Israel, Kirche Und Die Volker Im Matthausevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) (German Edition) 9783161493317, 9783161536083, 9781481301916, 9781481301893, 3161493311

Citation preview

Matthias Konradt tr a n s lat e d b y K a t h l e e n E s s

I s r a e l , C h u r c h, Gentiles and the in the

G o s p e l of M at t h e w

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

BMSEC

B AY LO R– MO H R S I E B E C K Studies in Early Christianity

Wayne Coppins and Simon Gathercole Series Editors

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Matthias Konradt

Translated by Kathleen Ess

Baylor University Pr ess

Mohr Siebeck

© 2014 by Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas 76798-7363 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press. Cover Design by Natalya Balnova Originally published in German as Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium, WUNT 215, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, with the ISBN 978-3-16-149331-7. This English edition is published in Germany by Mohr Siebeck with the ISBN 978-3-16-153608-3. Distributors For all other countries Baylor University Press One Bear Place #97363 Waco, Texas 76798 USA

For Europe and the UK Mohr Siebeck Wilhelmstr. 18, Postfach 20 40 D-72010 Tübingen Germany

eISBN: 978-1-4813-0191-6 (ePDF) This E-book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who encounter any issues with formatting, text, linking, or readability are encouraged to notify the publisher at [email protected]. Some font characters may not display on all e-readers. To inquire about permission to use selections from this text, please contact Baylor Uni.versity Press, One Bear Place, #97363, Waco, Texas 76798 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Konradt, Matthias. [Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium. English] Israel, church, and the gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew / Matthias Konradt; translated by Kathleen Ess.—­English edition. 500 pages  cm.—­(Baylor-­Mohr Siebeck studies in early Christianity) Summary: “Explores the relationship between the particular salvation of the Jews and the universal salvation of all people in the gospel of Matthew”—­Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-­1-­4813-­0189-­3 (hardback) 1. Bible. Matthew—­Criticism, interpretation, etc.  2.  Bible. Matthew—­Theology.  I. Title. BS2575.52.K6613 2014 226.2'06—­dc23

2014002703

Contents

Editors’ Preface

ix

Preface to the English Edition

xi

Note on Abbreviations and the Bibliography

1

Introduction

2

The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples 2.1

Jesus as the Davidic-Messianic Shepherd of Israel 2.1.1 The Son of God as the Son of David 2.1.2 The Davidic Messiah as the Shepherd of Israel 2.1.3 The Healing Son of David

2.2 The Matthean Focus on Israel in Jesus’ Earthly Ministry 2.2.1 The Portrayal of Jesus’ Ministry in Matt 4.23–9.35 2.2.2 The Adaptation of the Markan Text in Matt 15.29–31 2.2.3 Jesus’ Ministry to Gentiles

3

xiii

1 17 18 23 31 39

49 49 53 55

2.3 The Sending of the Disciples to the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel” in Matthew 10

74

2.4

85

Summary

Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel 3.1

Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry Prior to the Passion 3.1.1 Reactions of the Crowds Prior to the Passion 3.1.2 The Opposition to Jesus Prior to the Passion

89 89 89 101

vi

Contents

3.1.3  P   rovisional Conclusions: The Configuration of the  Conflict and the Portrayal of Jesus’ Opponents in  the Gospel of Matthew

4

3.2 The Passion

139

3.3

166

Summary

Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

167

4.1 The Parable Trilogy

167

4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 The Parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21.28–32) 4.1.3 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt 21.33–46) 4.1.4 The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt 22.1–14)

4.2

“Many from East and West” and “the Sons of the Kingdom” (Matt 8.11–12)

4.3 The Words against ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη and the Woes against Galilean Cities 4.3.1 The Simile of Playing Children and the Woes against Galilean Cities in Matt 11.16–19, 20–24 4.3.2 The Evil and Adulterous Generation’s Demand for a Sign in Matt 12.38–45 and 16.1–4 4.3.3 The Message of Judgment against “this γενεά” in Matt 23.34–36 4.3.4 Further Passages on “this γενεά” in Matt 17.17 and 24.34

4.4

5

135

Speaking in Parables and the Incomprehension of the Crowds in Matt 13.3–23

167 170 172 194

202 208 210 219 226 240

244

4.5 The “Judgment” of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in Matt 19.28

259

4.6

263

Summary

Israel and the Gentiles 5.1 The Universal Dimension of the Matthean Jesus Story prior to 28.16–20

265 265

Contents

5.2 The Christological Foundation of the Universal Mission in Matt 28.18–20 5.2.1 The Universal Authority of the Resurrected Christ 5.2.2 The Narrative Development of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in the Gospel of Matthew

6

vii

282 282 286

5.3 The Messiah as the Son of David and Son of God and the Missions to Israel and to the Nations in the Matthean Narrative Concept

307

5.4 The Relationship between the Mission to τὰ ἔθνη (28.19) and to Israel (10.6)

311

5.5

323

Summary

Israel and the Church

327

6.1 The Missionary Dimension of Matthean Ecclesiology

328

6.2 The Ecclesia as God’s People of the New Covenant?

332

6.3

Israel’s Position and the Formation of the Ecclesia

345

6.4

Summary

352

7

Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

355

8

Summary

369

Bibliography Index of Ancient Sources

381 445

Author Index

469

Subject Index

477

This page intentionally left blank

Editors’ Preface

The Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity series aims to facilitate increased dialogue between German and Anglophone scholarship by making recent German research available in English translation. In this way, we hope to play a role in the advancement of our common field of  study. The target audience for the series is primarily scholars and graduate students, though some volumes may also be accessible to advanced undergraduates. In selecting books for the series, we especially seek out works by leading German scholars that represent outstanding contributions in their own right and also serve as windows into the wider world of Germanlanguage scholarship. As Professor of New Testament Theology at the University of Heidelberg and editor (from vol. 105, 2014) of the Zeitschrift für die Neutesta­ mentliche Wissenschaft, Matthias Konradt is one of the most prominent scholars of early Christianity in Germany today. Those who have followed his work are already aware of the impressive depth and breadth of his scholarship, which includes major monographs on James (Christliche Exis­ tenz nach dem Jakobusbrief, 1998), Paul (Gericht und Gemeinde, 2003), and Matthew (the present volume, originally published as Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium, 2007), as well as many influential  articles. Readers who are interested in consulting the full range of his publications are encouraged to visit his University of Heidelberg web page. A list of Professor Konradt’s English-language publications can be found at Wayne Coppins’ website, German for Neutestamentler. A major strength of the present volume is already evident in the title: Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. Rather than working with well-worn categories such as “Christianity and Judaism” or “Matthew and Judaism,” Konradt shows a special sensitivity to the need to employ more precise categories that are better suited to the complexity of the subject matter. In addition to this conceptual precision, the work is characterized throughout by a striking combination of focused discussion

x

Editors’ Preface

of key passages and interpretative cruxes (e.g., the relationship between Matt 10.6 and 28.19 or the interpretation of 21.43 and 27.25) and broader investigations of key motifs within the context of an overall reading of the Gospel of Matthew (e.g., the distinction between the authorities and the crowds or the way in which Matthew relates Son of David and Son of God to each other and to the salvation of Israel and the nations). Finally, this volume is distinguished by its exceptionally thorough engagement with secondary literature, which even includes the incorporation of key works that appeared after the publication of the German version. For all these reasons, it amply fulfills the aims of the series. The editors especially wish to express their thanks to Kathleen Ess for her outstanding translation, which is marked by precision, elegance, and extensive knowledge of the subject matter. We also wish to thank Matthias Konradt for his willingness to work closely with her throughout the translation process. Thanks are due again to Henning Ziebritzki at Mohr Siebeck and Carey Newman at Baylor University Press for their continued support and guidance in the development of this series. Likewise, we are thankful to the many people at Baylor University Press who have given us concrete assistance along the way, especially Jordan Rowan Fannin, Jenny Hunt, Diane Smith, and Scribe Inc. for their editing and production services. Wayne Coppins and Simon Gathercole Athens, Georgia, and Cambridge, England August 2013

Preface to the English Edition

This book is the English translation of my monograph Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium, which appeared in 2007 in the series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. The beginnings of this work reach back to my thesis paper, “Israel and Salvation History According to the Gospel of Matthew,” which I wrote in 1992 for the completion of my university education in theology. From that point on, the topic of Israel in the Gospel of Matthew has been my steady companion, although it took a backseat during my dissertation work on the Letter of James, my pastoral internship, and my postdoctoral thesis on the concept of judgment in Paul. In its beginnings, my work on the Gospel of Matthew was greatly stimulated by the studies by Andrew Overman and Anthony Saldarini. Over the years, in which the time I was able to devote to the Gospel of Matthew waxed and waned, various additional studies appeared, especially on the configuration of the conflict narrative told by Matthew  and its situational background. These studies developed similar perspectives for interpretation and inspired further ideas in important areas of my larger topic. At the same time, I regarded as still incomplete the analysis of the evangelist’s theological concept that renders the relation between Matt 10.5– 6 and 28.19 intelligible and seeks to identify the relation between the ecclesia and Israel. Thus this monograph focuses on what I consider to be one  of  the most central difficulties  for  understanding  the  theology  of the Gospel of Matthew—namely, identifying the cause for the transition from the Israel-centered, pre-Easter ministry of Jesus and his disciples to the universal mission post-Easter and the relationship between the formation of the Church and Israel’s role as God’s chosen nation in Matthew’s concept. Contrary to the traditional interpretation, which suggests that Matthew advocates the replacement of Israel by the Church and—in keeping with this—of the mission to Israel by the universal mission, my thesis is that the Israel-centered and the universal dimensions of salvation are positively interconnected in the narrative conception, in which

xii

Preface to the English Edition

Matthew develops Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of David and the Son of God. After the positive reception of the German version, I am delighted that this book will now appear in the Baylor–Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity series in English. The English version is not simply a translation. On the one hand, the book has been shortened at a few places in the footnotes. In one instance, I omitted statistical linguistic evidence and referred to the corresponding remarks in the German version. More importantly, the English version has been updated through the incorporation of literature that has appeared since 2007. However, only a few minor changes have been made to the main text. I would like to thank, first of all, Kathleen Ess, who provided the translation and, in so doing, was undeterred even by long, complicated German sentences. I am very grateful to her for the time she invested, her diligence, her patience, her dedication, and, above all, the competence that she brought to the project. The collaboration with her has been a great pleasure—indeed, a remarkable stroke of good fortune. My thanks are due further to my student assistant Salome Lang for her excellent work in converting the footnote references to the American style, editing the bibliography, and proofreading, as well as Anja Steinberg and Rahel Brandt for their editorial contributions. Last but not least, I would like to thank the series editors, Dr. Wayne Coppins and Dr. Simon Gathercole, for kindly including this book in the series, and the former especially for his helpful comments on the text; Dr. Carey Newman and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki as representatives of the participating publishing houses; and the editorial team at Baylor University Press, especially Jordan Rowan Fannin, for their excellent work in the production of the volume. Matthias Konradt Heidelberg, August 2013

Note on Abbreviations and the Bibliography

Abbreviations follow the guidelines set by the SBL Handbook of Style. Works that do not appear in or conform to the SBL Handbook are abbreviated as follows: Bauer and Aland

BDR

Bornemann and Risch EWNT

Gk. En. Gk. L.A.E. Lat. L.A.E.

Bauer, W. 1988. Griechisch­ deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Edited by K. Aland and B. Aland. 6 rev. ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. 1984. Grammatik des neutes­ tamentlichen Griechisch. Rev. by F. Rehkopf. 16 rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Bornemann, E., and E. Risch. 1978. Griechische Gramma­ tik. 2 ed. Frankfurt a.M.: Diesterweg. Balz, H., and G. Schneider, eds. 1992. Exegetisches Wörter­ buch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. 2 ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. (German original of EDNT)

Greek Apocalypse of Enoch Greek Life of Adam and Eve Latin Life of Adam and Eve

The bibliography is divided into sections containing primary sources, reference works, and secondary literature. In contrast with the German version of this book, commentaries on Matthew and other biblical and noncanonical texts are listed in the third section, together with monographs, chapters, and articles. For ease of use in tracing references from the footnotes, a few works appear under both “Primary Sources” and “Secondary Literature.”

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Introduction

When considering the theological concept that guided Matthew in retelling the story of Jesus, the question of the relationship between 10.6 and 28.19 arises as a central interpretive problem. More precisely, how is the reader to understand the progression from the exclusive focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel—as formulated programmatically in Matt 15.24 and in the corresponding instruction to his disciples in 10.6—to the universal commission in 28.18b–20?1 How are the initial concentration on Israel and the universalism  of  the  Gospel’s  final  chapters  interrelated  in  the  first  evangelist’s  theological concept? One common model for the solution to this problem views 28.19 as a response to the collective (or at least extensive) rejection that Jesus (in the end) experienced in Israel.2 According to this model, Jesus’ ministry encountered bitter resistance, above all among the leading authorities of Israel, with whom the entire people associated itself in the crucifixion. A  key role is thereby ascribed to the conviction scene in 27.24–25:3 in that Matthew has πᾶς ὁ λαός cry out, “His blood be on us and our children!” 1 Compare Cuvillier 1997, 481–89, with an exemplary overview of scholarly hypotheses for the explanation of the relation between these two statements. 2 See Luz 2001–2007, 1:50: “[T]he Gospel of Matthew tells how it happened that in the end the greatest portion of Israel rejects Jesus (cf. 28.11–15). The risen Lord responds to this rejection by commanding the disciples to make disciples of ‘all nations’ (28.16– 20).” See further Trilling 1964, 105; Walker 1967, 9; McConnell 1969, 159; Beare 1970, 9; Lange 1973, 248, 488– 89, and elsewhere; Bornkamm 1975c, 300; Gaston 1975, 32–33; Hare and Harrington 1975, 367; Hare 1979, 39– 40; Senior 1985, 122 (cf. Senior 1982b, 260); Verseput 1986, 264; Hübner 1987, 385; Matera 1987, 243, 252–53; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:362– 63, 2:381; Broer 1991, 340 (cf. Broer 1995, 10); Luck 1993, 126; Luz 2001–2007, 2:218; Garbe 2005, 59, 150, 212–13; Paul 2005, 306, 309; Sparks 2006, 655–56; and Meier 1979, 180: “The death of Jesus, the result of Israel’s total rejection of its Messiah, frees the church for its mission to all the nations.” 3 See in recent literature Paul 2005, 94–95, 304–5 (“the key text for the story of conflict between Jesus and Israel” [94; trans. K. Ess]). See further section 3.2, n. 375.

2

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Israel as a whole is burdened with the guilt of Jesus’ death. The concentration on Israel in Jesus’ ministry can then be seen as functioning to attest to his messiahship4 and to accentuate Israel’s guilt. “In order that Israel be unpardonable and her guilt clearly established, Jesus must be sent only to Israel.”5 Jesus’ conflict with the authorities in Matt 21– 23 is interpreted as  a final reckoning with Israel.6 Variations of this model arise insofar as the consequence of this rejection  can  be  defined  in  different  ways.  Some  interpreters  see  this  consequence as the definite condemnation of Israel7 that will become evident in eschatological damnation at the final judgment.8 The following texts are often adduced as evidence for this thesis: the double logion of the “many from the East and the West,” who will sit at the table with Israel’s patriarchs, and the “sons of the kingdom,” who will be thrown into the outer darkness (8.11–12), in which the former is interpreted as a reference to the Gentiles and the latter to Israel; or the words against “this γενεά” in 11.16– 19; 12.38– 45; 16.1– 4, as well as 23.29–39, in connection with the lament over Jerusalem. Other interpreters, in contrast, tend to see the consequence of rejection solely in Israel’s loss of her salvation-historical prerogative, in the sense that her earlier distinction from the Gentiles is leveled out: Israel has lost her special standing and is henceforth on the same level as all other peoples.9 On the premise that 10.5– 6 is revoked in 28.19, the distinction between these two variations can be conceived in terms of whether πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 28.19 is understood to be exclusive or inclusive of Israel.10 In the 4

See, for example, Marguerat 1981, 395. Trilling 1964, 105 (trans. K. Ess). See further Hare 1967, 151; Walker 1967, 62– 63; Vögtle 1971b, 265; Cook 1983, 140– 43; Anno 1984, 342; and Garbe 2005, 209. 6 See, for example, Luz 1989, 244 (“21.1–25, 46 depicts Jesus’ great reckoning with unbelieving Israel in parables, debates, and through the great speech of woes, which ends with Jesus’ departure from the temple” [trans. K. Ess]), and Marguerat 1981, 347: “Mt 21– 23 se présente comme une vaste étiologie destinée à montrer pourquoi et comment Israël a été deposé par son Dieu” (emphasis original). 7 On 27.24–25, Frankemölle 1984, 210, emphasizes: “27.24–25 is an . . . aetiology for the end of ‘Israel’ ” (trans. K. Ess). Likewise, Frankemölle 1979b, 163, sees in the “great composition of 21–25 an aetiology for the condemnation of Israel” (trans. K. Ess). 8 See, for example, Hare 1967, 152–56; Walker 1967, passim; and Lange 1973, 279– 82, and elsewhere. 9 For this or similar interpretations, see Meier 1977a, 102; Marguerat 1981, 377; Senior 1985, 120–21; Verseput 1986, 45, 264, 276; McKnight 1993, 77 (“Jews are no longer the special people of God but are rather simply human beings like all others.”); Broer 1995, 37–38; E. C. Park 1995, 185; Eckstein 1997, 380– 85 (“According to Matthew’s conviction, Israel has forfeited her elevated position among the nations—as God’s λαός [1.21; 2.6]—with the unanimous cry σταυρωθήτω [27.22– 23] and the subsequent crucifixion of  Jesus.” [384, trans. K. Ess]); and W. Kraus 1997, 416–17. See also n. 12. 10 For exponents of both positions, see section 5.4, n. 252. 5

1: Introduction

3

first case, the Matthean community would regard the mission to Israel as a  completed phase11 and would make no further effort with Jews; in the second case, the community would turn to both Jews and Gentiles in the universal mission, making no distinction between the two.12 Even in the second case, 28.19 can be regarded as “something shockingly new.”13 A different emphasis can (though it need not) emerge, if Matt 10, rather than the interpretation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, is regarded as the basis for the permanence of the mission to Israel.14 For this opens up the possibility of distinguishing the mission to Israel from the mission to the Gentiles in terms of its character and still according Israel—even post-Easter— a special role among the nations. Von Dobbeler thus distinguishes between the conversion of Gentiles, which is the concern in 28.19, and the “restitu­ tion of the devastated, languishing people,”15 which is the aim of the mission to Israel.16 Even if such a complementary classification of the mission  field— in contrast to the thesis of its simple expansion—might be correct to some extent, the question remains as to why the two complementary missions appear in different positions in the Matthean narrative. Why does Israel’s restitution begin before Easter and the conversion of the Gentiles not until after Easter? Further, von Dobbeler also reads the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgment against Israel, grounded in the people’s guilt for 11 See, among others, Hare 1967, 147–48; Walker 1967, 9, 38–74; Strecker 1971, 33– 34; and Luz 1993, 315–16: “For the Matthean community, the time of the mission to Israel is now over; it turns to the Gentiles in place of Israel” (316, emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 12 See, for example, E. C. Park 1995, 185: “[T]here will be only one mission, that is, the universal mission to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (28.19), which includes all the gentiles as well as the Jews, who are now simply part of the people to be converted into Christianity.” 13 Luz 2001–2007, 3:630. See previously Hagner 1993–1995, 2:887, as well as Stuhlmacher 1999, 117, n. 52. However, according to Levine 1999, 14, 30, 28.18–20 is concerned not with a loss of status for Israel but rather with a gain in status for Gentiles. 14 In addition to those mentioned in n. 15, see in recent literature Giesen 2002, 130–31; and Garbe 2005. Garbe sees the whole of Israel as burdened with the guilt of Jesus’ death and as collectively punished for it; indeed the punishment is seen to consist in the destruction of Jerusalem, which affects the whole of Israel (115), since “Jerusalem is not just any city in Israel but her cultic and symbolic center, and what happens to Jerusalem has consequences for the whole of Israel” (104; trans. K. Ess). For Garbe, however, it is crucial that Israel’s guilt is cleared with this punishment (120, 206). In his view, the mission to Israel in Matt 10 remains—even after 70 CE—the disciples’ enduring task (125–50, 210) alongside the mission to the Gentiles. Just as Matthew differentiates within the mission, so also in his eschatology: alongside the judgment of the nations (25.31– 46) stands the judgment of Israel in 19.28 (172–208), which also shows that Israel’s special status is in no way leveled out (207, 213, and elsewhere). 15 A. von Dobbeler 2000, 28 (emphasis original [trans. K. Ess]). See also the approach by Wilk 2005, 57. 16 A. von Dobbeler’s proposal is discussed in more detail in section 5.4.

4

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus’ death. But this is not understood as a sign of Israel’s condemnation; rather, he postulates that, with this punishment, Israel’s guilt is cleared.17 On this point, however, one must ask whether Matthew in fact operated under the premise that Jesus met with a collective rejection in Israel. Furthermore, in terms of Israel’s position in the Gospel of Matthew, the explanation for the juxtaposition of the words of commission in 10.6 and 28.19 presents only one side of the coin. The other side is the determination of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Here, too, a theory of replacement is often supported: the Church is supposed to have stepped in to take Israel’s position.18 The central piece of evidence for this thesis of substitution, or succession, is the Matthean commentary on the parable of the wicked tenants in Matt 21.43: “Therefore I tell you, the βασιλεία of God will be taken away from you and given to an ἔθνος that produces its fruits.” In this reading, it is (often unquestioningly) assumed that ἀφ’ ὑμῶν is to be understood as referring to Israel or that the authorities whom Jesus addresses represent Israel—in the strict sense of the word. The Church, then, is regarded as the new19 and/or the true Israel or people of God.20 17

A. von Dobbeler 2000, 25–26, 42. Compare Garbe’s proposal, discussed in n. 14. See further on this point in section 4.3.3. 18 See, for example, Clark 1947, 166; Dahl 1955/1956, 28; Trilling 1964, 53–96; Gnilka 1967, 126 (cf. Gnilka 1985, 132–33); Hare 1967, 153–54, 157; Senior 1976, 325– 26; Frankemölle 1984, 204–11, 248, 255, and elsewhere; France 1985, 53–54, 310; Freyne 1985, 123; Verseput 1986, 2–3, and elsewhere; Luz 1993, 316; Menninger 1994, 7– 8; Powell 1995b, 17; Feldmeier 1998, 95–96; and Viljoen 2011, 667. Compare section 4.1.1, n. 2. 19 See, for example, Hahn 1963, 108 (cf. Hahn 2002, 539); Fitzmyer 1965, 670; Schmid 1965, 249, 306; Edwards 1971, 32; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:510, 511; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:624 (cf. Hagner 1996, 58, 59– 60); McKnight 1993, 61, 66– 67, 69; Metzner 1995, 161; and Paul 2005, 310. See also Goodwin 2005, 283: “restored Israel.” 20 See Clark 1947, 166; Trilling 1964, passim; Tagawa 1969/1970, 159; Edwards 1971, 32; Kretzer 1971, 161; G. Lohfink 1983, 282; Anno 1984, 204, 340– 41; France 1985, 53–  54; Gnilka 1985, 132–33; Schelkle 1985, 28; McKnight 1993, 61, 69, and elsewhere; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:265; Menninger 1994, passim (see also section 6.2, n. 79); and Eckstein 1997, 390, among others. See also Wright 1992, 388, as well as Backhaus 1995, 131, with n. 14 (though particularly “with regard to the ethical standard that Matthew demands of the Church” [emphasis original; trans. K. Ess]). See also Overman, discussed in n. 33. For an attempt at differentiating the definitions of true and new Israel, see McKnight 1993, 57, n. 6: “ ‘True’ pertains to continuity, to remnant; ‘new’ pertains to salvationhistory fulfillment and to Christology, as well as to discontinuity.” McKnight, however,  sees both aspects as interconnected in the Matthean self-understanding and thus speaks of the Matthean group as “the true and new Israel” (69). For a different position, see Trilling 1964, 96: “The Church is strictly speaking not a new Israel that would be moved into the place of the old one, but the real, true Israel, as God has conceived of her from the beginning” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). Against the thesis that Matthew understood the Church as new or true Israel, see, for example, H. B. Green 1975, 180; Saldarini 1994, 7, 27 (cf. Saldarini 1996, 240); and Frankemölle 1996b, 111. Hare 1967, 156– 62, while seeing Israel collectively as beyond salvation

1: Introduction

5

Matt 13.10–17 often functions as a further supporting pillar within this interpretive approach. The distinction made in this passage between the understanding disciples and the ignorant crowd is taken to refer to the opposition of Church and Israel. It is striking that the two concepts of replacement just mentioned are frequently taken not as two different aspects but rather as one and the same, with no differentiation. Thus 21.43 can be cited in support of the replacement of Israel with the nations.21 Church and nations, however, are by no means interchangeable entities. The nations appear in 28.19 as the recipients of the missionary attention of the disciples and thereby as the recipients of God’s offer of salvation. In contrast, the Matthean community, roughly speaking, is made up of those who have accepted the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (13.19), whose lives are guided by Jesus’ teachings (28.20)—although they still have to prove this existential orientation through its manifestation in their daily lives—and who are at the same time taken into service as the medium of God’s salvific care for humanity. The double replacement thesis—that is, Israel’s replacement by the Gentiles and by the Church—thus operates and while speaking of Israel’s replacement by the Church, holds the view that Matthew nowhere suggests the concept of a new or true Israel (see further Levine 1988, 11). 21 Luz’s work can be pointed to as an example. He seeks on various occasions to define the relationship between 10.5– 6 and 28.19 by, among other things, drawing a parallel between this relationship and Israel’s replacement by the Church, which he deduces from 21.43. Thus Luz 1989, 244, remarks: “The Gospel of Matthew has a double ending: the unbelieving people becomes the Jews to whom Jesus’ resurrection remains barred to the present day (28.11–15), but the Messiah of Israel, who had commanded his disciples to go only to Israel (10.5– 6), now sends his disciples to all Gentiles (28.16–20). In this way, the Gospel of Matthew tells the story of how, through Jesus’ fate, it came to be that the βασιλεία was given to another people (21.43), in order that it bear its fruit” (trans. K. Ess; cf. Luz 2001–2007, 2:74). In connection with this, Luz 1989, 244, n. 22, comments: “This article is written under the assumption that Matthew understands the salvation-historical relation of Israel to the Church within a model of succession (21.43!) and not within a model of expansion; in other words, under the assumption that ἔθνη in Matt 28.19, as in most other passages . . . is to be interpreted in the sense of ‘Gentiles.’ The relation of Matt 10.5– 6 to Matt 28.19 is then to be understood as a realignment” (trans. K. Ess). Already in discussing a “model of expansion,” Luz overlays the question of whether 21.43 indicates a replacement of Israel through Church with the different question of the relationship between the mission to Israel and the mission to the nations. Accordingly, with regard to 21.43, Luz 1985, 1:171, can speak of the “Gentiles” instead of the (Gentile) Church: “The Gentiles come into salvation because the βασιλεία is taken from Israel (21.43)” (emphasis added; trans. K. Ess; cf., for example, E. C. Park 1995, 190: “The Kingdom is . . . trans­ ferred from the Jews to the Gentiles [21.43]” [emphasis original]). By the same token, Luz 2001–2007, 3:629, connects the question of whether πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 28.19 means Gen­ tiles or nations with the alternatives: “Does Matthew represent a ‘theology of succession’ according to which the church replaces Israel as the people of God or does he represent a universalizing idea similar to Eph 2.11–22 according to which Israel and the Gentiles who have become disciples together constitute the new people of God?”

6

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

with two different relationships that are located on different planes soteriologically. If Matthew does in fact speak of Israel’s replacement by the Church, this does not necessarily mean that Israel has been replaced by the nations as the addressee of the mission. And, above all, the fact that (for whatever reason) the mission does not remain exclusively directed at Israel does not in turn necessarily mean that the Church has replaced Israel. The question of the relationship between Israel and the nations—and thereby the relationship between the two words of commission—is therefore (at least initially) to be distinguished from the investigation into the relationship between Israel and the Church. With this proposal for a heuristically sophisticated approach, the possibility of integrating both perspectives, in the sense of a double replacement thesis, is not in principle excluded. Following the interpretation in question, both sets of propositions converge on a decisive point: Israel has shut herself away from God’s saving act in Jesus, has brought the guilt of his death upon herself, and must therefore endure condemnation from God or the loss of her privileged position as the consequence of her actions. From this point of departure, one can arrive at the following construction: The ecclesia first emerged through the mission to Israel and was thus  formed in and constituted by Israel. The prevailing majority of the people nevertheless closed itself off to the messianic gift of salvation and thereby disqualified itself from a continued existence as the people of God. This  status was transferred to the ecclesia, which, despite having originated in Israel, turned to the Gentiles because it was rejected by Israel.22 Once again, the fact that this model is not found expressis verbis in the text does not necessarily speak against it. Matthew did not compose a systematic theological treatise but a multifaceted story of Jesus. Every attempt to derive a theological concept from this narrative text rests on textual phenomena (at times ambiguous by nature) that are interpreted, compared with one another, evaluated, and assembled like a mosaic. In the process, while the mosaic emerges from the interpretation of individual texts, the (provisional) image of the mosaic as a whole at the same time influences  exegetical decisions related to the individual texts. Within  the  framework  of  a  hermeneutically  reflective  exegesis,  such  constructions must be critically examined by considering the extent to which models that are familiar from other contexts have an (unintended) impact  on  the  perception  of  individual  aspects  of  the  text,  or  influence  22 Here the narrative sequence of the missions to Israel and to the nations is related to the history of the community. Based on Matt 22.1–10, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is sometimes proposed as the turning point in the mission (see discussion later in this chapter with n. 39).

1: Introduction

7

conceptual connections and associations between the individual texts, and serve to fill in the blanks left by the texts themselves. The extent to which  textual evidence might thereby be prematurely interpreted in terms of established conceptions must be taken into account. In this way, the model often posited for Matthew of “mission to Israel, rejection in Israel, turn to the nations as a result of rejection” brings to mind not only Romans 11.11–15 but, above all, the familiar pattern of the account of Acts, according to which the apostles kept to the synagogues at first and, only after experiencing rejection there, turned to the Gentiles.23 This schema thus takes the shift toward the Gentiles as the consequence of Israel’s behavior. In considering the relationship between the Church and Israel, one must ask how much the dichotomy of the two, familiar from today’s standpoint, acts as a filter to guide readings of the text. The differentiation between Jesus’  disciples/the ecclesia and (other) Jewish groups in the Matthean narrative might therefore naturally but perhaps prematurely be read in terms of the dichotomy of Christianity and Judaism. In other words, can we presume that this stage in the process of separation applies to the first evangelist,  whose Jewish background has been widely agreed upon in recent scholarship? Does Matthew really conceive of the ecclesia as an entity that is functionally equivalent to and in competition with Israel? The  difficulty  raised  here  can  be  illustrated  by  a  quotation  from  Bornkamm:  “The struggle against Israel is still a struggle intra muros.”24 If Bornkamm’s thesis that the Matthean “community had not yet broken away from Judaism”25 is correct, 26 then one can hardly speak of a struggle against Israel. One should rather speak of a struggle of the group of believers in Christ against other Jews within Israel or Judaism.27 One must therefore ask: Does the ecclesia constitute for Matthew the eschatologically restored people of God that has taken Israel’s place? Or does the Gospel of Matthew represent a stage of separation in which 23

Acts 13.46– 47; 18.5– 6; 19.8–10; 28.24–28. Bornkamm 1975a, 36 (emphasis added; trans. K. Ess). 25 Bornkamm 1975a, 36 (trans. K. Ess). 26 On this question, see chapter 7. 27 Further examples can easily be provided. Schenk 1963, 273, for example, claims that the often-mentioned ὄχλοι are “distinguished from the ‘people Israel,’ which is thought of as an adversarial entity” (trans. K. Ess). Here the framework of a contrastive opposition between Church and Israel is clearly presumed, and Israel is thereby defined  as a single entity that rejected Jesus. The idea that the ὄχλοι are part of Israel is not even considered as a possibility. The comment by Hummel 1963, 159, on the evangelist is also instructive: “He is neither Jew nor Pharisee in the sense of a belief- based affiliation. He  is probably a converted Jewish scribe of Pharisaic orientation” (trans. K. Ess). Here, too, a dichotomy of Christianity and Judaism as independent religions is taken a priori as a theological starting point. 24

8

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the ecclesia understands itself as the community of salvation that emerged within Israel (and is open to people from the [other] nations) and that in its mission maintains its relation to Israel? With regard to Matt 13.10–17, is the contrastive opposition between the disciples and the crowds really to be taken in reference to the opposition between ecclesia and Israel, or do the disciples here in fact represent the community of salvation establishing itself within Israel?

One must further question whether labels such as “new Israel” or “true Israel,” which are often used in an attempt to capture the Matthean conception, are able to adequately render Matthew’s own perspective. Neither phrase appears in Matthew’s Gospel, nor does Matthew anywhere label the disciples explicitly as λαός.28 Matt 21.43 speaks of an ἔθνος ποιοῦν τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς (= τῆς βασιλείας), which requires interpretation.29 The same is true of the relationship between the disciples’ designation as ἐκκλησία in 16.18 and 18.17 and the term Israel.30 Luz rightly notes that “a firm ‘inside-  outside way of thinking’ about Israel and corresponding self-designations of the community are still absent from the Gospel of Matthew.”31 But how is this to be interpreted? Is it because this internality and externality—at least to a level of clarity that could be brought into his terminology—did not exist for Matthew? Can the terminological “gaps” be disregarded in the face of clear conceptual evidence? Or should they be read as a phenomenon of the transition in which the community found itself following the separation from Judaism that had (recently) taken place?32 In any case, the terminological gaps in the Gospel of Matthew urge caution against a premature conceptual fixation of the relationship  between  Israel and  the  Church within the categories identified in the preceding discussion. In addition, the terminological fixation by no means ensures a clear communication of the Matthean conception within exegesis of Matthew, since the terms are used in varying ways. For example, in Matthean scholarship the Church as “true Israel” not only is discussed in the context of the separation of the Matthean community from Judaism and the developing opposition of Christianity and Judaism but has also been used as a label for differentiation within Judaism.33 28 Some read Matt 1.21 as referring to the ecclesia. This will be pursued in section 6.2. Even this, though, is in any case not an explicit statement. 29 On this, see section 4.1.3. 30 On this, see sections 6.2 and 6.3. 31 Luz 2001–2007, 1:55. 32 Luz 2001–2007, 2:54, prefers “to speak of a nascent split identity of the Matthean church.” See also Hagner 1996, 47. 33 In Trilling 1964, 55– 65, 84– 87, and elsewhere, and Menninger 1994, 4–9, and elsewhere, the discussion of the Church as the true Israel goes hand in hand with the thesis that

1: Introduction

9

Accordingly, various connotations are connected with the discussion of the Church as the “true Israel.”

The preceding discussion of the problems related to the relationship between the Church and Israel must be supplemented with an observation by Davies and Allison. They conjecture a connection between the Church-oriented perspective of interpreters of Matthew and the widespread generalizing tendencies in the scholarship: “[S]cholars, who tend to read the gospel through later ecclesiastical lenses, often approach Matthew with subtle biases. Only this explains why, whenever Jewish figures oppose Jesus, it  is regularly assumed that their opposition foreshadows Israel’s complete rejection of her Messiah and portends God’s rejection of Israel.”34 Conversely, when the emphasis is placed on the Matthean narrative’s universal dimension, it is rarely observed that the negative characterization of Jewish figures stands alongside harsh negative statements about non- Jews or the  Gentile world as well, and that persecution appears as a feature of both the mission to Israel and, in 24.9–14, the mission to the nations. In short, the question of whether, in the evangelist’s view, the formation of the ecclesia is  (first  and  foremost)  a  matter  of  differentiation  occurring  within  Israel  needs to be placed alongside the general question of the extent to which the evangelist operated with differentiations within Israel or whether Israel is conceived of en bloc as a counterpart to the Church. Of  course  the  traditional  replacement  theses  cannot  be  falsified  because of the simple hermeneutical suspicion that they might be based on constructions of meaning that are influenced, if not essentially guided,  by theological perspectives foreign to the text itself. In raising the pos­ sibility of influence by distorted reading perspectives, the considerations  Matthew advocates the replacement or condemnation of the unbelieving Israel. A certain ambivalence characterizes McKnight’s statements on the topic. McKnight 1993, 61, finds  in Matthew “a radical separation of Jews into true and false Israel,” but he gives greater weight to the element of discontinuity and thus, at the same time, speaks of the Church as the new Israel (61, 66, and elsewhere; see the discussion of McKnight’s differentiation of the terms in n. 20). McKnight can thereby agree with the position “that this group of Jesus’ disciples is still within Israel and not a separate, new religion” (68; emphasis original). On the other hand, he postulates at the same time “that Matthew sees this group as the new people of God, replacing the Jewish nation as the true and new Israel” (69). Overman 1990b, 5, 148– 49, 157, accepts the thesis that the community understood itself as the “true Israel” (cf. n. 20) but understands this decidedly within the framework of an intra-Jewish claim. 34 Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:23. See also 1:24: “[W]henever Gentiles appear in Matthew in a positive light, commentators always see this as foreshadowing the great commission and the future influx of Gentiles; yet the significance of the ethnic identity of  Jews such as Joseph, Mary, and Peter is passed over in silence.”

10

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

brought forth here can and should only serve to sensitize the reader to the fact that the interpretive perspectives in question should not be taken for granted, and thus sharpen our perception of the text.35 The crucial question is whether the traditional theses of replacement—which have maintained  their  influence  even  in  the  most  recent  scholarship— in  fact  appropriately capture significant tendencies of the Matthean narrative and  are able to integrate them meaningfully. In my view, this is not the case. On the contrary, significant textual phenomena remain underdetermined in  these theses. First of all, there is a decided emphasis, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, on the exclusive orientation toward Israel in Jesus’ earthly ministry, which Matthew carefully imprinted on his narrative as a whole. Christologically, this concept is associated with Matthew’s development of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship as a significant aspect of his narrative. To  see the function of the concentration on Israel as serving only to lay the groundwork for the demonstration of guilt36 is hardly a sufficient explanation of the evidence. In order to be able to bring a charge of guilt against Israel, Matthew could have simply left the Markan πρῶτον (Mark 7.27) untouched, rather than sharpening it into a strictly exclusive mission to Israel in Matt 15.24. With regard to the nations in the Matthean conception, the question remains open as to why Matthew sees the time for turning to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as having first come with Easter.37 Further, in christological terms,  the  significance  of  portraying  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  David  remains  clearly underdetermined. 35 This is not a matter of chasing after the phantom of an objective reading. That “[a]n interpretation is never a presuppositionless apprehending of something presented to us” (Heidegger 1962, 191–92) can today be assumed to be generally accepted as a hermeneutical principle. Nevertheless, in the framework of historical-critical exegesis, it remains the goal to reveal potential subjectivisms and biases conditioned by the distance from the historical context of the interpreted text, as far as this is possible. I would add expressly that this goal also applies to other theological perspectives. I am not concerned with replacing a traditional theological set of preconceptions, which serves  as  a  lens  for  the  reception  of  the  text,  with  another  set  of  preconceptions  influenced by Jewish- Christian dialogue (contra the position of Fiedler 2004, 62, and the clear tendency in the approach of Feneberg 2009, passim). Rather, I hold to the idea that it is the central task of exegesis to become aware of the significance of preconceptions in the  process of comprehension and, with this awareness, to weaken the strength of those preconceptions as far as possible, in favor of the text, through exegetical work. Compare the hermeneutical reflections in W. Kraus 2011, 195– 202. 36 See the beginning of this chapter with n. 5. 37 In the Markan narrative, the inclusion of non-Jews appears in various passages pre- Easter (Mark 5.18– 20; 7.24– 8.9). As will be traced in detail, Matthew significantly  edits these passages in order to integrate them into his conception of an exclusive attention to Israel before Easter.

1: Introduction

11

If the relation between 28.19 and 10.5– 6 is defined in the sense of replacement  rather than expansion, a further problem to be noted is that Matthew’s Gospel clearly presupposes the post-Easter mission in Israel. This applies not only to 10.2338 but also to the various statements that address the negative reactions the disciples will face (10.17; 23.34). The Matthean version of the parable of the wedding banquet (22.1–14) should also be listed here (22.3–7). If these texts are accounted for with the thesis that the destruction of Jerusalem marks the actual turning point in the mission from Israel to the nations,39 then, in turn, a light tension with 28.16–20 develops.

In addition, the striking tendency of the Matthean narrative to differentiate between the Jewish crowds and the authorities contradicts the thesis that Matthew seeks to inflict the guilt of Jesus’ death upon Israel as a whole and  that this is to be seen as the reason for Israel’s loss of her preferential position or her condemnation.40 In the traditional reading, the function to be assigned to this differentiation within the Gospel is often left open. Alternatively, its relevance is marginalized by the thesis that 27.24–25 either decisively revokes the distinction between the authorities and the crowds or reduces that distinction to a mere episode. Why, then, in the narrative preceding the passion, did Matthew make this distinction at all, let alone (as will be shown) allow it to emerge as a guiding element of his story? In view of the relation between 27.24–25 and the narrative that precedes the passion, is it possible that another differentiation plays a role in which it is central that Jerusalem be considered a distinct character in the Matthean conception? In addition, it is by no means undisputed that Matthew was seeking to place blame upon Israel as a whole for Jesus’ death by using the phrase πᾶς ὁ λαός in Matt 27.24–25. One must therefore ask: does Matthew in fact aim to “overwrite” his previous portrayal with 27.24–25, and 38

This will be discussed further in section 2.3. See Walker 1967, 9, 56, 92–97, 115; see also Kato 1991, 8–9; and Suhl 1998, 353. Luz 2001–2007, 1:211, ascribes to Matthew the position that the end of Israel’s history has come with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Accordingly, reflecting on the reading  of Matt 22.7 in the sense of a definitive judgment of damnation (within history), Luz 2001–  2007, 1:54–55, states that the judgment “brings to a close a long epoch of God’s approach to Israel that was revealed in the mission of the prophets and came to a climax in the mission of the son and his messengers. After 70 this historical period is definitively at an end  and is replaced by the Gentile mission.” On the thesis that the destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the mission to Israel, see further Thompson 1974, 254. 40 Contrary to the proposal of Walker 1967, 38–74, that Matthew presents Israel, with no differentiation, as a single entity of evil (cf. 38), various recent studies on Matthew have developed a more nuanced view of the conflict narrative told by Matthew (see primarily  Gielen 1998 and Repschinski 2000) and have pointed to the distinct profile of the crowds  in this Gospel (see esp. Cousland 2002). 39

12

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

is 27.24–25 in any way meant to imply that Israel as a whole bears the guilt of Jesus’ death (and its consequences)? In addressing the question about the relation between Israel and the Church, it must be pointed out that the thesis that, according to Matthew, Israel is replaced by the Church has repeatedly met with opposition in current scholarship.41 This is accompanied by the tendency to understand the community behind the Gospel of Matthew decidedly as a Jewish group. Saldarini’s and Overman’s work has been especially stimulating in this area.42 Both seek to situate the Gospel within the context of the processes of consolidation and formation occurring in Judaism after 70 CE, in which the pharisaic group (at least in Matthew’s surroundings) gradually gained the upper hand in the synagogues. In competition with them, the Jewish group behind the Gospel of Matthew, which can be classified  sociologically as “deviant”43 and was itself undergoing a “process of selfdefinition,”44 raised a competing claim to authority within Judaism,45 which was primarily concerned with a struggle over the possession of the correct understanding of Torah.46 In this context, the sharp polemical assaults in the Gospel of Matthew—above all, in Matt 23—are to be seen as a means for the evangelist “to delegitimate rival Jewish leaders.”47 In this view, the dissociating language of “their synagogues”48 by no means indicates a dissociation from Israel,49 and there is no condemnation of Israel in the

41 See, for example, Segal 1991, 24; Saldarini 1994, 11–12, 27–43, 195; Frankemölle 1996a, 117–18, and elsewhere; Overman 1996, 302– 4, and elsewhere; Sim 1998b, 148– 49; Fiedler 2004; Baxter 2012, 183– 84, 198, 200. 42 See the works listed in the bibliography. See further the approach in Sim 1998b, esp. 109– 63. For a critical examination of Overman, Saldarini, and Sim, see Riches 2000, 202–9; and Foster 2004, 36– 65, among others. 43 On the deviant-sociological approach, see primarily Saldarini 1991, 45–60; see also Saldarini 1994, 1, 8, 107–16, and elsewhere. 44 Overman 1990b, 3, and elsewhere. 45 See Saldarini 1994, 44– 67, 107–16 (“deviant Jews [in the technical, sociological sense] still within the community” [116]). To this effect, Saldarini and Overman use the term sect. See, for example, Overman 1990b, 143, 149; and Saldarini 1994, 115: “a sect within first- century Judaism.” See also Saldarini 1996, 253. For a critical discussion on  this point, see Luomanen 2002, esp. 109–13. 46 See Saldarini 1994, 124–64. 47 Saldarini 1992a, 661. See also Saldarini 1991, 44: “Matthew attacks the Jewish leaders unceasingly in an attempt to delegitimize their authority and teaching and to win the people over to his interpretation of Judaism.” Compare further Overman 1990b, 141– 49. 48 Matt 4.23; 9.35; 10.17; 12.9; 13.54. Compare “your synagogues” in 23.24. 49 The language of their or your synagogues is continually brought forward as an indication of the completed separation of the Matthean community from Judaism. On this, see chapter 7.

1: Introduction

13

Gospel of Matthew.50 The Gospel is not read as a Christian self-positioning that evolves in opposition to Israel51 but is rather located in the context of an intra­Jewish process of differentiation. Within the framework of this approach, the previously noted (intraJewish) distinction between authorities and crowds can be plausibly interpreted in terms of text pragmatics.52 However, the question of the nations’ place in the theological conception of Matthew’s Gospel is neglected here, 53 as is that of the significance for the community of the mission to the  nations, as well as the role of people from the nations in the community.54 The task of presenting the theological conception that stands behind the juxtaposition of 10.5– 6 and 28.19 recedes into the background. Yet it is not enough to emphasize, in reaction to the “traditional” reading, that there is no rejection of Israel as the people of God to be found in Matthew’s Gospel. Rather, one must also consider what both the formation of the ecclesia and the universal dimension of salvation at the end of the Gospel imply for the understanding of Israel (as the people of God). In particular, it must

50

See, for example, Saldarini 1994, 43. See also n. 41. See, however, Stanton 1992a, 124, 156–57, and elsewhere, as well as Luz 2001– 2007, 1:54–55. 52 See chapter 7. 53 Overman 1990b does not give adequate attention to the universalistic dimension of the Gospel of Matthew. Only at the end of his study (and there only briefly) does he  address the question of non-Jews’ membership in the Matthean community. In his view, because of the weak reception of its message in its Jewish setting, the community finds  itself “in the process of turning to the wider Gentile world” (158), but there is “very little evidence of Gentiles (non-Jews) in the Matthean community” (157). The question of the theological basis for the universal mission is not pursued. Saldarini 1994, 68– 83, does address the role of non-Jews in Matthew under the heading “Matthew’s Horizon: The Nations.” He limits himself here, though, to examining the appearance of non-Jews in a brief overview— with the tendency of reducing them to marginal figures of the narrative  (e.g., “The non-Jews who appear in Matthew’s narrative are peripheral and occasional.” [75])—and to pursuing the meaning of the word ἔθνη in Matthew. Here, too, the theologi­ cal integration of the universal commission in 28.19 is not considered, and the relation of  28.19  to  10.5  is  not  reflected  upon.  Although  it  is  true  that  a  geographical  aspect  is  to be observed in Matt 10.5– 6 (see section 2.3), even so, the relation of 10.5– 6 to 28.19 can scarcely be conceived of as essentially a geographical expansion of the field of mission, as it appears in Saldarini’s remarks on 28.19: “Thus the nations would include Jews not  living  in  Israel  as  well  as  non- Jews  everywhere”  (81).  The  theological  significance  of the Gospel’s final scene for its overall interpretation remains clearly underdetermined  here. This applies equally to Sim’s position (see section 5.4, n. 282). In this connection, Senior 1999, 5, rightly notes: “A side effect of the focus on Matthew’s relationship to Judaism in current scholarship is a relative lack of attention to Matthew’s relationship to the Gentile world.” 54 See, for example, Saldarini 1994, 84– 85: “Matthew’s group is a household assembly of Jews who believe in Jesus” (emphasis added). 51

14

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

be shown how one gets from 10.5– 6 to 28.19 if 28.19 is not motivated by Jesus’ rejection in Israel. This sketch of the issue at hand outlines the task to be pursued in this study. That task is, namely, to comprehensively analyze Israel’s significance and position in Matthean theology and thereby bring to light the  theological conception that lies behind the development from the Israeloriented, pre-Easter ministry of Jesus and his disciples to the universality of salvation that appears in 28.18–20. I will argue that the sequence of the two commissions represents an integral aspect of the narrative concept in which Matthew unfolds his Christology.55 The rejection of the first  addressees of Jesus’ mission is by no means implied in 28.19; no “break” in the Matthean narrative is to be found here.56 Rather, the juxtaposition of 10.5– 6 with 28.19 is integrated into the gradual or phased disclosure of Jesus’ identity and significance.57 In addition, the relation of the entities ecclesia and Israel to one another remains to be determined. In the following discussion, three steps are traced out: Jesus’ mission to Israel, Israel’s reaction, and the possible consequences of a negative reaction. We begin, in chapter 2, with an examination of the concentration on Israel in Jesus’ and his disciples’ pre-Easter mission and of the christological motifs guiding this depiction. Chapter 3 then analyzes the reaction to Jesus’ mission in Israel. What role is given to the crowds here? How exactly is the configuration of the conflict to be defined? And how does Matthew  represent the passion in this regard? The thesis established here—namely, that the end of the Gospel of Matthew by no means implies a collective rejection of Jesus in Israel that overrides any previous differentiations—is then, in chapter 4, critically examined in an analysis of texts that are often used to support the theory of Israel’s condemnation as a result of the negative reaction to Jesus. The following texts are discussed here: the parable trilogy (Matt 21.28–22.14); the double logion in Matt 8.11–12; the statements against “this γενεά” (Matt 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; 16.1– 4; [17.17]; 23.34– 36);  the  parable  theory  (Matt  13.10– 17);  and,  finally,  the  logion  about the κρίνειν of the twelve tribes in 19.28. While chapters 3 and 4 imply a critical confrontation with the traditional interpretation as described previously, chapter 5 forms the counterpart to the analysis of the pre-Easter mission’s concentration on Israel in chapter 2 by examining the universal dimension of the Matthean narrative and, more 55 The discussion of a “narrative Christology” reflects the fact that Matthew’s Christology only develops when one follows the story of Jesus that Matthew tells. Compare Luz 1991 and further also Novakovic 1997, 148– 49; M. Müller 1999, 164– 65; and Paul 2005, 331–32. 56 Contra Luz 2001–2007, 1:50. 57 Compare the outline in Konradt 2004b.

1: Introduction

15

precisely,  the  christological- soteriological  justification  for  the  universality of salvation. If the schema “rejection in Israel—turn to the nations” proves unsustainable as an explanation of the relation between 10.5– 6 and 28.19, we must comprehensively reconsider the first evangelist’s narrative  (and thereby theological) conception of the connection between the emphasis on Israel’s preferential status and the turn toward all nations. Chapter 6 is then devoted to determining the relation between the Church and Israel. Although the study presented here focuses on Matthew’s theological concept, this is not meant to deny the importance of further sociohistorical investigation of the Matthean community. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the analysis of the theological concept must not be neglected. Rather, recent hypotheses of Matthew’s location in the context of the Jewish process of formation positively demand renewed attention to this line of inquiry.58 In chapter 7, the question of the evidence for the historical context of  the  Matthean  community  will  be  briefly  addressed.  A  more  detailed  analysis would demand its own monographic examination—particularly if one were to consider not only the community’s relation to Judaism in terms of the intra/extra muros debate but also the community’s process of self- definition in contrast to the synagogue, in view of the ecclesia’s internal structure, forms of participation, and precise group boundaries. The scope of the present study will only allow for suggestions in this direction. Chapter 8 presents a brief concluding summary and reflection on the findings of this study.

58

It is true in any case that the text itself is the only window into the historical context. More specifically, in order to be able to contextualize the Matthean community  historically, evidence emerging from the text must be considered in light of historical information. In this regard, it goes without saying that the preliminary picture of the text’s historical context influences the interpretation of the text (cf. Hagner 1996, 27).

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

The focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel in the Gospel of Matthew is by no means simply an incidental historical memory; rather, it bears a programmatic,  theological  significance.  Matthew  displays  considerable  editorial  care in underscoring that Jesus was sent solely to Israel and imprinting this theme on his narrative. This goes hand in hand with the fact that the first  evangelist emphatically illuminates Jesus’ ministry in the light of Israel’s sacred writings by including both Jesus’ teaching and his healing activity in the leitmotif of fulfillment.1 It need only be briefly mentioned that Matthew makes an effort to present Jesus’ teaching as the true interpretation of the content and intention of God’s will as proclaimed in the Torah and the Prophets.2 The following discussion instead elaborates on another important basic christological theme: the Matthean presentation of Jesus as the Davidic-Messianic shepherd of his  people,  in  whom  God  ministers  to  his  people  and  fulfills  his  promises of salvation (section 2.1). We then consider the specifics of how Matthew imprinted this programmatic theme on his version of the Jesus story by (re-)writing Jesus’ earthly activity such that it is in fact concentrated on Israel (section 2.2). Of particular interest here is the Matthean redaction of three narratives taken from Q and Mark (8.5–13, 28–34; 15.21–28)—stories in which Jesus encounters non-Jews and his therapeutic ministry goes beyond the boundaries of Israel (section 2.2.3). The third section of this chapter 1 See the fulfillment quotations in Matt 8.17; 12.17–21, as well as, in terms of Jesus’ teaching, the programmatic statement about the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets in Matt 5.17. 2 On this, see Konradt 2006. The so- called antitheses (Matt 5.21– 48) do not set Jesus’ word against the Torah itself (contra Broer 1980, 75– 81; Eckstein 1997, 396– 403; Sim 1998b, 129; Niebuhr 1999, 176–77; Luz 2001–2007, 1:229–30; and others) but rather against an interpretation of Torah that obscures or constrains its actual intention, which Matthew attributes, above all, to the Pharisees (cf. Dietzfelbinger 1979, 3; H.-W. Kuhn 1989, 213–18; Burchard 1998b, 40– 44; Charles 2002, 8; and Konradt 2006, 135– 40).

18

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

(section 2.3) then addresses the continuation of Jesus’ mission in Israel through his disciples in the mission discourse in Matt 10. With regard to the relation to 28.19, a central question in this discussion is whether a temporal limit to the mission to Israel can be observed. Section 2.4 provides a short summary.

