the Lord of Obadiah, Zion reaps the benefits that come from Edom’s destruction (Obad 17–21), and in Isaiah’s account of the Day of the Lord against Assyria, Israel is blessed when the former is judged (Isa 10:20– 23; cf. 14:1–2). Similarly, in Malachi the judgment of the wicked on the Day of the Lord is juxtaposed with the salvation of the righteous (Mal 3:17–21). Thus, while the wicked experience the Day of the Lord as divine judgment and destruction, the righteous find refuge in God and experience the Day of the Lord as salvation (e.g., Joel 3:5; Zeph 2:3; Mal 3:17). This dualistic outcome is logically consistent: by nature, the divine eradication of the wicked and sin equals an act of deliverance and blessing for the righteous (Isa 34:8). In addition, the divine eradication of evil clears the way for the bestowal of further divine blessings that manifest in human flourishing. Thus, it can be stated on a general level, and especially in later accounts, that the Day of the Lord describes a dualistic intervention of God to judge the wicked and bless the righteous.42 39 Cf. Isa 2:11–22. The individualistic delineation of the Day of the Lord along the lines of the righteous and wicked becomes more prominent in Second Temple Literature; Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn, 129–34, and Nicklas, “Der Tag des Herrn,” 6. 40 Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, "The Day of the Lord: Aspiration for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy," ScrHier 31 (1986): 362–66. 41 Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn, 70–72. Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord,” 360, describes the Day of the Lord as “the day on which God will appear to save his people and the entire world; i.e., to rule over the whole earth as he ruled over Israel during the Exodus and the revelation at Sinai, and as he revealed himself to save Israel in the wars.” It must be noted that in some accounts, such as Amos 5:18, 20 and Lam 2:1, 21–22, a salvific dimension of the Day of the Lord is not explicitly present. 42 Though the varied forms of the Day of the Lord caution against any form of rigid classification; cf. Wendebourg, Tag des Herrn, 70–72; Schwesig, Die Rolle der TagJHWHs-Dichtungen, 302–3. Yair Hoffman, “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term

48

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

It can also be said at a general level that the Day of the Lord motif evolves across the prophetic corpus.43 In what is likely the foundational description of the concept,44 Amos describes the Day of the Lord as a localized historical event: the event is anticipated in the near future and only Israel is targeted.45 Similarly, Obadiah predicts a Day of the Lord that will occur against Edom in the normal course of history (Obad 8). In some instances, the Day of the Lord has even occurred in the past, such as those relating to the defeat of Egypt (Jer 46:10) and the destruction of Jerusalem (Lam 2:1, 21–22; Ezek 13:5). By the time of the post-exilic prophets, however, one finds descriptions of the Day of the Lord that are eschatological in nature and universal in scope (these accounts will be termed the eschatological Day of the Lord).46 In these instances, the Day of the Lord represents the turn of the ages. Initiating with divine judgment against all wickedness, whether it be embodied as all of the nations (Hag 2; Zech 14; Joel 4; Ezek 38) or all of the wicked (Mal 3; Isa 24–27), the Day of the Lord then shifts in these accounts to describe a qualitatively different era, in which God is enthroned as king and his kingdom is fully established on earth (Joel 4; Zech 14; Isa 24–27; Ezek 38–39; Hag 2:23).47 This subsequent

in the Prophetic Literature,” ZAW 93 (1981): 43, comments that the expression ‫ יום יהוה‬is “quite an apt one [since] [i]t is a neutral and equivocal phrase, capable of expressing both calamity and salvation. At the same time it directs the audience’s perception towards a phenomenon, at the center of which is the Lord.” 43 Joseph A. Everson, “The Days of Yahweh,” JBL 93 (1974): 336; Hoffman, “The Day of the Lord,” 46, 48; Martin Beck, “Der Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions und Redaktionsgeschichte, BZAW 356 (New York: de Gruyter, 2005), 315; though John Barton, “The Day of Yahweh in the Minor Prophets,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honor of Kevin J. Cathcart, ed. Carmel McCarthy and John F. Healy, JSOTSup 375 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 72–73, argues that the Day of the Lord concept has always been eschatological and universal. 44 Barton, “The Day of Yahweh,” 68; Rendtorff, “Alas for the Day,” 187. 45 It is possible that Amos’s conception of the Day of the Lord contains an eschatological dimension as well as a historical one; cf. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 62–63. 46 Wendebourg, Tag des Herrn, 85, 151–52. Everson, “Days of Yahweh,” 336, notes that “in the late post-exilic era the portrayals of the Day of Yahweh tend to become more and more cataclysmic and universal in character under the influence of apocalyptic thought.” Eschatological and universal descriptions of the Day of the Lord are also found elsewhere, such as in Joel, Isa 24–27, and Ezek 38–39 (the dating of Joel is of course uncertain). The Day of the Lord accounts of Zeph 1 and Isa 13 are more difficult to interpret. In these cases, it would appear that cosmic imagery is utilized to describe a localized historical event, though it is possible that eschatological themes are also present; cf. George E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 64, who observes that history and eschatology can be mixed to the point of inseparability in the prophetic Day of the Lord. 47 Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord,” 366–67, “it seems likely that the belief in a future redeeming revelation lies at the heart of the Day of the Lord prophecies… this revelation is bound up with a last judgment in which even Israelite evildoers will not be spared. The

A. The Old Testament

49

kingdom era, in which God’s rule is fully realized without opposition, is replete with divine blessing and human flourishing, manifesting for example in the removal of sickness, disabilities, and death (e.g., Isa 25:7; 26:19; 29:18–19), unprecedented holiness (e.g., Isa 4:3–4; Joel 4:17 [LXX]; Zech 13:1; 14:20– 21), prosperity (e.g., Isa 4:2; 25:6; Joel 4:18 LXX; Amos 9:13–15), peace (e.g., Isa 2:4; 11:1–10; Ezek 39:9), and the inclusion of the gentiles within the people of God (e.g., Isa 2:2–3; 25:6; Zech 14:16).48 The eschatological Day of the Lord is thus conceptualized as the implementation of the Kingdom of God on earth. It describes God’s direct intervention to judge wickedness and subsequently to establish his divine kingdom in uncontested fullness on earth.49 Finally, it should be noted that cosmic imagery is often utilized to describe the Day of the Lord. As has been noted above (2.A.I.1), the Day of the Lord is frequently connected to terrestrial upheaval in the form of earthquakes. In addition, the event is frequently said to involve the collapse of the celestial luminaries. Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah all declare that the Day of the Lord will be a day of darkness (Joel 2:2; 4:15; Zeph 1:15; cf. Amos 5:18, 20; 8:9); the former adds that it will involve the blood and fire and columns of smoke, with the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood (Joel 3:3–4). Isaiah likewise states that on the Day of the Lord, the sun, moon, and stars will fail to give their light (13:10; cf. 24:23) and later adds that the host of heaven will rot away and the skies roll up like a scroll (34:4). The potential significance of such imagery is multifaceted. In the case of Amos, the darkness of the Day of the Lord underscores the fact that, contrary to Israel’s expectations, the day will be one of judgment (darkness) rather than salvation (light). In Joel, the combination of clouds, darkness, fire, and seismic activity may allude to the Sinai central aspect of the revelation is the sanctification of God's name and the establishment of the God of Israel as King of the earth.” 48 It must be noted, however, that the specific prophetic accounts vary with regards to these elements. For example, the Hag 2:22 eschatological Day of the Lord references the defeat of the nations, while Isa 25:6 refers to their inclusion. 49 Some scholars conceive of the eschatological Day of the Lord solely as the act of divine intervention for judgment and do not include the subsequent establishment of God’s kingdom within its delineation. For example, George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 11, describes the Day of the Lord as “the occasion of God’s intervention in judgment upon the nations, bringing an end to man’s rebellion and initiating the period of God’s saving sovereignty (e.g., those in Joel 2 and Isa. 13–14). It forms the boundary between history and the kingdom of God.” It should be noted, however, that eschatological Day of the Lord accounts such as Isa 24–27, Ezek 38–39, Joel 2–4, and Zech 14 refer to a single day (e.g., “on that day”) when describing both divine judgment and the subsequent divine blessings associated with the kingdom (e.g., Isa 24:21; 25:9; Ezek 38:10, 14, 18, 19; 39:11, 22; Joel 4:14, 18; Zech 14:1, 4, 6, 8, 20, 21). In addition, one finds elements of divine judgment and divine blessings intermixed in accounts such as Isa 24–27. Thus, it would appear that the eschatological Day of the Lord involves both God’s judgment and his subsequent establishment of the divine kingdom.

50

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

event in order to highlight the drastic and theophanic nature of the Day of the Lord (e.g., Joel 2:2, 3, 10; cf. Isa 13:10).50 In eschatological Day of the Lord accounts such as Isa 24–27 and Joel 4:15–16, the shaking of the earth and the dissolution of the sun and stars may describe the undoing of the old created order which is supplanted by the new. In all of these instances, the cosmic imagery accentuates the radical nature of the Day of the Lord event. 3. Non-Theophanic Divine Activity While earthquakes are commonly connected to divine intervention in the form of theophany, they are also found to attend acts of divine activity that do not involve a manifestation of God’s presence. In these cases, the earthquakes form a sign of God’s intervention and thereby mark the event as one of significance. For example, David describes God’s judgment on Israel as destabilizing the earth through seismic activity, O God, you have rejected us, broken our defenses; you have been angry; now restore us! 4 You have caused the land to quake (συνέσεισας; ‫ ;)הרעשתה‬you have torn it open; repair the cracks in it, for it is tottering (ἐσαλεύθη; ‫)מטה‬. 5 You have made your people suffer hard things; you have given us wine to drink that made us reel. (Ps 60[59]:3–5)

It is clear from the context that the seismic language symbolically conveys God’s actions rather than his presence. The latter part of the Psalm confirms this, stating that it is precisely because God has not gone out with Israel’s army that they have been subjected to frustration. Jeremiah likewise connects earthquakes with divine activity that does not involve a theophany. In Jeremiah 8, God summons an enemy army to punish Jerusalem for its sins and refusal to repent. The army that comes is massive; at the sound of its horses the whole land is said to shake (ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ γῆ; ‫רעש‬ ‫ ;כל־הארץ‬8:16). Similarly, a great shaking (σεισμὸς μέγας; ‫ )רעש גדול‬attends the approach of an army from the north that God sends to enact his judgment on Jerusalem (Jer 10:22).51 In Jeremiah 50–51, God details his plans to judge Babylon for her sins against Israel by way of a nation from the north that will overthrow Babylon and leave it a desolate wasteland. So momentous is the divinely orchestrated occasion that the entire earth is said to be shaken (σεισθήσεται; ‫ )נרעשה‬at the sound of Babylon’s capture (50[27]:46; cf. 49:21[30:15]; 51[28]:29). In all these instances, the shaking attends the coming of armies that

50

Ralph W. Klein, “The Day of the Lord,” CTM 39 (1968): 518; Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord,” 362. Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord,” 360–61, also connects the darkness/light motif of Amos 5:18 with theophany, claiming that Amos is reorienting Israel’s expectations of theophanic deliverance. 51 The shaking is presumably of the earth.

A. The Old Testament

51

execute God’s judgment, thereby connecting earthquakes with divine intervention. An earthquake is more directly connected with God’s activity in the book of Haggai. In Hag 2:6–10, God promises to act in the interest of establishing a second temple. His intervention is described in seismic terminology; God states that he will shake (σείσω; ‫ )מרעיש‬the heavens and the earth, the sea and dry land (Hag 2:6).52 Shortly thereafter God repeats his seismic promise to describe another aspect of his intervention, Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I am about to shake (σείω; ‫ )מרעיש‬the heavens and the earth [LXX adds the sea and dry land], 22 and to overthrow the throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall fall, every one by the sword of a comrade. 23 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, son of Shealtiel, says the LORD, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the LORD of hosts. (Hag 2:21–23).

The repetition of the shaking language indicates that God’s actions in Hag 2:6– 10 coincide with his actions described in 2:22–23. The latter include the overthrow of the nations and the installment of a messianic figure to rule as God’s agent.53 All of these events are said to happen on “that day,” which presumably refers to the eschatological Day of the Lord. II. Anthropological Shaking In addition to the shaking of the earth, the OT also contains references to the shaking of people, cities, and nations. Such vibratory motion is almost 52 The shaking of the sea in this prophecy is striking; the verb σείω is used to describe the shaking of the sea only in Hag 2:6, 21, though it is elsewhere described by σαλεύω (Amos 8:12; Ps 95:11; 97:7; Jdt 16:15). 53 This is suggested by the Hag 2:23 reference to “my servant,” which in the singular was used particularly of David (1 Kgs 11:34; 2 Sam 3:18; Ps 78:80; Ezek 34:23; 37:24. The expression also refers to the Servant of the Lord in Isa 40–55, a figure that is also linked with Jesus in Matt 8:17 and 12:18) and by the reference to being chosen, which was applied only to David (2 Sam 6:21) and Saul (1 Sam 10:24). For a messianic interpretation of Hag 2:23 see Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: Based on the Revised Standard Version, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 32; Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 146; Hinckly G. Mitchell, John M. P. Smith, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 78. Pace those who reject this conclusion because there is no explicit mention of anointing, king, or messiah (John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud, VTSup 91 [Boston: Brill, 2002], 235–38, 240; Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988], 106) or because the agent is passive, ruling only after God’s overthrow (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B [New York: Doubleday, 1987], 83).

52

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

uniformly negative; it predominantly connotes destruction and is frequently connected with divine judgment. While the shaking of an individual can simply denote drunkenness (Isa 28:7) or fear (LXX Ps. 32:8; 47:6; 95:9; 106:27; Job 4:14), it more often is connected with judgment or denotes destruction. For example, the psalmist describes his death as being shaken, Consider and answer me, O LORD my God! Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death, and my enemy will say, “I have prevailed,” my foes will rejoice because I am shaken (σαλευθῶ; ‫)אמוט‬. (Ps 13[12]:4–5; cf. Ps 36:12).

The idiom of a foot being shaken is also utilized in the Psalter as a reference to an individual’s demise: If the LORD had not been my help, my soul would soon have lived in the land of silence; 18 when I thought, “my foot is slipping (σεσάλευται; ‫)מטה‬,” your steadfast love, O LORD, held me up. (Ps 94[93]:17–18; cf. Ps 38:17; 73:1–3)

Though the above references connect shaking to human enemies, individuals are also shaken in connection with divine judgment. Job shakes (σείομαι) in fear when he anticipates God’s judgment (Job 9:28 LXX; cf. Jer 23:9). God’s judgment on Jerusalem reduces the city’s inhabitants to trauma victims who stagger (ἐσαλεύθησαν; ‫ )נוע‬through the city’s streets and ultimately throughout the entire earth (Lam 4:14–15; cf. Ps 109[108]:10; Zech 12:2; Hab 2:16 LXX). A similar connotation is observed for the shaking of cities. In the LXX, the king of Assyria’s arrogant boast concerns his self-attributed ability to remove the boundaries of peoples, plunder their treasures, and shake (σείσω) inhabited cities (Isa 10:13 LXX).54 In this context, the shaking can only describe overthrow or destruction. Similarly, God’s judgment of the Ammonite capital Rabbah is said to involve the shaking of the city, “So I will kindle a fire against the walls of Rabbah; it shall devour her foundations with shouting on the day of battle; she will be shaken (σεισθήσεται) in the day of her destruction” (Amos 1:14 LXX).55 Likewise, the city of Tyre is shaken in the day of its demise. God promises to punish the city by bringing against it the vast and powerful army of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. When this force breaches the city gates, the rumble of the chariots will cause the very walls of the city to shake (σεισθήσεται; ‫ ;תרעשנה‬Ezek 26:10). The destruction of the city immediately

54

Rather than shaking inhabited cities, the MT has the third part of the boast as bringing down those on thrones. 55 My translation. The MT has “So I will kindle a fire against the wall of Rabbah, fire that shall devour its strongholds, with shouting on the day of battle, with a storm on the day of the whirlwind” (NRSV).

A. The Old Testament

53

follows the shaking and in turn creates a seismic ripple that spreads outward, shaking (σεισθήσονται; ‫ )ירעשו‬the surrounding coastlands (Ezek 26:15).56 What is true for cities is also true for nations. While fear appears to be described by the shaking of all people in Ezek 38:20, the majority of references to the shaking of people groups connote judgment or destruction. For example, Isaiah describes the king of Babylon’s power as the ability to shake kingdoms. He declares that after God’s judgment has been carried out on the king of Babylon, those who see him will ask, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble (παροξύνων; ‫)מרגיז‬, who shook (σείων; ‫ )מרעיש‬kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew (καθεῖλεν; ‫ )הרס‬its cities, who would not let his prisoners go home?” (Isa 14:16b–17)

The parallelism makes clear that a shaken kingdom is a kingdom that has been overthrown or destroyed. The statement highlights the king’s power: in the act of shaking kingdoms and making the world like a desert, the king resembles God, who promises to shake the earth and make it a desolation because of Babylon’s arrogance (13:9, 13). The majority of the time, it is God who shakes nations. In the LXX, God’s judgment on the nation of Israel is described as shaking, “The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel; he shook them (ἐσάλευσεν αὐτούς; ‫ )ויענם‬and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had banished them from his presence” (2 Kgs 17:20).57 Similarly, the OT also describes God’s judgment of Israel using the idiom of a shaken foot (2 Kgs 21:8 // 2 Chr 33:8). Other nations are also shaken by God’s judgment. In Zech 12:2, God promises to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering (σαλευόμενα; ‫ )רעל‬to all the surrounding peoples (cf. Jer 51[28]:7).58 In the LXX, Moab’s judgment by God is also connected with seismic language; Moab’s survivors go up the ascent of Luhith weeping and traverse the road to Horonaim crying out that they have experienced shaking (σεισμός) and destruction (Isa 15:5 LXX). In the eschatological prophecy of Hag 2:7, God promises to shake (συσσείσω; ‫ )והרעשתי‬all nations so that their treasure will come and fill the new temple with splendor. Though the passage doesn’t elaborate on exactly what this shaking entails, multiple commentators interpret the treasure of the nations as the spoils of holy war,59 and in the Hag 2:21–23 prophecy that is connected to Hag 2:6–7 through the motif of shaking,

56 Cf. Ezek 31:16, where all the nations shake (ἐσείσθησαν; ‫ )הרעשתי‬when God brings about Assyria’s fall. 57 NRSV, with the exception of “shook” instead of “punished.” 58 That the shaking describes God’s destructive judgment is made clear by the surrounding context (Zech 12:3, 6, 9). 59 Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 103; Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 53.

54

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

the nations are overthrown by God. Thus, the shaking of the nations in Hag 2:7 is a potential reference to their defeat. In contrast, the OT declares that those who trust in God will never be shaken. Proverbs 3:26 states that God is able keep one’s foot from slipping (σαλευθῇς; ‫)לכד‬. The psalmist declares that he will never be shaken (σαλευθῶ; ‫ )אמוט‬because God is with him (Ps 16[15]:8). Similarly, the author of Psalm 62 vows that he will not be shaken (σαλευθῶ; ‫ )אמוט‬because he has taken refuge in God (Ps 62[61]:3). The Psalter also declares that those who trust in God will be like Mount Zion, which can never be shaken (σαλευθήσεται; ‫ ;ימוט‬Ps 125[124]:1; cf. Ps 21:8). While the wicked believe they will never be shaken (σαλευθῶ; ‫)אמוט‬, in actuality God sees their oppression of the poor and will judge them for it (Ps 10:6[9:27]).60 Thus, in the Psalms, it is only the righteous who are unshakeable (οὐ σαλευθήσεται; ‫ ;לא ימוט‬Ps 112[111]:6). It is only those who walk blamelessly, speak truth, honor God’s people, and refuse interest and bribes that will never be moved (σαλευθήσεται; ‫ ;ימוט‬Ps 15[14]:5). Cities are also unshakeable when they are indwelt by God. Psalm 46(45):5 states that Jerusalem will never be shaken (σαλευθήσεται; ‫ )תמוט‬because God is in her midst. The city’s steadfastness forms a stark contrast with the surrounding context: the verses preceding describe the upheaval of the created order, with a convulsing earth, trembling mountains, and the turbulent waters of a roaring sea (Ps 46[45]:3–4). The verses that follow describe the uproar of nations and kingdoms and the subsequent shaking of the earth at the sound of God’s voice (Ps 46[45]:7–8). Similarly, Isa 33:20 LXX describes Jerusalem as a wealthy city with tents that will never be shaken (σεισθῶσιν).61 The following verses explain that the city’s stability is ultimately derivative of the greatness of God, who is judge, ruler, king, and savior (33:21–22). It is also significant that the vision of Jerusalem as an unmovable city is seen in place of the sight of Israel’s enemies (Isa 33:19), whom God has burned away like chaff (33:10– 12). III. Other Shaking In addition to earthquakes and the shaking of people, the OT also contains a number of other shaking references. In some instances, the references are neutral, conveying only a literal image.62 Others, however, are invested with more 60

Cf. Isa 40:20, which describes the idol worshiper’s desire to create an image that will never topple (σαλεύηται; ‫)ימוט‬. As the surrounding context makes clear, this is a desire that can never be realized. 61 The MT describes Jerusalem as a quiet dwelling, a tent that will never be moved, with pegs that will never be uprooted. 62 These include the rattling (σεισμοῦ; ‫ )לרעש‬of a javelin (Job 41:21), the shaking (σαλευθῇ; ‫ )נוע‬of trees in the wind (Isa 7:2), and the shaking (σαλευθῶσιν; ‫ )ינועו‬of ripe figs from a tree (Nah 3:12).

A. The Old Testament

55

significance. The great rumbling (φωνὴν σεισμοῦ μεγάλου; ‫ )קול רעש גדול‬that is emitted by the rubbing of the living creatures’ wings and the adjacent wheels occurs in a theophany that is experienced by Ezekiel (3:12–13).63 The rattling (σεισμός; ‫ )רעש‬of bones is a sign of a non-theophanic redemptive divine intervention (Ezek 37:7).64 In this vision, God brings Ezekiel to a valley filled with dry bones that symbolize the exiled and despairing Jewish nation. God then commands Ezekiel to prophesy a divinely enabled resurrection to the bones, at which point there is a rattling and the bones come together in human form and subsequently are restored to a state of vitality. Divine redemptive activity is also signified by the sound of the Philistine army marching (συσσεισμοῦ; ‫ )צעדה‬in 1 Chr 14:15, as it comprises the sign that God has gone forth to fight for David and his men. In many cases, the references are linked to judgment. Isaiah 19:1 records the shaking (σεισθήσεται; ‫ )ונעו‬of Egyptian idols that results from a theophany of judgment. Isaiah 17:4 LXX declares that on the day that Damascus is judged, the riches of Jacob’s glory will be shaken (σεισθήσεται) and eclipsed. The rumbling (σεισμός; ‫ )רעש‬of chariot wheels characterizes the approach of an army that God has sent to enact judgment upon the Philistines (Jer 47[29]:3) as well as the approach of an army that God sends to destroy Nineveh (Nah 3:2). In Amos 9:1, God commands the prophet to strike the capitals in a prophetic gesture until the thresholds shake (σεισθήσεται; ‫)וירעשו‬. The scene describes a divine shaking of the temple following the prophetic gesture, one that results in the death of worshipers inside the edifice and precedes divine judgment by the sword.65 While it is unclear if the temple referred to in this scene is that of

63 In Ezekiel’s first theophanic vision, these wheels and creatures were located directly under God’s throne, with the sound emitted by the creatures’ wings comparable to many waters, the voice of the Almighty, and the tumult of an army (Ezek 1:1–28). The correspondence between the two accounts indicates that the great rumbling of Ezek 3:12–13 is an accompaniment of the appearance of God. 64 The σεισμός/‫ רעש‬could also be interpreted as an earthquake instead of a rattling. Rabbi Phineas follows this track in Pirqe R. El., “Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, caused His voice to be heard, and the earth shook, as it is said, ‘And as I prophesied there was a thundering, and behold an earthquake.’” Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer: (the chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the great): according to the text of the manuscript belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna, trans. Gerald Friedlander (New York: Bloch, 1916), 249. 65 That a temple is in view is indicated by the fact that the Lord is standing next to the altar in Amos’s vision and the parallel term πρόπυλα is commonly used of Greek and Egyptian temple entrances. Glenny, Amos, 149.

56

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

Bethel or Jerusalem,66 in either case, the collapse of the structure represents the undoing of the most stable and secure place on earth.67 IV. Deuterocanonical Books68 The majority of the seismic references in these texts are anthropological in nature, though earthquakes are also mentioned on several occasions.69 One finds earthquakes linked to theophany, as for example in Sir 16:18–19, which describes the shaking (‫ ;רגש‬σαλευθήσονται) of heavens, the deep, and the earth at the visit of God, as well as the shaking (‫ ;רעש‬συσσείονται) of mountains and the earth’s foundations (cf. Sir 43:16; Jdt 16:15). In addition to this theophanic connotation, an earthquake can signal a coming divine intervention (LXX Esth 11:4), act as personified mourning for the earth’s inhabitants (1 Macc 1:28), or function as a neutral reference to a natural event (Sir 22:16; 1 Macc 9:13). The majority of shaking references relate to people. In some cases the shaking relates to emotion. People can shake (‫ ;מוג‬σαλεύω) from fear, as the Jews did before Sennacherib (Sir 48:19) and as the army of Judas did when it heard the marching of Eupator’s army (1 Macc 6:41; cf. 1 Macc 4:32).70 Humans can additionally shake (σαλεύω) from being emotionally overwhelmed, as Holofernes did from lust (Jdt 12:16) and Antiochus did from surprise and despair (1 Macc 6:8). In addition to conveying emotion, anthropological shaking can also convey destruction. Sirach states that when a rich man is shaken (‫ ;מוט‬σαλευόμενος), 66 For Bethel see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB24 (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 680; Jeffrey Niehaus, “Amos,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, Volume 1: Hosea, Joel, and Amos, ed. Thomas E. McCormiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990), 479; D. Kelly Ogden, “The Earthquake Motif in the Book of Amos,” in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications of the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, BEATAJ 20 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992), 76; Dell, “Amos and the Earthquake,” 5. For Jerusalem see W. Edward Glenny, Amos: A Commentary Based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 148; Göran Eidevall, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24G (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 228. 67 Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary, trans. Douglas W. Stott, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 156–57, states that when God shakes the temple, “the world itself comes unhinged.” Cf. Dell, “Amos and the Earthquake,” 5. 68 As stated above in 2.A, the survey has been organized according to etic rather than emic categories. The Deuterocanonicals, which form part of the LXX, have been included here as a separate category for ease of reference. 69 References to objects being shaken are minimal. Ben Sira states that a bad wife is like a yoke that chafes (σαλευόμενον; Sir 26:7), thus using the term in a neutral sense to describe a natural motion. 70 In contrast, Elisha is said to have never been shaken (ἐσαλεύθη) before any ruler or intimidated by anyone (Sir 48:12).

A. The Old Testament

57

he is supported by his friends, but when a poor man falls (‫ ;מוט‬πίπτω), he is pushed away by his acquaintances (Sir 13:21). Later it is stated that the tongue has shaken (ἐσάλευσεν) many individuals, destroyed cities, and overturned the houses of the great (Sir 28:14). According to Sirach, comfort also has this destructive power; comfort is said to have destroyed many who were prosperous, tossing them about (ἐσάλευσεν) like waves of the sea (Sir 29:18). Likewise, Wis 4:4 describes the ungodly as insecure seedlings who will be shaken (σαλευθήσεται) and uprooted by the wind; their memory will come to nothing. A related but independent meaning is present in 4 Macc 17:3, where a σεισμός appears to reference a trial. In this instance, the mother who lost her seven sons and her own life to torture is praised for having been unwavering in the σεισμός of the tortures. The context is destruction, but the specific reference in this case refers to the ordeal that the heroic mother endured rather than her demise. As a description of her trial, the seismic reference may include elements of the emotional and destructive connotations observed above; both would certainly be present in the mother’s horrific ordeal. V. Summary In sum, the OT contains references to earthquakes, the shaking of people and cities, and the shaking of various objects. Earthquakes almost unanimously occur as an accompaniment of divine intervention. In most cases, they convey the power and greatness of God, who alone is able to shake the earth from its foundations. In most cases earthquakes attend a theophany, especially that of the divine warrior (e.g., Judg 5:4; Ps 18:8; Nah 1:5), though they can also signal that a non-theophanic form of divine intervention is taking place (e.g., Hag 2:6; Jer 8:16). The appearances and actions of God to which earthquakes point can be intended for judgment,71 redemption,72 or most frequently, a combination of both. For example, God’s seismic activity in the book of Haggai includes both redemption and judgment (Hag 2:6, 21). Likewise, the earthquake inducing march of the divine warrior routinely brings about Israel’s deliverance through a defeat of Israel’s enemies. In some instances, the divine warrior’s seismic march is described as a historical event (Judg 5:4–5; Ps 18:8; 68:9; 77:19; Isa 29:1–8; Hab 3:2–15). However, in the prophets it is almost universally connected to the eschatological Day of the Lord, an event that encompasses both a universal judgment and salvation at the turn of the ages (Isa 24:18–20; Ezek 38:19; Joel 2:10; 4:16 LXX; Zech 14:5). 71 E.g., Ps 60:4; Jer 8:16; 10:22; 49:21[30:15]; 50[27]:46; 51[28]:29; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Amos 9:5. 72 The theophany of Exod 19:16–19 is redemptive as it is connected to God’s deliverance of Israel and is intended to solidify the covenantal relationship between God and Israel so that God can bless the entire human race (Gen 12:1–3). When describing this event, Exod. Rab. 29.9 states that the whole earth trembled when God spoke words of life.

58

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

When it comes to people or cities, shaking is almost uniformly negative.73 A shaken person, city, or nation is usually an entity that has experienced ruin. Shaking is often connected to God’s judgment. In the OT, those who are not aligned with God are those who experience this destructive oscillation. In contrast, those who align themselves with God are invested with his stability and thus are not able to be shaken. These summary observations hold for both the Hebrew text and LXX. When it comes to seismic language, the Hebrew text and LXX exhibit a considerable degree of similarity. The LXX consistently utilizes σείω as a translation equivalent for the verb ‫ רעש‬and σεισμός for the noun ‫רעש‬.74 In addition, the LXX maintains the context and connotation of the shaking references that are found in the Hebrew text. If one is pressed to find a difference between the Hebrew text and LXX, one could point to a slightly expanded use of anthropological shaking language to connote destruction in the LXX. This trend is summarized in the following table, with the significant differences italicized. Table 2: Expanded Use of Anthropological Shaking Language in the LXX Text

Hebrew Text

LXX75

Isa 10:13b

I remove the boundaries of peoples and plunder their treasures; like a bull I bring down (‫ )ואוריד‬the inhabitants.

I remove the boundaries of peoples and plunder their treasures; I shake (σείσω) inhabited cities.

Isa 17:4

And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low, and the fat of his flesh will grow lean (‫)ירזה‬.

And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low, and the fat of his glory shall be shaken (σεισθήσεται).

Isa 33:20

Your eyes will see Jerusalem, an untroubled habitation, a tent that shall not be moved (‫;)יצען‬ its stakes will never be pulled up, nor will any of its cords be broken.

Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a rich city, tabernacles that shall not be shaken (σεισθῶσιν), the stakes of its tabernacle will never be moved, nor will any of its cords be broken.

73 In the Deutercanonicals, one also finds anthropological shaking used to describe emotion in addition to a destructive connotation (see 2.A.IV). 74 Σείω is the translation equivalent for the verb ‫ רעש‬on nineteen occasions while σεισμός is the translation equivalent for the noun ‫ רעש‬on eleven occasions. The only instance where the LXX does not utilize σεισμός as a translation equivalent for the noun ‫ רעש‬is Ezek 12:18 (ὀδύνη), though interestingly σεισμός is found here in Aquila. Exceptions with regards to the verb ‫ רעש‬are also rare: Ezek 27:28 (φοβέω), Jer 4:24 (τρέμω), Ps 46[45]:4 (ταράσσω), Hag 2:7 (συσσείω), Ps 60[59]:4 (συσσείω), and Sir 16:19 (συσσείω). In some instances (Isa 9:5; Jer 10:10; Ps 72[16]:16; Job 39:20, 24), the divergence between the Hebrew text and LXX is too great to identify a translation equivalent for ‫רעש‬. 75 My translations.

59

A. The Old Testament Amos 1:14

And I will kindle a fire on the walls of Rabbath, and it shall devour her foundations with shouting in the day of war, with a tempest (‫ )בסער‬in the day of the whirlwind (‫)סופה‬.

And I will kindle a fire on the walls of Rabbath, and it shall devour her foundations with shouting in the day of war, and she shall be shaken (σεισθήσεται) in the day of her destruction.

2 Kgs 17:20

The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel; he punished them (‫ )ויענם‬and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had banished them from his presence.

They [Judah] rejected the LORD along with all the descendants of Israel; he shook (ἐσάλευσεν) them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had banished them from his presence.

2 Kgs 21:8a

I will not cause the feet of Israel to wander (‫ )להניד‬any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors.

I will not continue to shake (σαλεῦσαι) the feet of Israel from the land that I gave to their ancestors.

2 Chr 33:8a

I will never again remove (‫ )להסיר‬the feet of Israel from the land that I appointed for your ancestors,

I will never again shake (σαλεῦσαι) the feet of Israel from the land that I appointed for your ancestors,

Prov 3:26

for the LORD will be your confidence and will keep your foot from being caught (‫)מלכד‬.

for the LORD will be your confidence and will fix your foot so that it will not be shaken (σαλευθῇς).

Ps 36:12

Do not let the foot of the arrogant tread on me, or the hand of the wicked drive me away (‫)תנדני‬

Do not let the foot of the arrogant tread on me, or the hand of sinners shake (σαλεύσαι) me

Thus, both the Hebrew text and LXX utilize shaking imagery in a similar manner, with the LXX presenting a slightly stronger destructive connotation for anthropological shaking.

60

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

B. Early Jewish Literature76 I. Pseudepigrapha77 An association between earthquakes and theophany is also observed in the Pseudepigrapha. The earth is shaken from both the voice (1 En. 102:2; 4 Ezra 6:18) and presence of God (1 En. 1:5–6; 4 Ezra 3:18; T. Levi 3:9; T. Mos. 10:4; Sib. Or. 3.675).78 One notes that in 4 Ezra 3:18, the shaking of the earth has become the focal point of the Mount Sinai theophany, to the point that it has become a cosmic event and other phenomena are nearly eclipsed from the scene.79 One also observes a continued association between earthquakes and an eschatological theophany of the divine warrior, My Holy One, the Great One, will come forth from his dwelling; 4 and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, upon Mount Sinai, and appear from his camp; he will appear from heaven in the power of his might. 5 And everyone shall be afraid, and the Watchers shall believe, The hidden things will be seen in all the ends of, and all the ends of the earth will be shaken (σεισθήσονται); trembling (τρόμος) and great fear shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. 6 Tall mountains will be shaken (σεισθήσονται) and fall and be parted asunder, and high hills shall be made low so that mountains shatter, and they shall melt like wax before a fiery flame. 7 The earth shall be rent asunder (διασχισθήσεται ἡ γῆ σχίσμα), and all that is upon the earth shall perish. Judgment will be against all. 76 In addition to the texts discussed below, the Mishna was also surveyed for shaking language. As one might expect, there were no references to either the noun or the verb ‫רעש‬. 77 Again, this is an etic category. The pseudepigrapha would not have been recognized as such by Matthew, and the body of literature defined by this term represents an eclectic group of texts. The definition provided by James Sanders (“Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha?” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993], 13, quoted in Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009], 52), is as good as any, “the Early Jewish literature (largely in the 200 BCE to 200 CE period) that resembles the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical literature but is not included in the Jewish or Western Christian canons, or in rabbinic literature.” See also the definition by James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013), 1:xxiv-xxv. The focus of this survey is the Greek Pseudepigrapha, though it also includes the texts of 2 Bar., 4 Ezra, T. Mos., Apoc. Ab., and 1 En.32–89, which are not extant in Greek (apart from the Greek fragment of 2 Bar 12:1–14:3). For seismic accounts in the non-Greek works I have relied on references provided by other scholars and English translations. 78 The heavens can also tremble from God’s presence (1 En. 60:1). 79 The shaking of the earth is recorded in the Syr, Eth, Arab 1, and Georgian recensions; the Latin has "set fast." The earthquake has also assumed cosmic proportions in LAB 11:5.

B. Early Jewish Literature

61

8 But to the righteous he will grant peace, protection and peace will be upon the elect; mercy will be upon them, and they shall all belong to God. And he will give them favor, and he will bless all and assist all and help us, and light shall shine on them and he will give them peace. (1 En. 1:3b–8) 80

Beyond the references to earthquakes, 1 En. 1:3–9 also includes a dualistic purpose of judgment and salvation that underlies the divine warrior’s march and features the march as the turning point of the ages. A very similar description is found in T. Mos. 10:3–8, which also includes reference to the sun and moon being darkened.81 Considerable overlap is also observed in Sib. Or. 3:675–79, which echoes Ezekiel 38–39 in describing an eschatological assault of the nations against God’s people (in this instance, kings against the temple) that is overcome by a theophanic appearance involving an earthquake (σαλεύω) and the trembling (φρίσσω) of fish, beasts, birds, and people. Significantly, this divine shaking of the earth in judgment is later juxtaposed with the divine assistance given to the elect through the sun and moon (Sib. Or. 3.714). Furthermore, in the age of bliss that follows the final judgment, it is said that there will be no more war or famine and that the earth will no longer be shaken (σαλεύω; 3.752). In addition, earthquakes can also signify non-theophanic divine activity. The earth is said to shake when God gives the Law to Israel through Moses, and 80

My translation, which is based on the Greek text from “The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha,” http://pseudepigrapha.org. The Ethiopic has “The God of the universe, the Holy Great One, will come forth from his dwelling. 4 And from there he will march upon Mount Sinai and appear in his camp emerging from heaven with a mighty power. And everyone shall be afraid, and the Watchers shall quiver. 5 And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. 6 Mountains and high places will fall down and be frightened. And high hills shall be made low; and they shall melt like a honeycomb before the flame. 7 And the earth shall be rent asunder; and all that is upon the earth shall perish. And there shall be a judgment upon all, (including) the righteous. And to all the righteous he will grant peace. He will preserve the elect, and kindness shall be upon them. They shall all belong to God and they shall prosper and be blessed; and the light of God shall shine unto them.” (1 En. 1:3b-8; trans. E. Isaac, OTP). The Ethiopic therefore narrates a very different outcome of the divine warrior’s march with regards to the Watchers. Whereas the Greek has them believing, the Ethiopic records them shaking in tremendous fear from the divine warrior’s appearance because for them his appearance spells judgment. With regards to seismic activity, the Ethiopic details an “anthropological” shaking (the Watchers) that is correlated with judgment, while the Greek describes a terrestrial shaking (ends of the earth, mountains) that functions more as a stock accompaniment of a theophany. However, if the “ends of the earth” is a personification, it would align the first shaking reference in the Greek with the anthropological sense conveyed in the Ethiopic. 81 Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths,” 231, claims that 1 En. 1:4–7 and T. Mos. 10:3–4 “provide evidence…that there was in ancient Judaism a consistent hope and fear that at the eschaton the Lord would come forth from his heavenly Temple and cause earthquakes.”

62

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

once again when God takes Moses away (2 Bar. 59:3). Sibylline Oracles 4 and 5 repeatedly feature earthquakes (σεισμός) as a form of divine judgment (Sib. Or. 4.113, 128; 5.128, 291, 294). Earthquakes can even represent the divine destruction of the old creation to make way for the new (2 Bar. 32:1; 4 Ezra 6:16). One notes that in 2 Bar. 32:2, the shaking of the temple illustrates the shaking that will occur on a cosmic scale: the old temple must be destroyed (i.e., shaken) so that the new temple can be installed. In other instances, earthquakes can function as a divine portent of coming disaster (Sib. Or. 3.457; σεισμός), a stock eschatological image that does not directly correlate to divine intervention (2 Bar. 27:7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 9:3; Apoc. Ab. 30:6, 8), an accompaniment of an angelophany (4 Ezra 10:26), and a generic description of instability (1 En. 65:3; 88:2). The shaking of people and cities is usually associated with destruction.82 For example, Sib. Or. 5.438 declares that Babylon will be spread out flat by an earthquake (σεισμός) to metaphorically describe its defeat and destruction by the Parthians (cf. Sib. Or. 3.449, 459; 4.58, 100, 107). Likewise, the shaking (σεισμός) of Nineveh depicts divine judgment that is unleashed upon it (Liv. Pro. 11:3).83 All people (σείω), especially sinners (συσσείω), are shaken before the voice and presence of God in an eschatological theophany of judgment (1 En. 102:2–3). The kingdom of God is said to shake (σαλεύω) many people and to destroy silver and gold (Sib. Or. 3.177). In contrast, one finds references stating that those who trust in God will never be shaken (σαλεύω; Pss. Sol. 8:33; 15:4). In sum, earthquakes are regularly associated with theophany (including the theophany of the divine warrior) and non-theophanic divine activity in apocalyptic and visionary texts of the Pseudepigrapha. In many of these instances, the seismic divine intervention occurs in an eschatological context. The shaking of people and cities is commonly associated with destruction, either as a result of divine judgment or human aggression. It is interesting to note that several of these texts (2 Bar., 4 Ezra, Apoc. Ab.) are thought to have been composed in the aftermath of the Second Temple’s destruction, a setting that many scholars would propose for Matthew’s Gospel.84

82

Though not universally: in 1 En. 14:14, Enoch is shaken (σείω) from fear in a vision, and Asenath shakes (σείω) her head as a sign of mourning (Jos. Asen. 11:1). 83 The shaking (σείω) of idols represents divine judgment in Liv. Pro. 2:7; this passage likely reflects Isa 19:1. 84 R. Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP, 1:683, argues that Apoc. Ab. was composed in the first to second century A.D.; however, it must be noted that only late (14th-16th century) Slavonic manuscripts are extant for the work.

B. Early Jewish Literature

63

II. Qumran The Dead Sea Scrolls rarely employ shaking language outside of the biblical texts.85 Of the few shaking references that are found in the non-biblical texts, multiple comprise citations of biblical passages.86 Apart from these references, the verb ‫ רעש‬occurs once, in which case it appears to describe the shaking of the earth in the context of eschatological divine judgment against the wicked (4Q418 212 1). This judgment is presumably said to mark the end of all iniquity. It should be noted that the fragmentary nature of the manuscript requires a considerable portion of the text, including the subject of ‫רעש‬, to be reconstructed.87 The noun ‫ רעש‬is featured in a fragment of the Sapiental-Didactic Work where it appears to describe the trembling of an individual, though the manuscript is too fragmented to provide any context (4Q412 1 7).88 III. Josephus Shaking references in Josephus correspond to earthquakes, human beings, and objects. It is interesting to note that Josephus’s lexical usage divides along these lines; σείω and σεισμός are used almost exclusively to refer to earthquakes,89 while σαλεύω is never employed in this manner. Instead, it describes the shaking of humans and objects. Earthquakes in Josephus have three connotations. In Ant. 8.531, Josephus retells the theophanic experience of the prophet Elijah that is captured in 1 Kgs:11–12, stating that it involved an earthquake (σεισμός) and fire before the coming of the divine speech. Elsewhere, he recounts earthquakes functioning as a divine portent. Daniel is notified about a coming vision by means of an earthquake (Ant. 10.269), and the shaking of the earth along with winds, rain, thunder, and lightning serve as a divine signaling of the destruction that was 85 The verb ‫ רעש‬is found in the biblical texts Isa 13:13; 14:16; 24:18; Joel 2:10; 4:16 LXX; Amos 9:1; Nah 1:5; Ps 18:8, while the noun ‫ רעש‬is found in Isa 9:4; 29:6; Jer 47:3; Ezek 37:7; Nah 3:2. For specific references, see Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 3: The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert (Boston: Brill, 2010), 1:637. 86 The noun ‫ רעש‬occurs in a quotation from Nahum in 4Q169 3–4 II, 3 (pesher on Nahum), and the verb ‫ רעש‬possibly occurs in a supralinear quotation of Ps 18:8 in 4Q381 24 10; see Martin G. Abegg, Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 1: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Boston: Brill, 2003), 1:689. 87 The reconstructed text referenced here is found in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Boston: Leiden, 1999), 862–63. 88 See Martínez, Dead Sea Scrolls, 840–41. 89 Σείω describes the happiness of the Egyptians in Ant. 4.44 and towers under battering rams in Ant. 14.69. It describes earthquakes in Ant. 4.51; 15.121 // J. W. 1.370; J. W. 4.286. Σεισμός describes an earthquake in Ant. 6.27; 9.225; 10.269; 15.142 // J. W. 1.373; J. W. 1.377.

64

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

soon to come upon the Idumeans (J. W. 4.286). In these instances, the earthquake does not attend the divine intervention but rather serves as a warning about an intervention that is soon to occur. In contrast, the predominant connotation of earthquakes in Josephus is to signify a non-theophanic act of divine intervention. God sends earthquakes to punish Abiram and Datham for rebelling against Moses (Ant. 4.51) and to destroy the Philistines in battle (Ant. 6.27). Josephus also explains that the earthquake of Amos 1:1 represented a divine judgment against Ozias (Uzziah) for his actions in the temple (Ant. 9.225). He records the earthquake that killed 30,000 in Judea as “another providential disaster” that befell Herod (J. W. 1.370). The wake of this event left Herod’s men paralyzed in despair, prompting Herod to give a speech that interpreted the earthquake not as divine judgment against the Jews but rather as divine intervention in their favor by creating a trap for their enemies (J. W. 1.373).90 In all these cases, the divine intervention is historical rather than eschatological. The shaking of people also carries a negative connotation in Josephus. In the case of the Philistines, the shaking relates to divine judgment: those who experienced the divinely induced earthquake in battle staggered about (σαλευομένης) in shell-shock (Ant. 6.27). In other cases, anthropological shaking denotes general instability or a risk of destruction. For example, when recounting the story of Esther, Josephus describes the precarious situation of the Jews using shaking language (Ant. 11.233). The same language is also utilized to describe the risk facing Antipater’s kingdom in his absence (J. W. 1.612), and the turbulent and unstable state of the Roman empire (J. W. 4.502). Other shaking references are more varied. Σαλεύω is frequently employed in a neutral sense to describe the motion of various objects.91 In other cases, shaking denotes instability, destruction, or judgment. The uncertainty of the future is conveyed through shaking language (Ant. 6.347). Titus is described as lord of the Jewish war and of the world, the one by whom all things are shaken (presumably a figurative expression of the ability to conquer the entire world; J. W. 5.88). God is said to have shaken (σείω) the happiness of the Egyptians in the exodus event, which is a clear reference to Egypt’s destruction (Ant. 4.44). In one instance shaking represents divine redemption.92 90

To further mitigate an interpretation of divine judgment, Herod also interprets the event shortly thereafter as a natural phenomenon devoid of lasting influence (J. W. 1.377). The interpretation of the event as a form of divine judgment is also conveyed in the parallel account in the Antiquities but in a more subdued manner (Ant. 15.121, 142). 91 E.g., the sea (Ant. 4.51; J. W. 1.409; 2.636; 3.422), the up and down movement of the diaphragm in the act of breathing (Ant. 6.217), the movement of walls under the assault of a battering ram (J. W. 6.28; cf. σείω of towers in Ant. 14.69), and general motion (Ant. 8.136). 92 When retelling a battle between David and the Philistines, Josephus adjusts the account to say that the shaking of trees apart from the wind serves a sign that God is intervening to fight a battle on David’s behalf (Ant. 7.77; cf. 1 Chr 14:15).

B. Early Jewish Literature

65

In sum, earthquakes in Josephus can signify a theophany but more commonly act as divine portents or a sign of a non-theophanic, non-eschatological divine intervention to enact judgment. The shaking of people or nations denotes instability or destruction, while the shaking of other entities primarily comprises neutral references or likewise indicates instability or destruction. IV. Philo Philo utilizes shaking language in a manner that bears resemblance to Josephus, though with some differences. In Philo, earthquakes are always denoted by σεισμός (as opposed to σείω or σαλεύω) and usually signify a non-eschatological and non-theophanic form of divine intervention.93 This connotation is clearly attested in Prov. 2.53, where Philo acknowledges that divine intervention is the predominant connotation for earthquakes but argues against it, claiming that earthquakes are in actuality only natural events. Additionally, in Somn. 2.129–130 an Egyptian governor describes himself as an earthquake and Philo comments that in doing so this figure has equated himself with God (cf. Somn. 2.125). In all cases, the type of divine intervention that is signified by earthquakes appears to be that of judgment (see especially Prov. 2.41; Mos. 2.282). Anthropological shaking in Philo always refers to agitation and instability. This shaking (σείω) can be the physiological manifestation of excessive grief (Legat. 267; σείω), but far more prevalently it describes the agitation of soul because of the body and its passions (Congr. 60, σαλεύω; Decal. 142, σείω; Sacr. 16, σεισμός) or similarly because of pleasure and worldly objects (Somn. 2.11, σείω; Spec. 1.292, σείω). Since the passions pull a person in many directions, such a person is inherently unstable (Somn. 2.11). Philo describes the ungodly as an unsteady breeze (σαλεύω; Leg. 3.53) or a ship that is tossed about (σαλεύω) by the waves (Decal. 67; Sacr. 90; Post. 22). Likewise, a nation that is shaken (σαλεύω) is one that is in a threatened and unstable position (Legat. 193). The shaking of objects likewise connotes instability.94 For example, in contrast to the stability of God, the things of creation are said to be tossed about (σαλεύω; Somn. 1.244; cf. Somn. 1.192). Honors and glory are likewise shaken about (σαλεύω) given the capricious inclinations of human beings (Abr. 264). Thus, in Philo earthquakes and human shaking carry negative connotations. Earthquakes signify non-theophanic divine intervention to enact judgment, while anthropological shaking describes an instability that characterizes those of an ungodly disposition.

93 94

Σεισμός describes a geological event in Aet. 141 and Opif. 59. With the exception of Spec. 1.147 and Somn. 1.77, which are neutral references.

66

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

C. Early Christian Literature I. The New Testament Apart from the Matthean occurrences and their parallels (which will be excluded from this discussion), the NT contains references of seismic activity primarily in Luke-Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation. In Acts and Hebrews, earthquakes connote a non-theophanic form of divine intervention. In Acts 4:24–30, the apostles lift their voices to God in prayer in response to the persecution that they have experienced. Luke then states, “when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered was shaken (ἐσαλεύθη); and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (4:31). The fact that no interpretive comment is provided for the earthquake is significant: it evidences a presupposed cultural knowledge that earthquakes represented divine intervention. Similarly, in Acts 16:26, a great earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας) occurs that shakes (σαλευθῆναι) the foundations of Paul’s prison, thereby creating an opportunity for escape that leads to the conversion of the jailor and his family.95 This earthquake is likewise said to occur following prayer and is mentioned without interpretive elaboration; it is furthermore tied to the opening of prison doors and the unfastening of the prisoners’ chains, events that are clearly presupposed to represent divine intervention. In Hebrews 12:26–27, the shaking occurs on a cosmic scale, See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven! 26 At that time his voice shook (ἐσάλευσεν) the earth; but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake (σείσω) not only the earth but also the heaven.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of what is shaken (σαλευομένων)—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken (μὴ σαλευόμενα) may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (ἀσάλευτον), let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; 29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:25–29)

In this passage, the author of Hebrews quotes Hag 2:6 to foretell of an eschatological shaking. The account builds off the preceding juxtaposition of Mount Sinai and the first covenant (Heb 12:18–21) with Mount Zion and the new covenant through Jesus (12:22–24); unlike the theophany of Sinai, which involved only the shaking of the earth, the coming action of God will shake both the earth and the heavens. The shaking described in this scene is a reference to the final judgment, which will in turn give way to eschatological bliss. The image is the same as that of 2 Bar. 32:1–2: the old creation must be destroyed to make way for the new. The author declares that only that which cannot be shaken 95

The use of the noun σεισμός with the verb σαλεύω (rather than the cognate verb σείω) indicates significant overlap in the semantic domains of σείω and σαλεύω.

C. Early Christian Literature

67

will endure the final judgment. The contrast between what can and cannot be shaken is not one between created and uncreated things but rather speaks of that which is aligned with God and that which is opposed to him. The passage therefore links the concept of stability that is frequently expressed in the Psalms via negations of σαλεύω with the concept of God’s eschatological judgment that is frequently connected with shaking in the Prophets. One also notes that it uses the terms σείω and σαλεύω interchangeably. This integration of OT terrestrial and anthropological shaking connotations and shaking terminology makes Heb 12:26–28 a significant passage. Richard Bauckham finds a similar theme in the book of Revelation, “with the author of Hebrews, John shares the expectation that the God whose voice shook Sinai will once again shake heaven and earth (Heb. xii 25–29), and to the unrepentant his coming can only be fearful.”96 In Revelation, earthquakes (which are always denoted with σεισμός) unanimously describe the final intervention of God to judge the world before the arrival of the new creation.97 In most cases, the earth is shaken in conjunction with a theophany of divine judgement (6:12; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18).98 Apart from Heb 12:27, which describes judgment, the shaking of people connotes emotional agitation. In 2 Thess 2:2, Paul urges the Thessalonians not to be easily shaken (σαλευθῆναι) or alarmed by reports that falsely declare that the Day of the Lord has already come. In Acts 17:13, Jews from Thessalonica come to Berea to stir up (σαλεύοντες) the crowds against Paul. Other shaking references are minimal. Luke records Jesus neutrally describing the shaking (σεσαλευμένον) of a good measure in the Sermon on the Plain (6:38). Shortly thereafter in the narrative, shaking language occurs in a manner reminiscent of the Psalms. Jesus declares that those who obey his words are 96

Bauckham, “The Eschatological Earthquake,” 232; cf. Philip E. Hughes, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 90–91. 97 Bauckham, “The Eschatological Earthquake,” 232; Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 398, 458, 602, 618, 842; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 290–91, 433. 98 Beale, Revelation, 618; Osborne, Revelation, 291, 347, 449, 598; Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 138, 166, 217; Peter S. Williamson, Revelation, CCSS (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 154. David Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 517–18, 627, 678, grants the theophanic significance for all occurrences but states that 8:5 is a precursor to coming judgment and therefore does not involve judgment like the other occurrences. The earthquake of 11:13 appears to be a non-theophanic instance of divine judgment on the unrepentant, one that accompanies the resurrection and ascension of the two witnesses. However, as Bauckham, “The Eschatological Earthquake,” 231, argues, this quake is closely related to the one accompanying the end-time theophany in 11:19. The 11:13 quake may therefore also be connected with theophany. It is also interesting to note that the earthquakes at 11:13 and 16:18 are related to the destruction of a city.

68

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

like a house that cannot be shaken (σαλεῦσαι), or destroyed, even when rivers come against it (6:48). To sum up, outside of the Synoptics, earthquakes are found only in Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation. In Acts and Hebrews they signify a non-theophanic form of divine intervention, while in Revelation they frequently accompany a theophany. In both Hebrews and Revelation, earthquakes are intricately connected to God’s inauguration of the new age, bringing salvation for his elect but comprising judgment and destruction for the unrepentant. The shaking of people can describe judgment or emotional agitation. II. Apostolic Fathers99 The Apostolic Fathers contain one shaking reference: First Clement 20:1 states, “the heavens move (σαλευόμενοι) at his direction and obey him in peace.”100 This act of obedience represents a non-theophanic form of divine intervention.

D. Greco-Roman Literature101 Earthquakes are prevalent in Greco-Roman literature.102 In many cases, especially in historical accounts, these phenomena are described as purely natural events.103 More prevalently, however, earthquakes are invested with divine 99 This corpus is delineated as Barn., 1–2 Clem., Did., Diogn. Hermas, the Ignatian letters, Mart. Pol., and Pol. Phil. 100 Translation from Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 73. 101 This survey is confined to literature from 200 BCE – 200 CE. It is based on searches for “σεισμός,” “σείω,” and “σαλεύω” in the Perseus database; only non-Christian authors are considered. The results recorded in this section are intended to be a representative summary of the specified time span rather than an exhaustive list that includes every occurrence. For a brief discussion of connotations in previous centuries see Bornkamm, TDNT 7:196– 97. Once again, it must be noted that this survey has been organized according to etic rather than emic categories. The literature discussed in this section represents a diverse collection of authors and genres. The works cited below can be coarsely differentiated as historiography (Greek: Appian, Cassius Dio, Diodorus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch; Roman: Suetonius, Tacitus), biography (Greek: Plutarch), geography (Greek: Pausanias, Strabo), poetry (Greek: Apollonius of Rhodes), lexicography (Greek: Julius Pollux), prose narrative (Greek: Flavius Philostratus; Lucian), novel (Greek: Longus), rhetoric (Greek: Aelian; Roman: Cicero), and eclectic/anecdotal (Greek: Athenaeus; Roman: Aulus Gellius). 102 In the literature surveyed, σεισμός and σείω are commonly employed to describe an earthquake but σαλεύω is rarely used for this purpose (for an example of σαλεύω functioning in this way, see Aeschylus, Prom. 1080, though this dates to the 5th century BC). 103 Σεισμός: e.g., Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. 70.4.1; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 26.8; 4.85.3; 5.54.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 16.6.2; Lucian, Ver. hist. 43; Pausanias, Descr.

D. Greco-Roman Literature

69

significance. Evidence of this correlation can be observed even in historical accounts where earthquakes are considered natural phenomena: Pausanias twice uses the expression τοῦ θεοῦ σείσαντος, “a divinely induced shaking,” to describe an earthquake (Descr. 3.8.4; 7.24.12). One aspect of the association between earthquakes and the divine is that of theophany. Apollonius of Rhodes describes the appearance of Apollo as an event that generates an earthquake, To them the son of Leto, on his way up from Lycia far off to the countless folk of the Hyperbolean people, appeared. His golden locks flowed in clusters over both cheeks as he went; in his left hand he held his silver bow, and his quiver was slung over his back from his shoulder. Beneath his feet the whole island shook (σείετο), and waves washed over the dry land. (Argon. 2.671 [Race])

Apollo is not the only god whose appearance makes the ground tremble. Poseidon forms the paradigmatic example of a god whose advent generates earthquakes (though mostly in older Greek literature).104 An earthquake is also recounted as accompanying the advent of Achilles (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.16), and a goddess with a Medusa-like torso (Lucian, Philops. 22). More commonly, however, earthquakes serve as indicators of a non-theophanic form of divine intervention. In some instances, the earthquake results from a neutral form of divine activity, such as when Dionysius celebrates with his orgies and shakes (σείω) Nysa (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 2.8).105 More frequently, earthquakes attend acts of divine judgment. For example, Poseidon takes revenge on the Lacedaemonians for killing worshipers in his temple by shaking (σείω) their city with an earthquake (σεισμός; Pausanias, Descr. 7.25.3), and similarly punishes the Spartans for murdering the suppliants from Taenarum by destroying Sparta with a violent shaking (σεισμός; Aelian, Var. hist. 6.7).106 Earthquakes are also frequently utilized by the gods for communicative purposes. In some instances, earthquakes can function as a divine portent of a favorable future event. For example, Plutarch records that an earthquake (σεισμός) and an accompanying tsunami that occurred during Cicero’s exile were interpreted by soothsayers as an omen that his exile would soon be ended (Cic. 32.3). Similarly, an earthquake that occurred in the midst of quarreling among Syrian citizens was considered a sign that their feuding would not endure, 2.7.1; 7.24.12; Polybius, Hist. 5.88.1; Plutarch, Cim. 16.4–5; Alc. 23.8; Strabo, Geogr. 1.3.3, 10, 16–20, 45–46; 2.3.6; 4.1.7; 5.4.9; 6.1.6; Suetonius, Aug. 47; Tacitus, Ann. 4.55; 14.27; σείω: Pausanias, Descr. 1.29.8; 3.8.4; 7.24.12; Strabo, Geogr. 1.3; 6.1; 12.8. 104 Bornkamm, TDNT 7:196–97, 105 Cf. Vit. Apoll. 3.15; 6.10; Aulus Gelius, Noct. att. 2.28.1–3; Plutarch, Arist. 6.3. 106 Cf. σεισμός: Aelian, Nat. an., 11.19.5; Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. 63.28.1; 68.24.1, 3; 68.25.2; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 11.63.3; Lucian, Tim. 3; Plutarch, Ages. 3.5; σείω: Aelian, Var. hist. 6.9; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.4.

70

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

But a violent earthquake (σεισμός) happening to occur, they were all cowering, and as is usual in the case of heavenly portents, praying for one another. Apollonius accordingly stepped forward and remarked: "It is God who is clearly anxious to reconcile you to one another, and you will not revive these feuds since you cherish the same fears." (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.38 [Conybeare])

In most cases, however, earthquakes functioned as a portent of a coming doom.107 According to Artemidorus, “earthquakes and landslides portent harm for all people and the destruction of themselves or their property” (Oneir. 2.41). Appian recounts a number of prodigies that pointed to the coming capture of Rome, including a mule giving birth to a foal, a woman giving birth to a viper, and an earthquake (σείω) that destroyed numerous Roman temples (Bell. civ. 1.83.1). Cassius Dio likewise lists an earthquake (σεισμός) among a number of portents that diviners interpreted as a sign of divine anger (Hist. rom. 39.20.4; cf. 42.26.3). This is in keeping with the general sentiment that existed regarding portents; as David Aune records, in early Roman tradition the occurrence of a prodigy was thought to reveal the ira deum, “anger of a god,” and ostensibly indicated the disruption of the pax deorum, “peace with the gods.” Therefore, it required rites of expiation to repair the breach between the Roman people and their gods.108

Thus, earthquakes were frequently viewed as a negative sign, one that indicated divine anger and future judgment.109 In the literature surveyed, anthropological shaking (both σείω and σαλεύω) often symbolizes instability, a negative state that is frequently a precursor to ruin. For example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes the condition of those plotted against by their enemies as being tossed about (σαλεύω) on a rough sea of peril (Ant. rom. 10.11.1), and Plutarch records that by trying to overthrow a city, the exiles were attempting to shake (σαλεύω) the empire of the Lacedaemonians (Pel. 8.4).110 In addition to this negative connotation of instability,

107

Beyond the examples listed here, see for example Pausanias, Descr. 10.23.1 (σείω); Plutarch, Cic. 14.3 (σεισμός); Cicero, Nat. d. 2.5.14 (terrae motibus). 108 Revelation 6–16, 416. 109 It is possible that a connotation of divine displeasure underlies the reference to an earthquake in Lucian’s recounting of Peregrine’s death. In this satirical work, Lucian explains that when describing Peregrine’s demise to naïve enthusiasts, he embellished the account by adding the fictitious details of an earthquake (σεισμός) that occurred at the moment of Peregrine’s death along with a vulture that flew out of the flames and towards heaven (Peregr. 39). Judging by the reaction of his gullible audience, the details were apparently interpreted as a sign of divine involvement in the affair. 110 Cf. σείω: Pindar, Pyth. 8.90; Plutarch, Caes. 53.3; Fab. 19; Tim. 6; σαλεύω: Appian, Bell. civ. 1.11.98; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.7.2; 11.9.1; Plutarch, Brut. 45.2. Pindar (Pyth. 4.270; 5th c. BC) describes the destruction of a city as being shaken (σείω).

E. Conclusion

71

anthropological shaking can depict a state of emotional agitation111 or function as a literal description of a back and forth movement.112 Other shaking references are predominantly neutral, serving as literal descriptions of objects moving about, such as walls under the impact of a battering ram (Appian, Bell. civ. 4.8.62; Pausanias, Descr. 8.27.13; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.13; 4.34; 6.41) or the movement of an animal’s tail (Athenaeus, Deipn. 4.12; Pollux, Onom. 5.62).113 In some instances, these references can depict instability (Pausanias, Descr. 10.1.9; Plutarch, Alex. fort. 2.33) or agitation (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.43). In sum, the Greco-Roman world occasionally viewed earthquakes as natural events but more frequently associated them with divine intervention. This seismic intervention could take the form of a theophany but more commonly consisted of a non-theophanic act of divine judgment or a non-theophanic act of divine communication about a coming (usually negative) event. Anthropological shaking often connoted instability or destruction.

E. Conclusion Earthquakes by nature represent a perturbation of the stability that normally characterizes the created order. As such, they signify tremendous power and significance. Apart from certain instances in Greco-Roman literature, earthquakes are rarely described as purely natural phenomena. Rather, in all of the literature that was canvassed (including Greco-Roman literature), earthquakes are predominantly associated with divine intervention. This intervention may involve a manifestation of the divine presence or may consist of a non-theophanic divine manipulation of terrestrial affairs; in other cases it simply comprises a portent. In the majority of instances where earthquakes are linked with divine intervention, the context is one of judgment, though in the OT and NT, this judgment frequently prefigures salvation for a select group. In the OT, earthquakes are closely tied to a specific form of divine intervention, the Day of the Lord. The shaking of people often carries a negative connotation. In the OT and Pseudepigrapha, the shaking of people usually connotes judgment and destruction. In the OT, this destructive shaking is antithetically juxtaposed against the 111

Σείω: Epictetus, Discourses, 1.26; Philostratus, Vit. soph., 2.1; 2.11; Plutarch, Gen. soc., 20; σαλεύω: Appian, Bell. civ., 2.20.143. 112 Σείω: Philostratus, Vit. soph., 1.21; Plutarch, Superst., 11; σαλεύω: Plutarch, Sert. 7. 113 Cf. σεισμός: Aelian, Nat. an. 16.18; σείω: Apollonius of Rhodes, Argon., 1.207; 2.530; 2.1070; 4.1051; Athenaeus, Deipn., 7.27; Longus, Daphn. 3.24.2; Lucian, Alex., 13; Plutarch, Def. orac., 37; Is. Os., 63; Virt. mor., 4; Fab., 27; Strabo, Geogr., 14.2; 15.1; σαλεύω: Appian, Bell. civ. 4.4.28; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll., 3.15; Plutarch, Adv. col., 15; Alex., 6.3; Am. prol., 1; Amat. 13.4; Strabo, Geogr. 12.8.18.

72

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Encyclopedia of Production

stability of those who are aligned with God. In other corpora, anthropological shaking commonly describes an emotional state of agitation or conveys a general sense of instability, with the latter frequently occurring as a precursor to ruin. Αpart from Josephus and Philo, and Greco-Roman descriptions of earthquakes, a high degree of overlap was observed in the usage of σείω and σαλεύω. If one is pressed to find a distinction between the terms, the latter tends to be more closely associated with people, though it must be noted that σείω is also employed in this sense. Both terms can describe a literal shaking and a metaphorical shaking, both with regards to the earth and its inhabitants. In sum, it would appear that the seismic palette that the literary artist Matthew had before him was not terribly extensive in its range of colors. While this survey has demonstrated that several shades were available from which to choose, it has also shown that many of the available hues occupied a similar region on the color spectrum. Having analyzed Matthew’s raw materials, this study will now focus its attention on the Gospel canvas to determine which of these colors, if any, have been painted into Matthew’s literary landscape.

Chapter 3

The σεισμός at Sea The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 provides an excellent entry point into the seismic motif of Matthew’s Gospel. As discussed in the introductory chapter, the term appears almost forced into the storm stilling context: Matthew has utilized a word that almost universally describes earthquakes or physical shaking to label an event that appears purely meteorological in its nature. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 therefore betrays a deeper purpose than the mere description of a storm.