2.1

Jesus as the Davidic-Messianic Shepherd of Israel

The fact that eschatological hopes of salvation could be formulated without a messiah figure in Early Judaism and that expectations of the Messiah were in themselves polymorphic need not be revisited here.3 There are only a few traces of the expectation of a Davidic messiah4 left by the extant sources,5  yet  this  is  no  reason  to  marginalize  their  significance.6 3 For an emphasis on this variety, see, for example, W. S. Green 1987, 2– 4, 10; Chester

1991, 40– 41; Charlesworth 1992, 5–7, 14, 28–29; García Martínez 1993; Thoma 1993, esp. 214–16; Hengel 2001, 34– 45; and Schaller 2001, 204– 6. In contrast to a one-sided emphasis on this diversity, however, we must affirm, with Collins 1995, 12: “[T]he variation was  limited, and . . . some forms of messianic expectations were widely shared.” 4 The emergence of this expectation seems to have been substantially triggered by the kingdom of the Hasmoneans (according to Josephus, A.J. 13.301, Aristobulos [104–103 BCE] was the first Hasmonean to claim royal status for himself) and its failure. Compare,  for example, Collins 1995, 49(ff.). 5 Apart from 4 Ezra 12.32, the title “Messiah” in reference to the expected Davidic leader occurs only in Pss. Sol. 17.32; 18.5, 7 (and in the title of the psalm) and in 4Q252 V, 3. (In 4Q521 2 II, 1, a reference to the Davidic Messiah is possible but uncertain. See section 2.1.3, n. 148.) Nevertheless, we should also point to the mention of the “anointed ones of Aron and Israel” in 1QS IX, 11; the singular form (possibly to be understood distributively; cf. Schreiber 2000, 202–3) in CD XII, 23–XIII, 1; (XIV, 19); XIX, 10–11; XX, 1; and further, the mention of the Messiah (of Israel) in 1QSa II, 12, 14, 20. Above all, in terms of the expectation of a Davidic Messiah, further titles should also be considered. First, there is the idiom of the “Branch of David” (‫ )צמח דויד‬inspired by Jer 23.5; 33.15 (4Q161 8–10 15, 22; 4Q174 1i+21+2 11; 4Q252 V, 3– 4 [alongside “Messiah”]; 4Q285 5 3– 4; see also Sir 51.12h [cf. Ps 132.17] as well as Zech 3.8; 6.12, and T. Jud. 24.5). Second, as shown by the juxtaposition of “Branch of David” and “Leader of the congregation” (‫ )נׂשיא העדה‬in 4Q285 5 3– 4, attention must be paid also to the texts that refer to ‫ נׂשיא‬. Compare Ezek 34.24; 37.25. In addition, see CD VII, 20, as well as 1QSb V, 20–21, where the Davidic reference would be made explicit, should we follow H. Stegemann 1996, 499, who proposes ‫ וברית ד[ו]יד‬for line 21; the text would thus speak of God’s renewal of the Davidic covenant to establish the kingdom of his people. In agreement are Zimmermann 1998, 53–54, 55; and Schreiber 2000, 217–18. Compare Collins 1995, 61; and Zimmermann 1998, 50, 126, as well as Zimmermann’s summary: there is “in the Qumran texts a convergence of various messianic traditions and designations of the Old Testament; the ‫( נׂשיא‬Ezek), the ‫( צמח דויד‬Jer, cf. Zech) and Isaiah 11 can be seen as being in line with one another” (94; trans. K. Ess). For an overview of the evidence, see the table in Zimmermann 1998, 126. 6 See Collins 1995, 12: “If we may accept Ed Sanders’s notion of a common Judaism, in the sense of what was typical, though not necessarily normative, in the period 100 BCE– 100 CE, the expectation of a Davidic messiah was surely part of it.” See further Laato

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

19

Indeed, the appearance of this concept in Qumran texts7 as well as in the Psalms of Solomon (17, 18), which are unattested in Qumran, shows that such expectations existed in different groups.8 Further, one can point to the fourteenth berakah in the Palestinian recension of the Shemoneh Esre, with its petition for mercy upon “the kingship of the house of David, thy righteous Messiah” (‫)ועל מלכות בית דוד משיח צדקך‬.9 If this prayer reaches back to the first century CE,10 at least in its content if not word for word, then the expectation of a Davidic messiah was already anchored in a primary prayer of Judaism at the time of emergent Christianity. The central point of reference for this expectation was Nathan’s promise in 2 Sam 7,11 which affirms that the kingdom of David will exist forever (vv.  13, 16; cf. Ps 89.4–5, 29–30, 37; Pss. Sol. 17.412). To elaborate these expectations, the prophetic promises of a ruler,13 as well as texts such as Ps 2, Gen 49.8– 12,  or  Num  24.17– 19,  offer  a  multifaceted  array  of  specific  details.  Given that the extant Early Jewish sources probably provide insight into only a selection (and not necessarily a representative one14) of the expectations of

1997, 394; Horbury 1998, 36–63; Schniedewind 1999, esp. 165–66; Hengel 2001, 41; and Deines 2005, 454–57. Contra the tendency in, for example, W. S. Green 1987, 2– 4; Karrer 1991, 243– 67, 294–313; and Pomykala 1995, passim, especially 4– 8, 270–71. 7 See 4Q161 8–10 15–29; 4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13; 4Q252 V, 1–5; 4Q285 5 2–5; see also 1QSb V, 20–29; CD VII, 19–21. (On the analysis of the texts, see Collins 1995, 56– 67; and Zimmerman 1998, 46–127.) The interpretation of 4Q246 is highly contested (see, for example, Schreiber 2000, 498–508). If one follows Zimmerman’s reading (1998, 128–70; see also Knibb 1995, 174–77), which I see as plausible, this text can also be included here. 8 On this argument, compare Collins 1995, 10–11. Chester 1991, 41–43, points further to the “messianic” revolutionary movements attested to by Josephus. 9 Schürer 1973/1987, 2:461. For the Palestinian and Babylonian recensions, see pp. 10–27 in Holtzmann’s edition of the Mishnah tractate Berakot (see under Jewish sources in the bibliography) and the English translation in Schürer 1973/1987, 2:456– 61. In the Babylonian recension, this petition has a counterpart in the fifteenth berakah. 10 Compare K. G. Kuhn 1950, 10; and Deines 2005, 456 (the Palestinian recension was composed in the first century CE, perhaps earlier). On the problem of an exact dating,  see Schreiber 2000, 391–92. See also Kellermann’s remarks on tradition history (Kellermann 2007, 155–59). For critique of the inclusion of the Shemoneh Esre as evidence for the first century CE, see Pomykala 1995, 7. 11 In 4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13, 2 Sam 7 is interpreted messianically (cf. Zimmermann 1998, 111–12; Schniedewind 1999, 158– 60; and Pietsch 2003, 214–19). 12 See also 2 Sam 23.5; Jer 33.17; Ps 132.11–12; Sir 47.11; 1 Macc 2.57. 13 See Isa 8.23–9.6; 11.1–9; Jer 23.5–6; 30.8–9; 33.14–26; Ezek 34.22–31; 37.15–28; Mic 5.1–5; Zech 9.9–10; see also Hos 3.5; Amos 9.11–12. On this point, see Seebass 1992, as well as the articles in Struppe 1989. 14 Schreiber 2000, 37, rightly points out “that the writings of the Jewish ethnic groups of the first century do not provide a comprehensive insight into their living environment  or spiritual world, but in fact offer a selection controlled by the whim of history, such that only limited assertions about the reality of this period are possible” (trans. K. Ess).

20

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

a kingly messiah15—and, in addition, that the partly fragmentary nature of the sources makes their analysis difficult— it follows methodologically that  the extant statements cannot be forced into the “Procrustean bed” of the presupposition of one solid, unified form of such expectations. Nevertheless,  one can observe points of convergence,16 which are in large part inspired by the Old Testament intertexts most often referred to, such as Isa 11.1–5, Ps 2, or also Gen 49.8–12 and Num 24.17–19. The kingly Messiah in the Pss. Sol. as well as in the Qumran texts is a human figure with military  features,17 with God himself as the source of his strengths.18 He will free Israel from the yoke of foreign peoples,19 conquer the nations,20 and at the same time, lead the people of God in justice and righteousness.21 It is 15 For extensive treatment of the lines of tradition, see Schreiber 2000. Particularly on the Qumran texts, see Zimmermann 1998, 46–229. 16 Compare Collins 1995, 67– 68. 17 This is also true of Pss. Sol. 17 (so, for example, Collins 1995, 54; Knibb 1995, 169; Strauss 1995, 41–2; Atkinson 1999, 444– 45; Schreiber 2000, [9,] 170–72; Pietsch 2003, 244; contra Chester 1991, 28; Pomykala 1995, 162; Laato 1997, 281– 82; Charlesworth 1999, 31; Schaller 2001, 205): the Davidic Messiah destroys unrighteous rulers (v. 22), drives out sinners from the inheritance (v. 23a), and smashes the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar and all their resources with an iron rod (vv. 23b, 24a; cf. Ps 2.9); he destroys lawbreaking Gentiles with the word of his mouth (v. 24b, further vv. 35a, 36b [trans. according to R. B. Wright]; cf. Isa 11.4). See further 1QSb V, 24–29 (again a reception of Isa 11.4 and Ps 2.9); 1QM V, 1–2; 4Q161 8–10 23, 25–26; 4Q285 5 3– 4 (here also Isa 11.4 is in the background); 4Q285 6+4; see also CD VII, 19–21; 4Q376 1 III, 1–3;a nd 4 Ezra 12.31–34 (cf. 13.25–38, 13.49). On Qumran, see Zimmermann’s summary (1998, 94): “4Q161, 1QSb V, 20ff., and 4Q285 are . . . important pieces of evidence for the connection between Isa 11 and the ‘prince’ as the military-political leader in the end times and in the eschatological battle, who for the Qumran community was also the anticipated Davidic king” (trans. K. Ess). 18 See Pss. Sol. 17.22a, 33–34, 37–39 (v. 37b: “for God made him powerful by a holy spirit” [trans. R. B. Wright]); 4Q161 8–10 23. 19 According to Pss. Sol. 17, the “son of David” (v. 21) will “purge Jerusalem from the Gentiles” (v. 22b) and “destroy the lawbreaking Gentiles with the word of his mouth” (v. 24b, see also v. 45: may God “shield us from the contamination of defiled enemies”  [trans. R. B. Wright]). See further 1QSb V, 24–25. On the motif of liberation from foreign rule in the promises of a ruler in the Old Testament, see Isa 9.1– 4; Jer 30.8; Ezek 34.27–28; see also 2 Sam 7.10. Compare the recurring motif that Israel will live in security (Jer 23.6; 33.16; Ezek 34.[25,] 27–28; Mic 5.3; again see also 2 Sam 7.10). 20 See Pss. Sol. 17.30 (the “Gentile nations” will serve him under his yoke), CD VII, 20–21; 1QSb V, 27–28; 4Q161 8–10 25–26. See however Zech 9.10: “and he shall command peace to the nations.” 21 See Pss. Sol. 17.26–27 (“he will lead a holy people in righteousness”); 17.32 (“And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days”); 17.40 (“Faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord’s sheep” [trans. R. B. Wright]); 1QSb V, 21–22; 4Q161 8–10 26–29; see also 4Q252 V, 3 (“the anointed one of righteousness”). That the ideal ruler will bring (justice and) righteousness is a standard feature in the prophetic promises of a ruler (see Isa 9.6; 11.4–5; Jer 23.5; 33.15; Zech 9.9).

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

21

self-evident that the hopes of salvation bound up with the Davidic Messiah are related strictly to Israel.22 Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, one observes a significant growth in  the relevance of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship in comparison with Mark and Q, as can be seen in the increased occurrence of the title Son of David.23 While there is no indication of the use of this title in Q and its use is limited to two sections of text in Mark (the healing of blind Bartimaeus [Mark 10.47, 48] and the question about the Messiah as David’s son [Mark 12.35, 37]24), Matthew heavily expanded the use of the title Son of David.25 The  significance  and  precise  meaning  of  this  christologoumenon  is,  however, contested within Matthean scholarship.26 While some consider the title to be an essential expression of the Matthean conception of Jesus’ earthly activity,27 Kingsbury in particular has attempted to marginalize the title’s relevance.28 He argues that its use is limited to Jesus’ healing activity;29 22

See, for example, the interpretation of Amos 9.11 in connection with 2 Sam 7 in 4Q174 1i+21+2 12–13: “This (refers to) ‘the hut of David which has fall[en,’ w]hich he will raise up to save Israel” (trans. García Martínez/Tigchelaar). 23 This phrase occurs as a messianic title in pre-Christian literature only in Pss. Sol. 17.21 (and there hardly in the strict sense of the word “title”; cf. Karrer 1991, 251; Brandenburger 1998, 221; Schreiber 2000, 168; and Pietsch 2003, 242– 43). On other designations such as “Branch of David,” see n. 5. 24 See the discussion in section 2.1.1.2 with n. 85. 25 In addition to the four instances taken from Mark (Matt 20.30, 31; 22.42, 45; par. Mark 10.47, 48; 12.35, 37), Matthew has inserted the title in six further passages. While the instance in 9.27 is a result of the duplication of Mark 10.46–52 (cf. section 2.2.1) and the use of the title in Matt 21.9 is at least to some degree suggested by the Markan source (Mark 11.10, “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!”), the remaining four uses (1.1; 12.23; 15.22; 21.15) as well as the identification of Joseph as υἱὸς Δαυίδ (1.20) are Matthean. 26 For a concise overview of scholarship, see Novakovic 2003, 2–5. 27 See Hummel 1963, 116–22; Suhl 1968; Johnson 1969, 217–18; Strecker 1971, 118– 20; Sand 1974, 143–50; Nolan 1979, 149–215; Verseput 1987, 533–37 (cf. Verseput 1995); Broer 1992, 1256– 61; Paffenroth 1999, 551–54; Novakovic 2003, passim; Baxter 2006, esp. 37– 41, 46; and, above all, Deines 2005, 469–500, according to whom the confession of Jesus as the messianic Son of David plays a pivotal role in Matthew’s Christology (497); further, see also Tatum 1977, esp. 534. 28 Kingsbury 1976. In the following argumentation, I refer to this article. Kingsbury also presented his thesis in the monograph 1975a, 99–103. Following Kingsbury, compare W. R. G. Loader 1982; Bauer 1988, 80– 82, 142– 45; as well as Meier 1979, 72; R. E. Brown 1993, 134; and Gielen 1998, 202. Ebersohn 1993, 188–92, takes an extreme position, claiming that Jesus’ status as Son of David even in 1.1 characterizes the common Jewish position that is rejected (191). The untenability of this thesis clearly follows from 21.15–16. (On this, see sections 2.1.1.1 and 3.1.1 with n. 50.) 29 Kingsbury 1976, 592–93. The close connection between healings and the status as Son of David is often noted, yet this is not necessarily accompanied by the decided devaluation of the title’s significance, as it is in Kingsbury’s view (cf., above all, Novakovic 2003, passim).

22

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

it is never found on the lips of the disciples30 and, when used by the crowds (12.23; 21.9), in view of 21.11, Kingsbury claims that it is meant to express their inappropriate christological understanding.31 Kingsbury sees the title, connected with a proof that Jesus was the expected Messiah, as primarily serving the apologetic purpose of showing Israel’s guilt.32 Finally, according to Kingsbury, in view of the limited significance of Jesus’ Davidic sonship,  this title is clearly to be subordinated to the central Matthean christologoumenon of Jesus as the Son of God.33 This brief review of Kingsbury’s perspective has already revealed several essential thematic aspects pursued in the following discussion. What value is given to the Son of David motif in the context of the Matthean account of Jesus’ (earthly) ministry? How are we to assess the crowds (and the children in the temple) speaking of Jesus as the Son of David in 12.23; 21.9, (15)? Contrary to Kingsbury’s attempt to view the christological titles in a strict hierarchy, it has been pointed out that all titles emphasize partic­ ular aspects and thus contribute to the multifaceted overall christological conception.34 Thus the question arises as to how the two sonships—Davidic and divine—are related to one another in the Matthean Christology. And what are the consequences of this relationship in terms of the salvationhistorical concept of the Gospel? In the course of the following analyses, it will become clear that the isolated consideration of christological titles cannot do justice to the narrative character of Matthean Christology.35 Indeed, particularly with regard to the Davidic title, although we find it primarily in specific contexts, it is  30

Kingsbury 1976, 592. Compare Suhl 1968, 76. Kingsbury 1976, 600. In this vein, see also Suhl 1968, 79; Ebersohn 1993, 190–91, as well as Novakovic 2003, 90, 112–13. Novakovic’s position, however, is not based on an assessment of the acclamation of the Son of David as inadequate in itself (see, for example, Novakovic 2003, 122!) but rather on her view of the crowds. Novakovic’s proposal to distinguish between the crowds and the sick who call Jesus the Son of David, as well as from the children in the temple, occurs already in Kingsbury 1976, 599– 600. As will be presented in section 3.1, the evidence of the text in 21.1–17 clearly contradicts this position. 32 Kingsbury 1976, 597– 601. 33 Kingsbury 1976, 593–97. On the thesis of the centrality of Jesus’ status as Son of God, see Kingsbury 1975b. For critique of this position, see, for example, D. Hill 1980, 2– 6. 34 See Luz 1991, 235: “One can . . . not simply identify one single christological title as ‘primary.’ Each of them encompasses particular aspects in contrast with others and all of them characterize only aspects of Matthean Christology” (trans. K. Ess). Compare the critique of Kingsbury in Broer 1992, 1258–59; Cousland 2002, 180; Novakovic 2003, 62; and Verseput 1987, 533: “[A]ny reconstruction of the Matthean christology which exalts the Son of God concept at the expense of the Davidic Messiahship must be admitted to run counter to an obvious Matthean preoccupation.” 35 On this, see Luz 1991, 223. See further, for example, Repschinski 2000, 333–35. 31

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

23

nonetheless  bound  up  in  a  larger  christological  concept  and  its  significance can only be appropriately assessed in light of the Matthean concept as a whole. The following analysis begins with the introduction of the christologoumenon of the Son of David in Matt 1 and its last explicit mention in Matt 22.41– 46 (i.e., the texts that frame the explicit use of the title within the Gospel). In both passages, the divine and the Davidic sonships are interconnected. 2.1.1 2.1.1.1

The Son of God as the Son of David The Introduction of Jesus as the Son of David in Matt 1

One well-known characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew is the use of numerous fulfillment quotations,36 through which the evangelist identifies  Jesus’ life and ministry as the fulfillment of the scriptural promises and  thus seeks to show that Jesus is in fact the Messiah anticipated in Israel’s hopes of salvation.37 This fundamental feature of the Matthean narrative is employed already in the superscription in 1.1 and the following genealogy in 1.2–17. At the same time, the relevance of Jesus’ Davidic sonship to Matthean Christology also stands out here, as the title “Son of David” is introduced in 1.1, with the double appositional qualification of “Jesus38 Christ” as υἱὸς Δαυίδ and υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ. The literary question of whether 1.1 should be seen as the heading for the genealogy alone (or Matt 1),39 for the whole prologue (1.1– 4.16),40 or for the entire Gospel41 is of minor 36 See Matt 1.22–23; 2.15, 17–18, 23; 4.14–16; 8.17; 12.17–21; 13.35; 21.4–5; 27.9–10. It must be noted that, in terms of the relevance of Scripture in the Matthean narrative, the fulfillment quotations serve only as examples of the significance of the Old Testament for  the whole story (cf. Stanton 1992a, 346; Senior 1998a, 90, 104; Hays 2005, 168– 69). 37 On the apologetic— or internally directed legitimizing/affirming— f unction of the  citation, compare, among others, McConnell 1969, 134, 138; Howell 1990, 185– 86; Overman 1990b, 75–78; Senior 1998a, 101–2, 104; Theißen 1999, 156–58; and Hays 2005, 167. 38 The idea that at this first mention of the name Jesus, the reader should think of Joshua, make an association with the taking of the land, and relate this to a triumph over Rome through Jesus (see Carter 2005, 156–57) disregards the Matthean intention, as shown by 1.21, where Matthew explicitly interprets the name Jesus. 39 See E. Lohmeyer 1962, 4; Johnson 1969, 225; Vögtle 1971c, 73; Tatum 1977, 524– 25; Luz 1985, 88; Schweizer 1986, 8; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:7; Stanton 1992b, 1188–90; R. E. Brown 1993, 58–59; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:5, 9; Gundry 1994, 13; Nolland 1996b, 471; Wiefel 1998, 27; Eloff 2004, 78; and Kennedy 2008, 57. 40 See Krentz 1964, 411–14; Kingsbury 1975a, 9–11; Bauer 1996, 133–39, 153 (cf. Bauer 1988, 75–77); and Landmesser 2001, 18–30. 41 See Zahn 1922, 39–44; Klostermann 1927, 1; Schniewind 1962, 9; Grundmann 1986, 61; Sand 1986, 40– 41; S. Brown 1989, 393; Dormeyer 1992, 1361– 63; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:128–29 (cf. Frankemölle 1984, 360– 65); Senior 1998b, 33–34; and

24

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

relevance here, as this scarcely affects the fundamental significance of the  verse’s content.42 With this introductory double designation of Jesus, Matthew reveals the two salvation-historical horizons of his narrative: while the  fulfillment  of  the  promises  of  salvation  given  to  Israel  is  connected  with the Davidic sonship, the identification as a son of Abraham broadens  the perspective of the text to include salvation for the Gentiles.43 Matt 1.1 thus, in a sense, contains “the entire Gospel of Matthew in nuce.”44 To put it another way, Matthew’s introduction of this salvation-historical thematic complex already in 1.1 indicates its centrality for the Matthean retelling of the Jesus story and thus suggests that the identification of Jesus as the  Son of David serves to compress an essential theme of the Matthean narrative into a single title. When we turn to Matt 21, vv. 9 and 15, from this perspective, the introduction of the christologoumenon of Jesus as the Son of David in the prominent location of 1.1 indicates that the acclamation made by the people and the children in Matt 21 can hardly express an insufficient or even misguided christological understanding,45 particularly as Jesus himself identifies the children’s call as divinely ordained praise  with the citation from Ps 8.3 (Matt 21.16). At the same time, the addition of υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ in 1.1 makes it clear that Jesus’ Davidic sonship does not convey all there is to say about him. With its various pointed additions to the basic genealogical schema “x begat y,”46 the genealogy in 1.2–16 constitutes a scribal masterpiece that recalls, in condensed form, the history of God and his people Israel—a history that, for Matthew, leads to Jesus47—and thereby offers a compact, multifaceted presentation of Jesus’ significance. The most striking additions to  the schema are undoubtedly the mention of four women, whose significance  Luz 2001–2007, 1:69–70; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:149–54, 156; and Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 212–13. For a discussion of the arguments for the various options, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:149–54, 156; Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 208– 13; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:69–70. 42 Even if one regards 1.1 as the heading for “just” 1.2–17, it should be observed that the genealogy itself presents a focused, suggestive anticipation of central aspects of the significance of Jesus that are unfolded in the Matthean narrative (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992,  1:7– 8; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:9). On this, see the following discussion. 43 Compare Kingsbury 1976, 598; Frankemölle 1996b, 103; Deines 2005, 449. On the significance of the designation of Jesus as son of Abraham in Matt 1.1, see in more detail  section 5.1. 44 So the (somewhat exaggerated) thesis of Frankemölle 1984, 318 (trans. K. Ess). This need not, of course, mean that 1.1 is formally the title of the whole Gospel (cf. n. 42). 45 See also Cousland 2002, 17, 177–78. On the contrary position, see section 3.1.1. 46 Compare Ruth 4.18–22; 1 Chr 2.10–22, 36– 41; 5.30– 41, among others. 47 In view of the additional comments in Matt 1.2–16, Luz aptly observes that the genealogy becomes “here . . . a short-hand summary of Israel’s history” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:81). Compare, for example, Kennedy 2008, 76– 81.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

25

will be addressed later.48 For our present purposes, alongside the reference to the twelve patriarchs of Israel in 1.2 (cf. Matt 10.2– 4; 19.28!), which is likely meant to suggest the motif of the restitution of the twelve tribes,49 the emphasis on David is of particular interest. Not only is David’s reign, together with the Babylonian exile, introduced as the boundary marker of an era in the interpretive comment in 1.17, but David also stands out in the genealogy itself, in that the royal title is added to his name alone (1.6). The only other person to be named with a title is Jesus himself,50 who according to v. 16 is called Christ. In light of 1.1, it seems likely that Matthew specifically sought to construct a connection between King David and the Davidic Messiah Jesus51 in order to underscore the identification of Jesus as the Son of David in 1.1. And  Matthew by no means excludes royal attributes in his portrayal of Jesus as the Son of David,52 as is made clear not only by the insertion of the fulfillment  quotation in 21.4–5 but also by Matt 2.1– 6.53 In short, Matthew presents Jesus as the kingly Davidic Messiah already at the very beginning of his narrative. The interpretive commentary in v. 17, which structures the genealogy in three sets of fourteen generations, 54 evokes the “idea of the divine plan that lies over the history of Israel that leads to Jesus.”55 The history of salvation, which God began with the calling of Abraham, leads up to its culmination in Jesus.56 The eras marked out in 1.17 match up with additional 48

See section 5.1. Compare Johnson 1969, 151–52; Sand, 1986, 43; and Oberforcher 1999, 9, 14. 50 Compare Schnider and Stenger 1979, 189(–90); Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:4; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:139; and Deines 2005, 470–71. See also Davis 1973, 528; and Eloff 2004, 77. 51 Compare Harrington 1991a, 28–29; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:11; Gundry 1994, 15; and Oberforcher 1999, 14–15. 52 Compare Verseput 1995 and Bauer 1995. 53 See section 2.1.2. 54 Discussion of the background to the structure of three sets of fourteen generations will not be addressed here; see the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:161– 65; further, see also Johnson 1969, 189– 208. On the difficulty of bringing the outline given in  1.17 into harmony with the actual number of generations, see Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 1:186; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:80, 81. The suggestion of Wilk 2002, 83, n. 3, is worth consideration: “With v. 17, Matthew himself indicates how he has come to this number: he regards the first and second periods as connected with the person of David, who therefore is counted twice—as end and as beginning. The second and third periods, however, are linked in the Matthean portrayal by the event of the exile, so that Jechoniah—who according to v. 11 was born ‘at the time of the deportation to Babylon’!—is counted only in the third period” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 55 Luz 2001–2007, 1:85. Compare Johnson 1969, 208, 219; Waetjen 1976, 212; Sand 1986, 42, 46; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:139; Bauer 1996, 142; Oberforcher 1999, 13; and Ostmeyer 2000, 189, among others. 56 In terms of Jesus’ status as Son of David, this serves to emphasize that Jesus is not just any Davidic descendant but precisely the messianic Son of David, the Christ (1.16; cf. Tatum 1977, 528–29; Novakovic 2003, 42). 49

26

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

remarks in the genealogical schema and are thus set up within the genealogy itself. The first period reaches to David, “the king” (1.6); the next  break in the series of eras is marked by the reference to the Babylonian exile (1.11). Beyond this, one can consider whether or to what extent Matthew saw the three eras as connected with specific themes that illuminate the significance of the Messiah— the one toward whom history was leading.57 For the first period, from Abraham to David, the great promises of salvation  come to mind—the promise to Abraham that includes the Gentiles and the promise to David, which has specifically the salvation of Israel in view. In the second period, unlike Luke, Matthew takes the genealogy by way of the kings of Judah.58 As a result, the genealogy can continue to function as a compressed presentation of Israel’s history; in particular, the mention of the Babylonian exile arises from the choice of the royal line. At the same time, the phrase ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος implicitly points to the vacancy of the throne of David since that time.59 In view of the fact that, according to the Deuteronomistic viewpoint, the history of David’s successors on the throne is (with the exception of a few bright spots such as King Josiah) a history of failure and apostasy that finally ends with the catastrophe of the  exile, one might well ask whether the failure of the kings as documented by the μετοικεσία Βαβυλῶνος serves as a contrasting background for the expectation of the ideal leader, the Davidic Messiah. This suggestion fits in  with the observation that Matthew later emphasizes the desolate state of the Jewish crowds (e.g., in the metaphor of the sheep without a shepherd [9.36]) and models this portrayal with reference to Old Testament texts that record the Babylonian exile and expose the failure of the ruling class.60 The decision to take the genealogy by way of the royal line, with an explicit reference to the exile, strengthens the presentation of Jesus as Israel’s kingly Messiah, introduced in 1.1, in whom hopes of an ideal Davidic leader are fulfilled.61 In the third section of the genealogy, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel,62 the names no longer refer to people known to us from 57

Compare the proposal of Ostmeyer 2000, 178– 85. Luke writes the genealogy by way of an unknown son of David by the name of Nathan (which can hardly refer to the prophet). Novakovic 2003, 39, connects this with the Lukan emphasis on attention to the marginalized: “Luke shows that Jesus’ ancestors were insignificant people, which is in agreement with his concern for those who are poor  and marginalized.” 59 Compare Nolland 1997, 533, n. 19. 60 See section 2.1.2. 61 Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:180, rightly ask: “Is not the reader to infer that the kingdom that was inaugurated with David and lost at the captivity is restored with the coming of Jesus, the Davidic Messiah?” See also Eloff 2004, 83– 84. 62 See 1 Chr 3.19LXX (diff. MT); Ezra 3.2, 8; 5.2; Neh 12.1; and Hag 1.1 and elsewhere. 58

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

27

other sources. However, here, too, a striking feature can be observed— namely, the accumulation of names or people whose Old Testament namesakes are connected with priesthood and the temple.63 This suggests that, alongside the kingly accent of the second period, Matthew seeks here to set a priestly accent64 that builds on the mention of the exile as an allusion to the sins of the rulers and the people they led. If this is right, then the basic christological motif introduced in 1.21 as part of the interpretation of the name Jesus—that Jesus will save his people from “their (αὐτῶν)” sins—is prepared in the preceding genealogy.65 In sum, Matthew indicates important aspects of Jesus’ mission in the genealogy,66 and the portrayal of Jesus as the kingly Messiah from the  house  of  David  already  emerges  here  as  a  significant  christological motif. There is, however, precisely at this point a tension to observe, produced by the most striking departure from the genealogical schema in  1.16b:  the  genealogy  goes  by  way  of  Joseph,  yet  he  is  identified  only as the “husband of Mary,” ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός. The resolution of this tension is achieved in 1.18–25.67 The passive ἐγεννήθη is explained by the fact that Mary is pregnant by the Holy Spirit (1.18,  20),  and  the  majority  of  interpreters  rightly  find  here  the  foundation for the christologoumenon Son of God in the motif of a divine birth and, more precisely, that of the virgin birth (anchored in Scripture by the 63 See Ostmeyer 2000, 183–84. Contra Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 236: “a series of names that are not explained in more detail and were likely hardly known” (trans. K. Ess). It is worth observing that in 1 Chr 3.19–24, Zerubabbel’s progeny are named, among whom there is no Abiud. If Matthew knew this passage, this would underscore the hypothesis that in the third segment names are not given at random, or, to put it positively, that the accumulation of “priestly” names is hardly a coincidence. 64 Compare Ostmeyer 2000, 182–85, and, previously, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:10. In agreement with Ostmeyer are, for example, Karrer 2003, 332; and Deines 2005, 472. Having royal and priestly ancestors was the highest possible nobility in Judaism, according to Josephus, Vita 1–2. 65 See Wright 1992, 386. 66 Ostmeyer 2000, 189–90, offers a particularly far-reaching interpretation: Jesus is the “culmination point of the history of salvation, in that he, by means of his genealogy and through his life, embodies and recapitulates that history’s essential periods and aspects: patriarchs, kings, priests, the integration of the Gentiles, illness or healing (the leprous Uzziah) and imprisonment or liberation (the imprisoned Jechoniah) belong to his life and work” (trans. K. Ess). 67 In this respect, Stehndahl’s designation of 1.18–25 as an “enlarged footnote” to the  preceding  genealogy  (Stehndahl  1960,  102)  is  fitting  (so  also,  for  example,  Vögtle  1971c, 70; Bornkamm 1975c, 307; Schnackenburg 2002, 18; see also Klein 2004, 159: a midrashic explanation of the genealogy in 1.1–17). At the same time, however, it must be noted that in 1.18–25, as already the introduction of the Immanuel motif in 1.23 shows, there is more at stake than Jesus’ Davidic sonship alone.

28

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

fulfillment  quotation  in  1.22– 23).68 The connection found elsewhere between Spirit and divine sonship (Mark 1.9–11; Luke 1.35; Rom 1.3– 4) speaks fundamentally in favor of this judgment,69 as does the connection that Matthew has established between the fulfillment quotations in 1.22– 23  and 2.15 by means of the parallel introductory phrases.70 In the quotation in 2.15, we have the first explicit reference to Jesus as the Son of God; the  introduction to the quotation, formulated parallel to 1.22, indicates that 1.23 also refers to the Son of God. At the same time, however, in view of the tension created by 1.16, 1.18–25 substantially serves to establish that Jesus is in fact a descendant of David: Joseph, a son of David (1.20), as Matthew explicitly notes,71 “adopted” him as a son.72 Jesus, the Son of God, is thus integrated into the Davidic family line. With the correlation of Jesus’ divine and Davidic heritage that comes to light here—Jesus is, so to speak, the Son of God by birth, and the Son of David by “adoption”—Matthew is to be distinguished from other such correlations found in early Christian texts. In the JewishChristian tradition behind Rom 1.3– 4, Jesus’ double sonship appears to be  fixed  in  a  two- level  Christology,  in  which  Jesus’  earthly  mission  is  linked with his status as the Son of David, while his status as the Son of God is connected with his exaltation in the resurrection.73 Similarly, in conjunction with a quotation from Ps 2.7, Acts 13.33–34 (cf. Acts 13.23) links Jesus the Son of David’s divine sonship with his resurrection. In Ps 2.7 itself, God accepts as his son the king who sits on the throne of David in the sense of an “adoption” procedure74 (cf. Ps 89.27–28; 2 Sam 7.14). 68

See Pesch 1967, 410–11, 416–19; Kingsbury 1975b, 6–7 (cf. Kingsbury 1996, 54– 55); Geist 1986, 387– 88; Bauer 1988, 65, 80, 82; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:212; Dunn 1989, 49–50; Riedl 1991, 95–109; Broer 1992, 1277; R. E. Brown 1993, 133–37; Hahn 1995, 314; and Novakovic 2003, 46– 47. Contra Schnider and Stenger 1981, 263– 64; Verseput 1987, 532–33; Nolland 1996a; and Klein 2004, 164. 69 Contra Kupp 1996, 172–73. 70 Only these two quotations are introduced with the phrase ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου. On this, see Pesch 1967, 397–98, 405–13; and compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:212; Riedl 1991, 97; Miler 1999, 20–21; Luz 2001–2007, 1:95–96; and Paul 2005, 281, 289, among others. 71 On the redactional origin of υἱὸς Δαυίδ in 1.20, see Burger 1970, 103– 4, as well as Luz 2001–2007, 1:90, n. 9. Contra, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:207– 8. 72 Compare Suhl 1968, 67–68; Johnson 1969, 218; McConnell 1969, 105–6; Burger 1970, 104; Waetjen 1976, 225; Tatum 1977, 531; Verseput 1987, 533; Weren 1997a, 295; Novakovic 2003, 43– 45; Paul 2005, 29, 256, 267; and Baxter 2006, 37. 73 On the tradition adapted in Rom 1.3– 4, see Wilckens 1987, 56– 61. 74 See Preuss 1991/1992, 2:34; H.-J. Kraus 2003, 150–53 (cf. H.-J. Kraus 1989, 142).

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

29

In Matt 1, however, we see an inversion of this process: rather than Jesus the Son of David being adopted as the Son of God, Jesus the Son of God is adopted as the Son of David.75 The status as Son of God, which expresses  Jesus’  unique  proximity  to  and  affinity  with  God,76 takes precedence and appears as the overarching identity of Jesus. This appears, at  first  glance,  to  confirm  Kingsbury’s  approach.  But  Matthew  does  not  thereby seek to diminish the value of the status as Son of David. Matthew 1 does not intend to express that Jesus is the Son of God and not just a son of David. Rather, the emphasis here lies on the assertion that Jesus the Son of God is integrated into the history of God’s promises to Israel and first makes his appearance as the Son of David— that is, he first has to fulfill the task that is assigned to him as the messianic Son of David. In other  words, with the motif of the Davidic sonship, the fulfillment of the promises of salvation given to Israel emerges already in Matt 1 as a principal aspect of Jesus’ mission. One fundamentally misses the point of Matthew’s conception  if  the  significance  of  Jesus’  divine  sonship  is  pitted  against  that of his Davidic sonship. Indeed, already in Matt 1, the two sonships are positively correlated, whereby Matthew, as we have seen, takes up and modifies the Old Testament and Early Jewish tradition. At the same time,  the inversion of the process of adoption goes hand in hand with the fact that Jesus’ status as the Son of God encompasses other and more extensive aspects than his Davidic sonship. The second framing text (22.41– 46), where Jesus’ two sonships are again made the central theme, suggests this very idea. On the other hand, we must remain mindful of the fact that both titles form one conceptual nexus: behind Jesus’ appearance as Son of David lies his dignity and majesty as the Son of God, and conversely, the earthly ministry of the Son of God is centrally defined by the task assigned  to him as the Davidic Messiah. 2.1.1.2

The Question of the Messiah’s Sonship in Matt 22.41– 46

In this passage, Matthew has transformed Jesus’ monologue in Mark 12.35– 37 into an argumentative dialogue.77 The opening question in Mark—“how can the scribes say that the Messiah is the Son of David?”—is replaced with a question addressed to the Pharisees: “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” Viewed in terms of the larger context, this reformulation should be considered within the Matthean concept of Jesus’ double 75

Compare Waetjen 1976, 228; and Novakovic 2003, 50, 63. Compare Verseput 1986, 31–33; and Luz 1991, 231. 77 On the significance of the argumentative dialogue in the context of Matt 21.23–  22.46, see section 3.1.2.5. 76

30

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

sonship. That is, for Matthew, there are two right (and related) answers: Jesus is the Son of David and the Son of God.78 This is substantiated by the observation that the evangelist explicitly connects both of Jesus’ sonships with the title Christ. While Matt 1.1(–17); 2.4; and 11.2 exhibit a Davidicmessianic coloration,79 Matthew has also supplemented Peter’s confession of Christ with the words ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.80 The Pharisees’ answer in 22.42 addresses only the Davidic sonship. Jesus’ further remarks do not call into question the correctness of their answer but, rather, problematize its incompleteness:81 Jesus is indeed the Son of David, but he is also more. With  regard  to  the  christological  concept  of  the  first  evangelist,  two  observations  are  to  be  made:  first,  the  statements  about  the  Messiah  as  kyrios and his exaltation to the right hand of God (vv. 43– 45) are, in light of the opening question in v. 42a, to be read as statements about his status as the Son of God, as we have seen; and second, the two πῶς questions in vv. 43– 45 are in no way synonymous.82 Rather, the first question addresses  the problem of how David’s son can also be David’s Lord. The solution to this apparent tension results from the fact that the messianic Son of David is simultaneously the Son of God and, as such, is placed over David as kyrios. In the second question, the problem is reversed: how can the one whom David calls Lord be his son? The reader of the Matthean narrative knows the answer from 1.18–25: Jesus the Son of God was adopted as a son by Joseph, son of David. Thus 22.41– 46, in its redactional composition, recapitulates and strengthens the christological concept of Matt 1. Here, it is emphasized that Jesus’ identity is not exhaustively represented in his status as the Son of David. Jesus is more than the Davidic Messiah83—in the account of Jesus’ passion and resurrection that follows this passage, this point is given emphatic prominence. Nevertheless, this does not imply an insufficiency in speaking of Jesus as the Son of David;84 features of the 78 Compare Suhl 1968, 61; Johnson 1969, 228; Lange 1973, 228; Hultgren 1979, 45; Verseput 1986, 34; Gundry 1994, 451, 452; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:250, 252, 255; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:357; Gielen 1998, 272; Meiser 1998, 248; Luz 2001–2007, 3:88–90; Novakovic 2003, 60; Baxter 2006, 41; and Fiedler 2006, 340– 41. Against the hypothesis of an allusion to Jesus’ status as Son of God in 22.41– 46, see Burger 1970, 89; and Broer 1992, 1258. 79 On Matt 11.2, see section 2.2.1. 80 See section 5.2.2.2. 81 It must be noted that the Pharisees take the question as a general one about the Messiah.  Jesus  of  course  poses  here  a  question  more  specifically  about  himself,  which  carries the question of his authority (21.23–27) further. Whose son is he? 82 Compare the following to Novakovic 2003, 61– 62. 83 In this sense, see also Deines 2005, 494. 84 In this vein, see also Suhl 1968, 61; Johnson 1969, 227; Burger 1970, 88, 90; Sand 1974, 147–48; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:651; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:254–55; Luz 2001–2007,

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

31

Markan version that can be read as a marginalization of, if not a fundamental challenge to (the significance of) Jesus’ Davidic sonship85 are not maintained in the Matthean transformation of the text.86 In sum, Matthew’s christological concept is characterized by the positive correlation of the Son of God and the Son of David. Jesus’ ministry depicted prior to 22.41– 46—and thus, to a certain extent, framed by Matt 1 and 22.41– 46—is centrally characterized by the idea that Jesus the Son of God turns to his people in his “role” as the Son of David.87 This idea is developed in the sections that follow. 2.1.2

The Davidic Messiah as the Shepherd of Israel

Following its introduction in Matt 1, Jesus’ Davidic sonship is addressed in another form in the pericope of the magi’s visit (2.1–12), with the question about the “newborn king of the Jews” (2.2).88 This pericope serves a double expository function with regard to the Matthean conception of Jesus’ Davidic sonship. First, the opposition against Jesus is introduced and the constellation of conflict is established;89 and second, the metaphor of the shepherd and sheep is introduced as a leitmotif through which Matthew unfolds his understanding of Jesus as the Davidic-Messianic king. Herod correctly deciphers the words of the magi (that they had seen the star of the newborn king of the Jews at its rising90) as news of the birth 3:91; Cousland 2002, 177–81; Deines 2005, 494–95; and Nolland 2005, 916, among others. Contra J. M. Gibbs 1963/1964, 461, 463; Kingsbury 1976, 596; and J. M. Jones 1994, 269. See section 3.1.1. 85 Suhl 1968, 57– 60; Schneider 1972, 89–90; and Karrer 2003, 344– 45, see a questioning or rejection of the title Son of David as an appropriate designation for Jesus (cf. John 7.41– 42 and Barn. 12.10–11) in Mark 12.35–37. Contrast, for example, Lövestam 1962, 79– 80. Burger 1970, 56–58, sees the pre-Markan tradition as implying a rejection of the status as the Son of David but also argues that in the Markan context of 10.46–52 and 11.1–11, the text acquires a new orientation (59, 64– 66): here, it is only a matter of surpassing the title (64, see also 168– 69). 86 This fits in with the fact that shortly before, as we have seen, in the redactional passage 21.14–16, the children’s acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David is declared to be divinely sanctioned praise by Jesus’ citation of Ps 8.3. 87 In terms of tradition history, it is evident that the expectation of a “Son of David” or “Branch of David” is oriented toward Israel (cf. Jer 23.5; 33.15; also Zech 3.8; 6.12). See Pss. Sol. 17 (here also note the connection of the Son of David [17.21] with the image of Israel as the “Lord’s sheep” [17.40]); 4Q161 8–10 15–29; 4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13; 4Q252 V, 1–5; 4Q285 5; (4 Ezra 12.31ff.) and elsewhere. In Rabbinic texts, see b. Sanh. 97b–99a. Compare Burger 1970, 16–24. In Matthew, the orientation toward Israel is made clear already in the connection between 1.1 and 2.6. 88 Compare the juxtaposition of 21.5 and 21.9. See also Pss. Sol. 17.21. 89 See section 3.1.2.1. 90 On the interpretation of ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ in Matt 2.2, see Luz 2001–2007, 1:102, n. 1.

32

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of Christ, of the Messiah, so that Jesus appears here as a kingly messiah or messianic king (cf. 21.5, 9).91 As is suggested already in 1.16, the title of Messiah is thus to be positioned here in the context of the expectation of a messianic Son of David.92 The scriptural quotation in 2.6 takes this up and, at the same time, introduces the sheep/shepherd imagery mentioned previously. To this purpose, Matthew supplements the appeal to Mic 5.1, which serves as sufficient evidence of the Messiah’s birthplace, with an allusion to 2 Sam 5.2:93 Jesus, the Son of David94 born in Bethlehem, the city of David (Luke 2.4),95 is the ἡγούμενος who will shepherd God’s people Israel. With the reference to 2 Sam 5.2, Matthew—certainly intentionally—draws on a passage that concerns the kingdom of David96 and thereby underscores that 2.6 unfolds the mission that is Jesus’ task as the Son of David, the “king of 91 On the “royal coloration” in Matthew’s language of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, cf. 2.1.1.1. 92 See also Verseput 1987, 534. See also Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 293, n. 484; Deines 2005, 473. 93 It is entirely possible to detach the quotation from its context (cf. Vögtle 1971e, 20; Luz 2001–2007, 1:103; Paul 2005, 34). On the other hand, Herod’s question to the chief priests and scribes anticipates a scriptural proof, and the tradition of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is probably a theological construction that touches on Mic 5.1 (contra Karrer 1998, 321–22; on Nazareth as Jesus’ birthplace, cf. Theißen and Merz 1996, 158 and Fiedler 2006, 56). This makes a preredactional origin for the quotation likely, at the very least. But Matthew has edited this (on the Matthean redaction, cf. Luz 2001–2007, 1:103). This is certainly true of the introductory formula and—in the quotation itself—very likely true of the addition of 2 Sam 5.2 (cf., for example, also Gielen 1998, 33), which may be inspired by the fact that the metaphor of ποιμαίνειν is anchored in the context of Mic 5.1 itself (5.3). It is possible that ἡγούμενος in Matt 2.6c was inserted into the quotation from Micah in the course of the addition of 2 Sam 5.2, which ends with καὶ σὺ ἔσει εἰς ἡγούμενον ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ. Finally, the phrase γῆ Ἰούδα, which does not appear in the Old Testament text, may be due to Matthean redaction (cf. Schweizer 1986, 17; Gielen 1998, 33). The simplest explanation for the use of this phrase, instead of Ἰουδαία as in 2.1, is an allusion to Judah the patriarch as “progenitor of the royal tribe (1:2–3), in order to heighten the stress on Jesus’ kingship (cf. Gen 49:10)” (Gundry 1994, 29; cf. also Baxter 2012, 130). There is, however, no clear indication that Matthew wanted to foster an “eschatological hope of territorial restoration” by using the phrase γῆ Ἰούδα (against Willitts 2007, 108; for a critical review of Willitts’s monograph with its emphasis on the supposed political-national dimension of Matthew’s depiction of Jesus as the messianic shepherd king, see Konradt 2009). 94 In Mic 5.1ff., strictly speaking, the promised leader does not simply continue the Davidic dynasty, but rather, similarly to Isa 11.1, an entirely new beginning is in view (cf. Seebass 1992, 51—no Davidide, only David typology). Matthew evidently does not make this subtle distinction. 95 Compare Gundry 1994, 26: “The stress on Bethlehem serves his interest in Davidic Christology.” 96 Compare 4Q504 2 IV, 6– 8: “(And you) established your covenant with David so that he would be like a shepherd, a prince over your people (‫)להיות כרעי נגיד על עמכה‬, and would sit in front of you on the throne of Israel for ever” (trans. García Martínez/ Tigchelaar).

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

33

the Jews” (2.2).97 In terms of tradition history, this fits in with the observation that the leadership metaphor of ποιμαίνειν98 characterizes the ministry of the Davidic Messiah not only in Mic 5.3 and Ezek 34.23 but also in Pss. Sol. 17.40.99 This  connection  between  the  identification  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  David  in  Matt 1, which is maintained in 2.2 with the magi’s designation of Jesus as “king of the Jews,” and the title of Messiah (2.4) as well as the shepherd imagery (2.6), makes it clear that it would be methodologically questionable to consider the Matthean usage of the title “Son of David” in isolation. The use of the title is rather to be regarded as part of a more comprehensive christological concept, and it is from this concept that the title gains its importance.100

The characterization of Jesus the Son of David’s task as that of the promised Davidic-Messianic shepherd of his people is then interpreted through the mission logion in 15.24, which programmatically formulates Jesus’ ministry as directed at Israel: Jesus is “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”101 Seen within the larger context of the narrative, Jesus here expresses the same thing about his own divine102 commission as was said before in his commission of the disciples in 10.6. Matt 15.24 thereby 97 On the connection of 2.6 with the motif of Davidic sonship cf. J. M. Gibbs 1963/1964, 448; F. Martin 1975, 272–73; Kingsbury 1976, 595; Verseput 1987, 534; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:243, 253; Broer 1992, 1257; Bauer 1995, 309; and Nolland 2005, 115. The thesis of Burger 1970, 105, that Matthew does not connect the name Bethlehem with his notion of Jesus as the Son of David, overlooks the fact that in 2.6, Matthew has combined Mic 5.1 with 2 Sam 5.2, which is precisely concerned with David’s kingdom. 98 See 2 Sam 7.7 (cf. 1 Chr 17.6); Jer 3.15; 6.18LXX; 23.2, 4; Ezek 34.23; Mic 5.3 (5); 7.14; Pss (2.9); 77.71–72LXX; see also Philo, Det. 3.9; Agr. 41; Sobr. 14; Prob. 31. 99 Pss. Sol. 17.40: “He will be mighty in his actions and strong in the fear of God. Faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord’s sheep (ποιμαίνων τὸ ποίμνιον κυρίου ἐν πίστει καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ), he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture” (trans. R. B. Wright). 100 In view of this, especially Kingsbury’s attempt (1976) to underplay the significance of the title “Son of David” appears questionable (see above in section 2.1). 101 A redactional creation of the evangelist is the likely origin of this logion (so, for example, Frankemölle 1984, 137; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:29; Luz 2001–2007, 2:336). In any case, the logion fits seamlessly with the other— substantial— Matthean changes to the Markan text in Matt 15.21–28, particularly with the deletion of πρῶτον (Mark 7.27) in Matt 15.26 (on this, see section 2.2.3.2). In the context of 15.21–28, v. 24 can hardly serve to underscore the greatness of the Canaanite woman’s faith (contra Ray 1967, 227; Gundry 1994, 313) or—expressed in terms of form criticism—to strengthen the motif of complication (contra Merklein 1995, 135). Rather, as will be shown, Matthew formulates here an essential theological aspect of his Jesus story. 102 ἀπεστάλην is a passivum divinum, thus grounding Jesus’ exclusive mission to Israel in his divine commission.

34

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

goes beyond 2.6 in that the task assigned to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (cf. 15.22103) to shepherd God’s people Israel is designated here as an exclusive assignment. God thus fulfills the promise of salvation given to  his people, as it is taken up in the quotation in 2.6, by sending Jesus exclu­ sively to Israel. And, conversely, looking back to 2.6 from 15.24, the concentration upon Israel in Jesus’ earthly ministry emerges as substantiated in Scripture. Moreover, not only is the shepherd/sheep imagery established by means of an Old Testament quotation in 2.6; its usage in Matthew as a whole is substantially characterized by the intertextual “game” the evangelist plays with Old Testament passages. The metaphor of the sheep or flock is commonly used to represent Israel in the Old Testament104 as well as Early Judaism.105 As a counterpart to this, we find the image of God106 or the Davidic Messiah107 as the shepherd of Israel, while the ruling class or 103

On this, see section 2.2.3.2. The figurative language of shepherd and flock, outlined in the following, is not, of course, a biblical proprium but was widespread in the ancient Near East. See HunzikerRodewald 2001, 16–38, as well as the brief overview by Jeremias 1990a, 485. 105 See Num 27.17; 2 Sam 24.17 = 1 Chr 21.17; Isa 40.11; 63.11; Jer (10.21); 13.17 (20); 23.1– 4; 50.6 (17); Ezek 34.2ff.; Mic 7.14; Zech 9.16; 10.2–3; Ps 74.1; 77.21; 78.52; 79.13; 95.7; 100.3; Pss. Sol. 17.40; L.A.B. 23.12; 30.5; 31.5; Apoc. El. (C) 42.8; Pesiq. Rab. 26.1/2; Num. Rab. 23 on 33.1; see also the early Christian adaptation of the image in Luke 12.32; John 10.1–16 (here Ezek 34 clearly serves as a model, cf. Wilckens 1998, 164); 21.15–17; Acts 20.28–29; 1 Pet 5.2–3; 1 Clem. 16.1; 44.3; 54.2; 57.2; 59.4 (citing Ps 78.13LXX). 106 See the detailed discussion in Hunziker-Rodewald 2001. The formal designation of God as shepherd is rare (Gen 48.15; 49.24; Pss 23.1 [cf. Philo, Agr. 50–53]; 80.2; as well as Apocr. Ezek. frag. 5 [see OTP 1:495]); nevertheless, the evidence accumulates when one considers the entire range of the image’s use (see Jeremias 1990a, 486) as well as comparative language elsewhere. See Isa 40.11; 49.9–10; Jer 23.3; 31.10; Ezek 20.37; 34.11ff.; Mic 2.12; 7.14; Ps 28.9; (68.8); 77.21; 78.52–53; 79.13; 95.7; Sir 18.13; L.A.B. 23.12; 28.5; as well as 4Q521 2 II, 13 (see Kvalbein 1997, 114), and 1 En. 89.16, 28 (in Zech 9.16, ֹ‫ַעּמו‬ should not be emended to ‫) ִי ְרֵעם‬. For Israel as God’s flock (with various formulations), see Isa 40.11; Jer 13.17; 23.1–3; 50.19; Ezek 34.5ff.; Mic 7.14; Zech 10.3; Ps 74.1; 79.13; 95.7; 100.3; Pss. Sol. 17.40; 1 En. 89.12ff.; L.A.B. 30.5; 31.5. The description of God as shepherd recedes in early Christian texts (but see Ign. Rom. 9.1). The reason for this should hardly be looked for in the use of the image for community officials, which could lead a similar  description of God to be “ambiguous and misleading” (see Goldstein 1990, 127; as will be apparent in the following discussion, authorities are referred to as shepherds already in the Old Testament), but rather in the fact that Christ had taken on the attributes of a shepherd (see the references in the following footnote). 107 See Ezek 34.23; 37.24; Pss. Sol. 17.40; see also Mic 5.3. The word “anointed” first  appears in Pss. Sol. 17 (v. 32, cf. 18.5, 7). For early Christian texts—in addition to the passages to be discussed in the following—see John 10.11ff.; Heb 13.20; 1 Pet 2.25; 5.4; Rev 7.17; Mart. Pol. 19.2. In view of the infrequent use of the shepherd attribute for the Messiah in the Old Testament as well as Early Jewish literature, it is by no means necessary to see the Christian adaptation of the image as the reason for the complete lack—with the 104

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

35

religious authorities are also described as shepherds.108 An essential aspect of this metaphor is that the flock is not an independent entity but relies on  the work of the shepherd: the well-being of the sheep is entirely dependent on their shepherd(s). A clear difference in the way these images are used thereby emerges, depending on who appears as shepherd. When God or the Messiah is the shepherd, the positive aspects of the image come to the foreground: the salvation of the chosen people,109 prosperity, well-being,110 and protection.111 The ruling classes, on the other hand, are branded as bad shepherds in prophetic literature;112  in  the  image  of  the  flock/sheep,  the concepts of being abandoned and lost, unprotected, and scattered are exception of Midr. Teh. 29.1 (citing Ezek 34.23)—of the shepherd metaphor as a messianic description in rabbinic Judaism (contra Jeremias 1990a, 488). 108 See 2 Sam 7.7 = 1 Chr 17.6 (of the judges); Isa 56.11; Jer 2.8; 3.15; 10.21; 12.10; 22.22; 23.1– 4; 50.6; Ezek 34.2ff.; Zech 10.2ff.; 11.3ff.; CD XIII, 9; Apoc. El. (C) 42.6–8; 2 Bar. 77.13 (on the interpretation, see Schnabel 1985, 157); 4 Ezra 5.18; of foreign leaders, see Isa 44.28 (of Cyrus, only MT); Jer 25.34–36; Nah 3.18; see also Philo, Ios. 2–3; Agr. 41–50. For Moses as shepherd, see Isa 63.11; L.A.B. 19.3; see also Num 27.17; Ps 77.21. David is instructed to shepherd Israel (2 Sam 5.2 = 1 Chr 11.2 [cf. Matt 2.6!]; Ps 78.71–72; and see 4Q504 2 IV, 6–7 [see n. 96 for the text]). For early Christian usage in reference to community authorities, see Eph 4.11; Ign. Phld. 2.1; Herm, Sim. IX 31.5– 6; and implicitly John 21.15–17; Acts 20.28; 1 Pet 5.2. 109 On the metaphor in the context of election, see esp. Ps 95.7; 100.3; L.A.B. 30.5. 110 Ezek 34.11–16, 26–31. Jer 23.3 adds to the idea of gathering the scattered sheep: “I [= God] will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply.” Similarly, L.A.B. 23.12 unfolds the image in terms of the well-being of the people: “[A]nd  I  [=  God]  will  .  .  .  tend  you  like  a  lovable  flock;  and  I  will  command  the  rain  [cf. Ezek 34.26] and the dew, and they will be abundant for you during your lifetime” (trans. D. J. Harrington, OTP 2:333). According to Pss. Sol. 17.40, the Davidic Messiah will shepherd the “Lord’s sheep . . . faithfully and righteously” and “he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture” (trans. R. B. Wright). See also the Overseer’s task in CD XIII, 9: “He shall have pity on them like a father on his sons, and will heal all the ‹afflicted  among  them›  like  a  shepherd  his  flock”  (trans.  García  Martínez/Tigchelaar).  Indirectly, Ps 74.1 (“O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture?”) also belongs here, as the metaphor alludes to past care. 111 See, for example, Ezek 34.25, 27–28; Ps 78.52–53: “Then he led out his people [out of Egypt] like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock. He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid; but the sea overwhelmed their enemies” (for the metaphor of the shepherd in the context of the exodus, cf. Ps [68.8]; 77.21; 1 En. 89.12ff.). Compare L.A.B. 30.5: “And now you were like a flock before our Lord, and he led you into the height  of the clouds and set the angels beneath your feet” (trans. D. J. Harrington, OTP 2:343). Jeremias 1968, 487, calls attention to the frequent occurrence of shepherd imagery “in the Psalter and in the consoling prophecy of the Exile. The content of the metaphor is more clearly developed in the latter than in any other place apart from Ps. 23. More than almost any other expression it is well fitted to bring out the fact that Israel is sheltered in God.” 112 On prophetic criticism of the shepherds, see Hunziker-Rodewald 2001, 50– 62. For the good shepherd as the object of God’s promises of salvation, see Jer 3.15; 23.4.