A. Engaging the Majority Position The majority of modern scholars, including some of the most respected in Matthean studies, interpret the σεισμός of Matt 8:24 as a symbolic representation of the trials that await followers of Jesus.1 As Ulrich Luz explains, “σεισμός (‘earthquake’) and κύματα (‘waves’) do not have precise meanings; the readers must understand them in terms of their own experiences. The evangelist may especially have been thinking of the persecutions that came over his church (5:11–12; 10:16–39; 23:34–37).”2 One could be less specific than Luz and simply state that the 8:24 σεισμός symbolizes a generic threat facing the Christian community.3 In either case, what is essential to this interpretation is that the meaning of the term resides above the surface level of text at the plane of allegory.4 The driving force behind this reading of the Matt 8:24 σεισμός is an allegorical interpretation of the Matt 8:23–27 pericope as a whole. This is well illustrated in Günther Bornkamm’s pioneering exercise in redaction criticism, “The 1 Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57; Duplacy, “Et il eut un grande calme,” 19; Suriano, “Who Then is This?,” 454; Meier, Matthew, 89; Patte, Matthew, 122; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:69, 71; Mora, La symbolique, 150; Kingsbury, “The Stilling of the Storm,” 107; Senior, Matthew, 101–2; Luz, Matthew, 2:20–22; “The Miracle Stories of Matthew 8– 9” in Studies in Matthew, 237; Nolland, Matthew, 370; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 130. 2 Luz, Matthew, 2:21. 3 E.g., Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 56; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:69. 4 For the present discussion, allegory is defined as a symbolic interpretation that does not coincide with the plain meaning of the text. It should be noted that Luz, “Miracle Stories,” 238 n. 66, recognizes the correspondence between his interpretation and an allegorical one but prefers to use different terminology for his method.

74

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

Stilling of the Storm,” from which the modern allegorical reading of Matt 8:23– 27 derives. Fundamental to Bornkamm’s interpretation of the passage is his observation that the Matthean storm stilling story has been transplanted from its original Markan “biographical” context to a section of healing miracles that present the “Messiah of deed.”5 More importantly, the Matthean account has been placed immediately after two short sayings about discipleship (8:18–22), each of which features the theme of ἀκολουθεῖν (“following”). Bornkamm also notes that the storm stilling story has been fused to these discipleship sayings by the redacted comment in 8:23, which states that the disciples “followed” Jesus into the boat (8:23; cf. Mark 4:36). On this basis, he concludes that Matt 8:23–27 is fundamentally a story about discipleship. As further support for this conclusion, he lists four additional observations. First, the disciples’ address to Jesus has been changed from διδάσκαλε (“teacher”; Mark 4:38) to κύριε (“Lord”; Matt 8:25), thereby rendering their cry into a prayer and a confession of discipleship.6 Second, he notes that Matthew has altered the order of the story so that Jesus’s rebuke of the disciples precedes the miracle, which elevates faith and discipleship to the central position of the passage. Third, he points out the awkwardness of σεισμός in the sea storm context and reasons that the ungainly fit conveys a deeper intention than merely describing a storm. Tracing the term through the NT, Bornkamm concludes that σεισμός is imbued with eschatological significance, and in particular with a sense of eschatological distress (especially in light of Matt 24:7 // Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11). Importing this connotation into the storm stilling account, he concludes that σεισμός has been employed in Matt 8:24 to render the passage with a “typical and symbolic significance.”7 That is, he believes σεισμός is intended to step outside of the narrative and address the reader by serving as a representation of the eschatological distresses facing the church. It should be noted however, that Bornkamm does not reach this same conclusion about the function of the σεισμός in Matt 27:54; there he judges that σεισμός conveys the eschatological significance of Jesus’s death.8 It is therefore evident that his interpretation of the term is influenced by its immediate context. Bornkamm’s final supporting argument for an allegorical reading of Matt 8:23–27 is his construal of the similarly awkward reference to οἱ ἄνθρωποι (“the people”; 8:27). He interprets this “choral ending” as an “obvious” maneuver to widen the story’s horizon to those who encounter the story by preaching.9 Putting all of this together, Bornkamm

5

Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 53. Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 55. Luz, Matthew, 2:20–21, notes that the use of σῴζω and ἀπολλύμεθα strengthens the ecclesiastic prayer motif. 7 Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57. 8 Bornkamm, TDNT 7:199–200. 9 Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 56. 6

A. Engaging the Majority Position

75

claims that Matt 8:23–27 is a “kerygmatic paradigm of the danger and glory of discipleship.”10 Bornkamm’s interpretation has itself attracted many followers. Ulrich Luz is a prominent example; his reading of Matt 8:23–27 provides general insight into the way that Bornkamm’s argument is frequently embraced and buttressed. Luz attempts to strengthen Bornkamm’s reading of σεισμός as an eschatological tribulation by further arguing that σεισμός better lends itself to a description of an inner psychological state than does the Markan λαῖλαψ.11 He reinforces a liturgical reading of κύριε by adding that σῴζω also has a liturgical sense.12 He tries to ground Bornkamm’s reading of οἱ ἄνθρωποι within the text by claiming that the “people” who inquire about Jesus’s identity (and thereby demonstrate a lack of faith) cannot be the disciples who have just shown faith by identifying him as “Lord.”13 Finally, Luz brings reception history to bear in order to demonstrate that an allegorical reading of Matt 8:23–27 is in keeping with the interpretation of the church at least since the time of Tertullian.14 There is no denying the thrust of the argument represented by these scholars. The redactional changes to the pericope’s context, the linking of 8:23 with the verses on discipleship that come before, and the altered sequence of events within the story definitively demonstrate that Matt 8:23–27 has been painted with a prominent discipleship motif. Additionally, as Luz demonstrates, an allegorical reading of Matt 8:23–27 has been popular in the church for almost as long as the Gospel has been in existence. Indeed, Matthew appears to have facilitated this type of reading by employing themes (e.g., faith, doubt, trials) and language (e.g., κύριε, σῶσον) common to the experience of the church. An allegorical reading also finds resonance with the greater story of the Gospel: since Jesus hands on his mission to the disciples (Matt 10; 28:18–20), who in turn pass on their mission to the church (28:19–20), there should be continuity between the experiences of the disciples and the experience of the church. Moreover, this continuity between the story world and the world of the church is ensured by the continuous presence of Jesus (1:23; 28:20). It follows that an allegorical reading of Matt 8:23–27 is one that should be taken seriously.

10

Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57. Luz, Matthew, 2:20. 12 Luz, Matthew, 2:20–21. 13 Luz explains the widened horizon in this way, “[by means of the οἱ ἄνθρωποι reference] the evangelist steps out of the story as it were and lets the people to whom his church proclaims the gospel speak as if they were reacting to Jesus’ miracles” (Matthew, 2:21). 14 Luz, Matthew, 2:21–22; cf. Tertullian, Bapt. 12.7. For other endorsements of this interpretation in the early church see Ian Boxall, Matthew Through the Centuries, Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2019), 161–62; cf. Kurt Goldammer, “Navis Ecclesiae: Eine unbekannte altchristliche Darstellung der Schiffsallegorie,” ZNW 40 (1941): 76–86; Luz, Matthew, 2:20–21. 11

76

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

However, in spite of its ingenuity and popularity, the interpretation represented by Bornkamm and Luz overreaches in jumping directly to the allegorical level. Luz himself touches upon this in his discussion of transparency. He rejects a solely allegorical reading of the Matthew 8–9 miracles in general because, in focusing solely on the experience of the believer, such a reading does not do justice to the surface level meaning of the text.15 Instead, Luz finds three levels of meaning that are simultaneously present in the majority of the Matthean miracle accounts: (a) the story of Jesus that is rooted in the historical past,16 (b) the story of the church’s formation that is reflected in the story of Jesus (indirect transparency), and (c) the story of the individual believer that is reflected in the individual miracles (direct transparency).17 As he explains, In contrast to a directly didactic interpretation of the [Matthew 8–9] miracle stories as pure illustrations or symbolic stories, this concept [transparency] tries to emphasize how the relationship between a report and one’s own experience is irreversible. The report that is given explains, or even causes, the church’s own experiences. The story about Jesus has a material priority over the church’s own experiences.18

In other words, Matthew has endowed his narrative with multiple levels of meaning. On the surface (i.e., the narrative or discourse level), it is a story about Jesus; on a deeper level, it is also a story about the Matthean community.19 Regardless of whether one agrees with Luz, his discussion of transparency highlights the problem inherent in his interpretation of the Matt 8:24 σεισμός: it considers only an allegorical meaning. To claim that the Matt 8:24 σεισμός and κύματα references “do not have precise meanings” and must be interpreted by the readers “in terms of their own experiences” is to read these references 15 Luz, “Miracle Stories,” 236–39; Matthew, 2:52–53. In Luz’s words, “the transparency of Matthew’s miracle stories should not be confused with an allegorical interpretation in the sense that the stories mean something different from what they say. Rather, the real event of the Jesus story which they report opens up an area of experience greater than the event itself” (“Miracle Stories,” 238). 16 Luz, “Miracle Stories,” 232–33, states that the story rooted in the historical past is rooted in an indirect sense, for the heavily redacted narrative can’t correspond to the “real history” of Jesus. 17 Luz, “Miracle Stories,” 238 n. 66, acknowledges that a similar method was employed by the pre-Enlightenment church, which also practiced a multilayered interpretation consisting of a foundational “literal” meaning along with other “spiritual” meanings (i.e., allegorical, tropological, anagogical). The primary point of difference is that in the pre-Enlightenment church, these various senses were not necessarily connected. 18 Luz, Matthew, 2:53. 19 The Matthean storm stilling appears to be no exception. Luz, Matthew, 2:21, writes, “Thus our story [Matt 8:23–27] is for him [Matthew] not only a portrayal of faith experiences in the form of a miracle story; it is a report about a miracle that actually happened that only in retrospect becomes transparent for what the church has experienced with the Lord who performed it” (Matthew, 2:21). Though note his comments in Matthew, 2:53 n. 7.

B. Resetting the Context

77

only through the lens of what Luz terms “direct transparency;” it is thereby to neglect the meaning that these terms have at the surface level of the narrative, the story about Jesus. Beyond violating Luz’s own interpretive framework, the problematic nature of such a reading is suggested by the Matthean narrative itself: Jesus declares in 11:5–6 that the events of Matt 8–9 testify primarily to his identity, which is to argue for the primacy of a christological vs. allegorical interpretive lens. It follows that the Matthean storm stilling account and the Matt 8:24 σεισμός in particular should be fundamentally (though not exclusively) interpreted at the level of the Gospel narrative (i.e., as it relates to Jesus), as opposed to the level of allegory (i.e., as it relates to the experience of the believer or the believing community).20

B. Resetting the Context How then should Matt 8:23–27 be read? As Bornkamm has set in stone, a proper interpretation of the Matthean storm stilling cannot be divorced from its literary context. However, when the passage’s boundaries are drawn up along the lines of discipleship (8:18–27), it creates an enclosure that is too restrictive. A more suitable habitation is the overarching, fundamental theme of the kingdom of heaven. As will be demonstrated below, such a reading better connects the storm stilling to its immediate context and to the Gospel narrative as a whole and furthermore better accounts for the term σεισμός. The call for a recontextualization of the storm stilling is not to deny Bornkamm’s observation that Matt 8:23–27 is linked with the two preceding sayings about discipleship (8:18–22); the catchwords ἀκολουθέω and μαθητής and the redacted introduction of 8:23 place his assertion beyond doubt. Rather, it is to recognize that 8:23–27 is also firmly linked to the larger series of miracles in which it resides (chs. 8–9). For example, the question posed in 8:27 is given answer in 8:29, and a number of important terms that occur in the storm stilling are also found elsewhere in the miracle chapters: ἀκολουθέω (8:1, 10, 19, 22, 23; 9:9, 19, 27), μαθητής (8:21, 23; 9:10–11, 14, 19), προσέρχομαι (8:2, 5, 19, 25; 9:14, 20, 28), κύριε (8:2, 6, 8, 21, 25; 9:28), ἐγείρω (8:15, 25–26; 9:5–7, 19, 25), θαυμάζω (8:10, 27; 9:33), σῴζω (8:25; 9:21–22). As William Thompson has noted, the entire series of miraculous events is linked together in a web

20 Genre considerations also drive towards this conclusion. As stated by Huizenga, The New Isaac, 72 n. 124, “if the Gospels belong within the genre of Greco-Roman biography, then they intend the reader to focus on Jesus their subject, not on a surreptitious story of a later community.” While Huizenga’s genre classification (The New Isaac, 8 n. 22) could benefit from additional nuance, his point nevertheless holds because Matthew’s Gospel should be classified as a bios sub-genre (see 1.D).

78

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

of lexical connectivity.21 Furthermore, he demonstrates that when the Matt 8– 9 section is taken as a whole, it displays a sense of “continuous movement.” Building upon Thompson’s work, Luz also argues that the Matthean miracle chapters do not merely represent a haphazard assortment of miraculous attestations to the power of the Messiah, but rather form a cohesive narrative that builds to a climax at 9:33–34.22 In light of this narrative cohesion, a proper interpretation of Matt 8:23–27 must situate the passage within the intermediate context of Matt 8–9. But there is reason to suggest that the passage’s intermediate context should be expanded even further. For, the miracle chapters of Matt 8–9 are in turn bound together with the renowned Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7). The evidence for this union is found in the nearly verbatim repetition of a summary statement about Jesus going around teaching in synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness (4:23; 9:35).23 These verses, which occur directly before the Sermon on the Mount and immediately after the miracles, are the only instances in the Gospel where teaching, preaching, and healing are found together. They thus draw a clear boundary line around the enclosed chapters. In addition to these external brackets, or inclusio, there are numerous internal correspondences that suggest the sections should be taken together. For instance, both the Sermon on the Mount and the miracle chapters record the crowd’s amazement at the authority of Jesus (7:27; 9:8). Additionally, it is commonly observed that the first miracle, the healing of the leper (8:1–4), serves a hinge that binds the Sermon on the Mount to chapters 8–9: Jesus’s post-healing command to visit the priest reinforces his statement in 5:17–18 and thereby demonstrates continuity between his words and actions. Even greater continuity is observed at a more abstract level, as both the Sermon on the Mount and miracle chapters place a heavy emphasis on Jesus’s words. One observes that Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount by opening his mouth and speaking, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων (5:2). The remainder of the sermon is then peppered with references to Jesus’s vocal address: “I say (λέγω) to you” (5:20, 22, 27, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:25, 29) or “amen, I say (λέγω) to you” (5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16). Of these references, six in particular stand out. Six times Jesus presents a command from (or interpretation of) the Mosaic Law, “you have heard that it was said (ἐρρέθη) …”, and 21

William Thompson, “Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1–9:34,” CBQ 33 (1971): 368–87. 22 Luz, “Miracle Stories,” 224–26; cf. Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Construction in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, γάρ, σὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse, JSNTSup 216 (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 327–30. 23 Καὶ περιῆγεν...διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν. Other lexical and thematic ties that bind Matt 5–7 and 8–9 together will become apparent in the discussion below.

B. Resetting the Context

79

then follows this statement with one of his own, “but I say (λέγω) to you …” (5:21–22, 27–28, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–44). The six-fold repetition of this pattern emphatically highlights the gravity of Jesus’s speech and demonstrate that what Jesus says carries solemn significance. The end of the sermon makes the same point. Here Jesus states that the nature of one’s response to his words (λόγους) will make all the difference with regards to one’s fate. Those who listen to his words and do them build on rock; those who do not build on sand and face ruin as a result (7:24–27).24 Thus the entire Sermon on the Mount is focused on Jesus’s words. The miracle chapters contain the same emphasis. This is most readily observed in the healing of the centurion’s child.25 After professing that he is unworthy to have Jesus come to his home, the centurion proclaims his recognition that Jesus’s power is not spatially constrained. He states, “only speak a word (λόγῳ) and my child will be healed” (8:8). Jesus marvels at the centurion’s faith, and then heals the child solely by speaking, just as the centurion had believed (8:13). The event thereby highlights the efficacy of Jesus’s speech. It does not constitute an isolated incident, however; Jesus performs the majority of the miracles in Matt 8–9 by speaking. With a word he casts out demons (8:16). By merely speaking he calms the sea (8:26). The gravitas of his speech is stressed in 8:32 when he exorcises the powerful Gadarene demons by only a single word, ὑπάγετε (“go”).26 In the healing of the paralytic, the point is made even more explicitly. Jesus begins by declaring that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven (9:2). When this generates cynicism on the part of the scribes, Jesus heals the man through speech (9:6). Before performing the healing, Jesus makes it clear to all who are present that his miracle verifies his words and thereby draws attention to their power. The final miracle in the series that gives central place to Jesus’s words is the healing of the hemorrhaging woman. In Matthew’s account, the woman is healed at the moment Jesus declares her to be well (9:22). This differs from Mark’s account, where she is healed upon touching Jesus’s garment (Mark 5:29). This common thread concerning the authority of Jesus’s words thereby serves as another indication that the Sermon on the Mount and miracle chapters should be read together. The above observations are summarized in the following chart:

24 One notes the resemblance of Jesus’s statement in 7:24–27 to the six “antitheses”: only in these places in the Sermon on the Mount is there mention of hearing (ἀκούω). 25 Or “servant.” 26 One notes that Matthew has redacted Mark’s account to bring out this emphasis; in Mark Jesus exorcises the demons with a sentence and additionally asks the demons their name (Mark 5:8–9).

80

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

Table 3: Literary Relationships Between Matt 5–7 and Matt 8–9 Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7)

Miracle Chapters (Matt 8–9)

4:23

καὶ περιῆγεν … διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν …

καὶ περιῆγεν … διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν.

9:35

5:17–18

Jesus upholds the Law verbally

Jesus upholds the Law through praxis

8:4

7:28

Crowd is amazed (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) by Jesus’s teaching

Crowd is amazed (ἐθαύμασαν) by Jesus’s healing of the deaf-mute

9:33

7:29

Jesus displays authority (ἐξουσίαν), in his teaching

Jesus displays authority (ἐξουσίαν) in his healing of the paralytic

9:8

5:2, 18, 20, 22, 26, 27, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:24–27, 28

Emphasis placed on Jesus speaking (λέγω) and on Jesus’s words (λόγος)

Jesus performs numerous healings and exorcisms solely by speaking

8:8, 13, 16, 26, 32; 9:2, 6, 22

When the two sections (Matt 5–7 and 8–9) are taken together as a unit, it becomes clear that Jesus’s words and deeds play complementary roles. This is exactly what the bracketing summary statements of Matt 4:23 and 9:35 explain: they describe Jesus’s activity as consisting of words (preaching, teaching) and deeds (healing). Commentators have long noted this dualism. As far back as Jerome this juxtaposition is already discussed, “In this way the words he has just spoken [Matt 5–7] are confirmed among his hearers by means of miraculous powers [Matt 8–9].”27 The same observation continues to be made in modern scholarship.28 The reality to which the words and deeds collectively point is the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven. One finds in Matt 5–9 a focused and underscored attestation of what Donald Hagner claims for the entire Gospel, 27 Jerome, Comm. Matt. 1.8.2, trans. T. P. Scheck (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 99. 28 E.g., Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, NTD 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 81956), 36, 106; cf. Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 53; Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 18; Christian Münch, “Hinführung” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 1: Die Wunder Jesu, ed. Ruben Zimmerman (Gütersloh, Gütersloh Verlagshaus, 2013), 382.

B. Resetting the Context

81

The central emphasis of the book is found in what is designated (uniquely in the Gospels) as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας, “the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; cf. 26:13), namely, the good news that the reign or rule of God has begun to be realized in history through the presence of Jesus Christ. Matthew may fairly be described as practically a demonstration of the reality of the presence of the kingdom through the words and deeds of Jesus.29

That Matt 5–9 presents a focused discussion on the kingdom is suggested by the kingdom references contained in the summary brackets (4:23; 9:23) and those clustered within (5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 33; 7:22; 8:11–12).30 More telling however is the thematic presentation of the kingdom contained in these chapters. Since this thematic presentation is more easily traced when one understands the background relating to the expression “kingdom of heaven” (or “kingdom of God” as it is termed in the other Synoptics),31 it is worth undertaking a brief excursus on the kingdom of heaven.

29 Hagner, Matthew, 1:lx. Shortly after, he declares that the expression “kingdom of heaven” is the “controlling theme” of the Gospel to which “everything relates.” These conclusions are consistent with what others have observed for the overall Gospel. Jonathan Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 279–81 notes the centrality of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew. Kingsbury, Structure, 128, states that the kingdom is “the single most comprehensive concept in the first Gospel.” 30 “The principal theological concept in the Sermon on the Mount is that of ‘the kingdom of heaven,’” Hans Dieter Betz, “Cosmogony and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount” in Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 120, quoted in Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 280. Cf. Luz, Matthew, 1:177, who states that the Sermon on the Mount could be appropriately titled “Discourse on the Righteousness of the Kingdom of Heaven,” and Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, trans. John Murray (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 78–79, who argues that all of Jesus’s teaching, including the Sermon on the Mount, is “subordinated to the proclamation of the basileia and related to the mystery of his own person. The ‘teaching’ is naturally connected with the ‘proclamation’… but is at its service.” 31 The phrases are conceptually equivalent. Matthew at times uses other phrases to reference the same concept: 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43 (kingdom of God); 6:10, 33; 13:43; 25:34; 26:29 (the Father’s kingdom); 4:23; 8;12; 9:35; 13:19, 38; 24:14 (the kingdom); 13:41; 16:28 (the kingdom of the Son of Man); 20:21 (your [Jesus’s] kingdom); Turner, Matthew, 38–39. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 309–10, summarizes Matthew’s use of kingdom language as follows, “Each of the many kingdom expressions in Matthew (including the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven) denote God’s kingdom, having been inaugurated and yet to come eschatologically, but the forms of the expressions have different connotations; they perform slightly different functions literarily and theologically.” The reference to the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of heaven in 12:28 illustrates this point: though describing the same concept, kingdom of God fits better in the context because it more clearly retains the contrast that is developed between God and Satan; cf. Robert Foster, “Why on Earth Use ‘Kingdom of Heaven’?: Matthew’s Terminology Revisited,” NTS 48 (2002): 494– 95, who argues that the kingdom of God is referenced in place of the kingdom of heaven for “shock value.”

82

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

I. The Kingdom of Heaven Though a complex concept, as the above quotation from Hagner suggests, the kingdom of heaven essentially describes the realization of Jewish hopes for the full, eschatological manifestation of God’s reign on earth.32 As N. T. Wright explains, the expression “kingdom of God” denoted “the action of the covenant god, within Israel’s history, to restore her fortunes, to bring to an end the bitter period of exile, and to defeat through her, the evil that ruled the whole world.”33 While certainly not uniformly construed across the heterogenous entity encapsulated as Judaism, the manifestation of this event was generally expected to encompass several key strands. It must be noted that these strands were woven into the kingdom concept in different ways by different communities, with the 32 Schnackenburg, God’s Rule, 38, 82; Beasley-Murray, Kingdom of God, 20; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 299–307; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 202–3; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 387–93. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 258, rightly cautions that “there is no single, monolithic notion [of the kingdom of God in the OT]. Instead, God’s kingship is at times portrayed as an eternal and universal one, or as primarily kingship over his people Israel, while in the later writings the emphasis falls on the eschatological expectation of the coming kingdom. The assorted OT texts which speak of the kingdom of God can be summarized into three categories of meaning: 1) God as the king of all nations and the world by virtue of being the creator. 2) God as the king of Israel, his people. 3) God as the king whose dominion is yet to be realized in the future. This diversity of concepts continues and even increases in the subsequent [i.e., Second Temple] literature.” All three categories that Pennington presents relate to the kingdom of heaven theme in Matthew’s Gospel, with the third being the most directly correlated. Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 281–99, also provides an important reminder that in Matthew’s Gospel, the kingdom of heaven involves spatial dimensions in addition to the dynamic sense of agency; cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 388; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 62, who describes the kingdom as “the coming of God’s kingly rule and the eschatological realm in which God’s rule is enjoyed.” 33 Wright, People of God, 307. It should be noted that Wright’s “return from exile” framework is not without its critics. For example, Maurice Casey, “Where Wright is Wrong: A Critical Review of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the People of God,” JSNT 68 (1995): 99–100, argues that the Palestinian Jews of Jesus’s day would not have considered themselves to be in exile given that they lived in the land and that God’s presence was assumed to dwell in their midst within the Temple (e.g., Matt 23:21). Casey also claims that Wright commits a non sequitur by associating the forgiveness of sins with a return from exile, since the texts upon which Wright bases his argument (e.g., Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:24–26, 33) concern the period when Israel was actually in exile, while Jesus’s ministry took place in the land, which describes a different situation. For a defense of Wright against Casey’s criticisms see Craig A. Evans, “Jesus & the Continuing Exile of Israel” in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 77–100.

B. Resetting the Context

83

collective braid varying according to which strands were included and which strands were given emphasis. A prominent strand was the vindication of Israel through God’s judgment of the wicked and his defeat of evil.34 The latter was often expressed as the destruction of the gentiles and paganism35 but could also reference the eradication of Satan and evil itself.36 Second, the judgment was expected to give way to bliss; the eschatological rule of God was often envisioned as a return to paradise,37 an era characterized by righteousness,38 prosperity,39 peace,40 and the absence of defects and disabilities.41 Third, it was hoped that the coming of the kingdom would involve the restoration of the Israelite nation. This restoration was frequently envisioned as the return of Israel’s scattered tribes to the promised land where they would be reunited as a single family,42 sometimes under a reinstituted Davidic monarchy.43 A fourth hope centered on the restoration of the relationship between God and his people. Specific strands hanging from this general peg included the inauguration of a new covenant,44 a divine

34

Isa 66:15–16; Dan 7:10; Zeph 3:8; Mal 4:1; Wis 3:7, 18; 4:18–19; 5:17–23; Jub. 5:10– 16; 1 En. 1:7, 9; 10:13–14; 22:4, 11; 90:20–27; 91:7, 9, 14–15; 1QS 4:11–14; 5:12–13; 1QH 12:20, 26–27; CD 7:9; 8:1–3/19:13–16; 1QpHab 12:14; 13:2–3; Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:10, 12; 4 Ezra 7:33–43. Wright, People of God, 307; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 395–96; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 153. 35 Ps 2:8–9; Joel 4:9–21 (LXX); Zeph 2:9–11; Hag 2:21; Sir 36:1–9; Bar 4:25, 31–35; Jub. 15:26; 1 En. 90:19; 1QM; Pss. Sol. 17:23–51; 4 Ezra 12:33; 13:38; 2 Bar. 40:1; cf. Wright, Jesus, 206. 36 Isa 24:21–22; Jub. 5:6; 10:7–11; 23:29; 50:5; 1 En. 10:4, 11–13; 13:1–2; 14:5; 18:16; 21:3–6; 69:28; 90:23; 91:16; 2 En. 7:1–2; T. Mos. 10:1; T. Levi 18:12; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Dan. 5:10–11. 37 Isa 11:6–8; 25:7–8; 51:3; Ezek 36:35; Jub. 4:26; 23:26–29; 1 En. 25:4–6; 1QH 8:4–11. 38 Isa 11:4–5; 32:16; 33:5; 54:14; 61:11; Jub. 1:15–17; 1 En. 90:30–36; Pss. Sol. 17:26– 32. 39 Isa 32:15; 35:1–2, 6–7; 44:3; 60:15–17; Jer 31:12–14; Ezek 34:26–27; 36:29–30, 33– 36; Joel 2:19, 21–26; 4:18; Amos 9:13–14; Zech 8:12; 1 En. 10:19. 40 Isa 2:4; 9:7; 11:6–9; 32:17–18; 60:18; 66:12; Ezek 34:25; Zech 9:10. 41 Isa 29:18; 35:5–6; 42:7, 18. 42 Isa 49:5–6, 22–26; 56:8; 60:4, 9; 66:20; Jer 3:18; 31:8, 10, 16–25; Ezek 34:12–16; 36:24, 28; 37:21–23; 39:27; Zeph 3:20; Zech 8:7–8; Tob 13:5; 14:5–6; Sir 36:11–15; 48:10; Bar 4:37; 5:5; 2 Macc 1:27, 29; 1 En. 90:33; Jub. 1:15–18; Pss. Sol. 11:1–9; 17:31, 44; 11Q19 59:9–13. 43 Isa 9:6; 11:1; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:23; 37:24–28; Amos 9:11; Pss. Sol. 17:23–51; Wright, Jesus, 205. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 87, cautions that this strand was not as prominent as others. 44 Jer 31:31–34; CD 8:21.

84

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

cleansing,45 the forgiveness of sins,46 an outpouring of God’s spirit,47 an unprecedented degree of faithfulness to Torah,48 and the inclusion of the gentiles within the fold of God’s people.49 A fifth, and related, expectation was the return of God to Zion.50 George Beasley-Murray declares this was one of the expectations most central to the kingdom of heaven, “there could never have been a stage in Israel’s history when the kingdom of God was looked for apart from the coming of Yahweh.”51 Sixth, and also relatedly, some anticipated that the new age would involve a new temple.52 Finally, the advent of the kingdom was often associated with cosmic disturbances that included astrological collapses and the shaking of the earth.53 The association between the kingdom of heaven and a messianic figure is less pronounced. According to Wright, “there is not much evidence for a direct connection between the symbol ‘kingdom of god’ and the coming of a Messiah.”54 Wright attributes this fact to the diversity of messianic expectations that existed in Judaism. Nevertheless, he points to the messianic movements detailed in Josephus, the Bar-Kochba rebellion, and the messianic motifs in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 1 Enoch as evidence of a “biblically based messianic expectation [that existed] during the first century.”55 He summarizes his discussion of messianic expectations by stating that anticipations relating to the kingdom of God usually concerned the nation of Israel but on occasion could

45

Ezek 36:25–29, 33; Mal 3:2–4; 1 En. 10:20; 1QH 11:7–14; 16:8; CD 14:19; 11QMelch

4–9. 46 Ezek 36:33; CD 14:19; 11QMelch 4–9; Wright, People of God, 300–01; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 107. 47 Isa 44:3–5; 59:21; Ezek 36:26–27; 39:29; Joel 3:1–2 (LXX). 48 Isa 2:3; Jer 31:33–34; Ezek 36:27; Jub. 1:23–24; Lev. Rab. 24.4; Pesiḳ Rab. 41.2; Sib. Or. 3.710–19. 49 Isa 2:2–4; 25:6–7; 56:7; 60:2–14; 66:19–21, 23; Jer 16:19–21; Mic 4:1–4; Zech 2:11; 8:20–23; 14:16–19; Tob 13:11; 14:6; Sib. Or. 3.772–79. 50 Isa 25:9–10; 40:3–5, 9–10; 52:7–10; 59:20; Ezek 37:27; 43:2–7; Zech 2:5, 10–12; 8:3; 14:4; Mal 3:1; Jub. 1:26–28; 1 En. 90:30–36; 11Q19 29:3–9; Shemoneh ‘Esreh 16. Cf., Wright, Jesus, 205–06; Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 43–47. 51 Beasley-Murray, Kingdom of God, 24 (emphasis original). See also his comment on page 19, “in the Old Testament, hope in the coming of the kingdom is hope in the coming of the Lord.” 52 Ezekiel 40–48; Hag 2:6; Tob 14:5; Jub 1:15–17, 29; 1 En. 90:28–29; 91:13; 11Q19 29:2–10; T. Ben. 9:2; Sib. Or. 3.294; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–87. 53 Isa 13:9–10; 24:18–23; 51:6; Joel 3:3–4; 4:14–16; Amos 8:8–9; Hag 2:6, 21; 1 En. 80:4. 54 Wright, People of God, 307. 55 Wright, People of God, 314; cf. 307–20. With regards to 1 Enoch, Wright draws upon the Similitudes (chapters 37–71). He recognizes that the dating of these chapters is disputed and follows what he claims is the majority position, that of a first century AD composition. Wright, People of God, 317 n. 116.

B. Resetting the Context

85

become focused in a particular individual.56 In these instances, though the expectations associated with the messianic figure varied, he was generally conceived to be an agent of God whose task was to deliver and restore Israel. This task often involved military action, which was expressed as judgment and/or the cleansing or rebuilding of the temple.57 Wright adds that when an expectation of a coming messianic figure did exist, it was the focal point of the kingdom’s manifestation.58 In sum, the kingdom of heaven generally describes the universal, uncontested, and eschatological manifestation of God’s reign on earth.59 Characterized by bliss and representing salvation for the people of God, it is an entity founded upon an uncompromising bedrock of divine judgment. Such a scenario is by necessity, for God’s reign inherently can only exist in uncontested fullness when all sources of opposition to the divine will are eradicated. The inauguration of the kingdom of heaven therefore can alternatively be described as the eschatological Day of the Lord. As previously discussed (2.A.I.2), the eschatological Day of the Lord represents the decisive eschatological intervention of God to judge wickedness and fully establish his kingdom on earth. It represents the turn of the ages, the inauguration of a new order characterized by bliss for the people of God. It is for this reason that Dosker can define the eschatological Day of the Lord as “the future consummation of the kingdom of God”60 and Osborne can describe the kingdom of heaven in the following manner, “The Jewish expectation of a new world order developed throughout the OT, especially during the prophetic period. It was often called ‘the day of the Lord,’ connected especially with final judgment.”61 The inauguration of the kingdom of heaven thus corresponds to the arrival of the eschatological Day of the Lord. II. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 5–9 When one is aware of the various expectations that were associated with the kingdom of heaven, it becomes more apparent that the primary narrative thrust of Matt 5–9 is to demonstrate that the kingdom has become manifest in the person of Jesus. By its very nature, the Sermon on the Mount attests that the kingdom of heaven has been inaugurated.62 In a manner that strongly alludes 56

Though note the expectation of two messiahs in Qumran; e.g., 1QS 9:11. Wright, People of God, 319–20. 58 Wright, People of God, 320; cf. Wright, Jesus, 223, 482–83. 59 As stated above, this involves a spatial dimension in addition to dynamic agency. 60 Henry E. Dosker, “Day of the Lord,” ISBE, 1:879. 61 Osborne, Matthew, 110, commenting on the expression kingdom of heaven in Matt 3:2. 62 Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 131, “The Sermon in Matthew should not be seen merely as a collection of teaching but also as ‘part of an event of eschatological fulfillment.’” The quotation in Howell’s statement is from Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology, JSNTSup 8 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 114. 57

86

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

to the Sinaitic giving of the Law, Jesus unfolds a series of commands that he considers binding for any who would seek citizenship in the kingdom of heaven.63 His commands represent a renewal of the Mosaic Torah, for they reflect a higher form of righteousness (5:20), one that approaches perfection (5:48).64 In requiring this unprecedented level of faithfulness towards God in the community he establishes, Jesus evidences that the new age, which was associated with a heightened level of Torah observance, has begun.65 In embodying righteous perfection in himself, Jesus highlights his identity as the occasionally anticipated righteous ruler (e.g., Isa 11:4–5; Jer 23:5). Furthermore, in preaching the good news of the kingdom and pronouncing blessing on those who are poor in spirit and who mourn, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isa 61:1– 4 that was linked with the new age.66 The miracle chapters likewise demonstrate that with the coming of Jesus, the kingdom of heaven has burst upon the terrestrial scene. Jesus himself makes 63

The allusions are cast by the statements that Jesus ascended (ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος: Matt 5:1; cf. Exod 19:3, 12; 24:15, 18; 34:1–2) and descended the mountain (καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους: Matt 8:1; cf. Exod 19:14; 32:1, 15; 34:29) and by the sequence of events that has led to this point in the Gospel narrative: a male child is born; there is a slaughtering of infants; the protagonist sojourns in another land; there is a journey out of Egypt; a passing through waters occurs (baptism vs. Red Sea), and there is a testing in the wilderness. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:427; Allison, The New Moses. 64 In a sense, Jesus transforms “the pre-messianic Torah into the messianic Torah.” The quote is from Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1964), 327, cited in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:509. This relationship is seen most clearly in the six-fold juxtaposition of Jesus’s present tense commands with the past tense commands of the OT, “you have heard it said, but I say to you…” (5:21–48). 65 Cf. Allison, The New Moses, 182–90. While the full expression of the kingdom (6:10) and the perfect obedience of the disciples remained in the future, this does not negate the Sermon on the Mount as a sign of the kingdom’s inauguration. Donaldson, Mountain, 116–18, argues that the community Jesus creates, described in 5:14–16 as the light of the world (τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου) and a city on a mountain (πόλις ἐπάνω ὄρους), represents the new Jerusalem, a city that was to be established on a mountain where it would radiate God’s light to the world (Isa 2:2–4; 60:1–3; Tob 13:11); cf. Gundry, Matthew, 77; Hagner, Matthew, 100; K. M. Campbell, “The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14,” SJT 31 (1978): 335–63. This is certainly attractive in light of the context. However, Luz’s caution (Matthew, 1:207) about the absence of the article is equally strong (a city vs. the city, Jerusalem), and there is a more immediate antecedent available for light (Matt 4:16). Thus, while the new Jerusalem may be echoed in 5:14–16, it is not definitively so. 66 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:438–39, “Interpreted against the background of Isa 61:1–2, Mt 5.3, 4, and 6 with their Lukan parallels constitute a paradigmatic example of ‘eschatology in the process of realization.’ On the one hand, salvation is not yet. The hungry will be satisfied. Those who weep will laugh. The poor will enter the kingdom of God…On the other hand, the anointed, Spirit-bearing herald of Isa 61 has already appeared. He has already brought good tidings to the poor. He has already comforted those who mourn. Prophecy has been fulfilled. Eschatology has entered the present” (emphasis original).

B. Resetting the Context

87

this unequivocally clear when he declares that his exorcisms attest to the presence of the kingdom (12:28). One therefore sees retroactively that the demonic expulsions from the masses (8:16), the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–32), and the deaf-mute (9:32–33) all testify to the advent of the kingdom. In the same way, the healing miracles also testify to the kingdom’s arrival. When responding to the Baptist’s doubts about his identity, Jesus points to the majority of the miracles he performs in Matt 8–9 as evidence that he is indeed the eschatological figure about whom John had preached (11:2–6; cf. 3:11; 8:2–4; 9:2–8, 23–25, 27–31, 32–33).67 His response also clearly alludes to Isa 35:5–6, which correlates the healing of the blind, deaf, and lame with the arrival of the new age. Heil’s comments provide an apt summary, Healings and exorcisms then do not only guarantee that the kingdom is on its way, but actually usher in the kingdom as saving experiences in themselves. They are more than mere signs that point to the kingdom. They have a saving or healing effect on the people in the gospels who experience them. They are the means by which the kingdom is made present and actual in these people’s lives. Healings and exorcisms are events in which people of faith personally receive the kingdom in the person of Jesus, who brings it about.68

In addition to the healings and exorcisms, one could also point to the Isa 53:4 fulfillment quotation (8:17),69 the forgiveness of sins (9:2–8),70 the table fellowship with sinners (9:9–13),71 and the discussion about the bridegroom and new wine and wineskins (9:14–17) as evidence of the kingdom’s arrival. The Matthean miracle chapters therefore constitute a focused presentation of the kingdom’s manifestation. 67

E. R. Kalin, “Matthew 9:18–26: An Exercise in Redaction Criticism,” CurTM 15 (1988): 39–47, argues that Matt 9:18–26 was redacted to better align with Matt 11:5–6. 68 John Paul Heil, “Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in Matthew,” CBQ 41 (1979): 281–82. 69 The fulfillment citation connects 8:17 to the theme of eschatological realization that Matthew has developed in the Gospel’s first two chapters by way of other fulfillment citations. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 121, includes 8:17 when he states, “The Isaiah texts all appear to involve the issues of the messianic age and its concomitant effects. Each functions in a unique manner, linking the person of Jesus to the fulfillment of OT expectations, and each introduces new material into the narrative, demonstrating in some way that Jesus is the longawaited one.” Even if the Isa 53:4 quote is specifically focused on the healings and exorcisms, these acts are themselves indications of the kingdom of heaven’s arrival. 70 Note that the present tense verb utilized in Jesus’s declaration denotes temporal immediacy – the paralytic’s sins are forgiven at that moment, not in the distant future of a last judgment. This is confirmed by the instantaneous physical healing that Jesus effects immediately thereafter (9:6). 71 Perrin, Rediscovering, 107; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:101; cf. the arguments by Young S. Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew, WUNT 2/216 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 248–79, that 9:10–13 presents Jesus seeking the lost as the eschatological Davidic shepherd of Ezek 34.

88

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

In addition, both the Sermon on the Mount and miracle chapters also stress that the kingdom of heaven is inconceivable apart from Jesus.72 The Sermon on the Mount emphasizes that Jesus’s words define the ethics of the kingdom and state that one’s reaction to these words will be determinative of one’s fate (7:24–27). Moreover, Jesus places himself at the center of the kingdom, declaring that people will seek admittance into it on the basis of his name, that his response will determine the outcome of their request, and that failure to enter the kingdom equates with departing from his presence (7:21–23). In the miracle chapters, supplicants consistently come to Jesus in order to experience the blessings associated with the kingdom (8:2, 5, 25; 9:20, 28). Additionally, one notes that unlike the prophets who called upon God in prayer to perform miracles (e.g., 2 Kgs 5:11), Jesus provides these kingdom blessings of his own accord, and thereby demonstrates that the rule of God is present in his own person. In sum, chapters 5–9 indicate that the kingdom of heaven has become present on earth through the person of Jesus. III. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 1–4 A brief survey of the Gospel’s first four chapters further validates a reading of Matt 5–9 that takes the kingdom of heaven as its overarching context. It does so by demonstrating that the opening chapters set the stage for the kingdom’s manifestation in Matt 5–9 and likewise testify that the arrival of the kingdom is bound up with Jesus. One of the primary ways that the first chapter makes this clear is by highlighting Jesus’s identity as the messianic Son of David.73 As Wright states, for those who conceived of a messianic deliverer, this figure was at the center of expectations regarding the kingdom of heaven.74 Hagner expresses a similar claim, “Son of David” had become, by the first century, a title for the messianic deliverer who would assume the throne of David in accordance with the promise of 2 Sam 7:4–17 (the Davidic covenant), thereby inaugurating a kingdom of perfection and righteousness that would last forever.75

72

David du Toit, “Motive der Gottesgegenwart in der Synoptischen Tradition,” in Das Geheimnis der Gegenwart Gottes: zur Schechina-Vorstellung in Judentum und Christentum, ed. Bernd Janowski and Enno E. Popkes, WUNT 318 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 182– 83. 73 It does so through the dual reference in the opening verse, the Davidic emphasis in the genealogy (1:6, 17), the intertwining of the references to Χριστός and David (1:16–18), and the adoption story, which demonstrates that Jesus is the rightful descendant of the great king (1:18–25). 74 Wright, People of God, 320; cf. 308–9. 75 Hagner, Matthew, 1:9.

B. Resetting the Context

89

The ascription of Jesus as both Son of David and Messiah in the Gospel’s opening line therefore carries significant theological weight. The first chapter further sets the stage for eschatological fulfillment by situating Jesus the Messiah at the culminating position of a genealogy that delineates the history of the Israelite people (1:16; cf. 1:1). It also includes the Gospel’s first fulfillment citation, which forms an explicit claim that an aspect of Israel’s story has been fulfilled in Jesus (1:22). Additionally, the first chapter ascribes to Jesus the role of saving his people from their sins (1:21) and embodying the presence of God (1:23), both of which were associated with the awaited eschatological kingdom. The second chapter continues the discussion of Jesus’s messianic credentials by recounting Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem and ascribing to him the title “king of the Jews” (2:1–6). By recounting the history of Israel in Jesus’s life and employing additional fulfillment citations, it also develops the notion that Jesus is fulfilling the story of the Jewish people (2:14–23). It is in the third chapter with the coming of John the Baptist that the first rays of the new age are seen to crest the horizon.76 John is said to appear in the wilderness, a location connected with eschatological hopes and messianic expectations.77 His preaching marks the end of an era of prophetic silence,78 and the message he proclaims is proportionately momentous to the occasion that his preaching represents: he declares, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2). John’s central message is therefore that the long-awaited eschatological kingdom of God has been inaugurated; the age of fulfillment has begun.79 76 Jesus confirms that the kingdom of heaven has been present on earth since the time of John the Baptist in Matt 11:12. 77 For eschatological hopes associated with the wilderness see Jer 2:2–3; Hos 2:14–15; Ezek 20:35–28; 1QS 8:12–14; 9:19–20. For associated messianic expectations see Josephus, Ant. 20.97–98, 167–72; J. W. 7.438. Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 214–18; Hagner, Matthew, 1:47; France, Matthew, 100. The temporal descriptor Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (“in those days”) may also have eschatological significance (e.g., Zeph 1:15; Amos 9:11; Zech 12:3–4; Isa 10:20; Matt 7:22; 24:50); Kingsbury, Structure, 28–30; Hagner, Matthew, 1:47; though this perspective is rejected by Luz, Matthew, 1:134 n. 4. 78 1 Macc 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; Hagner, Matthew, 1:48–49. 79 Μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Though there has been considerable controversy over the verb ἤγγικεν, the overall Matthean narrative indicates that it is best to see the Baptist’s pronouncement encompassing both a present (11:12; 12:28) and future (6:10; 8:11–12; 13:24–30) dimension; i.e., he is speaking of an event that is already in the process of unfolding. Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 104–6, argues that the simultaneous present and future reality of the kingdom is explainable in light of the Jewish conception of the kingdom of God as a series of events that extended over a period

90

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

John’s other content further develops the kingdom of heaven theme by tying his announcement about the kingdom’s inauguration (3:2) to the coming of a powerful figure (3:11) and by associating these events with the bifurcation of the human race (3:7–10, 12). The ascriptions given to John also highlight his role in advancing the kingdom of heaven theme. John’s ministry is said to fulfill the prophecy of Isa 40:3 LXX, which speaks of the coming of God to deliver his people in a second exodus, and thus is closely related to the kingdom of heaven.80 Additionally, Jesus later declares that John is uniquely privileged to serve as the herald of the turning point of the ages (Matt 11:11); he is the eschatological Elijah figure of Mal 4:5, whose role was to prepare the hearts of God’s people for the great and awesome Day of the Lord (Matt 11:11–15).81 All of the above indicates that the primary role of John the Baptist in Matthew’s narrative is to prepare for the manifestation of the kingdom of heaven in the coming of Jesus. The fourth chapter finalizes the narrative’s preparation for the kingdom’s manifestation. It states that after John’s arrest, Jesus moves from his hometown of Nazareth to Capernaum along the Sea of Galilee to begin his ministry. As the Matt 4:14–16 fulfillment citation of Isa 8:23 makes clear, it is with this commencement of Jesus’s activity that the light of the messianic kingdom begins to shine in the darkness of the Galilean region. After making this important decree, the narrative then undergoes a significant shift (4:17): prologue gives

of time. Wright, Jesus, 248–49, claims that the repentance that John and Jesus required was an eschatological repentance necessary to end Israel’s exile. 80 Though the Matt 3:3 citation of Isa 40:3 does not contain the word “fulfill” and hence does not qualify as a true fulfillment citation, it still clearly conveys that John’s ministry has been anticipated in Scripture. It is highly likely that the word “fulfill” was withheld in this citation so that it could be reserved solely for application to Jesus. While God is clearly the referent of the Isa 40:3 LXX prophecy, the Matthean context makes clear that the coming κύριος (“Lord”) who fulfills the prophecy is none other than Jesus. The effect is thus to equate the coming of God with the coming of Jesus, thereby tightening the connection between the kingdom of heaven and Jesus’s person and reinforcing Matthew’s characterization of Jesus as Immanuel, “God with us” (1:23). Note that the 3:3 citation also relates to the return from exile, a motif that is prevalent in Matthew’s Gospel. In addition to the 3:3 “fulfillment” citation, the exile that gave rise to the Isa 40:3 prophecy is highlighted in Matthew’s genealogy (1:11–12, 17); Jesus is said to come up out of Egypt (2:15), spend 40 days in the wilderness (4:1), and give a new interpretation of the Mosaic Law while on a mountain (5–7); etc. For additional exodus imagery in Matthew’s Gospel see Allison, The New Moses. 81 The Matthean narrative underscores this association in 17:11–13. For additional texts that place the return of Elijah at the end of the ages see Sir 48:10; Sib. Or. 2.187–89 (the latter may reflect a Christian influence; see John J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Books 1 and 2” in OTP, 330).

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

91

way to the presentation of Jesus’s ministry.82 One notes that Jesus begins his mission by preaching the exact same message as the Baptist, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (4:17; cf. 3:2). Beyond denoting the continuity between John and Jesus, this repetition keeps the kingdom of heaven at the center of the narrative and helps to frame what is to follow. While much more could be said, this brief survey has argued that the first four chapters of the Gospel build towards Matt 5–9’s depiction of the kingdom’s manifestation. The titles ascribed to Jesus, the fulfillment citations, the recounting of Israel’s history, and the ministry of John the Baptist all indicate that the eschatological age of fulfillment is beginning to unfold and is christologically centered. At Matt 5, the dam bursts and the kingdom’s manifestation surges forward through Jesus’s words and deeds. Given the storm stilling’s tight connection to the Matt 5–9 intermediate context, the focused presentation of the kingdom in Matt 5–9, and the narrative preparation for this presentation, it is evident that the Matt 8:18–27 discipleship context proposed by Bornkamm and endorsed by many others is ultimately too narrow for the storm stilling account. Rather, one must situate Matt 8:23–27 within the larger theme of the kingdom of heaven.83 IV. The Kingdom of Heaven in Matt 8:23–27 The effect of approaching the storm stilling within the context of the kingdom of heaven is to take seriously both the christological and discipleship motifs that are present in the account, as well as the nature of their relationship: the latter theme is a corollary of the former. Christology is what creates discipleship. This relationship is observed in the storm stilling as well as in Matt 5–9 in general. By showcasing Jesus’s power over the sea, the storm stilling demonstrates individually what Matt 5–9 evidences as a collective whole: the eschatological rule of God has arrived, is present and focused in Jesus, and demands a response.

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 More to the point, it is when the Matthean storm stilling is viewed through the lens of the kingdom of heaven that considerable resonance is observed between the σεισμός featured in the account and certain connotations that existed for 82 The shift is indicated by the phrase Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς (“from that time Jesus began”; cf. 16:23) and by the fact that Jesus assumes a much more active and central role in the narrative. See Kingsbury, Structure, 7–9. 83 Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57, recognizes that the storm stilling presents Jesus bringing the kingdom of heaven but significantly subsumes this theme under that of discipleship.

92

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

shaking imagery in Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia.84 This resonance is observed at two frequencies, the epiphanic and the eschatological. I. Epiphanic Resonance In the storm stilling account, Matthew’s presentation of Jesus finds fuller expression by further developing the theme of Jesus’s authority: it is the first time in the Gospel narrative that Jesus displays power over the sea. Since such ability is exclusive to God in the OT, the storm stilling episode reinforces the fact that God has drawn near in the person of Jesus (1:23) and provides a powerful attestation that the kingdom of heaven, a concept closely associated with divine advent, has been inaugurated. As the reaction of the disciples would suggest (8:27), it is nothing short of astounding that Jesus is able to calm the tempestuous sea by means of a mere verbal command. In the act of creation, God had done something similar: through the medium of speech he controlled the waters and the chaos they represented (Gen 1:9). Divine power over the sea was also made manifest in the exodus when God divided the waters of the Red Sea so that his people could pass through its midst (Exod 14:10–15:21). The divine dominance over the sea that is demonstrated in these events is reflected throughout the Psalms and Prophets as a means of depicting God’s utter uniqueness, power, and glory. For example, Ps 89:8–10 identifies the ability to calm the sea as a significant aspect of God’s unique sovereignty; it expresses this power in the language of the Chaoskampf tradition as victory over the chaotic sea monster Rahab, O LORD God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O LORD, with your faithfulness all around you? 9 You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. 10 You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm. (Ps 89:8–10)

Psalm 65:7 MT and Job 26:12 likewise list God’s ability to still the sea as one of his awesome attributes.85 Of the many other passages that attest God’s maritime omnipotence,86 Ps 107:23–32 is worth noting in particular, Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the great waters; 24 they saw the deeds of the LORD, his wondrous works in the deep. 84

οἱ καταβαίνοντες εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ἐν πλοίοις ποιοῦντες ἐργασίαν ἐν ὕδασι πολλοῖς, 24 αὐτοὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα κυρίου καὶ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βυθῷ·

See chapter two. Ps 65:7 MT has the hiphil of ‫“( שׁבח‬to still”) while Ps 64:8 LXX has συντάρασσω (“to stir up”). 86 Ps 18:15; 77:20; 93:3–4; 104:7; 106:8–9; Job 9:8; Isa 50:2; 51:9–10, 15; Jer 31:35; Nah 1:4; Hab 3:15; 2 Macc 9:8. 85

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 25 For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea. 26 They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths; their courage melted away in their evil plight; 27 they reeled and staggered like drunken men and were at their wits’ end. 28 Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. 29 He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. 30 Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven. 31 Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for his wondrous works to the children of man! 32 Let them extol him in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.

93

25 εἶπεν, καὶ ἔστη πνεῦμα καταιγίδος, καὶ ὑψώθη τὰ κύματα αὐτῆς· 26 ἀναβαίνουσιν ἕως τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ καταβαίνουσιν ἕως τῶν ἀβύσσων, ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῶν ἐν κακοῖς ἐτήκετο, 27 ἐταράχθησαν, ἐσαλεύθησαν ὡς ὁ μεθύων, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ σοφία αὐτῶν κατεπόθη· 28 καὶ ἐκέκραξαν πρὸς κύριον ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαι αὐτούς, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀναγκῶν αὐτῶν ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς 29 καὶ ἐπέταξεν τῇ καταιγίδι, καὶ ἔστη εἰς αὔραν, καὶ ἐσίγησαν τὰ κύματα αὐτῆς· 30 καὶ εὐφράνθησαν, ὅτι ἡσύχασαν, καὶ ὡδήγησεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ λιμένα θελήματος αὐτῶν. 31 ἐξομολογησάσθωσαν τῷ κυρίῳ τὰ ἐλέη αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θαυμάσια αὐτοῦ τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 32 ὑψωσάτωσαν αὐτὸν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαοῦ καὶ ἐν καθέδρᾳ πρεσβυτέρων αἰνεσάτωσαν αὐτόν.

One notes considerable overlap between this passage and Matt 8:23–27: [a] there is a boat on the sea (though Ps 107:23 = boats; Matt 8:23 = boat), [b] a violent storm arises (Ps 107:25; Matt 8:24), [c] that involves threatening waves (Ps 107:25; Matt 8:24), [d] the occupants of the boat are terrified (Ps 107:26– 27; Matt 8:25), [e] there is a cry for help to the “Lord” (Ps 107:28; Matt 8:25), and in response [f] a miraculous stilling of the storm (Ps 107:29; Matt 8:27).87 The significant difference between the accounts is that in the Psalm, it is God that stills the storm, while in Matthew, it is Jesus who does so. A similar effect is generated when one juxtaposes the Matthean storm stilling with Jonah 1. As with Ps 107, Jonah 1 also displays many points of correspondence with Matt 8:23–27: both accounts contain [a] a boat on the sea (Jonah 1:3; Matt 8:23), [b] a violent storm that threatens the boat and its occupants (Jonah 1:4; Matt 8:24), [c] a sleeping protagonist (Jonah 1:5; Matt 8:24), [d] terrified sailors (Jonah 1:5; Matt 8:25), [e] a plea for help (Jonah 1:6, 14; Matt 8:25), [f] a miraculous stilling of the storm (Jonah 1:15; Matt 8:27), and [g] an amazed response on the part of the boat occupants (Jonah 1:16; Matt 8:27).88 In the Jonah passage, the men utter desperate prayers and God calms 87 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 48–49, also points out the lexical connections of ἄνθρωπων/ἄνθρωποι (Ps 107[106]:31/Matt 8:27) and θαυμάσια/ἐθαύμασαν (Ps 107[106]:24, 31/Matt 8:27). 88 Matthew has distanced his account from that of Jonah 1, however.

94

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

the sea in response. In the Matthean account, however, Jesus does not calm the sea through prayer but rather directly through his own initiative.89 The implication that follows from the allusions that Matt 8:23–27 makes to both Jonah 1 and Psalm 107 is that Jesus manifests divine ability when calming the raging wind and waters. The manner in which Jesus calms the storm also plays into the depiction of his divine power. Jesus is said to “rebuke” (ἐπιτιμάω) the wind and sea (Matt 8:26), thereby bringing immediate calm. In the OT, God frequently exerts power over the sea in the same manner. The psalmist states that it was as at God’s “rebuke” (ἐπιτίμησις) that the waters of the sea fled during creation (Ps 103:7), and it was at God’s rebuke (ἐπιτιμάω) that the foundations of the Red Sea were laid bare so that Israel could traverse its span (Ps 105:9 LXX). David proclaims that his divinely orchestrated deliverance involved the exposure of the waters at God’s rebuke (ἐπιτίμησις; Ps 17:16 LXX).90 Thus, Jesus’ rebuke of the waters and their subsequent obedience reinforces the divine nature of his authority. The reference to Jesus sleeping may provide a further indication of his divine status. Bernard Batto argues that in the context of the calming of the sea, Jesus’s inopportune slumber should not be interpreted as a concession to fatigue or even primarily as a sign of great faith (Job 11:18–10; Ps 3:5–6; 4:8; Prov 3:24–26). Rather, it is best understood against the background of the ancient near eastern motif of the sleeping god.91 Enlisting texts such as Enuma elish and Atrahasis, Batto demonstrates that sleeping was a divine (vs. human) prerogative,92 and that the ability to sleep was a sign of a god’s total control.93 For example, in Enuma elish, the vizier Mummu interprets the insomnia of Apsu and Tiamat, which stemmed from the behavior of other gods, as an insurrectionist threat to their rule, “Do destroy, my father, the mutinous ways; then you shall rest by day, sleep by night.”94 In the account that follows, rest is only obtained after Marduk ends the civil war of the heavens by slaying the ocean god Tiamat and assuming universal rule (IV.133–36). As Batto points, out, a battle with the sea is also forefront in the Matthean storm stilling passage. Interpreted in this light, the distressed disciples calling upon a sleeping Jesus for salvation (Matt 8:25) mirrors the distressed Israelites calling upon a sleeping Yahweh for deliverance (Ps 7:7; 35:23; 44:24; 59:5–6). While Batto’s claim is somewhat stretched given the antiquity of his proposed intertexts, it is nevertheless interesting to note that Matt 8:23–27 displays considerable resonance with Isa 51:9–11, a prophecy that draws upon a 89

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:70; France, Matthew, 336. Cf. Isa 50:2; Nah 1:4. 91 Batto, “Sleeping God.” 92 Batto, “Sleeping God,” 156–59. 93 Batto, “Sleeping God,” 159–64. 94 I.49–50, quoted in Batto, “Sleeping God,” 161. 90

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

95

Chaoskampf depiction of creation and God’s mastery over the sea in the exodus to cast God’s future deliverance of the exiled Jewish nation as a second exodus, Awake! Awake! Put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon? 10 Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? 11 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.95 (Isa 51:9–11)

The Matthean storm stilling exhibits continuity with this Isaianic prophecy in both a plea for an awakening (Isa 51:9; Matt 8:25) and the subsequent mention of a victorious battle with the sea (Isa 51:9–10; Matt 8:26).96 Further resonance is created by the presence of the exodus theme that runs through Matthew’s Gospel.97 Thus, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus’s sleeping in the midst of the storm could be interpreted as a sign of his security in his divine rule. More certain is the disciples’ address of Jesus as κύριε (“Lord”) in the storm stilling context. Though κύριος can convey nothing beyond a generic respect, the way that the term is employed in Matthew’s Gospel suggests that its connotation is far more encompassing. In the Gospel’s first six chapters, the term

95 The LXX mistakenly addresses this hymn to Jerusalem instead of Yahweh, probably due to the parallel semantics in Isa 51:17; 52:1. Clearly, it was Yahweh who exhibited this power over the sea in Israel’s tradition. 96 Granted, in Matt 8:23–27 the disciples do not cry “Awake! Awake!” as in Isa 51:9, but they do come to Jesus and wake him from sleep with a plea for deliverance. The battle with the sea is implicit in Matthew but is observed by a number of commentators: Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 1:318; Harrington, Matthew, 123; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:75; Nolland, Matthew, 372; Osborne, Matthew, 314 (“there may be an echo of cosmic conflict here”). A connection between Matt 8:23–27 and Isa 51:9 is also observed in Senior, Matthew, 102; Turner, Matthew, 244. Cf. Kristina Dronsch, “Schiffbruch im Kleinglauben (Die Stillung des Sturms): Mt 8,23–27” in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 1, 405, who follows the same line of reasoning between Batto, “Sleeping God” and Isa 51:9– 11 that is outlined above. 97 See above n. 80. Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” argues for a prominent exodus theme in Matt 8–9.

96

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

κύριος consistently refers to God.98 However, at 7:21 the referent of the term suddenly shifts to Jesus.99 The context in which this shift occurs is significant. There Jesus places himself at the center of the divine kingdom, referring to himself as the one who determines admittance into it and defining the entrance criteria as being known by himself (7:21–23). Additionally, the double address of “κύριε, κύριε” that is made to Jesus in this context constitutes an unequivocal reference to the divine name.100 In 7:21 Jesus has thereby applied the divine referent to himself in a context that is bound up with divine rule and has indicated that his response is the determinative factor for admittance. It is no accident that immediately after this section of the narrative, supplicants are observed to come to Jesus seeking blessings belonging to members of the kingdom and addressing Jesus as κύριε (8:2, 6, 8, 25; 9:28). It is also highly relevant to the Matt 8:25 occurrence of κύριε that the terrified sailors of Ps 106:28 LXX cry out to the Lord (πρὸς κύριον) for deliverance from the storming sea. In Matt 8:23–27, the disciples call out to Jesus using the same title in the same context and receive the same result. In calling out to Jesus as κύριος and requesting salvation (8:25), the disciples also mirror the redeemed of Joel 3:5 LXX, who call upon the name of the Lord in the eschatological Day of the Lord and are saved.101 Although the bewildered question that the disciples pose at the end of the storm stilling account suggests that they have not yet grasped the full significance of their address in 8:25, the above observations suggest that the significance of the address did not escape Matthew.102 An additional subtle attestation of Jesus’s divine status is likely found in the 8:27 description of the disciples as οἱ ἄνθρωποι (“the people”). The expression is found only in Matthew; both Mark (4:41) and Luke (8:25) utilize third person plural verbal forms to describe the subjects of the awestruck speculation. The peculiarity of the phrase results from its generic nature; one would expect a specific reference to the disciples, as only they and Jesus were said to get into the boat (Matt 8:23) and the scene introduces no other characters. As would be expected, this incongruity has generated considerable speculation. Theories that posit a specific referent for the expression range from occupants of other boats (cf. Mark 4:36, which is absent from Matthew’s account),103 shoreline 98

1:20, 22, 24; 2:13, 15, 19; 4:7, 10; 5:33; 6:24. The exception to this is the Isa 40:3 quotation in Matt 3:3, where the Matthean context shifts the referent from God to Jesus. 99 After 7:21 the referent of κύριος varies between Jesus (e.g., 8:2, 6, 8, 21, 25; 9:28; 14:28, 30; 15:22) and Yahweh (e.g., 11:25; 21:9, 40, 42; 22:37; 23:39). 100 Jason A. Staples, “’Lord, Lord’: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke,” NTS 64 (2018): 1–19, argues convincingly that a doubled κύριος universally translates ‫אדני יהוה‬. 101 Joel 3:5a - καὶ ἔσται πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, σωθήσεται. 102 One notes that Matthew has redacted Mark’s account to change the address from διδάσκαλε (“teacher”; Mark 4:38) to κύριε. 103 Jerome, Comm. Matt. 1.8.27.

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

97

bystanders,104 the Gospel’s readers or hearers,105 unbelievers,106 or proleptically, the twelve (cf. Matt 10:1).107 Scholars have also classified οἱ ἄνθρωποι as a “relic” of a nonextant source underlying the Matthean and Markan storm stilling accounts,108 or as a lexical connection that is intended to strengthen an allusion to Jonah 1109 or to Ps 107(106):23–32.110 A better explanation is that οἱ ἄνθρωποι highlights Jesus’s divinity by means of contrast.111 The contrast is observed between the disciples, who are helpless and terrified in the storm, and Jesus, who first sleeps peacefully and then instantly stills the sea by means of a mere verbal command. Since it goes without saying that the disciples are human beings, their description as οἱ ἄνθρωποι underscores their finitude, and in turn implies that Jesus, who has not displayed the same helplessness, is far more than an ordinary human. The use of ποταπός strengthens this interpretation. Like οἱ ἄνθρωποι, this is also a Matthean redaction, one that supplants the Markan τίς (Mark 4.41; cf. Luke 8.25). The term ποταπός fundamentally expresses a sense of qualis (“what kind of?”); while τίς can also act in this capacity (e.g., Mark 1:27; Luke 1:66; Acts 7:49), it more often functions substantivally as an interrogative reference (“who?”).112 The expression τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν in Mark’s account allows for either possibility and thus contains more ambiguity than the redacted Matthean question ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος, which unequivocally asks about category. While this in itself is not curious, what is strange is that no qualifying 104

Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 1:318; cf. William F. Albright and Christopher S. Mann, Matthew, AB 26 (New York: Doubleday, 1971), 98–99; Paul Gaechter, Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1964), 278. 105 Bornkamm, “Stilling of the Storm,” 57; Heinz Joachim Held, “Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 266–67; Luz, Matthew, 2:21; cf. Luz, “The Disciples in the Gospel according to Matthew,” in Studies in Matthew, 126–27. 106 Léon-Dufour, Études d’Évangile, 167; cf. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 164. This position is also espoused by Hilary of Poitiers, Sur Matthieu, ed. J. Doignon, SC 254 (Paris: du Cerf, 1978), 195, though it is less developed. 107 Hagner, Matthew, 1:222. 108 Kevin W. Larsen, “Matthew 8.27 and Mark 4:36: Relics of a Prior Source?,” ResQ 54 (2012): 186–90. 109 Mora, La symbolique, 149. 110 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 48–49. 111 Gundry, Matthew, 156–57. This position had previously been espoused by A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1920), 131–32, though Plummer’s argument is not as developed as Gundry’s. 112 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 155; Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament With Scripture, Subject, And Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19964), 345; BDAG, 1006.

98

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

noun (i.e., description of category) is supplied for ποταπός in Matt 8:27. This gap leaves the question of Jesus’s identity wide open and suggests that his nature may be difficult to define (i.e., “what kind of [being] is this?”).113 It is in this context that the apparently superfluous reference to the disciples as οἱ ἄνθρωποι shines forth as a clever piece of composition. Since ἄνθρωπος is the nearest definite noun, it suggests itself as the missing qualifier for the gapped ποταπός (i.e., “what sort of [person] is this?”). This subtly reminds the reader that like the disciples, Jesus is also human. However, the fact that ἄνθρωπος is not directly supplied as the qualifying noun for ποταπός indicates that humanity is a category into which Jesus doesn’t entirely fit. Given the context of the storm stilling where Jesus performs a divine action in calming the sea, the implication is that he must be something more.114 In summary, Matt 8:23–27 places considerable emphasis on the divine ability of Jesus to calm the sea. Prior to Matt 8:23–27, this facet of Jesus’s character had not yet been manifested; the storm stilling therefore marks a significant development in the narrative. In this sense, Heil is correct to classify the Matthean storm stilling as an epiphany scene. He defines the literary genre of epiphany as follows, A disposition of literary motifs narrating a sudden and unexpected manifestation of a divine or heavenly being experienced by certain selected persons, in which the divine being reveals 113 The answer to this question will be provided in 14:33, 16:16, and ultimately 27:54. See 5.B.I. 114 J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 443, has recently argued against this interpretation of οἱ ἄνθρωποι, instead claiming that the expression delimits Jesus’s humanity. He reasons that by supplying the missing qualifier for ποταπός, οἱ ἄνθρωποι tethers the possibilities concerning Jesus’s identity to the realm of the anthropological. In other words, rather than wondering what sort of being Jesus could be (with divinity looming large in the realm of possibility), Kirk has the disciples wondering what sort of human Jesus is. Though it constitutes an important reminder not to neglect Jesus’s human nature, Kirk’s interpretation appears forced. If οἱ ἄνθρωποι were intended solely to ground Jesus’s identity as a human being, its effect would simply be to accentuate the continuity between Jesus and the disciples (both are human). However, this is at odds with the rest of the account, which describes Jesus responding to the storm in a manner that is entirely different than his disciples, and which addresses Jesus with the charged term κύριος. Additionally, Kirk’s interpretation is not sensitive enough to Matthew’s redacted use of ποταπός. By placing more emphasis on qualis, ποταπός more definitively questions Jesus’s nature than the Markan τίς (4:41). Since one recognizes by default that Jesus is human (he appears in human form just like the other human characters in the story), there is little to be gained by more definitively questioning his nature than raising the possibility that Jesus is something greater than human. Furthermore, if the term ἄνθρωπος were intended solely to delineate Jesus’s humanity, one wonders why it is used to describe the question askers instead of forming part of the question itself (i.e., ποταπὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐστιν οὗτος). As it is, οἱ ἄνθρωποι calls attention to the humanity of the disciples much more directly than to the humanity of Jesus. Kirk’s interpretation is thus unconvincing.

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

99

a divine attribute, action or message. The essential characteristic of an epiphany is that it reveals some aspect of God’s salvific dealings with his people. An epiphany thus presents or offers a particular revelation to certain people, who are then free to accept or reject it.115

It is when the Matthean storm stilling is recognized as an epiphany scene that the 8:24 σεισμός begins to be seen in its proper light. As discussed in chapter two, earthquakes were closely associated with theophanies in the culture that Matthew inhabited. The association was strongest in the OT, where the primary connotation carried by earthquakes is that of theophanic accompaniment. In particular, the OT connects earthquakes to the appearance of the divine warrior, who marches forth in judgment, or more often, to deliver his people from their enemies. One observes that maritime victory is another prominent aspect of the divine warrior motif, though many of the passages that describe the divine warrior’s victory over the sea do not feature earthquakes.116 In the case of Psalm 18, however, both are present.117 In this Psalm, the divine warrior comes forth to deliver David from his enemies in a procession that is described as generating massive amounts of seismic activity (18[17]:8). Moreover, the rescue is said to involve God’s rebuke (ἐπιτίμησις) of the sea (18[17]:16) and is additionally depicted as a deliverance from many waters (18:17). Such imagery has obvious overlap with the actions of Jesus in the Matthean storm stilling. In Matt 8:23–27, Jesus acts as the divine warrior by exercising divine authority to defeat the chaotic sea and bring calm.118 Moreover, he does so in response to the disciples’ cry for help; he awakens from his sleep to save them from their distress. Such a response is in keeping with the salvific dimension that is also prevalent in the divine warrior motif. II. Eschatological Resonance In addition to highlighting his divine nature, Jesus’s victory over the sea may provide an additional signal. As Davies and Allison point out, Jesus’s nautical triumph likely comprises another attestation that the kingdom of heaven has been inaugurated, In the OT the coming of the eschaton is depicted in terms of Yahweh’s victory over the cosmic sea. For example, victory over the nations in the last days is compared with victory over the sea (Ps 46; Isa 17.12–14); and the future final conflict between Yahweh and ‘the adversary’ is expressed in similar terms (Isa 50.2–3; note also Rev 13.1 and 21.1). It is 115

John Paul Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt. 14:22–33, Mark 6:45–52, and John 6:15b-21, AnBib 87 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 8. 116 E.g., Ps 65:7; 89:9–10; 93:3–4; 104:3–9; 106:9; Job 26:12–13; Isa 43:16; 51:9–11. 117 Cf. Ps 77:16–19; Hab 3:3–15. 118 Cf. Andrew R. Angel, “Crucifixus Vincens: The ‘Son of God’ as Divine Warrior in Matthew,” CBQ 73 (2011): 299–317, who argues for a depiction of Jesus as the divine warrior in Matt 14:22–33.

100

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

probably over against this tradition that we are to understand the description of the sea, the terror of the disciples, and the action of Jesus in 8.23–7. The implicit Christology is this. The cosmic forces of evil that threaten the order of creation are brought under the control of one who has authority over them, and who, in the latter days, exercises the sovereign power of God. In his sovereign word the elements have found their master.119

Hagner corroborates their interpretation, stating that the sea was “often symbolic of evil or the dwelling place of evil” and reasoning that if this connotation were present for the sea in the Matthean storm stilling account, “then Jesus’ power over the sea is of the same kind as his healings and exorcisms, and hence truly representative of the dawning of the eschatological kingdom.”120 One notes that the surrounding context is suggestive of such a connotation. First, as discussed above, the primary narrative thrust of Matt 5–9 is to demonstrate that the kingdom of heaven has been inaugurated by Jesus. Second, there is a close connection between the storm stilling and the exorcism of the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34),121 an account that mentions the final judgment of demons at the hand of Jesus (8:29) and likely previews the event in an exorcism that culminates in a watery death (8:31–32). This connection thereby reinforces the connotation of evil often carried by the sea.122 If it is indeed the case that the calming of the sea comprises an eschatological event, another point of resonance is observed for the 8:24 σεισμός. As discussed in chapter two, earthquakes were frequently connected with the turning point of the ages in Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia (e.g., 24:7). This is especially evident in the OT, where earthquakes frequently occur in conjunction with the eschatological Day of the Lord. For example, the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord describes a tremendous earthquake (τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς σεισθήσεται; 24:18; ἡ γή σεισθήσεται; 24:20) that occurs when God appears in judgment at the turn of the ages. Significantly for Matt 8:23–27, this eschatological seismic 119 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:75. Cf. 2 Bar 29:3–8; Andrew R. Angel, Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf Tradition in the Period 515 BCE to 200 CE, LSTS 60 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 14, “The divine warrior’s conquest of the forces of chaos became a description of the events of the End-time.” 120 Hagner, Matthew, 1:222. For the sea as an image of chaos or evil see Isa 27:1; 51:9– 11; Ps 65:7; 74:12–17; 89:9–10; Job 41:25, 31; Dan 7:2; Rev 21:1; 1QH 10:12–16, 27–28; 11:27–36; 1 En. 60:7–9, 24–25; Jos. Asen. 12:11; T. Jud. 21:6–7. T. Ash. 7:2–3 speaks of the coming of God to crush the sea monster and save both Israel and the gentiles. The passage also contains a reference to God coming as a man and eating and drinking with men, which many consider to be a Christian interpolation. 121 The passages are connected by the question-answer of 8:27/8:29, the repeated mention of the sea (8:24, 26–27, 32), and the geographical references to the other side (8:18, 28; 9:1). 122 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 51; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 167. The use of the term ἐπιτιμάω (8:26) may also play into this connotation since Jesus is elsewhere observed to rebuke (ἐπιτιμάω) demons (17:18). However, this use of the verb is more pronounced in Mark (1:25; 3:12; 9:25) than it is in Matthew; in the latter the term is more frequently related to people (12:16; 16:22; 19:13; 20:31).

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

101

intervention is described as salvation (Isa 25:9; cf. Matt 8:25) and is said to involve God’s defeat of the sea, “On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1). In addition to maritime victory, Isaiah declares that God’s intervention will likewise demolish death (25:7; cf. 26:19) and will culminate in a banquet for all nations (25:6; cf. Matt 8:11) and the enthronement of God as king (24:23).123 The Ezek 38–39 Day of the Lord presents a similar scenario. Ezekiel also mentions a massive earthquake (σεισμὸς μἐγας) that accompanies an eschatological advent of the divine warrior in judgment (38:19). In this instance it is Gog and his vast army of many nations that constitutes the divine warrior’s opponent; these forces come against Israel with ill intent but are routed by the divine warrior when he appears in seismic splendor. Noteworthy here is Levenson’s claim that the army of Gog in Ezek 38–39 serves an identical function to that of the sea in Isa 24–27: my point is that Leviathan, Amalek, Gog, and the like are symbols from different traditionary complexes for the same theological concept: the ancient and enduring opposition to the full realization of God’s mastery, the opposition to be eliminated at the turn of the aeon.124

Strengthening Levenson’s point is the fact that the nations are occasionally described with maritime imagery in the OT (Isa 17:12–13; 60:5; Ezek 26:3; Ps 65:7). One also notes that Ezek 38–39 is also comparable to Isa 24–27 in its description of the aftermath of the divine warrior’s eschatological intervention. Ezekiel states that God’s victory over Gog’s army will usher in an age of peace (39:9–10) that includes the manifestation of God’s glory to all nations (38:23; 39:6–7, 21–23), an eschatological banquet (39:17–20), the restoration of exiled Israel (39:25–28), and a renewed relationship between God and his people (39:29). Among other examples of eschatological earthquakes, one can also mention Hag 2:6, 21 LXX, which connects a divine shaking (σείω) of heaven, earth, the sea, and dry land with the eschatological Day of the Lord.125 In Haggai’s account this shaking brings about the glorification of the Second Temple, the overthrow of the world’s rulers, and the installment of a messianic figure to rule as God’s agent. 123 These themes have obvious importance for Matthew’s Gospel; see 5.B.II.2 for further discussion of Isa 24–27. 124 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 38. Note also that in the Hebrew text of Ezek 38:4 (though not in the LXX), Gog is referred to as a sea monster; Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17–21 and 20,7–10, WUNT 2/135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 116. 125 At least one commentator has connected the shaking of the sea in Hag 2:6 with the σεισμὸς μέγας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ of Matt 8:24: Nolland, Matthew, 370 n. 102.

102

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

All three of these seismic prophecies display considerable thematic correspondence with Matt 5–9 in particular and Matthew’s Gospel in general, for as discussed above (3.B.I), the eschatological Day of the Lord is conceptually equivalent to the arrival of the kingdom of heaven. Consequently, if the Matt 8:24 σεισμός were alluding to the eschatological Day of the Lord, it would fit perfectly within the overarching kingdom of heaven framework that is present in Matt 5–9. III. The Matt 8:24 σεισμός as an Epiphanic and Eschatological Indicator In light of the above, it would therefore appear that the 8:24 σεισμός functions as an epiphanic and eschatological indicator in the Matthean storm stilling pericope. By way of its prevalent epiphanic and eschatological connotations, the term calls attention to the presence of these themes within Matt 8:23–27. Moreover, it likely also points backwards and suggests that Jesus’s victory over the sea is bound up with the fulfillment of prophecies regarding the eschatological Day of the Lord (e.g., Isa 24–27; Ezek 38:19; Hag 2:6, 21). Interpreting the σεισμός in this way helps to explain the awkwardness of its fit in the storm stilling context. As discussed in chapter one, while Jer 23:19 LXX may stretch the semantic domain of σεισμός far enough to include storms, such a meaning would certainly remain a rare exception; the term simply does not fit well in the storm stilling account. This incongruity is precisely what facilitates the term’s function as an indicator: the lack of fit focuses attention on the σεισμός and thereby better enables the term’s epiphanic and eschatological connotations to color the account. In other words, the incongruity intensifies the term’s highlighting of the passage. Additional support for interpreting the Matt 8:24 σεισμός as an epiphanic and eschatological indicator is found in the fact that Jesus is never said to interact directly with the σεισμός. While the σεισμός is said to be the cause of the waves that threaten the boat and the disciples (via the causal conjunction ὥστε; 8:24), Jesus eliminates the threat by commanding the winds and the sea (8:26–27). One would expect Jesus to rebuke the σεισμός if it comprised the root of the danger; the fact that he doesn’t relegates the σεισμός to an incidental and peripheral position in the passage. Such is precisely the role of an indicator: it highlights a passage but has little direct involvement. Granting that the 8:24 σεισμός is functioning indicatively, the question that follows is why Matthew has chosen to highlight the storm stilling in particular. As discussed in chapter one, Timothy J. Stone believes it is because Matt 8:23– 27 serves as both a “symbolic preview of Jesus’ death and resurrection [and] also a vital means of explaining it.”126 Ignoring the term’s connotations, Stone claims that the 8:24 σεισμός is mentioned solely to highlight the relationship 126

Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 54; cf. 50.

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

103

between the storm stilling and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts, both of which also reference a σεισμός (27:54; 28:2). The end that is accomplished through the means of linking the three accounts is the painting of Jesus’s death and resurrection in the same colors as 8:23–27, a return from exile.127 Stone reasons that because 8:23–27 contains allusions to Ps 107(106):23–32 and the story of Jonah, both of which were associated with a return from exile (the latter primarily in Jewish tradition), and because Matt 8:23–27 is set within a larger context that relates to a return from exile (Matt 8–11, which conveys this theme primarily by way of its references to Isaiah in 8:17; 11:5–6), Matt 8:23– 27 must also describe a return from exile.128 He envisions the storm stilling’s depiction of exilic return as a mosaic made up of pieces from Jonah (a voluntary plunge into the sea to expiate sins and appease divine wrath), Psalm 107 (a return from exile through divine defeat of the devil), and Isaiah (return from exile, light to the nations). Thus, when the crucifixion and resurrection are viewed through the lens of Matt 8:23–27, one sees the following, On the cross, Jesus plunged into the heart of the sea to deal with the adversary, bury sins, and satisfy God’s wrath. Like Jonah, his sacrifice is voluntary; like Jonah, he returned from death three days later. Thus, the exile of Israel and the exile of humanity have been embodied and dealt with through the redemptive suffering and voluntary sacrifice of Jesus.129

Stone thereby claims that the storm stilling is highlighted in order to foreshadow and interpret the crucifixion and resurrection. He declares that the significance of these events comes fully into focus only when they are viewed through the interpretive lens of Matt 8:23–27. While Stone is certainly correct to link the storm stilling with the crucifixion and resurrection accounts and to view 8:23–27 as a type of interpretive key, one does not need to follow such a circuitous intertextual path to reach an understanding of how the events interrelate. A more fitting approach is to interpret the storm stilling as a prolepsis, a “narrative maneuver that consists of narrating or evoking in advance an event that will take place later.”130 As David Howell argues convincingly, prolepses are a central means by which Matthew advances the plot of his Gospel and intensifies its dramatic power.131 Widely recognized examples of internal prolepses within Matthew’s narrative include Jesus’s passion predictions (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19), the temptation 127 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 52–53, also links the events by way of references to sleep and rising. 128 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 50, “I propose Matt 8:23–27 functions like a set of lenses refracting the images and significances of Ps 107 and Jonah in order to shed light on Jesus’ death and resurrection.” 129 Stone, “Following the Church Fathers,” 54. 130 Gerard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, trans. J. E. Lewin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980), 40, quoted in Howell, Inclusive Story, 100. 131 Howell, Inclusive Story, 93–160, esp. 96–114.

104

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

narrative (4:1–11), the fate of John the Baptist (14:1–12), and the infancy narrative (Matt 1–2).132 With regards to the latter, one sees for example that what happens at Jesus’s birth is what also happens at his death and resurrection.133 Though space does not permit an extensive explanation of this phenomenon, a few of the correlations can be summarized briefly: at both Jesus’s birth and his death and resurrection, one finds dreams (2:12, 13, 19 / 27:19), an angel of the Lord (1:20, 24; 2:13, 19 / 28:2–7), Jesus described as the King of the Jews (2:2 / 27:11, 29, 37), a christological hostility and murderous intent on the part of Jewish leaders (2:3, 13–16 / 27:40–43) contrasted with christological receptivity by gentiles (2:2, 9–12 / 27:54), worship of Jesus that is attended by great joy (2:10–11 / 28:8–9), announcement (ἀπαγγέλλω; 2:8 / 28:8, 10, 11), christologically qualified references to salvation (1:21 / 27:40, 42, 49) and presence (1:23 / 28:20), and an Immanuel motif (1:23 / 28:20).134 These correlations are summarized in the table below. Table 4: Correlations between the Matthean Infancy Narrative and the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Scene Infancy Narrative

Crucifixion-Resurrection

1:20, 24; 2:13, 19

An angel of the Lord (ἄγγελος κυρίου)

An angel of the Lord (ἄγγελος κυρίου)

28:2

2:12, 13, 19

Dreams

A dream

27:19

2:2

Jesus referred to as King of the Jews

Jesus referred to as King of the Jews

27:11, 19

2:3, 13, 16

Jewish leader tries to kill Jesus

Jewish leaders have Jesus killed

27:20

132 Howell, Inclusive Story, 100, defines internal prolepses as “references to events which will occur within the narrative.” These are distinguished from external prolepses, which “anticipate events that occur entirely after the narrative” (e.g., Matt 24–25) and mixed prolepses, which “allude to events which begin within the narrative but continue beyond it” (e.g., 1:21; 16:18; 28:15, 19–20). While not all scholars classify the above cited sections as prolepses (e.g., Luz, Matthew, 1:8 n. 38, though see Luz, “Der ‘Christus’ der Matthäusgeschichte,” 9), the deeper meaning that these sections take on in light of the entire narrative is not disputed. For additional comment on prolepsis, see John P. Meier, “Salvation History in Matthew: In Search of a Starting Point,” CBQ 37 (1975): 209–11. 133 See 6.A for Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a single act of divine intervention. 134 For additional parallels, see Brian Main, “A Narrative-critical Examination of the Effect of Matthew 1:1–4:11 on the Implied Audience's Understanding of that Gospel's Resurrection Narrative” (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 2019), 45–69.

105

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24 2:2, 9–12

Contrasting favorable response and recognition of Jesus’s identity by gentiles

Contrasting favorable response and recognition of Jesus’s identity by gentiles

27:54

2:11

Worship of Jesus

Worship of Jesus

2:9, 17

2:12

Great joy (χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα)

Great joy (χαρᾶς μεγάλης)

28:8

2:8

Theme of announcement (ἀπαγγείλατε)

Theme of announcement (ἀπαγγείλατε)

28:8, 10, 11

1:23

Immanuel motif

Immanuel motif

28:20

The above correlations demonstrate that when it comes to the Matthean storyline, history tends to repeat itself. The infancy narrative functions as a preview of what occurs at Jesus’s death and resurrection.135 The same is true for the stilling of the storm (8:23–27). Both the storm stilling and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts feature an earthquake (8:24 / 27:54; 28:2).136 In the former, the earthquake is connected to a christological question (8:27); in the latter, the earthquake is connected to the question’s answer (27:54; also implicitly in 28:2–7, 9–10, 16–20). Both the storm stilling and the crucifixion also relate to salvation: in the former, the disciples call upon Jesus to save (σῴζω) them from the sea (8:25); in the latter, the taunts of the mockers highlight the salvific nature of Jesus’s death (σῴζω; 27:40, 42, 49). In addition, both the storm stilling and the death-resurrection event constitute a victory over evil, as suggested by the sea’s predominant connotation in Jewish culture and the satanic echoes present in the taunts of the mockers at Calvary (27:40, 42–43; cf. 4:3, 6).137 Furthermore, in both the storm stilling and the death-resurrection event, Jesus’s victory is connected to his rising. In the former, Jesus rebukes the sea after he rises (ἐγείρω; 8:25, 26) from sleep (καθεύδω; 8:24); in the latter, he is raised (ἠγέρθη) in victory (28:6, 7; cf. 28:16–20) and his death causes the raising (ἠγέρθησαν) of the saints from a morbid sleep (κεκοιμημένων; 27:52). These observations are summarized in the following table.

135

Howell, Inclusive Story, 117–20; Luz, “Der ‘Christus’ der Matthäusgeschichte,” 9. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rev. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 183, describes Matthew’s infancy narrative as “a gospel in miniature.” 136 Note the lexical similarity: καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο (8:24); καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας (28:2). 137 The resurrections of Jesus (28:6–10, 16–20) and the saints (27:52–53) confirms that Jesus is victorious in this contest.

106

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

Table 5: Correlations between the Matthean Storm Stilling and the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Scene Storm Stilling

Crucifixion-Resurrection

8:24

Earthquake at crucifixion (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη/σεισμός) Great earthquake at resurrection (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας)

27:51/54

Great earthquake (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο)

28:2

8:27

Christological question (ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος)

Christological answer (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος)

27:54

8:25

Call for Jesus to save (σῶσον)

Mockery of Jesus’s ability to save (σῶσον, ἔσωσεν, σῶσαι)

27:40, 42

8:24

Demonic connotation of sea

Demonic echoes in spectator mockery

27:40, 42–43

8:25, 26

Jesus rises (ἤγειραν, ἐγερθείς)

Jesus rises (ἠγέρθη) Saints raised (ἠγέρθησαν)

28:6, 7 27:53

8:26

Victory of Jesus over the sea

Victory of Jesus over death and Satan

28:6–7, 16

The above connections suggest that what happens on the sea of Galilee during Jesus’s ministry coincides with, and previews, what happens later in Jerusalem.138

138

Justification for a proleptic interpretation of 8:23–27 is further strengthened when one observes that other episodes in the miracle chapters (Matt 8–9) also appear to function in a proleptic manner. The account of the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34) that follows the storm stilling is a prime example. In both the account of the Gadarene demoniacs (8:28–34) and the account of Jesus’s death and resurrection Jesus battles against demonic forces. In both the account of the demoniacs and the account of Jesus’s death and resurrection the theme of eschatological judgment is present. In both accounts Jesus is recognized as the Son of God (8:29 / 27:54). In addition, the demoniacs are said to come from the tombs (μνημεῖον) to meet (ὑπαντάω) Jesus (8:28); at the resurrection the women come from the tomb (μνημεῖον) and are met (ὑπαντάω) by Jesus (28:8–9). Both the demons and the women are given the command to depart (ὑπάγω) after their christological encounters, albeit for different reasons (8:32 / 28:10). Both accounts also feature the theme of announcement: the Gadarene herdsmen go into the city to report everything that they had observed (ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα; 8:33), while at the resurrection women go and report (ἀπαγγέλλω) the news of Jesus’s resurrection to the disciples (28:8, 10) and the tomb guards go into the city and report everything they had witnessed (ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν ἅπαντα τὰ γενόμενα; 28:11). Just as the Gadarene citizens reject Jesus after hearing the report of the herdsmen (8:34), so also the Jewish leaders reject Jesus after hearing the report of the guards (28:12–15). One could also point to the healing of the paralytic (9:2– 8) for proleptic significance: both the healing of the paralytic and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts feature the forgiveness of sins (9:2 / the crucifixion implicitly via 26:28),

C. The σεισμός of Matt 8:24

107

To expand on the point just made, it is in the calming of the sea that both of Jesus’s nominal attributes are brought together and validated: by exercising divine authority over the sea, Jesus demonstrates that he is truly Immanuel (1:23) and truly able to save his people (1:21). The connotation carried by the sea delineates a significant aspect of the salvation that he brings: Jesus saves his people by overcoming the forces of chaos and evil.139 The σεισμός in this account further qualifies the nature of his role: the epiphanic and eschatological connotations of the term suggest that Jesus’s appearance and salvific action constitutes the realization of Israel’s hope. In other words, the coming of Jesus represents the arrival of the eschatological Day of the Lord; it is the awaited moment when God intervenes to inaugurate his eschatological kingdom.140 The proleptic nature of the storm stilling (i.e., that the storm stilling coincides with and foreshadows the death-resurrection event) thus indicates that God’s eschatological intervention includes Jesus’s ministry but finds its primary thrust in the event to which Jesus’s ministry points, the crucifixion and resurrection. In addition, the proleptic nature of the infancy narrative and storm stilling account suggests that Matthew’s Gospel invites repeated readings.141 The connections observed between these episodes and the death-resurrection account only become visible after one has reached the end of the story, and it is only when one then revisits the episodes that the connections can come into clearer focus. This sharper focus in turn leads to another observation, that the infancy narrative and storm stilling account both appear to be subtly illuminated by the glory of the risen Lord. In other words, the high degree of correspondence blasphemy (βλασφημέω; 9:3 / 26:65; 27:39), rising (ἐγείρω; 9:5, 6 / 27:52, 53, 63, 64; 28:6, 7), Jesus’s authority (ἐξουσία; 9:6, 8 / 28:18), and the opposition of the Jewish leaders. Thus, against Stone, it is not solely 8:23–27 that functions as an interpretive lens for Jesus’s death and resurrection. An additional problem with Stone’s interpretive lens is that misses certain essential OT intertexts: by viewing the σεισμοί solely as linking devices, Stone misses the term’s significant eschatological connotation and thereby places outside of his focal area the various eschatological prophecies that feature earthquakes. 139 Angel, “Crucifixus Vicens,” 299–317, makes a similar argument by connecting 14:22– 33 with the crucifixion scene. 140 Note especially how the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord connects with both the storm stilling and Jesus’s death and resurrection: Isa 24–27 involves an earthquake (24:18–20), God’s defeat of the sea (27:1), God’s defeat of death (25:6), the resurrection of the righteous (26:19), the forgiveness of sins (27:9), the salvation of the righteous (25:9), and judgment of the wicked (24:1–13). 141 Such a claim is not novel to Matthean scholarship; Beaton, “How Matthew Writes,” in The Written Gospel,, ed. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 134, states, “For Matthew, the allusions to the OT within the narrative itself serve as pointers to the significance of a particular event for a thoughtful or informed audience….This, plus the other literary and stylistic features, implies that the document was crafted with a sophistication and complexity that rewarded repeated performances or readings” (quoted in Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 3).

108

Chapter 3: The σεισμός at Sea

exhibited between these episodes and the death-resurrection account suggests that a post-Easter perspective is faintly reflected in these pre-Easter accounts.142 To put it yet another way, Matthew’s Gospel maintains a significant degree of continuity in its presentation of Jesus. In Luz’s words, “the Jesus of then is at the same time Immanuel, that is, the form of God’s presence now. Immanuel is none other than Jesus and will be none other to the end of the age.”143

D. Conclusion This chapter has argued that the Matthean storm stilling should be situated within an intermediate context of Matt 5–9. Within this framework, 8:23–27 is recognized as a prominent dimension of the kingdom’s manifestation, a theme that is presented across Matt 5–9 and that is anticipated by Matt 1–4. Since the kingdom of heaven is inseparable from the person of Jesus, and since its advent requires response (3:2; 4:17), the storm stilling in particular, and the intermediate context of Matt 5–9 in general, both contain central christological and discipleship motifs, with the latter predicated upon the former. It is within the kingdom of heaven framework that the role of the Matt 8:24 σεισμός becomes apparent. By way of its prevalent epiphanic and eschatological connotations, the term highlights Jesus’s victory over the sea as a divine visitation that achieves an eschatological and salvific victory over the forces of evil, themes that are intricately connected with the advent of the kingdom of heaven, or in other terminology, the eschatological Day of the Lord. In the next chapter, this study will address the seismic reference that is featured in Matthew’s triumphal entry account (21:10).

142 This has been suggested for Mark’s Gospel by Karl Matthias Schmidt, Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexe des Markusevangeliums, NTOA 74 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 21–174, and for John’s Gospel by Christina HoegenRohls, Der nachösterliche Johannes: Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium, WUNT 2/84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 143 Luz, “The Gospel of Matthew: A New Story of Jesus, or a Rewritten One?” in Studies in Matthew, 28. The Immanuel continuity in turn facilitates an allegorical reading of the storm stilling account, since the Jesus of the story is the same Jesus worshiped by Matthew’s readers; see 3.A.

Chapter 4

Shaken, and Stirred Matthew 21:10 presents a definitive moment: it is the first, and only, time in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus enters the city of Jerusalem.1 The moment of his ingress is marked by a crescendo of commotion: Matthew alone records, εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις λέγουσα· τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; (“When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, ‘Who is this?’”). The NRSV translation cited here is representative of biblical scholarship in that it interprets the ἐσείσθη reference as a depiction of emotional agitation or fear.2 Granted, in Matthew’s milieu anthropological shaking could connote such an emotional state,3 and as most scholars recognize, the 21:10 reference corresponds closely with the emotional disturbance exhibited by King Herod and the holy city in 2:3. Furthermore, in the other instance where Matthew’s Gospel reports anthropological shaking, it is explicitly stated to be from fear: “From fear of [the angel] the guards shook (ἐσείσθησαν) and became like dead men” (28:4). The NRSV is therefore correct to interpret ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις as a reference to the city being emotionally “stirred up.” However, as this chapter will argue, the significance of the ἐσείσθη reference runs deeper than the surface level meaning of agitation: it both underscores the epiphanic dimension of the Jerusalem entry scene (21:1–17) and represents the necessary but grim counterpart of eschatological divine intervention, that of judgment.4 In order to argue this point, the context in which the 1 As opposed to John’s Gospel, which records three visits to Jerusalem (2:13; 5:1; 12:12), and Luke’s, which records two previous childhood visits (2:22, 41–42). While Matthew’s account technically has Jesus exit and reenter Jerusalem (21:17–18), this is a minor detail that pales in comparison to the overarching narrative movement that has prepared for the entry and the unity of the scene presented in Matt 21–23. 2 Other translations of ἐσείσθη are “stirred” (NIV, NASB, ASV), “stirred up” (ESV), “moved” (KJV), “in an uproar” (NLT, GNT, CSB, NET). For the state of scholarship on this passage see 1.C. 3 E.g., Job 9:28; 1 En. 14:14; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1; BDAG, 918; see chapter two. 4 For 21:1–17 as a literary unit see Norbert Lohfink, “Der Messiaskönig und seine Armen kommen zum Zion: Beobachtungen zu Mt 21,1–7” in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch, ed. Ludger Schenke (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 181–83; Andrew E. Nelson, “‘Who is This?’ Narration of the Divine Identity of Jesus in Matthew 21:10–17,” JTI 7 (2013): 202–4; Luz, Matthew, 3:4; H. Daniel Zacharias, Matthew’s Presentation of the Son of David: Davidic Tradition and Typology in the Gospel of

110

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

shaking reference occurs will first be developed before discussion of the 21:10 shaking reference commences.

A. Setting the Context I. The Return of the King Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem should have been a jubilant moment. As Matthew makes abundantly clear, the event represents the fulfillment of Zech 9:9, an eschatological prophecy that describes the advent of Israel’s king in conjunction with the establishment of God’s kingdom (Zech 9:9–12).5 The fulfillment formula with which Matthew introduces the Zech 9:9 citation underscores the eschatological significance of the moment, as it connects Jesus’s entrance with the theme of eschatological realization that is especially prevalent in the first two chapters of the Gospel.6 The importance of the scene is also highlighted by the fact that it represents the first open declaration of Jesus’s messianic identity in the Gospel narrative. Jesus arranges to enter Jerusalem seated on a donkey (21:1–3),7 a manner of ingress that could be characterized as “extremely ostentatious” given the fact that “it is a deep religious instinct, shown by many people beside Jews, that one approaches a place of pilgrimage on foot.”8 More to the point, as Matthew’s citation makes plain, Jesus’s choice of transport elicits thoughts of Zech 9:9, a passage that likely carried messianic overtones in addition to its

Matthew (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 134; Weren, Studies in Matthew’s Gospel, 162–63. 5 While the Zech 9:9 background is likely implied by Mark, Matthew makes it explicit by citing the text (21:5). 6 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9. An additional note of eschatological significance is likely found in the 21:1 reference to the Mount of Olives, a site charged with eschatological expectation given Zech 14:4. The use of the term ἐγγίζω to describe Jesus’s approach (21:1) may have eschatological significance given that the same term previously describes the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven (3:2; 4:17; 10:7). 7 There is considerable debate related to the two animals that are described in Matthew’s account. The most likely interpretation is that Jesus sat on the colt and the mother came alongside of it (i.e., the mother and the colt form a ‘conceptual unit’); Stephen C. Carlson, “‘The Jenny and the Colt’ in Matthew’s Messianic Entry, Part 1: Matthew 21:5 as a Reading of Zechariah 9:9 in Light of Mark 11:1–10,” CBQ 81 (2019): 62–84 and “‘The Jenny and the Colt’ in Matthew’s Messianic Entry, Part 2: Matthew 21:7 as a Reading of Mark 11:7 in Light of Zechariah 9:9,” CBQ 81 (2019): 235–51. Carlson’s articles also include a thorough survey of other interpretations. 8 A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 121, quoted in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:123. His approach also resembles a parousia, as will be discussed below (4.B)

A. Setting the Context

111

eschatological connotation.9 The Matt 21:2 reference to the jenny’s tethering (δεδεμένην) probably also plays into this theme by way of an allusion to Gen 49:11, which likewise had developed a messianic association.10 Further emphasizing the messianic significance of the Jerusalem entry is the fact that the scene is heavily accented with a Son of David motif.11 Jesus’s approach into Jerusalem on a donkey casts his procession in the same light as the coronation parade of Solomon, the son of David, which likewise involved riding through Jerusalem on a beast of burden (1 Kgs 1:32–40). The symbolism underlying Jesus’s approach is not lost on the accompanying crowd, who exuberantly proclaim the words of Psalm 118 in praise to the Son of David (21:9).12 This explicit reference stands amidst two others in the nearby narrative vicinity: immediately prior to the procession two blind men had addressed Jesus as the Son of David in Jericho (20:30, 31),13 and immediately afterwards, the children echo the processing crowd by crying out the same words, “Hosanna to the Son of David!”, in the temple (21:15). In none of these instances does Jesus make any effort to silence the acclaim. Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem thus represents a public declaration of his messianic identity. However, at the same time, it simultaneously redefines what the messianic role represents. In contrast to popular messianic expectations that centered upon militaristic might, Jesus enters the city in humble fashion.14 As 9 b. Ber. 56b; b. Sanh. 98a; 99a; Gen. Rab. 75.6; Luz, Matthew, 3:7; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:119; Zacharias, Son of David, 119–20. 10 Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:200; Nolland, Matthew, 833–34; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:116. 11 Though not comprising the totality of messianic expectations, Davidic messianism nevertheless constituted a core branch of these hopes. The Gospel highlights the connection between Jesus’s messianic identity and his Davidic heritage especially in its opening chapter and in 22:41–45. The seedbed for the ideology fueling the Davidic messianic movement was the plethora of Jewish biblical texts relating to the succession of the Davidic dynasty (e.g., 2 Sam 7:11–17; Ps 2; 110:3; Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–9; Jer 23:5–6; 33:17–22; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24– 25; Amos 9:11; Mic 5:2–5; Hag 2:21–23; Zech 3:8; 4:12; 6:11–12). Though not initially eschatologically focused, these texts came to be interpreted as messianic prophecies after the collapse of the Davidic throne; see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 24, 40–41. For Davidic messianism and Matthew’s Gospel, see Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Kathleen Ess (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 18–23; Joel Willits, Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel', BZNW 147 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 1– 2; Zacharias, Son of David, 20–28; Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd. 12 This is opposed to Mark’s “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!” (11:10). 13 Note the numerous lexical and thematic correlations between 20:29–34 and 21:1–11 as summarized by Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:113. 14 Collins, Scepter, 68, describes the popular militaristic conception of the Davidic messiah as follows, “[the] concept of the Davidic messiah as the warrior king who would destroy

112

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

opposed to a war horse (e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:21–27, 37), he rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. The manner of his ingress is characterized by a citation of Zech 9:9 that Matthew has redacted to emphasize Jesus’s humility.15 As France summarizes, In deliberately presenting himself before Jerusalem as its messianic king, Jesus has chosen an OT model which subverts any popular militaristic idea of kingship. The meek, peaceful donkey rider of Zech 9.9 is not a potential leader of an anti-Roman insurrection. In 20.25– 28 Jesus has spoken of a type of leadership which is completely opposed to the world’s notions of kingship and authority, and now he models it in the “meekness” of his royal procession into the city.16

Thus, while Jesus comes in an unexpected fashion, he nevertheless comes as Israel’s messianic king in fulfillment of eschatological prophecy. II. The Contrast in Reception Israel had been awaiting this moment for centuries. Jesus’s arrival therefore should have generated tremendous joy in those present to witness the event. However, that is not how Matthew records it. Although joy is certainly evidenced in the crowd’s jubilant shouts of praise and deferential acts, the boisterous approbation of the processing masses abruptly gives way to silence when Jesus reaches the holy city. The eschatological Son of David is not welcomed with open arms or emphatic enthusiasm by the city of David.17 Rather than crying out “Hosanna to the Son of David!,” Jerusalem chooses to disregard the crowd’s emphatic declaration and instead inquires, “Who is this?” (τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; 21:10). While the question might initially indicate a favorable response on the part of Jerusalem given its resemblance to the previous christological inquiry of the disciples (8:27),18 in actuality it betrays Jerusalem’s recalcitrant unwillingness the enemies of Israel and institute an era of unending peace constitutes the common core of Jewish messianism around the turn of the era.” In support of Collins’s claim, one could cite Pss. Sol. 17:21–36; 4 Ezra 12:32–34; 4Q174 1:10–13; 4Q252; 4Q285; 4QpIsa; 4QSb 5:21– 27; CD 7:19; b. Sanh. 98a; y. Ta‘an 4:7. See Collins, Scepter, 20–73; Brent Kinman, Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day, (New York: Brill, 1995), 69–71; Nathan C. Johnson, “The Passion According to David: Matthew’s Arrest Narrative, Absalom’s Revolt, and Militant Messianism,” CBQ 80 (2018): 263–71. 15 As most scholars argue; e.g., Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 120; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:202; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:119; Hagner, Matthew, 2:594; France, Matthew, 778; Harrington, Matthew, 295; Zacharias, Son of David, 120; Carlson, “The Jenny and the Colt, Part 1,” 69. 16 France, Matthew, 775. 17 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:124 n. 83, “Like Josephus (Ant. 7.65), Matthew probably identified ‘the city of David’ (originally the Jebusite part of Jerusalem, the citadel of Zion) with all of Jerusalem.” 18 Ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος; (8:27).

A. Setting the Context

113

to receive its king.19 By its very nature, the interrogative constitutes a rejection of the crowd’s emphatic endorsement of Jesus’s identity as the Son of David, an endorsement that the city has just witnessed (21:8–9).20 Moreover, when the children subsequently provide the same answer by proclaiming “Hosanna to the Son of David!” in the temple (21:15), the city’s leaders vehemently rebuke Jesus rather than listening to what the children have to say (21:15–16).21 In addition to rejecting the witness of the children, the leaders also reject the miracle that had given rise to the children’s praise: Jesus’s healing of the blind and lame (21:14). Given that the healing of such figures is among the miracles to which Jesus had pointed as confirmation of his identity when questioned by John the Baptist (11:1–6), the leaders’ rejection of the temple healings is significant. Further evidence of the disinterest that underlies Jerusalem’s question at 21:10 is found in the narrative events that follow the entry scene. In 21:23 Jerusalem’s leaders once again question Jesus’s identity, in this case by inquiring about the source of his authority.22 Their response to Jesus’s counter-question suggests that they were not actually interested in the answer to their own inquiry but rather had posed it with ill intentions (21:24–27). Their later actions confirm that their intent in 21:23 had been disingenuous: three times the Jewish leaders use questions in an attempt to trap Jesus (22:15–40).23 Additionally supporting this interpretation is that the fact that Matt 21–23 prevalently features the theme of christological rejection. All three parables that Jesus tells the religious leaders center upon their rejection of himself (21:28–22:14). In addition, Jesus’s final woe against the leaders concerns the murderous outworking of their antagonism (23:29–36).24 Likewise, he laments over Jerusalem because of its unwillingness to receive him (23:37). The

19 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 145, comments on 21:10, “The failure of the holy city to listen to Zechariah and to recognize its King when he comes to it is perfectly summed up in that one question.” 20 The contrast between the city and the crowd will be discussed in 4.A.II. 21 The narrative association between Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders will be discussed in 4.A.III. 22 Warren Carter, “Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel,” CBQ 54 (1992): 479, “the question of the source of Jesus’ authority is ultimately a question of his identity.” 23 On two of these occasions the leaders are said to tempt (πειράζω) Jesus (22:15, 35); the use of the term and the threefold use of questions thereby resembles Satan’s temptations in the wilderness (4:1–11); cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 117. 24 The diatribe against the leaders ends in 23:36 with a pronouncement of judgment upon “this generation.” David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23, NovTSup 52 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 186 n. 78, notes that in Matthew’s narrative, the expression “this generation” epitomizes the “failure to acknowledge the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven and the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus’ person.”

114

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

narrative context therefore indicates that Jerusalem’s question in 21:10 is pejorative rather than sincere.25 Matthew’s Jerusalem entry scene therefore presents a stark contrast.26 On the one side are the crowds and children who praise Jesus and acknowledge his identity as the messianic Son of David (21:8–9, 15). On the other is Jerusalem, which refuses to recognize or receive its eschatological king (21:10).27 Meier comments on this disparity as follows, One is almost transported into the dualism of John’s gospel. The children, the lowly ones despised by others but received by Jesus (cf. 18:2–3; 19:13–15) recognize in this healer of the outcast the Son of David. But the guardians of cult and magisterium, the high priests and the scribes, take offense at the children’s acclamation of the truth.28

The contrast of the entry scene is emphasized all the more in light of the fact that it represents a widening of the divide between the crowds and Jewish leaders that has been growing across the Gospel narrative. This split is first observed in 9:32–34 when Jesus heals a deaf-mute demoniac in Galilee. The miracle amazes the crowd and leads them to proclaim that such an event is unprecedented in the history of Israel (9:33). In contrast, the Jewish leaders attribute Jesus’s miraculous ability to demonic powers (9:34). The divide grows when Jesus later heals another demoniac, one that is both blind and mute (12:22). In this instance the crowds are again amazed; they then demonstrate an 25

The indirect question that the Jewish leaders pose about Jesus’s identity in the trial scene reinforces this conclusion, as they are not interested in Jesus’s answer (26:63–65). The definitive confirmation of Jerusalem’s disinterest comes in 28:11–15 (cf. 27:62–66), when its leaders reject the resurrection, which represents the ultimate validation of Jesus’s identity in the Gospel. 26 Luz, Matthew, 3:4, 10; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:198; France, Matthew, 773; Richard T. France, “Matthew and Jerusalem,” in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 113, 117; Konradt, Israel, 98, 101; Gundry, Matthew, 411; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 266; Maarten Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, BETL 173 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004), 108–9. 27 The crowd is clearly differentiated from the city in 21:1–11. Beyond the contrast that is naturally formed by the question-versus-answer structure of 21:10–11 (Jerusalem versus crowd), the narrative also creates a contrast via its depiction of motion. Picking up the crowd outside of the city in 20:29, in the verses that follow (20:29–21:9) it presents the procession of Jesus and the masses somewhat like a wave rolling towards a stationary Jerusalem shoreline. In 21:10 the wave makes landfall. This differentiation is carried over into the temple scene (21:12–17). Though one could question if the children are residents of Jerusalem, the fact that their praise forms a verbatim repetition of the crowd’s (21:9, 15) clearly identifies them with the crowd that had processed to the city from Jericho rather than with the city. The children’s response to Jesus is also clearly contrasted with that of the leaders (21:15), who elsewhere are presented as residents of the city (15:1; 16:21). Thus, in 21:1–17 there is a clear contrast between the crowds and children and the city of Jerusalem and its leaders. 28 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 147. He comments on the temple scene (21:14–16).

A. Setting the Context

115

advancement in their understanding of Jesus by questioning if Jesus could be the Son of David (12:23).29 The Jewish leaders on the other hand maintain their assertion that Jesus’s powers are diabolical (12:24). The divide reaches its widest in the Jerusalem entry scene when the crowds display an unprecedented degree of christological awareness by declaring that Jesus is indeed the Son of David (21:9).30 In contrast, the response of Jerusalem’s leaders (21:10, 15–16) remains consistent, evidencing that their christological awareness has not advanced in the slightest. The failure of Jerusalem to recognize its king is further emphasized by the irony it involves: in the Matthean narrative, the blind (9:27; 20:30, 31), the Canaanite woman (15:22), the crowds (21:9), and children (21:14) all recognize Jesus’s identity as the Son of David, while Israel’s religious leadership remains ignorant of the truth (15:14; 23:16–17, 24).31 One notes that the narrative is carefully crafted to bring out this contrast. The episode of the first blind men who address Jesus as the “Son of David” (9:27–31) is placed immediately prior to the leaders’ first characterization of Jesus as demonic (9:32–34). The account of the Canaanite woman who likewise addresses Jesus as the “Son of David” (15:21–28) is sandwiched between two pericopes that display the obtuseness of the Jewish leaders (15:1–20; 16:1–12) and is connected to these pericopes by way of the bread motif (15:2, 26; 16:5, 7–12). The episode of the second pair of blind men who address Jesus as the “Son of David” (20:29–34) is placed immediately prior to the Jerusalem entry scene (21:1–17) and connected to it by various linking devices, including a note that the blind men join the procession by following Jesus (20:34).32 The effect is to join the “Son of David” proclamation of the blind men with the “Son of David” proclamation of the crowd (21:9). The crowd’s proclamation is in turn connected to that of the children (21:15) by way of verbatim repetition. As discussed above, both the cries of the crowd and the cries of the children are contrasted with Jerusalem and its leaders. The fact that these outcast figures all address Jesus as the

29

Konradt, Israel, 95–96, “The interrogative particle μήτι in 12.23…does not anticipate a negative answer but rather characterizes the crowds’ statement as a deliberation that, in principle reckons positively with the possibility that Jesus is in fact the Son of David but nonetheless maintains an element of doubt.” Konradt, Israel, 96 n. 43, provides an extensive list of scholars who support this position. 30 For crowd’s progression see Zacharias, Son of David, 131–32; Konradt, Israel, 90–96; J. Robert C. Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew, NovTSup 102 (Boston: Brill, 2002), 191. 31 Konradt, Israel, 45, 370, observes that Jesus’s healing of blindness metaphorically frees people from the blindness caused by the authorities who are blind guides. 32 For connections between 20:29–34 and 21:1–11 see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:113. The blind men of 20:29–34 are also linked with the blind men of 9:27–31 through a variety of lexical and thematic links.

116

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

“Son of David” while Jerusalem does not underscores the latter’s spiritual blindness and its failure to receive its eschatological king. III. The Characterization of Jerusalem That the eschatological Son of David would receive such an unfriendly reception in the city of his namesake is not unsurprising given Jerusalem’s characterization in the Matthean narrative. In the Gospel’s opening chapters one finds Jerusalem aligned with the wicked King Herod: Jerusalem serves as Herod’s residence (2:1), Jerusalem is disturbed along with Herod at the news of Jesus’s birth (2:3), and it is from Jerusalem that Herod’s agents of death come in search of the infant Jesus (2:16). The scene has clear ties to 21:1–17: just as all of Jerusalem is disturbed with Herod (Ἡρῴδης ἐταράχθη καὶ πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ) when the King of the Jews enters the world (2:3), so also all of Jerusalem is shaken (ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις) when the king enters its gates (21:10).33 Additionally, in both the infancy narrative and Jerusalem entry scene, the hostile reception of Jewish leadership is contrasted with a favorable reception by marginal figures, gentile magi in the former case (2:2, 10–1) and children in the latter (21:15).34 In addition to Herod, Jerusalem is also aligned with the wicked Jewish leaders, who function collectively as the primary force of christological opposition in Matthew’s narrative.35 While some distance is observed between Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders at 3:5–7 (cf. 4:25),36 by the time that the narrative reaches chapter 21 the two entities have become so closely intertwined that the former essentially functions as a metonym for the latter.37 Jerusalem is 33

The significance of the verbs will be discussed below. As well as the blind in 20:30–31 and 21:9; see 4.A.II. There are additional connections between 21:1–17 and the infancy narrative. The fulfillment formulas of 1:22 and 21:4 are very similar (Nolland, Matthew, 834, “the present formula [21:4] is strikingly similar to 1:22 – are the coming in birth and the coming to Jerusalem being paralleled?”), as is the obedience displayed by Joseph (1:24) and the disciples (21:6); Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:198. For a list of parallels see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:111. 35 Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 1, “Matthew looks upon the representatives of Israel as a homogenous group. The many names he eventually gives the Jewish leaders are not meant as further historical information. He does not want to introduce a distinction between Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, high priests, and elders.” Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 115, “Although they go by many names–Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, elders, scribes, and Herodians –they form a united front against Jesus and can be treated…as a single character.” Cf. Janice Chapel Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again, JSNTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 97–126. 36 Note even here that not all of Jerusalem is said to come for baptism, as opposed to all of Judea and all of the region along the Jordan. 37 Luz, Matthew, 3:14, “The readers…sense that Jerusalem will be the city of Jesus’s enemies. These enemies do not represent the people of God.” Davies and Allison, Matthew, 34

A. Setting the Context

117

explicitly identified as the stronghold of the Jewish leaders in 15:1 (cf. 28:11), and it is immediately upon reaching the city that Jesus faces confrontation with these figures in the center of their powerbase, the Jerusalem temple (21:23– 24:1).38 More importantly, it is through the theme of christological opposition that the Jewish leaders and Jerusalem are united: Jesus states on multiple occasions that he will meet his demise at the hands of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (16:21; 20:18–19).39 Moreover, he condemns both the Jewish leaders (23:29–36) and the city (23:37) for murdering the prophets.40 Even after Jesus dies in Jerusalem, the christological antagonism of the pair does not abate: the tomb guards go into Jerusalem to report the resurrection to the Jewish leaders and come out of the city spreading a lie (28:11–15). Jerusalem is thus depicted as the epicenter of the lie that spreads about the resurrection and is set in contrast to Galilee, which functions as the epicenter of the truth (28:7, 10, 16– 20).41 All of the above demonstrates that Jerusalem serves as the nexus of christological opposition in Matthew’s Gospel.42 Jerusalem is aligned with King 1:238, “Jerusalem does not stand for the entire Jewish community. Instead she represents those in charge, the Jewish leadership.” France, “Matthew and Jerusalem,” 114, “for Matthew, the city also represents the political power which Jesus will eventually challenge.” Meier, Vision of Matthew, 166, “Jerusalem typifies and sums up this unholy bloodlust of Israel” (though Meier would do better to speak of the bloodlust of Jewish leaders rather than Israel.). Pace Lohfink, “Der Messiaskönig,” 190, who states that the blind and lame, children, and chief priests (21:14–16) all represent Jerusalem. 38 Konradt, Israel, 235, “the temple is their [the religious leaders’] ‘domain’” as evidenced by the 23:38 expression “your house” rather than “God’s house.” 39 The mention of Jerusalem in the first passion prediction is a Matthean redaction. From 16:21 onwards, the narrative moves steadily towards Jerusalem and the cross; cf. Donald J. Verseput, “Jesus’ Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple: A Geographical Motif in Matthew’s Gospel,” NovT 36 (1994): 105–21. 40 Konradt, Israel, 159, astutely observes how the keyword πᾶς helps to unite the inhabitants of Jerusalem to the Jewish leaders at the climactic moment of christological opposition in 27:25 (cf. 2:3; 21:10; 27:22). He comments, “The conflict that began in 2.3–6 reaches its climactic end with 27.25. Here, as in Matt 2, not only do Jesus’ opponents seek to get rid of him as ‘king of the Jews’ (2.2; 27:11; cf. 27.29, 37), but the initial exposition and the end point of the story of conflict also correspond with one another in that the city of Jerusalem and the head of its leadership present the same configuration of opposition to Jesus.” 41 John Paul Heil, “The Narrative Structure of Matthew 27:55–28:20,” JBL 110 (1991): 419–38. Galilee is also contrasted with Jerusalem in the infancy narrative: it is the place of safety (2:22–23) as opposed to Jerusalem/Judea, which represents the threat of death. 42 Konradt, Matthäus, 367; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:198, “Jerusalem ist die Stadt der Ablehnung, der Ort, der ihm das Kreuz bereitet.” Hagner, Matthew, 1:49, commenting on 3:7, “Jerusalem [is] the center of opposition to Jesus’ later ministry.” The 27:53 description of Jerusalem as “the holy city” does not mitigate the overarching negative characterization of Jerusalem: one sees in 28:11 that the city continues to function as the stronghold of the hostile Jewish leaders. The 27:53 reference may allude to 4:5 (the only other place in the

118

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

Herod, who unsuccessfully seeks (ζητέω) to kill Jesus (2:13, 20), and especially with the Jewish leaders, who ultimately prevail when they seek (ζητέω) the same end (21:46; 26:59; cf. 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19).43 It follows by extension that in the Matthean narrative, Jerusalem is ultimately aligned with Satan. For, like Satan, the Jewish leaders are characterized as “evil” (12:34; cf. 9:4; 13:19, 38).44 Like Satan, the Jewish leaders tempt (πειράζω) Jesus (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 22:35; cf. 4:1, 3),45 especially as it regards his identity as the Son of God (27:40–43; cf. 4:3, 6). In addition, after successfully bringing about Jesus’s death, the Jewish leaders gather together with Pilate and address Pilate as κύριε (“lord”; 27:63), a title that they were never willing to bestow upon Jesus.46 Since Pilate acts as a representative of the Roman Empire, which is one of the kingdoms under Satan’s domain (4:8–9), the leaders’ professed allegiance to Pilate and corresponding rejection of Jesus indicates that they are under Satan’s control. It is therefore no surprise that Jesus receives such a lackluster reception upon his arrival. The Matthean narrative ultimately casts Jerusalem as the stronghold of the wicked, a place of christological hostility that brings about his death.47 IV. The Arrival of Judgment While his arrival in Jerusalem does not constitute a happy occasion for Jesus, it is not a joyous moment for the city either. For Jerusalem, the arrival of Jesus represents judgment. This is evidenced across the entirety of Matt 21–23, with

Gospel where the phrase “holy city” is found) in order to depict Jesus’s death as the defeat of Satan; see 5.A.II.3. 43 Herod and the leaders are also directly connected to each other, both by their common aim of killing Jesus (2:13, 20; 26:59) and by the fact that Herod gathers (συνάγω) with the leaders at Jesus’s birth (2:4). The leaders are likewise said to gather together (συνάγω) in opposition to Jesus, especially as it concerns his death (22:34, 41; 26:3, 57; 27:17, 62; 28:12). The use of the verb συνάγω to describe the christologically hostile intent of these figures may allude to the Ps 2:2 gathering (συνήχθησαν) of the kings of the earth against the Lord and his anointed one (κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ); Nolland, Matthew, 910; Gundry, Matthew, 447; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 444. 44 Van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders, 167; Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 19, 58–60; Konradt, Israel, 136. 45 These are the only occurrences of the term in Matthew’s Gospel. 46 Jesus’s followers always address him as κύριος in Matthew’s Gospel, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, who never uses this title. 47 Konradt, Israel, esp. 233–39, argues convincingly that Jerusalem does not represent the nation of Israel in Matthew’s narrative. Rather, it stands for the religious authorities and the residents of the city whom they lead astray. Similarly, “this generation” (11:16; 12:39, 41, 45; 23:36; 24:34) “does not serve as a circumlocution for Israel or the current generation of Israel but rather designates ‘the clan of murderers,’ whose representatives are identified as the scribes and Pharisees” (Konradt, Israel, 232).

A. Setting the Context

119

the pronouncements of doom growing more direct as the textual unit nears its climax in 23:29–39.48 Judgment is first intimated in this textual unit by way of the redactions that Matthew makes in his citation of Zech 9:9 (Matt 21:5).49 Table 6: Comparison between Zech 9:9 and Matt 21:5 Zech 9:9

Matt 21:5

Χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιων· κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ιερουσαλημ· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι, δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός, πραϋς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον.

εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών·

Rejoice greatly, daughter Zion! Shout aloud, daughter Jerusalem! Behold, your king comes to you; righteous and saving is he, humble and seated on a donkey, on a young colt.

Say to daughter Zion,

ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου.

Behold, your king comes to you, humble and seated on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey

The first of these redactions is the substitution of Isa 62:11b, “Say to daughter Zion,” for the opening lines of Zech 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!” While it is true that this change sets up the narrative for Jerusalem’s response in 21:10 by addressing Jerusalem directly,50 one must also acknowledge that the redaction better situates the quotation within the Matthean context: as the ensuing narrative will show,

48

That Matt 21–23 forms a textual unit is suggested by the following: in 21:1–12 Jesus comes from the Mount of Olives and enters Jerusalem and the temple; in 24:1–3 Jesus exits the temple (and Jerusalem) by way of the Mount of Olives. In 21:9 Jesus enters amidst praise from Ps 118:26 (“Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!”); in 23:39 Jesus repeats these very words to Jerusalem before leaving the temple and city. Jerusalem is mentioned in 21:1, 10 (Ἰεροσόλυμα) and 23:37 (Ἰερουσαλὴμ). Furthermore, the discourse of Matt 24–25 breaks the narrative flow of Matt 21–23. 49 Though only the LXX is cited in the table below, Matthew shows familiarity with both the LXX and Hebrew text of Zech 9:9; cf. Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope, NovTSup 18 [Leiden: Brill, 1967], 120–21; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:119; Nolland, Matthew, 835; Hagner, Matthew, 2:594; France, Matthew, 777; Carlson, “The Jenny and Colt, Part 1.” Pace Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 111–14, who posits that the quotation derives a revised version of the LXX. 50 Lohfink, “Der Messiaskönig,” 188–89; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:202; Luz, Matthew, 3:7.

120

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

Jerusalem will not rejoice, and Jesus’s arrival does not constitute a jovial event.51 The other significant redaction is the omission of “righteous and saving is he” (δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός).52 This redaction is puzzling given Matthew’s emphasis on characterizing Jesus as both righteous (3:15; 27:19; cf. 5:6, 10, 20) and bearing salvation (1:21; 8:25; 9:21–22; 14:30; cf. 27:40, 42). While the omission does focus attention on the meekness of Jesus,53 it also removes the primary motivation behind Zechariah’s call to rejoice. This too better situates the quote within the Matthean context: for Jerusalem, Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem spells judgment rather than salvation.54 More explicit is the judgment that Jesus pronounces by an acted parable that he performs immediately after he arrives in the city (21:12–17). Just after he enters Jerusalem, Jesus proceeds to the temple where he “declares divine disfavor” on the temple establishment “through violent deed and scriptural word.”55 With regards to the violent deed, Marc Huys argues that the overturning of a table (τράπεζα) often symbolized destruction in Hellenistic culture.56 More apropos, he observes that in the OT, the verb καταστρέφω is utilized almost unanimously to describe divine destruction.57 In the majority of these 51 Gundry, Matthew, 408; Nolland, Matthew, 835; Zacharias, Son of David, 120; John Nolland, “The Shepherd as King: The Role of Deutero—Zechariah in Matthew” in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Thomas R. Hatina, LNTS 310 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 138; Konradt, Matthäus, 322; Israel, 97; Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 109. 52 The MT differs from the LXX in that it has ‫“( צדיק ונושע הוא‬righteous and saved is he”). In the MT the king is delivered by God, while in the LXX the king comes as the salvific agent. An omission of the MT phrase therefore has a different implication than an omission of the LXX phrase. Given that Matthew’s citation appears to reflect multiple text forms, one must be modest in asserting if the MT or LXX phrase has been omitted. However, since Matthew’s citation appears to follow the LXX from ἰδου up to but not including ὂνον (Matthew matches the LXX word for word), it is probable that δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός is the omitted text. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:119; Hagner, Matthew, 2:594; Osborne, Matthew, 754. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 112–15, posits that a version of the LXX underlies the entire citation. 53 Most scholars; e.g., Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 120; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:202; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:119; Hagner, Matthew, 2:594; France, Matthew, 778; Harrington, Matthew, 295; Zacharias, Son of David, 120; Carlson, “The Jenny and the Colt, Part 1,” 69. 54 Gundry, Matthew, 408–9; Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 109–10; Osborne, Matthew, 754; Garland, Matthew, 210. Also of note with regards to the present discussion is the observation of Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:116, that the coming of the messiah on a donkey indicates judgment in b. Sanh. 98a. 55 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:134. 56 Marc Huys, “Turning the Tables: Jesus’ Temple Cleansing and the Story of Lyceon,” ETL 86 (2010): 137–61; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70, also suggests that the action symbolized destruction but does not elaborate or provide any support. 57 Huys, “Tables,” 158–59. Huys notes that καταστρέφω has a τράπεζα for its direct object only in Matt 21:12 and Mark 11:15 in all of Greek literature.

A. Setting the Context

121

occurrences, the object overthrown (καταστρέφω) is Sodom and Gomorrah, which experienced God’s wrath on account of their corruption.58 Given the preeminent judgment connotation that καταστρέφω carries in the OT, it is likely that the term’s use in Matt 21:12 has the same coloring. If so, Jesus’s overturning of the tables would dovetail with his subsequent prophetic rebuke, “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers” (21:13). The statement is a conflation of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11, the latter of which originally resides in a context that foretells the destruction of the Solomonic temple on account of the corruption of the people and their obdurate refusal to repent (Jer 7:1–15). The combined quotation indicates that Jesus’s rebuke is not directed against the temple and sacrificial system but rather against a corruption that is interfering with proper worship.59 By clearing the temple of its corrupt practices, Jesus’s activities in 21:12–13 constitute a symbolic purification of temple; at the same time, the overturning of the tables and the Jer 7 reference make clear that his activities also convey divine judgment and portend the temple’s coming destruction on account of the establishment’s corruption.60 58 Sodom and Gomorrah: Gen 13:10; 19:21, 25, 29; Deut 29:23; Isa 13:19; Jer 20:16; LXX Jer 27:40; 30:12; Lam 4:6; Amos 4:11; Jerusalem: 2 Kgs 21:13; Nineveh: Jonah 3:4; Tob 14:4 (which subsequently declares that Jerusalem will become desolate [ἔρημος] and the temple of God will be burned to the ground and be desolate [ἔρημος]); God’s covenant: LXX Ps 88:40; mountains: Job 9:5; 18:4; the mighty: Job 12:19; sinners: Sir 10:13; 27:3; nations: Hag 2:22; Sir 10:16. In the NT, καταστρέφω is only found in Matt 21:12 and Mark 11:15. 59 Since buying and selling were necessary activities for the temple cult, it is probable that Jesus is reacting to the presence of these activities in the temple itself and/or oppressive rates. The religious authorities, as those responsible for the temple, are ultimately the recipients of the rebuke. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:134; Luz, Matthew, 3:12; Osborne, Matthew, 762–63; Turner, Matthew, 500; France, Matthew, 784. 60 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:135–37, “Our own suspicion is that it is wrong to oppose the two interpretations. Rather, protestation against abuses and symbolic expressions of judgment belonged together.” Osborne, Matthew, 765, “these two primary options do not have to be seen as an either-or but are certainly a both-and. Jesus’ symbolic action is both a cleansing and a curse.” Cf. Turner, Matthew, 501–2; Keener, Matthew, 496–501; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 267–69. The cursing of the fig tree (21:18–22) likely also comprises a parable of judgment. Though William R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition, JSNTSup 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980), 78–84, is correct in arguing that the link between the fig tree and the temple is far less pronounced in Matthew than it is in Mark due to numerous Matthean redactions, he goes too far in claiming that the Matthean episode only speaks about faith. Luz, Matthew, 3:23, is closer to the mark when he summarizes the pericope as follows, “The church’s traditional interpretation of the text as a symbolic pronouncement of judgment on Israel is basically correct. The only qualification to be made is that the sign of judgment remains open and

122

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

The pronouncement of judgment is more overt in the series of spoken parables that follow. The first of these parables, that of the two sons (21:28–32), strongly implies that judgment is in store for the Jewish leaders because they refuse to repent and enter the kingdom of heaven.61 The second, that of vineyard and tenants (21:33–46), is clearly modeled upon the vineyard illustration of Isa 5:1–10, which describes divine judgment upon Israel because of its bloodshed and injustice.62 In Matthew’s account, it is the leaders who are destroyed (21:40–41, 43, 45) rather than the vineyard, though the crime that merits the destruction is similarly that of bloodshed: they are condemned for shedding the blood of the God’s servants (21:35–36) and especially that of his Son (21:37–39, 42). As a result, Jesus declares that the kingdom will be taken away from them and given to a people producing fruit (21:43). The third parable, that of the wedding banquet (22:1–14), likewise describes judgment.63 In this case, the judgment is detailed in 22:7, which speaks of the king sending an army to kill his enemies and set their city on fire.64 The judgment becomes even more explicit in the section that follows when Jesus transitions from speaking in parables to direct rebuke. He pronounces woes on the Jewish leaders (23:13–36),65 which correspond with the woes he pronounced against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum regarding the final

indefinite. It offers no word of explanation and merely intends to prepare the readers for something that will be said later.” However, Luz’s position should be modified to speak specifically of judgment against Jerusalem and the religious establishment rather than on the nation as a whole. 61 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:188–89, note the significant parallels between Matt 21:28–32 and 21:33–46. 62 Note especially the lexical correspondence between Matt 21:33 and LXX Isa 5:2. In light of the fact that Jesus’s pronouncement against Jerusalem centers upon the decree that its house will be made desolate (ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος; Matt 23:38), it is interesting to note that God’s punishment in Isaiah also involves making many houses desolate (ἐὰν γὰρ γένωνται οἰκίαι πολλαί, εἰς ἔρημον ἔσονται μεγάλαι καὶ καλαί; Isa 5:9). 63 This parable, which is paralleled in Luke 14:15–24, is not found in Mark. 64 There are a number of factors that suggest the king represents God in this parable: God is king elsewhere in Matthew (5:35), Jesus is the son in the preceding parable (21:37–38) and throughout the Gospel, and Jesus is elsewhere described as the bridegroom (9:15; 25:1). See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:198–99. Judgment is also described in this parable at 22:13, where the uninvited guest (i.e., the false Christian; cf. 7:21–23) is cast out into the darkness where there is weeping and the gnashing of teeth (cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). 65 Note that the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees is significantly expanded in Matthew (cf. Mark 12:38–40) and that the woes and judgment of Jerusalem have a very different setting in Luke (11:42–50; 13:34–35). Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:285, note that the number seven is often connected with judgment (Gen 4:24; Lev 26:18; Prov 6:31; 4Q511 2 f35; Revelation). The woes that Jesus pronounces find ample precedent in the OT, most notably the six woes of Isa 5:8–24 given that Jesus has already alluded to Isa 5:1–7 in his judgment of the Jewish leaders; cf. Hab 2:6–20; Deut 28:15–19; 1 Sam 4:7–8.

A. Setting the Context

123

judgment (11:20–24).66 The judgment becomes especially pointed in the climax of these woes (23:29–36): Jesus declares that the scribes and Pharisees will fill up the sins committed by their fathers and thereby put God’s wrath over the tipping point, making judgment inevitable (23:32).67 In “a rhetorical question that is at the same time condemnation,”68 he declares that the leaders are almost certainly destined for eschatological judgment (23:33). He then states that because the leaders kill, crucify, flog, and persecute those whom he sends, all the righteous blood shed on the earth will come upon them and their generation (23:35–36).69 After denouncing the Jewish leaders, Jesus then turns to address Jerusalem. He indicts the city for killing prophets (23:37), thus binding Jerusalem to its leaders (23:29–36) in shared culpability. He then decrees that the consequence for Jerusalem’s transgression is the destruction of the temple and the city itself (23:38).70 After making these remarks, Jesus withdraws from the temple, stopping on the Mount of Olives (24:1, 3). Given the overt declarations of judgment that precede his action, including the warning that God will abandon the temple

66 One notes that a predominant characterization of the scribes and Pharisees in these woes is that of hypocrites (23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; cf. 6:2, 5, 16); later Jesus will state that the ultimate destination of such figures is the darkness of weeping and gnashing teeth that is associated with final judgment (24:51). The characterization of the leaders as hypocrites is uniquely Matthean. 67 Cf. Gen 15:16; Dan 8:23; 9:24 (Aq.); Jub 14:16; 2 Macc 6:14; 11Q19 59:3–13; Barn. 5:11; Gos. Pet. 5.17; especially 1 Thess 2:14–15. 68 Hagner, Matthew, 2:672. 69 The motif of righteous blood then prominently resurfaces in 26–27, where it links the leaders’ execution of Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem. See Garland, Intention, 184–87; David M. Moffitt, “Righteous Bloodshed, Matthew’s Passion Narrative, and the Temple’s Destruction: Lamentations as a Matthean Intertext,” JBL 125 (2006): 306–9; Catherine Sider Hamilton, “‘His Blood Be upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew,” CBQ 70 (2008): 82–100; Death of Jesus. 70 “Your house” (23:38) could refer to the temple (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:1–10; Isa 64:11; Jer 7:10– 14; Hag 1:6), Jerusalem (e.g., Jer 22:1–6; 1 En. 89:50–51, 56, 67; T. Levi 10:5), or the nation of Israel (e.g., Jer 12:7; Luke 1:27, 33; Acts 2:36). Of these options, the temple is the most likely given (a) the temple is referred to as “my house” in Matt 21:13, (b) Jesus makes the declaration of 23:38 in the temple, (c) immediately after making the decree Jesus then foretells the temple’s destruction (24:1–2). However, it is likely that 23:38 has both the temple and Jerusalem in view given that the two identities are often taken together (e.g., Isa 64:10– 11, which shares the vocabulary Ἰερουσαλήμ, οἶκος, and ἔρημος with Matt 23:38; Ezra 1:2, 5; 2:68; 3:8; 2 Bar. 8:1–5; 1 En. 89:50–56) and the fact that Jesus has spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem for killing God’s messengers in 22:7; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:322; Nolland, Matthew, 951; Moffitt, “Righteous Bloodshed,” 306. It is doubtful that the entire nation is in view here since the entire phrase “house of Israel” is not used (cf. Matt 10:6; 15:24) and the personal pronoun “your” would not be fitting.