36

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

highlighted.113 Or, conversely, these aspects of the metaphor make it particularly well-suited for use in this context. The most important texts in which this imagery is used in this way are Jer 23.1– 4 and Ezek 34.114 The bad shepherds, who have not taken care of their sheep, are replaced with new shepherds in Jer 23.1– 4 (cf. Jer 3.15), after God himself gathers the scattered flock and returns the sheep to their  pasture. The promise of new leadership is then further specified in vv. 5– 6,  with the promise of the coming of a Davidic king who will execute justice and righteousness. In Ezek 34, both the critique of the (old) ruling class (vv. 2–10) and God’s intervention (vv. 11ff.) are more extensively elaborated, and, most importantly, the metaphor of the shepherd refers here directly to the Davidic Messiah (cf. [Mic 5.3], Pss. Sol. 17.40115): the bad shepherds are replaced by the Davidic-Messianic shepherd (v. 23). These same aspects recur in the Matthean reception of this imagery. Not only does the shepherd metaphor constitute a significant motif in the  Matthean conception of Jesus’ ministry to his people; it also articulates the polemic against the established authorities of Israel, which pervades the entire Gospel. In addition to 10.6 and 15.24, 9.36 should be taken into account here. Matthew has brought this verse from Mark 6.34 into an earlier position in the narrative and thus created a background for 10.6. More specifically, with  9.36 Matthew establishes Jesus’ compassion for the “harassed” and “languishing” crowds, who are “like sheep without a shepherd,” as the reason for the disciples’ being sent out. Through the insertion of ἐσκυλμένοι καὶ ἐρριμμένοι, Matthew gives an increased significance to the motif of the lack  of a shepherd, which appears elsewhere as well,116 and thus emphasizes the flock’s desolate state. When one reads this against the background of the Old  Testament usage of this imagery, as outlined previously, it becomes highly plausible that these negative attributes serve not only as a foil for Jesus’ salvific activity but also as an implicit criticism of the existing ruling class.117 In 113

See Jer 10.21; 23.1–2; 50.6 (= 27.6LXX); Ezek 34.2ff.; Zech 10.2. On the centrality of Ezek 34 as a reference text for the first evangelist, see Heil 1993, 34; Baxter 2006, esp. 43– 45; and Chae 2006, 205–19. See also F. Martin 1975, 275– 76, 282– 83, 298. This thesis is confirmed by the Matthean version of the parable of the lost  sheep in Matt 18.12–14; on this see Luz 2001–2007, 2:443 with n. 56. Verseput 1995, 112, points equally to Ezek 34 and Jer 23.1–3. For a detailed analysis of the motif of the Davidic shepherd in Ezek 34–37, see Chae 2006, 38–76. 115 In Pss. Sol. 17, the hope for the coming of the Davidic Messiah (vv. 21ff.) is also articulated against the background of the failure of the ruling class (v. 20). On the influence of Ezek 34 on Pss. Sol. 17, see Manning 2004, 92–93, 95–96. 116 See Num 27.17 (cf. Philo, Agr. 44; Virt. 58); 1 Kgs 22.17 = 2 Chr 18.16; Isa 13.14; Ezek 34.5, 8; Zech 10.2; (11.17); Jdt 11.19. 117 Compare Garland 1979, 128; Rusche 1979, 109–10; McKnight 1986b, 183– 85; Kingsbury 1987, 62, 64; Levine 1988, 47, 55–56; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:148, 114

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

37

light of Ezek 34.5, 8,118 the “lack of a shepherd” clearly does not refer to an actual vacancy—the point is rather that the shepherds of the people have not attended to their duty.119 The “lost sheep” in 10.6 and 15.24 point in the same direction. The background here is probably Jer 27.6LXX or Ezek 34.4, 16.120 In both cases, the flock’s lost state is explained by the failure of the shepherds.  As is developed in detail later, Matthew’s Gospel as a whole is characterized by a critical-polemical view of the ruling classes,121 which renders the hypothesis of a critique implied in 9.36; 10.6; and 15.24 plausible not only in terms of tradition history but also in the overall context of Matthew’s Gospel. In looking at the preceding context, 9.9–13 is of particular interest.122 Jesus’ compassion (σπλαγχνίζεσθαι) in 9.36 corresponds to the emphasis on mercy (ἔλεος) as God’s principal command, which Jesus himself follows with his ministry to sinners. The Pharisees, in contrast, demonstrate with their protest against Jesus’ behavior that they are not taking care of the “languishing” and “lost sheep” (9.36; 10.6). Here one can again point to Ezek 34.4 and its complaint that the shepherds have neither healed the sick nor searched for the lost. The messianic shepherd Jesus, on the other hand, turns as a “doctor” to the “sick” (Matt 9.12).123 It is also the Pharisees who, directly preceding 9.36, respond to Jesus’ healings—which for the evangelist are a central expression of Jesus’ ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”124—with the accusation that he casts out demons by the 158; Stanton 1992a, 331; Heil 1993, 700–701; Knowles 1993, 180; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 383; Kupp 1996, 68; Overman 1996, 138–39; Gielen 1998, 105– 6; Senior 1998b, 113; Keener 1999, 309; Repschinski 2000, 301–2; Cousland 2002, 92–93; Nolland 2005, 407; and, cautiously, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:352. Contrast Verseput 1995, 112; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:64. 118 In addition to Ezek 34.5 and 34.8, Zech 10.2–3 (MT) can be pointed to (cf. the reception of Zech 9.9 in Matt 21.5, Zech 11.12–13 in Matt 26.15; 27.9–10, and Zech 13.7 in Matt 26.31). However, the shepherd image does not occur in the LXX version of Zech 10.2–3. Against a reference to Zech 10.2 in Matt 9.36, see Ham 2005, 86–87. Contrary to Ham, McAfee Moss 2008, 60, finds “good reason to argue that the shift of the ‘sheep  without a shepherd’ reference from the feeding miracle of Mark 6.34 to the healing context of Matt 9.36 may reflect the impact of a Matthean reading of Zech 10.2.” 119 Compare Baxter 2006, 39. 120 On Jer 27.6LXX, compare, for example, Gundry 1994, 184; on Ezek 34, see F. Martin 1975, 278; and Baxter 2006, 44, n. 29. However, see also the singular formulation in Pss 118.176LXX. Compare further—without sheep imagery—the gathering of the lost tribes of Israel in Isa 11.12LXX (καὶ συνάξει τοὺς ἀπολομένους Ἰσραήλ). Moore 1988/1989, 176, also suspects Ezek 34.4 as background to Matt 11.12, but clear verbal agreements are lacking here. 121 See section 3.1.2. 122 Compare Olmstead 2003, 66. 123 Compare Landmesser 2001, 104–7. 124 On this, compare the instruction to the disciples to heal in 10.8 in the context of 10.6; 10.25 suggests beyond this that the disciples will also face the accusation of being associated with Beelzebul because of their healing work.

38

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

power of Beelzebul (9.34; cf. 12.24) and thereby show once again that the well-being of the people is of no importance to them.125 If criticism of the ruling class resonates in 9.36; 10.6; and 15.24, then the usual alternative—whether the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10.6 and 15.24 refers to the people as a whole or only the “sinners”126—does not address the key differentiation. All the sheep are indeed lost because of the failure of the shepherds, and this corresponds with the link between Jesus’ task to shepherd his people (2.6) and the statement that he will save his people from their sins (1.21).127 Yet, according to 9.36, “the sheep” denote only the crowds. Opposite them stand the shepherds,128 the authorities of the people, whose attitude toward Jesus is hostile from the very beginning of Matthew’s Gospel (see Matt 2) and remains so to the end, without exception. A differentiation within Israel is therefore to be found with the phrase τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα, not in the participle but in τὰ πρόβατα itself.129 We can thus conclude that the Matthean concept of Jesus (and his disciples) being sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” stands within a conceptual horizon analogous to texts such as Jer 23.1– 4 and Ezek 34. Because of the failure of the authorities, the people resemble a shepherdless  flock.  By  sending  Jesus  to  the  crowds,  who  are  distinguished  from  the (old) shepherds, God attends to the distress of his people and provides 125

Compare Repschinski 2000, 302.

126  In  the  first  case,  the  genitive  οἴκου

Ἰσραήλ is understood to be epexegetical (so the majority of interpreters, often with reference to the contrast of “Gentiles” and Samaritans in 10.5– 6; see, for example, Hahn 1963, 44– 45 with n. 6; Hummel 1963, 138; Légasse 1972b, 32–33; Rusche 1979, 107, n. 18; Frankemölle 1984, 128 with n. 226; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:362; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:167, 551; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:270; Tisera 1993, 140; Lichtenberger 1997, 277; Luz 2001–2007, 2:73; and Giesen 2002, 129– 30); in the second case, the genitive is taken to be partitive (so Füllkrug-Weitzel 1986, 45; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 29–30; Nolland 2005, 416–17). 127 Compare Gielen 1998, 34: “The shepherd function of the Χριστός consists in the redemption of the people from their sins” (trans. K. Ess). 128 In this vein, see also Levine 1988, 56. 129 That this is possible is shown already by Ezek 34.2–10. On the basis of his thesis that Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ role as the Davidic Messiah points to a politicalnational eschatological hope (see n. 93 in this chapter), Willitts 2007, 179–202, postulates a more restricted point of reference for the phrase “lost sheep of the house of Israel”: “[T]he political-national entity in view in the nominal phrase ‘the lost sheep’ is Israelites of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel who continue to reside in the northern region of Eretz Israel” (194–95). This thesis is based on the geographical orientation of Jesus’ earthly ministry toward Galilee (cf. 4.12–17). However, Willitts overlooks the fact that Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, according to 4.25, causes large crowds from other regions of Israel to gather around Jesus, as well; 10.5– 6 therefore expresses nothing more than that Galilee is the initial location of the ministry to Israel, without permitting the reference of the shepherdless crowds (9.36), identified in 10.6 as the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,”  to be limited to the inhabitants of the “Northern Kingdom.”

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

39

their salvation, whereby the authorities become opponents of the messianic shepherd.130 Already in 2.6, the programmatic introduction of Jesus’ task to shepherd God’s people Israel appears in the context of opposition to Jesus: Matthew ironically makes those who were until now the shepherds of the people bring up the significance of the Messiah as shepherd of the people. 2.1.3

The Healing Son of David

As noted previously, when tracing the title Son of David through the portrait of Jesus’ ministry beginning in 4.17, one consistently finds it being used  in connection with Jesus’ healing activity within the narrative development of the messianic Davidide’s ministry to his people.131 A fundamental observation here is that Matthew in general gives the healings a significant  role in his depiction of Jesus’ ministry to Israel. Already the summary statement in 4.23 emphatically announces that Jesus healed every disease and every sickness ἐν τῷ λαῷ (cf. 9.35, and with regard to the disciples, 10.1). Matthew also gives prominence to the healing of the sick in 4.24, before unfolding Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7). Both stories of feeding the crowds are preceded in Matthew by mass healings (14.14; 15.30). For this purpose, in 14.14, where Mark mentions Jesus’ teaching (Mark 6.34), Matthew has replaced this with a reference to his healing activity—a change that is repeated in Matt 19.2 (par. Mark 10.1).132 It is further characteristic of Matthew to speak of Jesus as healing not just many but all.133 Finally, the healings in the temple in Matt 21.14 are also a redactional insertion by the evangelist. In short, the Matthean concept of the healing Son of David is embedded within a larger emphasis on Jesus’ healing ministry in Israel. Furthermore, this emphasis is accompanied by the prominent motif of Jesus’ compassion for his people in the texts that are relevant to this point.134 130 The contrasting motif that resonates in the genealogical placement of Jesus in the royal line of David’s descendants in 1.6–11 (on this see section 2.1.1.1) can be linked with the constellation of conflict in the Matthean Jesus story as outlined here. The present  leadership aligns itself with the history of failure by the Jewish kings. By sending Jesus as the messianic shepherd, God attends to the resulting affliction of his people. 131 Compare Burger 1970, 72ff.; Kingsbury 1976, 592–93, 598; Duling 1978; Paffenroth 1999, 551–54; Cousland 2002, 184–91; Novakovic 2003, passim; Chae 2006, 279–324. 132 On the redactional emphasis on the healings as an expression of Jesus’ ministry to the crowds, see Cousland 2002, 108–17; see also Comber 1978, 432. 133 See Matt 8.16: . . . καὶ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ἐθεράπευσεν (diff. Mark 1.34: καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις). See also Matt 12.15: καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας (diff. Mark 3.10: πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐθεράπευσεν). See further the replacement of Mark 7.31–37 with Matt 15.29–31. On Matt 4.23; 9:35, see above. 134 Compare Duling 1992a, 112–13; Baxter 2012, 141–42.

40

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Thus, for example, the evangelist inserts into 20.34 that Jesus has com­ passion (σπλαγχνισθείς) for the blind men,135 which picks up on ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, κύριε, υἱὸς Δαυίδ in their call for help (20.30, 31). This connection between the cry for mercy and the title Son of David on the lips of those seeking help likewise occurs in the verse that is parallel to Matt 20.29– 34, namely, 9.27, as well as redactionally in 15.22.136 Here, the Canaanite woman asks the Son of David to have mercy on her as well.137 Matthew 14.14 can again be brought up here: through the redaction of the Markan text mentioned previously, Jesus’ compassion for the crowds comes to the fore precisely in the healing of the sick. Alongside this stands the evangelist’s commentary, in 9.36, that Jesus had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη)138 for the crowds “because they were harassed and languishing, like sheep without a shepherd.” Finally, more broadly, we should consider here that the Matthean Jesus refers to Hos 6.6 in defense of his table fellowship with tax collectors (9.13; cf. 12.7). Merciful compassion thus appears as a central feature of Jesus’ salvific ministry to the people. At the same time, against this background, it is all the more striking when, in 15.21–28, Jesus at first withholds his compassion from the Canaanite woman. Matthew’s connection of the christologoumenon of Jesus’ Davidic sonship with his healing ministry may have been inspired by Mark 10.46– 52,139  but  this  observation  is  hardly  sufficient  to  illuminate  the  tradition  historical context.140 It has repeatedly been pointed out that nowhere in the 135

Compare W. R. G. Loader 1982, 573. The plea for mercy occurs unconnected with an invocation of Jesus as the Son of David only in 17.15. Novakovic 2003, 89, therefore rightly notes “that Matthew puts the plea for mercy almost exclusively into the mouth of those individuals who address Jesus as the Son of David.” 137 See further section 2.2.3.2. 138 Beyond these occurrences, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι appears in the Gospel of Matthew only in the second feeding miracle (Matt 15.32, cf. Mark 8.2) and in the parable of the merciless debtor in 18.27. On ἐλεεῖν in reference to Jesus’ mercy, see the occurrences given in the discussion here and in the following on ἔλεος. 139 Burger 1970, 61–63, however, argues that a concrete connection between the title Son of David and Jesus’ healing activity is not intended in Mark 10.46–52 itself. Rather, the appellation of Jesus as the Son of David is introduced by the evangelist with a view toward the narrative of Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. In contrast, Charlesworth 1996, 132– 47, postulates that the title Son of David, which Charlesworth regards as present already in the pre-Markan tradition (146– 47), is not to be understood messianically here; rather, the tradition of Solomon as an exorcist and healer forms the background (see n. 140). 140 The Early Jewish tradition of Solomon as a healer and exorcist (on this Berger 1973/1974, 5– 8; Duling 1975, 237– 49; Charlesworth 1996, 136– 43; Torijano 2002, 41– 105; Novakovic 2003, 97–103) has been postulated repeatedly as background for the image of the healing Son of David (Fisher 1968, 89–90; Berger 1973/1974, [3–]8; Duling 1975, 249–52; Nolan 1979, 166; Chilton 1982, 92–100; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:157; 136

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

41

extant Early Jewish texts is the Davidic Messiah characterized by healings.141 Nevertheless, the emergence of the Matthean conception can be understood within the context of the reception of Old Testament and Early Jewish expectations of salvation.142 As Q 7.18–23 shows, Jesus’ ministry and, above all, his healing activity were already connected with the promises of salvation in Isaiah (Isa [26.19]; 29.18–19; 35.5– 6; 61.1) in the tradition available to Matthew.143 According to these passages in Isaiah, the elimination of physical afflictions is an indicator of the time of salvation  promised to Israel. The tradition of Jesus’ healing activity could thus, in light of these texts, be interpreted as the fulfillment of scriptural promises  of salvation, whereby—given the belief in Christ that this process of interpretation presupposed—the Isaian texts were read as messianic promises of salvation. It should be noted here with regard to tradition history that 2:135–36; Harrington 1991b, 192–93; J. Becker 1996, 245; and Karrer 2003, 342– 43; see also de Jonge 1989, 100; and Torijano 2002, 112–19). Wis 7.20—taking up 1 Kgs 5.9–14—ascribes to Solomon the knowledge of “the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots.” Similarly, according to Josephus, A.J. 8.45, Solomon’s wisdom included the art (τέχνη) of healing people of demons, which God had taught him. Josephus is even able to give an account of a contemporary by the name of Eleazar who practiced Solomon’s art of healing, which Josephus describes in more detail in this context (A.J. 8.46– 49; on the interpretation of A.J. 8.45ff., see Deines 2003, 372–90). The tradition of Solomon’s authority over demons resonates further in L.A.B.  60.3  and  finally  is  broadly  formulated  in  T. Sol. (on later Aramaic incantation texts, see Fisher 1968, 83– 88). This tradition is pre- Christian, as shown, above all, by Wis 7.20. However, the characterization of Solomon the healer as a son of David first occurs in  T. Sol. 1.7; 20.1 (but cf. already 3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 2.46l; 1 Chr 29.29; 2 Chr 1.1; 13.6; 30.26; 35.3; Prov 1.1; Qoh 1.1; [Sir 47.12])—and, even there, not in a titular sense. Further, one must reckon with the influence of New Testament texts here (cf. Duling 1975, 243, 249).  With regard to the Matthean image of the healing Son of David, then, it should be noted that every specific aspect of the Solomonic method of healing is absent. Altogether, Matthew has rather subordinated the driving out of demons to the more general talk of Jesus’ healing (cf., among others, Paffenroth 1999, 548–51; Novakovic 2003, 104– 6). It is therefore unlikely that Matthew was inspired by the image of Solomon as an exorcist (in this vein, see also Luz 1991, 224; Paffenroth 1999, 552; Cousland 2002, 185– 87; Novakovic 2003, 103–9, 122–23; Baxter 2006, 47– 48; Chae 2006, 288–91). In addition, it should be noted that as the psalmist, David himself is attributed with driving away evil spirits in connection with 1 Sam 16.14–23 (L.A.B. 60.2–3; 11Q5 XXVII, 9–10; on this see Karrer 2003, 337). The thesis of Fisher 1968, 89, that the question from the crowds in 12.23 originally— unlike in the Matthean context—did not refer to the Messiah but to a healer following in Solomon’s footsteps, is contradicted already by the fact that the words of the crowds are Matthean redaction. 141 Compare, among others, Karrer 1991, 323; Broer 1992, 1261; and Niebuhr 1997, 640– 41. For a different view, see Chae 2006, 292–96. 142 In this vein, see also Novakovic 2003, 124–84. Compare Cousland 2002, 114–17. 143 On this, see the synoptic presentation of Matt 11.5 and the noted Isaiah passages in Novakovic 2003, 160.

42

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

healing, or the elimination of illness, occurs at least occasionally in Early Jewish texts as a sign of the time of salvation connected with the appearance of the Messiah (2 Bar. [29.7]; 73.2; 4Q521 2 2144).145 The affinity between  Q 7.18–23 and 4Q521 is, in some respects, so close that 4Q521 is almost certainly to be read as a witness to a tradition adopted in Q 7.22.146 Of course, one must take note of the difference in the two texts—namely, that in 4Q521 the healings147 are not brought about by the Messiah,148 but rather, 144 See possibly also 11Q14 1 II, 12(–14). The parallel text 4Q285 1 speaks for “seeing the blessing as an eschatological blessing” (Zimmermann 1998, 76 [emphasis original]; trans. K. Ess). If fragment 1 belongs at the end of 4Q285, then this refers to the blessing that follows upon the previously described eschatological battle, in which the “Prince of the Congregation” or the “Branch of David” plays a prominent role (4Q285 5 3– 4; see also 4Q285 6+4 2, 10). With regard to the Gospel of Matthew, it is of interest here that the absence of illness is understood as evidence of the presence of God (cf. the Immanuel motif in Matt 1.23!) and of the angels (4Q285 1 9–10; 11Q14 1 II, 14–15). In 4 Ezra 7.123; 8.53, the absence of illness is characteristic of paradisaic existence. Healing likewise appears as an element of eschatological salvation in Jub. 23.30, yet the appearance of a messiah is absent from the hope of salvation articulated in Jub. 23.26–31. 145 Compare Novakovic 2003, 163–83, as well as Cousland 2002, 115. 146 Compare Berger 1993b, 99–100; Collins 1994, 107 (“It is quite possible that the author of the Sayings source knew 4Q521; at the least he drew on a common tradition.”); M. Becker 1997, 93; Neirynck 1997, 58; Falcetta 2003, 232, 247; and Novakovic 2003, 177, 190. 147 Against the usual interpretation, Kvalbein 1997 has challenged the literal understanding of 4Q521 in the sense of physical healings. Instead, in his view, it presents “a figurative- poetic  portrayal  of  the  renewal  of  the  people  of  God  in  the  eschaton  on  the  basis  of  traditional  Old  Testament  images  and  expressions,  as  we  find  above  all  in  the  Isaiah scroll and in the Psalter” (123; trans. K. Ess). While the possibility that a metaphorical sense resonates in individual phrases cannot be excluded, the general rejection of a literal understanding is hardly convincing. I take as an example the satiation of the hungry in 4Q521 2 II, 13: when hunger appears, among other things, as a punishment of exile in Jer 15.2 and therefore the promise can be read as the “repeal of the punishment of exile” (Kvalbein 1997, 120), this by no means implies that this hunger is not “literal.” 148 A singular understanding of ‫ למׁשיחו‬is the majority opinion (see, for example, García Martínez 1993, 182– 83; Bergmeier 1995, 39; Abegg and Evans 1998, 194; Collins 1998, 114–15; and Novakovic 2003, 172). In contrast, H. Stegemann 1993, 50, 286; M. Becker 1997, 75–78; and Niebuhr 1997, 638, interpret this as a plural. If 4Q521 is not about the figure of the kingly/Davidic Messiah (the reference to a Davidic messiah,  however, is favored or postulated by García Martínez 1993, 183– 84; B. Loader 1994, 70– 72;  see  also  Puech  1992,  487,  497)  but  rather  a  prophetic  figure  (see  Collins  1994;  M. Becker 1997 [in connection with a plural understanding of ‫למׁשיחו‬, see above]; Collins 1997, 235–36; Zimmermann 1998, 382– 83; see also Bergmeier 1995, 39, n. 7; Niebuhr 1997, 639, gives yet another interpretation, arguing—likewise in connection with a plural understanding of ‫—למׁשיחו‬for a priestly understanding of the anointed one [for criticism of this see, for example, Collins 1998, 114–15]), then this constitutes a difference from Matt 11.2– 6. Yet it should be considered as a possibility that the Davidic aspect of the understanding of the Messiah that lies behind τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ in Matt 11.2– 6

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

43

God appears as the acting subject.149 Yet the proprium of Q 7.18–23 or Matt 11.2– 6 can easily be explained by the fact that the traditional Early Jewish expectations of salvation were interpreted in light of the tradition of Jesus’ miraculous healings.150 Thus although it is true that there is no evidence of a healing messiah in the extant Early Jewish writings, the building blocks necessary for this concept are nevertheless present in some texts, where the elimination of illness, among other things, indicates the messianic time of salvation. The reference to Old Testament promises in Q 7.18–23 is strengthened  in  Matthew  by  the  insertion  of  fulfillment  quotations  following  two summary accounts of healings (8.16–17; 12.15–21).151 Matthew’s repeated emphasis on Jesus’ Davidic sonship in the depiction of his healing  ministry  is  to  be  considered  within  this  context  of  fulfillment.  In  other words, since the fulfillment of the promises given to Israel could  be linked to Jesus’ healing activity, it was attractive for the evangelist to connect this conceptually with Jesus’ status and dignity as the Son of David, given that the establishment of Israel’s salvation was traditionally connected with the appearance of the Davidic Messiah. Political aspects of the hope for salvation—such as liberation from the yoke of foreign rule and retribution against the nations who were oppressing Israel, as we see in connection with the expectation of the Davidic Messiah in Pss. Sol. 17.21–25, 28–31 or 4Q161 8–10 15–19152— do not play a role in the Gospel of Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus, nor could they play such a role in view of the given characteristics of Jesus’ ministry.153 This further underscores that the first evangelist needed to ascribe  a central significance to Jesus’ healing activity as a link to the promises  of salvation for Israel in order to portray Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes for salvation. “overwrites” an originally prophetic messianic conception in the tradition (on this cf. M. Becker 1997, 93–96). 149 See, among others, García Martínez 1993, 184–85; Charlesworth 1996, 149–50; and M. Becker 1997, 90–92. Collins 1994, 100, sets a different accent (since God as the subject of the proclamation of the good [l. 12] would be unusual, it is “likely that God acts through the agency of a prophetic messiah in line 12”) as does, above all, B. Loader 1994, 71. 150 With this, Jesus’ healing activity could then at the same time be further developed and given shape in light of the promise texts. 151 In 8.16–17, Matthew shows Jesus’ healing activity to be the fulfillment of Isa 53.4a. In 12.17–21, the connection between the citation of Isa 42.1– 4 and the summary of the healings in 12.15 is not so clear; yet in context, v. 20 can be understood in reference to the healings of the sick (on this, see section 5.1). 152 See further 4 Ezra 12.31–34; (13.33–38). By contrast, this element is absent in the extant fragments of 4Q521. 153 For a different approach, see Willitts 2007. For a critical review, see Konradt 2009.

44

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

In the Matthean story, this concept is elaborated in that those who are healed themselves link their release from illness with the appearance of the Messiah. When Matthew, in 9.27–31, connects the blind men’s call to Jesus as the Son of David with their belief in his ability to heal them, this implies their expectation that the Messiah will release people from illness. And when, because of the preceding healing(s), it dawns on the crowds in 12.23 that Jesus is not just a miracle healer but the Son of David, here too this aspect of the expectation of the Messiah’s appearance is presupposed.154 The scriptural basis for the Matthean conception can be further illuminated by a final aspect of the text. As has been shown, Matthew adopts  the metaphor of the shepherd based on Ezek 34.23 in his portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.155 This presentation of Jesus as the healing Son of David is well-suited to the caretaking aspect of the shepherd imagery: a good shepherd is concerned about the well- being of his flock.156 In this context, it is noteworthy that among the catalogue of accusations against the  bad  shepherds  in  Ezek  34.4,  we  find  the  complaint  that  they  do  not  strengthen the weak or heal the sick, while the announcement of salvation by God as Israel’s shepherd in Ezek 34.16 claims that God will tend the wounded and strengthen the weak.157 Given that Ezek 34 constitutes an important, if not the central, textual point of reference for the Matthean reception of shepherd imagery, it must be concluded that Matthew—on the basis of the transfer of shepherd status onto the Davidic Messiah in Ezek 34.23—was able to view his conception of the healing Davidic-Messianic shepherd as anchored in this particular Scripture as well.158 Further, it is worth noting that in Zech 10.2LXX, the reference to the lack of a shepherd in connection with the miserable state of the sheep is replaced (or interpreted) with the phrase διότι οὐκ ἦν ἴασις.159 Closer consideration of the Matthean portrayal of Jesus as the healing Son of David reveals that this title is primarily connected with the healing of blind people.160 Mark 10.46–52 is not only used in Matt 20.29–34 but also 154

See further Matt 21.9, 15, and section 3.1.1. See section 2.1.2. 156 See the occurrences given in section 2.1.2, n. 110. 157 The connection between healing and the motif of the shepherd emerges still more clearly in Apocr. Ezek. frag. 5 (OTP 1:495). 158 Compare Novakovic 2003, 131–32; and Baxter 2006, 36–37, who postulates “that Matthew’s warrant for connecting Jesus’ healing activity to the Son of David title is the Davidic Shepherd of Ezekiel 34.” 159 Compare Chae 2006, 77: “The translator of the LXX equates the presence of a shepherd with the possibility of healing the oppressed and sick ones.” 160 Compare, for example, Luz 1991, 224–25; van Aarde 1994, 63. 155

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

45

duplicated in 9.27–31. The children’s cry of “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt 21.15) is a response to the healing of the blind and the lame (21.14),161 and the crowds’ acclamation in 21.9 appears in connection with the healing of the blind men in 20.29–34. Finally, in 12.22–30, the demoniac—after whose healing the ὄχλοι speculate that Jesus is the Son of David—is not only mute (Q 11.14) but also blind. This is all the more striking because in the first use of Q 11.14 in Matt 9.32, Matthew left the characterization of the  demoniac as simply κωφός. It therefore seems quite plausible that there is a connection between the redactional expansion of the ailments in 12.22 and the insertion of the motif of Davidic sonship in 12.23. This becomes clearer when one factors in the metaphorical use of τυφλός, which occurs in Matthew exclusively with reference to scribes and Pharisees, in 15.14 and 23.16–17, 19, 24, and 26. If the healing stories are read in this light, it appears plausible, as is often suggested, that these are  also  stories  about  the  healing  of  Israel’s  figurative  blindness  (cf.  Ps  145.8LXX; Tg. Isa. 35.5).162 In view of the metaphorical usage of τυφλός in Matthew’s anti- Pharisaic polemic, this can be further specified such that  Israel is healed of the blindness caused by her blind leaders, the Pharisees and scribes, whereby blindness to the instruction of the Torah is in view.163 The christologoumenon of Davidic sonship is thus not to be confined to Jesus’ healing activity (in the physical sense). Rather, as suggested  in the connection between 1.1 and 2.5– 6, the title Son of David expresses the entirety of Jesus’ messianic care for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”164 161 The blind and lame also appear together in Matt 11.5; 15.30, 31, but there they are together with other sick people as well. In this respect, their being placed together in 21.14 is singular—and probably not a coincidence. Rather, Matthew likely creates a contrast here with 2 Sam 5.6– 8 and thereby between David and the Davidic Messiah (cf. Gerhardsson 1979, 30; Gundry 1994, 413; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:140; Paffenroth 1999, 553; and Deines 2005, 492, n. 105; further also Schweizer 1986, 266; Harrington 1991a, 294; and Wiefel 1998, 360; contra Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:208). 162 Compare J. M. Gibbs 1963/1964, 451–53, 458, 460; Suhl 1968, 80–81; Luz 1991, 225 (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 1:17; 2001, 47; 2005, 119); Novakovic 1997, 164 (cf. Novakovic 2003, 95); Paul 2005, 291–92. See also Kingsbury 1976, 600– 601, and W. R. G. Loader 1982, 578– 80, both of whom, however, come to the unnuanced conclusion that Israel persists in her blindness. 163 It is certainly no accident that only the Canaanite woman’s call to Jesus as the Son of David in Matt 15.22 is not concerned with a healing of blindness. (On the title Son of David on the lips of the crowds, see section 3.1.) The motif of the “blindness” caused by the authorities is only related to Israel in Matthew. As will be shown in section 2.2.3.2, the redactional use of the title Son of David in 15.22 appears in a different context. 164 Kingsbury 1976, 592, however, sees the title as connected only with Jesus’ healing activity. But this only works if the usage of the title is isolated from its conceptual nexus, and so from the connection with 2.6 and 15.24.

46

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

This is not contradicted by the observation that Jesus is never presented as the Son of David in the context of his teaching. One could claim that Jesus’ ethical instruction, in the Matthean context, is to be regarded in light of God’s merciful care embodied in Immanuel.165 Nevertheless, the accent in the context of Jesus’ teaching is not placed on merciful care but without doubt on the demand to comply with Jesus’ words (cf. only 7.21–27). It is therefore understandable that the Davidic title never occurs where Matthew unfolds Jesus’ teaching, since the motif of Davidic sonship—on the basis of the scriptural promises—addresses God’s merciful care for his people. In other words, the title Son of David can be connected with Jesus’ teaching only insofar as this teaching—in revealing the previously hidden will of God— is a part of the divine salvific initiative with  which God attends to the shepherdless, languishing people (9.36).166 The concentration of the use of the Davidic title on Jesus’ healing activity is therefore not to  be  read  as  a  restriction  of  the  christologoumenon’s  significance.  This  focus  can rather be explained by the observation that in Matthew’s development of the motif of Davidic sonship, God’s merciful care for his people takes center stage.

There is a further aspect to be considered in addition to the metaphorical horizon of meaning in the healings of the blind. With the reception of Mark 2.1–12 in Matt 9.2–8, Matthew takes up the connection between illness and forgiveness of sins: the healing not only appears as a recovery from physical infirmity but also is connected with the forgiveness of sins that have  separated the sinner from God. The healing here almost becomes simply a backdrop for the more prominent element of the story—the forgiveness of sins. The question is whether this is to be understood as an isolated case or whether this nexus should be regarded as having a paradigmatic significance, in which case Jesus’ healing activity as a whole would be placed in the context of forgiveness of sins.167 It has already been noted how strongly Matthew highlights the desolate situation of the crowds within the framework of shepherd/sheep imagery 165

See the interpretive approach taken by Luz 1995, 45–51 (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 1:383– 84, 391, and elsewhere). See further, among others, Hagner 1992, 102–3, 105–7. 166 In this connection, it should be observed that according to Matt 11.2, 5, the proclamation of the good news to the poor is among τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ and, according to the context, Χριστός here refers in particular to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (on this, see section 2.2.1). See further the mention of Jesus’ easy yoke in 11.30. In addition, in Matt 23.10 “the Christ” is explicitly identified as the one καθηγητής. 167 The latter is presumed by Novakovic 2003, 73, who concludes on the basis of Matt 9.2– 8: “It is therefore highly likely that Jesus’ healing ministry is viewed by Matthew as saving his people from their sins.” See also Beauchamp 1988, 23–24; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:415; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:232–33; Landmesser 2001, 138–39; and Beaton 2002, 115–16 (in the context of interpreting Matt 8.17). In contrast, Fiedler 2006, 215, is against a “causal connection between sin and sickness” in Matt 9.2– 8 (trans. K. Ess).

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

47

(9.36; 10.6; 15.24). The physical distress of the sheep is thereby neither the only nor the central concern in the “lost sheep” imagery (10.6; 15.24), but rather, as 18.14 confirms, this imagery has first and foremost a soteriological emergency in view.168 In 10.6–8, the content of the disciples’ mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” is further specified as proclaiming  that the kingdom is at hand and healing the sick. In 15.24, Jesus’ statement that he has been sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” serves to explain why the Canaanite woman does not find in Jesus a sympathetic ear  for her plea for mercy on behalf of her sick daughter. If the aspect of a soteriological emergency in τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα is not to be excluded, 10.6–8 and 15.24 solidify the connection between healing and forgiveness of sins that is addressed explicitly in 9.2–8. When we bring Matt 9.9–13 into the discussion, it becomes clear that the forgiveness of sins is a central feature of Jesus’ mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” even apart from his healing ministry, since Jesus’ care for tax collectors and sinners, made manifest in table fellowship, directly continues the theme of forgiveness of sins introduced in 9.2–8.169 In other words, the table fellowship that Jesus defends corresponds with his words about forgiveness of sins in 9.2.170 At the same time, the sinners in the metaphor of v. 12 appear as sick people in need of a doctor. Furthermore, as we have seen, Matthew sets forth salvation from sin as the aim of Jesus’ mission already in 1.21.171 As will be explored further, this task is finally realized in Jesus’ death, as is clear in the words of institution in 26.28,172 and is also signaled by the insertion of Jesus’ name in the titulus crucis (27.37).173 The associations that have just been presented, however, make it clear that there is not just one line of thought from 1.21 leading to the understanding of Jesus’ death. Rather, 1.21 functions 168

See also Matt 10.28, 39; 16.25. Compare Schnackenburg 1991, 215; Gielen 1998, 95; Landmesser 2001, 138; J. Park 2006, 221–22; and Stein 2007, 139– 40. 170 Compare Gielen 1998, 95; and Stein 2007, 140. 171 On the soteriological need of the people as an implication of Matt 1.21, compare, for example, Kupp 1996, 59. 172 Matthew inserted εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν into the words of institution and at the same time left out the Markan characterization of the baptism by John as βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (Mark 1.4). The candidates for baptism do confess their sins in Matthew (Matt 3.6), but there is no mention of their actual forgiveness here (cf., for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:68; and Gurtner 2007, 134). 173 Matthew’s conscious and purposeful use of the name “Jesus” is further underscored in 1.18– 25 in that, by placing the genitive attribute first in τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις in 1.18a, the evangelist creates an inclusio with καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν in 1.25 (cf. Landmesser 2001, 11). 169

48

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

comprehensively to set the direction for Jesus’ ministry in Israel,174 which arrives at its soteriological climax in Jesus’ death “for many” (26.28).175 In the context of Matt 1, the statement of 1.21 is connected with the double presentation of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God and Son of David.176 As we have seen, the evangelist has closely connected Jesus’ healing activity in Israel with his Davidic sonship. In the context of the passion and resurrection, though, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God comes emphatically to the fore.177 There is thus a correspondence between the double christological presentation of Jesus as Son of God and Son of David in Matt 1 and the double realization of the task, given to him in 1.21, to save his people from their sins. This christological conception, which is implied here, is pursued in detail in section 5.3— particularly in view of its significance for  determining the relation between Israel and Gentiles.178 Here it is enough to conclude that, according to the complexes of meaning presented previously, Jesus’ ministry in his role as the Son of David—namely, his healing activity among the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”—is also to be understood as an explication of 1.21. The soteriological emergency is (an essential) part of Israel’s desperate situation, which is almost paradigmatically characterized by the repeated references to Jesus’ encounters with a multitude of sick people.179 For Matthew, the healing of illnesses also means the removal of the effects of sin. When these considerations of the metaphorical dimension of the healings of blind men and of the soteriological aspect of the healings are brought together, it becomes evident that Matthew’s use of the title Son of David, predominantly in the context of Jesus’ therapeutic ministry, is by no means intended to minimize the christological relevance of Jesus’ Davidic sonship. The designation of Jesus as υἱὸς Δαυίδ appears rather to be a concentrated expression of the essential Matthean focus on the merciful 174 Landmesser 2001, 91, with regard to Matt 9.10, aptly observes that here “the motif of salvation from sins . . . is concretized in the narrative” (trans. K. Ess). On the connection between 1.21 and Jesus’ healing activity, see Novakovic 2003, 73–75, as well as Heil 1991a, 8; and Cousland 2002, 115–17: “Matthew likely understands Jesus’ therapeutic ministry to the crowds as the outworking of 1.21” (117). On the position taken by Luomanen, see section 5.2.2.3, n. 185. 175 Compare Landmesser 2001, 12: “The salvation from sins is the first named and  thereby the pre-eminent motif of Jesus’ ministry according to the Gospel of Matthew” (trans. K. Ess). On this, see further section 5.2.2.3. 176 See section 2.1.1.1. 177 See section 5.2.2.3. 178 See section 5.3. 179 See, above all, the Matthean summaries in 4.23–25; 8.16; (9.35[–36]); 12.15b; (14.14); 14.34–36; 15.30–31; 19.2; and 21.14.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

49

care God brings through Jesus to his people standing in need of salvation. The central significance that the depiction of Jesus as the kingly messianic  Son of David acquires here is further solidified when one considers that  this aspect of Jesus’ identity is a significant element in the story of conflict  that Matthew tells, as signaled already in 2.3– 6.180 It is evident that this conflict is not centered around the opposition to a miracle healer. In short,  the preceding analysis confirms that the occurrences of the title “Son of  David” are not to be considered in isolation; the increased usage of the title rather is to be seen in its interplay with other christological statements of the Gospel that express the focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel. The use of υἱὸς Δαυίδ simply presents this essential aspect of the Matthean Jesus story, compressed into a single title.

2.2 The Matthean Focus on Israel in Jesus’ Earthly Ministry The preceding discussion articulates the fundamental christological elements that the Gospel of Matthew employs in conceptually shaping its portrayal of Jesus’ ministry to Israel. We now consider the extent to which (or in what ways) the exclusivity of Jesus’ mission to Israel, as it is programmatically formulated in 15.24, is imprinted upon the Matthean Jesus story as a whole.181 In pursuing this question, we take into consideration, first, the  changes to geographical details in Matt 4.24–25 and 15.29 in comparison with  the  Markan  text,  whereby  it  will  be  beneficial  to  consider  4.24– 25  within the larger context of 4.23–9.35. Second, we analyze how Matthew adapted from his sources the pericopae in which Jesus heals non-Jews. 2.2.1 The Portrayal of Jesus’ Ministry in Matt 4.23–9.35 Following the prologue (1.1– 4.16), Matthew begins the first large section  of the depiction of Jesus’ public ministry (4.17–11.1) with a systematically composed presentation of Jesus engaged in authoritative teaching (5.1–7.29) and powerful deeds (8.1–9.34),182 which is framed by the nearly identical 180

See in more detail section 3.1.3. It has occasionally been postulated for Matthew that Jesus was widely active among Gentiles, which relativizes the focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel articulated programmatically  in  15.24.  See— with  variations  in  specifics— Jeremias  1959,  29– 30;  Ray  1967, 193–211; Krieger 1986, 105–7; Bartnicki 1987, 254 (likewise, Bartnicki 1988, 49); and Wong 1992, 91–93. 182 The two fundamental elements of teaching and healing return as structural elements in Matt 21–22, in an inverted position compared to Matt 5–9 (see section 3.1.2.5). However, 8.1–9.34 is by no means simply a compilation of miracle stories, as shown by 181

50

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

summaries in 4.23(–25) and 9.35. The composition in 4.23–9.35 is in turn framed by two passages that concern the disciples: the calling of the first  disciples in 4.18–22 and the sending out of the twelve in 9.36–11.1. Matt 4.17 introduces this section or rather forms a bridge between the prologue and the new theme: Jesus has now begun his public ministry. Through the compositional placement of a summary in 4.23, the narrative that follows acquires the character of examples that elaborate on the generic and typical depiction of Jesus’ ministry in the summary: Jesus teaches in the synagogues, proclaims the gospel of the kingdom,183 and cures every disease and every sickness.184 It is noteworthy that this ministry occurs expressly ἐν τῷ λαῷ, with which Matthew refers back to the previous occurrences of λαός in 1.21; 2.6; and 4.16.185 Thus it becomes clear that here Jesus begins to do what 2.6 asserts as his task and what 4.16 has in view: with his teaching, preaching, and healing, he shepherds God’s people (λαός) Israel (2.6), and the people (λαός) that sits in darkness, through Jesus’ ministry, sees a great light (4.16).186 While 4.23 summarizes Jesus’ ministry, 4.(24b–)25 likewise summarizes the reaction of the people: Jesus’ ministry causes people to come to him with their sick, and causes ὄχλοι πολλοί to follow him.187 The details in v. 25 about the geographical origins of the crowds are significant here.  Matthew adopts Mark 3.7b–8 but removes Idumea as well as Tyre and Sidon, inserting instead the Decapolis. If one applies a historical perspective to this change, its purpose remains unclear. The Decapolis, as well as Tyre and Sidon with the surrounding area, had a primarily Gentile

9.9–13, 14–17 (see also 8.19–22!). In 9.2–8 as well, the topic of forgiveness of sins, not the healing miracle, is the central focus. With regard to Matt 8–9, it is therefore better to speak more comprehensively of Jesus’ authoritative activity. On the ecclesiological implications of the portrayal of Jesus’ activity in Matt 8–9, see Burger 1973; and Luz 1987, 153–55. 183 Teaching and the proclamation of the kingdom cannot be cleanly distinguished in Matthew (see Luz 2001–2007, 1:168– 69; further Verseput 1986, 57–58; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:415; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:80; and Nolland 2005, 182; a different emphasis is given by Hahn 1963, 104–5; Bornkamm 1975a, 35, n. 1; and Giesen 1988, 85– 87). 184 Deut 7.15 might serve as inspiration here (so, for example, Giesen 1988, 88; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:106, 107; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:202; Fiedler 2006, 102). If this is correct, this allusion further strengthens the reference to the people of God, which becomes explicit with ἐν τῷ λαῷ. 185 The semantic spectrum of λαός spans from the designation of a “crowd” to the technical use in the sense of the “people of God.” On the semantic issues, see the discussion in section 3.2. 186 One can debate whether ἐν τῷ λαῷ in 4.23 relates syntactically only to the last participle, and thus to the healing, or to the whole phrase. In any case, the point is to emphasize Jesus’ ministry as focused on Israel. 187 On the identification of the crowds, see section 3.1.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

51

population, and there were also Jews in both areas.188 John Hyrcanus had conquered the Idumeans and required them to be circumcised and so had “Judaized” them (Josephus, A.J. 13.257–58), yet Idumea does not appear in Matt 4. These alterations make sense, however, when one sees (from a biblical perspective) that the contours being sketched are of the twelve tribes’ area of settlement, the biblical γῆ Ἰσραήλ (cf. 2.20–21),189 which likely alludes to the motif of the restitution of Israel,190 whereby the Decapolis covers the northern region of the Transjordanian tribes. These geographical details thus articulate the idea that crowds from all of Israel are responding to Jesus’ public ministry.191 Tyre and Sidon as well as Idumea (= Edom192), as biblically Gentile territories, are omitted. This interpretation is substantiated by the fact that such a biblical perspective is typical of Matthew elsewhere, as the identification of the Syrophoenician woman  (Mark 7.26) as a Canaanite (Matt 15.22) demonstrates. If this proposal with regard to the geographical details in 4.24–25 is correct, it means that Matthew thinks of the crowds from the Decapolis as Jews.193 Matt 7.28–29

188

See only Josephus, B.J. 2.466–80. Compare Theißen 1989c, 69–70; Schmeller 1994, 57–58; and Schröter 2002, 202. 189 Compare Trilling 1964, 136; G. Lohfink 1983, 273–76; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 1:420; Giesen 1988, 90–91; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:108–9; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:202; Meiser 1998, 231, 258; Cousland 2002, 53– 68; Landmesser 2001, 31; Garbe 2005, 39; Nolland 2005, 185; Fiedler 2006, 103– 4; also Luz 2001–2007, 1:167. Differently Krieger 1986, 102–5 (cf. Krieger 2001, 271–75); Gundry 1994, 65; Stanton 1994, 15. Matthew outlines first the north, then the south, from west to east. Jerusalem, “the city of the  great king” (5.35), comes to stand in the middle. Samaria is regarded as non-Jewish territory and is therefore absent (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:108). Commenting on the phrase γῆ Ἰσραήλ, Zangenberg 2007, 159, rightly sees “a deliberate correlation between the ‘Land of Israel’ as geographical context of Jesus’ ministry and the ‘lost sheep of the House of Israel’ as its direct addressees.” 190 Likewise, see Fiedler 2006, 104. On this, with regard to the sending of the twelve disciples, see section 2.3. 191 Matt 4.24a does not contradict the orientation of Jesus’ ministry toward Israel, as Jesus himself does not go to Syria here but only news of him reaches beyond the land of Israel (2.20–21) into Syria. This notice likely registers the perspective of the Matthean community, which was probably located in Syria (see among others Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:108; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:203; and Fiedler 2006, 102). One must also ask, however, whether, in terms of narrative logic, 4.24a is meant to establish the precondition for 15.21– 28, insofar as it must be presumed that the woman who comes from the area around Tyre and Sidon (i.e., from Syria) must have previously heard of Jesus’ ministry in and to Israel (cf. Gundry 1994, 64). 192 Compare the LXX evidence, where Idumea often stands for Edom. See 2 Sam 8.14; 1 Kgs 11.14–15; 2 Kgs 14.10; Amos 1.6, 9; Obad 1.8; Isa 34.5– 6(!); Lam 4.21(!); and Ezek 25.12–14(!) and elsewhere. 193 This differs from the perspective on the Decapolis in 8.28–34. On this see section 2.2.3.1.

52

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

confirms that this is so:194 the crowds from 4.25 constitute the wider audience of the Sermon on the Mount and recognize in it an authoritative teaching, which distinguishes Jesus from their scribes. For the moment, only reports about Jesus reach beyond Israel into Syria (4.24a). The explicit reference to Israel as the context of Jesus’ ministry (4.23[–25]) recurs at the end of the Matthean arrangement of 4.23–9.35. Although there is no counterpart to ἐν τῷ λαῷ (4.23) in the corresponding summary at 9.35, Matthew has once more emphatically highlighted the focus of Jesus’ ministry on Israel directly before this summary, at the end of the cycle in 8.1–9.34, with the two healing stories in 9.27–31, 32–34.195 While the final  position of these two narratives already suggests that they bear a particular weight, this is underscored by the striking literary feature that, in both cases, Matthew duplicates texts that will appear again later (cf. 12.22–24; 20.29– 34196). One potential explanation for this is that Matthew had 11.5 in view when composing this section.197 Yet in order for Jesus’ reference to his works in 11.5 (cf. 11.2) to be fully illustrated in previously narrated events, the healings of blindness and deafness would need to be represented; these are still lacking. If the only concern were to provide a sufficient background for 11.5,  Matthew could of course have brought forward the other healing of a blind man from Mark (Mark 8.22–26)—possibly removing the details of Jesus’ method of healing, which are problematic for Matthew—rather than duplicating Mark 10.46–52. However, the reference to Jesus as the Son of David does not occur in Mark 8.22–26.198 In other words, using Mark 10.46–52 in 9.27–31, Matthew  modifies  the  Markan  text  in  which  he  finds  a  cry  to  Jesus  as  the Son of David (9.27). At the end of Matt 8.1–9.34, and thus paradigmatically for the entire section,199 Matthew purposefully presents Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. 194

Compare Cousland 2002, 68–70. Compare Verseput 1995, 111; and Novakovic 2003, 80–81. 196 While Matt 20.29–34 clearly reveals dependence upon Mark 10.46–52 not only with regard to its position within the narrative but also in the wording, Matt 9.27–31 presents a duplication freely constructed by the evangelist (on Mark 10.46–52 as the foundation of Matt 9.27–31, cf. Held 1975, 207–9; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:344; Gundry 1994, 176; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:46– 47). The presumption that another (oral) tradition has been edited in Matt 9.27–31 (on this option, see Hagner 1993/1995, 1:252) is unnecessary. 197 In this vein, see Burger 1970, 76; Schönle 1982, 123; Sand 1986, 202–3; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:134, 138; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:252, 255; Luck 1993, 122; Gundry 1994, 176, 179; Bultmann 1995, 226; and Nolland 2005, 400, 403. 198 One can further ask why Matthew did not simply bring the Markan pericope forward and then leave it out of Matt 20 (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 2:46– 47). Clearly the emphasis on Jesus’ Davidic sonship is important to him. More precisely, Matthew needs 20.29–34 as background for the acclamation by the crowds in 21.9 (on this, see section 3.1.1). 199 Compare Verseput 1987, 534; and Novakovic 2003, 81; see also Chae 2006, 305. 195

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

53

Precisely this aspect is strengthened in 9.32–34, where the healing itself is only briefly mentioned (9.33). The emphasis lies rather on giving  prominence, at the end of the cycle 8.1–9.34, to the crowds’ and the authorities’ diverging reactions to Jesus’ activity.200 This is pursued in detail in chapter 3. Here, it is significant that Matthew once again underscores the  relation of Jesus’ ministry to Israel with the remark, placed on the lips of the crowds, “never has such a thing been seen in Israel.”201 Matt 4.23–9.35 is thus a programmatic presentation not just of Jesus’ ministry but, more specifically, of his ministry as taking place fundamentally among God’s  people Israel.202 The reference of τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 11.2203 to what has been narrated in 4.23–9.35 is thus to be seen in this light.204 Correspondingly, ὁ Χριστός signifies here— as in 2.4— Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, the messianic Son of David.205 Regarded within the context of the Gospel as a whole, Jesus’ reply in 11.5, with its echo of promises of salvation as they variously occur in Isaiah,206 strengthens the idea (which for Matthew is central) that in Jesus—through his healing activity and the good news he brings to the poor—the assurances of salvation given to Israel, which Matthew associates with the messianic era, are fulfilled. 2.2.2 The Adaptation of the Markan Text in Matt 15.29–31 In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus twice encounters non-Jews outside of his Galilean sphere of activity (cf. 4.15–16)—namely, in 8.28–34 and 15.21–28. Both texts are discussed in more detail in section 2.2.3, but first we direct  200 See van Tilborg 1972, 144; Held 1975, 235; Sand 1986, 205; Luz 1987, 153; Hare 1993, 108; and Cousland 2002, 137. 201 The use of ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ in 9.33 as a variation on ἐν τῷ λαῷ (4.23; cf. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:50, n. 5) at the same time confirms the understanding of the phrase in 4.23 presented above. 202 This seems to be contradicted by 8.5–13 and 8.28–34. On this, see section 2.2.3.3 and section 2.2.3.1. 203 The phrase is a Matthean redaction. 204 On the reference to 4.23–9.35, compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:240; Luck 1993, 135; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:103 (4.23–11.1); Luz 2001–2007, 2:132; as well as Menninger 1994, 84. A reference only to Matt 8–9 is seen by Sand 1986, 237; and Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:406; see also Gundry 1994, 204. Nevertheless, a broader understanding of τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ is suggested by Matt 11.5, which supplements the healings with the good news to the poor. 205 In this vein, see also Verseput 1987, 535; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:132. What has been said here goes hand in hand with the fact that ἐρχόμενος in John the Baptist’s question in Matt 11.3 not only is reminiscent of 3.11 but at the same time resonates with 21.9, which addresses the acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David (cf. Novakovic 2003, 153). 206 See section 2.1.3.