124

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

(23:38),71 and given the fact that Jesus represents God’s presence (1:23; 18:20), it is almost certain that Jesus’s departure from the temple forms a prophetic sign of God’s withdrawal, thereby symbolizing the temple’s vulnerability and coming destruction (cf. Ezek 8–11).72 To sum up, the arrival of the eschatological Son of David in the City of David does not constitute a happy occasion for either party. For Jesus, his advent represents a head-on collision with the forces of opposition and his impending death. For Jerusalem, Jesus’s arrival represents judgment.73 V. Jerusalem’s Day of the Lord That Jesus’s coming could spell judgment is exactly what the John the Baptist had prophesied. John had preached to crowds from Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan that the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven was tied to the coming of a powerful figure (ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος) who would thresh humanity into the righteous and the wicked (3:11–12; cf. 3:2). John had stated that for the righteous, the figure’s coming would represent salvation, but for the wicked it would mean judgment, “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (3:12). In light of the catastrophic potential involved with the figure’s advent, and in light of its imminence (3:10), John had stressed the necessity of repentance, warning that ethnic descent was not sufficient to avoid the fires of judgment (3:2, 7–10).74 According to Matthew, by preaching this message in the wilderness, John fulfills the prophecy of Isa 40:3 LXX,75 71 These declarations receive heightened significance given that they constitute Jesus’s final public address. 72 Garland, Intention, 202–4; Luz, Matthew, 3:162; Keener, Matthew, 563; France, Matthew, 887; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:322; Konradt, Israel, 235; du Toit, “Motive der Gottesgegenwart,” 185; Michael P. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction, JSNTSup 68 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 144; Anders Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew: The Narrative World of the First Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 127. Note that Matthew has removed the story about the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4) so that Jesus exits the temple immediately after the announcements of judgment. 73 Konradt, Israel, 233, provides a crucial qualification, “Matthew reads the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgment upon the opponents of Jesus, upon the murderers of prophets, as well as upon those who let themselves be seduced by these men into opposition against Jesus (27.20), but not as a judgment upon Israel in general.” Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:324; Harrington, Matthew, 330; Moffitt, “Righteous Bloodshed,” 301, 319. 74 John P. Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” JBL 99 (1980): 388, “In 3:2 and 4:17 Matthew inverts the Markan order of indicative and imperative. For Matthew, the imperative cry metanoeite comes first; the indicative of the coming of the kingdom is then mentioned as the reason and the ground of repentance.” 75 The term πληρόω is not utilized here because it is reserved for Jesus.

A. Setting the Context

125

This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord (κυρίου), make his paths straight.’” (Matt 3:3)

Since Matthew identifies John as the voice about which Isaiah spoke,76 and since Isaiah foresaw the voice anticipating the coming of God, it follows that the coming strong one whom John precedes is none other than God himself.77 While this inference is not universally embraced in light of the apparent oddity of describing God as a sandal wearer (“I am not worthy to carry his sandals”; 3:11) and of John comparing himself with God (“one stronger than me”; 3:11),78 these objections are not insurmountable.79 The OT contains two references to God’s sandals (Ps 60:8[59:10]; 110:9[109:10], “Moab is my washbasin; on Edom I hurl my sandal; over Philistia I shout in triumph”), which renders John’s statement perhaps unusual but not inconceivable.80 Nor does John’s self-comparison need to be presumptuous to the point of impossibility: “the very fact that God is not referred to explicitly would have done much to avoid the possibility of John giving offence through making a comparison between 76 Note the use of the masculine participle ὁ ῥηθείς in place of the neuter τὸ ῥηθέν in order to more closely identify John with the prophecy: John’s ministry doesn’t just fulfill the prophecy, John is the voice about which Isaiah spoke; Brian C. Dennert, John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew, WUNT 2/403 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 137–38. 77 France, Matthew, 114–15; Dennert, John the Baptist, 138; cf. Markus Öhler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” JBL 118 (1999): 473. The Matthean narrative sets the stage for this conclusion by characterizing Jesus as Immanuel (1:23). In addition, the kingdom of heaven that John announces (3:2) was anticipated to occur in conjunction with the coming of God; cf. Beasley-Murray, Kingdom of God, 19, 24; Wright, Jesus, 205–06. In Isa 40:3, κύριος refers to God; in Matt 3:3, it is clear through the narrative juxtaposition of 3:13 with 3:1–12 that κύριος refers to Jesus. 78 Objectors point to the fact that these details are more appropriate for a human figure than God. E.g., Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 151–52; John the Baptist in History and Theology (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2018), 188. John H. Hughes, “John the Baptist: The forerunner of God Himself,” NovT 14 (1972): 195, provides a useful overview of the objections. 79 While scholars are correct about the anthropological inclination of these details, the details need not mitigate the divine expectation that is created by the Isa 40:3 quote at Matt 3:3. Rather, the details facilitate the application of John’s preaching to Jesus while maintaining its divine expectation, in a manner that is analogous to the use of κύριος in 3:3. After all, the human Jesus is Immanuel, “God with us” (1:23). 80 Hughes, “John the Baptist,” 196; Dennert, John the Baptist, 163–65. Alternatively, as Paul G. Bretscher, “‘Whose Sandals’? (Matt 3:11),” JBL 86 (1967): 81–87, has argued, in Matthew’s account the sandals may belong to John rather than God, “He who is coming after me is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear (my) sandals" (83). Bretscher’s proposal is intriguing but has met with numerous objections; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:315; Gundry, Matthew, 48; Dennert, John the Baptist, 163 n. 146.

126

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

himself and the Deity.”81 In addition, by means of a self-effacing comparison between himself and the coming figure and between their respective baptisms, John is able to emphasize the imminence of the figure’s arrival as well as its importance. Furthermore, God is often described as mighty (ἰσχυρός), as for example in Isa 40:10, “behold, the Lord comes with might” (ἰδοὺ κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται). This passage has obvious significance for the present discussion in light of Matthew’s citation of Isa 40:3 at 3:3. Finally, the actions that John associates with the coming one are likewise regularly descriptive of God himself. For example, God is the one who fells trees in judgment (Isa 10:33– 34; cf. Matt 3:10),82 punishes with fire,83 and eschatologically pours out the spirit (Joel 3:1 [LXX]; Ezek 39:29; Isa 44:3; 1QS 4:20–21). It follows that the coming figure John precedes is none other God himself. Beyond fulfilling Isa 40:3, Matthew also makes clear that John fulfills Malachi’s prophecy about the eschatological return of Elijah, Behold, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple … Behold, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse (Mal 3:1a; 4:5–6).84

John is said to appear in the wilderness of Judea near the Jordan river (3:1, 6), the general region of Elijah’s ascension into heaven (2 Kgs 2:4–14) and therefore the expected locale of his return (Mal 4:5).85 He dresses in a manner reminiscent of the prophet (Matt 3:4; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8; Zech 13:4),86 and preaches a 81

Hughes, “John the Baptist,” 196. The LXX here speaks of God felling the trees with a sword (μάχαιρα) rather than an ax (ἀξίνη). 83 E.g., Isa 10:16–17; 30:33; 33:14; 66:15–16; 66:24; Gen 19:24; Num 16:35; Ps 21:9; 50:3; Amos 1:7; Joel 2:5; Jer 7:20. 84 The translation is from the NRSV, though with the NRSV’s “see” (3:1) and “Lo” (4:5) adapted to bring out the lexical equivalence that is present in the MT/LXX. Though not all commentators agree that the Elijah of 4:5 should be identified with the messenger of 3:1, the passages are closely related lexically (“behold!”, “send”, “come”) and thematically (eschatological preparatory forerunner, task of reform given the risk of judgment, divine intervention), and thus the figures should be equated. David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 230–32; Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Introduction and Commentary, AB 25D (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 383; Stacy Davis, Haggai and Malachi, Wisdom Commentary 39 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2015), 104; David M. Miller, “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgment in the Reception History of Malachi 3,” NTS 53 (2007): 3, 8. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 340, states “the majority of ancient and modern Protestant interpreters maintain that the two figures are in fact identical.” 85 Taylor, The Immerser, 213–14; cf. Meier, “John the Baptist, 389. 86 The wording in the LXX (4 Kgdms 1:8) is almost identical to that of Matt 3:4; cf. Marcus, John the Baptist, 50–54; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:295–96; Öhler, 82

A. Setting the Context

127

message of repentance to prepare the people of Israel for the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven (Matt 3:2). More to the point, in 11:10 Jesus declares that John is the preparatory messenger of Mal 3:1, and four verses later he makes the identification between John and Elijah even more explicit, “and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” (11:14).87 The narrative then reinforces the identification in 17:10–13 when the disciples are said to finally recognize the link between John and Elijah. Given that John acts as the eschatological Elijah, it follows that the event he anticipates is none other than the great and terrible Day of the Lord (Mal 4:5), which Malachi describes in part as follows, See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight— indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap... 18 Then once more you shall see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him. See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the LORD of hosts. (Mal 3:1–2, 18–4:3) 88

That John should be seen as preceding this event in Matthew’s Gospel is further suggested by the overlap that exists between Malachi’s description of the Day of the Lord and the content of John’s preaching. Like John, Malachi announces an event that involves both judgment (Mal 3:5; 4:1, 3, 6; Matt 3:10, 12) and salvation (Mal 3:17; 4:2; Matt 3:12) and differentiates between these potential two fates on the basis of ethics rather than ethnicity (Mal 3:18; Matt 3:8–10). Moreover, like John, Malachi describes the judgment of the wicked as a fire consuming the chaff (Mal 4:1; Matt 3:12)89 and stresses the necessity of repentance to avoid it (Mal 3:7; 4:6; Matt 3:2, 7–10). Malachi also describes the Day of the Lord as involving a purification of the righteous by fire (3:2–4), which coincides with the prevalent interpretation of John’s statement about the “Expectation of Elijah,” 471. Though it is also possible that this description is instead intended to portray John as a figure who has withdrawn to the desert in protest; Dennert, John the Baptist, 139–44; Taylor, The Immerser, 34–38. 87 This statement is a Matthean insertion. 88 Shared references to the coming day (Mal 3:2, 17; 4:1, 3, 5) and the shared motif of fire (3:2; 4:1) suggest that the events of Mal 3:1–5 and 3:16–4:6 all correspond to the same moment of divine intervention; cf. Miller, “The Messenger,” 6. 89 Öhler, “Expectation of Elijah,” 471–72, “Malachi’s words are the only ones in the OT comparing the judgment of Israel to winnowing and burning the chaff.” He qualifies this statement with the observation that Obad 18 also uses this metaphor, though with Edom in view (“Elijah,” 472 n. 42).

128

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11).90 Furthermore, like John, Malachi connects the event with the coming of God himself (Mal 3:1–2, 17; 4:3; Matt 3:3, 11).91 Finally, like John, Malachi also directs his rebuke against the religious establishment (Mal 1:6; 2:1; 3:3; Matt 3:7).92 Consequently, Matthew implies that John acts as the eschatological Elijah to announce the coming of God himself and the great and terrible Day of the Lord. Given that Jesus is the coming one (ὁ ἐρχόμενος; 3:11) whom John anticipates (3:13–14; 11:1–6),93 it follows that Jesus’s arrival represents the coming of God and the arrival of Malachi’s Day of the Lord.94

90 For interpreting the Matt 3:11 baptism of the coming one as a single baptism that is experienced either as blessing or as judgment, with the former relating to refinement, see James D. G. Dunn, “Spirit and Fire Baptism,” NovT 14 (1972): 81–92; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:316–17; Hagner, Matthew, 1:52; Osborne, Matthew, 116; Turner, Matthew, 115; Dennert, John the Baptist, 158–59. 91 Though there is considerable debate regarding the identity of the messengers, most scholars agree that the Lord (κύριος, ‫ )האדון‬refers to God. Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 328; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 288–89; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, 210; Hill, Malachi, 268; Davis, Haggai and Malachi, 74. Miller, “Messenger,” 10–11, argues that the LXX makes it clear that God will do the work of refining in Mal 3:2–5. 92 Jeffrey A. Trumbower, “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, JSNTSup 104 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 39. 93 The identification of Jesus as the coming one is also reinforced in 13:30 (cf. 13:41– 42), where Jesus says that he will send his angels to gather the wheat into his storehouse (τὸν δὲ σῖτον συναγάγετε εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην μου); the same expression is used for the coming one in 3:12 (συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην). Additionally, both 3:11–12 and 13:42 depict the fate of the wicked as fire. 94 Dennert, John the Baptist, 172, “A belief in John as Elijah would lead to the identification of Jesus not just as Messiah but God himself, equating Jesus’ ministry with the day of the Lord.” Cf. Harrington, Matthew, 61. See also the similar conclusions reached for Luke-Acts in Miller, “The Messenger.” Commenting on Mark’s Gospel, Mark Goodacre, “Mark, Elijah, the Baptist, and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark” in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Volume 2: Matthew, ed. Tom Hatina, LNTS 310 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 82, states, “[Mark] has John as the Elijah who heralds the embodiment of [the] day of the Lord, Jesus.” With regards to Hays’s criteria for detecting an echo (see 1.B), the history of interpretation criterion is thus clearly met. As discussed above, thematic correspondence is also clearly satisfied. It is evident from Matt 11:10, 14 that the criteria of availability and recurrence are also satisfied: Matthew definitely knows Malachi and quotes from it to describe John the Baptist. With regards to volume, while there is not a direct verbal echo of Malachi in Matt 3:1–12, a direct quotation is found in Matt 11:10 (Mal 3:1) and applied to John the Baptist, and thus the volume criterion can be considered retrospectively satisfied. Historical plausibility is also met by Matt 11:10 and is reinforced by the fact that Matt 3:2 applies the equivalent eschatological motif, the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven, to the Baptist.

A. Setting the Context

129

It is therefore significant that when Jesus enters Jerusalem in what is clearly an eschatological event, he is referred to as the king who comes (ἔρχομαι) to the city (21:5). His approach is also accompanied by crowds proclaiming the words of Ps 118(117):26, “Blessed is the one who comes (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) in the name of the Lord!” (21:9).95 Once inside the temple, Jesus heals the blind and lame (21:14), miracles to which he had previously pointed as proof of his identity as the coming one (ὁ ἐρχόμενος) when questioned by John the Baptist (11:2–6). Moreover, Jesus’s approach to Jerusalem can be construed as the coming of God.96 Jesus initiates his procession into the city by commandeering his transport in a manner that that has overtones of the divine: he acts as if his claim to the beasts of burden exceeds that of their owner, demonstrates great prescience over the events concerning their acquisition (21:1–3),97 and refers to himself as the Lord (ὁ κὑριος) in this context (21:3).98 The divine overtones of the scene are further amplified by Matthean redactions that enhance the quality of Jesus’s authority: the promise to return the animals is omitted99 and the obedience of the disciples to Jesus’s command is further emphasized (21:6).100 After mounting the colt, the Lord Jesus (21:3) then progresses into the city along the way (ὁδός), with the crowds laying garments and palm branches upon it (21:8; cf. 3:3). The 21:10 question posed by Jerusalem when he arrives at the city may further contribute to the scene’s divine motif by forming an echo of LXX Ps 23:8, 10, which describes the approach of Israel’s God to the temple.101 Once he reaches Jerusalem, the Lord Jesus goes immediately to the temple, where he rebukes the corruption of the religious establishment and portends its

95 Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 170, and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:112, also make the connection between “the coming one” of 21:9 and 3:11; 11:3. Meier, Matthew, 233, notes a connection between the coming one in 21:9 and 11:3. 96 The narrative has previously set the stage for such an interpretation, primarily by characterizing Jesus as Immanuel, “God with us” (1:23; cf. 18:20), and repeatedly depicting him executing divine authority (e.g., 7:21–23; 8:23–27; 14:22–33). 97 Gundry, Matthew, 408–9; Keener, Matthew, 490; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:117. 98 France, Matthew, 776. 99 In Mark, the disciples are told to say that the Lord needs the animals and that he (Jesus) will return them immediately (11:3). In Matthew, the πάλιν ὧδε is removed, with the effect that the statement shifts to describe the owner: though he (the owner) may initially resist the disciples, he (the owner) will send the animals immediately when he learns that Jesus needs them. Gundry, Matthew, 408. 100 Matthew removes the reference to potential resistance to Jesus’s command (Mark 11,5–6; Luke 19,33–34) and uses “ordered” instead of “said” (Mark 11,6). Gundry, Matthew, 409. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:198, compares the obedience of the disciples to Jesus in Matt 21:1–7 with the obedience of Joseph to God in Matt 1:20–25. 101 Brian Carrier, “The Triumphal Echo of Psalm 24 in the Gospel According to Matthew,” Bib 99 (2018): 247–64.

130

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

judgment in dramatic fashion.102 In Matthew’s account, the temple cleansing takes place on the same day that Jesus enters Jerusalem, which has the effect of making Jesus’s arrival in the temple appear more sudden than it does in Mark (cf. Mark 11:1–24; Mal 3:1–5). After performing his prophetic sign, Jesus also performs wonders (θαυμάσια ἃ ἐποίησεν) and receives praise (αἶνος) in the temple (21:15–16). These actions further highlight Jesus’s divine status: the term θαυμάσιος is used almost exclusively to describe great deeds of God in the LXX, especially when it occurs in conjunction with ποιέω,103 and Jesus is said to receive praise for performing these θαυμάσια in the temple, the primary location intended for the praise of God.104 In addition, when confronted by the Pharisees for receiving such praise, Jesus cites LXX Ps 8:3 in response, reinterpreting the Psalm to make himself, rather than God, the rightful recipient of the approbation.105 One also notes that the recipients of Jesus’s rebukes and warnings of judgment in Matt 21–23 are the religious leaders, the same figures that were in the crosshairs of divine judgment in Malachi and John’s preaching. Jesus rebukes these figures for making God’s temple a den of robbers (21:13) and pronounces woes upon them for being hypocritical in their service to God (23:23–28; cf. Mal 1:6–14; 2:10, 13–17) and for leading people astray (23:13, 15; cf. Mal 2:8). His exit from the temple leaves judgment in its wake (cf. Mal 2:2; 4:6).106 In light of the above, it is highly likely that Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem represents the arrival of the coming one about whom John had preached, and by extension, the fulfillment of the Malachi Day of the Lord prophecy that underlies John’s message.107 As the entire Matt 21–23 textual unit suggests, the event 102 As mentioned in 4.A.IV, Jesus’s actions in the temple can be interpreted as both a cleansing and a decree of judgment. 103 E.g., Exod 3:20; Deut 34:12; Judg 6:13; 1 Chr 16:9; Neh 9:17; LXX Ps 9:2; 39:6; 70:17; 71:18; 74:3; 76:12, 15; Jer 21:2; Joel 2:26; Sir 18:6; 31:9. See especially LXX Ps 25:7; 77:4, which link God’s θαυμάσια with praise (αἰνέσις). Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:209; Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 172; Lohfink, “Der Messiaskönig,” 190, notes the connection between θαυμάσια in 21:15 and θαυμαστὸν in LXX Ps 8:2. In the NT, θαυμάσιος is otherwise unattested. 104 France, Matthew, 790 n. 28; Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 171–72. 105 France, Matthew, 789; Nelson, “Who is This?,” 208–10; Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar, 171–72. 106 Supporting the assertion that 3:1–12 is in view at 21:1–17 is the observation that John is mentioned in 21:25–26, 32 and John’s language surfaces elsewhere in Matt 21–23: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (3:7; 23:33), καρπός (3:8, 10; 21:19, 34, 41, 43); cf. the similar questions at 3:7 and 23:33. 107 Hays’s method substantiates that an echo of Mal 3 is present in the Jerusalem entry scene (Matt 21:1–17). The criteria of availability and recurrence are clearly met given Matt 11:10 (cf. Mal 3:1). Though the volume is admittedly low, it is offset by the strength of the thematic coherence and by the fact that Matthew has filtered Malachi’s prophecy through John the Baptist. Matthew’s ascription of Elijah’s role to the Baptist also argues in favor of

B. The Shaking of Jerusalem

131

is one that Jerusalem and its leaders experience as judgment. Through its christological antagonism, the city shows itself to belong to the chaff (3:12); consequently, it must suffer the consequence of judgment about which both Malachi and the Baptist had warned.108

B. The Shaking of Jerusalem The 21:10 reference to the shaking (ἐσείσθη) of Jerusalem fits perfectly within the above argued context of the fulfillment of Malachi’s Day of the Lord. While Malachi’s description of the Day of the Lord does not itself contain any seismic language, the Matt 21:10 shaking reference nevertheless amplifies the Day of the Lord resonance of the Jerusalem entry scene in multiple ways. First, the term’s robust theophanic connotation strengthens the divine overtones present in the scene, thereby reinforcing the fact that the arrival of Jesus represents the coming of God.109 Such an event was anticipated in conjunction with the eschatological Day of the Lord and Malachi’s Day of the Lord in particular. Second, and relatedly, the term σείω has a strong Day of the Lord connotation given its frequent use in eschatological Day of the Lord accounts (Joel 2:10; 4:16 LXX; Isa 13:13; 24:18, 20; Hag 2:6, 21; Ezek 38:20). For example, the Ezek 38:19–20 Day of the Lord describes the eschatological coming of God in historical plausibility, and the history of interpretation includes a few witnesses (France, Matthew, 785; Keener, Matthew, 499; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 268; Nolland, Matthew, 844; Turner, Matthew, 501–2; Hagner, Matthew, 2:600; Richard H. Hiers, “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God,” JBL 90 [1971]: 87–88; Mark D. Vander Hart, “The Transition of the Old Testament Day of the Lord into the New Testament Day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” MJT 9 [1993]: 14). 108 It is not unreasonable to interpret Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem as representative of both the advent of the messianic king in fulfillment of Zech 9:9 and the advent of God in fulfillment of Mal 3:1. Matthew is generally preoccupied with demonstrating fulfillment and appears quite comfortable assigning Jesus multiple roles. For example, as Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, has argued convincingly (cf. Zacharias, Son of David; John Paul Heil, “Ezekiel 34 and the Narrative Strategy of the Shepherd and Sheep Metaphor in Matthew,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 698–708), by depicting Jesus as the Son of David who heals and who gathers with sinners, Matthew implies that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Ezek 34. As such, Jesus represents both Yahweh, the shepherd who gathers and heals the flock (Ezek 34:11–16), and the Davidic prince who acts as shepherd on Yahweh’s behalf (Ezek 34:23–24). In addition, it should be noted that Ezek 34 describes judgment against the wicked shepherds (34:17– 22), which is precisely the situation described in Matt 21–23. 109 Riebl, Auferstehung, 69, and Gewalt, “Die Heilung,” 158, both conclude that the Matt 21:10 σείω reference transforms the Jerusalem entry into an epiphany scene. Though σείω more often describes the shaking of the ground in theophanic contexts, it can also describe the shaking of people (Ezek 38:20; 1 En. 102:3) and idols (Isa 19:1) before the presence of God. Thus, it is not unreasonable to find a theophanic connotation at play in the Matthean Jerusalem entry scene.

132

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

judgment as generating a great earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας) in the land of Israel and shaking (σεισθήσονται) all the people on the face of the earth. Given the fact that the various Day of the Lord accounts, including that of Malachi, all belong to the same conceptual framework and are all closely interrelated through a web of lexical and thematic links,110 it follows that the Day of the Lord connotation carried by σείω is able to increase the Day of the Lord resonance present in the Matthean Jerusalem entry scene.111 This point would not be as strong if it were not for the fact that, third, the 21:10 σείω reference helps to connect the Jerusalem entry scene with the storm stilling account (8:23–27). It is evident that a connection is intended between these two episodes since both accounts reference seismic activity (σεισμός; 8:24; ἐσείσθη; 21:10) and both connect this seismic activity to a nearly identical christological question: ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος; (8:27); τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; (21:10). Since the σεισμός at 8:24 was shown to relate to the fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord,112 it would not be a stretch to find the same connotation present in the related seismic reference at 21:10. Putting this all together, it is not unreasonable to presume that the Matt 21:10 reference to Jerusalem shaking (ἐσείσθη) reinforces Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem as the coming of God on the eschatological Day of the Lord. In addition, the ἐσείσθη reference underscores the fact that Jesus’s coming spells judgment. In Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia, a destructive connotation is prevalent for anthropological shaking in general and the shaking of cities in particular. This is especially evident in the OT, which forms the heart of Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia. A few examples are especially worthy of consideration. Amos 1:14 LXX declares that the capital city of Rabbah will be shaken (σεισθήσεται) in the day of its destruction; the calamity represents God’s judgment upon the Ammonite nation for its transgressions against Gilead. The prophet Ezekiel makes a similar decree against Tyre. He declares that Tyre’s exploitation of Jerusalem has triggered God’s judgment upon it in the form of Nebuchadnezzar and his army. Ezekiel asserts that at the moment when the king and his forces enter the city, Tyre’s walls will be shaken (σεισθήσεται) and the city’s destruction will commence (26:10–11).113 In 2 Kgs 17:20, the shaking of the Israelite nation directly describes divine judgment,

110 Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, esp. 254–266; Beck, Der Tag YHWHs, esp. 256–260. 111 In other words, the general Day of the Lord connotation carried by σείω harmonizes with the Jerusalem entry scene’s allusion to the non-seismic Day of the Lord of Malachi. 112 See 3.C. 113 Ezek 26:10b - ἀπὸ τῆς φωνῆς τῶν ἱππέων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν τροχῶν τῶν ἁρμάτων αὐτοῦ σεισθήσεται τὰ τείχη σου εἰσπορευομένου αὐτοῦ τὰς πύλας σου ὡς εἰσπορευόμενος εἰς πόλιν ἐκ πεδίου (“At the noise of cavalry, wheels, and chariots your very walls shall shake, when he enters your gates like those entering a breached city”).

B. The Shaking of Jerusalem

133

Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” 14 They would not listen but were stubborn, as their ancestors had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God....18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight; none was left but the tribe of Judah alone. 19 Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced. 20 The LORD rejected all the descendants of Israel; he shook (ἐσάλευσεν) them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had banished them from his presence. (2 Kgs 17:13–14, 18–20) 114

Though 2 Kgs 17:20 utilizes the synonym σαλεύω instead of σείω, the two terms often function synonymously,115 and the similarities exhibited between the 2 Kings pericope and Matthew’s Gospel are striking: both accounts connect shaking with divine judgment and predicate the catastrophe upon a refusal to repent. The same connotation for shaking language and the same overall theme are also observed in 2 Kgs 21:7–16: The carved image of Asherah that [Manasseh] had made he set in the house of which the LORD said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever; 8 I will not cause the feet of Israel to shake (ἐσάλευσεν) any more out of the land that I gave to their ancestors, if only they will be careful to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them.” 9 But they did not listen; Manasseh misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel. 116

The passage goes on to state that because Manasseh has committed terrible atrocities, including the shedding of innocent blood (καί γε αἷμα ἀθῷον ἐξέχεεν Μανασσης πολὺ σφόδρα; 21:16)117 and the leading astray of God’s people, God will bring judgment upon Jerusalem, wiping it as one wipes a dish (2 Kgs 21:10–16). As Davies and Allison argue, the same reasoning observed in 2 Kgs 21:10–16 regarding the destruction of the first temple also appears to be at play in Matthew’s Gospel with regards to the destruction of the second, God intended the temple to be a house of prayer (21.13), a place for the offering of sacrifices (5.23–4), and a holy site sanctifying the objects within it (23.16–22). If the temple had ceased to be these things, and then ceased to be altogether, the explanation was simply that God’s judgment had come upon Jerusalem: the corruption of the priests and others (21.13; 23.35) and the rejection of Jesus (21.42–3; 22.7) brought divinely ordained destruction (24.2). In all this Matthew falls in line with late first-century Jewish thought. 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the 114 The translation is from the NRSV, though the NRSV translates ἐσάλευσεν (17:20) as “punished” rather than “shook.” 115 E.g., Heb 12:26–29; Nah 1:5; Judg 5:4–5; Job 9:6; cf. section 1.B. 116 The translation is from the NRSV, though the NRSV translates ἐσάλευσεν (21:8) as “wander” rather than “shake.” 117 Cf. Matt 23:35.

134

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

Apocalypse of Abraham, for instance, likewise attribute Jerusalem’s tragic demise and the levelling of its sanctuary to Jewish failing.118

A judgmental connotation for shaking is also observed in the NT. Hebrews 12:26–29 describes the end of the age as a divinely induced shaking (σείω; 12:26; σαλεύω; 12:26, 27) and equates that shaking with destruction.119 Likewise, in the book of Revelation, an earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας) is twice observed to destroy a city as a form of divine judgment that issues from a refusal to repent (11:13; 16:18).120 In 2 Bar. 31:3b-32:6, a passage that bears considerable resemblance to Heb 12:26–29, God’s eschatological intervention and judgment are described in seismic terms, Hear, O Israel, and I shall speak to you, and you, O seed of Jacob, pay attention, and I shall teach you. 4 Do not forget Zion but remember the distress of Jerusalem. 5 For behold, the days are coming, that all that has been will be taken away to be destroyed, and it will become as though it had not been. 32:1 You, however, if you prepare your minds to sow into them the fruits of the law, he shall protect you in the time in which the Mighty One shall shake the entire creation. 2 For after a short time, the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. 3 That building will not remain, but it will again be uprooted after some time and will remain desolate for a time. 4 And after that it is necessary that it will be renewed in glory and that it will be perfected into eternity. 5 We should not, therefore, be so sad regarding the evil which has come now, but much more (distressed) regarding that which is in the future. 6 For greater than the two evils will be the trial when the Mighty One will renew his creation (2 Bar. 31:3b-32:6; trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP)

As evidenced by 31:5 and 32:6, the shaking of 32:1 describes a divine destruction of the old creation in order make way for the new one.121 This eschatological shaking is tied to the shaking (i.e., destruction) of the First Temple (32:2): the divine judgment witnessed in the destruction of the temple serves as a reminder of the judgment that is to come when the current age reaches its terminus.122 The apparent future setting of the 2 Bar. 32:2 reference stems from the fact that it represents an ex eventu prophecy; the author composed the work in the aftermath of the Second Temple’s destruction but writes from the perspective of Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, immediately prior to the Babylonian

118

Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:143. They cite 2 Kgs 21:10–15 in support of this conclusion (n. 64). 119 This passage will be discussed in chapter six. 120 The city destroyed in 11:13 is presumably Jerusalem given 11:8, though it has also been identified as Rome; the city destroyed in 16:18 is Babylon. 121 Rivka Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, EJL 20 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 121–32. 122 As will be discussed below, a similar idea is present in Matthew’s Gospel.

B. The Shaking of Jerusalem

135

destruction of Solomon’s temple (cf. 2 Bar. 1:1–5).123 Thus, “the two tribulations and two demolitions of the temple” that are described in 2 Bar. 32:2–3 “are unambiguous references to the destruction of the First and Second Temples.”124 Second Baruch’s use of shaking language is significant for the interpretation of Matthew’s seismic motif given the considerable overlap that 2 Bar. 31:3– 32:5 displays with Matthew’s Gospel and Matt 21–23 in particular. First, like Matthew’s Jerusalem entry scene (21:1–17), 2 Bar. 31:3–32:5 also relates to eschatological context. Second, like Matt 21–23 (23:38; 24:2; cf. 26:61; 27:40),125 2 Bar. 32:3 references the destruction of the Second Temple, “That building will not remain, but it will again be uprooted after some time and will remain desolate for a time.” One also notes that 2 Bar. 32:3 describes the Second Temple’s destruction with the language of desolation, the same language that is utilized in Matthew’s account (23:38). Also important is the Deuteronomistic motif that is present in both accounts. It is widely acknowledged that Matthew predicates the Second Temple’s destruction upon the sin of the Jewish leaders, particularly as it concerns their murderous treatment of Jesus and his disciples (23:35, 37–38).126 So also, the author of Baruch construes the destruction of the First and Second Temples as divine judgment related to sin (2 Bar. 1–14).127 This Deuteronomistic frame is brought into forefront of the passage under discussion through a clear Deuteronomistic echo at 31:4, “Hear, O Israel.” Relatedly, 2 Bar. 32:1 states that ethical behavior (in this case expressed as obedience to Torah) is necessary to avoid final judgment (here expressed as 123 Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in the Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 47. 124 Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 193. Henze also states of 32:3, “it is here that the author most explicitly refers to the Roman leveling of Jerusalem in 70 CE and thus provides us with an unequivocal point of reference for the dating of the book; Second Baruch must date after the fall of Jerusalem” (Jewish Apocalypticism, 193; emphasis original). Cf. Nir, Destruction of Jerusalem, 32–41; A. F. J. Klijn, “The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch” in Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 203; Mark F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: Form and Message, JSPSS 42 (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 79. The renewing of the temple in glory (32:4) relates the heavenly Jerusalem of the new age. 125 The Jerusalem entry scene (21:1–17) clearly relates to the conclusion of Matt 21–23 given the shared references to Ps 118:26 (Matt 21:9; 23:39) and Jerusalem (21:1, 10; 23:37; these are the only occasions that Jerusalem is mentioned in Matt 21–23). 126 E.g., Luz, Matthew, 3:155–56; Konradt, Israel, 233–36; Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 205–6. Knowles, Jeremiah, argues that Matthew has incorporated a significant Jeremiah motif into his Gospel in order to view the Second Temple’s destruction through a Deuteronomistic lens. In other words, he claims that Matthew has used the Jeremiah motif to establish “a specific analogy to the previous destruction of Jerusalem” and cites 2 Baruch as a parallel text in support of this claim (Jeremiah, 289). 127 Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 219.

136

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

shaking).128 In sum, 2 Bar. 31:1–2 utilizes shaking language to describe divine judgment on the Jerusalem temple and declares that this destructive shaking serves as a preview of the divine judgment that will occur at the end of the age to make way for the new creation. A judgment connotation for anthropological shaking is also not foreign to Greco-Roman literature. Pindar describes the destruction of a city as being shaken (σείω; Pyth. 4.270), and the Sibylline Oracles regularly describe the demise of a city as a seismic event (σεισμός; 3.449, 459; 4.58, 100, 107). Pausanias recounts the destruction of the city of Lacedaemon by an earthquake as an act of divine retribution for its murder of individuals who were under the protection of the gods, The Lacedaemonians too put to death men who had taken refuge in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Taenarum. Presently their city was shaken (σείω) by an earthquake (σεισμός) so continuous and violent that no house in Lacedaemon could resist it. (Descr. 7.25.3; trans. W. H. S. Jones)

This account has parallels with Matthew’s narrative, which links the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple to the city’s execution of God’s people, especially Jesus (23:29–38; cf. 21:33–43; 22:7).129 In light of the above, it is likely that the Matt 21:10 reference to Jerusalem’s quaking serves an indication of the city’s coming judgment and ruin.130 The 21:10 reference to all of Jerusalem being shaken therefore constitutes an intensification of what Matthew reports at 2:3. In other words, what Jerusalem experiences as minor tremors when the king of the Jews enters the world (ἐταράχθη...πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα; 2:3) develops into the full-scale shaking of divine judgment when that king eventually enters its limits in manifest yet humble glory on the eschatological Day of the Lord (ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις; 21:10).131 This intensification is a logical byproduct of the narrative’s development. At the time of Jesus’s birth and Jerusalem’s initial disturbance (2:3), the Baptist had not yet uttered his call to repentance in light of the coming kingdom, nor (obviously) had Jesus begun his ministry as the coming one whom 128

Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 193, “the fruit of following Torah in the mean time will be an eternal reward in the end time, eternal preservation.” In Matthew, it is one’s submission to Jesus and obedience to his interpretation of Torah that is necessary to avoid final judgment. 129 Moffitt, “Righteous Bloodshed;” Hamilton, “His Blood Be upon Us;” The Death of Jesus. 130 This holds regardless of whether one agrees that Malachi’s Day of the Lord is reflected in Matthew’s Jerusalem entry scene. 131 Unlike σείω, the term ταράσσω is not predominantly connected with judgment in the OT when it has people as its subject. Also ruling against a judgment connotation for the ἐταράχθη reference at 2:3 is the fact that the disciples do not experience judgment when they think Jesus is a ghost and are disturbed (ἐταράχθησαν) as a result (14:26). For them, Jesus’s appearance brings reassurance and salvation (14:27–33), not judgment.

B. The Shaking of Jerusalem

137

John anticipated. A pronouncement of judgment at this point in the narrative would therefore have been premature. However, as the narrative develops, the culpability of the leaders grows. Though warned by both John and Jesus to repent (3:2; 4:17), they consistently refuse (21:28–22:7; 23:37). Though witness to Jesus’s miracles, which evidence his identity as the coming one (3:11– 12; 11:2–6), they reject Jesus and attribute his power to Satan (9:34; 12:24). Rather than growing in their awareness of Jesus’s identity, they instead grow in their hostility towards him. Consequently, even before Jesus departs Galilee for Jerusalem, the leaders have already placed themselves in the crosshairs of divine judgment (11:20–24; 12:30–37, 41–42). When Jesus arrives in Jerusalem in fulfillment of Malachi’s Day of the Lord, the leaders remain resolute in their antagonism and their resolve to put Jesus to death (12:14; 21:46; 26:3–5). The question that Jerusalem asks when it is shaken (21:10) highlights why the city experiences the Day of the Lord as a day of judgment; the inquiry reveals a recalcitrant unwillingness to receive its savior.132 Jerusalem and its leaders refuse to repent, and thus subject themselves to divine judgment (23:29–38; cf. 3:2, 7–12).133 It should be noted that the judgment of Jerusalem is not what Jesus had desired. Jesus is named such because his primary mission is to save his people from their sins (1:21). Jesus and John both call people to repent so that they can experience the salvific dimension of the Day of the Lord rather than its judgment (3:2; 4:17).134 To John’s surprise, Jesus comes in meekness and humility, prioritizing forgiveness and blessing over judgment (11:2–6; cf. 8:17; 9:2, 10, 13; 11:28–30; 21:5). Jesus offers salvation to all who receive him, even unlikely candidates (e.g., 9:10; 15:21–28). Most poignantly, Jesus laments over Jerusalem’s hostility, declaring that his continuous desire had been to bless rather than curse (23:37). One finds in Matthew’s Gospel that while Jesus’s death is intended for salvation (1:21; 26:28), it nevertheless involves judgment for those who bring about his death (23:29–38).135 The judgment that is signified by Jerusalem’s shaking (21:10) will fall in two stages. As Jesus suggests, it will come historically in the city’s destruction at the hand of the Romans (22:7; 23:38). As Jesus also warns, the historical judgment will in turn foreshadow the final judgment that will come at the end

132

See 4.A.II. The ultimate expression of Jerusalem’s unrepentant mindset will come shortly thereafter when Jerusalem puts its king to death (27:32–50). 134 See 3.B.I for the relationship between the kingdom of heaven and the Day of the Lord. 135 All of this is in keeping with the Day of the Lord, which is ultimately intended for salvation rather than judgment, but which nevertheless utilizes the latter as the means to its salvific end; cf. 2.A.I.2. Beasley-Murray, Kingdom of God, 14, declares that “from Israel’s earliest times, the notion of a Day of the Lord included both destruction and deliverance, the former having the latter in view as its end.” 133

138

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

of the age (23:33).136 For, as the Gospel makes clear, how one responds to Jesus in the present age will determine one’s fate in the age to come (e.g., 3:2, 7–12; 7:24–27; 11:20–24; 12:36–37, 41–42; 13:36–43; 16:27; 23:29–35; 25:31–46). That this is the case is further reinforced by the proleptic nature of the Jerusalem entry scene.137 First, one notes that Jesus’s approach to Jerusalem in 21:1–17 takes the form a parousia,138 while his return at the end of the age is labeled a parousia on four occasions in the eschatological discourse that follows immediately after the Matt 21–23 textual unit (24:3, 27, 37, 39). Second, Jesus’s approach to Jerusalem is accompanied by the words of Ps 118:26, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt 21:9), the same words that Jesus declares will be proclaimed when he returns at the end of the age (23:39).139 Third, Matthew relates Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem to the fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord, and likewise links Jesus’s second coming to the same event by way of his description in 24:29–31.140 In light 136

Konradt, Israel, 234, “The destruction of Jerusalem is thus interpreted by Matthew as evidence that the opponents of Jesus and his disciples will fall victim to the eschatological judgment of God.” 137 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:129, Meier, Vision of Matthew, 166, and Osborne, Matthew, 758, all interpret the Jerusalem entry scene as a prolepsis of Jesus’s second coming. 138 A parousia was an extravagant welcome ritual that attended the arrival of a ruler or otherwise distinguished entity. Common in Jesus’s day, such ceremonies usually involved four key aspects: (1) the distinguished (usually royal) figure is greeted outside the city by a delegation, (2) the figure approaches accompanied by the delegates amidst public acclaim; (3) various symbols are utilized to honor the figure, such as adornment of the delegates in ornamental clothing, and (4) the parade culminates at the temple. All four of these aspects are present in the 21:1–17 Jerusalem entry account: (1) Jesus is escorted into the city by his disciples and a crowd of enthusiastic followers, (2) the crowds sing out the words of Psalm 118 in praise, (3) garments and branches are laid on the road as gestures pointing to Jesus’s kingship (2 Kgs 9:13; 1 Macc 13:51), and (4) the parade ends at the temple; Kinman, Jesus’ Entry, 27–47. Cf. David R. Catchpole, “The ‘triumphal’ entry” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319–34; Paul Brooks Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,” JBL 111 (1992): 58– 64; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:112; Brent Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem,” BBR 15 (2005): 230–32. 139 That 23:39 speaks of Jesus’s return at the end of the age is evidenced by the ἀπ’ ἄρτι… ἕως construction (cf. 26:29); Luz, Matthew, 3:163; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:323. Konradt, Israel, 236, “It can hardly be disputed that Matt 23.39 takes into view the greeting of Christ at the Parousia.” 140 The references to the darkening of the sun and moon (24:29; cf. Isa 13:10; Joel 2:10; 4:15) and the sounding of the trumpet (24:31; cf. Joel 2:10; Zeph 1:16; Isa 27:13) clearly cast his second coming as the Day of the Lord; cf. Luz, Matthew, 3:202; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 330–31. It is also worth noting that a fig tree (συκῆ) is only mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel in conjunction with Jesus’s arrival in Jerusalem (21:19–21) and his second coming (24:32). Furthermore, as Dale Allison, “Jesus & the Victory of Apocalyptic” in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel, 135, argues, the 1 Thess 4:13–18 depiction of Jesus’s second

C. Conclusion

139

of these correspondences, it would appear that the shaking (ἐσείσθη) Jerusalem experiences when Jesus comes to it in humble fashion (21:10) previews the shaking (σαλευθήσονται) it will experience when he returns in glory (24:29).141

C. Conclusion Matthew’s Gospel presents the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem as an eschatological event. Jesus’s approach marks the first open declaration of his messianic identity and additionally represents the coming of Israel’s God on the eschatological Day of the Lord. For the city of Jerusalem and its wicked leaders, this is disastrous. Though Jesus had desired that his visit would be for Jerusalem’s benefit (23:37), his appearance only finalizes the antagonistic hardening that has been taking place in the hearts of Jerusalem’s leadership. Instead of acknowledging his identity, the leaders attack Jesus and plot his demise. Their recalcitrant hostility turns a willing savior into an uncompromising judge; because they demonstrate that they belong to the chaff, Jerusalem and its leaders experience the Day of the Lord as judgment rather than salvation.142 It is for this reason that Jerusalem is shaken (ἐσείσθη) when Jesus arrives (21:10). The shaking that the city experiences symbolizes its judgment and serves as a preview of what all the unrepentant will experience when Jesus returns at the end of the age. coming (which has obvious parallels to the event’s depiction in Matt 24:29) is clearly described as the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5:2. 141 See 1.B for a comparison of σείω and σαλεύω and a brief analysis of 24:29. Scholars are divided over what is meant by the 24:29 reference to “the powers of heaven” (αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν). Some take the expression as a reference to the celestial bodies (e.g., Hagner, Matthew, 2:713; Luz, Matthew, 3:200 n. 160; Osborne, Matthew, 893). Others interpret it as a reference to spiritual beings (Gundry, Matthew, 487), while still others see both possibilities in play (e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:358; Nolland, Matthew, 983; Beare, Matthew, 471). Finally, some reject the above interpretations in favor of political forces (France, Matthew, 922–23; Carter, Matthew, 477–78). Of these options, a spiritual or political interpretation would best align with the interpretation discussed above. However, given the strength of the judgmental connotation observed for σείω and the overall strength of the correlation between 21:1–17 and 24:29–30, the shaking of 21:10 need not align perfectly with the shaking of 24:29 to preview eschatological judgment. 142 France, Matthew, 883, commenting on 23:37, “[Jesus’s] appeal to [Jerusalem] as Messiah should have been unifying and protective, like the instinctive action of a mother bird, but it has instead been counterproductive, and will result not in safety but in destruction. The blame is placed firmly on [Jerusalem’s] choice, like the Jerusalem of Isaiah’s day who refused God’s offer of security through trusting him (Isa 30:15–16). The almost wistful note of this lament over Jerusalem provides an important counterbalance to the preceding polemic. As Jesus contemplates what lies ahead of the people he came to save, it gives him no pleasure. He had ‘wanted’ to gather them, not to condemn them.”

140

Chapter 4: The Return of the King

Jerusalem will not have to wait until Jesus’s return before it experiences another seismic incident, however. Having been shaken at the moment of Jesus’s entrance (21:10), the city will endure an earthquake when the antagonism it displays at Jesus’s arrival assumes full concrete expression at Golgotha. As will be discussed in the next chapter, it is immediately following Jesus’s death on the cross that a series of divinely induced events rapidly take place, central among which is an earthquake (27:51/54).

Chapter 5

The σεισμός at the Cross Paradox knows no greater embodiment than Calvary. In the unmerciful convergence of crux and patibulum, victory intertwines with defeat, power with weakness, wisdom with foolishness, love with hatred, royalty with poverty, validation with rejection, salvation with judgment.1 It is at the cross that Matthew’s narrative reaches its climax and salvation history its definitive moment.2 Having been foreshadowed from the very beginning of the Gospel (2:1–18) and built up through escalating conflict,3 the crucifixion represents the definitive confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the conclusive validation of Jesus’s identity as the messianic Son of God, the sealing of divine judgment, and the procurement of salvation for the human race. Interwoven into this paradoxical junction is the series of spectacular events that occur in rapid succession immediately after Jesus’s death. Matthew records the finale of the crucifixion scene as follows, Καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη ἀπ᾿ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη καὶ αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν,

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split.

52 καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν,

52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

1

The patibulum is the horizontal beam of a cross; the crux or stipes is the vertical stake to which it is affixed. See John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 6, 16, 423. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:613–14, argue that there is good reason to believe that Jesus was crucified on a crux immissa (†), though given the variation in cross shapes, this cannot be stated with certainty; Cook, Crucifixion, 50; David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, WUNT 2/244 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 31. 2 As will be argued in chapter six, this moment continues into the resurrection; it is the crucifixion and resurrection together that form the climax and definitive moment in salvation history. 3 E.g., 9:3, 34; 12:1–14, 24–45; 15:1–9; 16:1–4; 19:3–9; 21:15–16, 23, 45–46; 22:15–40; 26:3–5, 47–68; 27:1; cf. Powell, “Plot and Subplots;” Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 3–8, 84–93.

142

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

53 καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς. 4

53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

54 Ὁ δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἰδόντες τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ τὰ γενόμενα ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα, λέγοντες· ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος.

54 Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” (Matt 27:51–54, NRSV)

Even a cursory glance will detect that Matthew’s report is significantly expanded from that of Mark, who records only the tearing of the veil and the proclamation of the centurion (15:38–39).5 In addition, unlike Mark, Matthew does not point to the manner in which Jesus dies as the occasion for the centurion’s cry but rather to the signs and the earthquake in particular.6 The singling out of the earthquake suggests that it is a central event in the postmortem fireworks. This preeminence is not without reason: as this chapter will argue, beyond tying the 27:54 confession of the centurion to the christological questions of the disciples (8:27) and Jerusalem (21:10), the earthquake also indicates that Jesus’s death is linked to the turn of the ages.

A. Setting the Context From all external appearances, the crucifixion of Jesus would appear anything but the decisive and victorious eschatological intervention of God. Crucifixion was a paradigmatic symbol of defeat, a horrifically painful and humiliating form of death reserved for the lowest classes of society and those foolish

4 The phrase μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ (“after his resurrection”) is notoriously difficult. Grammatically it could refer to the exit of the saints from their tombs (so NRSV in the English translation above) or to the entrance of the saints into Jerusalem. Many commentators reject the expression as a later gloss. For an excellent account of the history of research see Dale C. Allison, “‘After His Resurrection’ (Matt 27,53) and the Descens ad Inferos” in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Lampe, Moisés Mayordomo, and Migaku Sato (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 335–54. 5 So also with Luke (23:44–47). The account of Jesus’s death found in Gos. Pet. includes mention of darkness (5.15), the tearing of the veil (5.20), and an earthquake (6.21), with the latter occurring when Jesus’s body is taken down from the cross and placed on the ground. 6 Mark 15:39 – “Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” Additional Matthean redactions include the choice of vocabulary to describe the centurion, the mention of the centurion’s attendants, and the recounting of their collective terror.

A. Setting the Context

143

enough to challenge the power of the Roman state.7 Sometimes entailing the helpless fixation of the victim’s figure in unadulterated nudity, with flesh and bodily functions laid bare for all to see, it was an especially repugnant fate for a person of Jewish ethnicity.8 Matthew follows Mark in depicting Jesus’s crucifixion as an unabridged account of failure, one that signified the end of Jesus’s movement, the loss of his honor, the forfeiture of his one material possession (27:35; cf. 8:20), and utter rejection. With regards to the latter, Jesus is abandoned by all his disciples (26:56, 75),9 endures a unified front of vehement hostility from all those present at the cross (27:24–44),10 and is ostensibly even forsaken by God (27:46). Thus, to those without ears to hear and eyes to see, Jesus’s death by crucifixion would appear to be nothing more than an abject and humiliating failure. And yet, the Matthean narrative asserts that at Golgotha, things are not what they seem. Rather than a disqualification of Jesus, Matthew claims that the crucifixion validates Jesus’s identity as God’s agent. Rather than the extinguishment of hope, Matthew argues that Jesus’s crucifixion represents hope’s fulfillment: it is the decisive moment of God’s eschatological intervention to inaugurate his kingdom on earth. The literary function of the earthquake at 27:51/54 is to underscore both of these points. To better convey how it does so, this chapter will first focus on the narrative context of the 27:51/54 earthquake before turning to the interpretation of the quake itself. The benefit of such an endeavor is to strengthen the overall interpretive argument by showing how the interpretation of the 27:51/54 quake resonates with the quake’s narrative context. I. The Cross as Christological Validation Though it would appear to indicate otherwise, the Matthean narrative establishes that it is precisely because Jesus is the messianic Son of God that he must die on the cross. This is first suggested in the temptation narrative, where Jesus twice confirms that he is the Son of God by acting in obedient self-denial (4:1–

7 For background on crucifixion see especially Cook, Crucifixion; Chapman, Crucifixion; David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus, WUNT 344 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015); Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 8 Cook, Crucifixion, 427. For the Jewish abhorrence of nudity see Gen 9:22–23; Exod 20:26; Deut 23:14; 28:48; Ezek 16:36–39; 23:19; Amos 2:16; Hos 2:3, 9. Given Deut 21:22– 23, crucifixion likely carried the additional stigma of a divine curse in Judaism; cf. Chapman, Crucifixion, 241–53. 9 In contrast to John 19:25–27. While Matthew does note that many women were present at the crucifixion (27:55–56), this anecdote is not mentioned until after Jesus’s death, and even then Matthew states that the women were far away. 10 In contrast to Luke 23:39–43.

144

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

11).11 It is first stated explicitly at Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus tells his disciples that he must suffer and die immediately after they grasp his identity as the Messiah and Son of God (16:16, 21–24; cf. 17:22–23; 20:18–19).12 Jesus’s claim that suffering is central to his mission and character is one that God corroborates in the following scene by transfiguring Jesus in glory (17:2)13 and commanding the disciples to listen to his beloved Son (17:5).14 In Gethsemane, the theme of obedient self-denial once again surfaces: Jesus states three times that he will endure the cross in obedience to the will of the Father and in denial of his own (26:39, 42, 44). At the moment of his arrest, he stays the course, asserting that he is fully capable of avoiding his suffering but is choosing to embrace it in order to fulfill the divine plan outlined in the scriptures, which declare that it must (δεῖ) happen (27:53–54).15 Thus, by implying that divine sonship manifests itself in selfless obedience, the narrative prepares for the cruciform manner in which Jesus confirms his identity. The events that follow Jesus’s death provide further corroboration of his messianic sonship. The repeated use of passive verbs in 27:51–53 indicates that God is the author of the cataclysmic signs that commence when Jesus dies, thereby suggesting that the signs provide a divine validation of Jesus’s identity (cf. 17:5).16 The divine testimony regarding Jesus’s character is then reinforced by the human testimony that follows: after witnessing the signs, the centurion and those guarding Jesus with him affirm that Jesus truly was the Son of God (27:54), a confession that forms a direct counterbalance to the blasphemous taunts of the mockers (27:40–43).17 Thus, though it would appear to rule 11 The temptation is of course strongly linked to the crucifixion scene by way of verbal correspondences; cf. section 5.A.II.3. 12 Peter’s refusal to accept the cross here (16:23) echoes Satan’s temptations to avoid divine obedience and self-sacrifice (4:1–11). 13 Note the divine passive: μετεμορφώθη. 14 Note the same pattern in the baptism (3:13–17). Jesus humbles himself by submitting to a baptism of repentance, and immediately after God affirms his identity as the Son of God. 15 Cf. 26:24, 31, 42, 56; 27:9. 16 This is recognized by most scholars; e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 575; Garland, Matthew, 260; Keener, Matthew, 684; Osborne, Matthew, 1044; Konradt, Matthäus, 446, 448. Further underscoring the element of divine validation present in the events of 27:51–53 is the fact that earthquakes often attend the appearance or death of a god or θεῖος ἀνήρ in Greek literature. See Bornkamm, TDNT 7:199. 17 Among others, David C. Sim, “The 'Confession' of the Soldiers in Matthew 27:54,” HeyJ 34 (1993): 401–24, has challenged this assumption. Sim’s interpretation will be discussed in section 5.A.II.4. The use of the imperfect (ἦν) at 27:54 does not reduce the significance of the soldiers’ confession. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:636, state, “ἦν does not diminish the confession, as though Jesus, for the soldiers, was but is not now the Son of God. The verb simply reflects an evaluation of his earthly life.” Cf. Luz, Matthew, 3:570; Ronald D. Witherup, “The Death of Jesus and the Raising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51–54 in Context,” Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 26 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 583; Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 90.

A. Setting the Context

145

against Jesus’s messianic sonship, the crucifixion paradoxically confirms that Jesus acts as God’s agent in alignment with God’s purposes. II. The Cross as Eschatological Divine Intervention Second, though it would appear to be an utter failure, Matthew suggests that Jesus’s death actually represents God’s eschatological intervention. This is indicated in part by the language with which the passion is described: at the moment of his arrest, Jesus declares that his capture and execution are necessary (δεῖ) to fulfill (πληρόω) the Scriptures (26:54).18 The fulfillment terminology connects Jesus’s suffering to the Gospel’s overarching theme of eschatological fulfillment (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9) and may even present a heightened instance of the motif, for here it is the Scriptures in general that are said to be fulfilled rather than a single scripture in particular.19 More telling is the thematic presentation of Jesus’s crucifixion. Considered against the backdrop of Jewish expectations related to the inauguration of God’s eschatological kingdom (i.e., the eschatological Day of the Lord), Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death reads almost like the ticking of boxes on a checklist. As will be discussed below, Jesus’s crucifixion is seen to involve divine salvation, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead, divine victory over death and evil, the conversion of the gentiles, the restoration of God’s relationship with his people, the destruction of the temple, and divine judgment, all of which were anticipated in conjunction with God’s intervention at the turn of the ages.20 1. Divine Salvation The paradoxical nature of God’s salvation is expressed well by the Jewish leaders, who declare from their vantage point at the foot of the cross, “He saved (ἔσωσεν) others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him” (27:42).21 God’s If Robert L. Mowery, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles in Matthew,” Bib 83 (2002): 100–110, is correct that Matthew has altered the order of the 27:54 confession to challenge Roman imperial claims, this declaration by the Roman soldiers gains even more strength. 18 Cf. 16:21. 19 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 189–91. Though Luz, Matthew, 3:421, does not go so far, “the formulation corresponds literally to the introduction to the first fulfillment quotation in 1:22 and forms with that text a frame around the entire story of Jesus that from the beginning to the end is to be understood as the fulfillment of the Scriptures.” 20 Again, these expectations were not necessarily all found within a particular strand of Judaism. See 3.B.I for Jewish expectations related to the eschatological divine kingdom. 21 Their acknowledgement that Jesus is able to save others corroborates what has already been witnessed in the Gospel narrative: Jesus saves (σῴζω) the disciples from perishing on

146

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

eschatological salvation was to be grand and decisive;22 Jesus’s death was the epitome of defeat. Yet, as the trifold references to salvation (σῴζω; 27:40, 42, 49) in Matthew’s crucifixion scene suggest, it is precisely through Jesus’s death that God saves. Further underscoring this point is the fact that these references to salvation are found in conjunction with a Matthean insertion of Jesus’s name on the titulus of his cross (27:37; cf. 1:21).23 The leaders thus fail to understand that for Jesus to save (σῴζω) his people from their sins (1:21), he cannot save himself.24 Jesus had declared that he would give his life as a ransom for many (ἀντὶ πολλῶν; 20:28). He had broken bread and given it to his disciples as a symbol of his body (σῶμα) that would likewise be broken on their behalf (26:26). He had also told them his blood would be poured out on behalf of many (περὶ πολλῶν) for the forgiveness of sins (26:28). Thus, though it would appear that Jesus’s death on the cross manifests an inability to save others, in actuality it is the means by which he wins their salvation. This paradoxical reality is confirmed by the raising of the holy ones immediately after Jesus dies. Matthew alone records that in the aftermath of Jesus’s death, many bodies (πολλὰ σώματα) of the saints are raised (27:52). These the frenzied sea (8:25), the hemorrhaging woman from her sickness (9:21–22), and Peter from sinking in the turbulent waters (14:30). The statement of the leaders at 27:42–43 represents one of many points of irony in the Matthean crucifixion scene; cf. InHee C. Berg, Irony in the Matthean Passion Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014). 22 E.g., Zech 14; Isa 24–27; Ezek 38–39; Hag 2:6, 21–23. 23 Tucker S. Ferda, “The Soldiers’ Inscription and the Angel’s Word: The Significance of ‘Jesus’ in Matthew’s Titulus,” NovT 55 (2013): 221–31; Donald Senior, “The Death of Jesus and Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt 27:51–53),” CBQ 38 (1976): 328; Boxall, Matthew Through the Centuries, 404. 24 The immediate referent of the Matt 1:21 reference to “his people” (τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ) is almost surely Israel given the preceding genealogical focus on the nation and subsequent reference to “my people Israel” in the Matt 2:6 quotation of Mic 5:2; Nolland, Matthew, 98; Konradt, Israel, 341–42. However, as the Matthean story unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the Israelite nation as a whole will not necessarily experience salvation; rather, it is those who respond favorably to Jesus and thereby demonstrate alignment with God, including gentiles (e.g., 3:7–12; 7:24–27; 8:11–12; 22:1–10). This apparent incongruity is resolved by Konradt’s helpful distinction between an “objective realization” and “subjective acceptance” of salvation. He states, “Through Jesus’ death εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, salvation is made available to all Israel and all humanity. The promise of salvation to the people of God is thereby ‘objectively’ fulfilled— regardless of whether or how widely this salvation is accepted in Israel (or in the Gentile world). The message of 1.21 is to be understood in this sense of an ‘objective’ foundation of salvation and the resulting possibility of access to that salvation, which is not ecclesiologically constrained” (Israel, 342). Hence, Jesus’s people are “the ecclesia of both Jew and Gentile” (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:210), i.e., the true people of God; cf. Nolland, Matthew, 98–99. That this is the case is even hinted at in the Gospel’s opening chapter with the “universalistic implications of the title ‘son of Abraham’ and the [mention] of non-Israelite women in the genealogy” (France, Matthew, 53).

A. Setting the Context

147

saints exit their tombs (μνημεῖα) and go into the city, where they are made visible to many (πολλοῖς; 27:53). Thus, because Jesus’s body (σῶμα) experiences death and needs to be placed in a tomb (μνημεῖον; 27:58–60), the bodies of the saints experience life.25 Because Jesus’s blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins for many (26:28), many are raised (27:52), and many in Jerusalem witness God’s salvation (27:53). 2. Resurrection of the Dead Beyond confirming the salvific nature of Jesus’s death, the raising of the saints also suggests that his death is an eschatological event. Though not universally recognized in first century Judaism (Matt 22:23; Josephus, Ant. 18.16), it would nevertheless appear that by the time of Matthew’s Gospel there had developed at least a considerable expectation that the resurrection of the dead would take place at the turn of the ages.26 As such, the raising of the saints imbues Jesus’s crucifixion with eschatological significance27 by serving as a proleptic instantiation of the final resurrection.28 Daniel Gurtner provides an 25

The fact that these figures were in tombs indicates that sleep must be a euphemism for death. For sleep as a euphemism for death elsewhere see 1 En. 91:10; John 11:11; 1 Cor 15:20; 1 Thess 4:13; 2 Pet 3:4. 26 Dan 12:2; Isa 26:19; LXX Job 42:17; 2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23; 1 En. 51:1–2; 62:15; Sib. Or. 2.221–37; 4.179–92; T. Jud. 25:4; T. Benj. 10.6–9; 4 Ezra 7:31–37; 2 Bar. 30:1–5; 42:8; 50:2–4; 51:1–6; Pss. Sol. 3:11–12; LAE 13.3; 41.2; 4Q385 2.8; 4Q521; John 5:28–29; Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Heb 6:2; Rev 20:11–13; cf. Hos 6:2; 13:14; Job 14:14; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, exp. ed., HTS 56 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006); N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 146– 206; Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 320–21; Donald P. Senior, The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study, BETL 39 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1975), 319– 21; Stanley E. Porter, “Resurrection, the Greeks, and the New Testament” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 52–81; Paul G. Foster, “The Hebrew Bible / LXX and the Development of Ideas on Afterlife in Matthew’s Gospel” in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? ed. Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, Joseph Verheyden, BTS 13 (Walpole: Peeters, 2011), 3–25; Eileen Schuller, “Ideas of Resurrection in Intertestamental Sources,” TBT 27 (1989): 140–45. 27 Joseph Grassi, “Ezekiel XXXVII. 1–14 and the New Testament,” NTS 11 (1964): 163– 64, suggests that the reference to Elijah in 27:49 may heighten the eschatological connotation of the raised saints, since Elijah was considered the herald of the eschatological resurrection in Jewish tradition (Mal 4:5). 28 It is clear that 27:52–53 does not constitute the final resurrection because: (1) not all human beings are resurrected (pace Gundry, Matthew, 576); (2) the figures process into the earthly rather than heavenly Jerusalem (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:635 n. 138; Luz, Matthew, 3:567; Brown, Death, 2:1131); (3) Matthew appears to conceive of the final resurrection as a separate and future event (12:41–42; cf. 24:29–31; 28:20). See also the differences noted by Jürgen Zangenberg, “‘Bodily Resurrection’ of Jesus in Matthew?” in Life

148

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

apt summary, “The notion of the dawn of a new eschatological age from this pericope [27:52–53], one related to Jesus’ death, is almost universally accepted.”29 3. Victory over Death and Evil Jesus’s death also relates to the eschatological Day of the Lord because it represents divine victory over death and evil. The former victory is evidenced in the resurrection of the saints (27:52–53) and in Jesus’s own resurrection that follows shortly thereafter (28:6–10, 16–20).30 Jesus’s victory over evil is presented in a less direct manner. One notes that the blasphemous ridicule of those passing by the foot of the cross, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (“if you are the Son of God”; 27:40), forms an exact echo of Satan’s words in the wilderness temptation (4:3, 6). The content is likewise the same: both the spectators and Satan tempt Jesus to prove his sonship by acting in his own interest; in the former case to satisfy his hunger (4:3), in the latter to save his life (27:40). The mocking of the Jewish leaders at the cross (27:42–43) is also diabolically saturated, resembling Satan’s second temptation (4:5–6) in its predication of divine sonship upon divine deliverance. This similarity between the temptation and crucifixion accounts suggests that the human mockers act as agents of the evil one (13:38) and thereby casts Jesus’s crucifixion as a spiritual battle between good and evil. Jesus’s victory in this battle is implied, for on the cross he fights with the same weapons that he wielded in the desert, those of self-denial and obedience.31 Since Jesus had conquered Satan in the desert with these tactics, it is implied that he once again conquers at Calvary; this suspicion is then confirmed in the resurrection account.32 Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel, 224, 226–28, between Jesus’s rising and that of the saints in 27:52–53. 29 Daniel M. Gurtner, The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus, SNTSMS 139 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 150 n. 56. 30 Brown, Death, 2:1133; Wright, Resurrection, 727–28. 31 There are other clues in the narrative that suggest Jesus will not conquer by force; e.g., 5:38–42; 12:17–21; 11:29; 21:5. For 5:38–42 see Dale C. Allison, “Anticipating the Passion: The Literary Reach of Matthew 26:47–27:56,” CBQ 56 (1994): 703–5. 32 In the desert, Satan had left defeated and Jesus experienced God’s provision (angels) after he had denied himself in obedience (4:11; cf. 4:6); at Calvary the same is true: Jesus experiences God’s deliverance (resurrection) only after his self-denial (death). Jesus’s victory over Satan is evidenced in his resurrection, both by the fact that Jesus triumphs over the plans of Satan’s agents to prevent the resurrection (27:62–66; 28:11–15), and additionally by the fact that he is given control of the kingdoms that once were under Satan’s dominion (4:8–9; 28:16–18); cf. Donaldson, Mountain, 101–3. The appearance of the holy ones in “the holy city” (27:53) may further reflect his victory: it could serve as a vindication of Jesus related to Satan’s second temptation, since 4:5 and 27:53 are the only occurrences of “the holy city” in Matthew’s Gospel; Gundry, Matthew, 577.