54

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

our attention here to the fact that the Matthean Jesus returns directly to Galilee not only in 9.1a—following Mark 5.21a—but also in 15.29, in contrast with the Markan text, after Jesus’ excursion εἰς τὰ μέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος (15.21). After the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7.24– 30), the Markan Jesus travels through Sidon and finally proceeds to the  Decapolis (Mark 7.31). In addition to the healing of the deaf and mute man (7.31–37), the feeding of the 4,000 that follows in Mark 8.1–9 is also apparently to be thought of as taking place there.207 Mark thus writes his story such that Jesus is active in areas that had Jewish inhabitants but were primarily Gentile. Since the categorical abrogation of the dietary laws of the Torah in Mark 7.1–23 precedes the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter,208 the Markan composition can be understood such that the removal of this important “boundary marker” between Israel and the Gentiles209 allows for the inclusion of non-Jews in Jesus’ ministry, which begins with the healing of the Syrophoenician’s daughter.210 Matthew, however, has changed the complicated Markan itinerary διὰ Σιδῶνος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως to the simple παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας (15.29). By analogy with the two other occurrences of this phrase in Matthew (4.18; 13.1)211 and in view of the removal of the Gentile regions from Mark 7.31, this undoubtedly means that Jesus returns directly to Galilee. The summary in 15.29–31 that replaces Mark 7.31–37 thus speaks, as in 4.25, of ὄχλοι πολλοί (15.30) from Israel.212 This is moreover consistent with the crowds’ praise of “the God of Israel” in response to the healings (15.31). Here, too, there is nothing to indicate non-Jewish crowds.213 On the contrary, with 207

In any case, a new location is not given until Mark 8.10. See especially the narrative comment in Mark 7.19c: “thus he [Jesus] declared all foods clean.” 209 See, above all, Let. Aris. 139– 42. 210 Compare Kertelge 1970, 169–70; Kato 1986, 81–100; Pesch 1989/1991, 1:384, 385, 402; Feldtkeller 1993, 28–30; Feldmeier 1994a, 224–25; Schmeller 1994, 48– 49, 52; and Pokorný 1995, 330, among others. 211 In both 4.18 and 13.1 (here without τῆς Γαλιλαίας), the Galilean side of the lake is indicated. 212 Likewise, see Trilling 1964, 133–34; Donaldson 1985, 128, 130, and 261, n. 42; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:563– 64; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:34; Levine 1988, 162– 63; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:445– 46; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:344; extensively treated in Cousland 1999. For a different reading, see Jeremias 1959, 29; E. Lohmeyer 1962, 257–58; Fenton 1966, 257; H. B. Green 1975, 147– 48; Frankemölle 1984, 117; France 1985, 248; Morris 1992, 407; Wong 1992, 85– 86; and Gundry 1994, 317–19. Both options are combined to form a third in Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:210: crowds “of Jews and Gentiles” (trans. K. Ess; cf. Minear 1974, 40). 213 Likewise, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:564; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:35; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:446; Wiefel 1998, 289; Cousland 1999, 14–21; Giesen 2001, 38; 208

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

55

the phrase “the God of Israel,” Matthew takes up an expression that is pervasive in the Old Testament214 and rooted in Jewish praise of God215 and thereby—like 9.33—resonates with salvation-historical tones:216 in Jesus, the God of Israel is attending to his people. On an intratextual level, the mention of healings of the lame, blind, crippled, and mute recalls 11.5 and thereby, intertextually, the Old Testament promises that are in the background of that passage.217 Accordingly, the Matthean crowds at the feeding of the 4,000 in 15.32–39 are to be read as Jewish crowds.218 We can therefore conclude that there is no support whatsoever in the text itself for the thesis suggested occasionally that in 15.29–31, Matthew follows the example of the Canaanite woman with large-scale activity among Gentiles.219 Indeed, after the healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter, Matthew again focuses on Jesus’ ministry to Israel. 2.2.3

Jesus’ Ministry to Gentiles

The clear tendency of Matthean redaction to concentrate Jesus’ earthly activity on Israel can finally be seen clearly in the adaptation of three narratives, taken over from Mark and Q, in which Jesus heals Gentiles (8.5–13, 28–34; 15.21–28). and Schnackenburg 2002, 151; see also Nolland 2005, 640–41. For a different view, see M‘Neile 1957, 232–33; E. Lohmeyer 1962, 258; Schniewind 1962, 185; Fenton 1966, 257; Beare 1981, 346; France 1985, 248; Beauchamp 1988, 25; Harrington 1991a, 240; Morris 1992, 407; Byrne 2002, 69; and Jackson 2002, 33. 214 Gerlemann 1984c, col. 783, counts 201 OT occurrences (only eleven are connected with non-Jews; see Cousland 1999, 18, n. 70). In (nonmasoretic) extracanonical Early Jewish literature, see further Esth 4.17k; 3 Ezra 5.64; 7.15; 8.3, 63; 9.39; Jdt 4.12; 6.21; 10.1; 12.8; 13.7; 14.10; Bar 2.11; 3.1, 4; Sir 50.22 (Hebrew text); Jub. 1.28; 45.3; Pss. Sol. 4.1; 9.8; 16.3; L.A.B. 49.6; 1QM I, 9–10; VI, 6; X, 8; XIII, 1, 13; XIV, 4; XV, 13 (16); XVI, 1; XVIII, 3, 6. 215 On this praise, see the phrase ‫ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ‫ֹלהי י‬ ֵ ‫ ָּברּוְך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬in Pss 41.14; 72.18; 106.48; see also Jub. 45.3; 1QM XIII, 2; XIV, 4; 4Q502 24 3; 4Q503 7–9 6–7; 13–16 (4), 14; 33–35 I, 20; 48–50 3, 7; 51–55 6, 12; 4Q512 29–32 21; 1–3 1–2; in the New Testament, Luke 1.68. Compare also Sir 50.22 (Hebrew text); 1QM XVIII, 6. For the use of “God of Israel” in invoking God, see further Pss 59.6; 69.7; Esth 4.17k; Jdt 4.12; 6.21; 10.1; 12.8; 13.7; Bar 3.1, 4; Pss. Sol. 9.8; L.A.B. 49.6; 4Q502 7–10 4–5, 10, 16; 14 4; 4Q512 10–11 8. 216 Compare Cousland 1999, 19; see also Ryan 1978, 41. 217 The nearest parallel to 15.30 is Isa 35.5–6 (cf. Donaldson 1985, 127, 129; Harrington 1991a, 240; Novakovic 2003, 120). A new element in 15.30 (also in comparison with 11.5– 6) is the reference to the κυλλοί. 218 This also fits with Matthew’s omission of καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν (Mark 8.3). Even if ἀπὸ μακρόθεν is not necessarily to be read as an allusion to Josh 9.6 (cf., however, Feldtkeller 1993, 29; Schmeller 1994, 48), a universal note resonates in the Markan formulation, which corresponds with the preceding expansion to Gentiles in Mark 7. On the composition of 15.21–39, see further section 2.2.3.2. 219 See Jeremias 1959, 29; see also Byrne 2002, 69.

56

2.2.3.1

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The Two Gadarene Demoniacs (Matt 8.28–34)

In 8.28, after crossing the sea of Gennesaret, Jesus arrives in the area of Gadara220 and thus in the Transjordanian region of the Decapolis. According to the “biblical geography” of 4.25,221  Jesus  finds  himself  here  still  within the borders of Israel. And from the perspective of the historical context, he arrives in an area with a partially Jewish population. Nevertheless, as is shown especially by the mention of a herd of swine, both aspects recede into the background in 8.28–34—that is, Matthew almost certainly regarded the two222 demoniacs and the townspeople as Gentiles.223 An examination of the Matthean redaction of this pericope confirms this. The Matthean narrative is highly streamlined in comparison with Mark 5.1–20. Mark’s vivid depiction of the sick man’s behavior (Mark 5.3–5) is shortened to the brief statement that the two demoniacs were “very fierce, so that no one could pass by that road.” The perspective is  focused rather on Jesus and on the demonstration of authority in his powerful word,224 and in this respect, the theme of 8.27 is maintained.225 In their encounter with Jesus, the dangerous highwaymen become supplicants. Whereas the Markan version has Jesus’ exorcistic command preceding the demoniacs’ “negotiations” (Mark 5.8), in Matthew, they address Jesus first.  The first evangelist thus avoids the consequence of the Markan sequence  of events—namely, that Jesus’ word does not immediately take effect. A further result of this change is that, in the Matthean version, Jesus is not the one who takes the initiative.226 Instead, Jesus is silent at first,227 while the 220 Due to better local knowledge, Matthew has replaced Gerasa (Mark 5.1), which lies far inland, with Gadara, since the destruction of the herd of pigs in the lake presumes a location in its vicinity. Moreover, Matthew thus avoids the impression that Jesus has advanced deep into the country. 221 On this, see section 2.2.1. 222 From Mark’s single demoniac, Matthew makes two. This duplication, observed elsewhere in Matthew as well (9.27–31; 20.29–34), cannot be interpreted with certainty (cf. the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:80). 223 Compare Gundry 1994, 157; Saldarini 1994, 74; further Sand 1986, 190, 191; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:321, 323; and Luck 1993, 114; as well as Luz 2001–2007, 2:24 (“[i]t is probable”); Nolland 2005, 378. A different view is taken by Wilk 2002, 139: “The demoniacs should . . . be regarded as Israelites” (trans. K. Ess). Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:83, leave the question open. 224 Compare Held 1975, 163–64; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:320; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:76–77, 80; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:225; Luck 1993, 113; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:310; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:25, among others. 225 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:76. 226 That Jesus is approached for help is normal. But an explicit plea is absent from Matt 8.14–15. The healing on the Sabbath in 12.9–14 is an instance sui generis. 227 Does the conditional phrase in v. 31 take this into account? Jesus has, in any case,

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

57

demons insistently beseech him.228 It is not unusual that they are endowed with supernatural perception and thus recognize in Jesus the Son of God229 (v. 29); demons are privy to such information.230 For Matthew, the assertive “adjuration” of the Son of God in Mark 5.7 is inappropriate; the demoniacs speak more respectfully in Matt 8.29.231 This tendency to emphasize Jesus’ majesty is seen in the adaptation of Mark 5.13a as well. The Matthean Jesus speaks only one word, and this is no concession to the demons, as is made clear by the outcome.232 It is rather an impressive demonstration of Jesus’ power; the demons do indeed enter into the swine233 but rather than gaining a new “home,” they perish in the sea.234 It is striking that the two men do not appear again after the exorcism (diff. Mark 5.15); apparently the healing in itself is not the primary focus of Matthew’s attention. The townspeople come to Jesus to convince him to leave their country, not to see the healed men (diff. Mark 5.14b–15). With the words ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν, Matthew creates a clear reference to the not yet announced that he intends to destroy the demons. The fact that v. 31b is formulated as a “real” conditional sentence does not mean that the exorcism has already been determined (contra Hagner 1993/1995, 1:227), since with regard to its relation to reality, the “real” condition is “indefinite” (see Bornemann and Risch § 278; BDR § 371). For Matthew cf., for example, Matt 12.26–27; 26.39. 228 See the imperfect παρεκάλουν in 8.31 (unlike Mark 5.12, but see 5.10). 229 The address is shortened as against Mark 5.7. Does Matthew also omit τοῦ ὑψίστου in order to concentrate the focus on Jesus (cf. Hagner 1993/1995, 1:225; Gundry 1994, 159)? 230 On the demons’ knowledge, see Mark 1.24, 34; 3.11–12; see further Jas 2.19 and Acts 16.17; 19.15. 231 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:83, on 8.31; and Gundry 1994, 160. 232 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:25, n. 19; unlike, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:322. Matthew omits καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς (Mark 5.13). 233 That Matthew locates the herd of swine μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν rather than ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει (Mark 5.11) can hardly be meant to underscore the dangerous nature of the demoniacs (considered a possibility by Luz 2001–2007, 2:24; cf. most recently Nolland 2005, 376, where the swineherds keep away from the demoniacs) but rather is a typical example of the Jewish- Christian character of the Gospel of Matthew (so also, for example, Sand 1986, 190): Jesus does not go near impure animals (cf. Lev 11.7; Deut 14.8; further Isa 65.4; 66.17, as well as 1 Macc 1.47; 2 Macc 6.18ff.; 7.1ff.; 4 Macc 5.2ff.; Philo, Legat. 361; Josephus, A.J. 13.243; Juvenal, Sat. 14.98; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.22.4 and elsewhere; on Matt 15.1–20, see section 2.2.3.2, n. 248); furthermore, ὄρος in Matthew carries positive connotations as a place of teaching (5.1, see also 24.3) and revelation (17.1; 28.16), as well as prayer (14.23) and Jesus’ messianic ministry to his people (15.29; cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:82; Gundry 1994, 160, among others). 234 The demons are the subject of the plural ἀπέθανον in v. 32 (with Held 1975, 164; Luck 1993, 114; Gundry 1994, 160; Luz 2001–2007, 2:25, among others; against Hagner 1993/1995, 1:228; Fiedler 2006, 213, n. 60). “As in 4.10 and 16.23, ὑπάγω here has the strong sense of ‘to go away’ ” (Luz 2001–2007, 2:25, n. 19).

58

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

beginning of the pericope:235 “The meeting at the beginning (Jesus and the demoniacs) parallels the meeting at the end (Jesus and the citizens of that region), and hostility is the keynote of both.”236 Matthew thus omits not only the explicit mention of the demoniacs’ healing but also the healed man’s attempt to follow Jesus and the pre­Easter mission among Gentiles from Mark 5.18–20. Jesus’ excursion on the eastern shore of the sea thus remains entirely devoid of any positive resonance.237 This omission cannot be entirely explained by the observation that Matthew’s only concern in 8.28–34 is to emphasize Jesus’ authority.238 In light of 10.5b– 6 and 28.19, one should rather also consider that Matthew sought to bring the episode into conformity with his own narrative conception, according to which the mission to the Gentiles did not begin until after Easter.239 This point is underscored by a further peculiarity of the Matthean version: the demons ask whether Jesus has come to torment them “before the time.” The notion that the devil and demons will be destroyed at the end of time is traditional,240 and καιρός could thus refer to the Last Judgment.241 However, Matt 12.28 situates precisely the casting out of demons within 235 ἐξῆλθεν (Matt 8.34) replaces the Markan ἦλθον (Mark 5.14) or ἔρχονται (5.15); εἰς

ὑπάντησιν is redactional. In Matt 8.28, ἐξέρχεσθαι refers redactionally to the demoniacs; whereas in the Markan version, it is Jesus who comes out of the boat. 236 Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:85. 237 This evidence speaks decisively against the thesis of Luz 2001–2007, 2:53, that “[i]n the disciples’ dangerous crossing to the gentile shore [the Matthean community] sees prefigured  the  story  of  its  own  journey  from  Israel  to  the  Gentiles  (8.23– 34).”  By  this  reasoning, the immediate return to Galilee in 9.1 could then symbolize a quick failure of the mission to the Gentiles and a return to the mission to Israel. In other words, this is an overinterpretation of the Matthean composition, which follows the Markan narrative thread in Matt 8.23–34. 238 Against Gundry 1994, 161. That only the rejection of Jesus remains from Mark 5.14b–20 at the same time contradicts the thesis of Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:323, that “the rejection of Jesus in the Gentile region [went] against the grain” of Matthew (trans. K. Ess). 239 Conversely, the omission of Mark 5.18–20 makes sense if Matthew regarded the townspeople and those who were healed as Gentiles. Compare the possibility raised by Harrington 1991a, 123, regarding the omission of Mark 5.18–20: “perhaps because he assumed that they were Gentiles and the time for the Gentile mission had not come.” 240 See 1 En. 10.6; 16.1; 19.1; T. Sim. 6.6; T. Levi 3.3; 18.12; T. Jud. 25.3; T. Zeb. 9.8; 1QS III, 18; IV, 18–23; T. Mos. 10.1; Rev 20.10 (καὶ βασανισθήσονται[!] ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων). 241 The majority of interpreters take this position—for example, Strecker 1971, 88; Held 1975, 164; W. R. G. Loader 1982, 580, 581– 82; Sand 1986, 190; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:321; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:77, 81– 82; Hare 1993, 97; Gundry 1994, 159; Trunk 1994, 112; and Nolland 2005, 375–76. On contrary positions, see n. 244 in this section. For καιρός in an eschatological sense (judgment, Parousia), cf. Mark 13.33; Luke 21.8; 1 Cor 4.5 (πρὸ καιροῦ); Gal 6.9; (1 Thess 5.1); 2 Thess 2.6; 1 Pet 1.5; 5.6; Rev 1.3; 11.18; 22.10; see also Sib. Or. 5.348, 361, 432, 447; T. Jos. 19.5. Compare Pss. Sol. 17.21, on the time of the arrival of the Davidic Messiah.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

59

the perspective of the kingdom of God already beginning in Jesus.242 Taking this into account for 8.28–34, the interpretation of πρὸ καιροῦ just mentioned becomes difficult.243 Help comes from the observation that only here, in the context of an encounter with Gentiles, does Matthew speak of the destruction of demons “before the time.” This can hardly be a coincidence; rather, it dovetails perfectly with the tendency of Matthean redaction—as has already been observed and will be pursued further—to restrict Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry to Israel. Just as the time for the mission among Gentiles has not yet arrived, so is Jesus’ healing activity, which brings the advent of the kingdom of God, restricted to Israel for the time being—it is not the Gentiles’ “turn” yet. The insertion of πρὸ καιροῦ can be understood from this perspective.244 The καιρός is the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, with which the universal orientation of salvation is inaugurated. This corresponds with the observation that in 26.18, at the beginning of the Passion Narrative, Matthew inserts the words ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς,245 and in addition, by inserting the temporal indicator ἀπ’ ἄρτι three times (23.39; 26.29, 64) has emphasized Jesus’ death and resurrection as a salvation-historical caesura. Furthermore, in 4.17, Matthew omits the perfect statement πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός from Mark 1.15, where καιρός does not refer to Jesus’ death. In short, with the insertion of πρὸ καιροῦ in 8.29 in contrast with the Markan version, Matthew makes clear that the exorcism occurs extra ordinem. The demons truly are insiders. To  conclude,  the  following  significant  redactional  interventions  have  been established for this pericope: 1. Unlike the Markan version, the initiative in the Matthean exorcism does not come from Jesus. 2. With the phrase πρὸ καιροῦ, Matthew emphasizes that the time for healing Gentile demoniacs has actually not yet arrived. 3. Accordingly, the pre-Easter mission among Gentiles (Mark 5.18–20)— as it is incompatible with Matt 10.5b–6—is omitted. 242 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:82; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:227; and Gundry 1994, 160. 243 It is an improbable and unnecessary stopgap solution to resort to the proposition that the demons know Jesus’ identity but do not know that the era of salvation has dawned with him, and thus the demons’ end has come (against Harrington 1991a, 120). It is also implausible that Matthew has allowed an inconsistency with 12.28 or that πρὸ καιροῦ  has  no  deeper  significance  (Luz  2001– 2007,  2:24,  shows  the latter tendency). Matthew shows himself to be altogether too careful a redactor for this. 244 A reference to the time of the mission to the Gentiles is favored by Rochais 1981, 50; Wilk 2002, 140; and considered by Wong 1992, 118. See also Luz 1987, 157. 245 See also Matt 26.45 / Mark 14.41.

60

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

2.2.3.2

The Canaanite Woman (Matt 15.21–28)

With regard to the context of Matt 15.21–28, the remarks in section 2.2.2 have already established that this passage in no way constitutes the beginning of a large-scale ministry among Gentiles but remains an isolated incident. The Matthean Jesus, after his detour in the region of Tyre and Sidon, returns immediately to Galilee. In terms of the preceding context as well, a significant change to the  Markan text is to be noted. While the Markan sequence of events sets up Jesus’ position on the dietary laws as the presupposition for his subsequent ministry among non-Jews,246 this aspect is entirely foreign to the Matthean version.247 In Matt 15.1–20, there is no fundamental abrogation of the purity laws,248  let  alone  a  conflict  between  Jesus  and  Israel that would be contrasted in 15.21–28 with Jesus’ (albeit hesitant) ministry to Gentiles. Rather, 15.1–20 presents an intra-Jewish debate about the law;249 in 15.10–11, Jesus seeks to persuade the Galilean ὄχλος of his position. And, as Matthew makes emphatically clear through a series of changes to his Markan source,250 Jesus goes to the region of Tyre and Sidon251 not 246

See section 2.2.2. Similarly Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:543; against Gundry 1994, 310; see also Wainwright 1991, 246; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:206. 248 As shown, above all, by the omission of the Markan comment that Jesus has declared all food clean (Mark 7.19c) and the insertion of the final note in Matt 15.20b,  Matthew relates these remarks only to the case of eating with unwashed hands that was raised in v. 2 (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:24, 26–27; S. von Dobbeler 2001, 68; Fiedler 2006, 278– 80; Konradt 2006, 143– 45; against, for example, Meier 1979, 100–104; Broer 1986, 141– 42 [cf. Broer 1980, 114–22]; and Thielman 1999, 67). Matthew thus avoids a fundamental repeal of the dietary laws (alongside those already listed, cf., for example, Hummel 1963, 48; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:517; Snodgrass 1988, 552–53; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:437; Luz 2001–2007, 2:330–31, 335; Mayer-Haas 2003, 477–78; and Reinbold 2006, 58–59). On Matt 8.30, see section 2.2.3.1, n. 233. 249 Compare S. von Dobbeler 2001, 64–72. 250 See in the following discussion on the repeated and, in comparison with Mark, more fundamentally formulated rejection of the woman. The differences between Matt 15.21–28 and Mark 7.24–30 are exclusively due to Matthean redaction. The presumption of an additional source (so, for example, Streeter 1956, 260; Hahn 1963, 24, n. 4; and Pokorný 1995, 321 [“oral tradition”]) is unfounded (with Dermience 1982, esp. 45– 46; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:542– 43; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:28–29; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:336). 251 Whether Jesus actually enters the “region of Tyre and Sidon” is syntactically uncertain (Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:548, leave the question open; see also Donaldson 1985, 132; and Trunk 1994, 148), although it is the more probable solution (but see, for example, Légasse 1972b, 24–26; Dermience 1982, 31; and Guardiola-Sáenz 1997, 74, for a different position). ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων in v. 22 can also be taken in reference to ἐξελθοῦσα instead of to γυνὴ Χαναναία (so, for example, Dermience 1982, 31; Füllkrug-Weitzel 1986, 42; Grundmann 1986, 376; Meier 1986, 398; Levine 1988, 137; 247

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

61

in order to extend his sphere of activity252 but, rather, as the redactional use of the verb ἀναχωρεῖν indicates,253 in reaction to the preceding conflict with the Pharisees and scribes. This constitutes the only connection  with 15.1–20. Matthew has kept the notes on the setting extremely brief. By supplementing Tyre (Mark 7.24) with Sidon, Matthew adds a biblical atmosphere to the narrative.254 The replacement of Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (Mark 7.26) with Χαναναία (Matt 15.22) should be seen along the same lines:255 what follows, especially vv. 24, 26, takes shape against the background of the classic opposition between Israel and Canaan.256 In other words, through the incorporation of a biblical flavor in 15.21– 22, Matthew  indirectly illuminates and underscores the biblical roots of the restriction of Jesus’ mission to God’s chosen people.257 Matthew has omitted the entry into a house (Mark 7.24);258 ὅτι κράζει ὄπισθεν ἡμῶν in Matt 15.23 indicates rather that Jesus and his followers are simply going on their way, while the woman (runs after them and) presents her request.259 The brief Markan exchange (7.27–29) is expanded into a longer dialogue in Matthew, so that the primary weight of the pericope is shifted onto it.260 The four sections of the dialogue are clearly marked by repetitive

Harrington 1991a, 235; Tisera 1993, 196; and Nolland 2005, 632), yet εἰς understood as “in the direction of” in v. 21 is already a second choice in view of the other Matthean usages of ἀναχωρεῖν εἰς (see 2.12, 14, 22; 4.12; 14.13; cf. Wainwright 1991, 103; and Gundry 1994, 310, among others). 252 Against Gundry 1994, 310. 253 Matthew often uses the verb in the sense of an escape from threatening danger (see in addition to Matt 15.21 also 2.14, 22; 4.12; 12.15[!]; 14.13). On the motif of withdrawal in Matthew, see Good 1990; and Metzner 2003. 254 See Isa 23.1–18; Jer 25.22; 27.3; 47.4; Ezek 26–28; Joel 4.4; Zech 9.2–4; further Jdt 2.28; 1 Macc 5.15; Eup. frag. 2B (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.33.1; 34.4). 255 Compare Dermience 1982, 29–30; Donaldson 1985, 132; Klauck 1986, 274; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:547; and Trunk 1994, 148, among others. That Χαναναῖος at Matthew’s time was possibly a self-designation of the Phoenicians (Luz 2001–2007, 2:338, see also Kilpatrick 1946, 132), is—particularly in light of the addition of Sidon—of lesser significance for the explanation of the Matthean alteration. 256 See Gen 9.25–27; 24.3, 37; 28.1– 8; Exod 23.23, 28; 33.2; 34.11; Lev 18.3; Num 33.51–52; Deut 20.17; Josh 3.10; 24.11; Judg 1.1ff.; Ps 106.38; Ezra 9.1, and elsewhere. The proposal that Matthew at the same time intends an intratextual reference to Rahab (Wainwright 1991, 105, 225–26; see also Jackson 2002, 100) is as subtle as it is improbable, particularly as Rahab is not expressly identified as a Canaanite. 257 Compare section 2.1.2 above on Matt 2.6. 258 Compare Matt 8.6–7. On the understanding of 8.7 as a question, see section 2.2.3.3. 259 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:549. 260 Compare Held 1975, 186– 87; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:541; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:28; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:336.

62

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

elements in the introductions to the replies, which are consistently attributed to Jesus,261 as the following overview shows: ὁ δὲ

οὐκ

ἀπεκρίθη

αὐτῇ λόγον

(v. 23)

ὁ δὲ

ἀποκριθεὶς

εἶπεν

(v. 24)

ὁ δὲ

ἀποκριθεὶς

εἶπεν

(v. 26)

τότε

ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς

εἶπεν αὐτῇ

(v. 28)

The effect of this arrangement is that Jesus rejects the Canaanite woman three times before attending to her needs, which is signalized by the change from ὁ δέ to τότε . . . ὁ Ἰησοῦς. At first, Jesus ignores her  (v. 23a)—her request is beyond the scope of his earthly mission. Then, in v. 24, Jesus reinforces262 the disciples’ ardent263 plea to send the woman away because of her bothersome cry (v. 23)264 with the logion, discussed in section 2.1.2, that establishes the reason for not responding to her plea. It is difficult to determine the addressee(s) of 15.24.265 The context speaks for the disciples, yet it is not immediately clear how the logion responds to their request or, if the δέ is taken to be adversative, corrects it. On the other hand, as is also the case in v. 26 (in contrast to Mark 7.27), the woman is at least not directly addressed. In view of the clear structure of the text, it is certainly intentional that αὐτῇ does not appear until the turning point at v. 28, in a clear antithesis with 261 In the Markan version, ἀποκρίνεσθαι appears only once in 7.28 in the introduction

of the woman’s reaction to Jesus’ word in v. 27. Matthew has remained consistent in omitting this; Jesus is the one who answers (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:28; and Trunk 1994, 141). 262 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:339; and Giesen 2002, 131. 263 See the imperfect ἠρώτουν in Matt 15.23. 264 In light of the Matthean usage of the verb in Matt 1.19; 14.15 (Nolland 2005, 633, sees Matt 14.15 as a model for 15.23; see also J. M. C. Scott 1996, 37); 14.22–23; 15.32, 39 (see also 5.31–32; 19.3, 7–9), another meaning for ἀπόλυσον in 15.23 does not come into question. See also, for example, Burger 1970, 81; Neyrey 1981, 375; Sand 1986, 315; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:30; Wainwright 1991, 108–9; Luck 1993, 180; Gundry 1994, 312; J. M. C. Scott 1996, 37; Senior 1998b, 181; Luz 2001–2007, 2:336, 339; Nolland 2005, 633; and Evans 2012, 303. By contrast, Suhl 1968, 65; Légasse 1972b, 28; Meier 1986, 398; Patte 1987, 221; and Wilk 2002, 145, read Matt 15.23 as a demand that corresponds with the plea of the woman. 265 Gundry 1994, 312 (also for v. 26, see 314); Hagner 1993/1995, 2:441, see the disciples as the addressees; Giesen 2002, 131, n. 57; Jackson 2003, 781; Nolland 2005, 633, take the woman as the addressee. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:550, leave the question open.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

63

v. 23. It is possible that Matthew purposefully left the “address” open. The woman is not necessarily within earshot until v. 26, which is indicated in v. 25 by ἡ δὲ ἐλθοῦσα προσεκύνει αὐτῷ. However that may be, one cannot speak of an actual dialogue with the woman until v. 27.266

In any case, in comparison with the Markan version, the rejection of Gentiles in Matt 15.24 emerges as not only more persistent but, above all, more fundamental and uncompromising: the exclusivity of the logion sharpens the Markan πρῶτον,267 which is accordingly omitted in Matt 15.26. That Jesus does attend to the woman in the end cannot be explained by her perseverance, underscored by the imperfect forms ἔκραζεν (v. 22) and προσεκύνει (v. 25),268 since Jesus parries her request with the metaphor in v. 26, even after her persistent pleading. For Matthew, the turning point is grounded solely in the argument of v. 27, which both affirms the statement  of v. 26 and at the same time decisively broadens it. As often occurs in the Old Testament and Early Jewish literature, the children stand for Israel.269 It thus follows from the context that the dogs270 refer to Gentiles.271 Beyond 266 Against Wainwright 1991, 109, “Jesus ignores the plea of the disciples and his own

initial hesitation and enters into dialogue with the woman.” 267 In the Markan context, one can see πρῶτον as illustrated by the succession of the two feeding miracles in 6.34– 44 and 8.1–9 (cf. Hahn 1963, 97 with n. 6; Pesch 1989/1991, 1:391; Schmeller 1994, 48, among others; differently Gnilka 1989, 1:304). In contrast, the earthly ministry of the Matthean Jesus does not contain two phases; with regard to the relationship between Matt 10.5– 6 and 28.19 as well, the Markan πρῶτον is inappropriate, inasmuch as the “feeding of the children,” as will be seen, does not end with 28.19 (cf. Levine 1988, 147). 268 For a different reading, see, for example, Heil 1991b, 544. 269 Israel is God’s son (Exod 4.23; Hos 11.1; Wis 18.13), more precisely the firstborn son (Exod 4.22; Sir 36.11; Jub. 2.20; [Pss. Sol. 18.4]; 4 Ezra 6.58; L.A.B. 32.16; 4Q504 1–2 III, 5– 6; see also Jer 31.9), and Israelites are the children/sons and daughters of God (Deut 14.1; 32.5, 19; Isa 43.6; 45.11; Hos 2.1; [Mal 3.17]; Jdt 9.4; Esth 8.12qLXX; Wis 9.7; 12.7, 19– 21; 16.10, 21, 26; 18.4; 19.6; 3 Macc 6.28; Pss. Sol. 17.27; Jub. 1.24–25; T. Jud. 24.3; T. Mos. 10.3; Sib. Or. 3.702; m. Avot 3.14; see also Isa 1.2, 4; 30.1, 9; Jer 3.14, 22; 4.22). 270 Dog predominately carries negative associations in the Old Testament and Early Jewish as well as early Christian literature (see the overview in Schreiber 2001, 171–74, and further Thomas 1960, 414–26). It is evident that the dogs in Matt 15.26 are domesticated— not despised mongrels—if not already in the use of the diminutive (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 2:340; Schreiber 2001, 175), then at the latest in v. 27. 271 In Matt 7.6, the “dogs” and “pigs” are not code for Gentiles (against Sim 1998b, 237–39; see also Sim 2012, 77) but probably for people who are hostile toward the proselytizing disciples (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:259; Burchard 1998b, 47; and Schreiber 2001, 183– 86, 192). In his extensive treatment of this verse, Paschke 2012, 137–78, takes the dogs and pigs particularly in reference to the Jewish political and religious leaders. There are passages in Rabbinic literature in which “dogs” are used as a metaphor for Gentiles (see Str-B 1:724–25), yet this does not necessarily indicate a standard usage (see, for example, Abrahams 1967, 2:195–96; Luz 2001–2007, 2:341 with n. 62).

64

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

this, it is at least possible that bread, as the primary food of the time,272 symbolizes salvation.273 In v. 26, Jesus repeats v. 24 in different words: he is sent to provide the “children” with bread as the “lord” in the “house of Israel.”274 With the insertion of ναί before κύριε in v. 27, Matthew has the Canaanite woman begin by expressly confirming that it is not good to take salvation  away from Israel for the sake of Gentiles. This corresponds as well with the observation that the woman specifically addresses Jesus as the “Son of  David” (v. 22), and thus, from the Matthean perspective, as Israel’s275 Messiah.276 The woman’s argument in v. 27 is situated within the framework of the salvation-historical distinction between Israel and Gentiles:277 some crumbs fall down for the dogs, with no harm to the children’s sustenance.278 However, the fact that the woman addresses Jesus as the Son of David and adopts the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles is only one side of the coin. In turning to Jesus for help despite this distinction, she displays a faith that already recognizes in Jesus not just the Messiah of Israel but the one who as Israel’s Messiah is also the savior of the nations. The Canaanite woman thus anticipates the universality of salvation, which Jesus himself will first proclaim after his resurrection and exaltation to universal Lord,279 and in her argument, she unites this universality with the salvation-historical status quo of the still absolute distinction between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, her faith anticipates the ultimate goal of Jesus’ mission. This, 272

Compare only Berger 1993a, 15–17. Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:553; Schreiber 2001, 175; Giesen 2002, 132. Compare the “bread of life” in Jos. Asen. 8.5, 9; 15.5; 16.16; 19.5; 21.21; as well as John 6.35, 48. 274 Looking back in the narrative, the feeding of the 5,000 in 14.13–21 can be read as an illustration of Jesus’ table fellowship with the Israelites in 15.26. 275 On this see section 2.1. Compare Gundry 1994, 311; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:339. 276 Fiedler 2006, 281, postulates that this is intended to characterize the woman as God-fearing. Jackson 2002, 2, 101– 44 (see also Jackson 2003), even reads her as a proselyte. The fact that her plea for mercy takes up the Old Testament language of the Psalms (Pss 6.3; 9.14; 24.16LXX; 25.11LXX; 26.7LXX; 30.10LXX; 40.5, 11LXX; 50.3LXX; 55.2LXX; 85.3LXX and elsewhere) and that she addresses Jesus as the Son of David, thus expecting salvation from the Messiah of Israel, makes it clear that Matthew thinks of Gentile Christians as believers in Christ from the nations, for whom the Christ event stands in continuity with Israel’s history of election and whose own participation in salvation arises only as a consequence of the ministry of salvation to Israel. But this does not make such Christians proselytes in the full sense of the word—that is, people who formally convert to Judaism. 277 Compare Giesen 2002, 131: with the address of Jesus as the Son of David, the woman acknowledges “the primacy of Israel” (trans. K. Ess). See also Strecker 1971, 119; and Trunk 1994, 150. 278 Again, the feeding narrative in 14.13–21 should be kept in mind: after the feeding of the 5,000, an abundant amount—twelve baskets of bread—was left over (cf. J. M. C. Scott 1996, 40). See also 15.37 (on this Keener 1999, 419). 279 Compare further section 5.2.1. 273

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

65

and not the woman’s persistence, is the reason Jesus not only acknowledges her faith but calls it great280—and in the end grants the woman’s request.281 It should be noted here that in the woman’s argument in v. 27, Matthew has replaced the “children’s crumbs” with “the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”282 This can hardly be meant to underscore the preferential position of Israel, as “children” are certainly not equal to “masters.”283 Matthew rather shifts the accent from the bread as the property of the children onto the κύριος who presides over the meal and gives the bread. The plural κυρίων, which is striking in view of the “reality” interpreted by the metaphor, results from the universal formulation of the image: dogs eat crumbs that fall from their masters’ (i.e., their respective master’s) table.284 The κύριος here is Jesus.285 In his “table community,” the Israelites appear as children. For their sakes, bread is served and from this Gentiles  benefit.  However, through the shift in accent in v. 27, salvation emerges not as static (as a piece of property) but relational (as a gift provided to the lost sheep). Thus, rather than gaining a share in something that “belongs” to Israel (the children’s crumbs), Gentiles receive a portion of something that Jesus gives. We can thus conclude that Matthew has decidedly strengthened Jesus’ rejection of the woman. The dismissal of her request is not only more insistent but also more fundamental: in the context of Jesus’ mission, the woman’s request on behalf of her daughter categorically has no place. The healing of the daughter in the end—that is, the emanation of salvation intended for Israel 280

On the redactional character of 15.28, see section 2.2.3.3. This is not—as Wainwright 1991, 110ff. (see also 246), postulates (see also J. M. C. Scott 1996, 42– 43)— about a conflict that is resolved in the course of the narrative between  God’s viewpoint, taken by the all-knowing narrator and represented by Matt 12.17–21 (on this text, see section 5.1), and Jesus’ position as initially determined by tradition and only gradually approaching the viewpoint of God. Rather, Jesus appeals in 15.24 to nothing other than his commission by God! Altogether, interpretations emphasizing that Jesus changes his position due to the woman’s persistence or argumentation (see, for example, Ringe 1985, 71–72; and Patte 2000, 35, 43– 45) miss the mark with regard to the interest that Matthew pursues with the narrative. Equally implausible is the notion that Matthew meant to imply in v. 28 that Jesus’ affirmation of the woman’s faith raises her to the status of the  children (against Ford 1911/1912, 329–30, who interprets Matt 15.21–28 in light of Gal 3.7). 282 Here the crumbs are in view, not the bread that was used for the washing of hands (with Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:555). 283 Contrast Hagner 1993/1995, 2:442; and Repschinski 2008, 427–28, who identifies the masters with the children. Conversely, the omission of ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης (Mark 7.28) is not intended to alleviate the narrative perspective on Gentiles (contra Gundry 1994, 315, see also Levine 1988, 151–52). 284 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:556: “The one plural, ‘dogs,’ demands the other plural, ‘masters.’ ” 285 Thus the reader is not meant to think of God and Jesus as “lords” because of the plural (considered by Burchard 1998d, 73, n. 41) or of Jesus and his disciples (contra Wilk 2002, 146). 281

66

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

onto Gentiles—brings the future into the present: in the framework of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the healing occurs extra ordinem,286 or in the words of 8.29, πρὸ καιροῦ. As suggested previously, the following context underscores the exceptional nature of this healing. The summary in 15.29–31, replacing Mark 7.31–37, has been merged with the second feeding miracle, which follows in Matt 15.32–39 to create one unit.287 The distribution of the bread (15.35–36), however, points back to v. 26; in the arrangement of 15.21–39, through the changes to the geographical details discussed in section 2.2.2, Matthew thus presents a statement significantly different from that found in Mark, which  already Holtzmann aptly characterized as Matthew seeking to show “how Jesus in fact proceeded to serve bread only to ‘the children.’ ”288 2.2.3.3

The Centurion from Capernaum (Matt 8.5–13)

The healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter, adopted from the Gospel of Mark in Matt 15.21–28, has a counterpart in the healing of the son289 of a centurion in Capernaum (8.5–13), which stems from Q. Matthew has redactionally underscored the coherence of these two narratives with the parallel formulation of the final verses (8.13; 15.28):290 Matt 8.13:

καὶ εἶπεν

Matt 15.28: τότε ἀποκριθεὶς Matt 8.13:

ὕπαγε,

Matt 15.28: ὦ γύναι, Matt 8.13:

καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ

Matt 15.28: καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς

ὁ Ἰησοῦς

τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ·

ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν

αὐτῇ·

ὡς ἐπίστευσας

γενηθήτω σοι.

μεγάλη σου ἡ πίστις·

γενηθήτω σοι ὡς θέλεις.

ἐν

τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ.

ἀπὸ

τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης.

While Matt 8.13 only strengthens the motif of faith already present in the source (Matt 8.10 / Luke 7.9), the evangelist introduces this motif 286

In this vein, see also Donaldson 1985, 133. Matt 15.32–39 reveals a compositional pattern parallel to that of the first feeding narrative, consisting of the elements “crowding of the people,” “healing of the sick,” and “offering of bread” (cf. Trilling 1964, 133–34). 288 Holtzmann 1901, 255. 289 Matthew speaks continually of a παῖς (8.6, 8, 13). Luke only does so in 7.7, while he otherwise—in view of the occurrence of παῖς in Q 7.7 (cf. Wegner 1985, 138; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:20–21)—likely redactionally uses δοῦλος (7.2, 3, 10). On the translation of παῖς as “son” in Matt 8.5–13, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:10, n. 17; and further Hagner 1993/1995, 1:204; and Fiedler 2006, 202. For “slave,” however, see France 1977, 256; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:300; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:21; Gundry 1994, 142; and Nolland 2005, 354. 290 Lexical agreements are marked with underline, corresponding content with italics. 287

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

67

as a new element in 15.28 and, in doing so, has incorporated the emphasis on the greatness of faith—formulated comparatively in 8.10 (τοσαύτην πίστιν)—which has no further parallel in the Gospel.291 It is central to understanding Matt 8.5–13 that Jesus’ words in 8.7 not be regarded as a statement (“I will come and heal him”) but rather as a dismissive question (“And I should come and heal him?”).292 This reading is not only supported by the way the exchange continues in v. 8293 and by the emphasis arising from the addition of the pronoun in v. 7; it is positively required in view of the coherence of 8.5–13 and 15.21–28. In both pericopae, a Gentile pleads for help on behalf of his or her child, and Jesus eventually attests to the Gentiles’ (great) faith. The final verses are, as seen  previously,  substantially  parallel— and  both  requests  are  at  first  rejected  by Jesus. The initial rejection has no counterpart in either the Lukan version or the Johannine version (John 4.46–54). This raises the question whether Matthew first introduced this dismissal or encountered it already in Q. In  answering  this  question,  one  is  faced  with  the  difficulty  of  reconstructing a reliable Q version of the centurion pericope, since the two versions diverge significantly from one another prior to the dialogue in Matt 8.8– 10  (par. Luke 7.6b–9).294 While Matthew depicts a direct encounter between the centurion and Jesus, according to Luke, the centurion sends two embassies to Jesus. The latter of the

291

Compare, for example, Tisera 1993, 208; and Aurelius 2001, 432. Matt 8.7 is also read as a question by Zahn 1922, 338–39; Klostermann 1927, 74; Held 1975, 184; Wegner 1985, 375, 380 (on Q); Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:301; Kato 1991, 4; Hare 1993, 90; Tisera 1993, 107–13; Landis 1994, 9 with n. 28; Luz 2001–2007, 2:10; Nolland 2005, 354–55; Fiedler 2006, 202; and Giesen 2011, 62– 63; and also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:22; Evans 2012, 187. For reading 8.7 as a declarative sentence, see Krieger 1986, 110; Sand 1986, 179; Catchpole 1992, 525–27; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:204; Luck 1993, 107; Gundry 1994, 142– 43; and Turner 2008, 232. 293 In Luke (7.1–10), the words are established as a gesture of humility through the motif of the delegations; this is not the case in Matthew (see the following discussion). 294 No consensus has yet been reached. (For an overview of solutions, see Dauer 1984, 76–78.) The greater originality of the Lukan version is supported by, for example, Dauer 1984, 88–106; Schürmann 1990, 1:395–96; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:19–20; a relatively word-for-word reproduction of the Q version in Matthew—the insertion in Matt 8.11–12 aside—is supported by Wegner 1985, esp. 242– 43, 269–71; Landis 1994, 4–17, 55; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:8–9. The desire to reconstruct the exact wording of the Q version is, in my opinion, impossible in view of the noted divergence. This is all the more valid, given the methodological consideration that, in view of the evidence in Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark, one must reckon with the possibility that both texts might diverge from the source text in the same passage. On the methodological problem, see Wolter 2003/2004, 117–18. 292

68

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

two embassies is in any case secondary, as the direct speech in Matt 8.8–9 and Luke 7.6b– 8 point to the centurion as the original speaker.295 A decision regarding the origin of the first embassy is difficult296—and, as will be seen, a discussion of the origin of the rejection motif does not provide any help in making that decision with certainty. To clarify the origin of the motif of rejection, it is helpful to observe that the differing depictions of the illness correspond with Jesus’ divergent reactions in Luke and Matthew. In Matthew, the centurion’s son is paralyzed and suffers great torment, but his life is not in danger.297 In Luke, however, the slave is close to death, and a rejection of the centurion’s plea would have a much harsher effect than in Matthew. The depiction of the illness in Luke 7.2 can hardly be a Lukan creation.298 Above all, τελευτᾶν does not correspond with the linguistic style of the third evangelist, who clearly prefers ἀποθνῄσκειν.299 Although Matthew does not avoid the usage of κακῶς ἔχειν and τελευτᾶν,300 it can be plausibly argued that he changed the details of the illness: since the centurion is initially rejected due to the Matthean salvation-historical conception, the evangelist seeks to remove the inappropriate harshness that such a rejection would acquire in the context of a life and death situation. Conversely, it is more difficult to explain why Luke  would have changed the details of the illness if the Matthean version is taken as the original.301 It is likely, then, that the introduction of the motif of rejection 295 Compare Theißen 1987, 183; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:299; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:22; and Landis 1994, 5, among others. But Dauer 1984, 96–98, 115; and Gundry 1994, 141, take a different position. 296 For the attribution to Q (or the source common to Matthew and Luke) see Dauer 1984, 112–15; Theißen 1987, 183; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:19; Gundry 1994, 141; and Nolland 2005, 353; also Schnackenburg 2002, 82 (“perhaps”). Contrast, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:299; Catchpole 1992, 528–32; Lindars 1992, 1997; and Gagnon 1994b, 135– 42; as well as Judge 1989, 486– 87, and those presented there in pp. 479– 86 (see also n. 294). 297 Nolland 2005, 354, sees a different emphasis: “[T]he paralysis is a symptom of the acute phase of an illness (not a permanent disability).” But what is this based on? δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος is hardly sufficient evidence for this. 298 κακῶς ἔχειν occurs elsewhere in Luke only in 5.31, and there is adopted from Mark 2.17, while Luke disregards the occurrences in Mark 1.32, 34 (cf. Jeremias 1980, 151; and Wegner 1985, 142– 43). Mark 6.55 falls under the great omission. 299 τελευτᾶν occurs in Luke only here and in Acts only in 2.29; 7.15; whereas ἀποθνῄσκειν is used redactionally several times in Luke (8.42, 53; 20.31, 36) and, in addition to the occurrences adopted from Mark (Luke 8.52; 20.28, 29, 32), appears twice in material unique to Luke (Luke 16.22) and four times in Acts (7.4; 9.37; 21.13; 25.11). Compare Wegner 1985, 144. 300 Matthew uses τελευτᾶν redactionally in 9.18; 22.25; and likely also in 2.19. Matthew adopts κακῶς ἔχειν in 9.12 from Mark 2.17. Mark 1.32, 34, resonates in Matt 4.24; 8.16, as does Mark 6.55 in Matt 14.35, while the Matthean formulation is also reminiscent of 4.24. 301 If the Gospel of John is not literarily dependent upon (the) Synoptic Gospels (for the counterposition, see Schnelle 2013, 577– 81, and further representatives of this position

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

69

influenced the change in the details of the illness in Matthew.302 In other words, the initial rejection of the centurion’s request did not appear in Matthew’s Q source. The reconstruction resulting from these considerations dovetails with the observation that Matt 8.5–7 is as a whole strongly characterized by Matthean linguistic peculiarities.303 It is probably a further Matthean feature that the depiction of the illness in 8.6 occurs in direct speech (cf. Matt 15.22, diff. Mark 7.25– 26).304 The Lukan counterpart to Jesus’ words in Matt 8.7 is found in the elders’ request in Luke 7.3, which appears in indirect speech (ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ), whereas an explicit request is lacking in the centurion’s speech in Matt 8.6, despite παρακαλῶν, which is probably to be traced back to Q (cf. παρεκάλουν in Luke 7.4). Within the narrative logic of the Matthean plot, the absence of an explicit request is necessary: because of the introduction of the rejection motif, Matthew must create a logical connection to the centurion’s words in vv. 8–9. In that Matthew has limited v. 6 to the depiction of the emergency and transformed Q 7.3 into Jesus’ dismissive question, it becomes possible for the centurion to “answer” with the words that Matthew found in Q (Matt 8.8–9 / Luke 7.6b– 8), despite the previous rejection, without needing to revise his plea, which would disrupt the flow of the narrative.305 The markedly redactional character of Matt 8.5–7 does not necessarily indicate that Luke 7.1– 6a faithfully renders the basic features of the Q version— that  is,  that  the  first  embassy  is  original.  The  participle  that  appears  in  both  versions (Luke 7.3 and Matt 8.7) could be an indication that the first embassy  is an original feature of Q, if ἐλθών appeared in Q in the context of a request directed at Jesus, as is presumed in Luke. In this case, however, Q 7.6b– 8 would not fit well, if the ὅπως-clause in Q 7.3 is supposed to render a plea put forth by the centurion himself, since he would then immediately withdraw the request in p. 581, n. 217; particularly on John 4.46–54, see Dauer 1984, 121, 297, and on this Neirynck 1991, 679– 86), but instead the (pre-)Johannine version of the nobleman pericope (John 4.46–54) is based on a foundation of tradition common to Matt 8.5–13 / Luke 7.1–10 (so, for example, Wegner 1985, 32–37; Schürmann 1990, 1:397; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:18; and Landis 1994, esp. 41– 47, 71), then one can further point for confirmation to the fact that John also speaks of the threat of death (John 4.47, 49), so that this aspect may be traced back to the tradition that forms the basis for both the sayings source and the pre-Johannine pericope. This dovetails with the fact that the pre-Johannine tradition does not mention the rejection of the supplicant. 302 According to Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:299, in contrast, “the escalation of the fatal illness . . . [is] surely secondary” (trans. K. Ess). 303 For the evidence, see Konradt 2007b, 74–75, n. 312. 304 If the notice that the centurion had heard of Jesus (Luke 7.3a, cf. John 4.47!) was in Q, then its omission in Matthew could be noted as a further parallel to the revision of Mark 7.24–30 in Matt 15.21–28 (see Mark 7.25a and cf. Wegner 1985, 162). 305 It should be observed that Matthew’s creative leeway for inserting the rejection in 8.5– 13 is significantly limited by vv. 8– 9. A programmatic statement like 15.24 would not  have fit into the narrative here.

70

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in Q 7.6b– 8.306 However, one cannot exclude the possibility that ἐλθών was originally located in Jesus’ affirmative reply. Presuming that John 4.46–54 is not literarily dependent upon the Synoptics, the direct encounter there between Jesus and the centurion substantiates the hypothesis that the embassy is a secondary feature of the narrative.307 Q could thus have recounted that a centurion asked Jesus to help his son, who was near death, and Jesus offered to come with him, 308 whereupon the centurion replied with the words from Q 7.6b– 8. One might in turn object here that the story in Q may have already acquired the motif of the embassy, and Matthew—for understandable reasons309—omitted this feature.310 In short, there can be no certainty on this point.

Although the exact form of the Q version of the story behind Matt 8.5–7 cannot be reconstructed with sufficient plausibility, the secondary nature  of the Matthean depiction of the illness nevertheless allows us to reasonably hypothesize that the initial rejection of the centurion was first inserted  by Matthew, since the life-threatening illness being “softened” to paralysis can be understood as a consequence of introducing the rejection motif.311 The result of the Matthean redaction of 8.5–7 is that the centurion’s words in vv. 8–9, because of the preceding rejection, do not appear to be an expression of humility, but rather—analogous to Matt 15.27—acquire 306 That the half-verse Luke 7.7a οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα . . . , inserted in connection with the second delegation, points back to ἄξιός ἐστιν . . . in v. 4 does not necessarily mean that  v.  4fin.  is  also  secondary.  Luke  could  also  have  intentionally  connected  v.  7a  with  v. 4fin. in order to further underscore the centurion’s humility emphasized by the insertion of the second delegation. In support of a pre- Lukan origin of v. 4fin., one can add that  Luke himself otherwise constructs ἄξιος with an infinitive (Luke 15.19, 21; Acts 13.25) or  genitive of thing (Luke 3.8; 10.7; 12.48; 23.15, 41; Acts 13.46; 23.29; 25.11, 25; 26.20, 31; cf. Schürmann 1990, 1:392, n. 17). This theory can be further validated by asking whether an omission of the first delegation by Matthew is plausible, which is clearly to be answered  in the affirmative. Aside from the fact that Matthew otherwise shortens framing comments,  in terms of the narrative itself, the request being communicated via a delegation would be an obstacle to the flowing progression of the “action” after the dismissal introduced  by the evangelist. Above all, the positive view of the elders in Luke 7.3ff. would conflict with  the thoroughly negative portrayal of all Jewish leaders in Matthew (see section 3.1.2). 307 Compare Gagnon 1994a, 124–25. 308 In this case, Luke 7.4– 5 would be secondary; Luke 7.6 would replace Jesus’ affirmative answer. 309 On this, see n. 306. 310 For this, one need not presume the influence of a version in the oral tradition that is closer to John 4.46–54 (see n. 306 on possible reasons for Matthean redaction), but this cannot be excluded. 311 The thesis of Ray 1967, 204, that the only purpose of the dismissal is “that it provides an opportunity for the Gentile to demonstrate a great faith” (see also Ray 1967, 227, and further France 1977, 257: “Jesus is testing the faith of the supplicant by an apparent refusal”) misses the Matthean conceptualization of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

71

a more strongly argumentative character. But what is the decisive point in vv. 8–9 that moves Jesus to change his mind? In other words, what constitutes the centurion’s great faith that Jesus has not found in anyone in Israel? Usually, in answering this question, interpreters point to the trust that  the  centurion  shows  in  Jesus  or,  more  precisely,  in  the  efficacy  of  his word,312 whereby emphasis is placed on ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου (v. 8c). According to this thesis, v. 9 simply serves to illustrate—as shown by the parallel structure of v. 8c and the three commands in v. 9—the causal connection between ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ and καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.313 However, the emphasis on the centurion’s faith in v. 10 can hardly be explained by this interpretation. Only a few verses later, Matthew redactionally speaks again of healing λόγῳ (8.16), and here it is Jewish crowds that bring the sick to Jesus. In other words, the centurion’s confidence in Jesus’ ability to heal λόγῳ—even from a distance— does not distinguish him from the crowds addressed in v. 10 in a way that would justify the statement Jesus makes in v. 10(–12).314 It is therefore worth considering whether the reason for the turning point in v. 10 does not appear until v. 9, whereas v. 8c primarily functions as the positive counterpart to v. 8b, and v. 8 as a whole thus serves to clearly communicate that the centurion accepts the distinction between the chosen people and the Gentiles.315 Jesus need not take the trouble to come to the centurion, which would bring him away from his actual mission to Israel. Instead, the centurion asks only that Jesus “in passing” heals by his word.316 Not until v. 9, then, is the reader told why the centurion believes he can expect help from Jesus. The crucial word here is ἐξουσία, which, with regard to Jesus, appeared immediately before in 7.29. ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν is usually taken without question as a part of the preceding clause, 317 but it 312 See Klostermann 1927, 75; Wegner 1985, 389–90; Schweizer 1986, 138; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:298; Harrington 1991a, 114; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:204; Luck 1993, 108; Tisera 1993, 121; Gundry 1994, 144; Wiefel 1998, 162; Luz 2001–2007, 2:10; and Fiedler 2006, 203. 313 It is true that the “modest commands to minor subordinates” in v. 9 are not a fitting reflection of Jesus’ powerful word (Burchard 1998d, 72 [trans. K. Ess]), yet this argument  is unconvincing if, as outlined above, v. 9 is seen as illustrating only the causative relationship between word and event. 314 Similarly Burchard 1998d, 72; and Wilk 2002, 114. 315 And not by force, since vv. 8–9 is not a revision of an earlier plea, due to the reformulation of vv. 6–7. 316 It should be noted that μόνον is Matthean redaction (cf. Wegner 1985, 206–7). Verse 8b, then, need not be understood in the sense of a conception of purity (cf. Acts 10.28, see also John 18.28; for a different view, see among others Giesen 1988, 95). 317 In agreement with the punctuation in NA 26/27/28.

72

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

could also be taken with ἔχων.318 The statement would not, then, express that the centurion is under authority but that he is someone319 who has soldiers under his authority. This would not, however, result in a substantial difference in interpretation, since the centurion’s ἐξουσία is implied in the first case as well. The centurion has soldiers under him as a consequence of being himself under an authority on whose behalf he leads his soldiers.320 In any case, the following emerges as the central concept of the analogy321 drawn between the centurion and Jesus in v. 9: one who has ἐξουσία can, as the three examples in v. 9b illustrate, give commands that will be followed.322 What is new in v. 9 and what emerges as the explanatory (γάρ) element is therefore the concept that ἐξουσία identifies  the prerequisite for the actualization of the spoken word. As the context makes clear, with regard to Jesus, this concept addresses the universal­ ity of his authority: the centurion presupposes, on the one hand, his own lower status as a consequence of Israel’s election and God’s people’s prerogative to benefit from Jesus’ mission; on the other hand, he recognizes the universality of Jesus’ ἐξουσία and, in doing so, shows a faith whereby Jesus is also the savior of the nations.323 Just as soldiers are subject to the centurion’s authority and carry out his orders, so does Jesus as the kyrios (8.6) in principle have the power to bring salvation beyond 318

See Burchard 1998d, 70–71. ἄνθρωπος should then—unlike in Acts 10.26; 14.15—be understood without emphasis in the sense of “someone” (see Burchard 1998d, 70). 320 It is therefore unfounded to assert a fundamental opposition between the centurion and Jesus on the grounds that the latter has ἐξουσία, while the former is under an ἐξουσία. The consequence of such a construction is that the analogy indicated with καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ  becomes  difficult  to  understand.  This  has  led  some  interpreters  to  presume an incorrect syntactical structure, “so that actually εἰμί was originally rendered with the (concessive) participle ὤν, while ἔχων was rendered as an indicative present with ἔχω” (Wegner 1985, 274–74 [trans. K. Ess], cf. Beyer 1968, 278, among others). It should then be translated, “I too, although I am a person under authority, have soldiers under me. . . .” The centurion’s argument would offer a conclusion a minori ad maius. In any case, an interpretation that derives meaning from the text as it now exists is better. Overman 1996, 117, by contrast, seeks to integrate ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν positively into the analogy between the centurion and Jesus: “The centurion understands how authority works. He understands that both he and Jesus receive their power and authority from somewhere or someone.” See also Harrington 1991a, 114; and Nolland 2005, 355–56. 321 To take καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ in the sense of “[f]or I indeed,” as suggested by France 1977, 259, is the less plausible solution philologically. 322 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:23. 323 In this vein, see also Burchard 1998d, 74: “The great faith of the centurion . . . consists . . . not just in his belief in Jesus’ power . . . , but more precisely [his belief] that Jesus also brings salvation to those who do not belong to Israel and have no inherent right to it” (trans. K. Ess). See further Wilk 2002, 114–15, 144. 319

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

73

Israel, even if this is not yet a part of his task within the framework of his earthly mission.324 If this is right, then we see here the same acceptance of the distinction between Israel and the nations and of Jesus’ resulting mission to Israel, intertwined with faith in the universality of Jesus’ authority and salvific  significance, just as it emerges in 15.21– 28. It thus becomes clear why in  v. 10 Jesus acknowledges in the centurion such a faith as he had not found among the Jewish crowds that had followed him since the Sermon on the Mount (8.10).325 They, too, have recognized that Jesus possesses authority (7.29) and expect that he will carry out miracles λόγῳ (8.16), and “Jesus does  affirm  the  faith  of  a  few  individuals  (9.2,  22,  29).  But  they  do  not  believe in the universality of Jesus’ mission.”326 The centurion differs from them in this point. The implications for the understanding of the verses that Matthew inserted in 8.11–12 will be discussed in section 4.2. Here we can conclude that while Matthew found the rejection of the Canaanite woman in his Markan source text for Matt 15.21– 28 and significantly amplified it through redaction, the initial rejection of the centurion  can be traced in its entirety to the hand of the first evangelist. In neither case  is the Gentiles’ insistence aimed against Jesus’ mission to Israel. Rather, they accept their status but point toward the universality of the salvation that has appeared with Israel’s Messiah and thereby anticipate what Jesus himself does not proclaim until 28.19. The exceptional quality of their faith rests in this insight, and this is the reason that Jesus in the end grants their respective requests extra ordinem. 2.2.3.4

Summary of Jesus’ Ministry to Gentiles

The  preceding  analyses  reveal  the  first  evangelist’s  consistent  creative  intention: in contrast to its sources, the Matthean narrative is imprinted with the motif of a focus on Israel, formulated in 2.6 and 15.24 as a guiding principle of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Geographical details have been 324 One can perhaps go one step further from here and ask whether the emphasis lies on the last of the three examples in v. 9b. After (ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν) ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, the slave, strictly speaking, does not belong here (with Burchard 1998d, 72–73; and following Burchard, Wilk 2002, 114–15). The analogy could then be as follows: just as the centurion has soldiers under him, so does Jesus exercise his ἐξουσία as the Messiah over Israel, but just as the centurion is additionally lord over a slave, so does Jesus’ ἐξουσία in fact extend beyond Israel. However, Matthew does not especially emphasize the example of the slave but rather follows Q in simply listing the three examples, such that this reading is at least questionable. This does not negate what has already been said. 325 On τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν, see further in section 4.2. 326 Burchard 1998d, 74 (trans. K. Ess). See also Wilk 2002, 115.

74

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

altered, and in all three of the pericopae adapted from Matthew’s sources in which Jesus ministers to Gentiles (8.5–13, 28–34; 15.21–28), a clear effort has been made to characterize these cases as (well-founded) exceptions to the rule formulated in 15.24. Two features of this characterization have emerged as particularly significant. First, the καιρός of the ministry to the nations has not yet arrived (8.29). It will become clear at the end of the Gospel that this point in time is reached with Jesus’ resurrection. Second, Matthew makes use here of the motif of “great faith.” These two aspects go hand in hand: the centurion and the Canaanite woman already comprehend that Jesus’ mission aims ultimately at the universality of salvation and, in this respect, their faith is “great.” These  findings  are  not  contradicted  by  the  fact  that,  alongside  the  three pericopae addressed previously, there is a series of further statements that prepare for the universality of Matt 28.19, since the relevant passages, such as Matt 1.1–17; 2.1–12; 4.15; and 12.17–21, are located either in the prologue or on the conceptual level of Matthew’s reflections  on Jesus’ ministry to Israel.327 It is therefore not the case that Matthew envisioned a widespread ministry of Jesus among non-Jews, whereby the evangelist is supposed to have effectively broken away from the “program” of 15.24.328 Rather, Matthew consistently edited his sources in terms of the fundamental concentration upon Israel in Jesus’ earthly ministry. While the preceding discussion considers the Matthean conception of Jesus’ earthly activity, the following takes into account the concentration on Israel in the commission of the disciples in 10.5– 6. Beyond what has been addressed up to this point, the question arises here as to what timeframe Matthew has in mind for the disciples’ mission to Israel.

2.3 The Sending of the Disciples to the “Lost Sheep of the House of Israel” in Matthew 10 Following the depiction of Jesus’ ministry in 4.23–9.35, the mission discourse,329 which is composed of material from Mark, Q, and content unique to Matthew, “inaugurates, as it were, the ecclesiological continuation of Jesus’ activity.”330 Matthew makes this connection clear not only 327

On these passages, see section 5.1. For the contrary position, in which the character of the aforementioned texts is not taken into account, see those listed in section 2.2, n. 181. 329 On the use of sources, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:61– 62. 330 Luz 2001–2007, 1:10. Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:63; further Minear 1974, 34, 42; Morosco 1984, 546; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:158; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:370; Weaver 1990, 75– 82, 84– 85; Harrington 1991a, 141; and M. Lohmeyer 1995, 365, 367, 374, 328

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

75

by placing the commission directly after the cycle of 4.23–9.35 but also by formulating the instructions to the disciples as analogous to Jesus’ ministry. Jesus confers his ἐξουσία (10.1; cf. Mark 3.15; 6.7; Luke 9.1) upon the disciples, and the addition of the words θεραπεύειν πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν directly recalls the summaries in 4.23 and 9.35. The mandate to proclaim the good news that appears in the commission (10.7) is— except for the omission of the call to repent—parallel to 3.2 and 4.17, and the mandate to heal that follows in 10.8, formulated in a four-part series of imperatives (cf. Mark 3.15; 6.13), recalls Jesus’ own activity as narrated in Matt 8–9.331 Further, the sending of the disciples, like Jesus’ ministry, is limited to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10.5b– 6).332 Jesus’ compassion for the crowds (9.36) was indicated previously as the motivation for sending out the disciples.333 This is of fundamental significance for understanding  the mission to Israel: sending the disciples to τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ is Jesus’ response to the (scale of the) people’s hardship that he has encountered in his own mission.334 In being sent out, the disciples participate in the pastoral ministry of the messianic Son of David, who is to shepherd God’s people Israel (2.6). In other words, their ministry is meant to continue the messianic ministry of the shepherd of Israel to his flock  by healing the sick and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom—by gathering the “lost sheep.” The disciples are placed in the service of the messianic ministry of the shepherd of Israel to his flock.335 378; as well as Grassi 1977, 172, whose broader thesis that Gen 49 is in the background of Matt 9.35–11.1, however, has no support in the text. 331 One can point further to the analogy between καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς πόλεις πάσας καὶ τὰς κώμας in 9.35 and εἰς ἥν δ’ ἂν πόλιν ἢ κώμην εἰσέλθητε in 10.11 (cf. Mark 6.10: ὅπου ἐὰν ἐισέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν; Luke/Q 10.8: καὶ εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν εἰσέρχησθε). In Matt 10.24–25, the fate of the disciples is then explicitly connected with that of Jesus (cf. S. Brown 1978, 77–79; Weaver 1990, 105– 6). 332 After the negations of v. 5b, μᾶλλον means “rather in the sense of instead,” not “to a greater or higher degree” (cf. BDAG, s.v.; on Matt 10.6, cf. further, for example, Frankemölle 1984, 129 with n. 232; Bartnicki 1988, 46). Matt 10.5b– 6 is thus concerned with the exclusive mission to Israel, not its being taught only as the primary task (against M. Lohmeyer 1995, 385). On the origin of Matt 10.5b, 6, see n. 357. 333 See section 2.1.2. 334 Considered in context, 9.36 explicates Jesus’ experiences as he met the people; 9.37ff. is his response (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:147; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 374). 335 With regard to the location of the mission discourse within the larger composition, compare the apt remark in Weaver 1990, 73: “[T]he narrator wishes the implied reader to interpret the ministry to which Jesus commissions his disciples (10.5b– 42) as not merely parallel to, but rather an integral part of, the ministry of Jesus himself.” On the disciples as the new “shepherds of Israel,” compare McKnight 1986b, esp. 183– 85; Chae 2006, 217– 18; and Baxter 2012, 145– 47, who emphasizes that the term shepherd is not applied to the

76

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

This dovetails with the observation that in 10.1– 4 Matthew introduces the circle of the twelve disciples for the first time in his Gospel, between  the prelude to the commission in 9.36–38 and the mission instructions in 10.5ff. By placing the list of the twelve—which corresponds with the number of the tribes of Israel (cf. 19.28)336—at this location in his narrative, Matthew compositionally strengthens the commission’s connection to Israel and thereby indicates that this mission concerns the eschatological restoration of the twelve tribes.337 Further, it has already been pointed out that the language of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10.6 is to be seen together with 9.35–36: τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ refers to the crowds as opposed to the authorities,338 who as bad shepherds are responsible for the situation in which the people Israel finds itself. With the implicit rebuke of the ruling  classes in the language of the “languishing” flock and the “lost sheep,”339 the disciples appear as new shepherds in the service of the one messianic shepherd and, at the same time, in competition with the (current) authorities of the people.340 With the logion of the harvest, which introduces the mission discourse in Q (Matt 9.37–38; cf. Luke 10.2), Matthew places an eschatological horizon over the mission to Israel (cf. Matt 13.30, 39).341 “Harvest” is a frequent metaphor for judgment in Old Testament and Jewish tradition.342 This does not necessarily refer to a one-sided conception of judgment as punishment but rather can also relate to the gathering of the righteous.343 In Matt 13.39– 43, the harvest metaphor takes into account both positive disciples but reserved for Jesus (see also 170–71, 181– 82). However, in 18.12–14, taking care of a sheep gone astray clearly comes into view as a task for the disciples. 336 Compare only Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:151; Harrington 1991a, 138; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 374; and Lichtenberger 1997, 275. See also Radermakers 1971, 1079, who, however, undermines the connection of “Israel” with the Jewish people for the sake of the notion of the new, or true, Israel. 337 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:355; Levine 1988, 41; Harrington 1991a, 137–38; Nolland 2005, 409; and Fiedler 2006, 225; as well as Garbe 2005, 132. 338 See section 2.1.2. 339 See section 2.1.2. 340 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:158; as well as McKnight 1986b, 183– 85, 188– 89. 341 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:149, 158; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:260; Luck 1993, 123–24; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:65. 342 See Isa 18.4– 6; 24.13; Jer 51.33; Hos 6.11; Joel 4.13; 4 Ezra 4.28–32, 39; 9.17; 2 Bar. 70.2; Mark 4.29; Rev 14.14–20; Matt 3.12 (and Luke 3.17); Matt 13.30, 39. 343 See 4 Ezra 4.32 (35), 39 (“And it is perhaps on account of us that the time of threshing is delayed for the righteous” [trans. Metzger; OTP 1:531]); 2 Bar. 70.2 (“the harvest of the seed of the evil ones and the good ones has come” [trans. Klijn; OTP 1:644– 45]); see also Isa 27.12. In early Christian sources, see Mark 4.29.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

77

and negative outcomes. If the theme of judgment is present in 9.37–38, the double perspective of Matt 13.39– 43 would also apply here:344 in accepting or rejecting the disciples, people will determine their peace (10.13–15), which is to say, their salvation. However, the theme of judgment is not in the foreground of 9.37–38.345 Rather, in the context of 9.36, the emphasis clearly lies on the scale of the harvest and thus the scale of the missionary task,346 which corresponds with the scale of the people’s distress in view in 9.36.347 Thus the positive idea of gathering the languishing people is in the foreground here—a gathering that God has initiated through Jesus’ mission, in view of the basileia, which is at hand (10.7).348 “The harvest work has . . . a soteriological intention.”349 Moreover, the connection of the disciples’ mission with Jesus’ compassionate ministry to the crowds indicates that this is, according to the Matthean conception, a core task of the disciples.350 The life of a disciple is for Matthew essentially a missionary life in the sense outlined in 10.7–8.351 344 Compare E. C. Park 1995, 84: the harvest is “also an eschatological blessing for the lost sheep of Israel.” In contrast, Luz 2001–2007, 2:65, emphasizes “the threat of judgment.” (See also, for example, Patte 1987, 142.) See further n. 345 and n. 346. 345 M. Lohmeyer 1995, 375, even sees the eschatological aspect of the harvest as nullified by the contextual incorporation of the logion. See also Fiedler 2006, 224; and  McKnight 1986b, 187. 346 Compare Gaechter 1963, 315; Beare 1970, 7; Levine 1988, 40; Lichtenberger 1997, 274; and Garbe 2005, 133, according to whom “the image of the ‘harvest’ is filled in as  something primarily salvific” through the context (trans. K. Ess). In the context of the use  of θερισμός as a judgment metaphor in Matt 13.39, the angels, not the disciples, are the harvesters! 347 See Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:146: “The task that the twelve are to perform . . . results from the need for the ministry of teaching, preaching, and healing to be carried out by more than one individual (v. 35).” 348 In contrast, Charette 1990, 31–33, reads the text against the background that the promise of a rich harvest occurs as an element in Old Testament promises of salvation (Lev 26.4–5; Deut 28.4–5, 11; 30.9; furthermore Amos 9.13–15, cf. also Isa 9.2; Ps 126.6). “Matthew is not thinking in terms of a harvest of the people but rather in terms of a harvest for the people” (32). However, the accent in Matt 9.7– 8 does not lie on the paradisaic yield of a fruitful land but rather on the relationship between the greatness of the harvest and the limited number of the workers. “Harvest” is hardly to be understood here other than in the sense of the missionaries’ task to bring people to the kingdom of God. 349 M. Lohmeyer 1995, 373 (trans. K. Ess). 350 In this vein, see also Luz 2001–2007, 2:64. Compare further section 6.1. 351 If δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε in 10.8fin. does not just refer to the transmission of ἐξουσία in 10.1 but the merciful care that the disciples themselves have experienced from Jesus also at least resonates, then one can point to the disciple Matthew for illustration. The evangelist, in 9.9–13, had replaced the tax collector Levi (Mark 2.14) with the disciple Matthew; in the list of the twelve in 10.2– 4, he added ὁ τελώνης to Matthew and thereby created a reference back to 9.9–13. The one who has himself experienced Jesus’ compassion (see the quotation of Hos 6.6 in Matt 9.13!) now belongs among those who are entrusted with the

78

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Due to the concentration in Matthean exegesis on the question of how 10.5– 6—with its prohibition of ministry to the nations and Samaritans and the resulting limitation to Israel—relates to 28.19, it has for the most part gone unnoticed that the prohibitions in 10.5b appear in the form of geographical statements:352 the disciples are not to depart on a road to the Gentiles nor to enter into a city of the Samaritans. In positive terms, this means they are to remain in Galilee.353 Matt 10.5– 6 thus not only mandates the mission to Israel in distinction to the mission to the nations and Samaritans but also implies Galilee as the location of ministry to Israel.354 That this geographical aspect was intentional can hardly be disputed in view of the “geographical” interest that the evangelist shows in Matt 2 and in 4.12–16.355 Indeed, 10.5– 6 points directly back to 4.14–16, where, on the basis of Scripture, Galilee is designated as the location in which a light dawns on the people of God who sit in darkness: Jesus’ ministry is (first  and foremost) for the λαός, and in accordance with Scripture, the location of this ministry is Galilee. Matt 4.23–9.35 paradigmatically depicts the fulfillment of the promise (καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ . . . [4.23]), and 9.36ff. includes the disciples in the messianic work of ministering to the people. To put it more pointedly, insofar as the disciples continue Jesus’ ministry, 10.5– 8 is a part of the fulfillment of Scripture cited in 4.15– 16.  The theme of “lost sheep” in 10.6 corresponds with the metaphor of darkness in 4.16.356 With regard to the origin of Matt 10.5b– 6, the thesis of a redactional construction by the evangelist gains plausibility in light of these verses’ connection with 4.12–16 and with the conception of Jesus’ ministry in 4.23–9.35 in general:357 Matthew has composed these verses on the basis mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” which is grounded in Jesus’ compassion (9.36; cf. Briscoe 1989, 113–14). 352 But see Sand 1986, 219–20; Gundry 1994, 185; and Keener 1999, 315–16. 353 This is because Galilee is bordered by Samaria to the south and otherwise surrounded by predominantly pagan regions. Compare again those named in n. 352. 354 Wilk 2002, 127, takes a different view: the disciples should “avoid cities and regions with non-Jewish populations in their itinerant mission among Jews” (trans. K. Ess). 355 On Matthew’s “geographical” interest, see also the details in Matt 16.21; 17.22; 19.1, and on this, see Verseput 1994, 107–17. On Galilee, see Giesen 2001. 356 It should be further observed that the metaphor of light in 5.14–16 is transferred to the disciples as those who follow Jesus. 357 A redactional construction is further supported by Frankemölle 1984, 126–30, 137; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:361– 62; Levine 1988, 38ff.; Stanton 1992a, 330–31; and Gundry 1994, 184– 85; see also M. Lohmeyer 1995, 378–79. The presumption of tradition raises questions whether Matthew found the words of commission in Q (see Schürmann 1963, 274–75; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:164) or QMt (see E. C. Park 1995, 97), or in his special material (see, for example, Kilpatrick 1946, 27; S. Brown 1977, 25; and S. H. Brooks 1987, 49–50), and whether this is to be traced back to the words of Jesus (see Jeremias 1959, 16–22; Bartnicki 1987, 255; and Hampel 1989, 24; see also Harrington 1991a,

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

79

of his scriptural exposition of Galilee as the predetermined location for divine attendance to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”358 Independent of the origin of 10.5b– 6, we can observe that the geographical and Israel-oriented horizon of the commission of the disciples in 10.5– 6 corresponds exactly with the stage in Jesus’ messianic ministry that has been reached by this point in the narrative. This raises the expectation of an analogous correspondence for 28.19. In other words, we must consider the extent to which the difference between 10.5– 6 and 28.19 is connected with the further narrative development of Jesus’ messianic identity.359 This reference to 28.19 immediately raises the significant question as  to the temporal horizon of the mission to Israel. It is apparent that the prohibitions of 10.5b are annulled by 28.19. Considering the concrete connection between 10.5b– 6 and the Galilee-centered perspective of 4.14– 16 as an overarching theme for Jesus’ ministry, Jesus’ departure ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (19.1)—in view of the geographical element—in a certain sense already implies a removal of the restrictions formulated in 10.5b. But what about the command in 10.6? Does 28.19 indicate an end to the mission to Israel or simply an end to the mission’s limitation to Israel? A conclusive answer will not be possible until the end of this study. Here, we are concerned with evidence that arises from the mission discourse itself and its immediate context. Various elements here speak against the thesis that not only 10.5b but also 10.6 refer solely to a phase that lies in the past. Based on the fact that Matthew, in contrast to Mark and Luke, does not depict the disciples’ mission and/or their return to Jesus after the discourse,360 it has often been concluded that because there is no corresponding account of the implementation of the mission to Israel mandated in Matt 10, it is not characterized as a pre-Easter event.361 Further, it is pointed out that the mission discourse—like the other discourses in the 141) or taken as a pre-Matthean post-Easter logion (see Hahn 1963, 44– 46; Strecker 1971, 107; Schweizer 1986, 152; Bultmann 1995, 167; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:71–72). The ascription to tradition is often based on the difference from Matt 28.19, which is supposed to be resolved by the allocation to tradition and redaction (see, for example, S. Brown 1977, 25: “[T]here remains only one possible explanation: one view of the mission is traditional, while the other expresses the evangelist’s own standpoint.”). On the methodological problem, see the discussion in n. 373. 358 εἰς ὁδόν could be inspired by Mark 6.8 (cf. Matt 10.10). On εἰς πόλιν in the larger context, see Matt 9.35; 10.11, 14–15, 23; 11.1. 359 See section 5.2. 360 In contrast, see Mark 6.12–13, 30; Luke 9.6, 10; 10.17. 361 Compare M. Lohmeyer 1995, 387; Cuvillier 1997, 492; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 22–23; Giesen 2002, 130; and Garbe 2005, 148–50. For critique of this argument, see E. C. Park 1995, 164– 65.

80

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Gospel—is clearly applicable to (or “transparent” for) the current situation of the Matthean community and is actually addressed to this group.362 One can, however, object that although the thesis of “transparency” is generally true, 10.5b nevertheless shows that the relevance to the Matthean community cannot be applied to every single statement in the Gospel.363 A second argument is therefore of greater significance: following the Q  logion that the disciples are sent as sheep among wolves (10.16)364—which in Q probably introduced the mission instructions, as its location in Luke 10.3 shows365—Matthew, unlike Mark and Luke, treats at length the persecution and hardship that the disciples will encounter already within the mission discourse by bringing forward and partially duplicating passages from the Markan apocalypse (Mark 13.9–13) in Matt 10.17–22. Matt 10.18 thereby supplements the intra-Jewish examples of persecution (10.17b)366 with  political  persecution  at  the  hands  of  Roman  officials.  Neither  this  expansion nor the insertion of καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν367 transcends the frame362 Compare, for example, S. Brown 1978, 74–76; O.

S. Brooks 1981, 9; and Luz 1990,

84– 89. 363

On this problem, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:59–63, esp. 62–63. Luz 1990, 87, sees in Matt 10 only “two logia whose validity is limited to a past time—namely, vv. 5– 6 and in connection with this v. 23” (trans. K. Ess). 364 In Matt 10.16, the metaphor of the sheep, which had previously referred to the crowds, is transferred to the disciples. This does not indicate that the lost sheep of 9.36 and 10.6 become wolves who persecute the disciples (against Beare 1970, 7; S. Brown 1978, 87, n. 53; Weaver 1990, 91–92; and Schenk 1987, 415, who interprets as irony the characterization of the house of Israel as lost sheep; Schenk does not consider that 10.6 is grounded in 9.36—that is, in Jesus’ mercy). Rather, the wolves correspond to the shepherds implicit in 9.36: “Jesus’ missionaries . . . are threatened by the wolflike leaders of the people. Thus  a certain solidarity exists between the persecuted missionaries and the harried people; both suffer from the same source” (Gundry 1994, 191; and, in agreement, Sand 1986, 222; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:180; and Heil 1993, 702–3; see also Bonnard 1963, 146; Levine 1988, 47; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:80– 81; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 379– 83; and A. von Dobbeler 2000, 30; rejected by E. C. Park 1995, 128–29). This reading is supported, on the one hand, by the redactional addition in 10.25b, in which Matthew refers to the Beelzebul controversy, which serves to depict the varying reactions of the people and the Pharisees in 9.32–34—thus immediately preceding the mission discourse—and once again in 12.22–24/30 (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.3); on the other, the reading is supported by the connection between 10.16–23 and 23.34, where the scribes and the Pharisees are in view. There, too, is a reference to the sending of messengers (ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω [= 10.16]) and their whipping in the synagogue (μαστιγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν [cf. 10.17, both redactional]); further, in 23.34, the persecution of the disciples from city to city brings to mind 10.23. 365 But E. C. Park 1995, 128, is critical of this common presumption. 366 συνέδρια likely refers to local Jewish legal authorities (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:376; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:182; Harrington 1991a, 145; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:277; and Nolland 2005, 423). 367 The insertion is likely inspired by Mark 13.10.

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

81

work of the mission to Israel. In the context of the discourse, the focus is on persecution by Jews that leads to denunciation before Gentile authorities and thus persecution beyond what is possible for Jewish authorities to carry out (cf. Acts 17.1–9; 18.12–17).368 Thus Matt 10.18 remains within the horizon of the mission to Israel,369 even if this is possibly broadened to include Diaspora Jews.370 That being said, the insertion of καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν nevertheless serves as an indication of what is to come. In Matt 24.14, which the  evangelist  composed  relatively  freely  on  the  basis  of  Mark  13.9fin.–  10, μαρτύριον is mentioned again, and here, in accordance with the now explicitly identified worldwide scope of the mission (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ), it is for πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Further, the “proclamation of the good news of the kingdom throughout the world” εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν no longer brings to mind only the disciples’ witness to Jesus in court. This is solidified by the connection that leads from πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν to 28.19. Matt 24.14 thus takes up 10.18fin., but the accent is shifted in that the mission among πάντα τὰ ἔθνη  emerges  with  its  own  significance.371 When regarded within the framework of the mission discourse, Matt 10.18 has in 368

Thus this is still concerned with persecution from the Jewish side (in this vein, see also Levine 1988, 45; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 379– 80; E. C. Park 1995, 134–35; and Wilk 2002, 124–25; unlike, for example, Hare 1967, 108). μαρτύριον thereby likely carries positive connotations and refers to the testimony of the disciples’ proclamation (cf. Trilling 1964, 127–30; Hare 1967, 107; Sand 1986, 221, 224; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:376–77; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:89), which they give before the court (cf. 24.14; see also the omission of εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς from Mark 6.11, where the phrase is negative, in Matt 10.14). αὐτοῖς (referring to the previously mentioned governors and kings [cf. Hare 1967, 107] and perhaps also those who, according to v. 17b, will hand over and flog the disciples [cf.  Luz 2001–2007, 2:89]) is accordingly a dativus commodi (cf., among others, Trilling 1964, 127–30; Tisera 1993, 149; and Giesen 2002, 135; for a different reading, see Schenk 1987, 357–58). But this testimony here is nothing other than a result of the mission to Israel. 369 In this vein, see also Lange 1973, 259–60; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 380; and Wilk 2002, 124–25. 370 Matt 10.18 can certainly be understood in terms of Palestinian circumstances (cf. Lange 1973, 258; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:184; Luz 2001–2007, 2:88– 89), since Matthew identifies Pilate as ἡγεμών (Matt 27.2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27; 28.14), such that ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας could refer to the Roman procurators; further, Agrippa I (on the persecution of Christians under him see Acts 12) as well as his son Agrippa II bore the title of king. On the other hand, however, the plural(!) mention of governors and kings is so open as to suggest the hypothesis that, geographically, the mission in the region of the Diaspora is also in view (cf. McDermott 1984, 233; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:376; and Wilk 2002, 124–25; see also Weaver 1990, 15). The addition of καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν also does not require a context in the Jewish Diaspora (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:184) but does suggest that Matthew seeks here to point forward toward a more broadly conceived horizon of the mission. 371 Against this, Wilk 2002, 125–26, postulates that 24.14 is to be read entirely in terms of the mission to Israel and thus in the sense of 10.18 (see also S. Brown 1980, 214). The difference between 24.14 and 10.18, as well as the connection with 28.19, is not sufficiently taken into account here.

82

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

view first and foremost that μαρτύριον τοῖς ἔθνεσιν will occur within the context of the mission to Israel. Nevertheless, with regard to the Gospel as a whole, the insertion of καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν also foreshadows the universal mission of the disciples (24.14; 28.19). This is connected with the observation that because of the adaptation of Mark 13.9–13 in Matt 10.17b–22, and particularly the word-for-word (except for the omission of τῶν ἐθνῶν) anticipation of Matt 24.9b, 13 in 10.22 (ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος . . .), the missions to Israel and to the nations are parallel not only with regard to the experiences the disciples will encounter but also in temporal terms—that is, the timeframe of the mission to Israel is the same as that of the eschatological mission among πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 24.9–14.372 This is firmly substantiated by 10.23.373 This logion—which is linked with v. 22b by key words (τέλος and τελέσητε) and, like vv. 19b–20, 22b, 372 This fits in with the general warning Matthew has placed in 10.17a: προσέχετε

δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (cf. 10.32–33). Considered diachronically, this is a reformulation of Mark 13.9. Luz 2001–2007, 2:89, postulates “a complex mixing of various levels of time.” He argues that verses 17a and 18fin. are aimed at showing that the situation of persecution in the mission to Israel, which according to Luz belongs in the past, is “typical.” This construction, however, does not emerge out of Matt 10 itself, since the mission discourse contains no indication that allows the mission to Israel to be located in the past. Matt 10.23 rather indicates the opposite (see the discussion that follows). It is therefore necessary to reject the postulation of E. C. Park 1995, 132, that Matthew’s bringing forward Mark 13.9– 13 from the eschatological discourse into the mission discourse proves that, for Matthew, persecution by the Jewish authorities is “a matter of past.” This is decidedly contradicted not only by the weight of sharp anti-Pharisaic polemic in the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, which cannot be sufficiently explained with Park’s proposal, but also, within Matt  10, specifically by 10.22b, 23. 373 Like 10.5b– 6, the origin of 10.23 is also a point of controversy. Redaction is supported by, among others, Frankemölle 1984, 130–35; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:374–75; and Gundry 1994, 374–75; whereas tradition and original unity are supported by Geist 1986, 228; Hampel 1989, 4–10; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:188– 89; E. C. Park 1995, 139; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:85– 87. Hampel 1989, 24–27, traces the logion back to Jesus. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:87, holds this to be “not impossible.” McDermott 1984, 236– 40, classifies  only 10.23a as traditional and suspects that 10.23b is a Matthean creation. In contrast, Wedderburn 1999, 171– 81, supports the authenticity of 10.23b only (in connection with the thesis of a secondary combination of logia in 10.23). The proposal by E. C. Park 1995, 140, that the logion of Matt 10.23 is to be regarded as adopted from tradition because it contradicts Matthew’s own view, is methodologically more than questionable (but see also, for example, Schürmann 1968, 150). The incoherency postulated by Park calls into question whether his work has adequately captured the Matthean understanding of mission, if he is unable to integrate Matt 10.23. With regard to methodology, compare the apt comments of Frankemölle 1979a, 173 (“even demonstrably traditional texts cannot be removed from the responsibility of the redactor. His interests in selecting the traditions available to him . . . must be taken fully into account” [trans. K. Ess; cf. Frankemölle 1982, 103–9]), as well as Broer 1988b, 84– 85 (“An inquiry into the theology or theological opinions of Matthew . . . must

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

83

is to be read as a word of comfort to the disciples in the face of tribulations associated with the mission in the end times374—creates a bridge with 10.6 with its explicit orientation toward Israel. αἱ πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραήλ is not, however, entirely unambiguous. The phrase could refer geographically to the cities in the land of Israel.375 In this case, however, one would have to ask why this verse has not been formulated analogously to Matt 2.20–21,376 and it is therefore worth considering whether the phrase might refer to all cities with Jewish populations. Matthew 10.23 would then—as is possibly already implied in 10.18377—broaden the area of the mission to Israel to include the Diaspora.378 With regard to 10.5b– 6, this would indicate that 10.23 already looks beyond the phase of the geographical focus on Galilee associated with Jesus’ own earthly ministry (4.15–16): in the post-Easter mission to Israel, Jesus’ messengers are to attend to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in the Diaspora as well. Regardless of the interpretation of αἱ πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, it can be observed that, according to 10.23, the mission to Israel—parallel with the universal mission to the nations—ends with the coming of the Son of Man, with the Parousia.379 While v. 5b (with its geographical implications) is to also incorporate the traditional material that the evangelist adopts unchanged in his gospel. The opposite approach would lead to an equivalence between the material adopted by Matthew and the material he leaves out, which clearly displays the impossibility of such an approach” [trans. K. Ess]). 374 Compare Bammel 1961, 92; Frankemölle 1984, 133; Geist 1986, 230–31, 238; Sand 1986, 225; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:373; and Hampel 1989, 11. 375 See, for example, Feuillet 1961, 185; Hahn 1963, 44–45; Künzi 1970, 178; Schweizer 1974, 32; Sabourin 1977, 9; France 1985, 184; Levine 1988, 51; Tisera 1993, 154–55; Wilk 2002, 125, n. 325; and Nolland 2005, 427. 376 The phrase ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ in Matt 9.33 is not to be understood geographically. 377 See n. 370. 378 See Kilpatrick 1946, 119; Strecker 1971, 41– 42; McDermott 1984, 233; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:379; Hampel 1989, 19; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:84– 85. See also Hare 1967, 112, 129; Garbe 2005, 147; and Harvey 1996, 235, n. 34: “10.23 does not mean ‘the cities in the land Israel’ . . . but ‘the cities in which the people Israel live.’ ” 379 Compare Ray 1967, 216ff.; Künzi 1970, 179; Schweizer 1974, 36; S. Brown 1977, 23; McDermott 1984, 235; McKnight 1986a, 519; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:379; Wong 1992, 89–90; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 384; Sim 1998b, 158; Kvalbein 2000, 55; Byrne 2002, 66; Giesen 2002, 131; Garbe 2005, 145– 47; Nolland 2005, 428–29; Turner 2008, 277; and Evans 2012, 224. A different position is taken by, for example, E. C. Park 1995, 141, yet the postulation that Matt 10.23 no longer applies for Matthew and his community is purely arbitrary exegesis (see n. 373). An interpretation of the coming of the Son of Man as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (Hagner 1993/1995, 1:280; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 66, 75) has no basis in the text of Matt 10.23; it is based solely on the inappropriate interpretation of Matt 22.1–10; 23.34–39 as indicating that the mission to Israel ended with the destruction of Jerusalem (see J. A. Gibbs 2000, 68– 69). For the coming of the Son of Man as a reference to the resurrection of Jesus in Matt 10.23 (see Albright and Mann 1971, 125; Sabourin 1977,

84

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

be seen in connection with the location of the mission discourse within the narrative, v. 23 transcends the temporal horizon of the preceding narrative with its reference to the Parousia, and it makes clear that the disciples’ task of carrying on the mission to Israel, begun by Jesus the Davidic Messiah, does not represent a mandate that is obsolete in the evangelist’s own time. A confirmation of this interpretation can also be found in the use of tenses in  10.5b– 6. In v. 5b, Matthew has used the aorist, whereas a present imperative appears in the positive command in 10.6. This use of tenses fits perfectly with the  reading that the prohibition against taking a road to the Gentiles and entering a city of the Samaritans in 10.5b is to be understood from the start as something particular380 to the current stage of Jesus’ messianic ministry, while the command to minister to Israel remains valid until the coming of the Son of Man.

The formulation of 10.23 reflects the assessment that the mission to Israel  itself presents a task given to the disciples that cannot be fully accomplished before the Parousia. In context, this brings to mind 9.37–38. The instruction to the disciples, in view of the discrepancy between the great harvest and the few laborers, to ask the lord of the harvest (God) to send (more) laborers, is also relevant—or even especially relevant—in terms of the mission to Israel.381 If one distinguishes here between the level of the 9–10; and Levine 1988, 51; see also Barta 1988, 534), one can possibly point to Matt 16.28, where seeing the Son of Man coming in his(!) kingdom might refer to the appearance of the resurrected Christ (see Meier 1979, 120–21; Roloff 1997, 288; Wilk 2002, 86; and Garbe 2005, 146; contrast, for example, Walck 2011, 181– 82). However, the reference of 10.23 to the Parousia not only is suggested by Matt 16.27; 24.27, 30, 37–39, 44; 25.31 (see further 13.41; 19.28) but has no alternative in view of the connection with the immediately preceding mention of resistance εἰς τέλος in 10.22 (cf. 24.13–14; on εἰς τέλος as a reference to the end of the world see, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:90, n. 49; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:187), particularly as there is no mention of the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom in 10.23. 380 This is also considered by Wong 1992, 90. Giesen 2002, 130, also points to the present form in 10.6: “The sending of the twelve to the house of Israel is, according to Matt, a permanent task, as already indicated by the present imperative πορεύεσθε” (trans. K. Ess). On the use of the tenses cf. BDF § 335: “[T]he present imperative is durative or  iterative, the aorist imperative punctiliar . . . The result of this distinction is that in general precepts . . . concerning attitudes and conduct there is a preference for the present, in commands related to conduct in specific cases . . . for the aorist.” Matthew’s awareness of this  distinction is shown by the use of both imperatives side by side in 23.3 (cf. BDR § 335). 381 With regard to Q, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:353, sees presumed in the harvest logion “an  intensified  missionary  effort  for  Israel”  (trans.  K.  Ess).  It  should  be  added  that  the  logion’s placement in the Gospel of Matthew between Matt 9.35–36 and 10.1– 8 indicates that Matthew is also very concerned with the intensive missionary effort for Israel. Garbe 2005, 132–34, rightly sees in 9.37 an indication “that Matt regarded the mission to Israel as not ended” (134; trans. K. Ess).

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

85

narrated world and the evangelist’s level of communication, the addressees can and should see themselves as the laborers that the disciples requested from the lord of the harvest. One more observation can be made in connection with these considerations: the disciples’ tribulations are, according to the texts discussed here, a signature not only of the mission to Israel but also of the universal mission to the nations. On the whole, the Gospel of Matthew contains not only positive but also numerous negative statements about non-Jews, or the Gentile world.382 If the fact that the disciples will be hated ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν (24.9)383 does not invalidate the mission to the Gentiles, neither can the negative experiences among Jews be grounds for ending the mission to Israel (i.e., the offer of salvation for the people of God).384

2.4

Summary

By altering geographical details (4.23–25; 15.29–31) and editing the texts in which Matthew found Jesus ministering to Gentiles in his sources (8.5– 13, 28–34; 15.21–28), the evangelist has systematically sculpted the orientation toward Israel, formulated programmatically in the mission logion in 15.24, as an essential feature of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Christologically, this goes hand in hand with Matthew’s emphasis on the Davidic messiahship of Jesus the Son of God and, specifically, the presentation of Jesus as  the Davidic- Messianic shepherd of Israel whose ministry fulfills the promises of salvation given to Israel. In this connection, the merciful care for the 382 See Matt 5.47; 6.7, 32; 18.17; 20.25; 27.27–36. These negative statements about non- Jews,  or  the  Gentile  world,  are  often  insufficiently  taken  into  account  in  favor  of  emphasizing Matthean universalism (in this, the appeal of Sim 1995, 25–30, is partially justified; cf. also Runesson 2011b, 143– 44). Matthew by no means paints an idealized picture of the Gentile world. Conversely, such negative statements do not imply that, for the Matthean community, the mission to the Gentiles was theoretically accepted as an (eschatological) agenda but was not actually practiced (against Houlden 1994, 123, see also Sim 1995, 41– 44 [cf. further section 5.4, n. 282]). A glance at Paul’s polemic against Gentiles in 1 Thess 4.5 already shows that reference to a passage such as Matt 18.17 in making this argument is not sound. 383 If the Gospel of Matthew is to be located in Syria and perhaps, more precisely, Antioch (cf. chapter 7), it is possible that the anti-Jewish riots and resentments in Syria (or specifically in Antioch), documented by Josephus in connection with the Jewish war (see  B.J. 2.461– 65; 7.41– 62, 100–111), also affected the Matthean community (cf. Sim 1995, 35–39) and that 24.9 is seen by the evangelist and his addressees against this background. 384 Compare Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:85. Already the sequence in Matt 5.11–12, 13–16 (on the missionary dimension of 5.13–16, see section 6.1) illustrates that the disciples are called to their missionary existence precisely as persecuted people. Compare Balabanski 2008, esp. 165– 70, who stresses adversity, suffering, and conflict as characteristics of the disciples’ mission by reading Matt 28.16–20 against the horizon of Matt 24.

86

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

“languishing” and “harassed” people through Jesus’ therapeutic ministry is of central significance. The concept of the therapeutic Davidic Messiah emerged for Matthew out of creative reflection on Old Testament expectations of salvation in light of the Jesus tradition. And, conversely, Jesus’ healings were able to be interpreted in light of the Old Testament texts as the expression of God’s messianic, salvific care for his people. The connection between references to Jesus as the Son of David and healings of blindness in particular—as well as the correlation with the aspect of forgiveness of sins (9.2–8), which 1.21 shows to be central for Matthew—indicates that the christologoumenon of Davidic sonship is not to be limited to Jesus’ healing activity in a physical sense but that this title is to be understood more broadly in terms of the Messiah’s compassionate ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The consistency with which Matthew focuses Jesus’ earthly ministry upon Israel and the embeddedness of this ministry in profiling Jesus’  Davidic messiahship speak clearly against the assumption that Jesus’ care for Israel serves only to justify the denunciation and rejection of that people.385 Rather, it is to be expected that the fulfillment of Israel’s promises  of salvation through the mission of the Davidic-Messianic shepherd of the people  bears  a  permanently  positive  significance  in  Matthean  theology.  The observations in section 2.3 confirm this. Following the foundational  presentation of Jesus’ authoritative ministry in 4.23–9.35, in Matt 10, Matthew brings into view the continuation of the mission to Israel through the ministry of the disciples. The placement of the list of the twelve in 10.1– 4 underscores that the gathering of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” is situated within the theological horizon of the eschatological restitution of the twelve tribes. Furthermore, through the timeframe of the mission to Israel that appears in Matt 10, it becomes clear that Matthew does not understand this restitution as only a pre-Easter incident (or as belonging to the past in any case). In the next chapters, we consider whether (if at all) other perspectives emerge from the analysis of the Matthean stories of conflict and the  consequences of negative reactions to Jesus. Here we can conclude that if one claims that Matthew regards the mission to Israel as having been superseded by the mission to Gentiles because Israel spurned the offer of salvation and forfeited her status as the people of God, then 10.6, 23 must be regarded as revoked by 28.19.386 In other words, one would have 385

Compare the discussion in chapter 1 with n. 5. See Luz 2001–2007, 2:94. The mission to Israel would then, against the explicit “date” of 10.23, belong to a past (salvation-historical) phase; see, for example, Trilling 1964, 103; and Walker 1967, esp. 114–18. 386

2: The Focus on Israel in the Ministry of Jesus and His Disciples

87

to accept a serious incoherence in a passage of fundamental theological significance  for  Matthew,  since  the  proposal  that  the  evangelist  sees  the  mission to Israel as a thing of the past directly contradicts Jesus’ explicit statement about the continuation of the mission until his Parousia. To put this in positive terms, the evidence of the texts considered in this chapter leads us to expect that 28.19 does not replace 10.6 but rather supplements or expands it in a way that must still be more precisely identified.387

387

In this vein, see also S. Brown 1977, 30; and Giesen 2002, 130, 148.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

The Matthean Jesus story is in large part a story of conflict:1 from the very beginning, Jesus’ activity elicits opposition, even enmity, which ultimately culminates  in  the  crucifixion.  Alongside  this  conflict,  however,  Matthew  simultaneously describes the great popularity of Jesus’ ministry among the people. The relation between these two threads in the Matthean narrative concept is of considerable significance for the topic at hand. How has Matthew arranged the narrative of conflict? Who appears as Jesus’ adversaries?  Is the antagonism limited to specific factions? Or does the people Israel as  a whole—if not from the very start, then at least at the culmination of the conflict in Matt 26–27—reject her Messiah, so that the earlier positive reactions to Jesus are to be understood as only a temporary state of affairs? The following discussion begins by tracing the portrayal of reactions to Jesus’ ministry up to the passion (section 3.1). In so doing, the positive reactions of the crowds are examined first (section 3.1.1),2 followed by an analysis of the conflict that occurs up to the passion (section 3.1.2) and a  summary of provisional conclusions (section 3.1.3). Finally, the Matthean Passion Narrative is considered in section 3.2.

3.1

Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry Prior to the Passion

3.1.1 Reactions of the Crowds Prior to the Passion In the analysis of Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the shepherd of Israel, it has already become clear that Matthew distinguishes between the Jewish 1

See, above all, the monographs Gielen 1998 and Repschinski 2000. The justification for first treating the crowds separately from the authorities will be demonstrated in the following discussion. On the Matthean differentiation between the two groups, compare van Tilborg 1972, 142– 65; Russell 1982, 427–30, 436– 42; Kingsbury 1987, 63– 64; Wong 1992, 126–33; and, above all, Cousland 2002, passim. Contra Trilling 1964, 75–78; and Walker 1967, 11–74. 2

90

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

crowds and the Jewish authorities: as the messianic shepherd, Jesus is sent to the crowds, who are in despair due to the failure of the current ruling classes (Matt 10.6; 15.24) and, in their desolate state, are like sheep without  a  shepherd  (9.36).  The  significance  of  this  distinction  between  the people and the authorities as an essential element of the Matthean narrative concept becomes clear when the Matthean portrayal of reactions to Jesus’ mission in Israel is taken into account. While Matthew depicts the authorities as hostile through and through, his portrayal of the crowds—even into the days in Jerusalem (Matt 21–23)—is in general strikingly positive. From 4.25 on,3 Matthew consistently uses ὄχλος4 to designate the people; this does not, however, imply the inverse—that ὄχλος always designates the crowds that follow Jesus or appear as the addressees of his healing activity. In 9.23, 25, for example, ὄχλος (θορυβούμενος) refers to a group of mourners (see also 26.475). Nevertheless, the ὄχλοι appear with their own profile as a “character” in the Matthean Jesus story  much more markedly than in Mark and Luke,6 and their narrative function does not merely consist in occasionally supplying the applauding chorus. We can already gain a paradigmatic insight into the Matthean portrayal of the crowds by considering the “negative” evidence: when the Gospel of Matthew is read in light of its sources, a string of passages emerges in which the crowds do not appear in Matthew. So, for example, as is considered in more detail later, Matthew has separated the divided reaction of the ὄχλοι in the Beelzebul pericope from Q 11.14–157 in 9.32–34 and in 12.22–24 in such a way that only the positive reaction is attributed to the crowds, while the negative reaction—perhaps inspired by the γραμματεῖς in Mark 3.228—is attributed to the Pharisees. Similarly, the demand for a sign in Matt 12.38 is not put forth by τινες, as it probably is in Q,9 but rather by τινες τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων 3

In contrast to Matt 4.25, the word is not yet used in 3.5(–6). Compare Cousland 2002, 39– 40. 5 See section 3.2. 6 Compare Cousland 2002, esp. 39–51. 7 In view of the textual agreement between Matt 9.33 and Luke 11.14 in καὶ ἐθαύμασαν οἱ ὄχλοι, the use of ὄχλοι can be traced back to Q; moreover, the divided reaction of the ὄχλοι found in Luke 11.14–15 is also likely based on Q. See, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:456; Gielen 1998, 104; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:50. 8 In the omission of “Beelzebul,” Matt 9.34 agrees with Mark 3.22, where, however, the accusation ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια is preceded by the assertion Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει. 9 Luke has brought the demand for a sign forward into the reaction to Jesus’ exorcism in Luke/Q 11.14–15 (Luke 11.16): a few (from the crowds, see 11.14) react with the 4

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

91

(cf. Mark 8.11), to whom the words against the “wicked and adulterous γενεά” (Matt 12.39– 40) then also apply, together with the threatening words in 12.41– 42.10 Further, probably in divergence from Q, John the Baptist’s sermon of judgment in 3.7–10 is not directed at the crowds in general  but  specifically  at  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.11 For Matthew, the authorities, not the crowds, are the brood of vipers (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν: 3.7; cf. 12.34; 23.33).12 As for the “positive” evidence, the ὄχλοι make their first appearance,  as indicated previously, in 4.25 and thus in the framework of the summary, examined in section 2.2.1, that introduces 4.23–9.35: Jesus’ preaching and healing meet with broad popularity and cause ὄχλοι πολλοί to become his followers.  Already  in  this  first  mention  of  the  crowds— and  only  here—  are they more specifically described by their place of origin, introduced  by ἀπό. The ὄχλοι  who  are  positively  influenced  by  Jesus’  ministry  are  defined  here  as  crowds  from  all  over  Israel.13 Not until 26.47 is a new, different definition attributed to the crowds; here there is an ὄχλος πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ (cf. Mark 14.43).14 In Matt 4.25, ἀκολουθεῖν need not be taken as a technical term for following Jesus in the sense of “discipleship,”15 as it is when this is the topic at hand in the context.16 However, the repeated use of this verb in relation to Beelzebul accusation and others react with the demand for a sign. On the likely Q version, compare the reconstruction of Q 11.16 by J. M. Robinson et al. 2000, 246– 47. Luz 2001–2007, 2:214, and Gielen 1998, 147, among others, also regard τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων as Matthean redaction. 10 See in more detail section 4.3.2. 11 It cannot be determined with certainty whether Luke found ὄχλοις in Q or added it himself. In any case, however, the word of judgment in Q was directed generally toward people who had come to John (cf., for example, Hoffmann 1982, 17; Schürmann 1990, 1:163; and Arnal 1995, 168: “Q 3.7–9, 16–17 probably contained no indication of any precise group singled out for polemic”). The more concrete address to the Pharisees and Sadducees is thus due to Matthean redaction (cf. Häfner 1994, 35–37; Gielen 1998, 54; Repschinski 2000, 41, 130; Keener 2005, 4–5; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:134, n. 2). Tuckett 2004, 116, in contrast, speculates that Matthew found the mention of the Pharisees in Q and only added the Sadducees. Against this, however, it can be argued that Matthew has introduced the Pharisees redactionally elsewhere as well (cf. Repschinski 2000, 130, n. 155). Webb 1991, 176–78, proposes that the Sadducees were the addressees in Q, and Matthew added the Pharisees. 12 See in more detail section 3.1.2.1 with n. 106 and section 3.1.3 with n. 264. 13 At most one can further point to Matt 14.13 (καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ὄχλοι ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ πεζῇ ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων). On the interpretation of Matt 4.25, see section 2.2.1. 14 On this, see section 3.2. 15 For nontechnical use, see Matt 9.19, 27; 26.58; and above all—with reference to the ὄχλοι—21.9 (οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες alongside οἱ προάγοντες αὐτόν). 16 See Matt 4.20, 22; 8.19, 22; 9.9; 16.24; 19.21, 27, 28.