A. Setting the Context

149

4. Gentile Conversion The eschatological coloring of the crucifixion is further intensified by the confession of the centurion and other guards at the cross: Matthew records that after witnessing the earthquake and other events following Jesus’s death, the soldiers cry out in fear that Jesus truly was the Son of God (27:54). This proclamation forms a nearly verbatim repetition of the assertion given by the disciples in 14:33 (cf. 16:16) and additionally aligns with the perspective of God (3:17; 17:5). Given that such divine disclosure (11:25–27; 16:17) is never provided to Jesus’s human opponents, who consistently refuse to recognize his divine sonship, the confession of the soldiers suggests that they have come to belong to the people of God.33 Beyond setting the stage for the expansion of the Gospel’s evangelistic scope (28:18–20), their conversion represents a partial fulfillment of eschatological prophecies that anticipated the conversion of the gentiles, and as such provides further evidence that Jesus’s death is connected to the turn of the ages.34 It should be noted that while this reading represents the majority view, it is not one shared by all scholars. Most prominent among the voices of dissent is David Sim, who argues that the proclamation of the centurion and other soldiers represents “an admission of guilt and a cry of defeat” by Jesus’s enemies in the face of divine judgment.35 While Sim’s argument is insightful and intriguing, there are a number of factors that rule against it. First is the fact that Matthew has carefully redacted the account to closely align the soldiers with the disciples, who fundamentally represent the people of God in the Gospel narrative.36 Second, one notes that throughout the entire Gospel, Jesus’s human

33 Most commentators; e.g., Senior, Redactional Study, 324; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 35; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:636; Luz, Matthew, 3:569–71; Gundry, Matthew, 578; France, Matthew, 1085; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:478. See Luz, Matthew, 3:569–71, for a defense of the proclamation as a “full-blown” “Christian” confession. 34 E.g., Isa 2:2–4; 11:10; 25:6–7; 56:7; 60:2–14; 66:19–21, 23; Jer 16:19–21; Mic 4:1–4; Zech 2:11; 8:20–23; 14:16–19; Tob 13:11; Pss. Sol. 17:32–35. As Allison, End of the Ages, 47, observes, given the expectation that the gentiles would turn to God after the tribulation of the end times, it is significant that the 27:54 confession of the gentile soldiers follows the 27:51–53 eschatological signs. 35 Sim, “The ‘Confession’ of the Soldiers,” 419; cf. David Sim, “Rome in Matthew’s Eschatology” in The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context, ed. John Riches and David C. Sim, JSNTSup 276 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 102–4. Sim’s position has recently been endorsed by Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 215–17 and Runesson, Divine Wrath, 149, 350, 404. 36 Matthew alters the confession itself (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος; 27:54) so that it matches nearly verbatim with the earlier decree of the disciples (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ) in 14:33 (vs. Mark 15:39, ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν). In addition, Matthew has inserted the note about the soldiers’ terror (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα; 27:54), a statement that is identical to the description of the disciples in 17:6. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:635,

150

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

opponents (who represent the forces of Satan) never confess his sonship. Since Matthew strives to maintain a clear dualism in his narrative (e.g., 3:11–12; 13:36–43), it would be counterproductive to blur the line by having Jesus’s opponents make a christological confession that is normally reserved for the people of God.37 Third, Matthew has tipped his hand in the redactional description of the centurion. In contrast to Mark, who has ὁ κεντυρίων (15:38), Matthew refers to the figure as ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος (27:54).38 Beyond 27:54, the only other reference to an ἑκατόνταρχος in Matthew’s Gospel is the centurion of great faith who approaches Jesus in Galilee (8:5, 8, 13). This centurion shows an awareness of Jesus’s identity that exceeds any that Jesus has previously encountered in Israel (8:10). His tremendous faith prompts Jesus to proclaim that many from the east and west (including gentiles) will be included in the eschatological kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be excluded (8:11–12).39 One notes that in the crucifixion scene, the centurion at the cross likewise displays far greater awareness of Jesus’s identity than the people of Israel, who refuse to recognize that Jesus is the Son of God (27:40–43).40 Finally, the Matthean crucifixion scene makes repeated allusions to Psalm 22 (Matt 27:35, 39, 43, 46), which culminates with a description of gentile conversion, “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him” (Ps 22:37).41 For these reasons, it is not a stretch to interpret the Matt 27:54 confession of the centurion

suspect that the primary motive underlying the Matthean addition οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες in 27:54 is to allow for an exact correspondence between 17:6 and 27:54. 37 Luz, Matthew, 3:570, argues against Sim’s position in part by noting that the soldiers’ confession of Jesus’s sonship is needed to balance the sonship taunts of the mockers. 38 This redaction does not appear to be driven by stylistic preference to avoid the use of Latin loanwords, as evidenced by Matthew’s use of the Latin loanword κουστωδία to describe the tomb guards in his unique material relating to the counter-story of the resurrection (27:65, 66; 28:11) as well as other Latin loanwords he utilizes, including μόδιος (5:15); κοδράντης (5:26); μίλιον (5:41); ἀσσάριον (10:29); κῆνσος (17:25; 22:17, 19); δηνάριον (18:28; 20:2, 9, 13; 22:19); λεγιών (26:53); πραιτώριον (27:27); φραγελλόω (27:26). 39 Regarding the identity of the “many” in Matt 8:11, Nolland, Matthew, 357, rightly states, “It is sometimes said that Matthew reapplies texts about the eschatological gathering of the dispersed of Israel to the gathering in of the Gentiles, but this is to claim too much. By locating the text where he does, Matthew does no more than allow for the inclusion of Gentiles in the gathering of Israel.” Cf. Konradt, Matthäus, 136–37. 40 This observation is also made by France, Matthew, 1085; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 362. 41 Stanley E. Porter, “Psalm 22 and the Passion of Jesus” in Sacred Tradition in the New Testament: Tracing Old Testament Themes in the Gospels and Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 153–78, esp. 172–73. Cf. Hays, Echoes in the Gospels, 162, who describes Psalm 22 as “the crucial intertext for understanding Jesus’ death” in Matthew’s Gospel.

A. Setting the Context

151

as a proleptic realization of the gentile inclusion expected at the turn of the ages, about which Jesus himself had prophesied (8:11–12).42 5. Restoration of the Human-Divine Relationship Jesus’s death can also be considered a sign of the kingdom of heaven’s inauguration in that it achieves reconciliation between humans and God.43 That it does so is suggested first of all by the fact that it achieves the forgiveness of sins (1:21; 26:28). The precise relationship between cause (Jesus’s death) and effect (forgiveness of sins) is not spelled out explicitly in Matthew’s Gospel. However, as an increasing number of scholars have recognized, Matthew may have provided an implicit explanatory logic in the form of a Yom Kippur typology.44 As the Yom Kippur atonement ritual involved a lottery between two goats, with the scapegoat sent away into the desert and the other sacrificed as a sin offering (Lev 16:7–10, 15–22), so also one finds in the Barabbas segment of the Matthean trial scene a lottery between two figures and contrasting fates: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and the true Messiah who acts according to divine expectations, is sentenced to death, while Barabbas (“son of the father”),45 an insurrectionist who acts according to human messianic 42 For an additional defense of the majority position see Benedict T. Viviano, “A Psychology of Faith: Matt 27:54 in the Light of Exod 14:30–31,” RB 104 (1997): 368–72. 43 The restoration was expressed as a divine cleansing (e.g., Ezek 36:25–29, 33; Mal 3:2– 4), forgiveness of sins (e.g., Ezek 36:33), and a new covenant (e.g., Jer 31:31–34) among others; see 3.B.I. Nolland, Matthew, 1080, who interprets the shedding of Jesus’s blood in Matt 26:28 as the sealing of a new covenant, links the restored human-divine relationship and the kingdom of heaven as follows, “to speak of God freshly establishing his covenant with his people is not very different from speaking of the coming of God’s kingdom. It is notable that the other saying of Jesus that survives from his last meal with his disciples, Mt. 26:29, anticipates the coming of the kingdom.” 44 Hans Moscicke, “Jesus as Goat of the Day of Atonement in Recent Synoptic Gospels Research,” CurBr 17 (2018): 72–73, remarks, “Wratislaw, Stökl Ben Ezra, and Maclean all concur that Matthew’s Barabbas account evokes themes from Leviticus 16 and the Yom Kippur goat ritual. Stökl Ben Ezra…remarks that ‘only few reviewers of my book [The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity] have expressed reservations against my understanding of this passage’, and he seems to be right.” And later (“Jesus as Goat,” 79), “Scholars have increasingly affirmed the impact of Yom Kippur on Matthew’s Barabbas account (27.15–26).” With regards to Yom Kippur and the Matthean Barabbas scene see especially Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century, WUNT 163 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), esp. 165–71, and “Fasting with Jews, Thinking with Scapegoats: Some Remarks on Yom Kippur in Early Judaism and Christianity, in Particular 4Q541, Barnabas 7, Matthew 27, and Acts 27” in Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Judaism, ed. Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas, TBN 15 (Boston: Brill, 2012), 165–87. 45 Some manuscripts (Θ 700* pc) have Jesus Barabbas (27:16–17), which would heighten the parallel between the two figures. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek

152

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

expectations, is released (Matt 27:15–27).46 According to Stökl Ben Ezra, the effect of this typology is to embellish the expiatory purpose around Jesus’ death...By applying scapegoat imagery to Jesus who is killed on Passover Matthew merges the historical and chronological background of Passover with the ritual of Yom Kippur and its theological ramifications. Jesus Barabbas, the scapegoat, is released. Jesus of Nazareth, the sacrificial goat will be killed as atonement.47

While the scapegoat typology does not map perfectly onto Matthew’s account since the sins of the people are not said to be transferred directly onto Barabbas (cf. Lev 16:21–22),48 the parallels between Leviticus 16 and the Matthean account are too strong to ignore. The typology thus appears to provide added depth to the expiatory statement Jesus makes about his blood in Matt 26:28.49 It is probable that the expiatory efficacy of Jesus’s death is then illustrated by the tearing of the temple veil (27:51). While there are almost surely other connotations associated with this image, the tearing of the veil would appear to signify a new “accessibility to God not seen since the Garden of Eden” (cf. Heb 6:19; 9:3; 10:20).50

New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 56, states that the majority of the UBS editorial committee believe that this reading reflects the original text. 46 Although not mandated by Lev 16, Jewish tradition required the two goats to be identical (m. Yoma 6.1; Barn. 7:6, 10; Justin, Dial. 40). As Stökl Ben Ezra, Yom Kippur, 168, points out, the lottery between Jesus and Barabbas has been emphasized in Matthew’s account by way of multiple redactions (27:17, 20, 21). He also argues that Pilate’s act of handwashing and the double confession of Pilate’s innocence and the people’s guilt (Matt 27:24– 25) additionally relate to the Yom Kippur typology (Yom Kippur, 169). 47 Stökl Ben Ezra, “Fasting with Jews,” 182. 48 Moscicke, “Jesus as Goat,” 73, intonates that the people may fulfill this role (Matt 27:25). Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990), 224–25, proposes that Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the role of the scapegoat in addition to the immolated goat by way of his mistreatment in 27:28–29. 49 Stökl Ben Ezra, “Fasting with Jews,” 183–84. 50 France, Matthew, 1080. For a list of scholars who support this view, see Gurtner, Torn Veil, 11–16. For other interpretive options, see 5.A.II.6. The Synoptics do not state which veil was torn; it may have been the outer curtain that separated the temple sanctuary from the court of the Israelites (Exod 26:36–37; 38:18; Num 3:26) or the inner veil blocking access to the Holy of Holies (Exod 26:31–35; Lev 16:2; 2 Chr 3:19). The outer veil is suggested by the public nature of the event (27:54), while the inner veil is favored by the use of the term καταπέτασμα in the LXX (though not conclusively). The tearing of the outer veil lends itself more towards a connotation of judgment, while the inner veil relates more to an apocalyptic significance and access to God. However, the fact that Matthew does not specify which veil was torn may indicate that he favors multiple simultaneous connotations. Additionally, as Luz, Matthew, 3:566, and Osborne, Matthew, 1043, note, either curtain could convey a connotative spectrum.

A. Setting the Context

153

6. The Temple’s Destruction At the same time, the tearing of the temple veil likely also connotes the temple’s destruction.51 In a summary of his extensive research on the tearing of the veil, Daniel Gurtner makes the following observation, “to date, only one scholar has claimed that the rending of the veil does not in any way signify the destruction of the temple.”52 There is good reason for such strong endorsement of a judgment connotation. In addition to the fact that a tearing of the veil can describe judgment in other texts (Liv. Pro. 12:11–12; T. Levi 10:3),53 the Matthean narrative predicates the temple’s destruction upon Jesus’s death. In his final public address, Jesus characterizes Jerusalem as a city that kills its prophets (23:37), laments over its rejection of himself (23:37), and then declares, presumably because of Jerusalem’s involvement in his death, that the temple will be destroyed (23:38; 24:2). After this pronouncement, Jesus, the representative of God’s presence (1:23; 18:20), leaves the temple and travels to the Mount of Olives (24:1–3), an act that has obvious overtones of the departure of the God’s presence from Solomon’s temple prior to its destruction (Ezek 8–11).54 As such, the narrative foreshadows that the temple’s destruction will be linked with Jesus’s death. In light of this, it is significant that the destruction of the temple and its rebuilding are then mentioned at Jesus’s trial (26:61) and at his crucifixion (27:40), and that immediately following his death, the veil is torn (27:51).55 Hence, it is likely that the destruction of the veil is a proleptic realization of the temple’s obliteration. As such, the tearing of the temple veil and the trial/crucifixion references to its rebuilding also cast Jesus’s death as an eschatological event: in many strands 51 In addition, the tearing of the veil may also connote an apocalyptic opening of the heavens (Gurtner, Torn Veil, 169–83) and divine mourning over the death of Jesus (David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: Athlone Press, 1956], 23–26). 52 Gurtner, Torn Veil, 11 (emphasis original). The one scholar to whom Gurtner refers is Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1985), 14. Gurtner also later rules against a judgment interpretation because he claims that the veil connoted only the heavenly firmament of Gen 1:6, not the temple (Torn Veil, 138, 169–71). He acknowledges that the veil symbolically depicts the temple in LXX Sir 50:5 and Liv. Pro. 12:10 but does not respond directly to these references, claiming only that the firmament association is far more prominent. However, LXX Sir 50:5 and Liv. Pro. 12:10 nevertheless evidence that the veil could have multiple connotations. 53 The veil also represents the temple in LXX Sir 50:5, though the context is not one of the temple’s destruction. Josephus, J. W. 6.288–309, reports a supernatural opening of the inner sanctuary doors as a sign of impending divine judgment against the temple; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.13; b. Yoma 39b; y. Yoma 6.43c; 2 Bar. 6:8–9. 54 See 4.A.IV. 55 As Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:636, observe, in both the trial and crucifixion scenes, Jesus’s claim to be able to destroy and rebuild the temple is coupled with his identity as the Son of God (26:61–63; 27:40).

154

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

of Judaism, the temple’s destruction was expected in conjunction with the turn of the ages.56 Matthew’s thematic interweaving of the temple’s destruction and Jesus’s death thereby imbues the latter with eschatological significance. 7. Divine Judgment Relatedly, Jesus’s death involves divine judgment. Though at a surface level it would appear that Jesus is the sole figure under judgment at his trial and crucifixion, the narrative implicitly asserts that by executing Jesus, Jesus’s opponents bring judgment upon themselves.57 Jesus had warned the Jewish leaders that his execution would bring all of the righteous blood shed on earth upon their heads (23:35; cf. 26:28) and would bring with it the sentence of divine judgment (23:33, 38).58 At his trial the first part of this prediction becomes true (27:25), which implicitly suggests that the latter half will also be fulfilled.59 The darkness (27:45), the tearing of the veil (27:51), and the earthquake (27:51) all evidence that divine judgment attends Jesus’s crucifixion.60 With regards to the first of these phenomena, darkness frequently connotes judgment in the OT and other background literature as well as in Matthew’s Gospel. In the exodus account, darkness constitutes the penultimate divine plague against Egypt (Exod 10:21–22).61 Likewise, when God decrees judgment against a later Pharaoh through the prophet Ezekiel, he uses the image of darkness to describe it, When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens, and make their stars dark (συσκοτάσω); I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. 8 All the shining lights of the heavens I will darken (συσκοτάσουσιν) above you, and put darkness (σκότος) on your land, says the Lord GOD. (Ezek 32:7–8; cf. Jer 13:16)

56

Tob 13:16–18; 14:5–7; 2 Bar. 32:1–5; 1 En. 90:2–8; Jub. 1:26–28; T. Benj. 9:2; 11Q19 29:8–10; 4Q174 1:1–3; Sib. Or. 5.414–33; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–90. 57 Pace Gurtner, Torn Veil, 146 n. 35. 58 Though the shedding of Jesus’s blood provides expiation (1:21; 26:28) and is part of God’s plan (26:54, 56), it does not absolve his murderers of their responsibility and the corresponding indictment of judgment. As discussed in 4.B, salvation is primary with judgment functioning as a means to an end. 59 Hamilton, Death of Jesus, and “‘His Blood Be Upon Us,” argues that the spilling of Jesus’s innocent blood contaminates the ground, which must be cleansed through divine judgment in the form of the city’s destruction. 60 The earthquake will be discussed below in 5.B. The tearing of the veil signifies judgment in that it connotes the destruction of the temple. 61 In Ps 105:28, darkness is the first plague.

A. Setting the Context

155

Darkness is also featured prevalently in conjunction with the divine wrath that is unleashed on the Day of the Lord. Amos describes the Day of the Lord as a day of darkness (σκότος) rather than light since it spells judgment for Israel (5:18, 20). Zephaniah portrays the Day of the Lord as “a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness (σκότος) and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness” (1:15). Joel also depicts the Day of the Lord as a day of darkness (σκότος) and gloom (2:2; cf. 2:10; 4:15 LXX). Isaiah likewise connects darkness with the Day of the Lord, predicting that the sun and moon will be darkened on the day of God’s wrathful judgment against Babylon (13:10) and on the day of God’s judgment against the entire world (24:23). Significantly, in a number of these accounts, the darkness is connected with earthquakes (Isa 13:9–13; 24:18, 20, 23; Amos 8:8–10; Joel 2:10; 4:15–16 LXX), a combination that symbolizes the undoing of the created order.62 In the case of Amos 8:8–10, the Day of the Lord is said to involve the trembling (ταράσσω) of the earth, darkness (συσκοτάζω) at noon, and mourning like that for a beloved one (ἀγαπητοῦ; ‫)יחיד‬, aspects that all find a home in Matthew’s crucifixion scene.63 A judgmental connotation of darkness also holds outside of the OT.64 Among a list of omens that indicate future catastrophe for Rome, Lucan records the following, The sun himself, while rearing his head in the zenith, hid his burning chariot in black darkness and veiled his sphere in gloom, forcing mankind to despair of daylight; even such a darkness crept over Mycenae, the city of Thyestes, when the sun fled back to where he rose.65

The eleventh Sibylline Oracle likewise connects darkness with an unpleasant fate, declaring that under the rule of the Persians darkness will come upon the Jews, after which will follow a famine and pestilence that they will be unable to escape (11.45–46). In 2 En. 7:1–2 darkness is directly correlated with 62 The passages from Isaiah and Joel will be discussed in sections 5.B.II.2 and 5.B.II.3, respectively. 63 In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is twice addressed as God’s beloved Son (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός; 3:17; 17:5) and is recognized as God’s Son in the aftermath of his death (27:54). As Dale C. Allison, “Darkness at Noon (Matt. 27:45)” in Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 97–101, summarizes, reading Amos 8:8–9 in the background of Matt 27:45 can yield interpretations of mourning and eschatology in addition to judgment. Allison provides additional witnesses for each of these alternate interpretations. 64 In addition to the texts cited, see Sib. Or. 4.56–57; Josephus, Ant. 17.167; T. Mos. 10:4–5; T. Levi 4:1; Gen. Rab. 28.1; t. Sukk. 2:5–6; b. Sukk. 29a; Rev 6:12; 8:12. 65 Lucan, Civ. War 1.520–45. Darkness is also frequently linked with the death of a great figure (Vergil, Georg. 1.461–67; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6; Caes. 69.4; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 2.30; Ovid, Fasti. 2.493; Cicero, Rep. 6.22); in this sense, it would lend further support to reading the phenomena of 27:51–53 as a divine validation of Jesus’s identity.

156

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

judgment: it describes the environment and condition of prisoners awaiting an eschatological doom.66 Within Matthew’s Gospel, the same connotation is present. The Gospel uses the image of outer darkness (τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον) to symbolize the eschatological judgment reserved for the wicked (8:12; 22:13; 25:30). In light of the above, it is for good reason that the preeminent scholarly interpretation of the darkness accompanying Jesus’s death (27:45) is that of divine judgment.67 III. Summary In sum, Matthew suggests that there is far more happening at Calvary than initially meets the eye. Though it would appear to represent nothing more than utter failure, the cross both validates Jesus’s identity as the messianic Son of God and represents God’s eschatological intervention to inaugurate his kingdom on earth.

B. The Earthquake at Calvary68 The above conclusions (summarized in 5.A.III) are precisely what the earthquake of 27:51/54 conveys. It both underscores the confession of the crucifixion guards (27:54) as the definitive human statement about Jesus’s identity, and helps to cast Jesus’s crucifixion as the partial fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord, an event that describes God’s intervention at the turn of the ages. I. The Earthquake and Christological Validation It is by tying the 27:54 christological confession of the crucifixion guards to the christological questions posed by the disciples (8:27) and Jerusalem (21:10) that the earthquake underscores the confession’s importance. One notes that the Gospel’s first inquiry about Jesus’s identity is made after an earthquake (σεισμός; 8:24), when the disciples wonder ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος; (“What sort of person is this?”; 8:27).69 Similarly, when Jesus enters Jerusalem the entire city is shaken (ἐσείσθη) and asks a nearly identical question, τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; (“who is this?”; 21:10). The Gospel’s final explicit statement about Jesus’s identity also occurs in conjunction with a seismic event (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; 27:51; τὸν σεισμόν; 27:54); Matthew remarks that the earthquake and other signs 66

This is present only in the J recension of the text. Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 97; Luz, Matthew, 3:544. 68 The Greek text will be referenced in this section to facilitate the recognition of intertextual correlations. 69 The expression οἱ ἄνθρωποι is surely referring to the disciples; see 3.C.I. 67

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

157

cause the centurion and his soldiers to proclaim “Truly this was the Son of God!” (27:54). In the case of Jerusalem, the 27:54 confession of the Roman soldiers represents the rightful answer to the city’s question (21:10), one that the city itself refuses to reach. The city had ignorantly posed its question after it had already received a partial answer in the messianic display that had just unfolded before its very eyes (21:1–9). Its representatives had also refused to acknowledge the miracles that Jesus performed in the temple (21:14–16) 70 and to heed the warnings that Jesus gave in the form of parables (21:28–22:14) and explicit threats of impending judgment (23:13–39). In the trial scene, Jerusalem’s leaders continue to question Jesus’s identity rather than accepting the answer. The high priest commands Jesus under oath before the living God to declare if he is the Messiah, the Son of God (26:63). When Jesus fails to deny this characterization of himself and then quotes Dan 7:13, they refuse to accept his testimony, characterizing it as blasphemy and condemning him to death (26:65–66). At the cross, the leaders and other spectators once again ask if Jesus is the Son of God, commanding him to prove it by way of a miraculous self-deliverance (27:40– 43). Unlike the crucifixion guards, the city and its leaders are unmoved by the earthquake and other signs that follow his death. They refuse to believe even the resurrection (28:11–15). Their definitive answer to the question of Jesus’s identity is given in 27:63, when they characterize Jesus as a deceiver.71 The confession of the guards at the cross (27:54) also represents the rightful answer to the disciples’ question (8:27), an answer that the disciples would have been present at Calvary to provide themselves if they had not lapsed in their discipleship. The disciples had posed their christological question after witnessing Jesus’s first miraculous display of power over the sea (8:27). After seeing Jesus walk on water and calm the sea a second time, they begin to answer it, crying out, “truly you are the Son of God!” (14:33). While undoubtedly correct, this answer is nevertheless deficient as the disciples’ subsequent behavior at Caesarea Philippi demonstrates. For, after advancing even further in their understanding of Jesus by putting together Jesus’s identity as both Davidic Messiah and the Son of God at Caesarea Philippi (16:16), the disciples plateau in their understanding and struggle to climb any higher. They diabolically reject Jesus’s assertion that his role is to suffer, die, and be raised (16:21– 22),72 thereby generating Jesus’s rebuke and subsequent declaration that the 70

The leaders had also rejected Jesus’s miracles in 9:34; 12:14, 24. This conclusion is ironic, for in actuality it is the Jewish leaders who are deceived in their understanding of the Scriptures (22:29) and who deceive others (24:4, 15) because of their lie about the resurrection (28:15). Cf. Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 171–72, 179, who connects 27:63 with characterizations of Jesus in rabbinic materials. 72 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 116, astutely notes that the disciples fail to bring together their understanding of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God with the fact that he is also the Son of Man. 71

158

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

cross pertains not only to himself, but to all who would be his disciples (16:23– 24). This message is then reinforced by God, who transfigures Jesus before Peter, James, and John and commands them to listen his beloved Son (17:1– 5).73 However, as the remainder of the narrative shows, the disciples have trouble listening to Jesus. Though they claim to accept Jesus’s morbid fate (26:35), the disciples ultimately show their true colors by once again attempting to prevent it from happening (26:51–54).74 Nor do they accept the cross for themselves. When they had first tried to steer Jesus away from Calvary, Jesus had declared that anyone who desired to be his disciple needed to follow in his footsteps: “let him deny (ἀπαρνησάσθω) himself and take up his cross (ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ) and follow (ἀκολουθείτω) me” (16:24). However, when Jesus’s hour of suffering arrives, the disciples reject Jesus and flee (26:55). Peter alone is said to follow (ἠκολούθει) Jesus, though he does so only from far off (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν) and for the sake of observing (ἰδεῖν) what would happen to Jesus at the trial (26:58). Having followed Jesus imperfectly, Peter then denies (ἠρνήσατο) Jesus three times instead of denying himself (26:70, 72, 74, 75).75 Because he subsequently deserts Jesus altogether (26:75), a different Simon is needed to take up Jesus’s cross (ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ; 27:32).76 At 73

John Paul Heil, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 17:1–8, and Luke 9:28–36, AnBib 144 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000), 51, 253, labels Matt 17:1–8 a “pivotal mandatory epiphany.” The description of the epiphany as “mandatory” stems from the fact that it culminates in a final command, in this case to listen to Jesus regarding the necessity of the cross. The label of “pivotal” relates to the narrative context of the epiphany. Heil notes that the climactic command “not only represents the final focus of the epiphany itself, but enunciates and refers the audience to a theme or topic of recurring central importance within the broader narrative context in which the epiphany is located.” It “occurs at a pivotal point in the overall narrative, with significant contextual relations both prior and subsequent to the command.” Applied to Matt 17:1–8, the pivotal mandate relates to what Jesus has already said (16:21–28) and what he will additionally say regarding the necessity of suffering and death before entering into his glory (17:12, 22–23; 20:18–19; 21:33–46; 26:2, 12, 26–29, 31–35, 36–46). 74 Like John the Baptist, they stumble (σκαναλίζω) over Jesus’s failure to conform to their messianic expectations (11:6; 26:31). 75 26:74 does not use the word ἀρνέομαι. Meier, Vision of Matthew, 193, notes that Peter is accused of discipleship (being “with Jesus:” 26:69, 71; “one of them:” 26:73), which makes his denial not only a denial of Jesus, but also a denial of his identity as a disciple. The link between Caesarea Philippi and Peter’s denial is further strengthened by the fact that references to the “living God,” “Messiah,” and “Son of God” appear only in 16:16 and 26:63; Anderson, Narrative Web, 95. 76 Note that Matthew accentuates the correspondence between the two Simons, both by removing Mark’s references to Simon’s previous location and his sons, and by placing more emphasis on Simon’s name by calling it out directly (Matt 27:32: εὗρον ἄνθρωπον Κυρηαῖον, ὀνόματι Σίμωνα; Mark 15:21: παράγοντά τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ’ ἀγροῦ, τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεχξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου).

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

159

Calvary it is the women, not Peter, who are said to have followed (ἠκολούθησαν) Jesus; they stand from far off (ἀπὸ μακρόθεν) to watch (θεωροῦσαι) what unfolds (27:55). James and John likewise are conspicuously absent at Golgotha. At their request, “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” had previously entreated Jesus to let her sons sit at his right (δεξιῶν) and left (εὐωνύμων) in his kingdom (20:20– 21). Though they had affirmed that they were willing to drink the cup of suffering that Jesus had to drink (20:22; cf. 26:39), at Calvary it is not James and John who are on Jesus’s right (δεξιῶν) and left (εὐωνύμων) but rather bandits (27:38). It is not the sons, but rather “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” who is present at the crucifixion (27:56; cf. 20:20).77 The absence of the disciples at Jesus’s death entails that the centurion and his guards must step into the breach to provide the definitive answer to the christological question posed in 8:27. That this is the case is further suggested by the various redactions Matthew has made in his account of the centurion’s proclamation. First, as discussed above, Matthew has altered Mark’s description of the centurion to create a correspondence between the centurion in Galilee (8:5–13) and the centurion at the cross (27:54). It should be noted that the former centurion had displayed far greater awareness of Jesus’s identity than did the disciples at that point in the narrative: while the centurion had shown tremendous faith in grasping the nature of Jesus’s person (8:5–13), the disciples had shown “little faith” in questioning it (8:26–27).78 The same epistemological disparity is observed at the crucifixion. By proclaiming Jesus’s identity in connection with the cross, the centurion and his soldiers transcend the plateau above which the disciples were not able to progress.79

77

John Paul Heil, The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26–28 (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 91. This theme of replacement is continued with Joseph of Arimathea, who is described as a disciple and steps in after Jesus’s death to do what the Baptist’s disciples had done for John after John’s death (14:12; 27:57–60); Heil, Death and Resurrection, 93. 78 Note the lexical correspondences between the accounts: ἄνθρωπος (8:9, 27); προσέρχομαι (8:5, 25); κύριε (8:6, 25); πίστις (8:10), πιστεύω (8:13), ὀλιγόπιστος (8:26); θαυμάζω (8:10, 27). In addition, the centurion recognizes that Jesus can perform miracles with a mere word (8:9), while the disciples question Jesus’s identity after Jesus calms the sea through speech (8:26–27). 79 Konradt, Matthäus, 448–49, “Neu ist in V.54, dass nun Leiden und Tod des Gottessohnes in das Bekenntnis integriert sind. Ebendiese Integration stand Petrus in 16,16 noch bevor, denn hier war das Bekenntnis noch einseitig an der gottgleichen Vollmacht Jesu orientiert (14,22–33). Nun aber ist der mit dem „Diptychon“ in 16,13–20.21–23 exponierte Zusammenhang von Vollmacht und Herrscherstellung Jesu auf der einen Seite un seinem gehorsamen Gang ans Kreuz zum Heil der „Vielen“ (26,28) auf der anderen durch die Passionserzählung entfaltet werden und damit als Zentrum des mt Verständnisses der Gottessohnschaft Jesu sichtbar geworden.“

160

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

Second, Matthew has altered the confession of the centurion and other guards (27:54) so that it forms a nearly verbatim echo of the proclamation made by the disciples after Jesus calms the sea a second time (14:33).80 Since it is clear that the proclamation at 14:33 functions as an answer to the question of 8:27,81 the nearly perfect verbal correspondence between 14:33 and 27:54 suggests that the latter proclamation also functions as an answer to 8:27. This connection is tightened by the earthquake motif: a σεισμός (8:24) precedes the question of the disciples at 8:27, and a σεισμός likewise is connected to the confession of the Roman soldiers (27:54). Furthermore, Matthew uniquely characterizes the soldiers as utterly terrified (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα; 27:54), a description that matches Peter, James, and John at the transfiguration (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα; 17:6).82 One notes that in both cases, the fear is occasioned by an act of divine intervention that validates Jesus’s identity as the obedient son who suffers.83 This confirms that the confession of the soldiers (27:54) presents an advancement from the previous confessions of the disciples (14:33; 16:16). It follows that the proclamation of the centurion and his soldiers (27:54) represents the definitive answer to the question that the disciples had posed in 8:27. It is an answer that the disciples should have been present to give themselves, but were not because they had stumbled over the cross. In sum, by underlining the confession of the Roman soldiers as the answer to the christological questions of the disciples (8:27) and Jerusalem (21:10), the earthquake of 27:51/54 highlights the centrality of the cross with regards to Jesus’s identity as the messianic Son of God (3:17; 14:33; 16:16; 17:5; 27:54). At the same time, it highlights the failure of Jerusalem and the disciples to grasp this paradoxical fact. II. The Earthquake and Eschatological Divine Intervention In addition to underscoring Jesus as God’s agent, by alluding to Ezek 37:7 and various eschatological Day of the Lord prophecies, the earthquake of 27:51/54 highlights the fact that through Jesus, God intervenes to inaugurate his eschatological kingdom.

80 Mark 15:38: ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν; Matt 27:54: ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος; Matt 14:33: ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ. 81 As the many parallels between 8:23–27 and 14:22–33 suggest; for a comparison of these accounts see Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 97–99. 82 Mark 15:38 does not mention the centurion’s fear. 83 Allison, “Anticipating the Passion,” 707–10, notes a number of correspondences between the transfiguration and crucifixion scenes.

161

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

As is widely acknowledged, it is highly probable that Ezek 37:1–14 lies in the background of Matthew’s crucifixion scene.84 In Ezekiel’s prophecy, an earthquake (σεισμός) accompanies the resurrection of dry bones that represent the people of Israel (37:7), and God declares that he will open the graves of his people (ἀνοίγω ὑμῶν τὰ μνήματα), bring them forth from their tombs (ἀνάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν μνημάτων ὑμῶν), and lead them into the land of Israel (37:12). One notes that in Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death there is an earthquake (σεισμός; 27:54; cf. 27:51), the tombs of the holy ones are opened (τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν; 27:52), and the saints come forth from their tombs (ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων) and enter the holy city (27:53). 85 Given this correspondence, and the fact that Ezek 37:12 and Matt 27:52–53 are the only passages in the Scriptures that describe the opening (ἀνοίγω) of tombs (μνῆμα/μνημεῖον), it is highly likely that Matthew’s crucifixion scene alludes to Ezek 37:1–14.86 These observations are summarized in the table below. Table 7: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and Ezek 37:1–14 LXX Ezekiel 37:1–14 LXX

Matthean Crucifixion Scene

37:1–14

Image of resurrection depicted as an act of divine intervention

Resurrection of the saints depicted as an act of divine intervention (passive voice, coupled with other acts of divine intervention: tearing of the veil, rocks splitting, earthquake)

27:51–53

37:12

tombs opened (ἀνοίγω ὑμῶν τὰ μνήματα)

tombs opened (τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν)

27:52

84 For an extensive list of scholars who hold to this view, see Dale C. Allison, “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27” in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel, 154 n. 3. 85 For other parallels see Senior, Redactional Study, 320; Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 158–61. 86 Using the language that Hays provides for establishing the presence of an echo in a receptor text (see 1.D), the lexical and thematic correspondences of earthquakes, resurrection, and the opening of tombs satisfy the criteria of volume and thematic coherence. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, it is historically plausible that Matthew could have read Ezek 37:1–14 as a literal resurrection, and it is likely Ezek 37 was well known and hence available to Matthew. With regards to recurrence, index IV of the NA27 does not list any explicit Matthean citations of Ezekiel but does suggest 19 allusions, and several scholars posit that Matthew alludes to Ezek 34 to depict Jesus as shepherd (e.g., Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd; Heil, “Ezekiel 34;” Zacharias, Son of David). Finally, according to Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 154 n. 3, many interpreters have heard an echo to Ezek 37 in 27:52–53. Thus, by the criteria that Hays provides, it is highly likely that 27:52–53 alludes to Ezek 37.

162

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

37:12

Dead come forth from tombs (ἀνάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν μνημάτων ὑμῶν)

Dead come forth from tombs (ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων)

27:53

37:7

A σεισμός occurs

A σεισμός occurs

28:2, 4

It is clear from the content of the prophecy itself that Ezekiel’s vision functioned as a metaphor for national restoration and a return from exile (37:11– 14). An allusion to the passage in 27:51–53 would therefore suggest that Matthew viewed Jesus’s death as effecting a return from an exilic state.87 However, in addition to functioning as a metaphor for nationalistic renewal, Ezekiel’s prophecy also came to be associated with hopes for a literal eschatological resurrection.88 As Liv. Proph. Ezek 3.12 states, He [Ezekiel] used to say this to them: “Are we lost? Has our hope perished?” and in the wonder of the dead bones he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming (age).89

A similar interpretation also appears to be represented by 4Q385 2,1–9, which cites Ezek 37 as evidence that God will perform a literal future resurrection to reward the faithful Israelites.90 Likewise, Sib. Or. 2.221–26 presents an image of future resurrection that is cloaked in the language of Ezek 37:1–10,91 as do some rabbinic commentaries. For example, when debating the formation of the human person in the world to come, the School of Shammai points to Ezek 37:8 as evidence of a literal resurrection (Gen. Rab. 14.5; Lev. Rab. 14.9).92 A literal and eschatological interpretation of Ezek 37 was additionally preferred

87

Gurtner, Torn Veil, 160–62, 195–98; Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, 327–40. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, NICOT, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 2:387, suggests that even Ezekiel’s original audience may have found it natural to connect Ezek 37 with hopes for a literal resurrection. Wright, Resurrection, 205, suggests that the themes of resurrection and national restoration need not be mutually exclusive, “But it remains the case that resurrection, in the world of second-Temple Judaism, was about the restoration of Israel on the one hand and the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people on the other, with close connections between the two; and that it was thought of as the great event that YHWH would accomplish at the very end of ‘the present age’, the event which would constitute the ‘age to come’” (cf. 124, 202). 89 Trans. D. R. A. Hare, OTP. Hare suggests a composition date in the first century AD (“The Lives of the Prophets,” in OTP, 2:380–81). 90 For scholars who support this interpretation of 4Q385, see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 156 n. 10. 91 John J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles” in OTP, 1:333. 92 Though this interpretation is rejected by the School of Hillel. For additional rabbinic interpretations of Ezek 37 as a literal (but not eschatological) resurrection see also Gen. Rab. 13.6; Deut. Rab. 7.6; b. Sanh. 92b. 88

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

163

by many patristic exegetes.93 Furthermore, Rev 11:11 may reference Ezek 37:5 to describe a literal resurrection,94 and it would appear that Ezek 37:1–14 is interpreted in a literal eschatological sense in the Ezekiel panel of the Dura Europos synagogue (c. AD 250).95 In light of the above examples, it is not unreasonable to assume that Matthew would have been familiar with a reading of Ezek 37:1–14 that related to a literal eschatological resurrection of the dead.96 If such a reading underlies 27:51–53, the earthquake, open tombs, and resurrected saints would color Jesus’s death as an eschatological event related to the general resurrection. Thus, by reinforcing an allusion to Ezek 37:1–14, the 27:51/54 earthquake helps to cast Jesus’s death as an eschatological event.97 However, the 27:51/54 earthquake reference also carries additional weight beyond the Ezek 37 allusion. Given that earthquakes are a stock accompaniment of theophany in Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia,98 it is reasonable to assume that Matthew envisions the coming of God at the death of his Son.99 93

For a list of sources see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 156 n. 9; cf. Grassi, “Ezekiel XXXVII. 1–14,” 162 n. 4; Block, Ezekiel, 2:390. It should be noted, however, that these patristic interpretations may have been influenced by Matt 27:51–53. 94 Aune, Revelation 6–16, 623; Beale, Revelation, 596–97; Osborne, Revelation, 429–30; Block, Ezekiel, 2:389. 95 The panel depicts a literal resurrection of the ten northern tribes from enfleshed body parts, and also includes a mountain split down the middle to reveal the dead (presumably the Mount of Olives), a house sliding down the side of the mountain (presumably from an earthquake), and a possible messianic figure (or Ezekiel). As Luz, Matthew, 3:567, notes, there is no definitive evidence that the Dura Europos scene is eschatological in nature. However, if the split mountain depicts Zech 14:5, as many scholars suspect (see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 163 n. 35), the scene would be eschatological. 96 Pace Luz, Matthew, 3:567. Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 158, comes to a similar conclusion in his study of Ezek 37:1–14. He states, “These materials suffice to establish the likelihood that the interpretation of Ezek 37:1–14 in terms of eschatological resurrection from the dead was not just known in pre-Christian times but probably well known.” 97 Cf. Gurtner, Torn Veil, 160–64. In addition, Hamilton, Blood of Jesus, 225, rightfully interprets the allusion as a means of connecting Jesus’s death to the end of exile. Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, 328–40, argues that the Matt 27:52 allusion to Ezek 37:12 also extends Matthew’s depiction of Jesus as the eschatological Davidic shepherd. More specifically, it represents the divine reversal of the tragic smiting of the shepherd (Matt 26:31; cf. Zech 13:7) and the confirmation of Jesus as the eschatological shepherd who leads his people out of exile (Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Zech 14:1–9). Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 321, and Charles L. Quarles, “Matthew 27:51–53: Meaning, Genre, Intertextuality, Theology, and Reception History,” JETS 59 (2016): 284, also find an implicit confirmation of Jesus’s messianic status in the Matt 27:52 allusion to Ezek 37:12. 98 E.g., Judg 5:4–5; Ps 18:8; 68:8; 97:4; Isa 29:6; Amos 9:5; Hab 3:6; Mic 1:4; see chapter two. Psalm 18:4–15 is especially suggestive: David cries out when the cords of death entangle him, God hears his cry and comes down in anger accompanied by earthquakes and darkness. 99 Pace Witherup, “Death of Jesus,” 579–80. For a list of scholars who interpret 27:51– 52 as a theophany see 1.C.

164

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

Lending further support to this reading is the string of passive verbs in 27:51– 53, all of which suggest divine intervention. In addition, the splitting of rocks also carries theophanic overtones, especially when connected to an earthquake. For example, in Nah 1:5–6 God’s wrathful advent is accompanied by both an earthquake (τὰ ὄρη ἐσείσθησαν) and the fracturing of rocks (αἱ πέτραι διεθρύβησαν).100 Furthermore, some commentators interpret the tearing of the temple veil (27:51) as an opening of the heavens through which God comes forth.101 Thus, through multiple factors, not least of which is the reference to the earthquake, Matthew records a theophany in the aftermath of Jesus’s death.102 Moreover, it is a particular type of theophany that Matthew appears to have in mind: that of the eschatological Day of the Lord.103 Earthquakes are a stock motif of this prophetic event, which describes God’s intervention at the turn of the ages to fully establish his rule on earth.104 As argued above (5.A.II), this scenario is precisely what Matthew appears to depict in his account of Jesus’s crucifixion. In addition, it is precisely what is anticipated by the larger Matthean narrative, both through the kingdom of heaven theme that is especially prevalent in the Gospel’s first nine chapters and more specifically through the allusions to the eschatological Day of the Lord that are present in the storm stilling and Jerusalem entry accounts.105 Adding further support to the eschatological Day of the Lord coloring of the crucifixion scene is the fact that

100

Cf. 1 Kgs 19:11–12; Ezek 38:20. Nolland, Matthew, 1212–13; Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?,” 229–34. 102 Having said this, it should be noted that interpreting 27:51–53 as a theophany does not suggest a visible manifestation of the deity at Calvary. God’s advent is recognized only by its effects; as such, the theophanic episode of 27:51–53 is to be distinguished from an epiphany. Heil, Transfiguration, 39, provides a helpful distinction between the two types of events, “in a theophany the divine being remains invisible and his coming is recognized by its effects on nature. But in an epiphany the divine being assumes visible form and appears before the eyes of human beings.” Cf. the definition of theophany given by Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, WMANT 10 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 1. 103 Riebl, Auferstehung, 45–47; Brown, Death, 1137; Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 100; Senior, Redactional Study, 319. Though Ezek 37:1–14 does not describe the Day of the Lord, it is located adjacent to the Ezek 38–39 Day of the Lord account (which also includes an earthquake: Ezek 38:19–20). Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 156–57, notes that in Papyrus 967 of the LXX, Ezek 37 is placed between Ezek 38–39 and Ezek 40–48, which would have further encouraged readers to think of these prophecies in conjunction with each other. 104 E.g., Isa 24:18, 20; Ezek 38:19; Joel 2:10; 4:16 LXX; Hag 2:6, 21; Zech 14:5; cf. Amos 8:8–9 (also 9:1, 5). The Amos 8:9 reference “on that day” suggests that the event refers to the Day of the Lord, though it is not clear if this day should be considered eschatological, nor if it is cosmic in scope or focused on Israel. 105 See chapters three and four. 101

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

165

numerous interpreters find an allusion to Amos 8:9–10 at Matt 27:45.106 Furthermore, as will be discussed below, the eschatological Days of the Lord described in Zech 14, Isa 24–27, and Joel 4 display significant resonance with Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death. 1. The Day of the Lord of Zech 14 In Zechariah’s Day of the Lord, the nations gather together against Jerusalem and proceed to rape and pillage the beleaguered city (14:2). The tides turn, however, when the divine warrior (henceforth: divine warrior) appears to fight for his people (14:3). He stands on the Mount of Olives, which he splits (σχισθήσεται) in order to provide an escape route for the city’s residents (14:4). The inhabitants are said to flee as they fled in the days of the earthquake (σεισμός) that occurred in the reign of Uzziah (14:5). After their escape, the divine warrior comes with all of his holy ones (πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι; 14:5). He obtains victory by issuing a plague that kills many of the enemy forces and by causing them to attack each other; surprisingly, even Judah is included in the fray that ensues (14:12–15). In the aftermath, the Lord is proclaimed King over all the earth (14:9), the survivors from the attacking nations come to worship Israel’s God (14:16), and Jerusalem is made holy (ἅγιον) to the Lord (14:20, 21). Many of these themes are also present in Matthew’s crucifixion account. As in Zech 14:3–5, so also in 27:51–53 God’s advent is described in an eschatological context. As in Zech 14:5, so also in 27:51/54 there is an earthquake.107 Though the Mount of Olives is not split at Jesus’s death, rocks experience this phenomenon (ἐσχίσθησαν; 27:51),108 as is the veil of the temple (ἐσχίσθη; 27:51).109 In both accounts, the seismic activity precedes the entrance of οἱ ἅγιοι (“holy ones”) into Jerusalem (Zech 14:5; Matt 27:53).110 In both accounts, there may be a resurrection of the dead, present via explicit description (27:52– 106 In his article on the reception history of Matt 27:45, Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 80– 81, finds considerable support for this interpretation, from as early as Irenaeus (or even Gos. Pet. 5.15) up to the present. He also states, “If Matthew’s allusion to Amos 8:9–10 connotes both judgment and mourning, it also takes one into the realm of eschatology, for Amos 8:9– 10 is a prophecy about the ‘day of the Lord,’ and if it is fulfilled in the passion of Jesus, that passion must have an eschatological character or dimension.” (“Darkness at Noon,” 100). 107 While the earthquake of Zech 14:5 is only mentioned as a historical reference, it is highly probable that the splitting of a mountain would involve seismic activity. 108 Granted, these are not described as rocks on the Mount of Olives. Their fissuring may also relate to Nah 1:5–6. 109 Note the divine passive of σχίζω in both Zech 14:4 and 27:51. 110 Zech 14:5 MT has ‫קדשים‬, which is naturally rendered “angels,” thus suggesting that the LXX reference refers to heavenly vs. earthly beings. This rendering of Zech 14:5 is observed in Matt 25:31, which also appears to allude to Zech 14:5. For a response see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 168 n. 55.

166

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

53) or possibly through interpretive association (Zech 14).111 Furthermore, both Zech 14:20–21 and Matt 27:53 describe Jerusalem as holy (ἅγιος) in the aftermath of the events, and both include mention of a gentile conversion (Zech 14:16; Matt 27:54; cf. 28:19).112 Finally, Zech 14:9 declares that on the Day of the Lord, the Lord will become king over all the earth (14:9), the scenario described with regards to Jesus in the final scene of Matthew’s Gospel (28:18). These observations are summarized in the table below. Table 8: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Zech 14 Day of the Lord The Day of the Lord of Zech 14

Matthean Crucifixion Scene

14:5

Earthquake referenced (σεισμός)

Earthquake occurs (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; σεισμόν)

27:51, 54

14:4

Mount of Olives is split (σχισθήσεται)

Temple veil and rocks are split (ἐσχίσθη, ἐσχίσθησαν)

27:51, 52

14:3–5

Theophany of the divine warrior

Theophany of the divine warrior

27:51

14:5

Interpretive association with resurrection of the dead (in some traditions)

Resurrection of the dead

27:52–53

14:5

Saints (οἱ ἅγιοι) enter Jerusalem

Saints (ἅγιοι) enter Jerusalem

27:53

14:20–21

Jerusalem made holy (ἅγιον)

Jerusalem referred to as the holy city (τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν)

27:53

14:16

Gentile conversion

Gentile conversion

27:54

In light of these connections, and given that Zechariah is an important intertext elsewhere in Matthew’s passion narrative (e.g., Matt 26:31 = Zech 13:7; Matt 27:9–10 = Zech 11:13; cf. 21:5 = Zech 9:9),113 it is highly probable that the Zech 14 Day of the Lord informs Matthew’s crucifixion scene.114 111 Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 162–68, argues this for Zech 14 on the basis of Did. 16:7–8, 1 Thess 3:13, the Dura Europos panel, Tg. Cant. 8:5, and a number of rabbinic texts. 112 Zechariah 14:16 states that the survivors of the attacking nations will worship, while Matthew records that the soldiers who had executed Jesus came to recognize his identity as the Son of God (27:36, 54). 113 Though 27:9–10 is attributed to Jeremiah, it almost surely incorporates Zech 11:13. There are also probable allusions to Zech 12:10 in Matt 24:30 and Zech 14:5 in Matt 25:31; cf. John Nolland, “Shepherd as King.” 114 With regards to Hays’s method, the criteria of availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, and history of interpretation are all satisfied. For a list of scholars who see Zech 14 in the background of Matthew’s crucifixion account see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 154 n. 4.

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

167

2. The Day of the Lord of Isa 24–27 The eschatological Day of the Lord of Isa 24–27 must also be mentioned.115 Isaiah’s Day of the Lord is cosmic in scope, involving the desolation (ἐρημώσει) of the entire earth (24:1; cf. 24:12) on account of the transgression of its inhabitants (24:5–6). Prominently featured in the course of events is seismic activity: Isaiah prophesies that the foundations of the earth will convulse (σεισθήσεται; 24:18), tremble (ταραχῇ ταραχθήσεται; 24:19), and shake (σεισθήσεται) like a hut on the verge of collapse (24:20). Coupled to this terrestrial catastrophe is a calamity in the heavens: Isaiah foretells (in the Hebrew text but not the LXX) that the sun and moon will be darkened ( ‫וחפרה הלבנה‬ ‫ ;ובושה החמה‬24:23). Both the earthquakes and celestial phenomena are linked to the coming of the divine warrior from his place to punish the wicked (26:21) and therefore function as signs of judgment. Isaiah states that the earth will also provide another sign of judgment on the dreadful Day of the Lord: as a testimony against the wicked, it will disclose all the blood that has been shed upon it (ἀνακαλύψει ἡ γῆ τὸ αἷμα αὐτῆς) and no longer cover the slain (καὶ οὐ κατακαλύψει τοὺς ἀνῃρημένους; 26:21). It follows that for the wicked, the Day of the Lord spells terrible judgment (24:1–12, 17–18, 21–22; 25:10–12; 26:5, 14, 21). However, for the righteous, God acts as a refuge rather than a judge (25:4–5; 26:20), and the Day of the Lord instead represents salvation (σωτηρία; 25:9). Isaiah prophesies that in the aftermath of judgment, God will host an eschatological banquet for all peoples (25:6), the dead shall be resurrected (ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί), and those in tombs will be raised (καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις; 26:19).116 Furthermore, he declares that on the Day of the Lord God will swallow up death (in the Hebrew text only; 25:7),117 take away 115

In addition to Isa 24–27, note the correlations between Matthew’s Gospel and the Isa 13 Day of the Lord: (ἔρημος; 13:9; Matt 23:38), darkness (13:10; Matt 27:45), earthquakes (ἡ γῆ σεισθήσεται; 13:13; Matt 27:51/54), and judgment. 116 Wright, Resurrection, 117, states, “the original Hebrew refers literally to bodily resurrection, and this is certainly how the verse is taken in the LXX and at Qumran. It is still possible, of course, that here resurrection is, as we shall see in Ezekiel, a metaphor for national restoration; but the wider passage, in which God’s renewal of the whole cosmos is in hand, opens the way for us to propose that the reference to resurrection is intended to denote actual concrete events.” Cf. Foster, “Development of Ideas on Afterlife in Matthew’s Gospel,”, 8–9, 12; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 218; Young, Isaiah, 226; Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1–39, WBC (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 208; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 485, “[Isa 26:19] along with 25:8, represents the highest conception of resurrection in the OT.” 117 The LXX is corrupted here: κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας (“death was strong and swallowed up”; 25:8). This error is not present in other versions: α ́: καταπόντισει τόν θάνατον εἰς νῖκος (“he will swallow up death in victory”); σ ́: καταπόθηναι ποιήσει τόν θάνατον εἰς τέλον (“he will finally cause death to be swallowed up”); θ ́: κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νῖκος (“death is swallowed up in victory”)

168

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

the sin of Jacob (ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; 27:9), and be worshiped by the gentiles on his holy mountain (27:13; cf. LXX 26:6–7). The resonance observed between Isaiah’s prophecy and Matthew’s crucifixion scene is striking. Both accounts prevalently feature an earthquake (Isa 24:18–20; Matt 27:51, 54), and if Matthew had the Hebrew text of Isaiah before him, there is additionally the common link of darkness (Isa 24:23; Matt 27:45).118 In both accounts, this seismic activity relates to the eschatological coming of God (Isa 26:21; Matt 27:51–53). In both accounts, the judgment that occurs is described as desolation: ἐρημόω (Isa 24:1), ἔρημος (Isa 24:12; Matt 23:38). In Isaiah’s account, the earth discloses the blood shed upon it as a testimony related to the judgment of the wicked (26:21); in Matthew’s account, Jesus’s death represents the entirety of the righteous blood shed upon the earth (πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; 23:35; cf. 27:25) and relates to the judgment of the wicked.119 In both accounts the righteous are saved (σωτηρία; Isa 25:9; σῴζω; Matt 27:40, 42, 49), sins are forgiven (Isa 27:9; Matt 26:28), and those lying dead in tombs (μνημεῖα) are raised (ἐγείρω; Isa 26:19; Matt 27:52).120 Finally, in both cases gentiles are incorporated into the people of God on Mount Zion (Isa 27:13; Matt 27:54).121 These observations are summarized in the table below.

118 Though it is clear that Matthew has knowledge of the LXX, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty whether Matthew was familiar with the Hebrew text of Isaiah. The deviations observed in his quotations of Isaiah could reflect familiarity with a Hebrew edition or a revised Greek version; Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ, 120; Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 47–48, 88. That being said, multiple scholars argue for Matthew’s familiarity with a Hebrew text of Isaiah: Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:33, 380, 2:37, 324–25; Nolland, Matthew, 33, 172, 361, 492; France, Matthew, 141; George M. Soares Prabhu, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew: An Enquiry into the Tradition history of Mt 1–2, AnBib 63 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976),104. 119 It is possible that the appearance of the raised saints in Jerusalem (27:53) functions along with Jesus’s blood as a sign of judgment: the earth is no longer covering the slain (Isa 26:21). Luz, Matthew, 3:571, interprets the Jerusalem witness of the saints as judgment, though without reference to Isa 26:21. 120 One also notes that in the Hebrew text, Isaiah’s Day of the Lord involves God’s victory over death (25:7); in Matthew’s account, Jesus’s death achieves victory over death as evidenced in the saints and especially his resurrection. 121 In addition, Isa 25:6 describes an eschatological banquet on Mount Zion for all nations (πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν); as discussed above, the 27:54 confession of the gentile centurion and soldiers represents a proleptic description of the eschatological banquet described by Jesus after he witnesses the faith of the centurion in 8:11–12. It is recognized that the crucifixion technically doesn’t take place on Mount Zion given that it occurs outside the city, but nevertheless, the location is close enough for the correlation to hold.

169

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

Table 9: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord The Day of the Lord of Isa 24–27

Matthean Crucifixion Scene

24:18, 20

The earth is shaken (σεισθήσεται)

The earth is shaken (ἐσείσθη; σεισμόν)

27:51, 54

24:23

Sun and moon darkened (Hebrew text only)

Darkness over all the earth

27:45

24:1, 12

Earth (ἐρημόω) and city (ἔρημος) made desolate

Temple (and likely Jerusalem by association) made desolate (ἔρημος)122

23:38

26:21

Theophany of the divine warrior

Theophany of the divine warrior

27:51

26:21

Judgment related to shedding of blood on the earth (ἀνακαλύψει ἡ γῆ τὸ αἷμα αὐτῆς)

Judgment related to the shedding of blood on the earth (αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς)123

23:35

25:9

Salvation (σωτηρίᾳ) from God

Salvation from God through Jesus (σῴζω)

27:40, 42; cf. 1:21

27:9

Forgiveness of sins (ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν)

Forgiveness of sins (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν)

26:28; cf. 1:21

26:19

Resurrection of the dead (ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί); entombed are raised (καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις)

Raising of the entombed saints (σώματα … ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων)

27:52–53

25:6; 27:13

Gentile conversion

Gentile conversion

27:54

The significant lexical and thematic links observed between these passages strongly suggest that the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord informs Matthew’s crucifixion scene.124 The probability that this is the case is further heightened by the fact that Matthew refers to the prophet by name on six occasions (3:3; 4:14; 122

The context makes clear that this desolation is a consequence of the execution of Jesus; see 4.A.IV. 123 This blood is tied to the crucifixion of Jesus; see section 5.B.II.6. 124 Commentators that see a potential reference to Isa 26:19 in Matt 27:52–53 include Wright, Resurrection, 633–34; Nolland, Matthew, 1217; France, Matthew, 1082; Hagner, Matthew, 2:849, 851; Osborne, Matthew, 1046; Hill, “Matthew 27:51–53,” 76; Marcus, “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?,” 232; cf. the list provided by Allison in “Scriptural Background,” 155 n. 5.

170

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 15:7) and explicitly cites or alludes to Isaiah more than any other book in the OT.125 Thus, Isa 24–27 should be considered an intertext for the Matthean crucifixion scene. 3. The Day of the Lord of Joel126 Joel’s eschatological Day of the Lord should also be considered.127 In this event, the sun and moon are darkened (συσκοτάσουσιν; 2:2, 10; 4:15) and the roaring of God’s voice from Jerusalem causes heaven and earth to be shaken (σεισθήσεται; 2:10; 4:16). The terrifying vocal blast is directed against both unrepentant Israel (2:1–11) and the enemies of God (the nations (4:1–16). The latter are gathered together before God in the Valley of Jehoshaphat for the sake of judgment (4:2, 12, 14); their crimes include the casting of lots (ἔβαλον κλήρους) for God’s people (4:3), the sale and exile of God’s people to the Greeks (4:6), and in the case of Egypt and Edom, the shedding of righteous blood (ἐξέχεαν αἷμα δίκαιον; 4:19). These figures experience only God’s wrath on the Day of the Lord. In contrast, to those willing to repent, God is a refuge on the Day of the Lord (4:16).128 Joel declares that on the great and terrible Day of the Lord, anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (σωθήσεται; 3:5).129 In the aftermath of the terrible event, God’s people recognize that he is God (4:17), Jerusalem is restored as the holy city (πόλις ἁγία; 4:17), and a period of unprecedented abundance is ushered in (4:18). The book closes with a promise of God’s continued presence among his people, “the Lord dwells in Zion” (4:21). Many of the same themes are also present in the Matthean depiction of Jesus’s death. As in Joel’s Day of the Lord, so also at Calvary there is both darkness (σκότος; 27:45) and the shaking of the earth (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; 27:54).130 As 125

See the helpful chart provided by Crowe, Obedient Son, 27. Hays’s criteria of availability and recurrence are thus met in spades. 126 When referencing the Greek text of Joel, the following discussion will utilize the Hebrew text/LXX versification, which differs from the versification found in English bibles. For the sake of consistency, the Hebrew text/LXX versification will also be utilized even when the Greek text is not cited. For reference, Joel 3:1–5 Hebrew text/LXX = Joel 2:28–32 English; Joel 4 Hebrew text/LXX = Joel 3 English. 127 Joel presents three aspects of the Day of the Lord: how it will be experienced by unrepentant Israel (2:1–11), how it will be experienced by Israel’s enemies (4:1–16, 19), and how it will be experienced by the repentant who are aligned with God (3:1–5; 4:17–18); Wolff, Joel and Amos, 40–42, 60; Dillard, “Joel,” 1:278, 294; Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 56 n. 14; Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, 174–78; cf. section 2.A.I.2. 128 Nogalski, “Day(s) of YHWH,” 202; Rendtorff, “Alas for the Day,” 190–91; Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, 176–77; Dillard, “Joel,” 300. 129 Nogalski, “Day(s) of YHWH,” 202, “One may extrapolate the recipients of judgment [in Joel 4] as those not calling on YHWH’s name” (emphasis original). 130 While this shaking is not attributed to the voice of God as it is in Joel, the passive verbs in 27:51–53 depict the earthquake and other phenomena as divinely generated.

171

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

in Joel’s Day of the Lord, so also at the cross is the theme of judgment for the shedding of innocent blood present: Matthew claims that by orchestrating his execution, Jesus’s enemies assume responsibility for all the righteous blood that has been shed (αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον; 23:35; cf. 26:28; 27:4, 19, 24) and thereby bring judgment upon themselves.131 As in Joel, so also in Matthew this moment of judgment also relates to the casting of lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον; 27:35).132 As in Joel’s Day of the Lord, so also in Matthew is this moment of judgment simultaneously a moment of deliverance: for those who call upon Jesus as “Lord,” Jesus’s death brings salvation (1:21; 20:28; 26:28; 27:40, 42).133 Relatedly, in both Joel and Matthew, how one experiences God’s intervention is tied to repentance (Joel 2:12–17; Matt 3:2; 4:17). In addition, bearing some resemblance to the recognition of God’s identity in the aftermath of Joel’s Day of the Lord is the recognition of Jesus’s identity as the Son of God in the aftermath of his death (27:54). Furthermore, in both Joel’s account of the Day of the Lord and Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death, Jerusalem is referred to as the holy city (πόλις ἁγία; Joel 4:17 / τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν; Matt 27:53).134 Finally, like the book of Joel, the book of Matthew ends with a reference to the continuing presence of God among his people (28:20; cf. 1:23). These observations are summarized in the table below. Table 10: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the Day of the Lord of Joel The Day of the Lord of Joel

Matthean Crucifixion Scene

2:10; 4:16

Heaven and earth are shaken (σεισθήσεται)

Earth is shaken (ἐσείσθη; σεισμόν)

27:51, 54

2:2, 10; 4:15

Sun and moon are darkened (συσκοτάσουσιν)

Darkness (σκότος) over all the earth

27:45

2:11; 4:16

Theophany of the divine warrior

Theophany of the divine warrior

27:51

131 It is significant that the phrase αἷμα δίκαιον occurs only at Joel 4:19, Lam 4:13, Jonah 1:14; cf. Prov 6:13 (αἷμα δικαίου); in Joel 4:19, Lam 4:13, and Prov 6:13, the blood is said to be spilled. 132 Though the more direct reference behind the casting of lots in 27:35 is to LXX Ps 21:19. Also, in Joel 4:3, the casting of lots refers to treating humans like property while in 27:35 the activity relates to Jesus’s clothing. 133 For the connection between salvation and calling upon Jesus as Lord, cf. 8:25; 14:30. 134 Note also that in both Joel (4:13) and Matthew (13:36–43), eschatological judgment is described as a harvest.

172

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

4:19

Judgment related to shedding of righteous blood (ἐξέχεαν αἷμα δίκαιον)

Judgment related to the shedding of righteous blood (αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον)135

23:35

4:3

Casting of lots (ἔβαλον κλήρους)

Casting of lots (βάλλοντες κλῆρον)

27:35

3:5; cf. 4:16

Salvation (σωθήσεται) for those who call upon the name of the Lord

Salvation from God through Jesus (σῴζω)

27:40, 42; cf. 1:21

4:17

Recognition of God

Recognition of Jesus’s identity

27:54

4:17

Jerusalem restored as the holy city (πόλις ἁγία)

Jerusalem referred to as the holy city (τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν)

27:53

4:21

Mention of God’s continued presence

Mention of Jesus’s continued presence

28:20

The numerous points of correspondence observed between these accounts thereby suggest that the Matthean crucifixion scene alludes to Joel’s eschatological Day of the Lord. Admittedly, this connection is not regularly observed by commentators, whether patristic or modern.136 Nevertheless, the book of Joel was almost surely known to Matthew,137 and an application of its 135

This blood is tied to the crucifixion of Jesus; see section 5.B.II.6. However, it has been noticed on multiple occasions. Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on Joel” in Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, trans. Robert C. Hill, 3 vols., FC 115 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 1:299, links the Day of the Lord of Joel 2:30–32 with the crucifixion of Jesus in Matt 27:45–51. Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 87, additionally notes that the Anaphora Pilati, and Isho’dad of Merv (Comm. Matt. 7) find Joel 2:30–31 fulfilled at the crucifixion. The same observation is also made by Vander Hart, “Transition,” 23. Brown, Death, 2:1122, notes a similarity between Joel 2:10, 4:15–16 and Matt 27:45, 51. In addition, in modern scholarship Joel 2:2 or 2:10 is regularly listed as a potential background text for Matt 27:45; e.g., Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 98; Konradt, Matthäus, 444; Luz, Matthew, 3:544; Hagner, Matthew, 2:844. Thus, with regards to Hays’s method, the history of interpretation criterion is only marginally satisfied at best. 137 As early as Sir 49:10 there exists evidence that the Book of the Twelve was taken as a unity, and since Matthew clearly knows other books of the Twelve (e.g., Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7; Mic 5:2 in Matt 2:6; Zech 9:9 in Matt 21:5; Mal 3:1 in Matt 11:10), it is likely that he also would have known Joel. In addition, Index IV of the NA27 suggests several allusions to Joel in Matthew’s Gospel: Joel 2:2 in Matt 24:21, Joel 2:10; 4:15 in Matt 24:29, and Joel 4:19 in Matt 23:35. The potential allusion to Joel 2:10 at Matt 24:29 is also observed by the majority of commentators; e.g., Luz, Matthew, 3:201 n. 161; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:357; Nolland, Matthew, 982 n. 97; Konradt, Matthäus, 375; Hagner, Matthew, 2:713; Gundry, Matthew, 487; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:328; Senior, Matthew, 271. Many scholars also see Joel 3:2, 11–12 behind Matt 25:32 (e.g., Gnilka, 136

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

173

eschatological content to Jesus’s death and resurrection is certainly plausible given Acts 2:16–24 and Rom 10:13.138 Thus, while an allusion to the eschatological Day of the Lord in Joel may be less certain than an allusion to the Day of the Lord of Zech 14 or Isa 24–27 in the Matthean crucifixion account, it is nonetheless probable.139 4. The “Day of the Lord” of 1 Enoch 1:3–9 The eschatological march of the divine warrior in the opening chapter of 1 Enoch likewise displays correspondence with Jesus’s death in Matthew.140 Though 1 En. 1:3–9 never explicitly describes the divine warrior’s cataclysmic advent as a Day of the Lord, the thematic parallels of eschatological theophany, judgment, and salvation suggest that this passage represents an extension of the prophetic Day of the Lord tradition.141 In the Greek text of 1 Enoch, the eschatological advent of God to Mount Zion (1:4) is described as one that elicits universal fear (φοβηθήσονται πάντες; 1:5) and causes the Watchers to believe (πιστεύσουσιν οἱ ἐγρήγοροι; 1:5).142 It is also linked to terrestrial upheaval, causing the ends of the earth (1:5) and tall mountains (1:6) to be shaken (σεισθήσονται) and the earth to split apart (διασχισθήσεται ἡ γῆ σχίσμα; 1:7).143 In addition, it is said to entail judgment for all (1:7). While presumably disastrous for the wicked, for the righteous the event represents salvation, bringing peace, mercy, good will, and divine succor (1:8–9). Matthäusevangelium, 2:371; Osborne, Matthew, 934; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:422; Nolland, Matthew, 1024; France, Matthew, 961). Furthermore, availability to Matthew is also suggested by the fact that Joel was known by Matthew’s contemporaries: it is cited directly in Acts 2:17–21 and Rom 10:13, and is likely paraphrased in Mark 4:29. 138 The shared temporal reference “in those days” (3:2; 4:1) indicates that Joel 3:1–5 [2:28–32 English], which is referenced in Acts 2:16–21 and Rom 10:13, belongs to the same eschatological timeframe as Joel 4; Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 78; Dillard, “Joel,” 300. 139 With regards to Hays’s method, the criteria of availability, volume, thematic coherence, and historical plausibility are met, and the criterion of recurrence is also likely satisfied. Only the history of interpretation is lacking. 140 Cf. T. Mos. 10:3–10, which presents an image similar to 1 En. 1:3–9. 141 For 1 En. 1:3–9’s indebtedness to the OT for theophanic motifs and vocabulary see James Vanderkam, “The Theophany of Enoch I 3b-7, 9,” VT 23 (1973): 129–50; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 142–49; Carrol D. Osburn, “The Christological Use of 1 Enoch I.9 in Jude 14–15,” NTS 23 (1977): 334. Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn, 133 n. 29, classifies 1 En. 1:3–9 as a Day of the Lord account. 142 The Ethiopic text presents a different reading, “And everyone shall be afraid, and the Watchers shall quiver” (1 En. 1:4; trans. E. Isaac, OTP). 143 The Ethiopic text has “And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. 6 Mountains and high places will fall down and be frightened. And high hills shall be made low; and they shall melt like a honeycomb before the flame. 7 And the earth shall be rent asunder.” (1 En. 1:5–7a; trans. E. Isaac, OTP).