92

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the crowds17 is at least suggestive, particularly as the technical use in 4.20, 22, still resonates in 4.25. Matthew plays with the ambiguity of the word and so brings the crowds into close association with the disciples,18 without removing the distinction between them.19 Next, in Matt 5–7, the crowds form the wider audience of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew formulates their reaction to Jesus’ teaching by adopting Mark 1.22:20 the crowds recognize the ἐξουσία of Jesus’ teaching, which distinguishes him from the scribes, and are astounded (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) in a positive sense.21 Matthew repeats this motif—likewise on the basis of Mark—in 22.33 (cf. Mark 11.18). Matthew has omitted the conspiracy scene following the cleansing of the temple,22 where Mark explains the priests’ and the scribes’ fear of Jesus as grounded in the fact that “the whole crowd was astounded because of his teaching” (Mark 11.18). However, Matthew apparently did not want to give up this second mention of the people’s positive reaction 17

See further Matt 8.1, 10; 12.15; 14.13; 19.2; 20.29; (21.9). In contrast, Carter 1993, 58, sees only “physical movement” indicated in ἠκολούθησαν in Matt 4.25. 19 Luz 2001–2007, 1:163, quite rightly speaks of a “potential church” (cf. also 1:167, n. 15, and on 7.28–29, 1:389–390). Compare also Citron 1954, 416 (“future converts”), and Fiedler 2006, 216, on 9.8: the crowds represent the “potential believers in Christ” (trans. K. Ess). Minear 1974, 40– 41, goes a step further: the crowds stand for the laypeople in the community, while the disciples represent the community leaders. According to Gundry 1994, 65, Matthew uses ὄχλος “to represent the masses in the church, professing disciples both true and false—the result of extensive evangelism among the Gentiles” (see also Gundry 1994, 213, 231, 232, 410, 411). Matthew, however, characterizes the crowds in 4.25 explicitly as those from Israel. 20 The Sermon on the Mount is inserted in Matthew where, in Mark, Jesus teaches in the synagogue of Capernaum for the first time (Mark 1:21). Matt 7.28b, 29 / Mark 1.22  thus takes up the Markan thread again exactly in the place where Matthew had left it with the insertion of the first great discourse of his Gospel. 21 For a positive evaluation of the crowds’ ἐκπλήσσεσθαι, see the references in n. 23 on Matt 22.33. Contra Repschinski 2000, 212, “Matthew does not describe whether this impression is positive or negative. It is a distanced reaction, and as such probably inadequate.” According to Walker 1967, 13, the crowds here, with their ἐκπλήσσεσθαι over Jesus’ teaching, are even bound together into one entity with the Jewish authorities. The evidence clearly contradicts this proposal. In Mark (Mark 1.22; 11.18), the astonishment is regarded positively, as is made especially clear in 11.18, where the ἐκπλήσσεσθαι of the people contrasts with the chief priests’ and scribes’ intention to kill Jesus. Matthew draws on the Markan version here (see above). The word is also used positively by Luke (Luke 4.32; 9.43; Acts 13.12 [in the context of a conversion!]). See further Barn. 1.3 (positive astonishment); 16.10; or also Wis 13.4; 2 Macc 7.12; 4 Macc 17.16(!); T. Ab. A 3.12; Philo, Spec. 1.73; Prob. 124; Josephus, A.J. 1.288; 2.231; 4.66; 6.290; 8.168 (of the queen of Saba: ἡ δ’ ἐξεπλήσσετο μὲν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Σολομῶνος) and elsewhere. See also the positive use of ἔκπληξις in Let. Aris. 96, 99; Josephus, A.J. 2.280; 3.132; 8.170, and elsewhere. 22 On the reason for this omission, see section 3.1.2.5, n. 203. 18

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

93

to Jesus’ teaching23 and instead adopts it in an appropriate place in his composition:24 Jesus’ superiority in the dispute with the Sadducees (Matt 22.23–33) offered Matthew an opportunity to insert this bit of text and thereby to emphasize the contrast between the people and the ruling classes.25 As the astonishment of the ὄχλοι at Jesus’ teaching in 7.28–29 refers explicitly to the ἐξουσία made apparent in that teaching, the placement of Mark 11.18fin. within the composition of 21.23– 22.4626 likewise connects the second mention of the crowds’ ἐκπλήσσεσθαι at Jesus’ teaching with the motif of Jesus’ authority (21.23).27 While the crowds thus show that they are impressed by Jesus’ teach­ ing, Matthew also significantly sets his own accents in portraying the ὄχλοι in connection with Jesus’ healing ministry. Matthew not only emphasizes Jesus’ healing care for his people28 but also highlights the positive reaction of the ὄχλοι to Jesus’ healing activity. The crowds’ praise (ἐδόξασαν) of the God of Israel in 15.3129 can be attributed entirely to the hand of the evangelist, and he has in multiple respects also given a new orientation to their praise of God in 9.8. At the end of the Markan version of the healing of the lame man (Mark 2.1–12), all those present are astounded and praise God with the words “we have never seen anything like this” (v. 12). The 23

A positive sense of Matt 22.33 is also supported by, for example, Sand 1986, 445; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:642; and Fiedler 2006, 338; see also n. 25. Contra Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:255. See further n. 27. 24 The crowds’ ecstatic reaction does not fit in the Matthean context of the cleansing of the temple, because Matthew has Jesus heal in the temple (21.14). His teaching does not ensue until the following day (21.23). On this, see section 3.1.2.5. 25 Compare Harrington 1991a, 313: “Matthew has added this verse to remind the reader of the distinction between the Jewish leaders and the Jewish crowds.” See also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:233; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:352. 26 See section 3.1.2.5. 27 Gielen 1998, 257, 258, 260, sees the crowds—who according to Gielen gradually distance themselves from Jesus (see further n. 67 in this section)—as showing a regression of awareness in Matt 22.33 as compared with 7.28–29, because there is no reference to Jesus’ authority in 22.33. This proposal is connected with the narratological thesis that this  passage  paves  the  way  for  the  people’s  affiliation  with  the  authorities  in  27.20– 25.  However, 22.33 is hardly able to serve as a support for this thesis, which in my opinion is altogether questionable (see the following discussion). The emphasis in 22.33 lies on the fact that the crowds are still positively affected by Jesus’ teaching and that the opponents’ attempt to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people with regard to his authority to teach achieves exactly the opposite effect (see further section 3.1.2.5). The comparative element of 7.28–29 (. . . καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν) is present here in the situational context of the argument with the Sadducees, and the theme of authority established in 21.23–27 sets the direction for the entire composition of 21.23–22.46 (on the composition, see section 3.1.2.5). 28 Compare section 2.1.3. 29 On this, see section 2.2.2.

94

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

context here allows that the scribes might be among those who praise God. Matthew, however, has excluded this possibility30 by explicitly introducing the ὄχλοι. In addition to replacing the Markan ἐξίστασθαι with the people’s fear,31 he has further accentuated the point of reference for the praise of God by taking up ἐξουσία, the central keyword from 9.6 (par. Mark 2.10).32 The pericope thus does not, as in Mark 2.12, have only the healing event itself in view;33 in connection with Jesus’ own words (9.6) and reaching beyond the therapeutic event they have just witnessed, the crowds pick up on what this event presupposes and makes visible: as in 7.28–29, they recognize the extraordinary authority that is expressed in the healing.34 The Matthean tendency to outline the ὄχλοι as a distinct “character” in his Jesus story becomes clear, above all, in 9.32–34 and 12.22–24. Here, Matthew has not only, as noted previously, attributed both of the Beelzebul 30

Compare Hummel 1963, 37; Lange 1973, 61; Gielen 1998, 92; Repschinski 2000, 71; Luz 2001–2007, 2:27; and Nolland 2005, 383. 31 Compare the fear of the centurion and those with him in 27.54, which is likewise due to Matthean redaction, and further the redactional passage on the fear of the disciples in 17.6. On the positive significance of fear, compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:327; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:315; and Nolland 2005, 383. 32 Compare Repschinski 2000, 71. According to Gundry 1994, 165, in contrast, the participial predicate of God in 9.8 (τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις) does not characterize the crowds’ praise, but rather “[i]t is Matthew’s own characterization of God.” This would be more plausible if v. 6a (ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας) were not part of the dialogue but should rather be understood as a comment by the evangelist directed at the reader (see Nolland 2005, 382; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:93–94). But this reading is contradicted by the fact that “Son of Man” otherwise only ever occurs in Jesus’ speech in the Gospels (see Klauck 1989, 290–91; and Wolter 2004, 271). Verse 6a thus belongs to Jesus’ speech, which the ὄχλοι hear. The interruption with τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ signals that Jesus turns away from the scribes and toward the paralytic in the course of his reply. On the syntax in Matt 9.6, or Mark 2.10, see Wolter 2004, 272–75. 33 In this connection, the first evangelist’s radical abbreviation of Mark 2.2– 4 should  also be observed. See further section 3.1.2.2. 34 Compare Sand 1986, 194: “The praise of God occurs because the bystanders have ‘seen’ not a wonder but the authority to forgive sins” (trans. K. Ess). See further Klauck 1989, 310. The mention of τοῖς ἀνθρώποις points to the corresponding authority of the community (see section 6.1). One can ask whether this is intended to express something about the relation of the Jewish crowds to the Matthean ecclesia. Are the Jewish crowds thereby meant to be situated within the sympathizing environment of the ecclesia? Was this perhaps, in terms of text pragmatics, in order to foster the community’s effort for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10.6), who are to be saved from their sins (1.21)? Of course, one can likewise consider that there are overlapping redactional interests here: on the one hand, Matthew is concerned with ascribing the positive reactions to Jesus exclusively to the crowds; on the other hand, Matthew seeks to write into the text a hallmark of the ecclesia that derives from Jesus’ authority (cf. the explicit transfer of the ἐξουσία πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων in Matt 10.1)—possibly without deeper consideration of the grammatical subject of the speech.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

95

accusations to the Pharisees but also given voice to the crowds and thus sharpened their positive reaction. In doing so, at the end of the examples of Jesus’ authoritative activity presented in Matt 8–9, he has compositionally created a counterpart to the crowds’ amazement at Jesus’ teaching at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7.28–29).35 In 9.33, the connection between οὐδέποτε and οὕτως suggests that Matthew was inspired by Mark 2.12.36 However, in that ἐφάνη . . . ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ takes the place of the Markan εἴδομεν, a remark limited to the crowd’s realm of experience becomes a statement encompassing the path of God’s history with his people Israel.37 Matthew thus once again accentuates Israel as the frame of reference for Jesus’ earthly ministry38 and, moreover, characterizes the crowds as being on the way toward recognizing the unique and exceptional nature of the divine39 care for Israel in Jesus.40 This is perpetuated in the repetition of the setting of 9.32–34 in 12.22– 24.41 The healing of the demoniac here prompts the crowds to ask whether Jesus might be the Son of David. In view of the contrast with the Pharisees’ statement in v. 24, the question can only have been meant in a positive sense. The interrogative particle μήτι in 12.23 thus does not anticipate a negative answer42 but rather characterizes the crowds’ statement as a deliberation 35

In both cases, the distinction between the crowds and the authorities is present: while the scribes appear in 7.29 only as a foil in the depiction of the crowds’ amazement, Matthew has the authorities specifically emerge in 9.34 in the form of the Pharisees  (cf. section 2.2.1). 36 Compare Burger 1970, 77; Cousland 2002, 137; and Nolland 2005, 403. This connection is without further parallel in the synoptic tradition (see in the New Testament only John 7.46). In Matt 9.8, Matthew had omitted the statement of the people from Mark 2.12 for the sake of the participial predicate of God as ὁ δοὺς ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. 37 Compare Cousland 2002, 137; and Nolland 2005, 403. Matt 9.33 can be compared with the characterization of the events of the messianic era in 4Q521 2 II, 11. 38 On this, see section 2.2.1. 39 Compare Gielen 1998, 102–3, who sees ἐφάνη in the words of the crowds as expressing that they perceive the power of God displayed in the healing. 40 The thesis of Luz 2001–2007, 2:50, on 9.33, that the crowds understand nothing more than the external façade of the miracle, downplays the budding awareness that Matthew ascribes to the crowds in 9.33. Precisely the comparison with Mark 2.12 illustrates that Matthew does not simply portray the crowds in superficial awe. On the significance of  the diverging reactions of the ὄχλοι and the authorities in 9.33–34 as paradigmatic for the larger composition of Matt 8–9, see section 2.2.1. 41 Matthew thus follows the Markan narrative thread. Mark 2.23–3.12 was reworked in Matt 12.1–21. Matthew already adopted the calling of the twelve (Mark 3.13–19) in Matt 10.1– 4, and Mark 3.20–21 is omitted by Matthew. Mark 3.22–30 is thus the next segment of text in Matthew’s Markan source. 42 The interrogative particle μήτι does normally anticipate a negative response, but there are exceptions in which the sense is modified (see BDR § 427, n. 2). A very close and 

96

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

that, in principle, reckons positively with the possibility that Jesus is in fact the Son of David but nonetheless maintains an element of doubt.43 Thus Matthew depicts the crowds’ germinating christological recognition, which indicates a step forward in relation to 9.33.44 The crowds are beginning  to  identify  more  precisely  the  uniqueness  of  the  salvific  event  that  they observed in 9.33 within the history of Israel—namely, in messianic categories: “could this man be the Son of David?”45 Matt 21.8–9 then takes yet another decisive step forward. Matthew has knitted together the entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple (21.12–13) into a single unit46 and expanded the pericope to include healings in the temple (21.14–17). An essential feature of the Matthean redaction is that he once again presents Israel’s twofold reaction to Jesus47 and thus extends this reaction into the days in Jerusalem. The Markan πολλοί who spread their cloaks on the road (Mark 11.8) become in Matthew ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (Matt 21.8), and Matthew inserts οἱ ὄχλοι in front of the Markan οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες (Mark 11.9). Thus, in concretizing the Markan details, Matthew takes a significantly different path  than Luke, who turns the rejoicing crowd into πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν (Luke 19.37). Further, Matthew has inserted τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ into the citation of Ps 117.25–26LXX. In contrast to the question from 12.23, Matthew now has the crowds acclaim Jesus as the messianic Son of David. The setting recurs mutatis mutandis in the temple. Here it is the children who, after Jesus’ healings inserted by Matthew (21.14), take up the cry “Hosanna to the Son of David” (21.15). Jesus’ true identity as more than the Son of David does instructive parallel to Matt 12.23 is found in John 4.29, where the Samaritan woman asks, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός—a question beset with doubt. The same applies for Matt 12.23. 43 Compare Hummel 1963, 118; Burger 1970, 79; Strecker 1971, 118; Sand 1974, 146; W. R. G. Loader 1982, 573; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:335, with n. 6; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:342; Gundry 1994, 231; Novakovic 2003, 82 (cf. Novakovic 1997, 156–57); and Deines 2005, 480; see also Luz 2001–2007, 2:202 with n. 53. See, however, the different view of Suhl 1968, 72; Kingsbury 1976, 600 (cf. Kingsbury 1986, 650); Matera 1987, 249; Bauer 1988, 94; Caragounis 1990, 78; and Verseput 1986, 215: “They remained no more than hostile witnesses to a reality which they failed to receive.” 44 Compare Burger 1970, 78; and Gielen 1998, 127; further also Luz 2001–2007, 2:202; Olmstead 2003, 54; and Fiedler 2006, 253. 45 On this advance in awareness, see further section 4.3.1. 46 Mark also has Jesus go into the temple after entering the city (Mark 11.1–10), yet there Jesus only has a look around before leaving the city again in the evening (11.11). Not until the next day, after Jesus has cursed a fig tree on the path (11.12– 14), does the cleansing of the temple follow (11.15–17). Matthew, by contrast, brings the cleansing forward into Jesus’ first visit to the temple. On the unity of Matt 21.1– 17, see Trilling 1963, 303– 4;  N. Lohfink 1988, 181– 91; Weren 1997b, 117– 18; and Luz 2001– 2007, 3:4. 47 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:6, 10, 14.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

97

not change the fact that Matthew has the crowds and the children express a fundamentally correct christological insight.48 This is substantiated not only by the evangelist’s own use of the title (1.1)49 but also by Jesus’ positive comment on the children’s cry in 21.16.50 And  not  least,  the  fulfillment  quotation  in  vv.  4– 5,  which  precedes  the depiction of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, also deserves our attention. Here Matthew has modified the beginning of the citation from Zech 9.9  with words from Isa 62.11, because the summons to rejoice addressed to Jerusalem in Zech 9.9 does not fit with Jerusalem’s role in the Matthean  story of conflict. The introductory words taken from Isa 62.11 (εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών), in contrast, conform perfectly to the context: the crowds announce to Jerusalem the arrival of the messianic Son of David.51 In other words, by inserting the fulfillment quotation, Matthew prepares the setting  in 21.9–11—the crowds do exactly that which the words of the prophet have announced.52 Matthew here makes no indication that the crowds understand Jesus as the Davidic Messiah to be anything other than the gentle king of Zech 9.9.53 This corresponds with the fact that both the crowds’ and the children’s acclamations of Jesus are situated within depictions of Jesus’ therapeutic activity. The entry into Jerusalem is preceded by the healing of two blind men, who call Jesus the “Son of David” (20.30, 31), and the children’s cry follows the healing of the lame and blind in the temple (21.14–15). Thus 48 Contra Carter 1993, 63; and Novakovic 1997, 161; as well as Kingsbury 1975a, 102–3 (cf. Kingsbury 1976, 600). There is no support in the text for the distinction between the acclamation of the crowds (21.9) and that of the children (21.15) as presented by Kingsbury 1975a, 100–101 and—following him—Novakovic 2003, 90–91. This distinction is based on a misunderstanding of 21.11 (discussed later in this section) and is clearly contradicted by the analogy between the scenes in 21.9–11 and 21.15–16. The replacement of the crowds with the children in 21.15 may be inspired by the citation of Ps 8.3 that follows in Matt 21.16 (cf. Burger 1970, 87)—that is, Matthew formulates v. 15 with a view to the citation. 49 Compare section 2.1.1.1. 50 Compare J. M. Gibbs 1963/1964, 460; Hummel 1963, 120 (“the children’s cry [counts] as a divinely inspired acclamation, as the citation of Ps 8.3 shows” [trans. K. Ess]); Broer 1992, 1259; and Novakovic 2003, 94. 51 Compare Pesch 1967, 404; Burger 1970, 84; N. Lohfink 1988, 188– 89; Verseput  1994, 116; Weren 1997b, 125; Novakovic 2003, 87; and Minear 2004/2005, 76–77. 52 If the doubling of the mounts (a donkey and a colt) in Matt 21.2 is due to the association of Zech 9.9 with the saying about Judah in Gen 49.8–12 (see v. 11; on this see Weren 1997b, 132–33; further Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:308–9; Nolland 2005, 833; and Rölver 2010, 110; as well as Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:200, 203; and, for criticism of this view, Luz 2001–2007, 3:6, n. 23), this would additionally prepare for the acclamation of the king as the Son of David (cf. Ham 2005, 42, 46). 53 Contra, for example, Sauer 1987, 86; and Hagner 1993/1995, 2:591, 597. See further n. 55.

98

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the idea that the disciples’ christological insight goes further than that of the ὄχλοι and shows their level of awareness to be insufficient54 is not the decisive criterion in the context of 21.1–17 for evaluating the cries of joy in 21.9, 15. Rather, the crowds recognize Jesus precisely in the role in which he was sent to them: as the Davidic-Messianic shepherd of his people, who ministers to this people by helping and healing them.55 The element introduced with the fulfillment quotation in 21.4– 5— that  the crowds announce to Jerusalem the coming of the Messiah—is developed, as suggested previously, in the scene that Matthew inserts in 21.10– 11. Jesus’ entrance amid the rejoicing of the ὄχλοι shakes up the whole city of Jerusalem and causes its residents to ask the crowds who this man is. The contrast between the crowds and Jerusalem as a whole makes it clear that the former are not a part of the city—that is, they are thought of as pilgrims from out of town who have come to Jerusalem for the festival.56 When Matthew has them now speak of Jesus as “the prophet57 Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee,” this is not intended to (dis)qualify their insight from 54 Contra, for example, Kingsbury 1976, 592; Gielen 1998, 202. The fact that the disciples never identify Jesus as the Son of David makes sense because they participate in Jesus’ Davidic-Messianic pastorate (cf. Cousland 2002, 198). On this, see section 2.3. On the differentiation between the crowds and the disciples, see the discussion later in this section with n. 68. 55 The notion that, for Matthew, the acclamation of the crowds is an expression of a false image of the Messiah—more precisely, that in the Son of David entering into Jerusalem they see a messiah in political-national categories—and that Matthew corrects this conception (see Suhl 1968, 73; J. M. Jones 1994, 268–72; and Novakovic 1997, 161; see, however, Verseput 1995, 114, for a different view) is tradition historical eisegesis. This is not to deny that Matthew significantly diverges from the expectation of a Davidic messiah  as expressed in Pss. Sol. 17–18 and various Qumran texts (see in section 2.1.), but Matthew does not show this by contrasting Jesus’ activity with the expectation of Israel, which was not uniform anyway (see section 2.1 with n. 3). Rather, Matthew has removed Mark 11.10, which is ambiguous with regard to a political messianic expectation (cf. Deines 2005, 491). And with the insertion of the fulfillment quotation in vv. 4– 5, he portrays the acclamation  of the people as being in agreement with the promise of a gentle messiah. In terms of text pragmatics, it should be observed that Matthew seeks to convince the Jewish people in his area that Jesus is the anticipated savior. The crowds’ acclamation of the Son of David in the Gospel (as well as their predominantly positive image in general) is to be seen in this light. 56 Compare Brandscheidt 1990, 43; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:198, 203; Weren 1997b, 125; Keener 1999, 494–95; Luz 2001–2007, 3:4; and France 2008, 117, among others. There is no support in the text for the differentiation between the crowds who come to the festival in v. 9 and those already in the city in v. 11, as endorsed by Nolland 2005, 840 (see also Hagner 1993/1995, 2:596). It is just as implausible to attribute “the noisy reception that the crowd gives Jesus” to Jerusalem (Ritter 2003, 125; trans. K. Ess). 57 There is no indication that particularly the expectation of the eschatological prophet is in view here (see also, for example, Cousland 2002, 213–17; contra E. Lohmeyer 1962, 297; Sand 1974, 140– 41; Winkle 1986, 160– 61; Brandscheidt 1990, 44; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:127; and Novakovic 1997, 161).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

99

21.958 or to define their conception of the Son of David.59 In context, the question τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; does not ask the crowds who they think Jesus is;60 they have just announced that very thing. Rather, they are asked about the identity of the man that they acclaim as the Son of David.61 It is therefore actually striking that the crowds do not identify him simply as “Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee” but speak of the prophet Jesus. The significance  of this label is revealed when one observes the narrative arc that reaches from Matt 21 to 23.37–39, thus including Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem as the city that kills prophets (23.37). The connection between 21.9–11 and 23.37– 39 is further solidified when the words of the Psalm in the cry of  the crowds (21.9) appear again in 23.39.62 Thus in 21.11 Matthew alludes to the tradition of the violent fate of the prophets, as he does elsewhere in the Gospel,63 and so creates a subtle reference to Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem. With the insertion of ὁ προφήτης, Matthew is less concerned—if at all—with a further characterization of the insight of the ὄχλοι. Rather, this aspect is overshadowed by the interest in characterizing Jerusalem.64 This corresponds with the observation that ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις in 21.10 recalls the ταράσσεσθαι in 2.3. In both cases, Matthew speaks emphatically of the whole city (2.3: πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα), and it is the announcement of the coming of the Davidic Messiah that brings the city into turmoil.65 At the same time, a connecting line leads from 21.11 to 21.45– 46. Here, the chief priests and the Pharisees stop short of taking action against Jesus because they are afraid of the crowds, since the latter regard Jesus as a prophet. Here, too, the reference to Jesus as a prophet is due to Matthean redaction (cf. also 14.5). It is noteworthy here that, in the preceding parable of the wicked tenants, the murder of the landowner’s servants (21.35–36) 58

Contra Suhl 1968, 79; Verseput 1986, 25; Gielen 1998, 257, n. 13; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 117–18; Novakovic 2003, 90, 112–13; and Karrer 1991, 281, n. 214, who with regard to Matt 21.11 speaks of “a harsh anticlimax to 21.1–10” (trans. K. Ess). 59 Contra Kingsbury 1976, 600 (cf. Kingsbury 1975a, 101); Bauer 1995, 322, n. 47; and Cousland 2002, 224. 60 In the question, οὗτος is thus not to be replaced with “Jesus.” 61 Likewise, see Burger 1970, 85. See also N. Lohfink 1988, 189, n. 23 (this can “only  be about the question of identification” [trans. K. Ess]), and B. Weiss 1890, 350– 51. 62 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:125–26. 63 In addition to Matt 21.11 and 23.37, see also Matt 5.12; 21.35–36; 23.30–31, 34–36. For an analysis of the tradition, see Steck 1967. 64 This aspect is not taken into account by Cousland 2002, 222–24, who evaluates 21.11 as characterizing the crowds. Since he further treats the ὄχλοι as a single monolithic block and thus excludes a differentiation between the crowds in Jerusalem, active in 27.15– 25, and those ὄχλοι who accompany Jesus’ previous ministry, 21.11 becomes in his view  a bridge between their acclamation as Son of David in 21.9 and the later rejection of Jesus (223). Against this, see section 3.2. 65 On the analogy between Matt 2 and Matt 21, see the synopsis in Konradt 2007a, 201.

100

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

once again alludes to the tradition of the violent fate of the prophets. The Matthean addition of ἐπεὶ εἰς προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον in 21.46 is to be regarded primarily within this context. In other words, here too, it is not the purpose of Matthean redaction to emphasize that the crowds’ insight into Jesus’ identity has instantly regressed to a point below that of 12.23 or 21.9.66 Thus 21.11 does not serve to throw a shadow over the acclamation of the Son of David in 21.9 nor to disqualify the people’s reaction to Jesus. Rather, the narrative of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem constitutes the high point of the crowds’ positive reaction to Jesus, which thereby continues into the days of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem. This is underscored by 21.46; 22.33; and 23.1: the ὄχλοι continue to be impressed by Jesus and still remain on his side in Matt 21–23.67 Yet this does not make them disciples. Matthew clearly distinguishes the crowds not only from the authorities but also from the disciples, as— in addition to Matt 12.46–5068—particularly Matt 13.10–17 shows. Here the insightful disciples are set apart from the undiscerning crowds.69 In the 66

Contra Gielen 1998, 220. In contrast, Gielen 1998, 202, 220, 257–60, 320–21, postulates that the people are gradually distanced from Jesus in the course of Matt 21ff. (260), and that, after 12.22– 24, “an increasing indifference” is already introduced (320; trans. K. Ess). Gielen links this  with  the  proposal  that  the  portrayal  of  Jesus’  dwindling  influence  on  the  crowds  corresponds with the community’s own experiences (259, n. 26)—that is, the proposed Matthean narrative concept is regarded as a reflection of the historical development of the  community’s missionary effort in Israel. However, the main pillars of the thesis that the people gradually change sides are untenable interpretations of 21.9–11 and 22.33. In comparison with 12.23, 21.9 registers an advance in awareness, and this, as discussed above, is called into question neither by 21.11 nor by 21.46 (see the preceding discussion). Just as little of a regression is presented in 22.33, in comparison with 7.28–29 (see previous discussion with n. 27); and, as will be shown (see section 4.1.4 and section 4.3.3), one cannot argue that the differentiation between the crowds and the authorities developed in the preceding context is undermined in 22.1–14 or 23.34–24.1 (against Gielen 1998, 232–33, 242– 44, and 319–21, 342, respectively). The picture Gielen presents is further contradicted by 26.3–5, according to which the authorities seek to proceed deceitfully and to avoid the festival because they fear there may otherwise be a riot among the people. Finally, it should be noted that the chief priests and Pharisees still reckon with the influence of  Jesus’ disciples on the people in 27.64 as well. In short, Gielen’s thesis that the people are gradually distanced from Jesus is a construct that cannot be verified by the Matthean text. 68 Unlike Mark, Matthew explicitly relates Jesus’ saying about his siblings to the disciples (cf. section 4.4). The omission of the ὄχλος from Mark 8.34 in Matt 16.24 should further be noted: the admonition to take up one’s cross and follow Jesus is instruction to the disciples. On Matt 11.25–30, see section 4.3.1. 69 On the differentiation between the disciples and the crowds, see Cousland 2002, 247–56; and Meiser 1998, 232–35. Meiser’s portrayal in general, however, shows the problematic tendency to emphasize the differentiation between the disciples and the crowds, while the distinction between the authorities and the crowds (236– 42) is not sufficiently  clarified. Further, Meiser takes the latter distinction as applying only during the time of  67

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

101

narrative, the characterization of the crowds in that passage is unexpected. This is considered in detail in section 4.4. Here we can conclude that Matthew has repeatedly (contrary to his sources) relieved the “common people” in Jesus’ surroundings of negative characteristics at the expense of the Jewish authorities; created a direct contrast between the crowds and the religious authorities (together with Jerusalem) in the reaction to Jesus’ ministry (9.32–34; 12.22–24; 21.1–11); and finally, through a series of redactional interventions, sought to convey  the impression of a positive reaction to Jesus among the crowds, to the point that the christological insight—that Jesus is the promised Davidic Messiah in whom God attends to his people—has ripened within them. The question of whether they switch sides in Matt 26–27, as is often proposed, is considered in section 3.2 in the analysis of the Passion Narrative. 3.1.2 The Opposition to Jesus Prior to the Passion The preceding discussion has already repeatedly referred to the opposition that arose against Jesus, and it has become clear that, even into Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (Matt 21–23), it is in no way Israel as a whole that is hostile to Jesus. Rather, Matthew focuses the portrayal of opposition on the political and religious authorities, who are hostile to Jesus with striking consistency and without exception. It is well known that the Pharisees appear in Matthew as Jesus’ most significant opponents,70 whom the evangelist, in his penchant for groups of two, often pairs with the scribes.71 Analogously, he designates the political authorities—more concretely, the representatives of the Sanhedrin—often with the phrase οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ (οἱ) πρεσβύτεροι (τοῦ λαοῦ).72 Matthew draws a thoroughly grim picture of Jesus (260; against this, see chapter 7 with n. 15). It is then inconsistent when Meiser simultaneously  ascribes  current  significance  to  the  portrayal  of  the  authorities  in  9.34;  12.24; and 21.15–16 as “agents of active counterpropaganda” (260; trans. K. Ess), since in each of these passages they seek to combat the (budding) insight of the people (on these passages, see section 3.1.2.3 and section 3.1.2.5). With regard to the negative reactions, Meiser (238) appeals to texts such as 8.34 and 13.53–58, in which ὄχλος is not explicitly mentioned; in addition, 8.34 is about non-Jews. 70 Compare Hummel 1963, 12–14; Hultgren 1979, 189; and Repschinski 2000, 322– 23, 325– 26, and others. Especially significant are the redactional appearances of the Pharisees (see Matt 3.7; 5.20; 9.34; 12.24; 15.12[–14]; [16.11–12]; 21.45; 22.34, 41; 27.62; as well as the concentrated attack on the scribes and the Pharisees in Matt 23). This is addressed in more detail in the following discussion. 71 See Matt 5.20; 12.38; 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; compare 15.1; 23.2. 72 See Matt 26.3, 47; 27.1, 3, 12, 20. Matthew, in part, omits the scribes (cf. Mark 14.1 / Matt 26.3; Mark 14.43 / Matt 26.47; Mark 15.1 / Matt 27.1) but not consistently (Matt 26.57; 27.41).

102

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

these authorities—a reasonable scribe like the one in Mark 12.28–3473 has no place here.74 Internal differentiations, such as between Sadducees and Pharisees, recede from view.75 The opposition to Jesus unites the various groups among the political and religious authorities into one front, so that they can practically be treated as a “single character.”76 The following discussion analyzes the narrative development of the conflict in detail, first by considering the Gospel up to Matt 23, structured  according to the larger blocks of text.77 Section 3.1.3 then integrates the results of this analysis into a general view of Jesus’ opponents. 3.1.2.1  T   he Exposition of the Theme of Conflict in the  Prologue (Matt 1.1– 4.16)

The prologue’s function as a signal for the rest of the Gospel, which has been discussed previously, can also be seen in relation to the opposition to the Messiah: Matthew introduces the front that sets itself against Jesus already in 2.3– 6. The magi’s question about the newborn king of the Jews frightens not only Herod, the current king, but also the entire city of Jerusalem (2.3); 73

See section 3.1.2.5. Even the ἀρχισυνάγωγος Jairus from Mark 5.22 has become merely an ἄρχων in Matt 9.18. The comparison with Luke is also instructive: significantly, Matthew does not  depict any open contact between Jesus and Pharisees (such as in Luke 7.36ff., 11.37, and 14.1) or even Pharisees who seek to protect Jesus (Luke 13.31; cf. Acts 5.34–39). At most, the scribe in 8.19–20—who is nonetheless dismissed—stands out somewhat from the grim overall image in Matthew. 75 As is well known, Matthew even presents Pharisees and Sadducees together (3.7; 16.1; see also 22.23– 40). 76 Kingsbury 1987, 58. Compare Walker 1967, 11–33; van Tilborg 1972, 1– 6. This is not to deny Matthew’s ability to distinguish between the groups, which is revealed in his configuration of individual scenes of conflict (see Gielen 1998, passim). In their opposition  to Jesus, however, they constitute a unified front with common features. 77 The structural outline of the Gospel of Matthew is chronically disputed and difficult to determine (cf., for example, Luz 2001– 2007, 1:1– 13). I take as a starting point the  premise that the outline must be based on the narrative progression. The five discourses are  a striking feature of the Gospel, but they are not suitable as a central criterion for defining  its macrostructure (contra Bacon 1930, xiv–xvii, 145–335 [cf. Bacon 1980, 48–50]; and C. R. Smith 1997). In my opinion, 4.17 (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς κηρύσσειν . . .) and 16.21 (ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς δεικνύνειν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ . . .) constitute important points of transition (cf. Kingsbury 1975a, 7–25; and Bauer 1988, 73–108, among others; on 4.17 and 16.21 as bridges rather than sharp caesuras, see Neirynck 1988, 55), yet these blocks of texts must be further subdivided. After the foundational presentation of Jesus’ ministry and the commission of the disciples in 4.17–11.1 (on the structure of this section, see section 2.2.1), the theme of reaction to Jesus emerges more markedly in 11.2–16.20. 16.21–28.20 can be subdivided into the sections 16.21–20.34; 21–25; 26–28 (cf. Howell 1990, 115–58, among others; see also Carter 1992, 472–81, who, however, conceives of 21.1–27.66 as a single unit). 74

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

103

furthermore, the chief priests and the scribes, who serve as a reference to the political and religious authorities, appear on Herod’s side. Through the magi’s mention of the “newborn king of the Jews” (2.2) and the simultaneous reference to king Herod,78 Matthew brings to the reader’s attention that Herod perceived Jesus’ birth as a danger to his position as ruler.79 By asking about the birthplace of the Christ (2.4), Herod reveals that he has realized who is being discussed,80 as do the scribes with their answer (2.5– 6). From here on, the task of shepherding the people of God belongs to the Messiah-king. Herod and the Jewish authorities collaborating with him81 should have subordinated themselves to Jesus82—but this is precisely what does not happen. The knowledge of the birth of the Messiah, which does not lead to the one appropriate reaction, embodied by the Gentile magi, of proskynesis before the child (2.2, 11), and the superficial scriptural knowledge of the scribes who do not understand with their hearts (cf. 15.7–8), are more than just bitter irony.83 Rather, Matthew reveals here a fundamental motif for the setting of conflict: the authorities attempt to secure their own  position against that of the legitimate messianic ruler.84 Herod, using the magi as instruments for his own purposes, deceitfully tries to murder the messianic king, and the priests and scribes, “rather than preparing Jerusalem for the Messiah’s coming in light of the magi’s message, make their knowledge available to the Messiah’s enemy and, in doing so, place him in mortal danger.”85 With this scene, Matthew gives an indication of Jesus’ fate in Jerusalem86 and generally points toward the consistent opposition of the political and religious authorities to the one who, as the Messiah-king, calls 78

Compare, for example, Bauer 1995, 308–13; and Weaver 1996, 182–87.

79 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:238; Gundry 1994, 26; Bauer 1995, 314;

and Gielen 1998, 30. It should be kept in mind here that Herod himself was an Idumean, not a Davidide. 80 Compare Gielen 1998, 30. 81 Nothing in Matt 2.3– 6 indicates that the chief priests and scribes are unaware of Herod’s hostile attitude toward the “newborn king of the Jews” (against Powell 1990, 605; Feneberg 2009, 124; Ploner 2011, 114–15). 82 This is not affected by the fact that Matthew does not portray Jesus as a political leader. 83 An ironic element in Matt 2 is noted by, for example, Senior 1985, 21; Kingsbury 1987, 65; Howell 1990, 240; and Olmstead 2003, 50. 84 Compare Gielen 1998, 30. Bauer 1995, 317–18, aptly notes: “Even as Herod’s opposition is motivated by a sense of threat to his power and control over the people, so the religious leaders are motivated by a sense of their loss of control of the people as it passes into the hands of Jesus and by a desire to reclaim this power and control. For one thing, the conflict between  Jesus and the religious leaders involves a power struggle over the control of the crowds.” 85 Gielen 1998, 31 (trans. K. Ess). Compare also Gielen 1998, 34. 86 On this, see Bauer 1995, 316–17.

104

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

their leadership into question. Herod’s attempt at murder fails due to divine intervention (2.12ff.), and so Herod appears as a “secondary player”87— events are actually determined by God. In Matt 26.3–5, the chief priests and elders gather in order to get Jesus out of their way by deceit (26.4). Their attempt also ultimately fails due to the intervention of God, who resurrects  the  crucified  Messiah.  Thus,  as  becomes  clear  in  section  3.2,  the chief priests and elders are also “secondary players.”88 In Matt 2, the title of “king” strikingly appears with Herod’s name only in 2.1, 3, 9; it no longer appears after the magi have paid homage to the “newborn king of the Jews.”89 This is hardly a matter of chance but rather suggests that, from this point on, Jesus is the true king of Israel.90 In Matt (26–)28, this  corresponds  with  the  final  presentation  of  the  resurrected  Christ  as  the true universal Lord (28.16–20). In Matthew’s view, the authorities, by contrast, have forfeited their leadership role, as is developed in detail later.91 In short, Herod’s unsuccessful attempt to assert his own rule over against the Messiah reads as a multifaceted foreshadowing of the Jewish authorities’ opposition to Jesus. Accordingly, Matthew incorporates them, in the form of the chief priests and scribes, into Herod’s attempt already in 2.4– 6. Finally, the expositional nature of Matt 2 becomes evident in that Matthew portrays not only Herod himself but also “all Jerusalem” as alarmed by the message of the Messiah’s birth. The resumption of this motif from 2.3 in 21.10 has already been mentioned in section 3.1. The role of Jerusalem is further outlined in Matthew by the three proclamations of Jesus’ suffering. Already in the first proclamation (Matt 16.21), Jerusalem is explicitly  named, in contrast to Mark, where Jerusalem is not named until the third proclamation (see Mark 10.33–34 / Matt 20.18–19). If συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ in 17.22 refers to the gathering for the pilgrimage,92 then Matthew has taken up the geographical motif from 16.21 in the introduction of the second proclamation of Jesus’ passion and strengthened it so that Jerusalem is indicated in all three proclamations of the passion.93 87 Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:384 (trans. K. Ess). Gnilka refers here to the chief priests and elders in Matt 26.3, yet this characterization is likewise applicable in Matt 2. 88 For the phrase, see n. 87. On this topic, see section 3.2. 89 See Matt 2.12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22. 90 Compare Nolan 1979, 39: “The omission of the title suggests that the kingship has returned to lowly Bethlehem at 2:11. The indubitable irony surrounding the act of homage in 2:2, 8, 11 favours the detection of significance in the absence of ‘king’ as the action  progresses.” 91 See, first of all, section 4.1.3 on the parable of the wicked tenants in Matt 21.33– 46. 92 See Verseput 1994, 109–11. The placement of the temple tax collection in Matt 17.24–27 makes good sense chronologically (see Verseput 1994, 111–12). 93 On the orientation toward Jerusalem from 16.21 on, see section 3.1.2.4 with n. 193.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

105

Matthew’s introduction of Jerusalem already in 2.3 corresponds with the emphasis on the city’s role as the location of Jesus’ suffering. At the same time, it is worth noting that in 2.3 Jerusalem is not spoken of as actively on Herod’s side. Similarly, 21.10 mentions only that the whole city was “shaken” but does not speak of hostile activities. These stem, rather, from the authorities. It is not until 27.20 that the people (of Jerusalem94) are drawn to their side.95 And it is precisely the fact that the city is under the aegis of the old authorities and allows itself to be influenced by them that  will determine its fate.96 In view of the interconnections between 2.3 and 21.10, we can conclude that Jerusalem in 2.3 does not serve as a pars pro toto to represent all Israel,97 given that, as we have seen, Jerusalem appears in 21.10–11 in contrast with Jewish crowds. Next, the Matthean version of John the Baptist’s proclamation in 3.1– 12 offers a characteristic view of the configuration of conflict in the Gospel  of Matthew. In Mark 1.5, the whole Judean countryside and all Jerusalem are said to go out to John in order to be baptized by him. Due to the placement of John’s proclamation of judgment from Q 3.7–9 in Matt 3.7– 10 and its being addressed, secondarily,98 to the Pharisees and Sadducees (cf. 16.1–12),99 the common people who confess their sins and are baptized by John (3.5– 6)100 stand in contrast to the authorities. 94

On this, see section 3.2. See n. 100 on Matt 3.5. 96 See in more detail section 3.2, within the interpretation of Matt 27.11–26. 97 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:238: “Jerusalem does not stand for the entire Jewish community. Instead she represents those in charge, the Jewish leadership.” This underscores the fact that one must be cautious with generalizations and hypotheses of representation in discussions of Matt 2.3– 4 and 21.10. For example, Frankemölle 1984, 204, n. 50, suggests that these verses show the Matthean “tendency toward totality and uniformity characterized by solidarity within the complex ‘Israel’ ” (trans. K. Ess). For criticism of the representation hypothesis, see also, for example, Levine 1999, 33; and Ritter 2003, 124. In later publications, Frankemölle himself becomes critical of such hypotheses (see, for example, Frankemölle 1999, 92). 98 On the Matthean redaction, cf. section 3.1.1, n. 11. 99 On the striking combination of Pharisees and Sadducees, see section 3.1.2.3 in the discussion of Matt 16.1–12. 100 The resonance that John generates—in contrast with the response that Jesus evokes according to 4.25—is limited to the south, according to the geographical details given in 3.5 (cf. Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:179; and Nolland 2005, 140; contra Fiedler 2006, 73). Following Mark 1.5, Jerusalem is also included in Matt 3.5. However, Matthew has changed οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες into Ἱεροσόλυμα and thereby—despite placing it  first— has  somewhat  weakened  the  statement;  in  any  case,  in  comparison  with  Matt  2.3; 21.10—and also alongside πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου in 3.5—the lack of πᾶσα is striking. One can further point to the fact that this passage is not concerned with the appearance of the Messiah but rather just an eschatological preacher of repentance. Nevertheless, Matt 3.5 reveals that Matthew does not situate the population 95

106

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Unlike the Lukan infinitive construction βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, the phrase ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ in Matt 3.7 need not indicate that the Pharisees and Sadducees have come with the intention of being baptized.101 Matt 3.7 is rather to be understood such that they have come to the place where John is baptizing,102 in view of the circumstances described in vv. 5– 6, in order to form an opinion about the situation.103 This  interpretation  is  substantiated,  first  of  all,  by  the  smoother  connection it creates with John’s message of judgment: because the Pharisees and Sadducees have not come in order to be baptized and thus do not show themselves to be repentant, they have to endure the invective label “brood of vipers” and the warning to bear fruit worthy of repentance, which bears a threatening tone in view of the imminence of God’s wrath (vv. 7b, 10).104 In addition, it should be noted that, in the context of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew has repeatedly constructed analogous constellations: the authorities make an appearance following positive reactions among the people and stand in contrast with them (9.33–34; 12.23–24; 21.14–17).105 Finally, the proposed interpretation of ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ  in  3.7  is  confirmed  in  that,  in  21.25,  32,  it  is  noted  that  the  authorities, here the priests and the elders, did not believe John (cf. also Matt 17.12). of Jerusalem in toto within the grim portrait that he paints of the authorities. This fits with the fact that, as seen above, Jerusalem does not play an active role against Jesus in 2.3. 101 In contrast, ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ is taken in the sense of “to be baptized” by, for example, Häfner 1994, 53; Gielen 1998, 49–50, 52; and Nolland 2005, 412; see also Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:68; and Fiedler 2006, 75. 102 The distinction between Matt 3.7 and the statement in 3.13, which goes beyond Mark 1.9, is instructive: Jesus comes ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ. Here, too, a location is introduced with ἐπί, but the infinitive  construction— a kin to Luke 3.7— explicitly identifies the purpose of Jesus’ coming. 103 In this vein, see also Webb 1991, 175, with n. 32; Gundry 1994, 46; Tuckett 2004, 113; and Kennedy 2008, 168– 70. See further the reflections of Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 1:304, as well as Hagner 1993/1995, 1:49. 104 The introductory question—τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς—is either to be read as sarcasm (so, for example, Gundry 1994, 46), in which John the Baptist ironically implies that the Pharisees and Sadducees might want to be baptized (cf. also France 2007, 110), or v. 7b is to be taken as an accusatory question as to who has told them that they can escape the coming wrath. Verse 7b would then reflect the self-  understanding of the Pharisees and Sadducees that the coming wrath will not affect them. This fits well with v. 9. 105 On the reading suggested here, ὑμᾶς  in  3.11  is  difficult,  yet  v.  11fin.  (αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί) already makes clear that in vv. 11–12 Matthew has expanded the audience of John’s speech, or changed it, since the announcement of the baptism with the Holy Spirit—according to the narrative concept of the Gospel—clearly is not fulfilled in the Pharisees and Sadducees. Compare Davies and Allison 1988– 1997,  1:312; Gundry 1994, 49; Häfner 1994, 74; and France 2007, 112.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

107

The invective γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν points to the authorities’ inherent malice.106 This forms a sharp contrast to the authorities’ self-image, based on Israel’s election, as children of Abraham (v. 9): because of their wickedness, their status as children of Abraham will be of no use to them. The continued narrative shows that the Baptist’s call to repentance (3.8) has fallen on deaf ears among the authorities. With 3.7–10, right at the beginning of the Gospel, a perspective of judgment is constructed that pertains to the authorities. This is considered in detail in chapter 4. Here we can already observe that, while the proclamation of judgment may have been aimed at Israel in the Q source,107 in the context of the Gospel of Matthew, it is not (anymore) directed at Israel108 but specifically at the authorities. 3.1.2.2  T   he Theme of Conflict within the Foundational Presentation of Jesus’  (and His Disciples’) Ministry in Matt 4.17–11.1

In the context of the foundational presentation of Jesus’ (and his disciples’) ministry in 4.17–11.1, the aspect of the reaction to Jesus’ ministry, or Jesus’ conflict  with  the  authorities,  does  not  yet  stand  in  the  foreground  of  the  narrative—it does not become a dominant theme until the following section, 11.2– 16.20. Nonetheless, the motif of conflict does continue through  4.17–11.1, emerging in individual passages. Thus, already in 5.20(– 48), an important passage in the Sermon on the Mount,109 the tense relationship with the scribes and Pharisees becomes clear in  that  their  righteousness  is  dismissed  as  insufficient  in  5.20.  The  reason  for this judgment is to be drawn from the preceding context—namely, that the scribes and Pharisees neglect not just “iotas and pen-strokes” (5.18) but, in the words of 23.23, τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου110 (i.e., the socioethical commandments, which are of central importance to Matthew).111 Accordingly, in 106 The ἔχιδνα is a deadly venomous snake. Compare T. Ab. A 19.14–15; and Acts 28.3– 6; see also Herodotus, Hist. 3.109. 107 On Q, see, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 1:137. 108 Contra, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:70. 109 Matt 5.20 concludes the programmatic introduction to the body of the Sermon on the Mount (5.17–7.12) and at the same time serves as a premise for 5.21– 48. On the structure, see Burchard 1998b, 33–50. 110 One can ultimately only speculate about the redactional or pre-Matthean origin of τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου. Matthean redaction is favored by Sand 1974, 40; Barth 1975, 58, 74–75; Garland 1979, 137–38; Frankemölle 1984, 301; Kosch 1989, 113–14; and Tuckett 2004, 409. Pre-Matthean origin is supported by Luz 2001–2007, 3:121, with n. 68. 111 On this reading, see Konradt 2006, 133. I presume here that 5.19 does not refer to exclusion from salvation (contra, for example, Gielen 1998, 67– 68; and Sim 1998a, esp. 583– 84) but rather states that those who neglect the iotas and pen strokes run the risk of receiving lower positions in the kingdom of heaven (cf. Broer 1980, 52–53). Narratologically,

108

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

5.21– 48, examples from areas of ethical importance illustrate the scribes’ and Pharisees’ interpretation of the law, which underlies their level of righteousness,  dismissed  as  insufficient  in  5.20. In the antitheses,  this  interpretation  of the law is presented as a foil for Jesus’ teachings, which reveal the deeper intention and full meaning of the Torah and the Prophets (cf. 5.17).112 In terms of the larger narrative context of the Gospel, 5.17– 48 functions as a sort of programmatic passage that sets the direction for the scenes of conflict that  follow, where the correct interpretation of the Torah is continually at issue. Just as 5.20– 48 thus presents an important area of conflict already in  Jesus’ first discourse, so too do the first confrontations  with scribes  and  Pharisees occur already in Matt 8–9 within the depiction of Jesus’ authoritative activity. Here it is not the healing itself that brings the authorities onto the scene; they do not yet appear as actors in the depiction of Jesus’ therapeutic activity in 8.1–17, which introduces the arrangement of Matt 8–9. Rather, they are drawn out by Jesus’ claim (in 9.2–8) to the authority to forgive sins, onto which Matthew has shifted the weight of the pericope, in contrast to the Markan text, through the radical abridgment of Mark 2.2– 4 and the reformulation of the crowds’ reaction in 9.8.113 Here we must take into account, on the one hand, that Matthew has intimately connected Jesus’ therapeutic ministry with his role as the Davidic Messiah114 and, on the other, that in 1.21 his central task is presented as being to “save his people from their sins.” The opposition of the scribes is to be seen within this context. In 2.4– 6, the scribes themselves, on the basis of Scripture, have presented the Messiah’s task as shepherding Israel. At that time, they showed themselves to be allied with Herod and thus revealed their wickedness and blindness. Now when Jesus for the first time expresses the soteriological  dimension of his ministry that is connected with his healing activity— and thus his authority as the Davidic-Messianic shepherd of Israel—the scribes’ opposition takes shape (once again), and Matthew now explicitly depicts their thoughts as malicious (9.4).115 Matthew’s compositional it should be pointed out that, up to 5.20, Matthew has not yet depicted a single episode that substantiates the judgment given here; the unrighteousness of the Pharisees—or in Matthean terms, their ἀνομία (cf. 23.38!)—is presumed as fact from the beginning. 112 In my opinion, Matthew does not regard the theses simply as statements of the Torah (contra, for example, Broer 1980, 75– 81; Eckstein 1997, 396– 403; Sim 1998b, 129; Niebuhr 1999, 176– 77; and Luz 2001– 2007, 1:229– 30) but rather Torah as it is deficiently  understood by the scribes and Pharisees (in this vein, see also Dietzfelbinger 1979, 3; H.-W. Kuhn 1989, 213–18; Burchard 1998b, 40– 44; and Charles 2002, 8). For the argument behind this reading, see Konradt 2006, 130– 41. Compare most recently Blanton 2013, 404–9. 113 Compare Held 1975, 166– 67; and Gielen 1998, 91. 114 See section 2.1.3. 115 Matthew has reduced the words of the scribes to the key accusation of blasphemy, which thus acquires the full emphasis. Compare Gielen 1998, 91: “The Matthean

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

109

positioning of the narrative adapted from Mark 2.1–12 as the first confrontation accords well with the finding that the leitmotifs revealed in the  prologue are the model for 9.2–8—both are concerned with the malicious opposition against the messianic shepherd who has been sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” to save them from their sins. Further, the interconnections between the Passion Narrative and 9.2– 8 are noteworthy:116 only in 9.3 and 26.65 is Jesus accused of blasphemy. There too Jesus’ status is at issue, and there too Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of Man—this time mentioning his exaltation at the right hand of God. These connections underscore that the first confrontation addresses  the heart of the authorities’ hostility: their opposition is directed against Jesus’ exceptional authority.117 While the scribes do not yet openly criticize Jesus in 9.2– 8, the following scene in 9.10–13 goes one step further: the Pharisees do not yet address Jesus directly, but they do express their criticism of Jesus to his disciples, not just ἐν ἑαυτοῖς as the scribes had done in 9.3– 4. The point of conflict— namely, Jesus’ care for sinners and tax collectors, expressed  in table fellowship—connects directly with the preceding controversy about the forgiveness of sins.118 Moreover, Matthew directs the reader’s attention  to  the  fact  that  the  conflict  concerns  the  correct  understanding of God’s will in that the Pharisees speak of Jesus as ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν in posing their critical question to the disciples. The insertion of the quotation from Hos 6.6 in Jesus’ reply (Matt 9.13) picks up on this element.119 While the Pharisees’ question implies the charge that Jesus’ behavior calls into question his competence as a teacher, Jesus’ reply reverses the accusation through the inclusion of Hos 6.6: it is in fact the Pharisees who need to study the Scriptures (πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε), whereas Jesus’ behavior is fully harmonious with Scripture’s central demand, as shown by Hos 6.6. Jesus proves himself to be the one true teacher (cf. 23.10). The words of the prophet are significant for Matthew  not only in terms of their positive aspect (ἔλεος) as a characterization of Jesus’ Torah-hermeneutic; θυσία also functions almost as a motto to scribes . . . in contrast to the Markan scribes, lack any trace of uncertainty or questioning of their own opinion, and instead pass categorical judgment: ‘this man blasphemes God’ ” (trans. K. Ess). On this, compare Hummel 1963, 37; and Gundry 1994, 164. 116 Compare Repschinski 2000, 68, 70. 117 At the same time, with regard to 9.2– 8, this connection makes clear that it is the authority of the judge of the world in which Jesus grants forgiveness of sins, and this occurs with a view toward the final judgment (cf. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:28). 118 See section 2.1.3. 119 Repschinski 2000, 78, rightly notes that the Pharisees’ reference to Jesus as teacher in 9.11 prepares for the insertion of the scriptural citation in 9.13.