174

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

One notes that Matthew’s crescendo of supernatural events that follow Jesus’s death also includes the specific combination of an earthquake (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; 27:51; cf. 27:54) and fracturing (σκίζω), though in Matthew it is rocks (αἱ πέτραι; 27:51) that are split rather than the earth itself. As in 1 En. 1:5, Matthew’s account also links God’s advent to fear and belief: the centurion and those with him are terrified (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα) and proclaim Jesus’s sonship (27:54). These observations are summarized in the table below. Table 11: The Matthean Crucifixion Scene and the “Day of the Lord” of 1 Enoch 1:3–9 The “Day of the Lord” of 1 En. 1:3–9

Matthean Crucifixion Scene

1:4

Theophany of the divine warrior

Theophany of the divine warrior

27:51

1:5, 6

Ends of earth and mountains shaken (σεισθήσονται)

Earth is shaken (ἐσείσθη; σεισμόν)

27:51, 54

1:4

Earth is split (διασχισθήσεται ἡ γῆ σχίσμα)

Temple veil and rocks are split (ἐσχίσθη, ἐσχίσθησαν)

27:51, 52

1:5

Theophany causes great fear (φοβηθήσονται πάντες)

Theophany causes great fear (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα)

27:54

1:5

Theophany causes Watchers to believe (Greek text only)

Theophany elicits christological confession from centurion and other guards

27:54

These connections, and specifically those of the earthquake (σείω) and splitting (διασχισθήσεται vs. ἐσχίσθησαν), have recently led one serious scholar to argue that the influence of 1 En. 1:3–9 on Matthew’s crucifixion scene is secondary only to that of Ezek 37.144 While this conclusion is certainly overstated,145 it is not altogether unreasonable given the thematic parallels between 144

Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 212–21. Hamilton’s conclusion is overstated in its exclusivity. While she acknowledges that 1 En. 1:3–9 is not unique in linking earthquakes to the coming of God (she cites in particular Ezek 38:20, which mentions an earthquake [σείω] and the rending [ῥήγνυμι] of mountains, and Nah 1:5–6, which describes mountains shaking [σείω] and rocks splitting [αἱ πέτραι διεθρύβησαν]), she appears to rule out potential allusions to other texts in the Matthean account because only 1 En. 1:5–7 contains the particular combination of shaking (σείω) and splitting (σχίζω). Beyond the fact that this line of reasoning ignores Zech 14:4–5, which references both an earthquake (σεισμός) and splitting (σχισθήσεται), it seems inconsistent to rule out Nah 1:5–6 on the basis of verb choice when 1 En. 1:5–7 likewise does not align perfectly with Matthew. The two accounts differ in regards to the object that is shaken (earth; Matt 27:51 vs. ends of the earth and mountains; 1 En. 1:5, 6), the verb used to describe the 145

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

175

passages. Moreover, if Matthew did interpret 1 En. 1:3–9 christologically, he would not be alone in doing so; one also observes a christological interpretation in Jude 14–15.146 It follows that an echo to 1 En. 1:3–9 in Matthew’s crucifixion scene is not outside the realm of possibility.147 III. Integration Given the considerable overlap observed between Matthew’s crucifixion account and the various eschatological Day of the Lord prophecies discussed above, it would be unwise to try to restrict Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’s death to one OT intertext in particular. What Dale Allison argues for the darkness of 27:45 rings equally true with regards to the Day of the Lord background in the Matthean portrait of Calvary, If the formal quotation in Matt. 2:6 can juxtapose Mic. 5:2 with 2 Sam. 5:2 = 1 Chron. 11:2, so that readers are sent to two parental scriptures at once, and if 3:17 can recall both Ps. 2:7

splitting (σχίζω; Matt 27:51 vs. διασχίζω; 1 En. 1:7), and the object that is split (rocks; Matt 27:51 vs. earth; 1 En. 1:7). 146 Jude 14–15 quotes 1 En. 1:9 almost verbatim and applies it to Jesus’s return (cf. Matt 16:27; 24:30). “Jude has taken a passage that speaks of a divine theophany and has transformed it into a passage that refers to the advent of Christ”; Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 105; cf. Osburn, “Christological Use of 1 Enoch,” 337; Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word, 1983), 94, 96– 97; Steven J. Kraftchick, Jude, 2 Peter, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 55. It is also noteworthy that Jude and 1 Enoch conceive eschatological judgment against the wicked on account of the crooked words that they speak (Jude 15; 1 En. 1:9) given Jesus’s warning to the Jewish leaders that they can be condemned at the eschatological judgment because of their speech (Matt 12:36–37). 147 With regards to Hays’s method for detecting an echo, the criteria of availability, thematic coherence, and historical plausibility are met. The history of interpretation is lacking. Volume is marginally satisfied given the potential that the language does not display a perfect correlation and could instead allude to Zech 14 or Nah 1:5–6. The criteria for recurrence would be satisfied if there is indeed an echo to 1 En. 10:4a in Matt 22:13a (Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, Die Eschatologie von Hen 9–11 und das Neue Testament, trans. Herbert Ulrich, ÖBS 6 [Lublin: Osterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984], 98–99; David C. Sim, “Matthew 22.13a and 1 Enoch 10.4a: A Case of Literary Dependence?” JSNT 47 [1992]: 3– 19; Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 171–72; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:206; though Luz, Matthew, 3:56 n. 71, “in spite of the similarity between v.13 and Greek Enoch 10.4…I do not think that the Enoch text influenced Matt 22:11–13; cf. France, Matthew, 827 n. 24) or 1 En. 62–63 in Matt 25:31–46 (Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 172–74; Hagner, Matthew, 2:742; though Luz, Matthew, 3:265 n. 12, “there is hardly a literary dependence of Matt 25:31–32 on 1 Enoch; the agreements are limited to the general biblical expression of ‘sitting on the throne of glory.’”).

176

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

and Isa. 42:1, then nothing prohibits the possibility that Matt. 27:45 simultaneously alludes to Exod. 10:22 as well as to Amos 8:9–10.148

To Matt 2:6 and 3:17, Allison could also have added 11:10 (Exod 23:20 + Mal 3:3), 21:5 (Isa 62:11b + Zech 9:9), 21:13 (Isa 56:7 + Jer 7:11), 22:24 (Gen 38:8 + Deut 25:5), and 27:9–10 (Zech 11:13 + Jer 18:2–6, 19:1–13, and/or 32:6– 15); Matthew regularly burdens citations with a double load. It would therefore be perfectly in keeping to see Ezek 37 and the Isa 24–27, Joel 4, Zech 14, and Amos 8:8–10 Days of the Lord of all in the background of his crucifixion scene. In fact, for a Gospel that is predominantly concerned with demonstrating the fulfillment of the OT scriptures in Jesus, it would be quite appropriate. The case is further strengthened in light of the considerable interconnectivity that is exhibited with regards to the Day of the Lord theme across the prophetic corpus, especially in the Book of the Twelve.149 So consistent is this theme at a general level that Barton can conceive of the Day of the Lord concept as “part of a fixed system of popular thought found in all periods” of Israelite prophecy.150 Consequently, it can be asserted with a high degree of confidence that Matthew ties Jesus’s death to the general fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord; Calvary is the pinnacle moment relating to the turn of the ages and to the judgment and salvation expected to occur as part of this epochal shift. Not all read 27:51–53 in such a light, however. Speaking of 27:51–53, Ronald Troxel claims, “Matthew gives no indication elsewhere that ‘the end of the age’ was broached in Jesus’ death … whatever change Jesus’ death (and resurrection) entailed, it did not (in Matthew’s view) usher in ‘the end of the age.’”151 Troxel bases this conclusion on the fact that Jesus’s promise in 28:20 148 Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 83; cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel’s Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), 343, cited in Allison, “Darkness at Noon,” 104, “it is probably inadmissible to confine the OT background [of 27:45] to any single passage.” 149 Rendtorff, “How to Read the Book of the Twelve” and “Alas for the Day!;” Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen; Paul R. House, “Endings as New Beginnings: Returning to the Lord, the Day of the Lord and Renewal in the Book of the Twelve” in Thematic Threads, 337; Nogalski, “Day(s) of YHWH,” 212; Everson, “Canonical Location of Habakkuk,” 167; Craig A. Blaising, “The Day of the Lord: Theme and Pattern in Biblical Theology,” BSac 169 (2012): 3–19; Beck, Der Tag YHWHs. 150 Barton, “Day of Yahweh,” 74. He also states, “there was indeed a consistent and basically hopeful eschatological schema in the minds of many in Israel from quite early times, and…it remained constant over a long time; it was already there before Amos, and it was still there when the second half of Joel was being added to the oracles of Joel himself, perhaps sometime in the fourth century [BCE]. It was also present…at the final redactional level of the prophetic books some time later still” (“Day of Yahweh,” 77). This being said, it must be cautioned that each Day of the Lord presents a particular expression of the general concept; Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen, 284. 151 Ronald L. Troxel, “Matt 27.51–4 Reconsidered: Its Role in the Passion Narrative, Meaning and Origin,” NTS 48 (2002): 32.

B. The Earthquake at Calvary

177

(“I am with you always, to the end of the age”) implies that the present age cannot have given way to the age-to-come at the cross.152 In addition, he holds that if the events of 27:51–53 were functioning as eschatological indicators, it would disrupt the flow of the narrative, sidelining rather than stimulating the centurion’s confession.153 Ulrich Luz is more tempered than Troxel in his assertion but likewise cautions against placing too much emphasis on the eschatological nature of the 27:51–53 events, “In my judgment, it is less certain, even questionable, whether we may speak of an eschatological self-revelation of God, indeed of the epochal turning point expected by the apocalypticists.”154 While Luz grants that the earthquake and opening of the tombs may be interpreted in an eschatological fashion, he notes that the tearing of the veil is not a stock eschatological image. Like Troxel, he claims that the present age does not end at Calvary in Matthew’s narrative; Luz places the epochal turning point at the future parousia of the Son of Man (24:29–31). In addition, he notes that the raised saints do not enter a heavenly Jerusalem but rather an earthly one (27:52–53), which serves as a further indication of the continuing nature of the present age after Jesus’s death. However, Luz correctly recognizes that the eschatological nature of the events cannot be dismissed altogether. He comments on 27:51–53, “what is here portrayed takes place entirely within the old world; it may let the readers catch glimpses of the coming new age but nothing more.”155 Though it is mentioned in passing, Luz’s concession displays considerable insight and functions remarkably well as a summary of the crucifixion cataclysm (27:51–53) and the Gospel as a whole. For, on the one hand, Luz and Troxel are correct to point out that Matthew’s Gospel does not place the definitive end of the old age at the crucifixion, but rather at the future parousia of the Son of Man (24:29–31; 25:6, 19, 31; cf. 7:21–23; 12:41–42; 13:36–43). However, on the other hand, the earthquake and the eschatological Day of the Lord tradition it represents strongly suggest that Jesus’s death is linked with the turn of the ages. So also do the raising of the saints, the inclusion of the gentiles in the people of God, the forgiveness of sins, divine judgment and salvation, the destruction of the temple, and victory over evil, all of which are woven into the Matthean crucifixion scene (see 5.B.II). Thus, while it would be inaccurate to say that the new age is fully realized at the cross, it would be equally mistaken to declare that at Calvary it has not yet begun.156 152

Troxel, “Matt 27.51–4 Reconsidered,” 32. Troxel, “Matt 27.51–4 Reconsidered,” 33. 154 Luz, Matthew, 3:571. 155 Luz, Matthew, 3:571. 156 Allison, End of the Ages, 104–6, argues that the simultaneous present and future reality of the kingdom is explainable in light of the Jewish conception of the kingdom of God as a series of events that extended over a period of time. Cf. Meier, Matthew, 23, “For Mt, the coming of the kingdom is a ‘process event.’ To a degree it was present in the OT (21:43), 153

178

Chapter 5: The σεισμός at the Cross

In addition, it would also be incorrect to view the cross as the sole eschatological event in Matthew’s Gospel. The narrative’s previous assertions about the dawning of the kingdom of heaven,157 the proleptic realizations of Jesus’s death and resurrection that are observed in his birth and ministry,158 and the Gospel’s use of fulfillment language all testify to the fact that it is not Jesus’s death alone that brings about the inauguration of the new age, but rather his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.159 Consequently, the inbreaking of the new age cannot be confined to the crucifixion. At the same time, the crucifixion, and the resurrection to which it is inseparably bound,160 must be seen as forming the “pivotal” moment in the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., the partial fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord).161 The placement of the cross at the climax of the narrative plotline,162 the narrative’s focus on the passion,163 and the integral role that the cross plays with regards to Jesus’s person and mission all discourage thoughts to the contrary. The painting of the crucifixion scene in the colors of the eschatological Day of the Lord likewise strongly suggests that the cross comprises the key moment in the turning point of the ages.164 Thus, while the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus all serve to inaugurate the new age (i.e., to partially fulfill the eschatological Day of the Lord), it is his death and resurrection in particular that form the decisive moment.

comes in the person of Jesus (infancy narrative), impinges even more forcefully during the ministry, breaks in definitively at the death-resurrection of Jesus, and matures in the field of the world until the parousia.” 157 E.g., 3:2; 4:12–16; 11:11–15. 158 See 3.C.III. 159 Witherup, “Death of Jesus,” 584; Kingsbury, Structure, 31–36; Raymond E. Brown, “The Resurrection in Matthew (27:62–28:20),” Worship 64 (1990): 162; Donaldson, Mountain, 210; Howell, Inclusive Story, 77. 160 Note the inseparability of Jesus’s death and resurrection in his passion predictions (16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19). See 6.A.I for the binding of the crucifixion and resurrection scenes through an extensive interweaving of lexical and thematic threads. 161 The term is from Meier, Vision of Matthew, 32, and Hill, “Matthew 27:51–53,” 79, who both label the death-resurrection as “the pivotal eschatological event.” 162 Donald Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985); Powell, “Plot and Subplots,” 187–204; Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 3–8, 84–93 (though Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 91, sees 28:16–20 as the ultimate climax). 163 Note the slowing of discourse time that occurs in Matt 26–27. 164 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 30–32, also correctly suggests the pivotal nature of the death-resurrection event in light of the fact that the scope of the evangelistic mission widens from the house of Israel (10:5–6; 15:24) to all nations (28:16–20; cf. 27:54; 21:33) after the death-resurrection; cf. 29–39, 204–210.

C. Conclusion

179

C. Conclusion In conclusion, the earthquake of 27:51/54 underscores the centrality of the cross with regards to Jesus’s identity as the messianic Son of God. In addition, it indicates that his death represents an eschatological event, one that is connected to the partial fulfillment of both Ezek 37:1–14 and the eschatological Day of the Lord. However, as the earthquake of 28:2 and the many other narratival connections will show, Good Friday cannot be separated from Easter Sunday; it is both Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection that form the pivotal moment in the turn of the ages.

Chapter 6

The Convergence of the Fault Lines Matthew’s resurrection scene represents a point of convergence: it is at Jesus’s empty tomb that the uniquely Matthean dual fault lines of terrestrial tremors (8:24; 27:51, 54; 28:2) and anthropological shaking (21:10; 28:4) merge into a single seismic rift. In recounting the events of Easter Sunday, Matthew alone records an earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας; 28:2) and a shaking (ἐσείσθησαν) in the soldiers guarding the tomb (28:4). While commentators regularly observe the exclusivity of these details and make note of the verbal connection (σει*) between the two events, a deeper significance of the seismic connection is rarely discussed.1 However, as this chapter will argue, the seismic link has a greater role to play in the Matthean narrative than a mere play on words: it underscores the fact that God’s eschatological intervention in Jesus involves both salvation and judgment.

A. The Earthquake of Easter I. Setting the Context Before discussing Matthew’s resurrection scene in particular, it is important to note that in Matthew’s Gospel, Good Friday and Easter Sunday form two sides of the same coin.2 That Matthew has bound the two together as inseparable events is evidenced first in Jesus’s major passion predictions, which all speak of his death and his rising from the dead:

1 Commentators who simply observe the lexical connection include Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:666; Osborne, Matthew, 1066; Hagner, Matthew, 2:869; France, Matthew, 1100; Patte, Matthew, 395; Bruner, Matthew, 2:786; Keith Howard Reeves, The Resurrection Narrative in Matthew: A Literary-Critical Examination (Lewiston: Mellen, 1993), 58. Nolland, Matthew, 1248, connects 28:4 (ἐσείσθησαν) with 27:51 (ἐσείσθη), describing the link as “a certain playfulness” on the part of the author. 2 These are, of course, anachronistic terms.

A. The Earthquake of Easter

181

From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. (16:21; cf. 17:23; 20:18–19)3

In addition, the inseparability of the crucifixion and resurrection accounts is evidenced by the numerous lexical and thematic cords that Matthew has utilized to bind the two scenes together. Chief among these strands is his unique earthquake motif. Of the four canonical Gospels, Matthew alone recounts an earthquake at the cross (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; 27:51; τὸν σεισμόν; 27:54) and an earthquake at the empty tomb (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας; 28:2). In both cases, the earthquakes are introduced with the phrase καὶ ἰδου (27:51; 28:2). In both cases, the earthquake is experienced by those who are guarding Jesus (οἱ τηροῦντες) and is accompanied by great fear (27:54; 28:4).4 Additionally, in both accounts the earthquake is connected to the opening of tombs. At Jesus’s death, the earthquake leads to the splitting of rocks (αἱ πέτραι ἐσχίσθησαν; 27:51) and the opening of tombs (τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν) that had contained the bodies (σώματα) of the saints (27:52–53). Likewise, at the resurrection, an earthquake accompanies the appearance of the angel to open the tomb (μνημεῖον) that had been cut from rock (ὃ ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ) and had contained the body (σῶμα) of Jesus (27:59–60; 28:2).5 Additional strands tighten the link made by the seismic connections. First, the resurrection scene refers directly to the crucifixion when the angel describes Jesus as the one who was crucified (28:5; cf. 27:35, 38). Second, the theme of resurrection is present on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. When Jesus dies, the saints are raised (ἠγέρθησαν; 27:52), while on Easter morning, it is Jesus that is raised (ἠγέρθη; 28:6, 7; cf. 27:63, 64). Furthermore, in the crucifixion account, the revivified saints go into the holy city (εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν; 27:53); in the resurrection scene, the tomb guards go into the city (ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν; 28:11).6 In both the crucifixion and resurrection, darkness yields to light (27:45–51; 28:1).7 In both the crucifixion and resurrection, 3 Though the events are separated by the temporal reference (on the third day), they nevertheless belong together as equally necessary components of Jesus’s role as the messianic Son of God. 4 An additional link is that both groups of guards witness the “things that happened” (τὰ γενόμενα; 27:54; 28:11). 5 Though Jesus does not need the angel in order to exit his tomb. Thus, Nolland, Matthew, 1250, correctly notes that in contrast to the saints, the opening of Jesus’s tomb is not to let Jesus out but rather to let the women in. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that the term “body” (σῶμα) is not utilized in Matthew’s resurrection scene; Zangenberg, “Bodily Resurrection,” 222–23. For the inclusion of 27:59–60 within the resurrection account see below. 6 Regardless of the originality of the disputed phrase μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ (27:53), it is clear that the entrance of the saints into Jerusalem is included in the crucifixion scene and is intended to be linked to Jesus’s death. 7 This is implicit; the observation is that of Allison, “After His Resurrection,” 342.

182

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

multiple Marys are present (ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ; 27:55, 61) and witness what transpires (θεωροῦσαι; 27:55–56; θεωρῆσαι; 28:1).8 These connections are summarized in the table below.9 Table 12: Correlations Linking the Matthean Crucifixion and Resurrection Scenes Death of Jesus

Resurrection of Jesus

27:35, 38

Jesus crucified (σταυρώσαντες, σταυροῦνται)

Reference to Jesus crucified (τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον)

28:5

27:51

καὶ ἰδού

καὶ ἰδού

28:2

27:51, 54

An earthquake occurs (ἡ γῆ ἐσείσθη; σεισμός)

An earthquake occurs (σεισμὸς μέγας)

28:2

27:54

Soldiers (οἱ τηροῦντες) experience an earthquake; are afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα)

Soldiers (οἱ τηροῦντες) experience an earthquake; are afraid (ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου)

28:2, 4

27:54

Soldiers witness τὰ γενόμενα

Soldiers report τὰ γενόμενα

28:11

27:51–52

Earthquake linked to the opening of tombs (μνημεῖα) with bodies (σώματα)

Earthquake linked to the opening of a tomb (μνημεῖον) with Jesus’s body (σῶμα)

27:59–60; 28:2

27:51

Rocks (αἱ πέτραι) split

Jesus’s tomb is carved in rock (ὃ ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ)

27:60

27:52

Saints raised (ἠγέρθησαν)

Jesus raised (ἠγέρθη)

28:6, 7; cf. 27:63, 64

27:53

Saints enter Jerusalem (εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν) to provide testimony

Soldiers enter Jerusalem (ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν) to provide testimony

28:11

8

These are the only occurrences of the term θεωρέω in Matthew’s Gospel. An additional connection may be present with regards to the sight motif: the crucifixion guards believe when they see (ἰδόντες) the effects of the divine intervention (27:54), while the disciples still have doubts even when seeing (ἰδόντες) the risen Lord (28:17; cf. 28:7, 10). The women also see (ἴδετε) the place where Jesus’s body had lain (28:6). However, the prevalence of the term ὁράω in Matthew’s Gospel suggests that these connections should not be overemphasized. 9 Allison, “After His Resurrection,” 342, neatly summarizes most of these connections in a helpful chart. Cf. Riebl, Auferstehung, 63–65.

183

A. The Earthquake of Easter 27:55

Mary Magdalene, another Mary (the mother of James and John), and other women are present (ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ)

Mary Magdalene and another Mary are present (ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ)

27:61

27:55–56

Mary Magdalene and another Mary observe (θεωροῦσαι)

Mary Magdalene and another Mary observe (θεωρῆσαι)

28:1

27:45–51

Darkness turns to light (27:45–51)

Darkness turns to light

28:1

27:36

Guards sit (καθήμενοι) before the cross

Women sit (καθήμεναι) before the tomb

27:61

All of the above suggests that Matthew presents Jesus’s death and resurrection as intricately connected. Easter Sunday and Good Friday must be taken together.10 In addition, Good Friday and Easter Sunday must both be taken as acts of divine intervention. As discussed in the previous chapter, God’s direct intervention is observed on Good Friday in the cataclysmic theophany that follows immediately after Jesus’s death. On Easter Sunday, God’s involvement is evidenced in the twofold assertion that Jesus has been raised (ἠγέρθη) from the dead (28:6, 7). The divine passive in each of these instances suggests that Jesus’s resurrection did not result from Jesus’s own initiative but rather from the power of God. God’s intervention is additionally evidenced in the resurrection scene by the angel that proclaims the stunning message about Jesus. The angel is said to descend from heaven, the realm of God, which makes his arrival similar to the descent of God’s Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (28:2; cf. 3:16).11 In addition, the angel’s appearance is described in the language of Dan 7:9 (Theod.) and 10:6, the former of which describes God himself, the latter God’s agent.12 The description suggests that the angelic figure of Matthew’s resurrection scene 10

Riebl, Auferstehung, 75, “Matthäus zieht keine straffe Trennung zwischen dem Tod und der Auferstehung Jesu; er sieht darin zwei Aspekte eines einzigen Geschehens.” Cf. Meier, “Salvation History,” 209. 11 Matt 28:2: καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; Matt 3:16: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον. Nolland, Matthew, 1247. Of interest in this regard is the claim made by John B. Weaver, Plots of Epiphany: Prison-Escape in Acts of the Apostles, BZNT 131 (New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 99–100, that the “angel of the Lord” and “the spirit” appear to function interchangeably as forms of God’s intervention in Luke-Acts. 12 Matthew 28:3 states that the angel’s appearance was like lightning (ἦν δὲ ἡ εἰδέα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀστραπή) and his clothing was as white as snow (τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡς χιών). Daniel 7:9 Theod. describes the clothing of the Ancient of Days as white like snow (“τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν) while Dan 10:6 LXX describes the face of the divine messenger as bearing resemblance to lightning (τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ὅρασις ἀστραπῆς).

184

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

“carries with him something of the glory of God that both points to his being part of the transcendent supernatural order and the fact that he is acting for, and with the power of, God.”13 The description of the angel as the “ἄγγελος κυρίου” (“angel of the Lord”; 28:2) also plays into this interpretation of the angel’s role. In the Pentateuch especially, the anarthous expression ἄγγελος κυρίου (‫ )מלאך יהוה‬frequently appears to describe the manifestation of God (e.g., Gen 16:7; 22:11, 15; Exod 3:2; Judg 13:3).14 If such a sense is intended by the expression ἄγγελος κυρίου at 28:2, as some commentators argue, the arrival of the ἄγγελος κυρίου would represent the appearance of “God himself in visible form.”15 More likely, however, is that the expression here describes an angelic messenger.16 First, Mark’s resurrection account, upon which Matthew’s is based, describes an angel (literally, a “young man”) rather than the angel of the Lord (16:5).17 So also, Luke’s account of the resurrection describes two angels (literally, “two men”), both of which have the appearance of lightning and thereby resemble Matthew’s figure (24:4; cf. Matt 28:3).18 Moreover, Luke’s infancy narrative uses the expression ἄγγελος κυρίου to describe the angel Gabriel (1:11, 19). Second, if Matthew had intended for the expression to signify God, it is puzzling why he would omit the critical descriptor κυρίου when referring to the figure in 28:5. On the occasions in the OT where ἄγγελος κυρίου describes the angel of the Lord, the entire phrase is consistently utilized throughout the account,19 whereas in cases where the expression does not refer to God, the descriptor κυρίου is not consistently applied.20 Finally, it appears that as 13

Nolland, Matthew, 1248. Cf. Gen 31:10–13 = ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ (‫)מלאך האלהים‬. 15 Meier, Matthew, 361; cf. Riebl, Auferstehung, 64, 74; Gundry, Matthew, 587; Patte, Matthew, 394; Charles Homer Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Matthean Burial-Resurrection Narrative (Matt xxvii. 57-xxviii. 20),” NTS 21 (1975): 409. 16 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:665 n. 20; Nolland, Matthew, 1247; France, Matthew, 1099–1100; Hagner, Matthew, 2:869; Mitch & Sri, Matthew, 366; Osborne, Matthew, 1066; Luz, Matthew, 3:595; Garland, Matthew, 263; Senior, Matthew, 340; Maier, Matthäus, 2:672; Konradt, Matthäus, 454. 17 For young men as angels see 2 Macc 3:26, 33; Acts 1:10; 10:30; Josephus, Ant. 5.277; Gos. Pet. 9.36; 13.55; 2 En. 1:4–7). 18 Though the description of the “two men” is similar to that of Moses and Elijah (Luke 9:30), the figures are clearly identified as angels in Luke 24:23; Robert C. Tannehill, Luke, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 349; David E. Garland, Luke, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 941; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 28A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 1544–45; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 837. 19 E.g., Gen 16:7, 8, 9, 10 11; 22:11, 15; Judg 2:1, 4; 6:11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22; 13:3, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. 20 E.g., Zech 1:11, 12 vs. 1:9, 13, 14; 1 Chr 21:12, 15, 16, 18, 30 vs. 1:15, 27 (also 1:20 in MT). Thus, though from a grammatical standpoint the Matt 28:5 reference ὁ ἄγγελος would not require the attribute κύριου to describe the angel of the Lord (the article could be 14

A. The Earthquake of Easter

185

the biblical tradition developed, the expression ἄγγελος κυρίου became increasingly differentiated from God and identified with a separate angelic figure.21 It would thus be going too far to conclude that the ἄγγελος κυρίου of the resurrection scene directly describes God himself. At the same time, the expression ἄγγελος κυρίου (especially when coupled with the theophanic description of the figure’s appearance in 28:3), serves to associate the angel with God as closely as possible without conflating the two entities.22 As John Weaver cautions, while it is correct to ontologically differentiate the ἄγγελος κυρίου from God, it is equally important not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, too often, however, scholars wishing to emphasize this distinction [between the ἄγγελος κυρίου and God] at an abstract, ontological level, fail to recognize that the ἄγγελος κυρίου continues to be regarded as a powerful divine being, not merely brokering the divine will, but actively representing the divine presence and power to humans. 23

In other words, in the Matthean resurrection narrative the angel should be taken as a direct representative of the Most High.24 Matthew’s redaction of ἄγγελος κυρίου in place of Mark’s “young man” thus significantly heightens the sense of divine involvement in the resurrection of Jesus. As such, the angel at Jesus’s resurrection serves as a counterpoint to the theophany that occurs immediately after Jesus’s death (27:51–53): both the angel and the theophany describe God’s intervention.25 Relatedly, the appearance of the ἄγγελος κυρίου to announce the resurrection forms an inclusio with the threefold appearance of the ἄγγελος κυρίου at the beginning of the Gospel to direct Joseph according to God’s will in dreams

functioning anaphorically with reference to 28:2), the pattern observed in the LXX points towards an angel vs. the angel. 21 Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT 2/109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 19–24; Weaver, Plots of Epiphany, 96–99; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:665 n. 20. 22 See also the exaltation of the angel in Jos. Asen. 13–17, which has traits similar to God but is clearly differentiated from God. 23 Weaver, Plots of Epiphany, 98. 24 Matthew’s casting of the angel as God’s representative does not go as far as 3 Enoch and other Merkabah literature that considerably blurs the boundaries between certain angels and God. It is unlikely that this literature exerted an influence on Matthew’s Gospel; Hannah, Michael and Christ, 115–21; P. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP, 225– 29. 25 Luz, Matthew, 3:595–96, claims that via the presence of the angel, “the evangelist…could not make it clearer that God on his own initiative is intervening in the story…In the resurrection of Jesus God himself actually acted with clear, visible, and traceable consequences. That is why he has the angel descend from heaven, shake the earth, and open the tomb. He creates a powerful sign, unmistakable for all, including the guards, that God is at work here.”

186

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

(1:20; 2:13, 19; cf. 1:24).26 It follows that the Easter angel’s appearance underscores the reality that God is continuing to direct the course of history according to his will by raising Jesus from the dead.27 The fact that this angelic figure now appears in person rather than in a dream suggests that the latter announcement is even more important than the former ones. Indeed, by raising Jesus from the dead, it is evident God has ushered in a qualitatively different era. In Matthew’s milieu, there was at least a considerable expectation that the turn of the ages would involve a resurrection of the dead.28 God’s raising of Jesus therefore indicates that the anticipated age has been inaugurated.29 As is often noted, Matthew’s retelling of this epoch-shifting moment does not include an account of the resurrection itself. In contrast to the Gospel of Peter, which records Jesus walking out of the tomb with two angels and a talking cross (Gos. Pet. 9.35–10.42), Matthew only records the aftermath of the critical moment, framing his narrative as three epiphany scenes: an angelophany at the empty tomb (28:1–7), a Christophany to the women (28:8–10), and a Christophany to the disciples (28:16–20).30 As Heil suggests, central to an epiphany is the information that is revealed; an epiphany scene “narrates a sudden and unexpected manifestation of a divine or heavenly being … in which the divine being reveals a divine attribute, action, or message,” for the purpose of offering the recipients of the manifestation “an opportunity to play a role in God’s salvific dealings with his people.”31 In all three epiphany scenes of Matt 28, essentially the same two pieces of

26 Note also the connection of “do not fear” (1:20; 28:5), announcement (ἀπαγγέλλω; 2:8; 28:8, 10, 11), worship (2:11; 28:9), and joy (2:10; 28:8). 27 It thereby complements the divine necessity (δεῖ) that Jesus attributes to his death and resurrection (16:21; 26:54) and the Gospel’s fulfillment motif, which Jesus also connects to his passion (26:54, 56). 28 Matt 12:41–42; Dan 12:2; Isa 26:19; 2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23; 12:44–45; 4Q385; 4Q521; 1 En. 51:1; 62:15; Sib. Or. 4.179–92; T. Jud. 25:1, 4; T. Benj. 10.6–9; 4 Ezra 7:31–37; 2 Bar. 30:1–5; 42:8; 50:2–4; 51:1–6; Pss. Sol. 3:11–12; LAE 13.3; 41.2; John 5:28–29; Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Heb 6:2; Rev 20:11–13; cf. Hos 6:2; 13:14; Job 14:14; 42:17; Nickelsburg, Resurrection; Wright, Resurrection, 146–206; Senior, “Death of Jesus,” 320– 21; Redactional Study, 319–21; Porter, “Resurrection” 52–81. 29 Allison, End of the Ages, 48, “Matthew 28:2–4 appears to recount the events of Easter morning as though they were events of the last times.” Allison also quotes Schweizer here, “All the elements [of Matt 28:2–4] recall the signs expected to accompany the coming of the Lord at the end of the world and the irruption of the Kingdom of God.” Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 524. 30 Generally defined, an epiphany is a manifestation of a divine being; the term therefore encompasses angelophanies and Christophanies. Weaver, Plots of Epiphany, 30–31, 95. 31 Heil, Transfiguration, 38–39.

A. The Earthquake of Easter

187

information are disclosed: (1) Jesus has been raised from the dead; (2) the truth about Jesus must be shared. The first of these two informative aspects is presented in the angelophany in the form of the angel’s twofold assertion that Jesus has been raised from the dead (28:6, 7). In the subsequent Christophanies, it is presented in physical (as opposed to verbal) form, since it is the risen Christ himself who appears to the women and then to the disciples. The second epiphany component varies in specifics with regards to the women and disciples but nevertheless is uniform in its overall theme. Both the angel and Jesus command the women that they are to announce Jesus’s resurrection to his disciples (28:7, 10); the repetition of this message underscores its importance. The disciples, in turn, are given the Great Commission, the command to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them to obey what Jesus has taught (28:18–20). Both of these commands relate to spreading the truth about Jesus. II. The Easter Earthquake Like the divine passive (28:6, 7) and the angelic herald of the resurrection (28:2–3), the 28:2 reference to the σεισμός also highlights Jesus’s resurrection as an act of divine intervention.32 Although Matthew associates the tremor with the angel’s appearance,33 the quake nevertheless points beyond the angel to God. This conclusion is buttressed by two observations. First, in Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia earthquakes are frequently associated with the appearance or activity of God (or the gods) and only rarely with angelophanies.34 32 Dorothy Jean Weaver, “Matthew 28:1–10,” Int 46 (1992): 400, “that the ‘great earthshaking event’ of 28:2 (cf. 27:51–54) is the action of God stands beyond all question.” 33 “And behold, there was a great earthquake, for (γάρ) an angel of the Lord came down from heaven” (28:2; my translation). Although it is not clear if the γάρ predominantly carries a causal or explanatory function here, it is nevertheless certain that the term establishes a correlation between the earthquake and angel. Black, Sentence Construction, 254–72, esp. 262. 34 See chapter two. Earthquakes are linked to angelic activity in Rev 8:5; 4 Ezra 10:26; 3 En. 15:2; 22:2, 9. In Rev 8:5, after the seventh seal is opened, an earthquake occurs along with thunder, lightning, and rumblings when an angel throws the golden censer on the earth. While the tremor is attributed to the actions of the angel, it nevertheless describes the activity of God: the book elsewhere connects thunder, rumblings, lightning, and earthquakes to theophany (4:5; 11:19; 16:18), and in the parallel structures of seven seals, trumpets, and bowls, the seventh event represents God’s final judgment. Thus, in Rev 8:5 the angel is acting on behalf of God, with the earthquake pointing to divine activity, which is the same sense conveyed in Matt 28:2. In 4 Ezra 10:26 and 3 Enoch, the earthquakes are truly accompaniments of angelophanies. In 4 Ezra 10:26, personified Jerusalem’s voice shakes the earth, while in 3 Enoch, earthquakes attend the presence of Meṭaṭron (15:2) and Kerubiʾel YHWH (22:2, 9). However, with regards to these latter two figures, the earthquakes still retain a significant degree of theophanic connotation, for both Meṭaṭron and Kerubiʾel YHWH mediate the

188

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

Second, the earthquake of 27:51/54, which is linked with the earthquake of 28:2, is clearly attributable to God’s direct intervention. Thus, it is highly likely that the 28:2 σεισμός carries a theophanic connotation.35 As such, it functions like the allusion to Dan 7:9 in the description of the angel’s appearance (28:3): it underscores that the angel is acting as an emissary of the Most High, mediating God’s power and presence. It therefore points to the fact that God is the one who has orchestrated Jesus’s resurrection. In addition, the earthquake imparts an eschatological connotation to the scene. Earthquakes are eschatologically charged symbols, often functioning as a stock eschatological image (24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11; 2 Bar. 27:7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 9:3; Apoc. Ab. 30:6, 8). Moreover, in the OT earthquakes are frequently associated with prophecies related to God’s eschatological intervention, especially those that describe the eschatological Day of the Lord (e.g., Isa 24:18, 20; Ezek 38:19; Joel 2:10; 4:16 LXX; Hag 2:6, 21; Zech 14:5). As argued in the previous chapter, it is highly likely that Matthew mentions the 27:51/54 earthquake to help cast Jesus’s death as a fulfillment of this prophetic event. Given that the resurrection is inseparably bound to the crucifixion, with the 27:54–28:2 earthquake motif forming one of the main cords, it is highly likely that Matthew envisions both the crucifixion and the resurrection as connected to the eschatological Day of the Lord’s fulfillment. This can be illustrated in the case of the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord, which involves an earthquake (24:18, 20) and God’s judgment of the wicked (24:1– 12, 17–18, 21–22; 25:10–12; 26:5, 14, 21) along with God’s salvation of the righteous (25:9), his removal of their sins (27:9), and his raising of their bodies (26:19).36 In addition, the day is said to involve God’s defeat of death (25:8),37 his enthronement on Mount Zion (24:23), and a great feast for all nations on Zion in celebration of that enthronement (25:6). As discussed in 5.B.II.2, many of these themes are evident in Matthew’s crucifixion scene. When the resurrection is also taken into account, it presents several developments. First, Easter Sunday advances what was suggested by the raising of the saints at the crucifixion (27:52–53): that God has swallowed up death in Jesus. Second, by providing the definitive response to the doubts of the mockers (27:40–43), the resurrection proves that the crucified Jesus was acting on God’s behalf and fully capable of saving his people from their sins. Third, it is in the resurrection account that Jesus, who mediates God’s presence (1:23;

divine presence. Meṭaṭron is called “Prince of the Divine Presence” and “the lesser YHWH” (12:5) while Kerubiʾel YHWH carries the bow of the Shekinah across his shoulders (22:5). Thus, even in these scenes, the earthquakes point beyond the angels to God. 35 Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2:493, “Das Beben ist ein rein theophanes Element.” 36 Though Isa 26:19 can be taken metaphorically as depicting national restoration, there is good reason to interpret it as a reference to literal resurrection; see 5.B.II.2. 37 Refer to page 171 n. 117 for the LXX on this verse.

B. The Shaking of the Guards

189

18:20) manifests his glory to the women and to the disciples (28:9, 17).38 Relatedly, while standing on a mountain he is “enthroned” as the one who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18), and it is in this context that he invites the gentiles to participate in the kingdom of God (28:19).39 Moreover, as will be discussed below, it is in Matthew’s resurrection account that the differentiation between the righteous and the wicked becomes especially manifest. Before addressing the latter point, it should be noted that the 28:2 earthquake also connects Jesus’s resurrection to his public ministry. It is significant that Matthew uses nearly the same language when describing the maritime quake that occurs in Galilee (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο; 8:24) and the earthquake that occurs at Easter (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας; 28:2). This connection, along with other correspondences observed between the Matt 8–9 miracle accounts and the accounts of Jesus’s death and resurrection, suggest that Jesus’s ministry in Galilee is a prolepsis of what occurs in the death-resurrection event.40 Relatedly, the earthquakes in 8:24, 27:51/54, and 28:2 reinforce the fact that God’s eschatological intervention encompasses all of Jesus’s earthly existence, even if the intervention is most focused in Jesus’s death and resurrection.41

B. The Shaking of the Guards I. Setting the Context Were it not for the eschatological coloring that Matthew has given to his resurrection account by way of the 28:2 σεισμός, one might be tempted to view the shaking of the tomb guards solely as a physiological manifestation of the fear that they experience on account of the angel. Granted, a physiological interpretation is the majority position in scholarship, and it is certainly justified 38 Though admittedly the theme of glory is more indirect than explicit in the resurrection scenes. 39 Donaldson, Mountain, 183, “Virtually every time that [the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη] appears in connection with a description of the eschatological intervention of the Gentiles, it is in a passage which deals explicitly with the themes of Zion eschatology. Of particular interest are those passages in Isaiah where πάντα τὰ ἔθνη and τὸ ὄρος occur together: Is 2:2f…Is 25:6…and Is 56.7.…So in view of what has been said about the salvation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Jewish tradition, the appearance of both τὸ ὄρος and πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in [Matt] 28.16–20 cannot help but suggest that the mountain fellowship into which the Gentiles are being invited is to be seen against the background of Zion eschatology.” Cf. Donaldson, Mountain, 180, “enthronement ideas are undoubtedly present in the declaration concerning the bestowal of authority in v. [28:]18b.” 40 See 3.C.III. 41 See 5.B.III.

190

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

by a surface level reading of the text. Matthew states, “from fear of him the guards shook (ἐσείσθησαν) and became like dead men” (28:4).42 A physiological interpretation is also justified by the semantic domain of the verb σείω, which encompasses a trembling induced by fear.43 For example, Job is said to shake (σείομαι) in all his limbs because of fear (Job 9:28), and Enoch is seized by fearful trembling when he enters the great marble house of his vision: “fear (φόβος) covered me and trembling (τρόμος) seized me. And as I shook and trembled (ἤμην σειόμενος καὶ τρέμων), I fell on my face and saw a vision” (1 En. 14:13b-14).44 According to this reading, the guards’ fearful trembling on Easter represents a stock component of the normal pattern for an epiphany: (1) a divine being appears, (2) the manifestation of the divine being evokes terror in the human witness(es), and (3) the divine figure mitigates the fear of the human(s) via a command to not be afraid.45 All three elements of the pattern are present in Matthew’s resurrection account: a divine being appears (the angel; 28:2), the guards are shaken from fear of the divine being (28:4), and the divine being gives a subsequent command not to be afraid (μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς; 28:5). Seen in this light, the seismic reaction of the tomb guards in the epiphany of Easter Sunday can be considered analogous to the troubled reaction of the disciples in the epiphany that takes place on the Sea of Galilee. In the latter, when Jesus appears walking on the sea, the disciples are disturbed (ἐταράχθησαν) and cry out in fear (ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν) because they think he is a ghost, which leads Jesus to reassure them by issuing a command to fear no more (μὴ φοβεῖσθε; 14:25–27). However, while a physiological interpretation of the guards’ shaking on Easter is certainly not erroneous, it is ultimately too shallow to do justice to the Matthean context. As discussed above, in large part by way of his seismic motif, Matthew suggests that Jesus’s death and resurrection relate to a particular type of epiphany: the eschatological Day of the Lord. This event describes God’s intervention at the turn of the ages to establish his kingdom on earth; it is an intrusion that involves the judgment of the wicked and the salvation of 42

My translation. BDAG, 918; LSJ, 1589. The synonyms σαλεύω and συσσείω can also have this connotation: σαλεύω: Sir 48:12, 19; LXX Ps 32:8; συσσείω: Job 4:14. 44 Trans. E. Isaac, OTP. 45 E.g., Ezek 1:11–13, 28–30; Dan 8:15–18; 10:5–12, 15–19; Luke 1:11–13, 28–30; 2:8– 10; Rev 1:12–17; 1 En. 71:3; 2 En. 1:7–8; 4 Ezra 6:29–33; Apoc. Abr. 9:1–3; 10:1–7. In addition to 14:25–27, in Matthew’s Gospel this pattern is also well illustrated in the transfiguration, where the voice of God causes Peter, James, and John to fall to the ground in terror, after which Jesus touches them, telling them to rise and to not be afraid (μὴ φοβεῖσθε; 17:5–7). As discussed above, for the present discussion an epiphany is generally defined as a manifestation of a divine being, with an angelophany representing a particular type of epiphany. 43

B. The Shaking of the Guards

191

the righteous. The dualism depicted in the eschatological Day of the Lord is thus severe: for the righteous the Day of the Lord brings joy and life; for the wicked it entails only terror and destruction.46 This is well illustrated in the Day of the Lord of Isa 24–27. As described above, for the righteous this event involves salvation (25:9), the forgiveness of sins (27:9), resurrection from death (26:19), and joy (24:14). For the wicked, however, the day spells judgment and terror: 17 Terror, and the pit, and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth! 18 Whoever flees the terror shall fall into the pit; and whoever climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth are shaken (σεισθήσεται). 19 The earth is utterly distressed (ταραχῇ ταραχθήσεται), the earth is astounded, 20 Like a hut the earth collapses (ἔκλινεν) and is shaken (σεισθήσεται), like a drunkard it falls and cannot rise; its transgression has overcome it. (Isa 24:17–20 LXX) 47

Moreover, in contrast to the righteous who experience resurrection on the Day of the Lord, Isaiah declares that the wicked will not rise and experience life on this day because God has punished and destroyed them (26:14). A similar theme is captured in the eschatological Day of the Lord of Ezekiel. Ezekiel likewise declares that the eschatological advent of God in judgment will generate massive seismic upheaval: there will be a great earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας) in the land of Israel (38:19). Ezekiel also claims that in addition to the shaking of the land will be the shaking of all creatures, including all people, on account of God’s wrathful presence (σεισθήσονται ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου; 38:19–20).48 For the wicked, this moment spells inescapable judgment (38:21–23). For God’s people, however, this intervention spells deliverance and ushers in an era of peace (39:9–10), restoration (39:25, 27), and reconciliation with God (39:25–29). It further results in the knowledge of God among all the nations (38:23; 39:7, 21). Ezekiel’s mention of both a σεισμὸς μέγας 46

In addition to the Days of the Lord cited below, cf. Zech 14; Joel 3:1–4:21 (LXX); Hag 2:21–23. For an overview of the Day of the Lord concept, see 2.A.I.2. 47 My translation. The Hebrew text differs slightly but conveys the same idea: “Terror, and the pit, and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth! 18 Whoever flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and whoever climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble. 19 The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken. 20 The earth staggers like a drunkard, it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again.” (NRSV) 48 Cf. Isa 19:1 for shaking (σείω) from a theophany of judgment.

192

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

(38:19) and the cognate verbal form σείω (38:20) in close narrative proximity is striking given that Matthew also includes both a σεισμὸς μέγας (28:2) and human shaking (ἐσείσθησαν; 28:4) in his resurrection account. When one further considers that a σεισμὸς μέγας is mentioned on only three occasions in the LXX (Jer 10:22; Ezek 3:12; 38:19), and that of these three occurrences only Ezek 38:19 additionally contains a reference to the verb σείω, the possibility of an allusion in the Matthean resurrection account becomes more prominent.49 Ezekiel’s prophecy is echoed closely in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles, which preserves the shaking of the earth and the shaking of the created order while accentuating the themes of terror and final judgment for the wicked.50 And God will speak, with a great voice, To the entire ignorant empty-minded people, and Judgment will come upon them from the great God, and all will perish … The all-bearing earth will be shaken (σαλεύσεται) in those days by the hand of the Immortal, and the fish in the sea and all the wild beasts of the earth and innumerable tribes of birds, all the souls of men and all the sea will shudder (φρίξει) before the face of the Immortal and there will be a terror (φόβος). (Sib. Or. 3.669–71, 675–79) 51

As the account goes on to declare, in contrast to the wicked, God will be a shield for the righteous on this terrible day (3.705). The righteous will live, and even rejoice, because of God’s intervention (3.702–3, 715, 726). Rather than

49 With regards to Hays’s method for detecting an echo, the volume criterion appears satisfied. Availability and recurrence are met given the allusion to Ezek 37:12 in the crucifixion scene (see 5.B.II) as well as probable allusions to Ezek 34 in Matthew’s depiction of Jesus as the Davidic shepherd (cf. Chae, Eschatological Davidic Shepherd; Heil, “Ezekiel 34;” Zacharias, Son of David). If one accepts the overall argument of this chapter that the Matthean crucifixion and resurrection scenes depict the turn of the ages, thematic coherence is also satisfied. An eschatological interpretation of Ezek 38 is historically plausible, as evidenced by Sib. Or. 3.669–79 (see below). Only the history of interpretation fails to receive a check mark. One can therefore tentatively conclude that Matt 28:2 contains an echo of Ezek 38:19. 50 Like Rev 6:12–17 and 1 En. 102–104 that are also cited below, Sib. Or. 3.663–731 presents an extension of the prophetic Day of the Lord concept given its temporal and ethical dualism and its conception of an eschatological divine intervention that involves salvation and judgment. John J. Collins, OTP, dates the third Sibylline Oracle from 163 to 45 BC. He additionally claims that 3.663–731 fall within the oldest section of the book; “The Sibylline Oracles” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 365. 51 Trans. John J. Collins, OTP. The theme of final judgment is continued in 3.680–701, after which the salvation of the elect is presented (3.702–31).

B. The Shaking of the Guards

193

destruction, they will experience flourishing and peace (3.741–55) and they will receive the eschatological kingdom (3.767–95) on account of the event. A similar image is also presented in Revelation: When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake (σεισμὸς μέγας); the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” (6:12–17)

As Revelation implies, those who are able to stand are those who have followed the lamb (7:9). Rather than experiencing God’s wrath and utter terror like the wicked do when God appears at the end of the ages, these people experience salvation and life because they have aligned themselves with God through Jesus (7:10, 13–17). The same contrast between the righteous and wicked is also found in 1 Enoch’s depiction of the final judgment. For the righteous, God’s eschatological intervention involves vindication, joy, and life (103:1–4; 104:1–6). For the wicked however, it is disaster: When he casts upon you burning waves of fire, where shall you flee to be saved (σωθήσεσθε)? When he utters his voice against you, you will be shaken (συνσειόμενοι) and tremble (φοβούμενοι) greatly. 2 The whole earth shall be shaken (σειομένην) and tremble (τρέμουσαν) and be disturbed (συνταρασσομένην). 3 The angels shall fulfill their orders, and the heavens and the stars will be shaken (σειόμενοι) and tremble (τρέμοντες). All the children of the earth and you, O sinners, are accursed forever; there is no joy for you. 4 Be encouraged, souls of the righteous dead, you who are righteous and godly. (1 En. 102:1–4)52

In sum, all of the above accounts describe God’s eschatological intervention as an earth-shaking event and declare that it will be experienced in a dramatically different fashion by the righteous and the wicked, with the former experiencing salvation and life and the latter only wrath and terror. Moreover, in several instances, the eschatological terror of the wicked manifests as shaking (Ezek 38:20; Sib. Or. 3.679; 1 En. 102:1).

52

My translation of the Greek text. The Ethiopic is similar: “In those days, when he hurls out against you terrors of fire, where shall you flee, and where shall you find safety? When he flings his word against you, will you not faint and fear? 2 All the luminaries shall faint with great fear; the whole earth shall be faint and tremble and panic. 3 All the angels shall fulfill their orders. The children of the earth will seek to hide themselves from the presence of the Great Glory, trembling and confused. You, sinners, you are accursed forever; there is no peace for you! 4 But you, souls of the righteous, fear not; and be hopeful, you souls that died in righteousness.” (trans. E. Isaac, OTP).

194

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

II. The Shaking of the Guards In light of the above, it is no surprise to find that Matthew’s seismically accented presentation of Jesus’s death and resurrection also displays a robust dualism between forces that are aligned with God (i.e., the righteous) and forces that oppose him (i.e., the wicked). In the crucifixion scene, the women, the disciples, and the guards at the cross represent those who are aligned with God. The women faithfully follow Jesus even to the very end, where they watch his execution on the cross (27:55–56). Though the disciples fall short of the women by failing to be present at Golgotha, they nevertheless faithfully follow Jesus throughout the Gospel narrative and at least express a desire to follow him to death (26:33–35). The crucifixion guards likewise must be counted among those aligned with God. Though they are the ones who actually execute Jesus, the panoply of cataclysmic events following Jesus’s death leads them to proclaim the truth about Jesus’s identity as the Son of God (27:54) and thereby align themselves with the disciples (14:33; 16:16) and God himself (3:17; 17:5).53 On the other side at Calvary are those who express hostility towards Jesus. This group is primarily constituted by the Jewish leaders, who are the driving force behind Jesus’s execution and serve as the representative face of christological hostility in Matthew’s Gospel. In addition to the leaders are those who pass by Jesus on the cross; both the crowd and the Jewish leaders mock Jesus in denial of his identity (“if you are the Son of God”) and his ability to save (27:40–41, 42–43). By denying Jesus’s sonship in their mockery, this group forms an obvious contrast with the centurion and his guards who endorse it in their proclamation (27:54). The contrast in human response is even more pronounced in Matthew’s resurrection account. As many commentators have noticed, the account is structured as an alternating sequence that juxtaposes favorable and antithetical responses to God’s eschatological intervention in Jesus.54 53 Sim, “Confession,” has disputed this interpretation. See 5.A.II.4 for a response to Sim’s position. 54 Significantly, much of the material in Matthew’s resurrection account is unique to Matthew (27:62–66; 28:4, 11–15; 16–20). For general agreement with the above structure see Reeves, Resurrection Narrative, 9–22, esp. 19–21 (who recognizes the same structure as the one presented above but begins with 27:55); Giblin, “Matthean Burial-Resurrection Narrative,” 406–20 (who ultimately finds a chiasm); Wim Weren, “Matthew’s Stories about Jesus’ Burial and Resurrection” in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel, 190; Brown, “Resurrection,” 158–59, and Death, 2:1302 (Brown delineates 27:57–61 as a separate burial scene but nonetheless also includes it in a fivefold narrative structure that matches the one outlined above); Luz, Matthew, 3:584, (who has the same view as Brown); Meier, Matthew, 357 (who describes the alternating pattern as a “leap frog effect”); John Paul Heil, “The Narrative Structure of Matthew 27:55–28:20,” JBL 110 (1991): 419–38 (who demarcates 27:55–28:20 differently but still recognizes the contrasts in human response). Gnilka,

195

B. The Shaking of the Guards

Table 13: Alternating Structure of the Matthean Resurrection Account 27:57–61

27:62–66

28:1–10

28:11–15

28:16–20

The disciple Joseph of Arimathea before Pilate; women at tomb (favorable)

The Jewish leaders before Pilate; guards at tomb (antithetical)

The women and the truth about the resurrection (favorable)55

The Jewish leaders, the tomb guards, and the resurrection lie (antithetical)

The disciples and the Great Commission (favorable)56

In this interchange schema, it is the women and disciples who respond favorably to God’s intervention in Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea, who is labeled a disciple of Jesus (27:57), displays considerable courage in approaching Pilate to ask for Jesus’s body so that he might give Jesus a proper burial (27:58). The women likewise display alignment with God by seeking Jesus at his tomb (28:1, 5).57 When the angel appears, they are told to proclaim the truth about Jesus’s resurrection to his disciples (28:7), a command to which they respond in obedience, swiftly leaving the empty tomb with fear and great joy (28:8).58 When they encounter the risen Jesus, the women fall down and worship him, thereby providing the highest possible endorsement of Jesus’s identity (28:9). When commanded a second time to report the good news to Jesus’s disciples (28:10), the women do as they are told, as evidenced by the fact that the disciples travel to Galilee in hopes of encountering Jesus (28:16). These hopes are Matthäusevangelium, 2:481, observes that the Easter story begins at 27:57. Pre-modern readers have also considered the resurrection account to begin with Joseph of Arimathea, as evidenced in the titloi (section headings) of Codex Alexandrinus, which delineates 27:57– 28:20 as a single section. See Greg Goswell, “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus,” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 142–53. 55 Though the tomb guards are also mentioned (28:4), the overall focus is on the women. 56 Though doubt remains (28:17). 57 Matthew 28:1 states that they go to see (θεωρέω) the tomb; the angel says in 28:5 that they are present at the tomb because they are seeking (ζητέω) Jesus. Given the numerous parallels between Matthew’s infancy narrative and resurrection account (for parallels see the next two footnotes as well as Brown, “Resurrection,” 159–63; Main, “Narrative-critical Examination,” 45–74), the women’s seeking of Jesus with positive intent (28:5) likely contrasts Herod’s seeking (ζητέω) of Jesus in order to murder him (2:13, 20). Warren Carter, “‘To See the Tomb’: Matthew’s Women at the Tomb,” ExpTim 107 (1996): 201–6, argues that the women went to see the tomb in anticipation of the resurrection, a claim that has merit especially given the emphasis on seeing in the resurrection narrative (28:1 [θεωρέω]; 28:6, 7, 10, 17 [ὁράω]). If Carter is correct, this would provide a further contrast between the women, who are present at the tomb in hope of the resurrection, and the guards, who are present at the tomb in hope that it will not occur. 58 In being filled with great joy (χαρᾶς μεγάλης; 28:8) and worshiping Jesus (προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ; 28:9), the women resemble the magi, who likewise experienced great joy (ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα; 2:10) immediately before they worship the infant Jesus (προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ; 2:11).

196

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

not disappointed, for the disciples behold the risen Jesus (28:17), just as Jesus and the angel had predicted (28:7, 10). Like the women, the disciples respond in worship when they encounter the risen Lord (28:17).59 They are then commissioned with the task of reporting the gospel to the entire world (28:18–20). By their veneration of Jesus and obedience to divine commands, these characters demonstrate their alignment with God and his purposes. In contrast are those who oppose the will of God, the Jewish leaders and the tomb guards who act on their behalf. The leaders obtain the guards by gathering (συνήχθησαν) before Pilate,60 whom, significantly, they address as “lord” (κύριε),61 and asking Pilate to command (κέλευσον) that Jesus’s tomb be secured for three days (27:62–64). In doing so, the leaders serve as a foil to Joseph of Arimathea, who had approached Pilate to ask for Jesus’s body and had received Pilate’s order (ἐκέλευσεν) that his request be granted (27:57–58). While Joseph’s motivation had been to honor Jesus, the Jewish leaders approach Pilate out of a christological hostility. As they declare to Pilate, they seek a contingent of soldiers to prevent Jesus’s disciples from falsely validating the prediction that Jesus had made about his resurrection by stealing Jesus’s body and reporting that he had risen from the dead (27:62–64).62 Pilate grants their request, providing them with a consort of Roman soldiers (κουστωδία) in what appears to be another attempt to pacify the leaders while distancing himself from what follows (27:65; cf. 27:24).63 After receiving the 59

However, the fact that the disciples are simultaneously said to doubt (οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν; 28:17) casts the women in a better light than the disciples. The same pattern is thereby observed at the resurrection as at the crucifixion: both the women and disciples are aligned with Jesus, but the women exhibit a more impressive form of discipleship. That the disciples worship Jesus after seeing him (καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν; 28:17) is reminiscent of the magi, who likewise worship Jesus after seeing him (εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ; 2:11). 60 The religious leaders frequently gather together (συνάγω) in opposition to Jesus, especially as it concerns his death (22:34, 41; 26:3, 57; 27:17, 62; 28:12; cf. 2:4); cf. Anderson, Narrative Web, 113–16. 61 Unlike Jesus’s followers, who always address him as κύριε in Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders and Judas Iscariot never address him using this title. 62 The leaders thus resemble the angel in remembering Jesus’s resurrection predictions (28:6). The narrative does not explain how they come by this privileged information. Reeves, Resurrection Narrative, 48, and Weren, “Matthew’s Stories,” 193, suggest that they deduce it from Jesus’s remarks about the sign of Jonah (12:40). 63 The form ἔχετε can be taken as imperatival, which would imply the soldiers belong to Pilate (“take [my] soldiers”) or as indicative, which would imply that Pilate is referring to the temple guards (“you have soldiers”). It is likely that Roman soldiers are in view here. First, other verbs in the sentence are clearly imperative (ὑπάγετε; ἀσφαλίσθε) given the context. Second, if these were not Roman soldiers, the Jewish leaders would not need to worry about Pilate’s response to the lie that the soldiers spread about the resurrection (28:14); Brown, “Resurrection,” 161. Third, Matthew contrasts the soldiers at the cross with the soldiers at the tomb, and the former are clearly Roman. Finally, the Gospel of Peter describes

B. The Shaking of the Guards

197

soldiers, the leaders position them at the tomb to ensure that the stone remains in place in front of the entrance (27:66). The tomb guards thus embody the desire of the Jewish leaders to prevent the resurrection from occurring.64 Despite its careful orchestration, the attempt of the leaders fails utterly: the soldiers are completely powerless to keep the tomb closed, Jesus’s body within, and the report about his resurrection from circulating.65 Rather than hindering the angel from opening the tomb, the guards are held motionless in a terrified impotence (28:4). In contrast to the women, who are twice told not to be afraid (28:5, 10), the fear of the guards is never broken by divine reassurance. Presumably, in this state of paralysis the guards are able to observe the angel’s interaction with the women and are thereby privy to the same message that the women receive regarding Jesus’s resurrection (28:5–7).66 That this is the case is suggested by the similarity observed between the guards and the women in the aftermath of the angelic encounter: Matthew narrates that at the exact moment when the women are going to report (ἀπαγγείλατε) Jesus’s resurrection to his disciples (28:8, 10), the guards go into the city to report (ἀπήγγειλαν)67 everything that they had witnessed to the chief priests (28:11). The Easter briefing from the tomb guards should have vindicated Jesus in the eyes of the Jewish leaders: beyond validating Jesus’s passion predictions (28:6; cf. 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:18–19; 27:63), the resurrection also represents the divine deliverance and victory over the cross that the leaders had demanded at Golgotha as grounds for their belief (27:42–43). Moreover, it serves as the sign of Jonah, the only sign that Jesus had promised the leaders when they had previously demanded proof of his identity (12:38–40; 16:4).68 However, rather these soldiers as Roman. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:655; Brown, Death, 2:1294– 95; Gundry, Matthew, 584; Reeves, Resurrection Narrative, 30. 64 As evidenced by 27:62–64, the leaders can only conceive of the possibility of an artificial resurrection that is orchestrated by the disciples. 65 Weaver, “Matthew 28:1–10,” 400, notes how the divine intervention of Easter Sunday “counteracts all the security precautions taken by Jesus’ opponents.” 66 Tobias Nicklas, “Resurrection in the Gospels of Matthew and Peter: Some Developments,” in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel, 31, reasons that the emphasis on the “sensual perception” and “first hand experience” of the tomb guards in Gos. Pet. 9.36–42 indicates that the author of Gos. Pet. “seems to understand Matt 28:4 in a way that the guards experienced the events of Jesus’ resurrection.” 67 Following the NA27 and UBS4 in taking ἀπήγγειλαν as the text as opposed to the variant ἀνήγγειλαν (‫ א‬D Θ); see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 60. 68 Though other interpretations for the sign of Jonah have been put forward, and though the three days and three nights (12:40; cf. Jonah 2:1) do not fit precisely with Matthew’s account of Jesus’s death (though 27:63–64), the association is nevertheless close enough for Jesus’s death and resurrection to be understood as the sign of Jonah. Moreover, the association is strengthened by the comments about resurrection that follow immediately afterwards in 12:41–42. Nolland, Matthew, 511–12; Gundry, Matthew, 244–45; Luz, Matthew, 2:217– 18; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:355–56; Hagner, Matthew, 1:354.

198

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

than responding favorably to Jesus like they had promised (27:42–43) and like the women and disciples do (28:9, 17), the leaders continue in their recalcitrant antagonism. They pay the soldiers money (ἀργύρια; 28:12, 15) to betray the truth of the resurrection in the same way that they had payed Judas money (ἀργύρια) to betray Jesus into their hands (26:15; 27:3, 5, 6, 9). Rather than embracing the truth, they choose to circulate a lie, telling the soldiers to announce that Jesus’s disciples had stolen his body (28:13). Ironically, this is the very lie that they had initially tried to prevent (27:64).69 The guards are equally complicit in this diabolical enterprise.70 Though privy to the truth of the resurrection in the same way as the women, in contrast to the women the guards ultimately spread a lie about the resurrection (28:15). Doing as they are instructed (ἐδιδάχθησαν) by the Jewish leaders (28:15), the guards spread a message that attempts to undo the resurrection by claiming that it never happened. Beyond contrasting the women, the guards also contrast the disciples, who follow God’s will by teaching (διδάσκοντες) others to obey Jesus’s commands (28:18).71 The guards at the tomb additionally contrast the guards at the cross. Both the guards at the cross and the guards at the tomb are described as οἱ τηροῦντες (27:54 / 28:2).72 Both the guards at the cross and the guards at the tomb experience an earthquake (27:54 / 28:2) as well as “the things that occurred” (τὰ γενόμενα; 27:54 / ἅπαντα τὰ γενόμενα; 28:11). Both the guards at the cross and the guards at the tomb are terrified by God’s intervention (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα; 27:54 / ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ; 28:4). However, the two groups do not react in the same manner. While God’s intervention at the cross leads the centurion and his guards to confess “truly this was the Son of God!” (27:54), 69 There is a considerable degree of irony present in Matthew’s resurrection scene. For example, in addition to circulating the lie that they had initially tried to prevent, the leaders also end up deceiving people (28:15) when they had characterized Jesus as one who had deceived others (27:63). By remembering that Jesus would rise from the dead, they unwittingly testify to the truth of the resurrection (27:64). Positioning the guards at the tomb for fear of the disciples is also ironic given the disciples’ absence at Calvary; the leaders do not realize that God, not the disciples, is the real threat. It is also ironic that the guards also become as dead when the dead man they were supposed to guard comes to life (28:4–6); Reeves, Resurrection Narrative, 15, 49, 58–59. 70 The tomb guards are clearly identified with the Jewish leaders and Jerusalem and thus clearly belong to the forces of christological opposition in Matthew’s Gospel; cf. 4.A.III. 71 Heil, Death and Resurrection, 106, notes that the money that the leaders give (ἔδωκαν) to the soldiers to spread the lie pales in comparison to the authority given (ἐδόθη) to Jesus to make disciples. 72 Both of the references are Matthean redactions. Matthew has modified Mark’s ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ (15:39) to Ὁ δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν (27:54). The 27:62–66, 28:4, and 28:11–15 references to the guards are all unique to Matthew. Significantly, Matthew refers to these figures as κουστωδία apart from 28:4 (27:65, 66; 28:11).

199

B. The Shaking of the Guards

God’s intervention at Easter does not engender a similar proclamation from the guards present at the tomb. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus’s identity, instead proclaiming a lie. The contrasts present in Matthew’s crucifixion and resurrection scenes are summarized in the following table. Table 14: Characterization in the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Account Characters Opposed to God

Characters Aligned with God Crucifixion

27:40

27:43

Passers-by mock Jesus over his claim to be the Son of God (σῶσον σεαυτόν, εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ) Jewish leaders mock Jesus over his claim to be the Son of God (εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός).

Crucifixion guards confess that Jesus is truly the Son of God (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος)

27:54

Resurrection 27:62–64

Jewish leaders are gathered (συνήχθησαν) before Pilate to request that Pilate order (κέλευσον) the tomb to be sealed

Joseph of Arimathea comes (προσελθών) to Pilate to ask for Jesus’s body. Pilate commands (ἐκέλευσεν) the body to be released

27:57–58

27:63

Jewish leaders remember what Jesus had said about his resurrection

Angel remembers what Jesus had said about his resurrection

28:6

27:64

Jewish leaders desire to prevent the disciples from proclaiming that Jesus has been raised from the dead

Angel and Jesus desire that disciples know (and presumably proclaim) that Jesus has been raised from the dead

28:7, 10

27:64–66

Jewish leaders try to keep tomb sealed

Angel opens the tomb

28:2

27:66

Guards present at Jesus’s tomb

Women present at Jesus’s tomb

27:61; 28:1

28:4

Tomb guards are afraid because of the angel (ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ)

Angel tells women not to fear (μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς)

28:5, 10

28:11

Tomb guards go (ἔρχομαι) into Jerusalem and report

Women go (πορεύομαι, ὑπάγω) and report

28:8, 10

200

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines (ἀπήγγειλαν) what they saw to chief priests

(ἀπαγγείλατε) the resurrection to the disciples

28:13

Jewish leaders direct tomb guards to tell (εἴπατε) a lie about the resurrection

Angel and Jesus command women to tell (εἴπατε) the disciples the truth about the resurrection

28:7, 10

28:15

Tomb guards do as Jewish leaders instruct them (ἐδιδάχθησαν)

Disciples teach (διδάσκοντες) others to do what Jesus had commanded

28:20

28:11– 15; cf. 27:42

Jewish leaders and tomb guards refuse to acknowledge Jesus’s identity

Women and disciples worship Jesus

28:9, 17

The Guards 28:2

Guards (οἱ τηροῦντες) at tomb experience divine intervention that includes an earthquake (σεισμός)

Guards (οἱ τηροῦντες) at crucifixion experience divine intervention that includes an earthquake (σεισμός)

27:54

28:4

Guards are afraid (ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ)

Guards are afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα)

27:54

28:11

Guards report τὰ γενόμενα

Guards witness τὰ γενόμενα

27:54

28:15

Guards proclaim a lie about the resurrection

Guards proclaim the truth about Jesus’s identity

27:54

Matthew’s crucifixion and resurrection scenes thus present a robust dichotomy. On the one side are those who react favorably to God’s intervention in Jesus: the women, disciples, and crucifixion guards.73 These characters acknowledge Jesus’s identity (via their proclamation and/or worship) and are obedient to the commands of God’s angelic representative or Jesus himself. They thus show themselves aligned with God (i.e., the righteous). On the other side are those that are hostile to God: the Jewish leaders and tomb guards. These characters refuse to acknowledge God’s intervention in Jesus and even actively oppose it, first by trying to prevent the resurrection from occurring, and after failing in that endeavor, by trying to undo the resurrection via the dissemination of a lie. They thus show themselves aligned with Satan (i.e., the wicked).

73

The saints (27:52–53) should also be included in this group; they will be discussed further below.

B. The Shaking of the Guards

201

Given this robust dualism, and given the eschatological charge pulsating through Matthew’s resurrection account primarily by way of the earthquake, it is all the more significant that when the angel appears representing God, the terror of the guards is never assuaged. It is the women, and the women only, who are told not to fear (28:5; cf. 28:10). Though afraid, the women are comforted, and even experience great joy because of God’s intervention (28:8).74 The guards, on the other hand, experience only terror because of it. They are left to stew in their fright, in the same way that the wicked are not comforted on the day of final judgment. At this point it is worth recalling that in multiple accounts of final judgment, the terror of the wicked manifests as shaking (Ezek 38:20; Sib. Or. 3.679; 1 En. 102:1). The reaction of the tomb guards on Easter Sunday is thus representative of the reaction of the wicked at the moment of final judgment.75 It is here that Matthew’s seismic pun gets teeth. Rather than a forming a benign play on words, the seismic references at 28:2 and 28:4 bind God’s intervention in Jesus and the reaction of guards together as a single eschatological 74

Note that the angel tells the women to not be afraid because (γάρ) he knows that they are seeking Jesus (28:5). It is because the women are aligned with God through Jesus (a position subsequently confirmed by their obedience to the angel and christological obedience and worship; 28:8–9), that they do not need to be afraid. Beyond receiving comfort, they even experience great joy because of God’s intervention (28:5, 8). Along these lines, note also that Matthew does not include the Markan reference to the women’s fear when they leave the tomb (Mark 16:8). 75 The interpretation provided here is very similar to that provided by Gregory K. Beale for Rev 11:11–13 (Revelation, 596–608). Like the Matthean resurrection scene, Rev 11:11– 13 also describes a resurrection from the dead that functions as divine vindication for executed divine agents, a great earthquake, and terror on the part of unbelieving witnesses. Beale, Revelation, 602, interprets the Rev 11:13 earthquake as a depiction of the final judgment since the image has that connotation elsewhere in Revelation (6:12; 16:18) and since the reference alludes to the great earthquake in the final judgment scene of Ezek 38:19. He additionally interprets the Rev 11:11, 13 references to fear of the persecutors as the reaction of unbelievers, with 11:13 describing the experience of the wicked at the final judgment (Revelation, 597–98, 605–8). Especially noteworthy is the direct thematic parallel that he draws between Rev 11:11–13 and Matt 28:1–4. Beale claims that “the demise, disgrace, and vindication of the witnesses follows the pattern of the end of Christ’s ministry” and equates the fear of the Matthean tomb guards with the unrepentant fear of the persecutors in the final judgment scene of Rev 11:13 (Revelation, 605). Multiple parallels between the two accounts are readily apparent: [a] there is an execution of God’s agent(s): two witnesses (Rev 11:7) vs. Jesus (Matt 27:32-50); [b] divine vindication of God’s agent in the form of a resurrection (Rev 11:13; Matt 28:1-10); [c] the resurrection is coupled to a σεισμὸς μέγας (Rev 11:13; Matt 28:2); and [d] the divinely hostile witnesses experience fear (φόβος; Rev 11:11; Matt 28:4). Though Beale does not go so far as to interpret the Matthean resurrection account as an image of final judgment, his interpretation of Rev 11:11–13 and the parallels he draws between it and Matt 28:1–4 nonetheless corroborate the interpretation outlined in this chapter.

202

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

event.76 The 28:2 σεισμός depicts Easter Sunday as a partial fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord, both by way of the term’s eschatological connotation and by helping to bind the resurrection together with the crucifixion account.77 The 28:4 reference to shaking (ἐσείσθησαν) links the guards’ reaction to this context, suggesting that their fear and convulsions describe the response of the wicked on the Day of the Lord. For these characters, God’s intervention in Jesus spells judgment. In contrast, for the women, the disciples, and the guards at the cross, it represents salvation (1:21; 26:28; cf. 27:40, 42). This theme is further developed by Matthew’s antithetical juxtaposition of the guards at the tomb with the saints who are raised. For the saints, who had been lying in the sleep (κεκοιμημένων) of death in their tombs (27:52), God’s intervention in Jesus brings life. For, at the moment that Jesus dies, the saints are raised (ἠγέρθησαν) to life (27:52). Because Jesus’s body (σῶμα) is lifeless, requiring placement in a tomb (μνημειον; 27:58–59), their bodies (σώματα) are revivified and come out of their tombs (μνημεῖα; 27:52–53). They subsequently go into the holy city (εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν), where they witness about the salvific power of God’s intervention (27:53). In contrast, for the guards at the tomb, God’s intervention in Jesus brings death. It is when the angel comes to announce that Jesus has been raised from the dead (ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν; 28:5, 6) that the tomb guards become like dead men (ἐγενήθησαν ὡς νεκροί; 28:4).78 After this experience, the guards also go into the holy city (ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν), where they also provide a testimony, in this case to the Jewish leaders (28:11). However, unlike the raised saints, they ultimately testify against the salvific intervention of God by spreading a lie about the resurrection (28:15). Because Jesus is raised to life and comes out of his tomb, the guards metaphorically entomb themselves in death: they attempt to cover up the resurrection by reporting that they were asleep (ἡμῶν κοιμωμένων) at the moment Jesus’s body left the tomb (28:13), the same state that the saints had been in prior to God’s intervention in Jesus (27:52).79 Thus, while God’s eschatological intervention in Jesus brings life and salvation for those aligned with Jesus (the saints, the guards at the cross, the women, and the disciples), it brings death and judgment for those opposed to Jesus, the guards at the tomb and by extension the Jewish leaders whom they

76 Konradt, Matthäus, 454, notes that Matthew describes the reaction of the soldiers as shaken to connect their response to the theophanic earthquake of 28:2. Luz, Matthew, 3:596, observes that the seismic tremor of 28:2 continues into the dead guards at 28:4. 77 For partial fulfillment, see 5.B.III. 78 Luz, Matthew, 3:596, “Thus for [the tomb guards] the appearance of the angel becomes a death experience.” 79 Given the parallels between the tomb guards and the saints as well as the description of the guards as dead, it would appear that the 28:13 reference to the guards sleeping is meant to carry a morbid undertone.

B. The Shaking of the Guards

203

represent.80 This is exactly why the Baptist had preached the necessity of repentance; he had connected the coming of Jesus to the turning of the ages and warned that Jesus’s arrival would result in salvation for the repentant but judgment for the unrepentant (3:2, 7–12). It is when this context of eschatological judgment is considered that the deeper significance of the Matt 28:4 reference to shaking comes into even sharper focus. As discussed in chapters two and four, anthropological shaking regularly connotes divine judgment and destruction in Matthew’s cultural encyclopedia (e.g., Amos 1:14 LXX; Isa 10:13; LXX; Ezek 26:10; Pausanias, Descr. 7.25.3; Pindar, Pyth. 4.270; 2 Kgs 17:20; LXX Ps 12:5; Sir 13:21). Of particular note are the occasions where the verb carries this connotation in eschatological contexts. A prime example is 2 Bar. 31:5–32:1, which describes God’s eschatological intervention as a shaking of the entire created order and construes this shaking as destruction, For behold, the days are coming, that all that has been will be taken away to be destroyed, and it will become as though it had not been. You, however, if you prepare your minds to sow into them the fruits of the law, he shall protect you in the time in which the Mighty One shall shake the entire creation. (31:5–32:1) 81

As is explicitly stated in the passage, those who are aligned with God (as demonstrated by their obedience to the Law) will find refuge in God when he intervenes at the turn of the ages. However, by implication, those who are not aligned with God will be destroyed, or shaken, when he intervenes eschatologically.82 Essentially the same theme is found in the warning of Heb 12:25–29, which emphasizes the critical importance of responding to the new covenant that God has inaugurated through Jesus. To motivate his audience, the author utilizes a qal-wahomer argument: if it meant disaster to disobey the original covenant that God established through his earthshaking theophany at Sinai, how much worse will it be to reject the new and final covenant that God has established through Jesus? The author declares that to do so is to subject oneself to destruction in God’s final eschatological intervention, an intervention that God has now (i.e., in the aftermath of establishing the new covenant) promised to carry out (12:26),

80

Note the contrast between the righteous and wicked on the Isa 24–27 Day of the Lord: the righteous experience salvation (25:9) and resurrection (26:19), while the wicked experience punishment and remain dead (26:14). The sharp dualism displayed in the crucifixion and resurrection scenes also fits perfectly with the strong dualism that is present across the rest of the Gospel (e.g., 3:11–12; 7:24–27; 8:11–12; 13:24–30; 25:31–46). 81 Trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP. This passage is discussed in more detail in 4.B. 82 The destructive connotation of shaking is confirmed in 2 Bar. 32:2, where the first temple’s downfall is described as it being shaken.

204

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven! 26 At that time his voice shook (ἐσάλευσεν) the earth; but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake (σείσω) not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of what is shaken (σαλευομένων)—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken (μὴ σαλευόμενα) may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (ἀσάλευτον), let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; 29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire. (Heb 12:25–29)

Like Hag 2:6 (upon which Heb 12:25–29 is based) and 2 Bar. 32:1, the act of divine eschatological intervention is here described as a shaking of the created order (12:26). As in 2 Bar. 32:1, so also here the shaking denotes destruction, for only that which cannot be shaken (i.e., whatever belongs to God’s unshakeable kingdom) will remain (12:27–28).83 The seismic language employed in these verses also draws upon the psalms, which repeatedly affirm that only that which is aligned with God can never be shaken (σαλεύω; e.g., LXX Ps 14:5; 15:8; 61:3; 111:6; 124:1). As the larger argument of Hebrews explains, to refuse the one who is speaking is to refuse to recognize God’s definitive intervention in his Son (e.g., 1:2; 2:1–4; 3:1–4:11). Thus, to reject Jesus is to subject oneself to eschatological shaking (destruction) when God intervenes once more to fully usher in the new age. In contrast, those who respond favorably to Jesus are those who will inherit God’s unshakeable kingdom. Hebrews 12:25–29 thus demonstrates considerable alignment with the interpretation of Matthew’s death and resurrection scenes discussed above. In light of this, it is all the more interesting to note that others have also made a connection between this section of Hebrews and Matthew’s resurrection account. When summarizing his interpretative treatment of the mountain of commissioning (Matt 28:16–20), Terence L. Donaldson concludes, [Matthew’s] mountain motif is a presentation in narrative form of the theological statement found in Heb 12.18–24; Matthew is saying in effect that those who gather to Jesus have come to the faithful Son (cf. Heb 3.1–6) in whom all the hopes associated with Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem have come to fulfillment.84

If Matthew’s mountain motif can encapsulate the theology of Heb 12:18–24 in narrative form, it is not unreasonable to presume that Matthew’s seismic motif can do the same with regards to the theological ideas presented in Heb 12:25– 29. Both Matthew’s resurrection scene and Heb 12:25–29 appear to present a 83 The shaking of the earth and heavens presumably describes the entire created order and even the heavenly dwelling place of God, which indicates the finality of the judgment. Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 666; cf. William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC 47B (Dallas: Word, 1991), 480; Michael Harrison Kibbe, Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies, BZNW 216 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 195 n. 55. 84 Donaldson, Mountain, 202.

B. The Shaking of the Guards

205

christologically centered dualism in combination with a seismic depiction of eschatological divine intervention and divine judgment.85 Thus, it would appear that Matthew’s description of the tomb guards as shaken (ἐσείσθησαν; 28:4) is a reference to their destruction. They experience God’s eschatological intervention in Jesus as judgment because they refuse to align themselves with Jesus. Rather than responding to God’s intervention like the crucifixion guards, who cry out their recognition of Jesus’s sonship, the tomb guards say nothing. Rather than acknowledging the reality of the resurrection through worship and proclaiming the truth like the women and disciples, the tomb guards attempt to undo the resurrection by spreading a lie. They reject the sign of Jonah (12:38–40), the definitive proof of Jesus’s identity as God’s agent, and instead try to thwart God’s purposes. They thereby align themselves with the Jewish leaders in opposition to God and demonstrate that they are sons of the devil.86 Thus, though God’s eschatological intervention in Jesus was intended to bring life (1:21),87 for the wicked guards at the tomb and the Jewish leaders whom they represent, it brings death. It must be stressed that all of this unfolds in proleptic fashion. The guards do not actually die at the empty tomb; Matthew instead states that they became like dead men and records them going on to report their experience to the Jewish leaders (28:4, 11–15). So also, the shaking that the guards experience cannot describe the final judgment,88 since that event is clearly placed at the end of the age (12:41–42; 25:31–46). This should not come as a surprise, for as argued in 5.B.III, Matthew suggests that Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection represent only a partial fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord.89 Consequently, while the shaking of the tomb guards indicates that they have indeed placed themselves under divine judgment by siding with the Jewish leaders and rejecting the truth of the resurrection, as with Jerusalem (21:10; see 4.B), the judgment and destruction that the shaking represents will only be fully experienced when the Day of the Lord is completely fulfilled. This point is made clearer when one juxtaposes the proleptic judgment experience of the wicked (Jerusalem and the tomb guards) with the proleptic salvation experience of the righteous. It is regularly recognized that those whom Jesus saves from sickness (e.g., 8:1–4; 9:20–22), blindness (e.g., 9:27–31), demonic possession (e.g., 9:32–33), or death (e.g., 9:23–25) experience the dawning of God’s eschatological kingdom but nevertheless must wait until the end of the age to experience its fullness.90 In the same way, Jerusalem and the tomb 85 This is not to argue for any literary dependence between Matthew and Hebrews but rather to demonstrate the historical plausibility of the interpretation outlined in this chapter. 86 See 4.A.III. 87 Cf. 4.B. 88 As it does in Heb 12:26–29 or 2 Bar 31:5–32:1, for example. 89 I.e., the kingdom of heaven is inaugurated vs. fully manifested. 90 See 3.B.II.

206

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

guards get a taste of eschatological judgment in their fearful shaking but will have to wait until the end of the age to experience its fullness.91 The proleptic nature of the death-resurrection event is underscored by the numerous lexical and thematic connections that Matthew draws between the event and his account of Jesus’s second coming.92 Just as earthquakes are seen to accompany Jesus’s death and resurrection (27:54; 28:2), so also they are tied to his return (24:7). At Jesus’s death and resurrection, darkness covers the earth (27:45); at his second coming the sun and moon will not give their light (24:29). Relatedly, both Jesus’s death and resurrection and his second coming are cast in the light of the Day of the Lord.93 With regards to the latter, the 24:29 combination of shaking and darkness forms a likely allusion to the description of the Day of the Lord in Isa 13:10,94 as does the 24:31 sounding of a trumpet (cf. Joel 2:10; Zeph 1:16; Isa 27:13).95 At Jesus’s death and resurrection, the dead are raised (27:52; 28:6, 7); at his second coming the general resurrection of the dead will take place (12:41–42). At Jesus’s death and resurrection, a division forms in the human race, where the righteous experience salvation and the wicked judgment; at Jesus’s second coming, the righteous likewise experience salvation and the wicked judgment (13:36–43, 49–50; 25:31–46). At Jesus’s death, the destruction of the temple is referenced (27:40) and symbolized in the tearing of the veil (27:51); so also, the temple’s destruction is also listed as a precursor to his return (24:2, 15). At Jesus’s death gentile soldiers come to faith (27:54) and after his resurrection a command is given to evangelize all nations (28:18); before his return at the end of the age, Jesus declares that the gospel will have spread to all nations (24:14). These observations are summarized in the following table.

91 In the case of Jerusalem, the taste of judgment also includes the destruction of the city; see 4.B. 92 Sim, “Confession,” 421, also interprets Jesus’s death as a proleptic judgment scene. He differs from the position outlined here by focusing solely on the crucifixion and by applying divine judgment to the guards at the cross rather than the guards at the tomb. Hamilton, Death of Jesus, 214–16, follows suit, expanding Sim’s interpretation to include the resurrection scene as well as the crucifixion and applying divine judgment to both sets of guards. As argued in 5.A.IV, this interpretation of the crucifixion guards does not align well with Matthew’s Gospel. Also noteworthy are the observations of Andries G. Van Aarde, “Matthew 27:45–53 and the Turning of the Tide in Israel’s History,” BTB 28 (1998): 24, “Matthew describes both the fall of Jerusalem/the destruction of the temple and the vision of the coming of the Son of Man as having been anticipated in the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus.” Meier, “Salvation History,” 210–11, classifies Matt 28:16–20 as a “proleptic parousia.” 93 For Jesus’s death and resurrection, see 5.B.II and 6.A. 94 The Isa 13:10 referent is recognized by most scholars. Other possibilities are Isa 34:4 and Hag 2:6, both of which are also Day of the Lord accounts. 95 Luz, Matthew, 3:202; Mitch and Sri, Matthew, 330–31.

207

B. The Shaking of the Guards

Table 15: Correlations between the Matthean Crucifixion-Resurrection Account and the Matthean Account of Jesus’s Second Coming Death-Resurrection Event

Second Coming of Jesus

27:51/54; 28:2

Earthquakes occur

Earthquakes as a sign of proximity

24:7

27:45

Darkness

Sun and moon darkened

24:29

27:52; 28:6–10

Saints raised; Jesus raised

General resurrection of the dead

12:41–42

27:40–43, 54; 28:1– 15

Division between righteous and wicked

Division between righteous and wicked

13:30, 40–43; 25:31–46

27:40, 51

Temple’s destruction foreshadowed

Temple’s destruction as a sign of proximity

24:2, 15

28:19–20

Command to evangelize all nations

Gospel spread to all nations as a sign of proximity

24:14

27:54

Gentile inclusion in the people of God

Gentile inclusion in the people of God

8:11–12

28:4

Tomb guards shaken (ἐσείσθησαν)

Powers of heaven shaken (σαλευθήσονται)

24:29

Cast as the Day of the Lord

Cast as the Day of the Lord

By way of the proleptic associations between Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection and his second coming, Matthew maintains continuity across temporal horizons. He suggests that what occurs at Jesus’s first coming is the same as what will occur at his second, or in other words, one’s experience of the eschatological Day of the Lord’s partial fulfillment will be the same as one’s experience at its full realization. This is consistent with the general thrust of the Matthean narrative, which directly correlates one’s response to Jesus in the present age with one’s fate in the age to come (e.g., 3:2, 7–12; 7:24–27; 11:20–24; 12:36– 37, 41–42; 13:36–43; 16:27; 25:31–46). Thus, it is because the tomb guards refuse to acknowledge God’s intervention in Jesus that they cannot be forgiven in this age or the age to come (12:31–32). It is because they refuse to acknowledge the miracle of the resurrection that they will stand condemned at the final judgment (11:16–20; 12:40–42). Their antagonistic response to Jesus entails that they experience his coming as judgment rather than salvation; i.e., they are shaken.

208

Chapter 6: The Convergence of the Fault Lines

C. Conclusion In sum, earthquakes help to bind together Jesus’s death (27:54) and resurrection (28:2) as an inseparable unity and to cast the collective divine intervention they represent as a fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord. The accounts feature a sharp contrast between those who align themselves with God: the saints, women, disciples, and guards at the tomb (i.e., the righteous), and those who align themselves with Satan in opposition to God: the Jewish leaders and guards at the tomb (i.e., the wicked). For the righteous, Jesus’s death and resurrection brings joy (28:8), salvation (1:21; 26:28; 27:40, 42) and life (27:52–53); for the wicked, it spells judgment and death (28:4; cf. 3:10, 12; 12:41–42; 23:35). The reaction of the tomb guards to God’s angelic agent on Easter Sunday thus represents the reaction of the wicked on the Day of the Lord. More than a straightforward physiological manifestation of their fear, their shaking highlights the eschatological context in which their reaction takes place and connotes divine judgment.

Chapter 7

Conclusions A. Purpose and Contribution of the Study The aim of this study has been to map the contours of Matthew’s two unique and interrelated seismic fault lines in order to ascertain how they impact his narrative landscape.1 The first of these unique lines, that of terrestrial shaking (σεισμός), runs from the storm stilling account to the climax of the Gospel story, Jesus’s death and resurrection (8:24; 27:51/54; 28:2). The second fault line, which describes the shaking of people (σείω), surfaces in the Jerusalem entry scene and likewise terminates at the resurrection (21:10; 28:4). Beyond the shared use of the σει* root and their lexical intersection in the resurrection account, the two fault lines are additionally interrelated through a christological question-and-answer motif (8:27; 21:10; 27:54).2 By charting each of these seismic rifts and relating them to the overall Gospel narrative, this survey provides scholarship with a map that previously did not exist. Presumably due to the atomistic tendency of historical-critical methods, the various seismic references that are featured in Matthew’s Gospel have largely been treated in isolation from each other and from the overall story.3 This study charts new ground by providing a comprehensive analysis of the Matthean seismic motif, one that is conducted by way of a historically informed author-oriented narrative criticism that is complemented with redaction criticism.4 Since the study has been carried out in a largely inductive manner by focusing on each of Matthew’s unique seismic references in its individual context,5 it will now prove fruitful to summarize the argument at a comprehensive level.

1 I.e., to ascertain what statement(s) Matthew makes by including these unique seismic references in his Gospel. 2 See 1.A. 3 See 1.C. 4 See 1.D. 5 This was conducted primarily by relating the unique seismic references to each other and to literary features such as plot and characterization; see chapters three through six.

210

Chapter 7: Conclusions

B. Summary of the Argument The thesis that is argued for in the above chapters is that Matthew’s unique seismic references (8:24; 21:10; 27:51, 54; 28:2, 4) collectively indicate that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus represent the partial fulfillment of the OT eschatological Day of the Lord. It was argued in chapter two that earthquakes primarily connote divine intervention in the Jewish and Greco-Roman literature that is representative of Matthew’s cultural milieu. This connotation is especially prevalent in the OT, a corpus that must be taken as Matthew’s primary conversation partner and image seedbed given his preoccupation with demonstrating how Jesus fulfills the story of Israel. In the OT, one finds that earthquakes are closely associated with the foundational act of divine intervention, the formation of the Israelite nation: God’s deliverance of Israel in the Exodus is retrospectively summarized as a seismic event (Judg 5:4–5; cf. Ps 68:8–9; 77:16–20), and the giving of the Law is depicted as a theophany in which Mount Sinai trembles (Exod 19:18).6 These seismically charged theophanic descriptions function as paradigms that are echoed throughout the rest of the Jewish scriptures, especially in the OT Psalms and Prophets. In the Prophets, the seismic description of divine intervention becomes focused into a particular interventive concept, the Day of the Lord.7 Though the prophetic corpus references multiple Days of the Lord, all of which vary in their individual descriptions, the accounts are nevertheless closely interrelated and express the same overall idea, a decisive intervention of God to implement justice. For those opposed to the divine will, the Day of the Lord is consequently experienced as divine judgment. While some Day of the Lord accounts go no further than decreeing this doom (e.g., Lam 2:21–22), the majority depict the judgment as a means to a salvific end.8 In other words, the ultimate purpose of the Day of the Lord is salvation and blessing for the people of God; this purpose, however, can only be realized when the evil that threatens God’s people is decisively dealt with. In many accounts, this takes place on a universal scale, with the Day of the Lord describing the earthshaking intervention of God at the end of history to eliminate wickedness and usher in the universal and unopposed manifestation of God’s reign on earth (these accounts have been labeled the eschatological Day of the Lord).9 The divine kingdom that is established in these eschatological Day of the Lord accounts is 6

While the Hebrew text here uses ‫ חרד‬instead of the usual term ‫ רעש‬and while the LXX does not even mention an earthquake, it is evident from other accounts (e.g., 4 Ezra 3:18; Heb 12:26) that the Sinai event was closely associated with an earthquake; cf. 2.B.I; 2.C.I. 7 For a more comprehensive description of the Day of the Lord see 2.A.I.2. 8 This is implied even in accounts that describe only divine judgment. 9 Eschatological Day of the Lord accounts that include earthquakes are Isa 24–27; Ezek 38–39; Joel 2–4; Hag 2:6–7, 21; Zech 14; cf. the eschatological Day of the Lord of Mal 3, which does not include seismic activity.

B. Summary of the Argument

211

characterized by a human flourishing that includes the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation between God and his people, the removal of disabilities, and the conversion of the gentiles.10 All of this exhibits great resonance with Matthew’s Gospel. The eschatological Day of the Lord is conceptually equivalent to the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven, 11 a theme that pervades the Matthean narrative.12 The equivalence between the two concepts is illustrated in the preaching of John the Baptist, who announces the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven. John describes the kingdom of heaven’s inauguration as an eschatological event that involves both salvation and judgment, a portrayal that aligns perfectly with the delineation of the eschatological Day of the Lord. The conceptual correspondence is reinforced by the special care that Matthew takes to identify John as the Elijah figure whom Malachi prophesied would precede the eschatological Day of the Lord.13 Since John/Elijah has come, it is logically implied that the eschatological Day of the Lord is soon to follow. Matthew thus suggests through both the message and person of the Baptist that the eschatological Day of the Lord is imminent and describes this event as the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven. In addition, Matthew makes clear that the eschatological Day of the Lord (i.e., inauguration of the kingdom of heaven) coincides with the arrival of Jesus. This is accomplished by means of John’s preaching, which links the arrival of the kingdom of heaven with the coming of a powerful figure (3:2, 7–12) who is subsequently identified as Jesus through both narrative proximity (3:13–14) and explicit identification (11:2–6). It is also accomplished through authorial comment, as for example when Matthew explains that the light of the eschatological divine kingdom dawns when Jesus begins his ministry (4:13–16). Perhaps most persuasively, it is also achieved through an implicit narrative depiction: in Matt 5–9 one finds Jesus translating the various salvific expectations associated with the kingdom of heaven/eschatological Day of the Lord into reality. For example, after creating a community reflective of eschatological prophetic expectations (Matt 5–7), Jesus then performs miracles that align closely with expectations related to the establishment of God’s eschatological kingdom: evil is defeated, the dead are raised, disabilities are removed, sins are forgiven, gentiles join the people of God, and salvation is experienced (Matt 8–9).14 10

See 2.A.I.2 and 3.B.I. See 3.B.I. 12 Multiple scholars identify the kingdom of heaven as the central theme of the Gospel; e.g., Hagner, Matthew, 1:lx; Pennington, Heaven and Earth, 279–81; Kingsbury, Structure, 128. See 3.B. 13 The identification between John and Malachi’s eschatological Elijah figure is made implicitly in Matt 3:1–12 and explicitly in 11:14 and 17:13 (cf. 11:10); see 4.A.V. 14 See 3.B.II. 11

212

Chapter 7: Conclusions

The awkward mention of the σεισμός at sea (8:24) helps to underscore the eschatological Day of the Lord connection present in these chapters. Standing out because it rarely if ever describes a storm,15 the term σεισμός imports an epiphanic and eschatological coloring to the storm stilling scene and further suggests a more pointed allusion to the seismically charged accounts of the eschatological Day of the Lord.16 Beyond the fact that eschatological Day of the Lord accounts form the primary encyclopedic referent for earthquakes in the OT, and besides the obvious resonance generated with the overarching kingdom of heaven theme of Matt 5–9, one notes that Matthew has bound the storm stilling to the death-resurrection event with numerous lexical and thematic cords, chief among which is an earthquake.17 It is at Jesus’s death and resurrection, which Matthew construes as a singular act of divine intervention,18 that the eschatological Day of the Lord resonance reaches its greatest intensity. Matthew describes Jesus’s crucifixion as being accompanied by darkness and seismic upheaval (27:45, 51/54), phenomena that are closely associated with the Day of the Lord (e.g., Joel 2:10; 4:15–16; Isa 13:10, 13; Amos 8:8–10). He additionally records a number of other phenomena such as the splitting of rocks and the raising of the saints (27:51–53), depicts Jesus’s death as divine judgment on account of the shedding of innocent blood, references Jerusalem as the holy city in the aftermath of Jesus’s death (27:53), and describes Jesus receiving universal reign (28:18). All of these references, along with additional lexical and thematic links, strengthen the connection between the death-resurrection event and specific accounts of the eschatological Day of the Lord, namely Isa 24–27; Joel 2–4, and Zech 14.19 By drawing connections between the death-resurrection event and multiple accounts of the eschatological Day of the Lord, it would appear that Matthew relates Jesus’s death and resurrection to the general fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord concept. This is in keeping with his overall project of demonstrating how Jesus fulfills the OT, as it forms a more comprehensive image of fulfillment than would be achieved by linking Jesus’s death and resurrection to a singular Day of the Lord account. In addition, it maintains fidelity to the interrelated nature of the various eschatological Day of the Lord accounts, all of which describe God’s decisive eschatological intervention to establish his kingdom on earth. The intensity of the resonance that is achieved with the eschatological Day of the Lord in Matthew’s depiction of the death-resurrection event, along with 15

See 1.A. See 3.C. 17 See 3.C.III for the connection between the storm stilling and death-resurrection event. See the following paragraph for the significance of the Day of the Lord in the crucifixionresurrection account. 18 See 6.A.I. 19 See 5.B.II. 16

B. Summary of the Argument

213

the event’s position at the climax of the Gospel’s plotline, indicates that Matthew conceives of the death-resurrection event as the pivotal moment in the eschatological Day of the Lord’s fulfillment (i.e., the kingdom of heaven’s inauguration).20 However, given the Gospel’s overarching theme of fulfillment, the thematic depiction of the kingdom of heaven’s arrival in Matt 5–9, and the proleptic relationships of the infancy narrative and storm stilling account with the death-resurrection event, it is nevertheless clear that Matthew collectively relates Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection to the fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord.21 In addition, it is also clear that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection represent only a partial fulfillment. Among others, references to the end of the age (e.g., 24:3; 28:20), the general resurrection of the dead (12:41–42), and final judgment (e.g., 13:36–43; 25:31–46) unambiguously demonstrate that the full manifestation of the kingdom of heaven awaits a future realization when Jesus returns. Relatedly, one notes that Matthew also adorns Jesus’s second coming in Day of the Lord imagery, stating that it will involve darkness, seismic activity, and trumpet blasts (24:29, 31).22 It follows that Matthew depicts Jesus’s first coming as the partial fulfillment of the eschatological Day of the Lord (i.e., the inauguration of the kingdom of heaven) and Jesus’s second coming as its complete fulfillment (i.e., the full manifestation of the kingdom of heaven). To sum up, it would appear that Matthew’s unique terrestrial fault line serves his overall purpose of demonstrating how Jesus fulfills Israel’s story by inaugurating God’s eschatological kingdom. In other words, the unique Matthean earthquakes (8:24; 27:51/54; 28:2) indicate that Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection represent a partial fulfillment of the OT prophecies about the eschatological Day of the Lord. It is when this is realized that the literary purpose of Matthew’s anthropological fault line (21:10; 28:4) comes into clearer focus. This focus is most precisely sharpened in the resurrection account, where the terrestrial and anthropological fault lines are noticeably intertwined by way of the shared σει* root in narrative proximity (28:2, 4). In short, the anthropological fault line testifies to the fact that the eschatological Day of the Lord involves judgment: those who are shaken (σείω) in conjunction with the eschatological Day of the Lord’s partial fulfillment (21:10; 28:4) proleptically experience the final judgment that they will endure when the eschatological Day of the Lord is completely realized. One finds that the contours of Matthew’s anthropological fault line coincide with the contours of his characterization: it is only Jesus’s enemies that are shaken in Matthew’s Gospel. Jerusalem, which represents the stronghold of 20

See 5.B.III. For a description of prolepsis, see 3.C.III. 22 See 1.B, 4.B, and 6.B.II. 21

214

Chapter 7: Conclusions

christological opposition, is shaken (ἐσείσθη; 21:10) when it refuses to recognize Jesus coming to it as its eschatological king (21:5; cf. Zech 9:9) and as its Lord on the eschatological Day of the Lord (cf. Mal 3:1).23 So also, the tomb guards, who function as extensions of Jerusalem’s corrupt leadership and represent their resistance to God’s intervention in Jesus, are shaken (ἐσείσθησαν) in conjunction with Jesus’s resurrection (28:4). Through their christological antagonism, these parties show themselves unwilling to repent.24 Consequently, as the Baptist warns, they experience the eschatological Day of the Lord as judgment (3:2, 7–12). Granted, this was never God’s desire (e.g., 23:37); the Day of the Lord is ultimately concerned with salvation and blessing for the people of God, and it is evident that God intervenes in Jesus for the purpose of salvation (esp. 1:21).25 However, the coming of Jesus inherently creates the potential for judgment by requiring a response, one that can take the form of unrepentant christological rejection. This is the response chosen by Jerusalem and its leaders, who ultimately put Jesus to death and thereby bring judgment upon themselves, though who, by doing so, at the same time unwittingly serve as a means to the ultimate salvific end specified by the divine plan (1:21; 26:28; 26:54, 56). By rejecting Jesus and refusing to acknowledge God’s intervention in his life, death, and resurrection, Jerusalem and the tomb guards place themselves outside of the possibility of divine forgiveness (12:31–32). They demonstrate that they are ultimately aligned with Satan and belong to the weeds rather than the wheat (13:36–41). Consequently, they experience the eschatological Day of the Lord as judgment rather than salvation. Like the righteous, who proleptically experience the salvific dimension of the Day of the Lord through Jesus (esp. Matt 8–9),26 the wicked tomb guards and Jerusalem proleptically experience the final judgment in the form of a terrified shaking (21:10; 28:4). That this is the case is suggested by the eschatological Day of the Lord context of the Matthean accounts and by the prevalent judgment connotation that shaking language carries in Matthew’s encyclopedia.27 The divine judgment that Jerusalem and the tomb guards taste in these seismic episodes (21:10; 28:4) will be fully meted out in the historical future with the destruction of Jerusalem (22:7; 23:38) and ultimately at the end of the age when Jesus returns to completely fulfill the eschatological Day of the Lord (23:33; cf. 13:36–43).

23

See 4.A.I, 4.A.II, and 4.A.V. See especially 4.A.IV, 4.A.V, and 4.B. 25 See 2.A.I.2 and 4.B. 26 See 3.B.II. 27 Especially in the OT; see 2.A.II. 24

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. Jr., James E. Bowley, and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 1: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Boston: Brill, 2003. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance, Volume 3: The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert. Boston: Brill, 2010. Aland, Kurt and Barbara, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle-Aland 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Albright, William F. and Christopher S. Mann. Matthew. AB 26. New York: Doubleday, 1971. Alexander, Loveday. “What is a Gospel?” Pages 13–33 in The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels. Edited by Stephen C. Barton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Allison, Dale C. Jr. “‘After His Resurrection’ (Matt 27,53) and the Descens ad Inferos.” Pages 335–54 in Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Festschrift für Ulrich Luz zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Peter Lampe, Moisés Mayordomo, and Migaku Sato. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. –. “Anticipating the Passion: The Literary Reach of Matthew 26:47–27:56.” CBQ 56 (1994): 701–14. –. “Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic.” Pages 126–41 in A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Edited by Carey C. Newman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. –. Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. –. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. –. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27.” Pages 153–88 in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB24. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Anderson, Janice Chapel. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSNTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Angel, Andrew R. Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf Tradition in the Period 515 BCE to 200 CE. LSTS 60. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. –. “Crucifixus Vincens: The ‘Son of God’ as Divine Warrior in Matthew.” CBQ 73 (2011): 299–317. Aune, David E. Revelation 6–16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. –. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. LEC. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987.

216

Bibliography

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Pages 125–30 in Authorship from Plato to Postmodernity: A Reader. Edited by Seán Burke. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995. Barton, John. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. and enl. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. –. “The Day of Yahweh in the Minor Prophets.” Pages 68–79 in Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honor of Kevin J. Cathcart. Edited by Carmel McCarthy and John F. Healy. JSOTSup 375. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Batto, Bernard. “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sovereignty.” Bib 68 (1987): 153–77. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983. –. “The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John.” NovT 19 (1977): 224–33. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Beare, Francis. The Gospel According to Matthew. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Beaton, Richard. “How Matthew Writes.” Pages 116–134 in The Written Gospel. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. –. Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. SNTSS 123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Beck, Martin. “Der Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton: Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions und Redaktionsgeschichte. BZAW 356. New York: de Gruyter, 2005. Berg, InHee C. Irony in the Matthean Passion Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Betz, Hans Dieter. “Cosmogony and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount.” Pages 89–123 in Essays on the Sermon on the Mount. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Black, C. Clifton. “Depth of Characterization and Degrees of Faith in Matthew.” Pages 604– 23 in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989. Black, Stephanie L. Sentence Construction in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, γάρ, σὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse. JSNTSup 216. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Blaising, Craig A. “The Day of the Lord: Theme and Pattern in Biblical Theology.” BSac 169 (2012): 3–19. Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. NICOT. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” Pages 1–110 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Blount, Brian K. Revelation: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Bibliography

217

Bøe, Sverre. Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38–39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17–21 and 20,7– 10. WUNT 2/135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Bornkamm, Günter. “σείω, σεισμός.” TDNT 7:196–200. –. “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew.” Pages 52–57 in Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Translated by Percy Scott. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Boxall, Ian. Matthew Through the Centuries. Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2019. Bretscher, Paul G. “‘Whose Sandals’? (Matt 3:11).” JBL 86 (1967): 81–87. Brown, Jeannine K. Scripture as Communication: Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Rev. ed. New York: Doubleday, 1993. –. The Death of the Messiah, From Gethsemane to the Grave. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994. –. “The Resurrection in Matthew (27:62–28:20).” Worship 64 (1990): 157–70. Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 1–39. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Bruner, Frederick Dale. Matthew: A Commentary. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Butler, Trent C. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009. Bryce, David. “Sailors, Seismologists and Missionaries: Matthew 8:23–27.” Lutheran Theological Journal 36 (2002): 2–11. Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Campbell, K. M. “The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14.” SJT 31 (1978): 335–63. Carlson, Stephen C. “‘The Jenny and the Colt’ in Matthew’s Messianic Entry, Part 1: Matthew 21:5 as a Reading of Zechariah 9:9 in Light of Mark 11:1–10.” CBQ 81 (2019): 62– 84. –. “‘The Jenny and the Colt’ in Matthew’s Messianic Entry, Part 2: Matthew 21:7 as a Reading of Mark 11:7 in Light of Zechariah 9:9.” CBQ 81 (2019): 235–51. Carrier, Brian. “The Triumphal Echo of Psalm 24 in the Gospel According to Matthew.” Bib 99 (2018): 247–64. Carson, Donald A. Matthew. 2 vols. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Carter, Warren. “Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15–16.” JBL 119 (2000): 503–20. –. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996. –. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000. –. “Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 54 (1992): 463–81. –. “‘To See the Tomb’: Matthew’s Women at the Tomb.” ExpTim 107 (1996): 201–5. Casey, Maurice. “Where Wright is Wrong: A Critical Review of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the People of God.” JSNT 68 (1995): 95–103. Catchpole, David R. “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry.” Pages 319–34 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by Ernst Bammel and Charles F. D. Moule. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

218

Bibliography

Chae, Young S. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2/216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. WUNT 2/244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Chapman, David W. and Eckhard J. Schnabel. The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus. WUNT 344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2013. Childs, Brevard. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chouinard, Larry. “Gospel Christology: A Study of Methodology.” JSNT 30 (1987): 21–37. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Genre and the Gospels: A Review Article on Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography,” JR 75 (1995): 239–46. –. Is Mark's Gospel a Life of Jesus? The Question of Genre. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1990. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. –. “The Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 357–81 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Cousland, J. Robert C. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 102. Boston: Brill, 2002. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Crowe, Brandon. The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew. Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on Joel” in Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Translated by Robert C. Hill. 3 vols. FC 115. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press, 1956. Davies, William D. and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols., ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997. Davis, Stacy. Haggai and Malachi. Wisdom Commentary 39. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2015. Dell, Katharine J. “Amos and the Earthquake: Judgment as Natural Disaster.” Pages 1–14 in Aspects of Amos: Exegesis and Interpretation. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Andrew Mein. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Dennert, Brian C. John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew. WUNT 2/403. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Derrida, Jacques. “Signature Event Context.” Glyph 1 (1977): 172–97. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Waco: Word, 1985. Dillard, Raymond Bryan. “Joel.” Pages 239–314 in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, Volume 1: Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Edited by Thomas E McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990.

Bibliography

219

Donahue, John R. “Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a Sackgasse?” Pages 27–57 in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight. JSNTSup 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Donaldson, Terence L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Dosker, Henry E. “Day of the Lord.” ISBE 1:879. Dronsch, Kristina. “Schiffbruch im Kleinglauben (Die Stillung des Sturms): Mt 8,23–27.” Pages 401–8 in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 1: Die Wunder Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmerman. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Du Toit, David. “Motive der Gottesgegenwart in der Synoptischen Tradition.” Pages 177– 202 in Das Geheimnis der Gegenwart Gottes: zur Schechina-Vorstellung in Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Enno E. Popkes. WUNT 318. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992): 55–71. Dungan, David L. A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. “Spirit and Fire Baptism,” NovT 14 (1972): 81–92. Duplacy, Jean. “Et il eut un grande calme … La tempête apaisée (Matthieu 8, 23–27).” BVC 74 (1967): 15–28. Dutton, Denis. “Why Intentionalism Won’t Go Away.” Pages 194–209 in Literature and the Question of Philosophy. Edited by Anthony J. Cascardi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1987. Edwards, Richard A. Matthew’s Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text Connoted Reader is Informed. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Eidevall, Göran. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24G. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus & the Continuing Exile of Israel.” Pages 77–100 in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God. Edited by Carey C. Newman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Everson, A. Joseph. “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk.” Pages 165–74 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. “The Days of Yahweh.” JBL 93 (1974): 329–37. Fan, Wenyuan, Jeffrey J. McGuire, Catherine D. de Groot‐Hedlin, Michael A. H. Hedlin, Sloan Coats, and Julia W. Fiedler. “Stormquakes.” Geophysical Research Letters 46 (2019): 12,909–12,918. Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. 2nd ed. Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1976. Ferda, Tucker S. “The Soldiers’ Inscription and the Angel’s Word: The Significance of ‘Jesus’ in Matthew’s Titulus.” NovT 55 (2013): 221–31. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 28A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Foster, Paul G. “The Hebrew Bible / LXX and the Development of Ideas on Afterlife in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 3–25 in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2011.

220

Bibliography

Foster, Robert. “Why on Earth Use ‘Kingdom of Heaven’? Matthew’s Terminology Revisited.” NTS 48 (2002): 487–99. Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Pages 141–60 in Textual Strategies. Edited by Josué V. Harari. London: Methuen, 1979. France, Richard T. “Matthew and Jerusalem.” Pages 108–27 in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. –. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989. –. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Friedlander, Gerald, trans. Pirḳê de Rabbi Eliezer: (the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great): According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. New York: Bloch, 1916. Frickenschmidt, Dirk. Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 22. Tübingen: Francke, 1997. Gaechter, Paul. Das Matthäus Evangelium. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1964. Garland, David E. Luke. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. –. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1993. –. The Intention of Matthew 23. NovTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by J. E. Lewin. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980. Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1964. Gewalt, Dietrich. “Die Heilung Blinder und Lahmer im Tempel (Mt 21,14).” DBAT 23 (1986) 156–73. Giblin, Charles Homer. “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Matthean Burial-Resurrection Narrative (Matt xxvii. 57-xxviii. 20).” NTS 21 (1975): 406–20. Glenny, W. Edward. Amos: A Commentary Based on Amos in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1986. Goldammer, Kurt. “Navis Ecclesiae: Eine unbekannte altchristliche Darstellung der Schiffsallegorie.” ZNW 40 (1941): 76–86. Goodacre, Mark. “Mark, Elijah, the Baptist, and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark.” Pages 73–84 in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Volume 2: Matthew. Edited by Tom Hatina. LNTS 310. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. –. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg: Continuum, 2002. Goswell, Greg. “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus.” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 142–53. Graff, Gerald. Literature against Itself: Literary Ideas in Modern Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Grassi, Joseph. “Ezekiel XXXVII. 1–14 and the New Testament.” NTS 11 (1964): 162–64. Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Bibliography

221

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. –. Peter: False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. –. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gurtner, Daniel M. The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus. SNTSMS 139. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew: A Commentary. 2 vols. WBC 33A-33B. Dallas: Word Books, 1993, 1995. Hamilton, Catherine Sider. “‘His Blood Be upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew.” CBQ 70 (2008): 82–100. –. The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile. SNTSMS 167. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. SP 1. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1982. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016. Heil, John Paul. “Ezekiel 34 and the Narrative Strategy of the Shepherd and Sheep Metaphor in Matthew.” CBQ 55 (1993): 698–708. –. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt. 14:22–33, Mark 6:45–52, and John 6:15b-21. AnBib 87. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981. –. “Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in Matthew.” CBQ 41 (1979): 274–87. –. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26–28. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003. –. “The Narrative Structure of Matthew 27:55–28:20.” JBL 110 (1991): 419–38. –. The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8, Matt 17:1–8, and Luke 9:28–36. AnBib 144. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2000. Held, Heinz Joachim. “Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories.” Pages 165–299 in Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Translated by Percy Scott. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. –. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1985. Henze, Matthias. Jewish Apocalypticism in the Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hiers, Richard H. "Day of the Lord.” ABD 2:82–83. –. “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God.” JBL 90 (1971): 82– 90. Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Hill, David. “Matthew 27:51–53 in the Theology of the Evangelist.” IBS 7 (1985): 76–87. –. The Gospel of Matthew. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972.

222

Bibliography

Hilary of Poitiers. Sur Matthieu. Edited by J. Doignon. SC 254. Paris: du Cerf, 1978. Hinnebusch, Paul. St. Matthew’s Earthquake: Judgment and Discipleship in the Gospel of Matthew. Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1980. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina. Der nachösterliche Johannes: Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium. WUNT 2/84. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Hoffman, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a Concept and a Term in the Prophetic Literature.” ZAW 93 (1981): 37–50. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. House, Paul R. “Endings as New Beginnings: Returning to the Lord, the Day of the Lord and Renewal in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 313–38 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. –. The Unity of the Twelve. JSOTSup 97. BLS 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Howell, David B. Matthew’s Inclusive Story: A Study in Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel. JSNTSup 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Hubbard, David A. Joel and Amos: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 25. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Hughes, John H. “John the Baptist: The forerunner of God Himself,” NovT 14 (1972): 191– 218. Hughes, Philip E. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Huizenga, Leroy A. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 131. Boston: Brill, 2009. Huys, Marc. “Turning the Tables: Jesus’ Temple Cleansing and the Story of Lyceon,” ETL 86 (2010): 137–61. Jeremias, Jörg. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. –. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Jerome. Commentary on Matthew. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. FC 117. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Johnson, Nathan C. “The Passion According to David: Matthew’s Arrest Narrative, Absalom’s Revolt, and Militant Messianism.” CBQ 80 (2018): 247–72. Juhl, Peter D. Interpretation: An Essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. London: SCM, 1974. Kalin, E. R. “Matthew 9:18–26: An Exercise in Redaction Criticism.” CurTM 15 (1988): 39–47. Keener, Craig S. Matthew: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kessler, John. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup 91. Boston: Brill, 2002. Kibbe, Michael Harrison. Godly Fear or Ungodly Failure? Hebrews 12 and the Sinai Theophanies. BZNW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Kinman, Brent. Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem.” BBR 15 (2005): 223–60. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988.

Bibliography

223

–. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. –. “The Stilling of the Storm (Matthew 8:23–27).” Pages 101–8 in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville. Edited by Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury. St. Paul: Word & World, 1992. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Klein, Ralph W. “The Day of the Lord.” CTM 39 (1968): 517–25. Klijn, Albertus F. J. “The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.” Pages 193–212 in Outside the Old Testament. Edited by M. de Jonge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Klostermann, Erich. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2nd ed. HNT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1927. Knowles, Michael P. Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction. JSNTSup 68. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jacob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–99. Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM, 1990. Konradt, Matthias. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. –. Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Kathleen Ess. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014. Kraftchick, Steven J. Jude, 2 Peter. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. –. Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Waco, TX: Word, 1964. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Lane, William L. Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47B. Dallas: Word, 1991. Larsen, Kevin W. “Matthew 8.27 and Mark 4:36: Relics of a Prior Source?” ResQ 54 (2012): 186–90. Lee, John A. L. A History of New Testament Lexicography. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Leim, Joshua E. Matthew’s Theological Grammar: The Father and the Son. WUNT 2/402. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Lentricchia, Frank. After the New Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Études d’Évangile: Parole de Dieu. Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1965. Lessing, R. Reed. “Amos’s Earthquake in the Book of the Twelve.” CTQ 74 (2010): 243– 59. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lohfink, Norbert. “Der Messiaskönig und seine Armen kommen zum Zion: Beobachtungen zu Mt 21,1–7.” Pages 180–200 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch. Edited by Ludger Schenke. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.

224

Bibliography

Longstaff, Thomas R. W. Evidence of Conflation in Mark? A Study of the Synoptic Problem. Missoula: Scholars, 1977. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Luz, Ulrich. “Der ‘Christus’ der Matthäusgeschichte.” Pages 3–25 in Christ of the Sacred Stories. Edited by Predrag Dragutinović, Tobias Nicklas, Kelsie G. Rodenbiker, and Vladan Tatalović. WUNT 2/453. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “Intertexts in the Gospel of Matthew.” HTR 97 (2004): 119–37. –. Matthew: A Commentary. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001–2007. –. Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Maier, Gerhard. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. 2 vols. HTA. Witten: SCM, 2015, 2017. Main, Brian. “A Narrative-critical Examination of the Effect of Matthew 1:1–4:11 on the Implied Audience's Understanding of that Gospel's Resurrection Narrative.” PhD diss. The Catholic University of America, 2019. Marcus, Joel. “Did Matthew Believe His Myths?” Pages 217–49 in An Early Reader of Mark and Q. Edited by Joseph Verheyden and Gilbert Van Belle. Bristol: Peeters, 2016. –. John the Baptist in History and Theology. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2018. –. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Martínez, Florentino García and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Boston: Leiden, 1999. Matera, Frank J. “The Plot of Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 49 (1987): 233–53. McNicol, Allan J., David L. Dungan, and David B. Peabody, eds. Beyond the Q Impasse: Luke’s Use of Matthew; A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996. Meier, John P. “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 99 (1980): 383–405. –. Matthew. NTM 3. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980. –. “Salvation History in Matthew: In Search of a Starting Point.” CBQ 37 (1975): 103–15. –. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1991. Menken, Maarten. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. Merenlahti, Petri and Raimo Hakola. “Reconceiving Narrative Criticism.” Pages 13–48 in Characterization and the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. JSNTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition). 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Miller, David M. “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgment in the Reception History of Malachi 3.” NTS 53 (2007): 1–16. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Mitch, Curtis and Edward Sri. The Gospel of Matthew. CCSS. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Bibliography

225

Mitchell, Hinckly G., John M. P. Smith, and Julius A. Bewer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961. Moffitt, David M. “Righteous Bloodshed, Matthew’s Passion Narrative, and the Temple’s Destruction: Lamentations as a Matthean Intertext.” JBL 125 (2006): 299–320. Moo, Douglas J. The Old Testament in the Gospel’s Passion Narratives. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Moore, Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Mora, Vincent. La Symbolique de la création dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Lectio Divina 144. Paris: Cerf, 1991. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Moscicke, Hans. “Jesus as Goat of the Day of Atonement in Recent Synoptic Gospels Research.” CurBr 17 (2018): 59–85. Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963. Mowery, Robert L. “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles in Matthew.” Bib 83 (2002): 100– 110. Münch, Christian. “Hinführung.” Pages 379–89 in Kompendium der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen 1: Die Wunder Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmerman. Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Walpole: Peeters, 2009. Nelson, Andrew E. “‘Who is This?’ Narration of the Divine Identity of Jesus in Matthew 21:10–17.” JTI 7 (2013): 199–211. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1– 36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Nicklas, Tobias. “Resurrection in the Gospels of Matthew and Peter: Some Developments.” Pages 26–41 in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Nicklas, Tobias and Michael Sommer. “‘Der Tag des Herrn ist schon da’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – Ein Schlüsselproblem zum Verständnis des 2. Thessalonichbriefs.” HTS Teologiese Studies 71 (2015): 1–10. Niehaus, Jeffrey. “Amos.” Pages 315–494 in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, Volume 1: Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Edited by Thomas E. McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1990. Nir, Rivka. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. EJL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003. Nogalski, James D. “Recurring Themes in the Book of the Twelve: Creating Points of Contact for a Theological Reading.” Int 61 (2007): 125–36. –. “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 192–213 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Nolland, John. Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

226

Bibliography

–. “The Shepherd as King: The Role of Deutero-Zechariah in Matthew.” Pages 133–46 in Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Thomas R. Hatina. LNTS 310. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. O’Donnell, Patrick James. “A Literary Analysis of Matthew 8: Jesus’ First Gentile Mission.” ThD diss. The Iliff School of Theology, 1979. Ogden, D. Kelly. “The Earthquake Motif in the Book of Amos.” Pages 69–80 in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications of the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992. Öhler, Markus. “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God.” JBL 118 (1999): 461–76. Oropeza, B. J. and Steve Moyise. “Introduction: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Intertextuality.” Pages xiii-xix in Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Edited by B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Osborne, Grant. Matthew. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. –. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. –. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Osburn, Carrol D. “The Christological Use of 1 Enoch I.9 in Jude 14–15.” NTS 23 (1977): 334–41. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Park, Soon-Ja. “La tempête apaisée.” Sémiotique et Bible 99 (2000): 33–51. Patte, Daniel. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Peabody, David B. Mark as Composer. NGS 1. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987. Peabody, David B., Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol, eds. One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke; A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for the Renewal of Gospel Studies. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002. Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. –. Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. London: Robert Scott, 1920. Poland, Lynn M. Literary Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics: A Critique of Formalist Approaches. Chico: Scholars, 1985. Porter, Stanley E. “Psalm 22 and the Passion of Jesus.” Pages 153–78 in Sacred Tradition in the New Testament: Tracing Old Testament Themes in the Gospels and Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. –. “Resurrection, the Greeks, and the New Testament.” Pages 52–81 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs. JSNTSup 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Bibliography

227

Powell, Mark Allan. “Literary Approaches and the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 44–82 in Methods for Matthew. Edited by Mark Allan Powell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. –. “Narrative Criticism: The Emergence of a Prominent Reading Strategy.” Pages 20–43 in Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. –. “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel.” NTS 38 (1992): 187–204. –. What Is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Quarles, Charles L. “Matthew 27:51–53: Meaning, Genre, Intertextuality, Theology, and Reception History.” JETS 59 (2016): 271–86. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: Based on the Revised Standard Version. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Reeves, Keith Howard. The Resurrection Narrative in Matthew: A Literary-Critical Examination. Lewiston: Mellen, 1993. Reiser, Marius. “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der antiken Literaturgeschichte.” ZNW 90 (1999): 1–27. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 186–97 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. –. “How to Read the Book of the Twelve as a Theological Unity.” Pages 420–32 in Society of Biblical Literature 1997 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 36. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Rhoads, David. “Narrative Criticism: Practices and Prospects” Pages 264–85 in Characterization and the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. JSNTSup 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Rhoads, David and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Texas Christian University Press, 1976. Riebl, Maria. Auferstehung Jesu in der Stunde seines Todes? SBB. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. Rowley, Harold H. The Growth of the Old Testament. New York: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1950. Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard. Die Eschatologie von Hen 9–11 und das Neue Testament. Translated by Herbert Ulrich. ÖBS 6. Lublin: Osterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984. Runesson, Anders. Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew: The Narrative World of the First Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Sanders, Ed Parish. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sanders, James A. “Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha?” Pages 13–19 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Schmidt, Karl Matthias. Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexe des Markusevengeliums. NTOA 74. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Schmoldt, “‫ר ַﬠשׁ‬,ָ rā‘as̆ , ‫ר ַﬠשׁ‬,ַ ra‘as̆ ,” TDOT 13:589–93. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. God’s Rule and Kingdom. Translated by John Murray. New York: Herder and Herder, 1963. Schniewind, Julius. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Schuller, Eileen. “Ideas of Resurrection in Intertestamental Sources.” TBT 27 (1989): 140– 45.

228

Bibliography

Schwartz, Günther. “‘Ein großes Beben entstand auf dem Meer’? (Matthäus 8,24).” BibNot 74 (1994): 31–32. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheten. BZAW 366. New York: de Gruyter, 2006. Senior, Donald. Matthew. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. –. “The Death of Jesus and Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt 27:51–53).” CBQ 38 (1976): 312–29. –. “The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Re-Assessing Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament with the Passion Narratives as a Test Case.” Pages 89–115 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. –. The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study. BETL 39. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1975. –. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985. –. What are they Saying about Matthew? New York: Paulist, 1983. Shively, Elizabeth. “Recognizing Penguins: Audience Expectation, Cognitive Genre Theory, and the Ending of Mark's Gospel.” CBQ 80 (2018): 273–92. Sim, David C. “Matthew 22.13a and 1 Enoch 10.4a: A Case of Literary Dependence?” JSNT 47 (1992): 3–19. –. “Rome in Matthew’s Eschatology.” Pages 91–106 in The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context. Edited by John Riches and David C. Sim. JSNTSup 276. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “The 'Confession' of the Soldiers in Matthew 27:54.” HeyJ 34 (1993): 401–24. Simkins, Ronald. Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book of Joel. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 10. Lewiston: Mellen, 1991. Simundson, Daniel J. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco: Word, 1984. Soares Prabhu, George M. The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew: An Enquiry into the Tradition history of Mt 1–2. AnBib 63. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976. Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. –. “Matthew.” Pages 205–19 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –. The Gospels and Jesus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Staples, Jason A. “‘Lord, Lord’: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke.” NTS 64 (2018): 1– 19. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. “Fasting with Jews, Thinking with Scapegoats: Some Remarks on Yom Kippur in Early Judaism and Christianity, in Particular 4Q541, Barnabas 7, Matthew 27, and Acts 27.” Pages 165–87 in Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Judaism. Edited by Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas. TBN 15. Boston: Brill, 2012. –. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. WUNT 163. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Stone, Timothy J. “Following the Church Fathers: An Intertextual Path from Psalm 107 to Isaiah, Jonah, and Matthew 8:23–27.” JTI 7 (2013): 37–55.

Bibliography

229

Suriano, Thomas M. “Who Then is This?” Bible Today 79 (1975): 449–56. Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Talbert, Charles H. What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. –. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. “Tension in the Synoptic Sayings and Stories.” Int 34 (1980): 138–50. Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Telford, William R. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition. JSNTSup 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980. Theissen, Gerd. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Thimmes, Pamela L. Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene: Convention and Invention. San Francisco: Mellen Research University, 1992. Thompson, William. Matthew’s Advice to a Divided Community: Mt 17,22–18,35. AnBib 44. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. –. “Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1–9:34.” CBQ 33 (1971): 368–87. Troxel, Ronald L. “Matt 27.51–4 Reconsidered: Its Role in the Passion Narrative, Meaning and Origin.” NTS 48 (2002): 30–47. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist.” Pages 28– 41 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Tuckett, Christopher M. The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An Analysis and Appraisal. SNTSMS 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Turner, David L. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Van Aarde, Andries G. “Matthew 27:45–53 and the Turning of the Tide in Israel’s History.” BTB 28 (1998): 16–26. Van Tilborg, Sjef. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Vander Hart, Mark D. “The Transition of the Old Testament Day of the Lord into the New Testament Day of the Lord Jesus Christ.” MJT 9 (1993): 3–25. Vanderkam, James. “The Theophany of Enoch I 3b-7, 9.” VT 23 (1973): 129–50. VanGemeren, Willem A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Verseput, Donald J. “Jesus’ Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple: A Geographical Motif in Matthew’s Gospel.” NovT 36 (1994): 105–21. Viviano, Benedict T. “A Psychology of Faith: Matt 27:54 in the Light of Exod 14:30–31.” RB 104 (1997): 368–72. Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1996.

230

Bibliography

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, And Greek Word Indexes. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Weaver, Dorothy Jean. “Matthew 28:1–10.” Int 46 (1992): 398–402. Weaver, John B. Plots of Epiphany: Prison-Escape in Acts of the Apostles. BZNT 131. New York: de Gruyter, 2004. Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Weinfeld, Moshe. "The Day of the Lord: Aspiration for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy." ScrHier 31 (1986): 341–72. Wendebourg, Nicola. Der Tag des Herrn: Ein Beitrag zur Gerichtserwartung im Neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Weren, Wim. “Matthew’s Stories about Jesus’ Burial and Resurrection.” Pages 189–200 in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. –. Studies in Matthew’s Gospel: Literary Design, Intertextuality, and Social Setting. BibInt 130. Boston: Brill, 2014. Whitters, Mark F. The Epistle of Second Baruch: Form and Message. JSPSS 42. New York: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Wigram, George V. The Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: Every Word and Inflection of the Greek New Testament Arranged Alphabetically and with Grammatical Analysis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28–39. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, Peter S. Revelation. CCSS. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Willits, Joel. Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel'. BZNW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 568–88. Witherup, Ronald D. “The Death of Jesus and the Raising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51–54 in Context.” Pages 574–85 in Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 26. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. Wolff, Hans Walter. Haggai: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. –. Joel and Amos. Edited by S. Dean McBride, Jr. Translated by Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wray Beal, Lissa M. 1 & 2 Kings. ApOTC 9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. –. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Zacharias, H. Daniel. Matthew’s Presentation of the Son of David: Davidic Tradition and Typology in the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017.