110

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

characterize the Pharisees’ agenda.120 Considered in the context of 5.17– 20, the conflict appears as a first illustration of Jesus’ fulfillment of God’s  will as expressed in the Torah and the Prophets,121 whereas the Pharisees fall short of the great commandments. Finally, at the end of the cycle, the Pharisees appear again in 9.32–34. As mentioned previously in section 2.2.1, the central function of the text is to paradigmatically expose the divergent reactions of the crowds and the authorities. There is no reaction from Jesus here. In Matt 5– 9, the conflict  is not yet the central theme, as has been discussed; here, the presentation of Jesus’ authoritative teaching and activity stands in the foreground. The accent shifts significantly in Matt 11.2– 16.20. 3.1.2.3  The Intensification of the Conflict in Matt 11.2– 16.20

With John the Baptist’s inquiry in 11.2–3, Matthew introduces a new thematic focal point in his Jesus story: there is now an increased concern with the varying reactions to Jesus’ ministry122 and the varying answers to the question of Jesus’ identity. Matt 16.13–20 picks up on precisely this question (and the plurality of answers to it) and leads to a provisional conclusion: the community of the disciples is established on the confession of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God (16.15–19). Christological insight is growing in the crowds (12.23), yet Matthew now clearly distinguishes the disciples from them (12.46–50; 13.10–17123). Nevertheless, the crowds remain decidedly distinct from the authorities, whose opposition to Jesus now acquires a new quality. This intensification of the conflict becomes apparent in the debate about  the Sabbath in 12.1–14. The observance of the Sabbath is among the central Jewish “identity markers,” and the controversies in Matt 12 thus touch on a sensitive point. Whereas the scribes in 9.3 accuse Jesus of blasphemy “only” ἐν ἑαυτοῖς and the Pharisees in 9.11 address Jesus’ disciples, now they approach Jesus directly for the first time (12.2).124 In Matthew’s version, an intensified tone is revealed already with the Pharisees’ statement  120

Compare Gielen 1998, 98–99. This contextual connection dovetails with the fact that the logion in 9.13b, which follows the Hosea citation and relates it to Jesus’ ministry, is the second saying (after 5.17) in which Jesus articulates the purpose of his having come. 122 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:294: “The issue now becomes response to Jesus” (emphasis original). 123 The two feeding miracles in 14.13–21 and 15.32–39, where the disciples appear as mediators between Jesus and the crowds (14.19; 15.36), should also be situated here. See section 6.1. 124 Compare Kingsbury 1987, 68–69. 121

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

111

in v. 2, insofar as Matthew has the Pharisees immediately claim that there has been a transgression of the law, rather than first asking about a possible  reason for the disciples’ behavior.125 But, once again, they are revealed to be the ones who do not understand. It is of vital significance that Matthew refers to the disciples’ hunger in the  narrative framework. This not only serves the analogy with the story of David to which Matthew refers in vv. 3– 4126 but, above all, prepares for the halakic argument that Matthew inserts in vv. 5–7.127 There, the Matthean Jesus argues on the grounds of the hierarchy within the commandments and, in doing so, once again appeals to Hos 6.6:128 if temple service supersedes the Sabbath law (Matt 12.5; cf. Num 28.9–10; further t. Šabb. 15.16), then mercy does so all the more, since the words of the prophet show that mercy  takes  priority  over  sacrifice  (12.7)  and  is  thus  greater129 than the temple (12.6). The disciples are therefore—like the priests in the temple— innocent. With their accusation, the Pharisees have once again revealed their own ignorance of Scripture.130 Seen in light of 9.10–13, they have demonstrated in particular that they have turned a deaf ear to Jesus’ command 125

Gielen 1998, 108, aptly observes that, with the form of their accusation, the Pharisees exclude “from the start the possibility that there might be a justifiable reason for the  disciples’ action” (trans. K. Ess). See also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:306. Compare Mark 2.24: καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί(!) ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 126 On this connection, see Verseput 1986, 158; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:443, 444; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:306, among others. 127 In contrast, Yang 1997, 166, sees in ἐπείνασαν simply “a stylistic addition” and expressly denies the significance of mentioning hunger as a basis for 12.(5– )7 (168). 128 Compare Mayer-Haas 2003, 443, 487; and Deines 2005, 485. On the differentiation of significance within the commandments as an important element of the Matthean  hermeneutic of law, see Konradt 2006, 132–33, 143, 145– 49. 129 μεῖζον is defined in the context by ἔλεος (likewise Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:133; Gielen 1998, 109–10, 115; Doering 1999, 433–34; Luz 2001–2007, 2:181– 82; and Fiedler 2006, 247– 48; see also Mayer-Haas 2003, 444: “worth consideration” [trans. K. Ess]). The reference to Jesus himself, which is postulated by most interpreters (see Brandon 1951, 228–29; Hummel 1963, 42, 44; Barth 1975, 76; Sand 1986, 255; Verseput 1986, 164– 65; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:444; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:314; Gundry 1994, 223; Kupp 1996, 75–76; Lybæk 1997, 492–93; Yang 1997, 176–77, 180– 81; Sim 1998b, 137; Thielman 1999, 65; Repschinski 2000, 100; Vahrenhorst 2002, 383 with n. 13; Boerman 2005, 323–24; Deines 2005, 486 with n. 85; Nolland 2005, 484; and Gurtner 2008, 135, among others), is unlikely due to the neuter form. Christological overtones nevertheless resonate, since Jesus himself “embodies in his person the interpretation of Torah that is oriented toward compassion as the highest divine will” (Mayer-Haas 2003, 444 [trans. K. Ess]). 130 Due to the insertion of 12.5–7, the motif of the Pharisees’ lack of scriptural knowledge emerges much more strongly than in the Markan version: not only do they need to be reminded of the setting in the Davidic narrative (Matt 12.3– 4 / Mark 2.25–26); they have also evidently not read the provision regarding temple service on the Sabbath (see the repeated οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε in 12.5) and have certainly not understood the prophetic message of Hos 6.6 (12.7).

112

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in 9.13a:131 they refuse to accept the instruction of Jesus, the true teacher, in order to surmount their shortcomings—they still understand nothing of the central demand for mercy. Here, in contrast with 9.13, Jesus no longer tells them to study but, with the irrealis in 12.7, simply states that they have not learned their lesson.132 The authorities’ ignorance of mercy also characterizes the Matthean version of the Sabbath controversy that follows in 12.9–14, which is linked directly with 12.1–8 by the redactional segue καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν.133 Here, too, the conflict with the Pharisees is sharper than in the Markan version:  in contrast with Mark, rather than waiting to see whether Jesus will heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, the Pharisees here confront him directly and fundamentally with the question, “Is it permitted to heal on the Sabbath?”134 This change corresponds with the fact that Matthew has skipped over Mark 3.3, whereby the man with the withered hand fades into the background, while the evangelist expands the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees by inserting a significant argument in Matt 12.11–  12a.135 The conflict with the Pharisees thus takes center stage.136 The Pharisees’ aim, according to v. 10, is to get Jesus to provide them with grounds for an accusation (cf. Mark 3.2). Following the controversy in 12.1–8 with Jesus’ emphasis on mercy, they can presume that Jesus will heal the man and thus—according to their understanding of Torah—break the Sabbath with a forbidden activity. Verse 10, in other words, makes it clear that Jesus’ argument in 12.3–8 does not cause the Pharisees to reconsider their viewpoint;137 rather, their knowledge of Jesus’ position only enables them to provoke him purposefully and with the hope of success. The battle lines have long since been drawn—indeed, since the very beginning. The Pharisees have, of course, miscalculated; before Jesus heals the man, he exposes his opponents in a short halakic discourse, in which he confronts the Pharisees with their own Sabbath practice. They would, without 131

Compare Anderson 1994, 109–10; Gielen 1998, 110; Repschinski 2000, 100–101, 305; Fiedler 2006, 248. In contrast, Landmesser 2001, 111, 126–28, reads Matt 9.13 as directed at the disciples. This is implausible in the context, as the verse is part of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees’ accusation in v. 11. 132 Compare Gundry 1994, 224; Gielen 1998, 110; and Repschinski 2000, 100–101, 305. 133 Compare Yang 1997, 140, 197–98; Gielen 1998, 120; and Mayer-Haas 2003, 448. 134 Compare Gundry 1994, 225; Yang 1997, 198–99, 212; Doering 1999, 457; Repschinski 2000, 109; and Vahrenhorst 2002, 384. 135 This argument is not a free creation of the evangelist, but rather stems from tradition, as shown by Luke 13.15–16; 14.5 (see Doering 1999, 457–59). 136 Compare Barth 1975, 73; Harrington 1991c, 50, 51; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:186, among others. 137 Compare Gielen 1998, 118–19; and Hays 2005, 181–82 (on Matt 12.7).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

113

question, help a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (v. 11).138 Given that a person is much more valuable than a sheep (v. 12a), the Pharisees’ own practice necessarily implies that a human being is to be helped all the more (v. 12b).139 The wording of Jesus’ deduction in v. 12b directly takes up the wording of the Pharisees’ question from v. 10, except that καλῶς ποιεῖν replaces θεραπεύειν, thereby qualifying and interpreting the verb.140 The fact that the Pharisees do not draw the conclusion of v. 12b, which for the evangelist has no alternative, reveals the irrationality of their halakah. In other words, with his argumentation, Jesus exposes the Pharisees’ hostility toward him and their mercilessness toward humanity; they do not have in mind καλῶς ποιεῖν. Just  as  Jesus  is  approached  directly  for  the  first  time  in  12.2,  there is  also  a  further  level  in  the  intensification  of  the  conflict  to  be  seen  in  12.9–14: whereas in 12.2, the Pharisees addressed the disciples’ behavior, now—as before in 9.2–13 but now in a direct confrontation—Jesus’ own activity is in view.141 The end of the controversy in 12.9–14 corresponds with this development. According to v. 10, as we have seen, the Pharisees sought to obtain grounds for an accusation. Their silence at the end indicates their failure to do so. Instead, they go out142 and resolve to destroy Jesus. The Pharisees, “who see their own theological-religious principles called into question by Jesus’ position,”143 cannot stand up against Jesus’ 138

That this would be self-evident, however, is not indicated in any Jewish texts. Rather, in CD XI, 13–14, a different halakah is found: “No-one should help an animal give birth on the sabbath day. And if ‹it falls› into a well or a pit, he should not take it out on  the sabbath” (trans. García Martínez/Tigchelaar; cf. 4Q265 7 I, 6–7). b. Šabb. 128b does allow for assistance: “If an animal falls into a dyke, one brings pillows and bedding and places [them] under it, and if it ascends it ascends” (trans. H. Freedman). See further the discussion in t. Šabb. 15.11–16! 139 If healing is therefore not to be included among the work that is forbidden on the Sabbath (cf. Mayer-Haas 2003, 452), it must at the same time be noted that while Matthew takes up the halakic discussion, the definition of a nuanced Sabbath halakah loses  relevance due to 12.5–7 and the principle established in 12.12b—indeed, it tends toward becoming obsolete. Compare Doering 1999, 462: “It does appear that the Matthean community adheres to Sabbath observation . . . But the fundamental determining perspective of love no longer allows for an authoritative halakic regulation” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). See also Doering 1999, 435–36. 140 In the larger context, καλῶς ποιεῖν continues the emphasis on ἔλεος from 12.5–7. In other words, Matt 12.9–14 illustrates the primacy of compassion put forward in 12.5–7 (cf. D. Hill 1978, 115–16; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:320; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:134–35; Yang 1997, 206–7; Gielen 1998, 119; Luz 2001–2007, 2:188; Vahrenhorst 2002, 388; and Mayer-Haas 2003, 448– 49, 452). 141 Compare Kingsbury 1987, 69. 142 Matthew has omitted the reference to the Herodians in Mark 3.6. His interest is in the Pharisees. 143 Gielen 1998, 124 (trans. K. Ess).

114

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

argumentation in the evangelist’s portrayal and, in addition, have to watch as Jesus draws crowds. Thus they seek to gain control of the situation by attempting to eliminate their rival. The conflict has become deadly.144 The use of the phrase συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν in v. 14, which appears repeatedly in the Jerusalem chapters, underscores this new stage in the developing conflict.145 Jesus’ withdrawal when he—as Matthew expressly inserts—recognized their plan (12.15a) is to be seen against this background of the conflict’s  intensification.146 With the use of ἀναχωρεῖν (cf. Mark 3.7), the passage is linked with chapter 2, where the same verb appears in reference to the  flight  from  Herod  (2.14)  and  later  from  his  son  Archelaus  (2.22).147 The Pharisees are following in Herod’s footsteps. Their basic motive is analogous to Herod’s: they are concerned with bringing down a competitor who is threatening their position. Through the addition of the fulfillment quotation in 12.18–21, Matthew emphasizes the Pharisees’ distance from God, as the one whom they seek to destroy is shown by Scripture to be God’s beloved παῖς, in whom God is well pleased. The Pharisees’ course of action thus stands in sharp contrast to God’s delight in Jesus.148 The crowds, on the other hand, remain on Jesus’ side: they follow him in droves and are healed by him (12.15). Precisely this positive resonance constitutes the context of the next scene of conflict in Matt 12.22– 24. Here,  as explained previously, Matthew presents a variation of 9.32–34. In the meantime, the crowds’ christological insight has matured: they begin to consider that Jesus might be the Davidic Messiah.149 This thought from the crowds calls the Pharisees to action: Jesus’ ministry does not prove that he is the Messiah but that he is in league with the devil. With ἀκούσαντες in 12.24, explicit reference is made to the crowds’ question, and it is made clear that there are not just two differing reactions to the healing being presented; the Pharisees’ charge is more specifically a reaction to the words of the crowds.150 It is not the healing itself 144

Compare Kingsbury 1987, 69–70; and Gielen 1998, 119–20. See Matt 22.15; 27.1, 7; 28.12. 146 Here Matthew adopts Mark 3.7, but due to the insertion of γνούς, the connection with the Pharisees’ plan is more strongly emphasized. 147 See further 2.12–13 of the magi who elude Herod, as well as 4.12, where Jesus withdraws to Galilee on hearing the news of John the Baptist’s imprisonment. 148 Compare, for example, Yang 1997, 218. 149 See section 3.1.1. 150 Compare Zahn 1922, 455, with n. 71; Hummel 1963, 123; Sand 1986, 261; Verseput 1987, 535; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:457; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:335; Gundry 1994, 232; Gielen 1998, 126, 128; Repschinski 2000, 122; Novakovic 2003, 82; and Nolland 2005, 498. Meiser 1998, 260, speaks aptly in this context of the authorities as “agents of active counterpropaganda” (trans. K. Ess). According to Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 145

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

115

that provokes the Pharisees’ polemics; rather, the approval of the people prompts their defamatory assertion.151 This, in turn, points to the fundamental motif of the Matthean portrayal of the conflict: the authorities fear  for their position among the people. The crowds’ progressing awareness of Jesus’ identity corresponds with the more urgent formulation of the Pharisees’ accusation from 9.34, which has been intensified by οὐκ . . . εἰ μή.152 In short, the Pharisees counter Jesus’ popularity among the crowds by suggesting his association with the devil, in an attempt to discredit Jesus in the crowds’ eyes.153 Unlike in 9.32–34, the Pharisees’ accusation is now followed by a direct reply from Jesus,154 which sharply reveals their evil nature (12.34) and maliciousness and culminates in the announcement of judgment (12.25– 37). This change is paradigmatic of the shift in accent between 4.17–11.1 and 11.2– 16.20 and, in particular, corresponds with the intensification of  the conflict in 12.1– 14. “Jesus’ first direct attack against his opponents”155 is immediately followed by the next controversy, linked with the demand for a sign. Here Matthew follows the Q version (Q 11.29–32) but inserts “some of the scribes and Pharisees” as Jesus’ antagonists, again probably inspired by Mark (cf. Mark 8.11).156 Matthew is thus consistent in remaining within the framework of the differentiation registered in 12.23–24—just as in John the Baptist’s sermon in 3.7–10, Matthew has altered the orientation of the Q logia. This corresponds with the observation that he presents the demand for a sign in 12.38 as a direct reaction (ἀπεκρίθησαν) to the preceding speech that Jesus addresses toward the Pharisees (12.25–37). 2:139, already Matt 9.34 is to be understood as a reaction to the words of the crowds. On the setting in 21.15–16, which Matthew has arranged analogously to that of 12.23–24, see section 3.1.2.5. 151 The connection with v. 23 is further underscored in the Matthean version of the Beelzebul accusation in v. 24, in that οὗτος takes up the use of the demonstrative pronoun in the statement of the crowds: this man is not the Messiah but drives out the demons by no other means than through Beelzebul. 152 Compare Sand 1986, 261; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:335; and Luz 2001– 2007, 2:197, n. 1. On the Semitic background, see Beyer 1968, (129–)131. 153 The notice in 12.25 that Jesus knew their thoughts does not imply that the words of the Pharisees are spoken only among themselves (contra Hagner 1993/1995, 1:342; and Gundry 1994, 233); they do not speak here ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, as do the scribes in 9.3, but react with their statement to the words of the ὄχλοι. In 12.25, with εἰδὼς δὲ τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν, Matthew rather “fundamentally . . . wants to say . . . that Jesus sees through his opponents” (Luz 2001–2007, 2:203; see also Luck 1993, 150). 154 Compare Gielen 1998, 128; Repschinski 2000, 132; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:197. 155 Luz 2001–2007, 2:210. 156 Those who confronted Jesus with the demand for a sign were apparently not identified more specifically in Q. Compare J. M. Robinson et al. 2000, 246; further, for  example, Gielen 1998, 147.

116

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus’ reply once again flows into a proclamation of judgment (vv. 41– 42).  Several interpreters find a significant alteration of the orientation of this  statement as against the preceding text, in that Jesus speaks of “this γενεά” (vv. 39, 41, 42): this language is understood to transcend the situation at the narrative level and to point to the judgment of Israel.157 Matt 12.25– 45 is therefore addressed in more detail in section 4.3.2. The conflict with the Jewish authorities has reached a preliminary climax in Matt 12, and now the authorities disappear from the stage for the time being. In the narration of John the Baptist’s death, added in 14.3–12, the motif of conflict resonates indirectly, insofar as the fate of the Baptist,  who heralded Jesus’ coming, foreshadows the violent end that Jesus will also suffer158 (cf. 17.12–13). This is underscored in 14.13, in that the message of John the Baptist’s death prompts Jesus once again, just as in 12.15, to withdraw. In Matt 15.1–9, the narrative then comes to another debate with the scribes and Pharisees, now about the Pharisaic purity halakah and, more precisely, the question of washing one’s hands before eating. The debate forms a counterpart to the Sabbath controversy in Matt 12.1–8. In both cases, areas of Jewish identity to which the Pharisees ascribe central importance are at issue, and Jesus is confronted once again with a charge against his disciples’ behavior. At the same time, the intensification of the  conflict that arose with the Sabbath controversy is carried further in 15.1– 9.  First, whereas Matt 9 and 12 were concerned only with “local” conflicts  with  Pharisees  and  scribes  who  happened  to  be  at  the  scene,  now  the Pharisees and scribes come expressly from Jerusalem to seek out the confrontation with Jesus.159 This signals a new dimension in the conflict:  the religious establishment from Jerusalem has become (or been made) aware of Jesus. This becomes clearer when one observes that unlike in 12.1–2a—and unlike the Markan text (Mark 7.2)160—there is no immediate provocation for the Pharisees’ and scribes’ attack.161 Here Matthew leaves 157

See, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:218, 221. This is underscored by analogous features: John had criticized Herod Antipas, whereupon Herod sought to kill the Baptist. But he initially refrained from immediately realizing this desire, due to his fear of the crowd, which regards John as a prophet. Jesus is also killed by those whom he strongly criticizes. And Jesus’ opponents also fear the people, who likewise regard Jesus as a prophet (21.45– 46). 159 Compare Gielen 1998, 153–54; contrast France 2008, 116. In the Markan narrative, scribes from Jerusalem appear already in Mark 3.22. Here, instead of a regional identifying detail, Matthew introduces the Pharisees (Matt 12.24). 160 In Matt 12.1–2, the Pharisees see the disciples plucking heads of grain. In Mark 7.2, the Pharisees and the scribes observe that some of Jesus’ disciples eat with unwashed hands. 161 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:519. 158

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

117

a gap that raises the question of whether he means to insinuate that the Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes act against Jesus on the basis of the news they have heard about him and his disciples.162 Second, the situation proves to be different from that of 12.1–8 in that the scribes and Pharisees receive no answer to their question in v. 2; instead, Jesus immediately responds to their accusation with a counteraccusation of his own.163 To this purpose, Matthew has made a few significant changes to the Markan text (Mark 7.1–23).164 He has not only placed Mark 7.8–13 before Mark 7.6–7 but, moreover, has formulated the charge of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 15.2) and Jesus’ countercharge (15.3) as parallel. In doing so, the evangelist immediately draws attention to what he considers to be the core of the conflict: the disciples’ transgression of  the tradition of the elders is contrasted with the scribes’ and Pharisees’ transgression of the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition (cf. 15.6), which raises the possibility of a disagreement in content between the two areas.165 Matthew then both replaces Μωϋσῆς (Mark 7.10) with ὁ θεός (Matt 15.4) in the introduction to the commandment to honor one’s parents, which serves to illustrate Jesus’ countercharge, and sets the position of Jesus’ opponents cited in vv. 5– 6a in direct opposition to the Decalogue commandment (οὐ μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ).166 Matthew thereby underscores the contrast and substantial difference between human statutes (cf. v. 9) and divine command. It becomes apparent here that the evangelist seeks to delegitimize Jesus’ opponents as teachers of the divine will. Jesus first addresses his antagonists’ question in his instruction to the  crowds  (15.10– 11).  In  the  larger  narrative,  this  gains  definition  through  the preceding controversies: the attempt to persuade the scribes and Pharisees has long since proved to be a futile endeavor; they are unwilling to listen to Jesus, as 12.7 in light of 9.13 has shown.167 There is, however, still a concern to “enlighten” the crowds and (despite 13.10–17) make them understand168—that is, to familiarize them with the true understanding of God’s will. 162 Gielen 1998, 163, sees here “a quasi-inquisitorial note” and explains, “the reader must make the association that targeted information about Jesus has reached Jerusalem, which has induced the Pharisees and scribes to intervene” (163– 64; trans. K. Ess). 163 Compare Gielen 1998, 153; and Nolland 2005, 615, among others. 164 Compare the overviews in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:517–18; Luz 2001– 2007, 2:326–27. 165 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 329. 166 Compare Krämer 1981, 69–70; Sand 1986, 312; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:524; Harrington 1991a, 230; Gundry 1994, 304; see S. von Dobbeler 2001, 65– 66. 167 See the previous discussion in this section. 168 See the command in Matt 15.10: ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε.

118

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The Matthean interest in the delegitimization of the Pharisees can be clearly seen in the redactional insertion of 15.12–14: before Matthew takes up the instruction to the disciples about the question of the purity halakah (vv. 15–20),169 he has Jesus first reinforce his categorical attack on his  rivals in vv. 3–9. They are not just misguided in matters of purity law— rather, this conflict is simply one concrete example that shows that they are  altogether incompetent and distant from God. The disciples’ should not be troubled (ἄφετε αὐτούς170 [v. 14]) by the Pharisees’171 offense at Jesus’ words.172 Jesus disputes the Pharisees first with a solemn judgment of their  election-theological claim (v. 13),173 in order to then discredit them specifically as teachers of the Torah: they are blind guides174 (v. 14; cf. 23.16–22). In line with this emphasis and intensification of the conflict, Matthew has  once again inserted the motif of withdrawal in 15.21: just as Jesus gets himself out of harm’s way following the Sabbath controversy and the Pharisees’ decision to kill him (12.15a), he now withdraws to the region of Tyre and Sidon (ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ μέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος). When Jesus has returned to Galilee, the crowds appear again in his vicinity (15.29–39). In contrast with this, the next encounter with the authorities comes in 16.1–2a, 4.175 Here, Matthew has the authorities once again put Jesus to the test with the demand for a sign. As already with the Beelzebul accusations (9.34; 12.24), the evangelist intentionally creates a doublet by including the Markan 169

On the Matthean position in Matt 15.1–20, see section 2.2.3.2, n. 248. This explicit warning should probably be regarded as an indication that the Pharisees present a very attractive alternative for some community members. Compare the discussion in chapter 7. 171 There is now no more mention of the scribes taken over from Mark 7.1 in Matt 15.1. 172 It can hardly be determined (as an alternative) whether τὸν λόγον refers more to v. 11 (see, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:25; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:436) or to vv. 3–9 (see, for example, Gielen 1998, 159, n. 25). Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:532, n. 59, suggest, “λόγον probably refers to v. 11, but it could encompass earlier verses, even the entire complex.” As a side note, if Matthew (primarily) had v. 11 in view, then the Pharisees are agitated by Jesus’ teaching of the crowds. 173 The saying about God’s planting in v. 13 uses terminology that is common in election theology. See Isa 61.3; Jer 32.41; 1 En. 10.16; 62.8; 84.6; 93.2, 5, 10; Jub. 1.16; 7.34; 16.26; 21.24; Pss. Sol. 14.3– 4; L.A.B. 28.4; 2 Bar. 84.2; CD I, 7; 1QS VIII, 5; XI, 8; 1QH XIV, 15. 174 τυφλῶν is not original, in my opinion (likewise Luz 2001–2007, 2:325, with n. 2). The word is absent from the best witnesses (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), whereby particularly the agreement between the Alexandrian text and the D text is an important piece of evidence. 175 On the text-critical problem, see for example Gielen 1998, 167–68, who decides in favor of the originality of the shorter text (likewise, see Hirunuma 1981; Sand 1986, 320; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:39– 40; Luck 1993, 184; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:347). For the originality of Matt 16.2b, 3, however, see März 1986, 87–95; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:580– 81, n. 12; Gundry 1994, 323–24; and Nolland 2005, 646. 170

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

119

pericope (Mark 8.11–13), which corresponds with the Q version that had already appeared in 12.38–39. Matthew thus stresses the authorities’ persistence in their enmity and resistance to Jesus. As already in 3.7, he now has the Pharisees appear again together with the Sadducees. Accordingly, Jesus warns the disciples in 16.5–12 to beware of the Pharisees and Sadducees.176 Just as in 3.7, the consistent lack of an article in front of Σαδδουκαῖοι (16.1, 6, 11, 12) indicates that the Pharisees and Sadducees are to be regarded as a single unit.177 It can hardly be supposed that Matthew was unaware of the differences between these groups.178 He is just as unlikely to be guided here by a purely historical or historicizing interest.179 If it is correct—as is often supposed and in my opinion is not to be disputed—that the redactional dominance in Matthew of the Pharisees as Jesus’ opponents indicates a contemporary conflict between the Matthean community and Pharisees,180 it is much more likely that Matthew intentionally operates here with the well-known negative view of the Sadducees and their teachers among the Pharisees. The evangelist’s intention is a polemic one. Prior to 70 CE, while the Sadducees were politically influential, they were also unpopular among the people.181 In the formation of Judaism after 70 CE, they no longer played a significant  role, whereas the Pharisees were able to assert an increased influence. The  Gospel of Matthew, with its concentration on the Pharisees as Jesus’ opponents, itself testifies to this development. When Matthew presents the Pharisees together with their “archenemies” the Sadducees in opposition to Jesus (16.1), he aims to discredit the former. In this opposition, they have not even shied away from a marriage of convenience with the Sadducees.182 Matthew has no independent interest in the Sadducees themselves;183 the purpose of their insertion is to place the Pharisees in a negative light.184 176

Matthew found in Mark 8.15 a warning about the “leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” He omitted the second element and added instead καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. 177 Compare, representatively, Hummel 1963, 19. This emerges more clearly in view of the diachronic observation that Mark 8.15 offers two elements (see n. 176) and Matthew thus did not simply replace Ἡρῴδου with τῶν Σαδδουκαίων. 178 See van Tilborg 1972, 2, 35. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:303, in contrast, rightly point out that the insertion of the Sadducees speaks against—not for—a GentileChristian author of the Gospel of Matthew: “A non-Jew would not have thought twice about a small group that passed away with the temple.” 179 Against Hummel 1963, 20; and Strecker 1971, 140; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:303; and Harrington 1991a, 245. 180 See further chapter 7. 181 See Josephus, A.J. 13.298; 18.17. 182 Compare Gielen 1998, 173. 183 Likewise, see Hummel 1963, 18–19; and H.-J. Becker 1990, 22, n. 33. 184 Compare Hummel 1963, 19–20: “If one considers that in Rabbinic Judaism ‘Sadducee’ became a name for a heretic, then one understands that the formula ‘Pharisees and Sadducees’ includes the judgment of the Pharisees: you are no better” (trans. K. Ess).

120

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

This becomes clearer when one takes into account the development of the conflict. In 9.10– 13, 34, and 12.1– 14, 24– 45, the Pharisees appear as  Jesus’ opponents. In the controversies in 9.10–13 and 12.1–14, they have to face Jesus’ lecture on account of their lack of understanding, and they are then sharply attacked in 12.25–37 in Jesus’ reaction to their Beelzebul accusation, as well as in 12.39– 45 in response to their demand for a sign. In Matt 15, they are supported by fellow Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. Considering that, from chapter 9 on, the Pharisees appear as the central group of the opposition against Jesus and particularly in light of the fact that the demand for a sign in 12.38 comes from the Pharisees (here together with the scribes), the resulting interpretive perspective for Matt 16 is that here, too, the driving force is the Pharisees, who, after being “dealt with” in 12.39– 45, are now prepared even to seek the support of the Sadducees in their renewed demand for a sign and join forces with them against Jesus. The response to their demand, which in comparison with 12.39– 45 is quite brief, and, above all, the note that Jesus leaves the Pharisees and Sadducees when he goes away (cf. 21.17) indicate that it would be useless to attempt to persuade the authorities by debating with them any further.185 On the other hand, they nevertheless pose a threat to the disciples, upon whom Jesus, in 16.5–12, therefore impresses the need to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16.6). The redactional repetition of the warning in v. 11, as well as the note inserted in v. 12 that the disciples (unlike in Mark) understand at the end that leaven is a metaphor for the dangerous influence of the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ teachings,186 indicate the significance of this warning for the evangelist. 185

According to Luz 2001–2007, 2:348, Jesus’ answer “is actually breaking off communication.” 186 As suggested above, Mathew hardly seeks to convey in 16.12 that the Pharisees and Sadducees had one common teaching in everything (against Walker 1967, 15). Also 22.34 (diff. Mark 12.28) is unable to support the contrary presumption, since this passage implies nothing more than that the Pharisees and Sadducees have one common interest— namely, to get the better of Jesus. The phrase διδαχὴ τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων in 16.12 is to be understood in the context of the polemical intention of the passage outlined above. It insinuates that Pharisaic views are no better than the notoriously misguided convictions of the Sadducees. At the same time, the evangelist can treat the differences between the teachings of Pharisees and Sadducees as negligible insofar as these differences are irrelevant in light of the groups’ agreement in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah and true interpreter of the Torah or their ignorance regarding the authority expressed in Jesus’ activity. Insofar as the Pharisees and the Sadducees agree on this decisive point, one can speak of “their” teaching. Consider the pointed remarks on διδαχή in 16.12 in Gielen 1998, 171: Matthew does not intend for διδαχή to refer “abstractly and theoretically to the differing systems of thought of the Pharisees and Sadducees . . . but rather quite concretely to their instructive speech aimed against Jesus and his proclamation in

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

3.1.2.4

121

The Proclamation of Suffering in Matt 16.21–20.34

While 11.2–16.20 has culminated in Peter’s confession (16.16) as the right answer to the question posed by John the Baptist (11.2–3) about Jesus’ identity and the subsequent promise to Peter regarding the ecclesia (16.18– 19), the following section (16.21–20.34) predominantly addresses the community of disciples and the requirements of true discipleship. The conflict  between Jesus and the Jewish authorities recedes from the surface of the narrative, having reached an initial climax in Matt 12, and achieved new dimensions in 15.1–14 and 16.1–12 through the appearance of the Jerusalem authorities and the alliance—surmounting traditional differences— between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.187 Only in 19.3–9 is there another debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, who once again appear with the intention of testing Jesus. As in the preceding controversies such as 12.1–14 and 15.1–20,188 Matthew displays the tendency here to combat the impression that Jesus’ teaching is contrary to the Torah.189 Instead, the Pharisees are again imputed with a lack of knowledge or understanding of Scripture (19.4: οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε . . .).190 Jesus’ reply in vv. 4– 6 proves their word and deed” (trans. K. Ess). Similarly Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:592, indicate, “ ‘The teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ refers to all that the Jewish leaders say which blocks the avenue to faith in Jesus and causes people to remain in unbelief” (cf. also Carson 1982, 168– 69). Hagner 1993/1995, 2:460, regards it as the false conception of the Messiah shared by the Pharisees and Sadducees; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:213, sees it as the “rejection of the sign of Jonah, which . . . points metaphorically to the resurrection of Jesus” (trans. K. Ess); and Fiedler 2006, 285, sees it as “the denial of the Messiah-Jesus belief” (trans. K. Ess). 187 Compare Gielen 1998, 170: “The opposing fronts begin to close against Jesus across not only geographical, but also ideological boundaries” (trans. K. Ess). 188 On these texts, see section 3.1.2.3 and Konradt 2006, 142–46. 189 The Markan Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ question εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι with the counterquestion, what did Moses command? Jesus’ recourse to the creation then appears as a counterargument against the Pharisees’ reference to the per­ mission granted by Moses to issue a certificate of dismissal. In that Matthew brings the  appeal to the creation forward, he avoids the impression conveyed by the Markan version that Jesus was opposed to the Torah (cf. Hummel 1963, 50; Houlden 1994, 121). Here, it is rather the Pharisees who seek to overrule Jesus’ argumentation from (or his interpretation of) Gen 1–2 with the reference to Deut 24. It should further be noted that the verbs have been exchanged in Matt 19.7–8, compared with Mark 10.3– 4 (cf. Hummel 1963, 50; Gielen 1998, 189; Repschinski 2000, 175–76; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:490): in Matthew, the Pharisees speak of Moses’ commandment, whereas Jesus speaks of permission, and this is due only to (the) hardheartedness (of the Pharisees). Further, the Matthean Jesus does not support a fundamental prohibition of divorce; rather, Matthew introduces an exception in the case of πορνεία, as already in 5.32 (the formulation of the Pharisees’ initial question is adapted to this; see n. 191). 190 Compare Matt 9.13; 12.3, 5, 7; further also 21.16, 42; 22.31.

122

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

question—whether a man may divorce his wife for any arbitrary reason—to be a manifestation of their lack of understanding.191 However, 19.3–12 is focused less on the conflict with the Pharisees than on the instruction to  the disciples (vv. 10–12). The theme of conflict is nevertheless present in 16.21– 20.34 in other  forms than just the debate in 19.3–9—namely, in Jesus’ proclamations of his coming suffering in 16.21; 17.22–23; and 20.17–19. These proclamations of suffering not only constitute a central point of reference for the ethical instruction to the disciples in 16.21–20.34, in which the theme of suffering emerges as an important aspect,192 but moreover, they direct the reader’s attention toward the coming event. Already in the first proclamation, which in context is to be located in the region of Caesarea Philippi (16.13), Matthew has Jesus speak of the need “to go to Jerusalem”—this has the effect that from 16.21 on one can see Jesus as being on the way to Jerusalem.193 The time for withdrawing (12.15; 14.13; 15.21) is now past.194 191 Matthew has significantly altered the character of the Pharisees’ question, compared with the Markan version, by inserting κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν in v. 3: the question is no longer whether a man may divorce his wife; rather, it is presumed that he may, and the question only addresses whether any reason whatsoever serves as justification for divorce (this understanding of κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν fits better with v. 9; cf. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:488, n. 19). By placing  Jesus’ appeal to Gen 1– 2 first, Matthew makes clear that the Pharisees’ question is misdirected. If the Pharisees had correctly considered the creation account, they would know that, in principal, divorce is not at all intended in the God-given order of creation. Their question is therefore senseless and only reveals once again their ignorance of Scripture. 192 This is evident in the admonition to “take up the cross and follow” in 16.24–28, immediately following the first proclamation of suffering, as well as in the treatment of the  theme of service in 20.20–28 directly after the third proclamation of suffering; in addition, in 17.1– 12, after the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain, the disciples are led down into  the valley and confronted with his suffering (v. 12; cf. Luz 1995, 103– 4). In a broader sense, moreover, the discourse on the Church in Matt 18 is not unconnected with the theme of suffering, as it is essentially about teaching the disciples to orient themselves “downward” in view of their dispute about rank—by lowering themselves (18.4 [redactional!]), attending to the small, seeking the lost, and treating sinners compassionately (cf. the connection of Jesus’ death with the forgiveness of sins in 26.28!). On Matt 18, cf. Konradt 2010. 193 Following the proclamation of suffering in Caesarea Philippi, Jesus goes to Galilee, where the second proclamation takes place (17.22–23; see section 3.1.2.1). In 17.24, he is in Capernaum, whence he starts out for Judea in 19.1. The third proclamation of suffering is situated here, more precisely, on the way to Jerusalem in (the vicinity of) Jericho, according to 20.29. In this context, a small change in Matt 19.1 compared with Mark 10.1 is possibly relevant. In Mark, Jesus comes εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου; Matthew omits the καί. Verseput 1994, 114, concludes that Matthew here wanted to describe a linear movement aimed at Jerusalem, whereas one can understand the Markan text in the sense of a transition “to a new field of ministry preceding the final  ascent to Jerusalem.” 194 Unlike in 15.1–20, there is no repetition of ἀναχωρεῖν following the controversy over divorce in 19.3–9.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

123

Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem and knows what lies ahead (cf. 26.1–2): the opposition of the authorities—here, the elders, chief priests, and scribes (16.21; cf. 20.18)—will now be made manifest in their condemning him to death. Observing this signal from 16.21, it becomes clear why, in 16.21– 20.34,  Matthew  has  not  highlighted  the  theme  of  conflict  by  addressing  further conflict scenes. This would contribute nothing to the dynamic of  the conflict narrative. Rather, with 16.21, the stage is set for the ultimate  confrontation in Jerusalem. In other words, through the proclamations of suffering, it becomes evident that the relative absence of conflict scenes by  no means indicates that the situation has settled down—rather, it simply represents the calm before the storm. 3.1.2.5

The Confrontation between Jesus and the Authorities in Jerusalem in Matt 21–23

Just as Matthew presents in 4.23–9.35 a well-composed portrayal of Jesus in his authoritative teaching and authoritative actions, so does the evangelist similarly show his compositional hand in Matt 21–23. According to the Matthean timeline—which differs from the Markan text due to the entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple being tied together into one event—Jesus’ activity is spread across two days. A further element, which is specifically Matthean and doubtless deliberately crafted as such, is that  Jesus heals in the temple on the first day, following his entry into Jerusalem (21.14), while he appears in the temple as a teacher on the second day (21.23).195 Thus the fundamental elements of Jesus’ ministry return here, in reverse order—elements that were already encountered in the summaries of 4.23 and 9.35 and developed in 5.1–9.34. In Matt 21–22, Jesus is confronted by the authorities in both situations (21.15–16; 21.23bff.). Their resistance is not sparked by one single aspect of his ministry but aimed against him fundamentally and comprehensively. It is striking that the protest of the chief priests and scribes in 21.15–16 is  first  prompted  not  by  Jesus’  action  against  the  merchants  in  the  temple but by his healings196 and the children’s acclamation. More precisely, it is first sparked by the acclamation.197 It is thus once again—and again In this connection, see also the insertion of ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ in Matt 22.23. ἰδόντες . . . τὰ θαυμάσια ἃ ἐποίησεν (21.15), as is already suggested by the connection with the shouting of the children (καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τοῦς κράζοντας . . .), refers to Jesus’ healings. Likewise, see, for example, E. Lohmeyer 1962, 300; Sand 1986, 418; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:141; and Wiefel 1998, 360. Contra Gielen 1998, 201–2; and Repschinski 2000, 189–90. 197 Compare Burger 1970, 87; Gielen 1998, 34; and Fiedler 2006, 326; see also Gewalt 1986, 168–70. A scene analogous to Matt 21.15–16 is found in Luke 19.39– 40. There, some 195

196

124

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

analogously to 12.23–24—the status of the Davidic Messiah-king that others ascribe to Jesus that forms the context for the authorities’ hostile attitude.198  The  repetition  of  this  configuration  makes  it  clear  that  Matthew wants this to be understood as a fundamental motif of the conflict.  This corresponds with the exposition of this motif in the opposition against Jesus as the Davidic Messiah already in the prologue, in 2.3– 6. It is the danger posed to the position of leadership that characterizes the hostility to Jesus.199 Matt 2.3– 6 and 21.14–17 are further connected by the illumination of events through Scripture. Just as the chief priests and the scribes make their scriptural knowledge available to Herod in 2.4– 6 without drawing the only possible conclusion from that knowledge—namely, to go to Bethlehem to pay homage to the “newborn king of the Jews” (2.2)—so in 21.16, it is Jesus himself who explains events to his opponents200 on the basis of Scripture. Through the charge οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε, introducing the psalm citation, it is suggested that the correct understanding of events must be evident for someone who is well versed in the Scriptures. 201 Thus Matthew once more emphasizes, as was established Pharisees react to the disciples’(!) shouts of joy during the entry into Jerusalem, with the demand that Jesus rebuke his disciples (cf. also John 12.18–19). It is not impossible that there is at least a distant tradition historical connection here (cf. Hummel 1963, 119; Bultmann 1995, 34; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:133; and Gielen 1998, 205, n. 22) and that Matthew thus did not “invent” the scene entirely freely; yet precisely in comparison with Luke 19.39– 40, specific Matthean accents reveal themselves— namely, the acclamation of  the healing Jesus as the Son of David, the protest of the authorities against this, as well as Jesus’ legitimation of the children’s shout by means of a scriptural citation. 198 Compare on this Verseput 1987, 535–36; Stanton 1992c, 108–12; and Repschinski 2000, 335, 339– 41. 199 See Luz 1995, 74, with regard to 9.34; 12.24: “The reason why they accuse Jesus is . . . precisely that the people see in him the Son of David, and thus begin to question the Pharisees’ claims to leadership.” Similarly, see Repschinski 2000, 340: “[T]he title expresses the claim of Jesus to displace the Jewish leaders from their position of authority in Israel.” See also on 21.15–16, Gielen 1998, 45; and Schnackenburg 1991, 206, on 21.15–16. 200 As in 2.3– 6, this is about the chief priests and the scribes (cf. also 20.18). On this, see Repschinski 2000, 190. 201 It is difficult to determine whether Jesus implies here that the authorities in fact  have never read the psalm or points to their inability or unwillingness to correctly make use of their— superficial— scriptural knowledge (Gundry 1994, 414, postulates that οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε implies “that the chief priests and scribes had read the passage about to be quoted. Therefore their unscriptural indignation stands condemned all the more” [emphasis original]; along these lines, see also Gielen 1998, 35, where Jesus points out to the authorities “that, because of their familiarity with Scripture, they possess the necessary knowledge to interpret his deeds and the children’s reaction as scriptural and as evidence that the Messiah has come” [trans. K. Ess]). Reading this in the latter sense in any case fits well with the connections between 2.1– 9 and 21.14– 17 (cf. Gielen 1998, 34– 36, 45).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

125

in 2.3– 6, that the authorities even “oppose . . . their own Bible”202 in their opposition to Jesus. 203 On the second day, as mentioned previously, Jesus returns to the temple,204 now to teach (21.23). Just as the healings are only summarily mentioned in 21.14, so in 21.23, the content of Jesus’ teaching is not given in detail; the focus is now aimed at the intensifying conflict. Jesus’  appearance in the temple as a teacher—and thus in the role that in principle belongs to the authorities205—causes the chief priests and the elders to approach him concerning the authority under which he does this. Analogously to 21.14–16, the issue at hand is Jesus’ identity, which manifests itself in his ministry. Through the insertion of διδάσκοντι, the phrase ταῦτα ποιεῖς explicitly includes Jesus’ teaching and thus his authority as teacher (cf. 7.29).206 In the Matthean context, the question of authority is further bound together with the acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David in 21.9, 15. 202

Luz 2001–2007, 3:13. If Matthew also has the psalm citation’s own context in mind (and he presumes corresponding scriptural knowledge in his addressees), then the enemies in Ps 8.3bLXX can be taken in reference to Jesus’ opponents (see Klein 1993, 197; Weren 1997b, 138). The citation of the psalm would then not only legitimize the children’s praise but also identify the chief priests and scribes as God’s enemies. Matt 21.16 would then stand alongside the evidence of 27.43: that Matthew has the authorities speak in the words of the godless who mock the righteous one in Ps 22.9 is to be seen in connection with the appeal to Ps 22.19 in Matt 27.35, as well as Jesus’ last words on the cross in Matt 27.46, taken from Ps 22.2. In an ironic, subtle way, the authorities here are disqualified  through their identification with the godless of Ps 22, who, like a ravening and roaring  lion, have opened their maws against the righteous one. 203 In the Markan version of the cleansing of the temple, the chief priests and scribes react to Jesus’ action against the sanctuary with an attempt to kill him (Mark 11.18). This is grounded in their fear of Jesus because the people as a whole are amazed by his teaching. The Matthean omission of this conspiracy scene does not indicate that Matthew sought here to dampen the conflict. It is rather due to the first evangelist’s effort to emphasize  Jesus’ acclamation as the Son of David as the point of reference for the authorities’ opposition and at the same time to invoke against them no lesser an authority than Scripture. Matthew has inserted the comment about the people’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching in 22.33 (see section 3.1.1). 204 On the cursing of the fig tree along the way (Matt 21.19– 22), see section 4.3.3. 205 Compare Repschinski 2000, 196. On the temple as a place of teaching, see Safrai 1976, 905. 206 Compare Sand 1986, 427, 428; Broer 1992, 1279; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:216; Luck 1993, 231; Nolland 2005, 857. The proposal of Gundry 1994, 419, to read ταῦτα only in reference to Jesus’ authority to teach, is problematic because of the plural ταῦτα (cf. Carter/ Heil 1998, 150; Repschinski 2000, 196). Against a(n emphatic) reference to Jesus’ teaching in ταῦτα, or for a (primary) reference to the events depicted in 21.1–17, see Lange 1973, 83–84; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:608, 609; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:321–22; Luz 2001–2007, 3:29; and Fiedler 2006, 329. However, it must be kept in mind not only that the motif of authority in 21.23 is reminiscent of 7.28–29 but also that the theme of teaching is taken up again in the feigned praise of Jesus by his opponents in 22.16 (see further n. 222).

126

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The authorities challenge Jesus—once again, after 21.16a—as to who or what legitimates his activity.207 In 21.23–22.46, the parables of the two sons (21.28–32) and of the wedding banquet (22.1–14) are redactionally connected with that of the wicked tenants (21.33– 46). This, together with the thematic connection of the three debates in 22.15– 40, creates a symmetrical composition in which the authorities’ question about Jesus’ authority (21.23–27) and Jesus’ question to the authorities about whose son the Christ is (22.41– 46) together form a frame around the three parables (21.28–22.14) and three debates (22.15– 40), resulting in a 1-3-3-1 structure.208 The initiative in speaking switches between Jesus and the various groups of the Jewish leaders with each block of narrative in 21.23–22.46. As mentioned previously,  the  first  speakers  are  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders,  while  Jesus  takes the initiative in the three parables (21.28–22.14). The following three debates are the authorities’ reaction to Jesus’ parables (22.15a), before Jesus once again continues the discussion in 22.41– 46. It is also common to both framing texts, one may note, that the question posed receives no answer. Since the authorities in 21.23–27 sidestep Jesus’ question about the origin of the baptism of John, the answer to which would, for Matthew, have been an indirect response to the question of Jesus’ authority,209 Jesus leaves that question open, although the following three parables provide an implicit answer.210 With his counterquestion, Jesus already shows himself to be in control of the situation. The thoughts of the chief priests and elders in 21.25–26 reveal that they are entirely aware that the baptism of John is “from heaven.” Their “nonbelief” (v. 25fin.) is a conscious denial of their  own insights.211 In its compositional position, the parable trilogy emerges as Jesus’ final  reckoning with his opponents in direct, public confrontation. According to 207 According to Harrington 1991a, 299, the authorities here already aim “to force Jesus into a public admission that his power comes directly from God, thus opening him up to a charge of blasphemy (see 26:65)” (see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:159). However, this is contradicted by the fact that a new phase (first) begins with 22.15: after  Jesus’ reckoning with the authorities in the parable trilogy (21.28–22.14), they seek to trap Jesus in what he says. 208 In contrast, Gundry 1994, 418(–424); Luz 2001–2007, 3:26–27; and Fiedler 2006, 328, bring together 21.23–27 and 21.28–32 into one textual unit. 209 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:216–17; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:160– 61. 210 Compare Merkel 1974, 259; Sand 1986, 432 (on Matt 21.33–46); Erlemann 1988, 176; and Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 3:188. At the same time, with the first parable of  the trilogy (21.28–32), Jesus responds to the authorities’ question about the origin of the baptism of John (cf., for example, Olmstead 2003, 108). 211 Compare Gielen 1998, 214; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:30.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

127

21.45– 46, the authorities are aware that the parables, with their prophecies of doom, are aimed at them, which feeds their eagerness to seize Jesus. Nevertheless, their fear of the people still keeps them from doing so. The appearance of the Pharisees, instead of the elders from 21.23, connects the  controversies  with  the  preceding  portrayal  of  the  conflict,  especially  with the Pharisees’ decision in 12.14 to have Jesus killed; in addition, the Pharisees’ appearance here prepares for their central role in the disputes in 22.15– 46.212  Thus,  here,  too,  Matthew  continues  the  configuration  of  the conflict that has been presented, which is also supported in the triad  of disputes (22.15– 40) by the contrast that emerges between the authorities and the crowds (22.33).213 In Matthean scholarship, however, it is often claimed that the three parables do not simply present a reckoning with Jesus’ opponents; going far beyond this, they are seen as addressing the condemnation of Israel. The trilogy—and particularly 21.43 as a central piece of evidence for the substitution theory—is examined in detail in section 4.1. Here, though, it can already be said that this salvation-historical interpretation of the three parables is not supported by their position within the narrative but rather—to the contrary—is called into question: Matthew continues to emphasize the distance between the authorities and the people and thus still paints a differentiated picture of the reaction to Jesus in Israel. The following context reinforces this observation. Since the authorities’ hands are tied due to the crowds’ positive attitude toward Jesus and they are thus unable to capture him in public, the Pharisees now resolve to set a trap for Jesus with a question (22.15b). What appears in Mark 12.13– 17 as a single episode is now built up into a series of attempts in Matthew: through various redactional interventions in 22.34– 40, Matthew ties the three disputes in 22.15– 40 together into a single unit. In Mark 12.28–34, a scribe appears who, having witnessed the preceding conflict between Jesus  and the Sadducees, agrees with Jesus and thus begins a discussion with him (Mark 12.28: ἰδὼν ὅτι καλῶς ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν); in the end, he approves of Jesus’ answer and is in turn praised by Jesus (Mark 212

Compare Gielen 1998, 220. Looking more closely into the relation between the elders of the people and the Pharisees, one can consider whether Matthew here (as again in 27.62?) is thinking of elders who associated with the Pharisees. H.-J. Becker 1990, 22, concludes from the replacement of the elders with the Pharisees that Matthew “thereby signifies that he regards ‘chief priests and Pharisees’ as the groups from which the Sanhedrin was composed in Jesus’ time” (trans. K. Ess). Becker points in this connection to the fact that “the Chachamim attributed a decisive role in the Sanhedrin to their (‘Pharisaic’) predecessors of the time before 70” (22; trans. K. Ess). 213 The mention of the crowds at the end of the second segment of the triad is parallel to 21.46, yet this coincidence may be a matter of chance.