Bibliography

231

Zangenberg, Jürgen. “‘Bodily Resurrection of Jesus in Matthew?” Pages 217–32 in Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden. BTS 13. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Ziegler, Joseph. Septuaginta: Jeremias; Baruch; Threni; Epistula Jeremiae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament Genesis 1:6 1:9 4:24 9:22–23 12:1–3 13:10 15:16 16:7–11 19:21 19:24 19:25 19:29 22:11 22:15 26:32 31:10–13 38:8 49:11 Exodus 3:2 3:20 5:6 10:21–22 10:22 14:10–15:21 15 19:3 19:12 19:14 19:16–19 19:16–20 19:18 20:26 23:20 24:15

153 92 122 143 57 121 123 184 121 126 121 121 184 184 45 184 176 111

184 130 45 154 176 92 40 86 86 86 39, 57 38 38, 210 143 176 86

24:18 26:31–35 26:36–37 32:1 32:15 33:21–23 34:1–2 34:29 38:18

86 152 152 86 86 39 86 86 152

Leviticus 16 16:2 16:7–10 16:15–22 16:21–22 26:18

152 152 151 151 152 122

Numbers 3:26 16:35

152 126

Deuteronomy 5:4–5 21:22–23 23:14 25:5 28:15–19 28:48 29:23 31:4 34:12

39 143 143 176 122 143 121 138 130

Judges 2:1 2:4 5:4

184 184 57

234 5:4–5

Index of Ancient Sources

6:11 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:16 6:20 6:21 6:22 13:3 13:13 13:15 13:16 13:17 13:18 13:20 13:21 16:15

10, 39, 40, 57, 133, 163, 210 184 184 130 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 51

1 Samuel 4:7–8 10:24

122 51

2 Samuel 3:18 5:2 6:21 7:4–17 7:11–17 22 22:8

51 175 51 88 111 40 10, 12

1 Kings 1:32–40 2:1 2:11 9:1–10 11–12 11:34 14:15 19:11–12

111 7 7 123 63 51 11 6, 7, 39, 164

2 Kings 1:8 2:1 2:11 2:4–14 5:11

126 6, 7 7 126 88

9:13 17:13–14 17:18–20 17:20 21:7–16 21:8 21:10–15 21:10–16 21:13

138 133 133 53, 59, 133, 203 133–136 53, 59 134 133 121

1 Chronicles 1:8 2:1 2:11 2:4–14 5:11 9:13 17:13–14 17:18–20 17:20 21:7–16 21:8 21:10–15 21:10–16 21:13

126 6, 7 7 126 88 138 133 133 53, 59, 133, 203 133–136 53, 59 134 133 121

2 Chronicles 3:19 33:8

152 53, 69

Ezra 1:2 1:5 2:68 3:8

123 123 123 123

Nehemiah 9:17

130

Job 4:14 9:5 9:6 9:8 9:28 11:18–20 12:19 14:14 18:4

52, 190 121 10, 133 92 10, 52, 109, 190 94 121 147, 186 121

Index of Ancient Sources 26:12 26:12–13 39:20 39:24 40:21 41:21 41:25 42:17

92 99 58 58 11 54 100 147, 186

Psalms 2 2:2 2:7 2:8–9 3:5–6 4:8 7:7 8:2 (LXX) 9 9:2 (LXX) 10:6 12:5 (LXX) 13:4–5 14:5 (LXX) 15:8 15:5 16:8 17:8 (LXX) 17:16 (LXX) 18 18:4–15 18:6 18:8 18:8 18:11 18:13–14 18:15 18:16 18:17 21:8 21:9 21:19 (LXX) 22 22:37 23:8 (LXX) 23:10 (LXX) 25:7 (LXX) 29 29:10

40, 111 108 175 83 94 94 94 130 40 130 54 203 52 204 204 54 54 10 94 40, 99 163 40 57, 63, 163 10, 12, 40, 99 40 40 92 41, 99 99 54 126 171 149 149 129 129 130 40 40

32:8 (LXX) 35:23 36:12 38:17 39:6 44:24 45:3 (LXX) 46 46:3–4 46:4 46:5 46:7–8 47 47:6 48 50:3 59:5–6 59:10 (LXX) 60:3–5 60:4 60:8 61:3 62 62:3 64:8 (LXX) 65 65:7 68:8 68:8–9 68:9 68:7–10 68:30 70:17 (LXX) 71:18 (LXX) 72:16 73:1–3 74:3 (LXX) 74:12–17 76 76:12 (LXX) 76:15 (LXX) 77:4 (LXX) 77:17 77:16–18 77:16–19 77:16–20 77:19 77:20 78:80

235 52, 190 94 52, 59 52 130 94 37 40, 99 54 58 54 54 40 52 40 126 94 125 50 57, 58 125 204 54 54 92 40 40, 99, 100, 101 39, 163 210 57 39 11 130 130 58 52 130 100 40 130 130 130 39 39 99 40, 210 10, 57 92 51

236

Index of Ancient Sources

82:5 88:40 (LXX) 89:8–10 89:9–10 93:1 93:3–4 95:9 (LXX) 95:11 94:17–18 96:10 97 97:4 97:4 97:2–5 97:7 103:7 104 104:3–9 104:3 104:5–9 104:7 105:9 (LXX) 105:28 106:8–9 106:9 106:27 (LXX) 106:28 (LXX) 107 107:23–32 107:24 107:25 107:26–27 107:28 107:29 107:31 109:10 110 110:3 110:9 111:6 112:6 114:7 118 118:26 124:1 125:1

38 121 92, 100 40, 99, 100 38 92, 99 52 51 52 38 40 163 40 40 51 94 40 99 40 40 92 94 154 92 99 52 96 17, 93, 94, 103 92, 97, 103 93 93 93 93 93 93 52 40 111 125 204 54 39 20, 111, 138 119, 129, 135, 138 204 54

Proverbs 3:24–26

94

3:26 6:13 6:31 30:21

54, 59 171 122 38

Isaiah 2:2 2:2–3 2:2–4 2:3 2:4 2:11 2:11–12 2:12 2:17 2:11–22 2:20 3:7 3:18 4:2 4:3–4 5:1–7 5:1–10 5:2 5:8–24 11:4–5 7–9 7:2 7:18 7:20 8:23 9:1–7 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7 10:13 10:16–17 10:20 10:20–23 10:27 10:33–34 11:1 11:1–9 11:1–10 11:4–5 11:6–8 11:6–9 11:10

189 49 84, 86, 149 84 49, 83 45 44 45 45 47 45 46 46 49 49 122 122 122 122 83 33 54 46 46 90 111 63 58 83 83 58, 203 126 46, 89 47 46 126 83 40, 111 49 83, 86 83 83 149

Index of Ancient Sources 13 13–14 13:4–5 13:5 13:6 13:9 13:9–10 13:9–13 13:10 13:13 13:19 13:24–27 14:1–2 14:2 14:16 14:16–17 15:5 17:4 17:12–13 17:12–14 19:1 19:16 24 24-27

24:1 24:1–12 24:1–13 24:3 24:5 24:5–6 24:12 24:14 24:17 24:17–18 24:17–20 24:18 24:18–20 24:18 24:18–20 24:18–23 24:19

44, 48, 167 49 47 41 41, 45, 46 41, 45, 46, 53, 167 84 155 49, 50, 138, 155, 167, 206, 212 10, 11, 41, 53, 63, 131, 167, 212 121 44 47 41 63 53 10, 53 55, 58 101 99 55, 62, 131, 191 46 41, 42 44, 46, 48–50, 100– 102, 107, 146, 165, 167, 169, 170, 173, 176, 188, 191, 203, 206, 212 42, 167–169 167, 188 107 42 42 167 167–169 191 41 167, 188 191 63, 188 107, 169 63, 100, 131, 155, 164, 167, 168 41, 42, 58, 168 84 12, 167

24:20 24:21 24:21–22 24:23 25:4–5 25:6 25:6–7 25:7 25:7–8 25:7–9 25:8 25:9

25:9–10 25:10–12 26:1 26:5 26:6–7 26:14 26:15 26:19

26:20 26:21 27:1 27:1–2 27:9 27:13 28:7 29 29:1–8 29:5–6 29:6 29:7–8 29:18 29:18–19 30:15–16 30:33 32:15 32:16 32:17–18 33:5 33:14

237 100, 131, 155, 164, 167, 188 45, 49 83, 167, 188 42, 49, 101, 155, 167–169, 188 167 42, 49, 101, 107, 167–169, 188, 189 84, 149 49, 101, 167, 168 83 42 167, 188 42, 45, 49, 101, 107, 167–169, 188, 191, 203 84 167, 188 45 167, 188 168 167, 188, 191, 203 42 42, 49, 101, 107, 147, 167–169, 176, 188, 191, 203 167 41, 47, 167–169, 188 42, 100, 101, 107 45 107, 168, 169, 188 138, 168, 169, 206 52 42 57 42 5, 6, 63, 163 42 83 49 139 126 83 83 83 83 126

238 33:19 33:20 33:21–22 34:1–35 34:4 34:8 35:1–2 35:5–6 35:6–7 40–55 40:3 40:3–5 40:9–10 40:10 40:20 40:3 40:3–5 40:9–10 42:1 42:3 42:7 42:18 42:10–16 43:16 43:16–21 44:3 44:3–5 49:5–6 49:22–26 50:2 50:2–3 51:3 51:6 51:9 51:9–10 51:9–11 51:15 51:17 52:1 52:7–10 52:7–12 53:4 54:14 56:7 56:8 56:11 59:20 59:21

Index of Ancient Sources 54 54, 58 54 40 11, 49, 206 45–47 83 83, 87 83 51 90, 96, 124–126 84 84 126 54 90, 96, 126 84 84 176 11 83 83 40 99 40 83, 126 84 83 83 92, 94 99 83 84 95 92, 95 40, 94–95, 99–100 92 95 95 84 40 87 83 84, 121, 149, 176, 189 83 176 84 84

60:1–3 60:2–14 60:4 60:5 60:9 60:15–17 60:18 61:1–2 61:1–4 61 61:11 62:11 64:10–11 64:11 66:12 66:15–16 66:19–21 66:20 66:23 66:24

86 84, 149 83 101 83 83 83 86 86 86 83 119, 176 123 123 83 83, 126 84, 149 83 84, 149 126

Jeremiah 2:2–3 3:18 4:24 7:1–15 7:10–14 7:11 7:20 8:16 10:10 10:22 12:7 13:16 16:19–21 18:2–6 19:1–13 20:16 21:2 22:1–6 23:5 23:5–6 23:9 23:19 27:40 (LXX) 30:12 (LXX) 31:8 31:10 31:16–25

89 83 12, 37, 58 121 123 121, 176 126 10, 50, 57 58 50, 57, 192 123 154 84, 149 176 176 121 130 123 86 83, 111 52 6, 7, 102 121 121 83 83 83

Index of Ancient Sources 31:12–14 31:31–34 31:33–34 31:35 32:6–15 33:17–22 37:23 (LXX) 46:10 47:3 47:3 47:4 48:41 49:21 49:22 49:26 50–51 50:27 50:46 51:7 51:29

83 82, 83, 151 84 92 176 111 7 45, 46, 48 63 55 46 46 50, 57 46 46 50 46 50, 57 53 50, 57

Lamentations 2:1 2:21–22 2:22 4:6 4:13 4:14–15

47 47, 48, 210 45 121 171 52

Ezekiel 1:4 1:5–14 1:15–21 1:11–13 1:24 1:28–30 1:1–28 3:12 3:13 3:12–13 7:10 7:19 8–11 12:18 13:5 16:36–39 20:35–38 21:29 23:19

6 6 6 190 6 190 55 6, 192 6 55 46 45, 46 124, 153 58 45, 46, 48 143 89 46 143

26:3 26:10 26:10–11 26:15 27:28 30:3 30:9 31:16 32:7–8 34 34:11–16 34:12–16 34:17–22 34:23 34:23–24 34:25 34:26–27 36:24 36:24–26 36:25–29 36:26–27 36:27 36:28 36:29–30 36:33 36:33–36 36:35 37 37:1–10 37:1–14 37:5 37:7 37:8 37:11–14 37:12 37:21–23 37:24 37:24–25 37:24–28 37:27 38 38–39 38:1–18 38:4 38:10 38:14 38:18

239 101 52, 203 132 53 58 45 46 53 154 87, 131, 161, 192 131 83 131 51, 83 111, 131, 162 83 83 83 82 84, 151 84 84 83 83 82, 84, 151 83 83 161–164, 174, 176 162 161, 163, 164, 179 163 20, 55, 63, 160, 161 162 162 161, 163, 192 83 51 111, 163 83 84 46, 48, 61, 101, 192 42, 44, 48, 49, 61, 101, 146, 164, 210 43 101 45, 49 45, 49 45, 49

240 38:19

Index of Ancient Sources

38:21–23 38:23 39:6–7 39:7 39:9 39:9–10 39:11 39:6–7 39:17–20 39:21–23 39:22 39:25 39:25–28 39:25–29 39:27 39:29 40–48 43:2–7

45, 47, 49, 58, 101, 102, 164, 188, 191, 192, 201 43, 131, 164, 191 53, 131, 164, 174, 192, 193, 201 191 43, 101, 191 43, 101 191 49 101 45, 49 101 43, 101 43, 101 49 191 43, 101 191 83, 191 43, 84, 101, 126 84, 164 84

Daniel 7:2 7:9 7:10 7:13 8:15–18 8:23 9:24 10:5–12 10:6 10:15–19 12:2

100 183, 188 83 157 190 123 123 190 183 190 147, 186

Hosea 1:5 2:3 2:9 2:14–15 6:2 6:6 13:14

45 143 143 89 147, 186 172 147, 186

Joel 1

43, 44

38:19–20 38:20

1:15 2 2–4 (LXX) 2:1 2:1–11 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:10

2:11 2:11–12 2:12–17 2:19 2:21–26 2:26 3:1 (LXX) 3:1–2 (LXX) 3:1–4:21 (LXX) 3:1–5 (LXX) 3:3–4 (LXX) 3:4 (LXX) 3:5 (LXX) 4 (LXX) 4:1–16 (LXX) 4:2 (LXX) 4:3 (LXX) 4:6 (LXX) 4:9–21 (LXX) 4:12 (LXX) 4:13 (LXX) 4:14 (LXX) 4:14–16 (LXX) 4:15 (LXX) 4:15–16 (LXX) 4:16 (LXX) 4:17 (LXX) 4:17–18 (LXX) 4:18 (LXX) 4:19 (LXX) 4:21 (LXX)

45 43, 46, 49 44, 49, 210, 212 45 44, 170 49, 50, 155, 170– 172 44, 50 126 10–11, 43, 58, 63, 131, 138, 155, 164, 170–172, 188, 206, 212 43–45, 47, 170 44 171 83 83 130 126 44, 84 191 170, 173 44, 49, 84 45, 47 43, 44, 47, 96, 170, 172 43, 44, 46–48, 165, 170, 173, 176 44, 170 170 170–172 170 83 170 171 45, 49, 170 20, 84 44, 49, 138, 155, 170–172 50, 155, 212 44, 58, 63, 131, 164, 170–172, 188 49, 170–172 44, 170 45, 49, 83, 170 44, 170–172 170, 172

241

Index of Ancient Sources Amos 1:1 1:7 1:14 2:16 4:11 5:18 5:20 8:3 8:8 8:8–9 8:8–10 8:9 8:9–10 8:12 8:13 9:1 9:5 9:11 9:13–14 9:13–15

38, 44, 64 126 52, 59, 60, 132, 203 143 121 45–47, 49, 50, 155 45–47, 49, 155 45 12 84, 155, 164 20, 155, 176, 212 45, 49, 164 165, 176 51 45 55, 63, 164 10, 57, 163, 164 83, 89, 111 83 49

Obadiah 8 15 17–21 18

46, 48 45 47 127

Jonah 1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:14 1:15 1:16 2:1 3:4

16, 17, 93, 94, 97 93 16, 93 93 93 93 93 93 197 121

Micah 1:4 1:5–6 4:1–4 5:2 5:2–5

10, 41, 57, 163 41 84, 149 146, 172, 175 111

Nahum 1

41

1:3 1:4 1:5 1:5–6 1:6 3:2 3:12

7, 41 41, 92, 94 10, 41, 57, 63, 132 164, 165, 174, 175 41 55, 63 54

Habakkuk 2:6–20 2:16 (LXX) 3:2–15 3:3–15 3:6 3:12 3:15

122 52 57 99 41, 163 41 41, 92

Zephaniah 1 1:7 1:7–8 1:9 1:10 1:14 1:15 1:16 1:18 2 2:1–15 2:2 2:3 2:9–11 3:6 3:8 3:11 3:16 3:20

48 45 46 45 45 45 49, 89, 155 138, 206 45 46 46 45 45, 47 83 46 46, 83 45 45 83

Haggai 1:6 1:13 2 2:4 2:5 2:6

2:6–7

123 21 48 21 21 10, 11, 51, 57, 66, 84, 101, 102, 131, 146, 164, 188, 204, 206 20, 53, 210

242 2:6–10 2:7 2:21

2:21–23 2:22 2:22–23 2:23 Zechariah 1:9 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 2:5 2:10–12 2:11 3:8 4:12 6:11–12 8:3 8:7–8 8:12 8:20–23 9:9 9:9–12 9:10 9:11 11:13 12 12:2 12:3 12:3–4 12:6 12:9 12:10 13:1 13:4 13:7 14

14:1 14:1–9

Index of Ancient Sources 51 21, 53, 54, 57 10, 11, 51, 57, 83, 84, 101, 102, 131, 164, 188, 210 47, 51, 53, 111, 146, 191 49, 121 51 21, 45, 48, 51

184 184 184 184 184 84 84 84, 149 111 111 111 84 83 83 84, 149 110, 112, 119, 131, 166, 172, 176, 214 110 83 45 166, 176 46, 47 52, 53 45, 53 89 53 53 166 45, 49 126 163, 166 44, 46, 47, 48, 146, 161, 165, 166, 173, 175, 176, 179, 191, 210, 212 45, 49 163

14:2 14:3 14:3–5 14:4 14:4–5 14:5 14:6 14:8 14:9 14:12–15 14:16 14:16 14:16–19 14:20 14:20–21 14:21 Malachi 1:6 1:6–14 2:1 2:2 2:8 2:10 2:13–17 3 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–5 3:2 3:2–4 3:2–5 3:3 3:5 3:7 3:18–4:3 3:16–4:6 3:17 3:17–21 (LXX) 3:18 3:23 (LXX) 3:24 (LXX) 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:5

165 165 165–166 45, 49, 84, 110, 164–166 174 15, 20, 44, 47, 58, 163–166, 188 49 49 165, 166 165 165 49, 165, 166 84, 149 49 49, 165, 166 49

128 130 128 130 130 130 130 48, 130, 210, 211 8, 47, 84, 126–128, 130, 131, 172, 214 127, 128 127, 130 127 84, 127, 151 127, 128 127, 128, 176 127 127 127 127 47, 127, 128 46, 47 127 47 45 83, 127 127 127, 128 90, 126, 127, 147

243

Index of Ancient Sources 4:5–6

126

4:6

127, 130

New Testament Matthew 1–2 1–4 1:1 1:6 1:11–12 1:12 1:16 1:16–18 1:17 1:18–25 1:20 1:20–25 1:21

1:22 1:23

1:24 2:1 2:1–6 2:1–18 2:2 2:3 2:3–6 2:4 2:6 2:8 2:9–12 2:10–11 2:10–12 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14–23 2:15 2:16

104 108 89 88 90 21 89 88 90 88 96, 104, 186 129 89, 104, 107, 120, 137, 146, 151, 154, 169, 171, 172, 202, 205, 208, 214 89, 110, 116, 145 33, 75, 89, 90, 92, 104, 105, 107, 124, 125, 129, 153, 171, 188 116, 186 116 89 141 104, 105, 116 9, 12, 15, 21, 104, 109, 116, 117, 136 117 118, 196 146, 172, 175, 176 105, 186 105 104, 116 21 105, 196 105 96, 104, 118, 186, 195 89 90, 110, 145 116

2:17 2:22–23 3:1 3:1–12 3:2

3:3 3:4 3:5–7 3:6 3:7 3:7–10 3:7–12 3:8 3:8–10 3:10 3:11 3:11–12 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:13–17 3:15 3:16 3:17 4:1 4:1–11 4:3 4:5 4:5–6 4:6 4:7 4:8–9 4:11

105 117 126 125, 128, 130, 211 85 , 89–91, 108, 110, 124, 125, 127, 128, 137, 138, 171, 178, 203, 207, 211, 214 8, 90, 96, 125, 126, 128, 129, 169 126 116 126 117, 128, 130 90, 124, 127 137, 138, 146, 203, 207, 211, 214 130 127 124, 126–127, 208 87, 90, 125, 128, 129 124, 128, 137, 150, 203 90, 124, 127, 128, 131, 208 125 128, 211 144 120 183 2, 149, 155, 160, 175, 176, 194 90, 118 104, 113, 143, 144 2, 105, 118, 148 117, 148 148 2, 105, 118, 148 96 118, 148 148

244 4:12–16 4:13–16 4:14 4:14–16 4:15–16 4:16 4:17 4:23 4:25 5–7 5–9 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:6 5:10 5:11–12 5:14–16 5:15 5:17–18 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:21–22 5:21–22 5:21–48 5:22 5:26 5:27 5:27–28 5:31–32 5:32 5:33 5:33–34 5:34 5:35 5:38–39 5:38–42 5:39 5:41 5:43–44 5:44 5:48 6:2 6:5 6:10

Index of Ancient Sources 178 211 110, 145, 169 90 33 86 90, 91, 108, 110, 124, 137, 171 78, 80, 81 116 78, 80, 211 81, 85, 88, 91, 100, 102, 108, 211–213 86 78, 80 81, 86 86 86, 120 81, 120 73 86 150 78, 80 78, 80 81 78, 81, 86, 120 80 79 86 78 78, 80, 150 78, 80 79 79 78, 80 96 79 78, 80 122 79 148 78, 80 150 79 78, 80 86 78, 80, 123 78, 80, 123 81, 86, 89

6:16 6:24 6:25 6:29 6:33 7:21–23 7:22 7:24–27 7:27 7:28 8–9 8–11 8:1 8:1–4 8:2 8:2–4 8:4 8:5 8:5–13 8:6 8:8 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:11–12 8:12 8:13 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:18–22 8:18–27 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:22 8:23 8:23–27

8:24

78, 80, 123 96 78 78, 81 88, 96, 122, 129, 177 81, 89 79, 80, 88, 138, 146, 203, 207 78 80 77–80, 87, 95, 106, 189, 211, 214 103 77, 86 78, 205 77, 88, 96 87 80 77, 88, 150, 159 159 77, 96, 159 77, 79, 80, 96, 150 159 77, 150, 159 101, 150 81, 89, 146, 150, 151, 168, 203, 207 122, 156 79, 80, 150, 159 77 79, 80, 87 51, 87, 99, 103, 110, 137, 145, 170 100 74, 77 8, 24, 77, 91 77 143 77, 96 77 74, 75, 77, 93, 96 2, 16–18, 73–78, 91, 93–96, 98–100, 102, 103, 105–108, 129, 132, 160 1–5, 7–9, 11, 13, 16–22, 24, 25, 34,

Index of Ancient Sources

8:24–26 8:25

8:25–26 8:26 8:26–27 8:27

8:28 8:28–32 8:28–34 8:29 8:31–32 8:32 8:33 8:34 9:1 9:2 9:2–8 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:5–7 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:9–13 9:10 9:10–11 9:10–13 9:13 9:14 9:14–17 9:15 9:18–26 9:19 9:20 9:20–22

37, 73, 74, 76, 77, 91, 93, 94, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 132, 156, 160, 180, 189, 209, 210, 212, 213 41 18, 74, 77, 88, 93– 96, 101, 105, 106, 120, 146, 159, 171 77, 105, 106 18, 20, 79, 80, 94, 95, 100, 106, 159 3, 102, 159 2, 18, 35, 74, 77, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100, 105, 106, 113, 132, 142, 156, 157, 159, 160, 209 100, 106 87 100, 106 2, 77, 100, 106 100 79, 80, 100, 106 106 106 100 79, 80, 106, 137 87, 106 107, 141 118 107 77 79, 80, 87, 107 78, 80, 107 77 87 137 77 87 172 77 87 122 87 77 77, 88 205

9:21–22 9:22 9:23 9:23–25 9:24 9:25 9:27 9:27–31 9:28 9:32–33 9:32–34 9:33 9:33–34 9:34 9:35 10 10:1 10:5–6 10:6 10:8 10:16–39 11:1–6 11:2–6 11:3 11:5 11:5–6 11:6 11:7 11:8 11:9–15 11:10 11:11 11:11–15 11:12 11:14 11:16 11:16–20 11:20–24 11:25 11:25–27 11:28–30 11:29 12:1–14 12:7 12:14 12:16 12:17 12:17–21

245 77, 120, 146 79, 80 81 87, 205 18 18, 77 77, 115 87, 115, 205 77, 88, 96, 106 87, 205 114 80, 114 77, 78 114, 137, 157 78, 80, 81 75 97 178 123 18 73 113, 128 87, 129, 137, 211 129 18 77, 87, 103 158 9, 11, 12, 37 11, 12 12 127, 128, 130, 172, 176, 211 190 90, 178 89 127, 128, 211 118 207 123, 137, 138, 207 96 149 137 148 141 172 137, 157 100 110, 145, 170 148

246 12:18 12:20 12:22 12:23 12:24 12:24–45 12:28 12:30–37 12:31–32 12:34 12:36–37 12:38–40 12:39 12:40 12:40–42 12:41 12:41–42

12:45 13:10–15 13:14 13:19 13:24–30 13:30 13:35 13:36–41 13:36–43 13:38 13:40–43 13:41 13:41–42 13:42 13:43 13:50 13:55 13:58 14:1 14:1–12 14:2 14:3–4 14:12 14:22–33 14:25–27 14:26 14:27–33 14:28 14:30

Index of Ancient Sources 50 11 115 2, 115 115, 137, 157 141 81, 87, 89 137 207, 214 118 138, 175, 207 197, 205 118 16, 18, 196, 197 207 118 137, 138, 147, 177, 186, 197, 205–208, 213 118 8 170 81, 118 89, 203, 128, 207 110, 145 214 138, 150, 171, 177, 206, 207, 213, 214 81, 118, 148 207 81 128 122 81 122 2 28 2 104 18 11 159 99, 107, 129, 160 190 12, 136 136 96 96, 120, 146

14:33 15:1 15:1–9 15:1–20 15:2 15:7 15:14 15:21–28 15:22 15:24 15:26 15:38 15:38–39 15:39 16:1 16:1–4 16:1–12 16:4 16:5 16:7-12 16:13 16:15 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:21

16:21–22 16:21–24 16:21–28 16:22 16:23 16:23–24 16:24 16:27 16:28 17:1–5 17:1–8 17:2 17:5 17:5–7 17:6 17:9 17:10–13 17:11–13

35, 98, 149, 157, 160, 194 114, 117 141 115 115 170 115 115, 137 96, 115 123, 178 115 150 142 198 118 141 115 197 115, 184 115 2 2 2, 35, 98, 144, 149, 157, 158, 160, 194 149 104 18, 104, 114, 117, 118, 144, 178, 181, 186, 197 157 144 158 100 91, 144 158 158 138, 175, 207 81 158 158 144 2, 144, 149, 155, 160, 190 190 150, 160 18 127 90

Index of Ancient Sources 17:12 17:13 17:18 17:22–23 17:23 17:25 18:2–3 18:20 18:28 19:3 19:3–9 19:13 19:13–15 19:24 20:2 20:9 20:13 20:18–19 20:20 20:20–21 20:21 20:22 20:28 20:29 20:29–21:9 20:29–34 20:30–31 20:31 20:34 21–23

21–28 21:1 21:1–3 21:1–7 21:1–9 21:1–11 21:1–12 21:1–17 21:2 21:3 21:4 21:5

158 211 100 104, 118, 144, 158, 178, 197 181 150 114 124, 129, 153, 189 150 118 141 100 114 81 150 150 150 104, 117, 118, 144, 158, 178, 181, 197 159 159 81 159 146, 171 114 114 111, 115 111, 115, 116 100 115 20, 109, 113, 118, 119, 130, 131, 135, 138 2 110, 119, 135 110, 129 129 157 111, 114, 115 119 109, 114–116, 130, 135, 138, 139 111 129 110, 116, 145 110, 119, 129, 137, 148, 166, 172, 176, 214

21:6 21:7 21:8 21:8–9 21:9 21:10

21:10–11 21:10–17 21:11 21:12 21:12–13 21:12–17 21:13 21:14 21:14–16 21:15 21:15–16 21:17–18 21:18–22 21:19 21:19–21 21:23 21:23–24:1 21:24–27 21:25–26 21:28–32 21:28–22:7 21:28–22:14 21:31 21:32 21:33 21:33–43 21:33–46 21:34 21:35–36 21:37–38 21:37–39 21:40–41 21:41 21:42

247 116, 129 110 129 113, 114 96, 111, 114–116, 119, 129, 135, 138 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18–21, 35, 37, 108–110, 112– 117, 119, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 156, 157, 160, 180, 205, 209, 210, 213, 214 1, 114 109 2 120–122 121 114, 120 121, 123, 129, 130, 176 15, 113, 115, 129 114, 117, 157 111, 113–116, 130 113, 115, 130, 141 109 121 130 138 113, 141 117 113 130 122 137 113, 157 81 130 122, 136, 178 136 122, 158 130 122 122 122 122 130 122

248 21:42–3 21:43 21:45–46 21:45 21:46 22:1–10 22:1–14 22:7 22:11–13 22:13 22:15 22:15–40 22:17 22:18 22:19 22:23 22:24 22:29 22:34 22:35 22:37 22:41 22:41–45 23:13 23:13–36 23:13–39 23:15 23:16–17 23:21 23:23 23:23–28 23:24 23:25 23:27 23:27 23:29 23:29–35 23:29–36 23:29–38 23:29–39 23:32 23:33 23:34–37 23:35 23:35–36 23:36

Index of Ancient Sources 132 81, 122, 130, 180 141 122 118, 137 146 122 122, 123, 136, 137, 214 175 122, 156, 175 113 113, 141 150 118 150 147 176 157 118, 196 113, 118 96 118, 196 111 123, 130 122 157 123, 130 115 82 123 130 115 123 123 123 123, 138 138 113, 117, 123 136, 137 119 123 123, 130, 138, 154, 214 73 135, 154, 168, 169, 171, 172, 208 123 113, 118

23:37

23:37–38 23:38

23:39 24–25 24:1 24:1–2 24:1–3 24:2 24:3 24:4 24:6–7 24:7

24:14 24:15 24:21 24:27 24:29

24:29–30 24:29–31 24:30 24:31 24:32 24:34 24:37 24:39 24:50 24:51 25:1 25:6 25:19 25:30 25:31 25:31–32 25:31–46 25:32 25:34 26–27 26:2 26:3

114, 117, 119, 123, 135, 137, 139, 153, 214 135 117, 123, 124, 135, 137, 153, 154, 167– 169, 214 96, 119, 135, 138 104, 119 117, 123 123 119, 153 135, 153, 206, 207 123, 138, 213 157 9 1, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 35, 37, 74, 100, 188, 206, 207 81, 206, 207 25, 157, 206, 207 172 138 1, 9, 10, 11, 35, 37, 138, 139, 172, 206, 207, 213 139 138, 147, 177 166, 175 138, 206, 213 138 118 138 138 89 123 122 177 177 122, 156 155, 165, 166, 177 175 138, 175, 203, 205, 207, 213 171 81 178 158 118, 196

Index of Ancient Sources 26:3–5 26:12 26:13 26:15 26:21 26:24 26:26 26:26–29 26:28

26:29 26:31 26:31–35 26:33–35 26:36–46 26:32 26:35 26:39 26:42 26:44 26:47–68 26:51–54 26:53 26:54 26:55 26:56 26:57 26:58 26:59 26:61 26:61–63 26:63 26:63–65 26:65 26:65–66 26:69 26:70 26:71 26:72 26:73 26:74 26:75 27:1 27:3 27:4

137, 141 158 81 198 167 144 146 158 106, 137, 146, 147, 151, 152, 154, 168, 169, 171, 202, 208, 214 81, 138, 151 144, 158, 166 158 194 158 18 158 144, 159 144 144 141 158 150 110, 145, 154, 186, 214 158 144–145, 154, 186, 214 118, 196 158 118 133 153 2, 157, 158 114 107 157 158 158 158 158 158 158 143, 158 141 198 171

27:5 27:6 27:9 27:9–10 27:11 27:15–27 27:16–17 27:17 27:19 27:20 27:21 27:22 27:24 27:24–25 27:24–44 27:25 27:26 27:27 27:46 27:29 27:32 27:32–50 27:35 27:36 27:37 27:38 27:39 27:40

27:40–43 27:42

27:42–43 27:43 27:45

27:45–51 27:46 27:49

249 198 198 110, 144, 145, 169, 198 166, 176 104, 117 152 151 118, 152, 196 104, 120, 171 8, 104, 152 152 117 171, 196 152 143 117, 152, 154, 168 150 150 143 104 158 137, 201 143, 150, 171, 172, 181, 182 166, 183 2, 104, 146 159, 181, 182 107, 150 2, 104–106, 120, 135, 146, 148, 153, 168–169, 171, 172, 199, 202, 206–208 104, 118, 144, 150, 157, 188, 207 104, 105, 120, 145, 146, 168, 169, 172, 200, 202, 208 2, 105, 146, 148, 194, 197, 198 150, 199 2, 10, 20, 154–156, 165, 167–172, 175, 176, 206, 207, 212 172, 181, 183 143, 150 104, 105, 146, 147, 168

250 27:51

27:51–52 27:51–53

27:51–54 27:52

27:52–53

27:53

27:53–54 27:54

27:54–28:2 27:55 27:55–56 27:55–28:20 27:56 27:57 27:57–58 27:57–60 27:57–61 27:57–28:20 27:58–60 27:58–59 27:59–60

Index of Ancient Sources 1, 2, 8–11, 13–17, 19, 20, 34, 37, 106, 140, 141, 143, 152– 154, 156, 160, 161, 163–169, 171, 174, 175, 179–182, 188, 189, 206, 207, 209, 210, 213 163, 182 2, 20, 144, 149, 155, 161–165, 168– 170, 176, 177, 185, 212 2, 17, 18, 142, 144, 187 18, 105, 107, 146, 147, 161, 162, 166, 168, 174, 181, 182, 202, 206–208 105, 147, 148, 161, 166, 169, 177, 181, 188, 200, 202, 208 106, 107, 117, 144, 147, 148, 161, 162, 165, 166, 168, 171, 172, 181, 182 144 1–3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15–22, 34, 35, 37, 74, 98, 103– 106, 142–144, 149– 152, 155–157, 159– 161, 163, 165–172, 174, 178–182, 188, 189, 194, 198–200, 206–210, 213 188 159, 182 143, 182, 183, 194 194 159 195 196, 199 159 194, 195 195 147 202 181, 182

27:60 27:61 27:62 27:62–64 27:62–66 27:63 27:63–64 27:64 27:64–66 27:65 27:66 28:1 28:1–4 28:1–7 28:1–10 28:1–15 28:2

28:2–3 28:2–4 28:2–7 28:3 28:4

28:4–6 28:5

28:5–7 28:6

28:6–7 28:6–10 28:7

182 182, 183, 199 118, 196 196, 197, 199 114, 148, 194, 195, 198 118, 107, 157, 181, 182, 197–199 18, 197 107, 181, 182, 198, 199 199 150, 198 150, 197, 198 155, 182, 183, 186, 195, 199 201 186 187, 195, 197, 201 207 1–3, 8, 9, 11, 13– 20, 22, 35, 37, 103– 106, 162, 179–185, 187–190, 192, 198– 202, 206–210, 213 187 186 104, 105 183–185, 188 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15–21, 35, 37, 109, 162, 180–182, 190, 192, 194, 195, 197– 203, 205, 207–210, 213, 214 198 181–184, 186, 190, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202 197 18, 105–107, 181– 183, 187, 195–197, 199, 202 18, 105–107, 181– 183, 187, 206 105, 148, 207 18, 105–107, 117, 181–183, 187, 195, 196, 199, 200, 206

251

Index of Ancient Sources 28:8 28:8–9 28:8–10 28:9 28:9–10 28:10

28:11

28:11–15

28:12 28:12–15 28:13 28:14 28:15 28:16 28:16–18 28:16–20

28:17 28:18 28:18–20 28:19 28:19–20 28:20

Mark 1:2–3 1:25 1:27 3:12 4:10–12 4:29 4:36 4:37 4:38 4:41

104, 105, 186, 195, 197, 199, 201 104, 106, 201 186 186, 189, 195, 198, 200 105 104–106, 117, 182, 186, 187–188, 195– 197, 199, 201 104–106, 117, 150, 181, 182, 186, 197– 200, 202 114, 117, 148, 157, 184, 194, 195, 198, 200, 205 118, 196, 198 106 198, 199, 202 196 104, 157, 197, 198, 200, 202 106, 195 148 105, 117, 148, 178, 186, 194, 195, 204, 206 182, 189, 195–198, 200, 16, 107, 166, 189, 198, 206, 212 75, 149, 187, 196 75, 166, 189 75, 104, 207 21, 75, 104–105, 147, 171, 172, 176, 195, 200, 213

8 100 97 100 8 173 74, 96 3 74, 96 96–98

5:8–9 5:29 6:5 9:25 11:1–10 11:1–24 11:3 11:5–6 11:6 11:7 11:10 11:15 12:16 12:38–40 12:41–44 13:1 13:7–8 13:8 13:24–25 13:25 15:11 15:21 15:33 15:38 15:38–39 15:39 16:5 16:6 16:8

79 79 28 100 110 130 129 129 129 110 111 120, 121 102 122 124 8 9 1, 74, 188 10 1 8 158 2 2, 150, 160 142 2, 142, 149, 198 184 20 201

Luke 1:1–4 1:11 1:11–13 1:19 1:27 1:28–30 1:33 1:66 2:8–10 2:22 2:41–42 6:38 6:48 7:24 8:23 8:25 9:30 11:42–50

25 184 190 184 123 190 123 97 190 109 109 67 68 11 3 96 184 122

252

Index of Ancient Sources

13:34–35 14:15–24 19:33–34 21:1–4 21:9–11 21:11 21:25–26 21:26 23:5 23:39–43 23:44–45 23:44–47 24:4 24:23

122 122 129 124 9 1, 74, 188 10 1 8 143 2 142 184 184

John 2:13 5:1 5:28–29 11:11 12:12 19:25–27 20:30–31

109 109 147, 186 147 109 143 25

Acts 1:10 2:16–21 2:16–24 2:17–21 2:36 4:24–30 4:31 7:49 10:30 16:26 17:13

184 173 173 173 123 66 66 97 184 66 67

Romans 6:5 10:13

147, 186 173

1 Corinthians 15 15:20

186 147

1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 3:13 4:13

123 166 147

4:13–18 5:2

138, 147, 186 139

2 Thessalonians 2:2

45, 67

Hebrews 1:2 2:1–4 3:1–6 3:1–4:11 6:2 6:19 9:3 10:20 12:18–21 12:18–24 12:22–24 12:26 12:25–29 12:26–27 12:26–28 12:26–29 12:27 12:27–28

204 204 204 204 147, 186 152 152 152 66 204 66 39, 204, 210 66, 67, 203, 204 66 67 10, 133, 134, 205 67 204

2 Peter 3:4

147

Jude 14–15 15

173, 175 175

Revelation 1:12–17 4:5 6:12 6:12–17 7:9 7:10 7:13–17 8:5 8:12 11:7 11:8 11:11 11:11–13 11:13 11:19

190 187 67, 155, 201 192–193 193 193 193 67, 188 155 201 134 163, 201 201 67, 134, 201 67, 187

253

Index of Ancient Sources 13:1 16:18

99 67, 134, 187, 201

20:11–13 21:1

147, 186 99, 100

Deuterocanonical Works Tobit 13:5 13:11 13:16–18 14:4 14:5 14:5–7 14:5–6 14:6

83 84, 86, 149 154 121 84 154 83 84

Judith 12:16 16:15

56 51, 56

Wisdom of Solomon 3:7 83 3:18 83 4:4 57 4:18–19 83 5:17–23 83 Sirach 10:13 10:16 13:21 16:18–19 16:19 18:6 22:16 26:7 27:3 28:14 29:18 31:9 36:1–9 36:11–15 43:16 48:10 48:12

121 121 57, 203 56 58 130 6, 56 56 121 57 57 130 83 83 56 83, 90 56, 190

48:19 49:10 50:5 (LXX)

56, 190 172 153

Baruch 4:25 4:31–35 4:37 5:5

83 83 83 83

1 Maccabees 1:28 4:32 4:46 6:8 6:41 9:13 9:27 13:51 14:41

56 56 89 56 56 56 89 138 89

2 Maccabees 1:27 1:29 3:26 3:33 6:14 7:9 7:14 7:23 9:8 12:44–45

83 83 184 184 123 147, 186 147, 186 147, 186 92 186

3 Maccabees 2:22

11

4 Maccabees 17:3

57

254

Index of Ancient Sources

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 9:1–3 190 10:1–7 190 30:6 62, 188 30:8 62, 188 2 Baruch 1–14 1:1–5 6:8–9 8:1–5 27:5-7 27:7 30:1–5 31:3–32:5 31:3b–32:6 31:5–32:1 32:1 32:1–2 32:1–5 32:2 32:2–3 32:3 40:1 42:8 50:2–4 51:1–6 59:3 70:8

135 135 153 123 9 62, 188 147, 186 135 134 203 62, 135, 204 66, 136 154 62, 134 135 135 83 147, 186 147, 186 147, 186 62 9, 62, 188

1 Enoch 1:3–9 1:3b–8 1:4 1:4–7 1:5 1:5–6 1:5–7 1:5–7a 1:6 1:7 1:8–9 1:9 10:4 10:19 10:20

61, 173–175 60–61 173 61 173, 174 60 174 173 173, 174 83, 175 173 83 83, 175 83 84

14:13b–14 14:14 25:4–6 32–89 51:1 51:1–2 60:1 60:7–9 60:24–25 62:15 62–63 65:3 71:3 80:4 88:2 89:50–51 89:56 89:67 90:2–8 90:19 90:28–29 90:30–36 90:33 91:10 91:13 102–104 102:1 102:1–4 102:2 102:2–3 102:3

190 62, 109 83 60 186 147 60 100 100 147, 186 175 62 190 84 62 123 123 123 154 83 84 83, 84 83 147 84 192 193, 201 193 60 62 131

2 Enoch 1:4–7 1:7–8 7:1–2

184 190 83, 155

3 Enoch 15:2 22:2 22:9

187 187 187

4 Ezra 3:18 6:16 6:18

39, 60, 210 62 60

255

Index of Ancient Sources 6:29–33 7:31–37 7:33–34 9:3 9:3–4 10:26 12:32–34 12:33 13:38

190 147, 186 83 62, 188 9 62, 187 112 83 83

Joseph and Aseneth 11:1 62 12:11 100 13–17 185 Jubilees 1:15–17 1:15–18 1:23–24 1:26–28 1:29 4:26 5:6 5:10–16 10:7–11 14:16 15:26 23:26–29 23:29 50:5

83, 84 83 84 84, 154 84 83 83 83 83 123 83 83 83 83

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 13.3 147, 186 41.2 147, 186 Lives of the Prophets 2:7 62 3:12 162 11:3 62 12:10 153 Psalms of Solomon 3:11–12 8:33 11:1–9 14:9 15:4 15:10 15:12

147, 186 62 83 83 62 83 83

17:21–27 17:21–36 17:23–51 17:26–32 17:31 17:32–35 17:44 17:37

112 112 83 83 83 149 83 112

Sibylline Oracles 2.187–189 2.221–226 3.177 2.221–237 3.294 3.449 3.457 3.459 3.663–731 3.669–671 3.669–679 3.675 3.675–679 3.679 3.680–701 3.702–703 3.702–731 3.705 3.710–719 3.714 3.726 3.741–755 3.752 3.767–795 3.772–779 4.56–757 4.58 4.100 4.107 4.113 4.128 4.179–192 5.128 5.291 5.294 5.414–433 5.438 11.45–46

90 162 62 147 84 62 62 62 192 192 192 60 61, 192 193, 201 192 192 192 192 84 61 192 193 61 193 84 155 62 62 62 62 62 147, 186 62 62 62 154 62 155

256

Index of Ancient Sources

Testament of Asher 7:2–3 100 Testament of Benjamin 9:2 84 Testament of Dan 5:10–11 10:6–9

155 153 123 83

Testament of Zebulun 9:8 83 83 147

Testament of Judah 21:6–7 100 25:1 186 25:4 147, 186 Testament of Levi 3:9

4:1 10:3 10:5 18:12

Testament of Moses 10:1 83 10:3–8 61 10:3–10 173 10:4 60 10:4–5 155 10:3–4 61

60

Qumran 1QH 8:4–11 10:12–16 10:27–28 11:27–36 11:7–14 12:20 12:26–27 16:8 1QM 1QpHab 12:14 13:2–3

1.10–13

112

4Q252 4Q285

112 112

4Q381 24 10

63

83

4Q385 2,1–9 2.8

147, 186 162 147

83 83

4Q412 17

63

4Q418 212 1

63

4Q511 2 f35

122

4Q521

147, 186

83 100 100 100 84 83 83 84

1QS 4:11–14 4:20–21 5:12–13 8:12–14 9:11 9:19–20

83 126 83 89 85 89

4Q169 3–4 II, 3

63

4Q174 (Florilegium) 1.1–3 154

11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 29:2–10 84 29:3–9 84 29:8–10 154 59:9–13 83, 123

257

Index of Ancient Sources 4QpIsa

CD 7:9 7:19 8:1–3 8:21 9:13–16 14:19

112

4QSb 5:21–27

112

11QMelch 4–9

84

83 112 83 83 83 84

Josephus Antiquities 4.44 4.51 5.277 6.27 6.217 6.347 7.65 7.77 8.136 8.531 9.225 10.269 11.233 14.69 15.121 15.142 17.167

63, 64 63, 64 184 64 64 64 112 64 64 63 64 63 64 63, 64 63, 64 64 155

18.16 20.97–98 20.167–72

147 89 89

Jewish War 1.370 1.373 1.377 1.409 1.612 2.636 3.422 4.286 4.502 5.88 6.28 6.288–309 7.438

64 63, 64 63, 64 64 64 64 64 5–6, 64 64 64 64 153 89

Legum allegoriae 3.53

65

Philo De Abrahamo 264

65

De aeternitate mundi 141 65 De congress eruditionis gratia 60 65 De decalogo 67 142

65 65

Legatio ad Gaium 193 65 267 65 De vita Mosis 2.282

65

De opificio mundi 59 65

258

Index of Ancient Sources

De posteritate Caini 22 65 De providentia 2.41 2.53

65 65

De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 16 65 90 65

De somniis 1.244 1.192 1.77 2.11 2.125 2.129–130

65 65 65 65 65 65

De specialibus legibus 1.147 65 1.292 65

Rabbinic Works m. Yoma 6.1

152

y. Yoma 6.43c

t. Sukkah 2.5–6

155

Pirque Rabbi Eliezer 55

b. Berakot 56b

111

b. Sanhedrin 92b 98a 99a

162 111, 112, 120 111

b. Sukkah 29a b. Yoma 39b y. Ta’an 4:7

155

Genesis Rabbah 13.6 14.5 28:1 75.6

162 162 155 111

Exodus Rabbah 29.9

57

Leviticus Rabbah 14.9 24.4

162 84

153 Deuteronomy Rabbah 7.6 162 112

Targumic Texts Targum Canticles 8:5

153

166

259

Index of Ancient Sources

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 5:11 7:6 7:10

123 152 152

1 Clement 20:1

69

Didache 16:7–8

166

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Gospel of Peter 5.15 5.17 5.20 6.21

142, 165 123 142 142

9.35–10.42 9.36 9.36–42 13.55

186 184 197 184

Other Greek and Latin Sources Aelian De natura animalium 11.19.5 69 16.18 71 Varia historia 6.7 6.9

70 70 71 71 71

Artemidorus 69 69

Aeschylus Prometheus vinctus 1080 68 Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 1.207 2.530 2.671 2.1070 4.1051

1.11.98 1.83.1 2.20.143 4.4.28 4.8.62

71 71 69 71 71

Onirocritica 2.38 2.41

4 70

Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 4.12 7.21

71 71

Aulus Gelius Noctes atticae 2.28.1–3

69

Cassius Dio Appian Bella civilia 1.4

69

Historia romana 39.20.4 42.26.3

70 70

260 63.28.1 68.24.1 68.24.3 68.25.2 70.4.1

Index of Ancient Sources 69 69 69 69 69

1.8.27

96

Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 40 152

Cicero Longus De natura deorum 2.5.14 70 De republica 6.22

155

Daphnis and Chloe 3.24.2 71 Lucian Alexander (Pseudomantis) 13 71

Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Joel 1:299 172

Hermotimus (De sectis) 68 11

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 4.85.3 69 5.54.3 69 11.63.3 69 26.8 4 69 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae 10.11.1 70 11.7.2 70 11.9.1 70 16.6.2 69 Epictetus Discourses 1.26

71

De morte Peregrini 39 70 Philopseudes 22

69

Timon 3

69

Vera historia 43

69

Maximus of Tyre Dialexis 9.6 11.7

4 4

Ovid Fasti 2.493

155

Hesiod Pausanias Theogony 705

5

Jerome Comm. Matt. 1.8.2

80

Graeciae descriptio 1.29.8 69 2.7.1 69 3.8.4 69 7.24.12 3, 69 7.25.3 69, 203

261

Index of Ancient Sources 8.27.13 10.1.9 10.23.1

71 71 70

Philostratus Vita Apolloni 2.8 3.13 3.15 4.16 4.34 6.10 6.38 6.41 6.43 Vita sophistarum 1.21 2.1 2.11

69 71 69, 71 69 71 69 70 71 71

71, 109 71 71

De amore prolis 1

71

Amatorius 13.4

71

Aristides 6.3

69

Brutus 45.2

70

Caesar 53.3 69.4

70 155

Cicero 14.3 32.3

70 3, 69

Cimon 16.4–5

69

Pindar Pythionikai 4.270 8.90

De defectu oraculorum 37 71 70, 136, 203 70

Pliny the Elder

Fabius Maximus 19 27

Naturalis historia 2.30 155

De genio Socratis 20 71

Plutarch

De Iside et Osiride 63 71

Adversus Colotem 15 71 Agesilaus 3.5 Alcibiades 23.8 Alexander 6.3

69

69

71

De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute 2.33 71

70 71

Pelopidas 8.4

70

Romulus 27.6

155

Sertorius 7

71

De superstitione 11

71

262

Index of Ancient Sources

Timoleon 6

70

De virtute morali 4

71

12.8 12.8.18 14.2 15.1

69 71 71 71

Suetonius Pollux Onomasticon 5.62

Divus Augustus 47

69

71 Tacitus

Polybius Historiae 5.88.1

69

Strabo Geographica 1.3 1.3.3 1.3.10 1.3.16–20 1.3.45–46 2.3.6 4.1.7 5.4.9 6.1 6.1.6

69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

Annales 4.55 14.27

69 69

Historiae 5.13

153

Tertullian De baptismo 12.7

75

Vergil Georgica 1.461–467

155

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, M., Bowley, J., and Cook, E. 63 Albright, W. and Mann, C. S. 97 Alexander, L. 23, 185 Allison, D. C. Jr. 24, 29, 31–32, 86, 89, 90, 138, 142, 148–149, 155, 156, 160–167, 169, 172, 175–177, 181, 182, 186 Andersen, F. and Freedman, D. N. 56 Anderson J. 116, 158, 196 Angel, A. 99, 100, 107 Aune, D. 23, 67, 70, 163 Barthes, R. 28 Barton, J. 30, 31, 43, 48, 176 Batto, B. 14, 94, 95 Bauckham, R. 38, 39, 67, 175 Beale, G. K. 67, 163, 201 Beare, R. 14, 15, 139 Beasley-Murray, G. 49, 82, 84, 125, 137 Beaton, R. 33, 37, 87, 107, 168 Beck, M. 48, 132, 176 Berg, I. 146 Betz, H. D. 81 Black, C. C. 22 Black, S. 78, 187 Blaising, C. 176 Block, D. 162–163 Blomberg, C. 172 Blount, B. 67 Bøe, S. 101 Bornkamm, G. 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 24, 25, 68, 69, 73–77, 80, 91, 97, 144 Bornkamm, G. Barth, G., and Held, H. J. 8 Boxall, I. 75, 146 Bretscher, P. 125 Brown, J. 30 Brown, R. 14, 16, 105, 147, 148, 164, 172, 178, 194–197

Brueggemann, W. 42, 167 Bruner, F. D. 14, 15, 180 Bryce, D. 14, 17 Burridge, R. 23, 25 Butler, T. 40 Campbell, K. M. 86 Carlson, S. 110, 112, 119, 120 Carrier, B. 129 Carson, D. A. 4 Carter, W. 22, 29, 33, 113, 118, 139, 195 Casey, M. 82 Catchpole, D. 138 Chae, Y. 87, 111, 131, 161–163, 192 Chapman, D. 141, 143 Chapman, D. and Schnabel, E. 143 Charlesworth, J. 60 Childs, B. 42 Chouinard, L. 23 Cockerill, G. L. 204 Cogan, M. 39 Collins, A. Y. 23 Collins, J. J. 90, 111, 112, 162, 192 Cook, J. G. 141, 143 Cousland, J. R. C. 115 Cross, F. M. 40 Crowe, B. 13, 33, 37, 170 Daube, D. 153, 218 Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C. Jr. 2, 4, 11–15, 29, 33, 73, 86, 87, 94, 95, 99, 100, 110–112, 115, 116, 119– 126, 128, 129, 133, 134, 138, 139, 141, 144, 146, 147, 149, 153, 168, 172, 173, 175, 180, 184, 185, 197 Davis, S. 126, 128 Dell, K. 38, 56 Dennert, B. 125, 127, 128

264

Index of Modern Authors

Derrida, J. 28 DeVries, S. 39 Dillard, R. B. 43, 44, 170, 173 Donahue, J. 32 Donaldson, T. 85, 86, 148, 178, 189, 204 Dosker, H. 85 Dronsch, K. 95 Du Toit, D. 88, 124 Duff, P. B. 138 Dungan, D. 27 Dunn, J. D. G. 82, 83, 128 Duplacy, J. 13, 73 Dutton, D. 31 Edwards, R. 22, 32 Eidevall, G. 56 Evans, C. 82 Everson, J. 46, 48, 176 Fan, W. et al. 3 Farmer, W. 27 Ferda, T. 146 Fitzmyer, J. 184 Foster, P. 147, 167 Foster, R. 81 Foucault, M. 28 France, R. T. 11, 14, 15, 29, 33, 89, 94, 112, 114, 117, 119–121, 124, 125, 129–131, 139, 146, 149, 150, 152, 168, 169, 173, 175, 180, 184 Frei, H. 24, 30 Frickenschmidt, D. 23 Gaechter, P. 97 Garland, D. 14, 113, 120, 123, 124, 144, 184 Genette, G. 103 Gerhardsson, B. 86 Gewalt, D. 15, 131 Giblin, C. H. 184, 194 Glenny, W. E. 55–56 Gnilka, J. 14–15, 29, 95, 97, 111, 112, 114, 116 117, 119, 120, 129, 130, 149, 172, 188, 194 Goldammer, K. 75 Goodacre, M. 28, 128 Goswell, G. 195 Graff, G. 31

Grassi, J. 147, 163 Green, G. 175 Green, J. 184 Gundry, R. 10, 11, 14–17, 22, 29, 86, 97, 112, 114, 118–120, 125, 129, 139, 144, 147–149, 172, 184, 197 Gurtner, D. 114, 147, 148, 152–154, 162, 163 Hagner, D. 2–4, 10, 11, 15, 23, 29, 80– 82, 86, 88, 89, 97, 100, 107, 112, 117, 119, 120, 123, 128, 131, 139, 169, 172, 175, 180, 184, 197, 211 Hamilton, C. S. 14, 123, 135, 136, 149, 154, 163, 174, 175, 206 Hannah, D. 185 Hanson, P. 40 Harrington, D. 14–16, 95, 112, 120, 124, 128 Harvey, A. E. 110 Hays, R. 33, 34, 37, 128, 130, 150, 161, 166, 170, 172, 173, 175, 192 Heil, J. P. 87, 98–99, 117, 131, 158– 161, 164, 186, 192, 194, 198 Held, H. J. 97 Hengel, M. 143, 153 Henze, M. 135, 136 Hiers, R. 45, 131 Hill, A. 126, 128, 169, 178 Hill, D. 15, 100 Hinnebusch, P. 20–21 Hoegen-Rohls, C. 108 Hoffman, Y. 47, 48 Holmes, M. 68 House, P. 45, 176 Howell, D. 22, 24, 25, 32, 85, 103–105, 178 Hubbard, D. 43, 170, 173 Hughes, J. 125, 126 Hughes, P. 67 Huizenga, L. 34, 36, 77 Huys, M. 120 Jeremias, J. 56, 164 Johnson, L. T. 33 Johnson, N. 112 Juhl, P. D. 30, 31 Kaiser, O. 5, 42, 167

Index of Modern Authors

265

Kalin, E. R. 87 Keener, C. 4, 11, 14, 15, 23, 25, 29, 121, 124, 129, 131, 144 Kessler, J. 51 Kibbe, M. H. 204 Kinman, B. 112, 138 Kingsbury, J. D. 13, 22, 29, 73, 80, 81, 89, 91, 113, 116, 118, 141, 144, 178, 211 Kirk, J. R. D. 98 Klein, R. 50 Klijn, A. F. J. 135 Klostermann, E. 11 Knowles, M. 124, 135 Koester, H. 152 Konradt, M. 14–15, 29, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 124, 135, 138, 144, 146, 150, 159, 172, 184, 202 Kraftchick, S. 175

157, 158, 177, 178, 183, 184, 194, 206 Menken, M. 114, 119, 120, 168 Merenlahti, P. and Hakola, R. 27 Metzger, B. 151, 197 Meyers, C. and Meyers, E. 51, 53 Miller, D. 126–128 Miller, P. 40 Mitch, C. and Sri, E. 14, 73, 114, 121, 131, 138, 150, 184, 206 Mitchell, H. et al. 51 Moffitt, D. 123, 124, 136 Moo, D. 176 Moore, S. 24–27 Mora, V. 13, 73, 97 Morris, L. 14 Moscicke, H. 151, 152 Mowery, R. 145 Münch, C. 80

Ladd, G. E. 46, 48, 82, 84 Lampe, G. 5 Lane, W. 204 Larsen, K. 97 Lee, J. 4 Leim, J. 22, 29, 36, 107, 129, 130 Lentricchia, F. 31 Léon-Dufour, X. 14, 97 Lessing, R. R. 38, 45 Levenson, J. 101 Lohfink, N. 109, 117, 119, 130 Lohmeyer, E. 97 Longstaff, T. 27 Luz, U. 11, 14, 15, 23, 24, 29, 33, 73– 78, 81, 86, 89, 97, 104–106, 108, 109, 111, 114, 116, 119, 121, 122, 124, 135, 138, 139, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 152, 156, 163, 168, 172, 175, 177, 184, 185, 194, 197, 202, 205

Nelson, A. 109, 130 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 147, 173, 186 Nicklas, T. 47, 197 Nicklas, T. and Sommer, M. 45 Niehaus, J. 56 Nir, R. 134–135 Nogalski, J. 45, 46, 170, 176 Nolland, J. 3, 4, 10, 11, 13–15, 23, 29, 73, 95, 101, 111, 116, 118–120, 123, 131, 139, 146, 150, 151, 164, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 180, 181, 183, 184, 197

Maier, G. 14–15, 184 Main, B. 104, 195 Marcus, J. 3, 4, 18–19, 22, 61, 125, 126, 164, 169 Matera, F. 29 McNicol, A. et al. 27 Meier, J. 13–15, 29, 73, 104, 113, 114, 117, 124, 126, 129, 138, 145, 149,

O’Donnell, P. J. 14 Ogden , D. K. 56 Öhler, M. 125–127 Oropeza, B. J., and Moyise, S. 34 Osborne, G. 4, 14, 15, 31, 67, 85, 95, 120, 121, 128, 138, 139, 144, 152, 163, 169, 173, 180, 184 Osburn, C. 173, 175 Oswalt, J. 167 Park, S. J. 14 Patte, D. 13, 14, 73, 180, 184 Peabody, D. 27 Peabody, D. Cope, L., and McNicol, A. 27 Pennington, J. 23, 82, 211

266

Index of Modern Authors

Perrin, N. 87 Petersen, D. 126, 128 Plummer, A. 97 Poland, L. 31 Porter, S. 147, 150, 186 Powell, M. A. 25–27, 29, 32, 141, 178 Quarles, C. 163 Redditt, P. 45, 51 Reeves, K. H. 180, 194, 196–198 Reiser, M. 23 Rendtorff, R. 45, 48, 170, 176 Ricoeur, P. 28, 31 Riebl, M. 14, 15, 19–20, 22, 131, 164, 182, 184 Rhoads, D. 25–27, 29, 32 Rhoads, D. and Michie, D. 22 Rowley, H. 46 Rubinkiewicz, R. 62 Runesson, A. 124, 149 Sanders, E. P. 83, 84, 120, 154 Sanders, J. 60 Schmidt, K. M. 108 Schmoldt 6 Schnackenburg, R. 81, 82 Schniewind, J. 80 Schuller, E. 147 Schwartz, G. 14 Schweizer, E. 186 Schwesig, P. G. 43, 44, 46, 47, 132, 170, 176 Senior, D. 10, 14–16, 29, 33, 73, 95, 146, 147, 149, 161, 163, 164, 172, 178, 184, 186 Shively, E. 23 Sim, D. 144, 149–150, 175, 194, 206 Simkins, R. 43 Simundson, D. 43, 44 Smith, R. 128 Soares Prabhu, G. 168 Stanton, G. 22–24, 33, 157 Staples, J. 96 Stökl Ben Ezra, D. 151, 152 Stone, T. 17–18, 21–22, 93, 95–97, 100, 102–103, 107 Suriano, T. 13, 73 Sweeney, M. 39 Talbert, C. 23

Tannehill, R. 22, 23, 25–27, 184 Taylor, J. 89, 126 Telford, W. 121 Theissen, G. 11 Thimmes, P. 5 Thompson, W. 26, 77, 78 Troxel, R. 176–177 Trumbower, J. 128 Tuckett, C. 28, 33 Turner, D. 14, 81, 95, 121, 128, 131 Van Aarde, A. 206 Van Tilborg, S. 116, 118 Vander Hart, M. 131, 172 Vanderkam, J. 173 VanGemeren, W. 46 Vanhoozer, K. 28, 29, 31 Verhoef, P. 51,53, 126, 128 Verseput, D. 117 Viviano, B. 151 Walsh, J. 39 Wallace, D. 97 Weaver, D. J. 187, 197 Weaver, J. 183, 185, 186 Webb, B. 40 Weinfeld, M. 47, 48, 50 Wendebourg, N. 45–48, 173 Weren, W. 34, 110, 147, 194, 196 Whitters, M. 135 Wigram, G. 4 Wildberger, H. 5, 42 Williamson, P. 67 Willits, J. 111 Wimsatt, W. and Beardsley, M. 27, 32 Witherup, R. 144, 163, 178 Wolff, H. W. 43, 44, 51, 170 Wolterstorff, N. 28, 30–31 Wray Beal, L. 39 Wright, N. T. 82–85, 88, 90, 125, 147, 148, 162, 167, 169, 186 Young, E. 5, 167 Zacharias, H. D. 109, 111, 112, 115, 120, 131, 161, 192 Zangenberg, J. 147, 181 Ziegler, J. 7

Index of Subjects Angel of the Lord 104, 181, 183–188, 196–197, 199–200, 202 Angelophany 15, 62, 186–188, 190, 201 Authorial intention 25–32 Baptism 86, 116, 126, 128, 144, 183 Blindness/the blind 87, 111, 113–117, 129, 205 Blood 49, 122–123, 133, 154, 167–169, 170–172, 193, 212 – of Jesus 146, 147, 151, 152, 154, 168, 171, 172, 212 Christological identity 2, 35, 77, 87, 88, 98, 105, 110–115, 137, 141, 143– 145, 150, 156–160, 171, 195, 197, 200, 205 Coming one 128–130, 136–137 Composition criticism 13 Centurion 1, 2, 79, 142, 144, 149–150, 157, 159–160, 174, 177, 194, 198 Crowd 8, 11, 67, 78, 80, 111–115, 124, 129, 138, 194 Crucifixion 8, 10, 17, 21, 32, 103–107, 141–156, 159–161, 164–166, 168– 179 Darkness 2, 20, 40, 42, 45, 49, 50, 90, 122, 123, 142, 154–156, 167–169, 171, 175, 183, 206, 207, 212, 213 Day of Atonement 151–152 Day of the Lord see esp. 41–49, 85, 100–102, 107, 126–128, 130–132, 136–137, 164–178, 190–192, 202, 205–207, 210–214 Death 42, 49, 52, 55, 70, 100, 101, 202, 205, 206 – of Jesus see esp. 105, 137, 141–156, 161–164, 175–178, 182–183, 206 Demons 87, 100, 106, 114

Devil see Satan Discipleship 24, 74–75, 77, 91, 108, 157, 196 Divine warrior 40–41, 43, 44, 47, 57, 60–62, 99, 100, 101, 165–167, 169, 171, 173, 174 Earthquakes see esp. 1–8, 10, 37–51, 57, 60–70, 99–102, 142, 143, 156, 160, 163–174, 179–181, 187–189, 191–193, 201–202, 204, 206, 210, 212–213 Elijah 39, 63, 90, 126–128, 130, 147, 184, 211 Epiphany 15, 17, 19, 98–99, 131, 158, 164, 186, 187, 190 Exorcism 79, 80, 87, 100, 114, 205 Fulfillment – citations in Matthew 31, 33, 37, 87, 89–91, 110, 116, 145, 178, 186 – of OT prophecy 20, 33, 37, 85–87, 89–91, 102, 110, 112, 113, 124–126, 130–132, 137, 143–146, 149, 156, 161–179, 188, 202, 204–208, 210, 212–214 Gentiles 46, 49, 83, 84, 100, 104, 105, 116, 145, 146, 149–151, 166, 168, 169, 177, 189, 206, 207, 211 – conversion 84, 145, 146, 149–151, 166, 168, 169, 177, 189, 206, 207, 211 Guards 1, 2, 13, 18, 19, 21, 106, 109, 117, 144, 149, 150, 156, 157, 159– 160, 174, 180–183, 185, 189–191, 194–207 Healing 74, 78–80, 87, 100, 106, 113, 115

268

Index of Subjects

Herod 11, 12, 64, 109, 116, 118, 195 Immanuel 21, 90, 104, 105, 107, 108, 125, 129 Jewish Leaders 104, 106, 107, 113–118, 122, 123, 130, 131, 135, 137, 139, 146, 148, 154, 157, 175, 194–200, 202, 205, 208, 214 Jerusalem 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 42, 44, 48, 50, 52–54, 56, 58, 86, 95, 106, 109–124, 129–140, 142, 147, 153, 156, 157, 160, 164–166, 168, 170–172, 177, 181–182, 187, 198–199, 204–205, 206, 210, 212– 214 John the Baptist 11, 87, 89–91, 104, 113, 124–131, 136–137, 158, 159, 203, 211, 214 Jonah, sign of 16, 196, 197, 205 Judgment 14, 17, 20, 21, 41, 42, 44, 46– 53, 55, 57, 58, 60–71, 83, 85, 87, 99–101, 106, 107, 110, 113, 118– 124, 126–128, 130–137, 138, 139, 141, 145, 149, 153–157, 168–173, 176, 177, 180, 188, 190–193, 201– 208, 210–214 – final/eschatological judgment 17, 66–67, 85, 87, 106, 134–137, 139, 175, 187, 190–193, 201–208 Kingdom of God 62, 81, 89, 177, 186, 189 Kingdom of Heaven 25, 77, 80, 81–92, 99, 100, 102, 108, 110, 113, 122, 124, 127, 128, 137, 150, 151, 164, 178, 205, 211–213 Lord (κύριος) 74, 75, 93, 95–96, 129, 196 Magi 21, 116, 195–196 Narrative criticism 22–27, 32 Parousia 110, 138, 177, 206 Passion predictions 32, 104, 117, 154, 178, 180, 197 Peter 144, 146, 158–160, 190 Pharisees see Jewish leaders

Pilate 8, 118, 152, 195, 196, 199 Prolepsis 103–104, 106, 107, 138, 147, 151, 153, 168, 178, 189, 205–207, 213–214 Redaction criticism 13, 22, 26–27 Resurrection – of Jesus 1, 2, 11, 13, 16–20, 23, 33, 37, 102–108, 114, 117, 141, 148, 157, 173, 176, 178–179, 180–208 – of the dead 55, 145, 147–148, 161– 163, 166, 167, 169, 186, 191, 203 – of the saints 105–106, 141, 142, 146–148, 161, 163, 166, 168, 169, 177, 181, 182, 188, 202, 207 Sadducees see Jewish leaders Salvation 42, 44, 47, 49, 58, 61, 68, 71, 85, 94, 96, 99–101, 104–107, 120, 124, 127, 137, 139, 141, 145–147, 168, 170–173, 176–177, 188, 191– 193, 201, 203, 205–208, 210–211, 214 Satan 83, 103, 105, 106, 113, 118, 137, 144, 148, 150, 200, 205, 208, 214 Sea 1–5, 12, 18, 20, 40–43, 51, 54, 57, 70, 74, 79, 90–103, 105–108, 157, 159, 190, 192, 212 Second coming of Jesus 138–139, 206– 207, 213–214 Sermon on the Mount 28, 67, 78–81, 85, 86, 88 Shaking – from fear 15, 19, 52–53, 56, 60, 62, 109, 189–190, 193, 202, 206, 208 – of cities 51–54, 58, 62, 132, 136 – of Jerusalem 1–2, 15, 20, 52–54, 58, 109, 116, 131–139 – of people 8, 35, 37, 51–54, 56–59, 62, 64–65, 67–68, 70–71, 109, 131, 132, 136, 181, 203, 209, 213 – of the cosmos/heavens 10–11, 35, 37, 41, 51, 56, 60, 62, 66–67, 68, 101, 134–136, 203–204, 206–207 – of the earth see earthquakes – of temples/the Jerusalem temple 55– 56, 62, 70, 134–136 – of the guards at the tomb 2, 180, 189–207

Index of Subjects Son of David 88–89, 111–116, 124, 131 Son of God 1–2, 106, 118, 141, 143– 144, 148–151, 153, 156–157, 160, 171, 179, 194, 198, 199 Son of Man 1, 81, 157, 177, 206 Storm 1, 3–8, 14, 41, 42, 52, 93, 212 – stilling of 16–18, 20, 25, 73–77, 91– 108, 132, 164, 212–213 Synoptic Problem 27 Temple 20, 21, 40, 51, 53, 55, 61, 62, 82, 84, 85, 101, 111, 113, 117, 119– 124, 126–127, 129–130, 133–136, 138, 145, 153–154, 157, 165, 166, 169, 177, 203, 206–207

269

– cleansing of 120–121, 130 – destruction of 55–56, 62, 123–124, 133–136, 145, 153–154, 169, 177, 203, 206–207 – veil 2, 141, 152–154, 164–166, 174 Theophany 5, 6, 14, 17, 38–44, 47, 50, 55–63, 65–69, 71, 163–164, 166, 169, 171, 173–174, 175, 183, 185, 203, 210 Tomb 1, 2, 106, 141, 147, 161–163, 167–169, 177, 180–183, 186, 195– 197, 202, 205 Transfiguration 144, 158, 160 Triumphal Entry 1, 15, 109–112, 114– 116, 130–132, 138–139