128

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

12.32–34). In contrast with this, Matthew has the Pharisees, who had previously failed and gone away (Matt 22.22), return to Jesus after hearing that “he had silenced the Sadducees,” in order to make a further attempt themselves214 with another testing question (cf. 22.18).215 According to Matthew, the Pharisees thus step in for the Sadducees who have already been dealt with;216 through this transformation, the question of resurrection that the Sadducees had posed in 22.23–33 now also appears as an attempt to expose Jesus as an inadequate teacher.217 This means that, while Matthew follows the Markan order of the pericopae, he has tied the texts together by consistently adjusting them to fit into the important Matthean motif of conflict between Jesus and the authorities. Thus 22.15 appears as an introduction to the entire triad:218 Jesus’ opponents attempt to lure him into making a statement that could be used against him or to undermine the admiration that he enjoys among the people—who have followed the debates, as 22.33 shows—by driving him into a corner with a trick question, in order to thus remove the problem that was a hindrance in 21.46. Just as in the preceding story of conflict, here too the Pharisees appear,  as suggested previously, as the primary opponents. Matthew has not only inserted them into 22.34 but has accordingly also reworked the initial narrative framework of the first dispute in 22.15– 22: while Mark 12.13 portrays the chief priests, scribes, and elders (see Mark 11.27) as the initiators of the attempt to lure Jesus into a trap, Matthew has the Pharisees, whom he had already inserted in 21.45,219 take the initiative.220 Moreover, Matthew portrays the Pharisees as making a formal resolution (συμβούλιον 214 Accordingly, Matthew has omitted the positive reaction of the wise scribe from Mark 12.32–34. It should further be pointed out that Matthew has suppressed the Markan comment that presents Joseph of Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin (Mark 15.43; Matt 27.57). 215 πειράζων in 22.35 is reminiscent of τί με πειράζετε in 22.18 (par. Mark 12.15). On the literary critical problem, see n. 230. 216 In the larger context of the Gospel, this constellation is set up by the “coalition” of the two groups in 3.7 and 16.1. 217 Not only in Matt 22.16 (par. Mark 12.14) and Matt 22.24 (par. Mark 12.19), but in contrast with Mark 12.28 also in Matt 22.36 (but see Luke 10.25 and Mark 12.32), the opponents’ inquiry begins in each case with an address to Jesus as “teacher.” 218 Luz 2001–2007, 3:62 (see also Harrington 1991a, 310; Luck 1993, 239; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:211, among others) takes 22.41– 46 into account as well: “Verse 15 provides the exposition for the entire major section, vv. 15– 46.” Only in 22.41– 46, it is Jesus who initiates the discussion and now exposes his opponents. 219 The Herodians (22.16) are just supporting characters. In 12.14, Matthew omits them (cf. Mark 3.6); in the politically charged tax question, Matthew probably left them in the text because he saw in them a group loyal to Rome. 220 Compare Harrington 1991a, 309, 310; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:247; Luck 1993, 239; Gundry 1994, 441; and Repschinski 2000, 199–200, among others.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

129

ἔλαβον) and thereby recalls their decision in 12.14 to have Jesus killed.221 This connection is supported by the fact that, in both passages, Jesus sees through his opponents: just as he recognized the Pharisees’ murderous intention in 12.15, whereupon he withdrew (ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γνοὺς ἀνεχώρησεν ἐκεῖθεν), so also here, he sees through their plan and recognizes the malice that motivates their question (22.18: γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πονηρίαν αὐτῶν). With the replacement of ὑπόκρισις (Mark 12.15) with πονηρία, Matthew once again takes up a fundamental motif in his portrayal of the opponents. (Matthew then incorporates the Markan motif of hypocrisy into Jesus’ words with the address to the opponents as ὑποκριταί [Matt 22.18].) The Pharisees’ question about paying taxes to the emperor clearly aims either to provoke Jesus into a critical statement about the payment of taxes222—which would provide the opportunity to go to Pilate with an accusation223—or to use a positive answer to the question to discredit him among the people who were suffering under the burden of taxation.224 When Matthew changes φέρετέ μοι δηνάριον ἵνα ἴδω (Mark 12.15) to ἐπιδείξατέ μοι τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου, he brings the “malicious hypocrisy” of the opponents even more clearly to light, since the Matthean formulation indicates more plainly than the Markan version that the opponents have tax coins on their person225 and thus pay the tax themselves.226 221 Compare Luck 1993, 240; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:635; Gielen 1998, 245–46; and Repschinski 2000, 199, among others. 222 The captatio benevolentiae οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων in 22.16 accordingly seeks to draw Jesus out (cf. Hagner 1993/1995, 2:635; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:213; Gielen 1998, 247; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:65). Diachronically, in Matt 22.16 it is striking that Matthew has brought forward in the opponents’ words their reference to Jesus’ truthful teaching. This improves the line of thought within the verse, but at the same time, insofar as Jesus’ teaching is thus emphasized, it fits with the redactional  mention of Jesus’ teaching in the temple in 21.23. 223 On the basis of their radical theocratic views, the refusal to pay taxes was part of the agenda of the “Zealots.” According to Josephus, B.J. 2.118, Judas of Galilee declared payment of taxes to the Romans to be incompatible with the worship of the one God (cf. Josephus, A.J. 18.23). A critical statement on taxes would have brought Jesus under suspicion of intending an uprising against Rome (cf., for example, Luz 2001–2007, 3:65: “after the revolt of the Galilean Judas in 6 CE the refusal to pay taxes means a call to revolution”). 224 Compare Meier 1979, 155; Grams 1991, 56; Luck 1993, 240; Gundry 1994, 442; Saldarini 1994, 56; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:636; Gielen 1998, 247; Luz 2001–2007, 3:65; and Nolland 2005, 897. 225 They even do so in the temple! Compare, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:248: “The image of the Caesar on the denarius harms the dignity of the place. . . . By showing him a denarius in the temple area, they convict themselves” (trans. K. Ess). 226 Compare Gielen 1998, 251, as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:215. The replacement of δηνάριον with τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου makes clear that this is concretely concerned with the payment of taxes, regardless of the fact that the coins were also used for purposes other than paying the tax.

130

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus’ concluding reply in v. 21b expresses his mastery of the situation. After Jesus reveals that his opponents themselves pay taxes, nothing that could be used to counteract his popularity with the people can be gained from the first part of his answer— to give to the emperor that  which is his. Likewise, Jesus has provided them with no grounds for a charge to be brought to the Roman authorities. But the actual point of Jesus’ answer lies in the appended phrase, which bears the emphasis: καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. The fact that Jesus views the payment of taxes as permissible does not affect the honor due to God. This takes as a premise that τὰ Καίσαρος and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ exist on two different levels. In light of the context, there is more specifically a countercriticism to be heard  in καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. It has become clear that the Pharisees give to the emperor that which is his because they carry the tax coins. Their behavior toward Jesus, however, shows from the evangelist’s perspective that they do not honor God. In that Matthew adopts the note καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθον from Mark 12.12 in Matt 22.22b, which he had skipped over at the end of the parable of the wicked tenants, he expressly establishes the opponents’ failure: they have not achieved their aim and—for now— make their exit. The next attempt is made by the Sadducees, who, having already appeared together with the Pharisees in 3.7 and 16.1, emerge in the context of Matt 22.15– 46 as the “auxiliary troops of the Pharisees.” 227 As explicated above, their appearance is to be regarded in the light of 22.15: with their pedantically constructed case of seven brothers, who one after another carry out the levirate marriage (cf. Gen 38.8; Deut 25.5–10), they try to embarrass Jesus before his audience of the crowds (22.33). However, they achieve precisely the opposite, namely, admiration for Jesus among the people (22.33), 228 for once again Jesus masterfully “parries” their attack. As has already repeatedly occurred in the controversies with the Pharisees, Jesus invokes Scripture229 and in so doing reveals his opponents’ scriptural ignorance (vv. 29, 31). 227

Luz 2001–2007, 3:69. As Gielen 1998, 254, rightly notes, it is “not without a subtle irony” (trans. K. Ess) that, in the question of resurrection, the Sadducees, as auxiliaries of the Pharisees, confront Jesus with a topic on which the Pharisees fundamentally are in agreement with Jesus, against the Sadducees. 228 ἐξεπλήσσοντο (Matt 22.33) is to be understood as positive. See section 3.1.1. On the interpretation of 22.33 in Gielen 1998, 257, 258, 260, see section 3.1.1, n. 27. 229 With regard to the Sadducees as a counterpart, it may be significant that Jesus  makes use of the citation of Exod 3.6 from the Torah (cf. Grams 1991, 57; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:254; Gundry 1994, 447; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:642; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:350; and Fiedler 2006, 337).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

131

After the Sadducees’ attempt has also failed, the Pharisees once again appear in 22.34– 40 with a testing230 question.231 In itself, the lawyer’s question about the greatest commandment232 is not unusual in a Jewish context233 and is in no way malevolent.234 However, the Pharisees’ reasons for hoping, as they do in Matthew’s portrayal, that the question could trap 230 πειράζων is one of many, in part striking, minor agreements between Matt 22.34– 40 and Luke 10.25–28 (see the overviews in Kiilunen 1989, 18–19; Ennulat 1994, 281–87; and Lambrecht 1995, 79–81); in conjunction with the divergent compositional location of the pericope in Luke, these render highly plausible the presupposition of the existence and use of a second version (cf. Berger 1972, 203; Fuller 1975, 317–22; Burchard 1998a, 6–7; Gielen 1998, 264– 68), which may have been in Q (see, for example, Strecker 1971, 26, 135–36; Hultgren 1974, 373; Lambrecht 1995, esp. 78– 88, 95) but need not have been. The influence of an oral tradition is considered by, for example, Schweizer 1986, 277 (as a possibility); Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:236. The postulation of an older or younger Markan version (for “proto-Mark,” see Bornkamm 1968, 44; for “deutero-Mark,” see Ennulat 1994, 287) is in my opinion unconvincing, not only in this case but already from the outset, as there is no explanation for why the proposed level of revision was available to Matthew and Luke (in differing places) but was not carried further and indeed left no trace in the transmission of the Gospel of Mark. A redaction-critical explanation of the minor agreements (see, above all, Kiilunen 1989, 33–77; further, for example, Repschinski 2000, 222–23) is largely understandable if Matthew and Luke are each considered individually (a significant exception is likely νομικός in Matt 22.35, since Matthew does not use the word otherwise), yet the partly striking coincidence of the Matthean and Lukan “redaction” remains an objection. If a second version is presumed, πειράζων in 22.35 can be traced to this version (cf. Luke 10.25). 231 If συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό is an intentional allusion to Ps 2.2 (see Gundry 1967, 141 [cf. Gundry 1994, 447]; Berger 1972, 203; Repschinski 2009, 126; see also Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:258, 259; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:353; Gielen 1998, 261, n. 4), then the Pharisees appear here in the role of the “pagan” kings, who rebel against the Lord and his Messiah. However, the word συνάγειν is favored by Matthew and is also used elsewhere for the coming together of Jesus’ opponents (Matt 2.4; 26.3, 57; 27.62; 28.12; see also 27.17). It should further be taken into account that ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό is a frequent phrase in the LXX, with fifty-six occurrences, and also the entire syntagma συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό also occurs elsewhere in the LXX (see Judg 6.33; 2 Kgdms [2 Sam] 10.15). In short, the agreement between Matt 22.34 and Ps 2.2 “may be an accident” (Luz 2001–2007, 3:75, n. 4; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:239: “speculative”). 232 μεγάλη has a superlative meaning here, as shown by the juxtaposition of μεγάλη and πρώτη in v. 38 (likewise Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:259; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:240; on μεγάλη in the sense of a superlative, see BDR § 245.2). If v. 36 is understood  such that the question is about the nature of a great commandment (so Repschinski 2000, 217–18), Jesus’ answer does not address the question. 233 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:239; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:82. Contra, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:259. 234 The suggestion that only the malevolence of the questioner should be highlighted (so Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:239) is a stopgap solution that should come into question only as a last resort. The notion in Gielen 1998, 262, that the teacher of the law “obviously” aims “to mislead Jesus into an answer that is abbreviated and distorts the law” (trans. K. Ess) goes in the right direction but must be further clarified.

132

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus (cf. 22.15)235 might be found when the text is considered in connection with the preceding controversies over the Sabbath (12.1–14) and the washing of hands before a meal (15.1–20).236 Because Jesus has placed mercy above the temple and thus above the worship of God in the temple (12.5–7), and has also criticized the practice of vows that comes at the cost of the commandment to honor one’s parents (15.4– 6), his opponents are able to derive the accusation that Jesus emphasizes care for humanity at the expense of the love of God,237 and thus does not give sufficient attention to  the significance of the worship of the one God as the first and highest principle of Judaism.238 Since in an Early Jewish context the question about the greatest commandment is naturally answered with a reference to the love of God or fear of God, the question can be understood as the Pharisees’ attempt to elicit from Jesus an explicit statement on the Torah that would show that he does not see the worship of God as the highest priority.239 But if Jesus should answer in a way that recognizes the centrality of the worship of the one God, the Pharisees could use this as grounds for questioning Jesus’ earlier behavior. Once again, the authorities’ effort fails. In his answer, Jesus connects his emphasis on the merciful care for one’s neighbor with the position of the  love  of  God  as  the  first  commandment;  he  first  tunes  into  the  Jewish consensus with the citation from Deut 6.5 but then interprets this in harmony with his overall position by setting the love of neighbor in equal standing with the love of God.240 When Jesus’ answer is read against the backdrop of the conflict motif and particularly the preceding controversies  with the Pharisees, in which Jesus has twice reproached them with Hos 6.6 (Matt 9.13; 12.7), it becomes plausible that, for the evangelist, a critique of 235 In the context of Luke 10.25, it is entirely possible to understand ἐκπειράζειν in the neutral sense of test, put to the test. Within the composition in Matt 21–23, however, πειράζειν clearly has the negative sense of tempt. 236 On the following, see Konradt 2006, 147– 49. 237 In contrast, compare the order in Ps.-Phoc. 8 (see n. 238); Philo, Spec. 2.235; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.206. 238 See, for example, Let. Aris. 132 (προϋπέδειξε γὰρ πάντων πρῶτον ὅτι μόνος ὁ θεός); Ps.-Phoc. 8 (πρῶτα θεὸν τιμᾶν μετέπειτα δὲ σεῖο γονῆας); Philo, Decal. 65 (πρῶτον μὲν οὖν παράγγελμα καὶ παραγγελμάτων ἱερώτατον στηλιτεύσωμεν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ἕνα τὸν ἀνωτάτω νομίζειν τε καὶ τιμᾶν θεόν); Josephus, C. Ap. 2.190. See also the central position—visible in its liturgical use—of the Shema Israel (Deut 6.4–9). 239 The impact of 22.35 touches to a certain extent on the first trick question in 22.15–  22, insofar as the worship of the one God was discussed there as well. 240 δευτέρα δὲ ὁμοία αὐτῇ is Matthean redaction. The force of the Matthean version lies in this explicit coordination (cf. Kiilunen 1989, 40– 41, 46; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:260, 261; Gundry 1994, 449; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:243; and Burchard 1998a, 25: “coordination despite difference” [trans. K. Ess]).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

133

the Pharisees is implied by the explicit equality of Lev 19.18 and Deut 6.5: they neglect the love of neighbor (cf. Matt 23.23).241 As a logical consequence of having placed the pericope of the double commandment of love within the story of conflict, Matthew has left out Mark  12.32–34b, where Jesus and the scribe agree on the importance of the love of God and of neighbor. The friendly atmosphere of the Markan dialogue has no place in the Matthean narrative concept.242 In other words, by omitting any such insight on the part of the authorities, Matthew claims the double commandment of love (and thus the high value placed on the command to love one’s neighbor) as an exclusive characteristic of his own group.243 After Jesus’ opponents have failed in all three attempts, Jesus exposes the Pharisees in 22.41– 46 with a single “counterattack.” As in 22.34– 40, Matthew has incorporated this pericope into Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees244 by transforming Jesus’ teaching to the people in Mark 12.35–37 into another debate.245 For the first time in the entire Gospel, Jesus now  challenges his opponents246 to demonstrate their abilities as interpreters of Scripture, confronting them with an interpretive difficulty.247 Matthew expressly comments in v. 46a that no one was able to answer Jesus’ questions and follows this in v. 46b with the note from Mark 12.34c, which had been left out of the double-commandment pericope, that no one dared to question him further. The addition of λόγον after ἀποκριθῆναι αὐτῷ creates an arc connecting with the Pharisees’ plan in 22.15:248 those who seek to trap Jesus ἐν λόγῳ are now silenced themselves and must accept that their endeavor has failed. Jesus has impressively demonstrated his superiority as a teacher and, in doing so, has proven his “authority” (21.23). Finally, it is noteworthy that the Pharisees are silenced by a question about the identity of the Davidic Messiah. As discussed previously, Matthew inserted the acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David into the narrative 241 This dovetails with the fact that criticism of the Pharisaic interpretation of the command to love one’s neighbor is also articulated in Matt 5.43– 48. On this, see Konradt 2006, 136–38. 242 Compare Kiilunen 1989, 35; and Hagner 1993/1995, 2:645. 243 In contrast, compare in Early Jewish literature, above all, the evidence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. On this, see Söding 1994/1995; and Konradt 1997. 244 The redactional transition phrase συνηγμένων δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων, which achieves this integration, is usually understood to be temporal (see, for example, Grundmann 1986, 478; Schweizer 1986, 278; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:263; Luck 1993, 245; Wiefel 1998, 389; Luz 2001–2007, 3:88) but could also be interpreted as causal (see Sand 1986, 448; Ebersohn 1993, 187; Gielen 1998, 272, n. 2). 245 Compare section 2.1.1.2. 246 Compare Repschinski 2000, 226. 247 See section 2.1.1.2. 248 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:61; and Fiedler 2006, 335.

134

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of the entry into Jerusalem (21.9) and took this up again in 21.15. The motif of Davidic sonship thus forms a sort of inclusio in Matt 21–22.249 In Matt 21.15, the children’s acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David elicits protest from the chief priests and scribes. This is parallel to the Pharisees’ reaction in 12.22–24. Thus those who sharply criticized the crowds’ observation that Jesus might be the Davidic Messiah now reveal their inability to explain what the Scripture says about the Davidic Messiah. With regard to the logic of the continuing narrative, the Pharisees’ ignorance about the figure of the (Davidic) Messiah is of fundamental significance. Because the authorities do not understand that the Davidic Messiah, as the Son of God, is the Lord whom God will raise up to his right hand, they cherish the illusion, as Herod once did, that in order to assert their position, they can successfully get rid of Jesus, whom the crowds and the children have publicly acclaimed as the Son of David, just as had been done previously with the prophets (cf. 21.35–36). They turn a deaf ear to the warnings received in 21.37– 41. The citation of Ps 110.1 in Matt 22.44, seen in the context of the conflict motif, also acquires a threatening character for the authorities: they are among the enemies whom God will place under the feet of the exalted Christ. With the proof of the Pharisees’ incompetence in the background, Jesus’ discourse in Matt 23—which is addressed to both the disciples and also, taking up Mark 12.37b, 38, the crowds—proceeds with a critique of the scribes and Pharisees.250 The crowds, who have followed the defeat of the authorities,251 are now, together with the disciples, given a concluding lesson—that is, they are warned—about the authorities. From here on out, the people should know whom they ought to follow.252 The discourse flows into a solemn pronouncement of judgment against  the scribes and Pharisees, in which Jerusalem is also included with 23.37– 39. With this, Jesus’ public ministry comes to an end. The only events that follow, before the passion is introduced in 26.1–5, are Jesus’ pronouncement of the destruction of the temple (24.1–2), which follows up on 23.38,253 and 249

Compare Repschinski 2000, 188, 192. On this, see further section 4.3.3. 251 Once again, the setting indicated by Matt 22.33 should be pointed out. 252 There is no reaction of the people to Jesus’ warnings depicted in either Matt 15 or Matt 23, such that one must ask to what extent Matthew intentionally seeks to portray an “open” situation here. However, this narrative thread should not be overemphasized (contra Gielen 1998, 320, on Matt 23: “[Matthew] documents the lapsing interest of the ὄχλοι in Jesus in that he lets them disappear from the stage without comment.” [trans. K. Ess]); there is also no reaction from the disciples depicted here. 253 The “widow’s mite” (Mark 12.41– 44) is absent from Matthew; the pericope has no place in the thematic orientation of the “Jerusalem chapter” in the Gospel of Matthew. 250

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

135

the eschatological discourse directed at the disciples (24.4–25.46), instigated by their question in 24.3. 3.1.3  P   rovisional Conclusions: The Configuration of the Conflict and  the Portrayal of Jesus’ Opponents in the Gospel of Matthew An overview of the evidence up to the Passion Narrative yields, above all, the conclusion that Matthew depicts a differentiated reaction to Jesus in Israel—even in the days of Jesus’ public ministry in Jerusalem. He does so by consistently and—as shown paradigmatically by the redacted texts of Matt 3.5–10; 9.33–34; 12.23–24; and 21.9–17—intentionally distinguishing the authorities and the crowds from one another. “Critical” words like those in John the Baptist’s sermon (3.7–10) are directed at the authorities,254 and negative reactions to Jesus, such as the Beelzebul accusation, are attributed to the Pharisees (Matt 9.34; 12.24, diff. Luke 11.15) rather than—as is the case in Q—the (common) people, while reactions that express their increasing insight are placed on the lips of the crowds (Matt 9.33; 12.23; 21.9). The Matthean version of the healing of the lame man and the conflict over the forgiveness of sins in 9.2– 8 is also redactionally characterized by the contrast between the crowds and the authorities, due to the attribution of 9.8 to the crowds and the reformulation of their reaction.255 In general, Matthew has sculpted the crowds into a distinct “character” in his narrative. Although they are also clearly distinguished from the disciples in 12.46–50 and 13.10–17, they are much more closely aligned with them than with Jesus’ opponents, and this remains unchanged until Matt 23.256 With regard to the leitmotifs of the conflict, one can point first of all to  the opposition against Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.257 This motif emerges already in the prologue in 2.3– 6 and is then taken up repeatedly throughout the depiction of Jesus’ ministry. Because Matthew has intertwined Jesus’ Davidic sonship with his therapeutic activity, the opposition of the authorities is often found in this context. More precisely, their opposition is sparked by the crowds’ (increasing) recognition of the authority that finds  expression  in  Jesus’  healings,  to  the  point  that  they  acclaim  Jesus  as the Son of David. It is against this— that  is,  against  the  significance  254 Compare Matt 12.25–30 with Luke 11.(16,) 17–23, and Matt 12.38–42 with Luke 11.(16,) 29–32. 255 Compare section 3.1.1 and section 3.1.2.2, as well as Repschinski 2000, 73: “[T]he Scribes are described more clearly as opposed not only to Jesus, but also to the crowds who accept the power to forgive sins.” 256 On Gielen’s contrary thesis, see section 3.1.1, n. 27, and, above all, n. 67. 257 Alongside those named in section 3.1.2.5, n. 198, see also Chae 2006, 282–85.

136

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

that is conferred upon Jesus by the crowds (and the children in the temple [21.15])—that the authorities direct their malicious opposition. Alongside this, a second leitmotif is constituted by the conflicts about  the understanding of God’s will—of the Torah and the Prophets.258 Jesus’ teaching is thus also included alongside his therapeutic activity within the theme of conflict. To speak of healing and teaching is to speak summarily  of the central aspects of Jesus’ ministry (cf. 4.23; 9.35; and 21.14 + 21.23a), and so the opposition against Jesus directs itself against his ministry as a whole. Just as the opposition is concerned with the refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the Davidic Messiah sent from God in the context of the healings, so also is Jesus’ divine authority subject to debate in the conflicts over the  understanding of God’s will (cf. 21.23). These two sets of issues converge, then, in that the opposition is directed against the unique authority that Jesus—in his teaching but also in the case of the forgiveness of sins (9.6) and the healings (cf. 12.28)—claims or has ascribed to him by others. There are no bright areas in the picture that Matthew paints of the authorities. A central characteristic of this picture is the evangelist’s repeated emphasis on the evilness of the opponents.259 So, for example, the Matthean Jesus reprimands the scribes in 9.4 for thinking evil in their hearts; the Pharisees are unable to say anything good because they are (inherently) evil (πονηροὶ ὄντες, 12.34260); and, in view of the question from the Pharisees and Herodians about taxes, Matthew has Jesus recognize their πονηρία (22.18).261 Matt 9.4 is located in the context of the very first debate between Jesus and the authorities; thus from the very begin­ ning they reveal their evilness. Hence πονηρία characterizes their essence, and because they are essentially evil, they do not listen to Jesus but seek to antagonize him. Thus the opponents, in their evilness, make several attempts to “tempt” Jesus (πειράζειν).262 In the Gospel of Matthew, πειράζειν 258

For more detail, see Konradt 2006, 133–52. Kingsbury 1987, 58– 60, characterizes πονηρία as a “root character trait” (58) of the authorities (60). Compare Repschinski 2000, 324, and van Tilborg 1972, 27–38, who, however, adduces hypocrisy alongside wickedness as the two most important characteristics (7; see the following discussion with n. 266). 260 The phrase does occur in 7.11 as well, where πονηρία appears as a sort of fundamental anthropological datum, yet this in no way characterizes the evangelist’s basic anthropological concept. Rather, the phrase functions here as a rhetorical means to emphasize God’s goodness in order to strengthen the confidence of prayer (cf., for example, Luz  2001–2007, 1:359). 261 See further also the “wicked and adulterous γενεά” in Matt 12.39; 16.4. Matthew has in this case found the first attribute in Q 11.29, but there the saying does not address  the authorities. Jesus’ opponents are never characterized as πονηροί in Mark or Luke. 262 Matt 16.1; 19.3; 22.18, 35. In 16.1– 4 and 22.18, this is directly connected with the characterization of the opponents as “wicked.” 259

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

137

is otherwise used only of the devil (4.1, 3), who is described redactionally as ὁ πονηρός in 13.19.263 It would hardly be an exaggeration of the evidence to see an associative connection here—particularly in light of the authorities being addressed multiple times as the “brood of vipers” (3.7; 12.34; 23.33):264  the  evil  opponents  are  under  the  influence  of  “the  evil one.”265 Alongside their evilness, a second characteristic feature of the opponents is their hypocrisy.266 Unlike πονηρία, the accusation of ὑπόκρισις was already present in the Markan text (Mark 7.6; 12.15; cf. Matt 15.7; 22.18), but Matthew has placed much more emphasis on this aspect, with the stereotyped address of the scribes and Pharisees as ὑποκριταί in Matt 23.13–36.267 External appearance and internal reality are contradictory (cf. 23.27–28). They seek to appear pious outwardly (23.5; cf. 6.2, 5, 16268) and showcase their strict piety in terms of life in accordance with Torah by imposing unbearable burdens on people, but they do not lift a finger themselves (23.4). They are concerned with their reputation among the people (23.5–7) but not with the people’s well-being.269 It is uncertain whether the genitive in οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ in 13.38 is to be read as masculine or neuter. In the first case, this would refer to the devil, for which one can  adduce the interpretation of the one who sews weeds (equivalent to the sons of the evil one) as ὁ διάβολος in the immediately following verse (13.39). The same philological problem occurs mutatis mutandis in the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6.13 (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). 264 See Kingsbury 1987, 59–60; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:304. 265 Compare Kingsbury 1987, 60, 66; Powell 1990, 608–9 (see also Powell 1992, 201–2); van Aarde 1994, 77; and Olmstead 2003, 66. Matthew does not characterize the opponents as “children of the devil” (cf. John 8.44 and, in Early Jewish literature, Jub. 15.33), but the address—used multiple times—as “vipers’ brood” is hardly better. See further section 4.3.2. 266 Compare van Tilborg 1972, 8–26. 267 See Matt 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, as well as 23.28. On Matt 6.2, 5, 16, see n. 268. 268 Matthew does not make the thrust against the scribes and Pharisees in 6.2, 5, 16 explicit, but it is implicit, if not obvious, in light of the word-for-word resumption of πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι (6.1) in 23.5, and in general in the more immediate context (5.20!) as well as the larger context of the Gospel—the accusation of hypocrisy (6.2, 5, 16) is elsewhere directly aimed at the scribes and Pharisees (see the evidence above; in 24.51, the scribes and Pharisees are not specifically in view but are also not excluded; cf., for example, van  Tilborg 1972, 8, 17; and Anderson 1994, 103– 4). From a reader-oriented perspective, one could argue that the identity of the hypocrites in the synagogues and on the streets in Matt 6.1– 18 is still open; however, first, this applies only for the first reading of the Gospel, and  second, it should be observed that the Gospel is integrated within a communicative situation, and in the Matthean community, the disqualification of the scribes and Pharisees as  hypocrites can hardly have been an idea suggested for the first time in the Gospel. In other  words, the readers possess information in advance, with which they are able to decipher who is primarily in view in 6.1–18. 269 Compare Kingsbury 1987, 64. 263

138

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

This last observation brings into view another central feature, for the complete failure of Jesus’ opponents in their leadership of the people is an  equally  significant  aspect  in  Matthew’s  portrayal  of  them.  The  people  is  like  a  languishing,  worn- down,  shepherdless  flock  (9.36),  because  the authorities have not taken care of the needy and have not sought out but rather excluded the lost (cf. 9.11). And when the people experiences God’s merciful care in Jesus, they are hostile to him who brings the people healing and salvation. Moreover, the authorities’ failure spreads to their inability to teach the crowds properly, because they do not understand the Scriptures. The accusation of scriptural ignorance is a common thread that runs throughout Jesus’ conflict with the authorities (9.13;  12.3, 5, 7; 19.4; 21.16, 42; 22.31).270 They have not comprehended God’s central requirements—above all, compassion and the love of neighbor. Instead, they tend to their own παράδοσις, the tradition of the elders, and this is at the expense of God’s central commandments (15.2– 6). For this reason, too, they are full of lawlessness (23.28). In short, they are “blind guides” (15.14; 23.16, 24). Whoever trusts in them will come to ruin (15.14; cf. 23.15). In addition to the authorities’ failure with regard to the people, Matthew repeatedly makes a connection, as discussed previously, between their actions against Jesus and the popularity he experiences among the crowds. This feature of the Matthean portrayal of conflict is the counterpart to the hypocritical authorities’ concern with their status among the people. Jesus endangers their position; they are unwilling to submit to his authority, which is a further manifestation of the fact that, in their evilness and hypocrisy, they have in fact long since closed themselves off to God’s will (cf. 15.1–9). With their actions against Jesus, they seek to assert their  position.  In  this  light,  the  conflict  appears  as  essentially  a  conflict  of leadership271— that is, a struggle between conflicting leadership claims.  The fact that Jesus’ mission is directed from the beginning solely at the crowds is to be regarded in the context of this basic theme of the constellation of conflict. In short, the way that Matthew tells his story of Jesus is as  a whole determined by this conflict constellation. From this perspective, it  also makes sense that the crowds appear much more markedly as a distinct “figure”  in  the  narrative,  as  compared  with  Mark,  since  the  central  significance of the conflict between Jesus and the authorities in the Matthean  Jesus story also places a greater weight on the crowds’ tendency in choosing a side. 270

Compare section 3.1.2.5, n. 201. Compare, for example, Overman 1990b, esp. 141– 49; Saldarini 1994, esp. 44– 67; and Repschinski 2000, 319, 340– 41. 271

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

139

Matthew  indicates  this  fundamental  theme  of  the  story  of  conflict  already in Matt 2, with the subtle double use of the royal title.272 The scenes of conflict examined in the preceding discussion develop and illustrate various facets of this basic motif. At the end of the Gospel, in the context of the Passion Narrative, it resonates once again when Pilate, in 27.18, expresses the insight that the authorities have delivered Jesus out of envy. The decisive question to be addressed now is whether the configuration of conflict  in the Passion Narrative differs fundamentally from the portrayal that Matthew has presented with great care and consistency up to this point—that is, whether the crowds now cross over to the authorities’ side and whether this reduces all that has preceded it to an episode of no further relevance.

3.2

The Passion

In the Matthean reworking of the Markan Passion Narrative,273 not only is Jesus’ sovereignty emphasized274 but also the evilness and unscrupulousness of his opponents is even more distinctly pronounced. Following the failure of the attempt to trap Jesus in battles of words in order to gain something to use against him (22.15– 46), 26.3–5 indicates a renewed effort.  The  conflict  that  runs  throughout  the  Gospel  now  moves  toward  its climax. Matthew has changed the deliberation of the chief priests and the scribes, found in Mark 14.1–2, into a formal meeting—namely, of the chief priests and elders of the people (i.e., the Sanhedrin).275 Matthew has these two groups appear together first at the beginning of the cycle of debates  between Jesus and the authorities in 21.23–22.46 (21.23); in the Passion Narrative, Matthew continuously refers to them as the opponents of Jesus, whereas the scribes appear again only in 26.57 (apparently as advisors to the chief priests) and at the mockery of Jesus (27.41) and the Pharisees are explicitly mentioned only in the context of the plea to Pilate about the surveillance of the grave (27.62).276 272 That the conflict will end such that the current authorities will be “dethroned” by God is already implied in Matt 2 in that, after the magi’s worship of Jesus, the royal title is no longer used for Herod. See section 3.1.2.1. 273 The Gospel of Mark is Matthew’s only written source in the Passion Narrative, yet the influence of oral tradition must be taken into account alongside this. Compare, for  example, Dahl 1955/1956, 17–22; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:380– 81; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:301. 274 See, among others, Senior 1982a, 9; and Broer 1988a, 27–28. 275 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:439; Gielen 1998, 348– 49; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:331. On the formal character of the gathering, see also Senior 1982a, 23–24. 276 See, however, the discussion of the relationship between the elders and the Pharisees in Matt 21.23, 45, in section 3.1.2.5, n. 212.

140

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

While in Mark 14.1–2, the authorities consider how to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him, Matthew, in 26.4, has them agree that—after the previous failure—they will now resort to this (last) measure. Matt 26.4 can thereby be read as something of a heading for what follows: the arrest of Jesus “by stealth”277 takes shape in Judas’ offer; the plan to kill Jesus δόλῳ278 looks ahead to the behavior of the Sanhedrin members in the trial against Jesus and the sentencing by Pilate. Matthew expressly names the chief priests’ αὐλή (v. 3) as the location for their meeting, whereby the connection between the decision in v. 4 and the course of action at the trial (cf. 26.57–58) is also underscored spatially.279 Sympathy for Jesus among the people no longer hinders the authorities (cf. 21.46) but now determines their intended approach: in view of the popularity that Jesus had previously enjoyed among the crowds280—who have come to Jerusalem for the festival—the time of the festival is to be avoided,281 lest the crowds create an uproar. Once again the contrast between the (common) people and the ruling class emerges. The designation of the elders as οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ in 26.3282 is not without a certain amount of irony in light of v. 5. The Matthean differentiation between the leaders and the people speaks clearly against taking the genitive attribute as an indication that the former represent the latter, in the strict sense of the word.283 The elders of the people seek to avoid the people because they are fearful (cf. 21.45– 46). Thus τοῦ λαοῦ hardly implies “representation” but rather indicates an area of responsibility, 284 and Against this common understanding of δόλῳ, see Luz 2001–2007, 3:332: “Δόλος is a legal term that refers not to ‘guile, cunning’ (for example, arresting Jesus secretly in the Garden of Gethsemane) but to the ‘evil intention’ of deliberately killing Jesus.” 278 δόλῳ probably refers to both verbs that follow (likewise Senior 1982a, 26). This is supported stylistically by the fact that Matthew chooses a paratactic construction rather than the Markan participle; the hypotaxis would be in accordance with Matthean style (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 1:23 with n. 137; Klein 1996, 28, with evidence within the Passion Narrative). 279 See also, in both cases, the redactional usage of συνήχθησαν (26.3, 57). 280 On λαός in Matt 26.5, see the discussion later in this section with n. 398. 281 See Gielen 1998, 347: the fear of the people “now no longer blocks the intended action as such, but rather only prompts the Sanhedrin to take precautions in choosing the appropriate moment” (trans. K. Ess). 282 Compare Matt 21.23; 26.47; 27.1. See further γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ in 2.4. 283 Compare Levine 1988, 266–67; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:320, 439; see further Gundry 1994, 518, on 26.3; and Repschinski 2000, 235, 329. Against van Tilborg 1972, 4; Senior 1982a, 24–25 (with n. 1 on p. 25); Buck 1986, 171; Sand 1986, 518; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:216; Luck 1993, 279; Schnackenburg 2002, 261, among others; see also Luz 2001–2007, 3:29. 284 See Levine 1988, 267: the people serve here “merely as a frame of reference: rulers must rule someone, and since the rulers are evil, these ‘people’ are the lost sheep without 277

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

141

in view of the fact that Matthew has just emphasized their distance from the people, thereby points to the authorities’ failure in the role they have filled until now, in which they delegitimize themselves by their behavior. Further, by placing a scene in 26.1–2 in which Jesus speaks to his disciples about his imminent death, the evangelist makes clear that even now the authorities only seem to take control of the action. In fact, they are still just “secondary players.”285 While they seek to avoid the festival (v. 5), Jesus proclaims that his death will come during the festival (v. 2), and this is precisely how it will happen.286 The opportunity to arrest Jesus δόλῳ arises for the authorities surprisingly through Judas’ offer. By placing the question τί θέλετέ μοι δοῦναι; on his lips, Matthew not only indicates greed as a motive for the betrayal287 (cf. John 12.6) but also, above all, prepares for the mention of the thirty pieces of silver in 26.15b, with which the evangelist alludes to Zech 11.12b. The  sum  of  money  is  picked  up  in  the  fulfillment  quotation  in  27.9– 10  and is thus to be read in the context of the Matthean fulfillment Christology. Yet this does not fully exhaust the meaning Matthew intended here. Zech 11.13MT ironically designates the thirty pieces of silver, with which the shepherd is paid, as a “lordly price.” This fits with the observation that  Exod 21.32 names this amount as compensation for the owner of a slave who has been killed by an ox.288 If Matthew has this passage in view,289 then the amount is to be understood as an expression of the authorities’ disdain of Jesus.290 In this case, it makes good sense that the price is emphasized a good shepherd.” See also Frankemölle 1998, 350: “Even the ‘elders of the people’ are probably to be interpreted by the reader as self-appointed leaders, since they fear ‘the people’ (21.26; 26.4–5), and even further distance themselves from the people after the resurrection (27.64)” (trans. K. Ess). 285 Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:384 (trans. K. Ess); compare Senior 1985, 51–52; Heil 1991a, 18, 24; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:437. 286 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:332; and Nolland 2005, 1048. 287 Compare Senior 1985, 56; Vogler 1985, 59; Harrington 1991a, 363; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:390; Gundry 1994, 523; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:452; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:442, 443; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:345; contra Fiedler 2006, 385. 288 Exod 21.32 (together with Zech 11.12) likely serves as a model in the portrayal of the sale of Joseph by his brothers in T. Gad 2.3 (cf. J. Becker 1970, 358, who at the same time rejects the occasionally supported thesis of a Christian interpolation inspired by Matt 26.15; 27.9–10). Whereas the price of sale, according to Gen 37.28 LXX, was twenty gold pieces, T. Gad 2.3 raises this to thirty gold pieces. (The account is harmonized with Gen 37.28 in that Gad and Judah conceal ten gold pieces from the brothers.) 289 Van Tilborg 1989, 167, is critical of a reference to Exod 21.32. 290 Compare F. Martin 1975, 292–93. Whether another aspect resonates for Matthew in the allusion to Zech 11 can at most be suspected but cannot be clarified with sufficient  certainty, since the relationships of the figures in Zech 11 are not analogous to those in  Matt 26. It is clear that the authorities take on the role of the sheep traders. In Zech 11,

142

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

by the redundant phrase τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο in the (free) rendering of Zech 11.13 in Matt 27.9. Night provides the favorable opportunity (26.16) to capture Jesus by stealth without provoking a riot among the people.291 The phrase ὄχλος πολύς in 26.47, inspired by Mark, is open enough that it could indicate an official delegation of the temple guard292 but does not necessarily do so. It could also indicate simply a crowd of people hired by the Sanhedrin.293 In the latter case, the question arises as to the relation of this group to the crowds in Galilee, which up to this point have tendentially been depicted in a positive light. Put another way, does the arrest scene indicate that the ὄχλοι have switched sides?294 Against this conclusion, however, is the fact that an ὄχλος is not a strictly  defined  group  of  people  but  rather  presents  a  somewhat  “amorphous” entity.295 In Matt 26.47, the ὄχλος is introduced explicitly as ὄχλος . . . ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ and is thus newly  defined  in  contrast  with  the  preceding  occurrences.  Further,  the  they pay off the shepherd. This might suggest that Judas corresponds with the shepherd (cf. Nolland 2005, 1059; then in 27.9–10, ἔλαβον as first person singular and ἔδωκα [with Codex Sinaiticus, among others] instead of ἔδωκαν [so, for example, Wick 2001, 30]), yet this reading does not fit with the fact that Zech 11.11 signifies his divine authorization.  Moreover, in the Matthean context, according to 2.6; 9.36; 10.6; 15.24, as well as in light of the inclusion of Zech 13.7 in Matt 26.31, it is natural to identify Jesus with the shepherd (so, for example, Bruce 1961, 342– 46, 349; E. Lohmeyer 1962, 350; Moo 1983b, 165– 66; van Tilborg 1989, 168; and Limbeck 1991, 290). Here again, one can object that in Zech 11 the shepherd receives the pieces of silver; Judas’ role would have no counterpart. This distinction can be softened, however, insofar as both situations are about getting rid of the shepherd. In support of the case that Matthew sees Jesus in the role of the shepherd of Zech 11.4–14 (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:391: “The distinction apparently did not much bother Matthew” [trans. K. Ess]), one can ask whether the fact that, in Zech 11, the sheep traders think little of the shepherd, although they have recognized his divine commission (Zech 11.11), also applies to Matthew. Taking Matt 2.3– 6 into account as well, this option cannot be rejected out of hand; yet this is to be taken with the reservation mentioned above of the unclear references of the figures. But see the further discussion later in this section. 291 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:506. 292 See, for example, Beare 1981, 516; Harrington 1991a, 374; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:507. Fiedler 2006, 395, infers from μετὰ μαχαιρῶν in Matt 26.47 (and the use of λῃστής in 26.55) a reference to Roman soldiers as part of the arresting squad (see also Hagner 1993/1995, 2:788). On ὄχλος in a military context, see Meyer and Katz 1990, 583. 293 See, for example, M‘Neile 1957, 393 (“a mere hired rabble”); and Luck 1993, 290. 294 Such a change of sides is postulated by, for example, Garland 1979, 39–41; and Kingsbury 1996, 4; see also France 1989, 225–26. Contrast Olmstead 2003, 61: “The narrative has offered no hint that the crowds, whose regard for Jesus had, as recently as 26.5 (cf. 21.46), paralyzed the Jewish leaders and prevented his arrest as he taught openly in the temple, have suddenly altered their allegiance.” 295 On the Matthean usage, see section 3.1.1; see also the remarks on the first mention  of the crowds in Matt 4.25, section 3.1.1.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

143

words Jesus speaks to the group that has come to arrest him in 26.55 recall once again the chief priests’ and Pharisees’ fear of taking Jesus while he taught in the public space of the temple because of the potential protest of the crowds (21.45– 46).296 Here a redactional detail in Matt 26.55 is noteworthy: in Jesus’ reaction to the arrest, addressed to the ὄχλοι, Matthew has changed καθ’ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (Mark 14.49) to read καθ’ ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἐκαθεζόμην. This makes good sense if Matthew wanted to avoid identifying the group of people in 26.47, 55, with the ὄχλοι who had previously cheered and listened to Jesus.297 Taking all this together, it can be concluded that Matthew does not identify the crowd from 26.47, 55—which moved against Jesus “with swords and clubs” (v. 47) and thus, according to v. 52, will die by the sword298—with the (Galilean) crowds who are positively disposed toward Jesus.299 Rather, the ὄχλος from Matt 26.47, 55, expressly belongs to those who previously refrained from taking action against Jesus because of the crowds that surrounded him. Observed in the light of 21.1–17, 46; 26.5, on the one hand, and 21.10; 23.37–39, on the other, it is furthermore likely that the ὄχλος here is from Jerusalem.300 In Matt 26.51, following  Mark  14.47,  the  identification  of  one  participant  as  a  “slave  of the chief priest” suggests that the ὄχλος πολύς might be regarded more  specifically  as  subordinates  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  although there can be no certainty on this point; the precise relationship between the crowd and the Sanhedrin must ultimately remain open.301 It can, however, be concluded that Matt 26.47, 55, does not convey the idea that those who had previously cheered Jesus are now on the side of his opponents. Matthew has also made significant changes in the portrayal of the trial against Jesus (26.59– 68). In contrast to the Markan version, the Sanhedrin, 296 καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με (Matt 26.55) brings to mind 21.46: καὶ ζητοῦντες αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι ἐφοβήθησαν τοὺς ὄχλους, ἐπεὶ εἰς προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον. 297 In addition, within the narrative logic, the kiss of Judah as an identifying sign must presume that the squad sent with Judas by the authorities would not recognize Jesus by sight. Compare Nolland 2005, 1115, on the Matthean redaction in 26.55: “to say that Jesus was with the people of this crowd in the temple might not be quite right.” 298 Jesus’ words inserted by Matthew are first and foremost a reaction to the incident in  v. 51, but the generalizing πάντες allows for a simultaneous reading as a subtle threat against those who have set out against Jesus “with swords and clubs” (with Gielen 1998, 353). 299 Compare n. 404. 300 Compare Gielen 1998, 352. 301 According to Olmstead 2003, 61, Matthew uses “ὄχλος πολύς and ὄχλοις to emphasize the size of the delegation, ironically underlining the fear of the Jewish leaders and Jesus’ control of the entire situation.”

144

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

supplemented with the scribes as their team of experts,302 seeks false testimony against Jesus from the start—for it is clear from the failed debates in 22.15– 40 that nothing can be brought against him in any other way. Formulated against the background of 26.4, after Jesus has been arrested through the deceitful stealth of the nocturnal operation, the narrative now presents the second and decisive step of having him killed deceitfully— namely, on the basis of false testimony (26.59).303 Thus Jesus’ identity as the Messiah promised to Israel is not only underscored through the fulfillment quotations and the emphasis on his Davidic sonship; it is also a part of this image that no charge can be brought against Jesus on the basis of the Torah. Thus, from the very beginning, the trial is a sham304 whose verdict has long been decided (26.4, 59). The genitive absolute πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων in v. 60a is to be read as concessive: unlike in Mark, where the Sanhedrin fails because of the false witnesses, here the Sanhedrin fails despite the false witnesses.305 This fits with the observation that  Matthew has skipped over Mark 14.56b. After the general statement in v. 59, Matthew does not again identify the accusation in vv. 60b– 61 expressly as false testimony. This raises the question whether Matthew, unlike Mark 14.57, wants this to be understood as a true testimony.306 This suggestion is contradicted by the fact that, in Matthew, Jesus nowhere makes the statement given in v. 61.307 Further, προσελθόντες, which is of course stereotypical of Matthew, closely connects the appearance of the final two witnesses with the preceding genitive absolute; εἶπαν can thus be read as simply 302

In comparison with Mark 14.53, the scribes have been brought forward, probably in order to associate them with the chief priests as experts (cf. Gielen 1998, 362). 303 Compare Buck 1986, 169 (“The Jewish authorities of Matthew know from the start that there is no possibility of finding legitimate evidence”); and Häfner 2010, 297. 304 Compare Harrington 1991a, 383: “[F]rom Matthew’s perspective the Jewish ‘trial’ and condemnation of Jesus were a sham based upon ‘false witness’ (Matt 26:59).” Compare further Broer 1988a, 28–34; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:426. 305 On a concessive understanding of the genitive absolute, see Gundry 1994, 541– 42; see further, for example, Sand 1986, 539, 540; Harrington 1991a, 379; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:462; Luz 2001–2007, 3:425, 426; and Fiedler 2006, 398. 306 Most interpreters answer in the affirmative, finding true witnesses in Matt 26.60b,  61 (see, for example, Catchpole 1970/1971, 223; Meier 1979, 191; Senior 1982a, 163– 64, 166– 68; Geist 1986, 333; Fiedler 1991, 306–7; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:427; Luck 1993, 293; R. E. Brown 1994, 435–36; Gundry 1994, 542; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:798; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:525; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:427). Contrast Gerhardsson 1981, 56; Kingsbury 1996, 87; Gielen 1998, 358–59, 362– 63 (cf. Gielen 2008, 129–30); Siegert 2002, 115; Häfner 2010; and Talbert 2010, 295. 307 Compare Gielen 1998, 358.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

145

a stylistic variation on the Markan ἐψευδομαρτύρουν in order to avoid a stylistically bothersome repetition following ἐζήτουν ψευδομαρτυρίαν (v. 59) and ψευδομαρτύρων (v. 60).308 On the other hand, one can at least find points of reference for the logion in  Jesus’ ministry. Although the Matthean Jesus does not fundamentally negate the temple (cult),309 he does subordinate it to mercy (12.5–7)310 and criticizes the current operation of the temple by driving out all the merchants (21.12–13): rather than being the home of proper piety, the temple has degenerated into a “den of thieves” (Jer 7.11), a place of religious profiteering. In 23.38 Jesus proclaims that  Jerusalem’s house311 will be left desolate; not one of the temple’s stones will be left upon another (24.2). The latter is spoken only to the disciples, but the threatening words directed against Jerusalem in 23.37– 39 occur specifically in  the public space of the temple, which Jesus does not leave until 24.1. Thus the connection between Jesus and the destruction of the temple, as it is articulated in 26.61, is not plucked out of thin air.312 It is further noteworthy that 26.61 does not, as does Mark 14.58, address Jesus’ intention but rather his ability (cf. esp. 26.53) to tear down the temple and restore it again in three days. Further, Matthew is not concerned with the replacement of the existing temple, made with hands, by another not made with hands (Mark 14.58) but rather with the capability to restore it in three days.313 Thus Matthew 308 It ought to be considered a possibility that the insertion of κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὥστε θανατῶσαι αὐτόν into the account of the Sanhedrin’s decision in 27.1 is due to Matthew’s intentional creation of a correspondence with 26.59 (ἐζήτουν ψευδομαρτυρίαν κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν θανατῶσωσιν), and so the scheme and the decision are verbally coordinated (cf. Senior 1982a, 216). However, this does not necessarily mean that 27.1 is also concretely based on 26.59. The foundation of the sentence is Jesus’ statement in 26.64, and the witness of 26.61 is merely the trigger of the chief priest’s question in v. 63. 309 Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that Jesus’ atoning death (Matt 26.28) makes the temple obsolete. The tearing of the curtain at Jesus’ death (27.51) belongs in this context and is at the same time a sign of judgment pointing toward the destruction of the temple (cf. Konradt 2007a, 213–14; Schwindt 2007, 94–95). 310 On the interpretation of μεῖζον in Matt 12.6, see section 3.1.2.3, n. 129. Matt 5.23– 24 also presupposes temple cult but gives priority to interpersonal forgiveness. 311 On the interpretation of οἶκος in Matt 23.38, see section 4.3.3 with n. 363. 312 In my opinion, 27.40 is not a suitable indication that the testimony is correct (contra, for example, Hagner 1993/1995, 2:798), since the mocking words of the passersby presume with the conditional sentence εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ—which Matthew inserted—that the statement of 26.61 is connected with the chief priest’s question in 26.63 (. . . εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). 313 Compare Paesler 1999, 45– 46. The idea that the phrase ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ refers to Jesus himself, in the sense of John 2.21 (see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:526), is not suggested by anything in the context and is contradicted by the insertion of δύναμαι (with Luz 2001–2007, 3:427, n. 20). On the eschatological expectation of a new Jerusalem (and a new temple in it), see, for example, Isa 54.11ff.; Ezek 40ff.; Hag 2.7; Tob 14.5; 1 En. 90.29; T. Dan 5.12; 4 Ezra 7.26; 13.36; 2 Bar. 32.2– 4 (on this topic, see the study by Söllner 1998).

146

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

has placed the focus of the logion entirely on Jesus’ authority, 314 which ties in well with the previous narrative in Matt 21–22. Particularly, it should be recalled that Matthew recounts Jesus’ therapeutic ministry in the temple directly following the cleansing of the temple, and this—or, more precisely, the children’s cry of “Hosanna to the Son of David” in reaction to the healing— first elicits the hostile  intervention of the chief priests and the scribes (21.15). Already in the context of Jesus’ temple-critical activity, then, his messianic authority—here articulated in the title Son of David—is at issue, and the composition of Matt 21.23–22.46, as we have seen, continues this very aspect.315

These pieces of evidence, taken together, suggest a nuanced answer to the question of whether 26.61 presents false testimony. There is an element of truth in the statement: Jesus is critical of the temple as it stands under the leadership of the Jerusalem authorities, has proclaimed its destruction, and in fact possesses the authority ascribed to him.316 It is nevertheless false testimony in that Jesus has not said that he will destroy the temple, much less “bragged” of the ability to do so. “Showy” miracles are not his thing.317 The question thus remains open as to what is new in vv. 60b– 61 that makes the statement exploitable for the course of action against Jesus. Is it that two witnesses agree here in their (false) testimony, so that the rules of procedure are formally met318 (cf. Deut 17.6; 19.15; also Num 35.30; 11Q19 LXI, 6–7)? In support of this, one can point to the fact that Matthew has left out Mark 14.59 (καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως ἴση ἦν ἡ μαρτυρία αὐτῶν).319 However, as seen previously, the same is true of the first Markan note that the witnesses’  statements did not agree (Mark 14.56), which might indicate that, already in 26.60a, Matthew did not see the lack of consultation among the witnesses as a decisive element.320 One might, therefore, consider that the previous 314 Compare Senior 1985, 92–94; Broer 1988b, 91; Luck 1993, 293; Hagner 1993/1995,

2:799; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:525–26; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:463; Paesler 1999, 46; and Fiedler 2006, 399, among others. 315 See section 3.1.2.5. 316 Attention should be given to the connection between the δύναμαι in 26.61 and Jesus’ statement in 26.64 that the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the δύναμις (cf. Heil 1991a, 61). 317 See Gielen 1998, 363. See also the rejection of the demand for a sign in Matt 12.38– 42 and 16.1– 4. 318 In this vein, see, for example, Suhl 1998, 341; and Häfner 2010, 298–99. 319 This omission would then by no means simply be due to the fact that “for the flow of the narrative [the comment is] not important” (Luz 2001– 2007, 3:426). Rather, its  content would not fit the context. 320 Compare, for example, Paesler 1999, 40: “It is not articulated in Matt—against Mark 14.56—that the failure of the hired witnesses is due to their disparate statements” (trans. K. Ess).

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

147

accusations were not substantial enough.321 The emphasis would then lie not on the fact that two witnesses now make the same claim but that this claim is weighty (cf. Jer 26.7–11!): it concerns the cultic center. The chief priest appeals to Jesus with an oath, as Matthew dramatizes it, to evoke a reaction to the claim implied in the temple logion. In the broader context, the chief priest’s understanding of this as Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah and Son of God picks up on 21.37– 44,322 where Jesus for the first time speaks of himself publicly, although indirectly, as the Son of  God. Whereas Jesus responded with silence to the preceding (false) accusations, now he reacts. His answer σὺ εἶπας (26.64), like the Markan ἐγώ εἰμι  (Mark  14.62),  is  affirmative323 (cf. Matt 26.25324). One can consider whether Matthew intended the indirectness of the answer325 as an insinuation that the chief priest himself is not only aware of Jesus’ claim326 but, more specifically, also aware that this claim is not made in arrogance but is  in fact justified.327 The exposition of the theme of conflict in 2.3– 6 has, in  any case, established this very idea as setting the direction for what would follow. The authorities’ rejection of Jesus emerges as an attempt to assert their own position despite their better understanding.328 Matt 27.11 reveals that the authorities can bring Jesus’ messianic claim as an indictment before Pilate; to increase their chances of success, they use the royal title to 321

See Gundry 1994, 542. Compare Kingsbury 1986, 643, 654; Lambrecht 1998, 121; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 120, as well as Luz 2001–2007, 3:43. The mention of “the living God” in the demand of an oath is at the same time reminiscent of Peter’s confession of the Messiah in 16.16. 323 There is a broad consensus on this point in current scholarship. See Catchpole 1970/1971; Senior 1982a, 176–77; Geist 1986, 334; Kingsbury 1986, 654; Sand 1986, 541; Broer 1988a, 30; Fiedler 1991, 307; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:428; R. E. Brown 1994, 491–92; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:528; Frankemölle, 1994/1997, 2:464; W. Kraus 1997, 423; Lambrecht 1998, 121; Wiefel 1998, 462; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 142; Deines 2005, 340; Luz 2001–2007, 3:429; and Nolland 2005, 1131, among others. 324 Matt 27.43 also presumes that Jesus’ response in 26.64 is affirmative. 325 The indirectness of the response is a minor agreement with Luke 22.70, alongside ἀπ’ ἄρτι (Matt 26.64), ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (Luke 22.69), and, above all, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε (Matt 26.68; Luke 22.64). The latter has hardly emerged by chance but rather indicates the influence of oral tradition (on the possibility of a deutero- Mark, see section 3.1.2.5, n. 230).  A redactional origin for the Matthean σὺ εἶπας is suggested by Matt 26.25. ἀπ’ ἄρτι stems from Matthew already in 23.39; 26.29. 326 Compare Gielen 1998, 360, 363– 64. 327 Compare Powell 1990, 608 (“Jesus’ response might be rendered, idiomatically, ‘You know that I am!’ ”); and Gundry 1994, 545; contra, for example, Harrington 1991a, 379; and Nolland 2005, 1120. 328 The parable of the wicked tenants also points in this direction: the tenants know the identity of the son; they kill him because he is the son (cf. Powell 1990, 607– 8). Not least, 28.11–15 shows that the authorities act against their better judgment (on 28.11–15 cf. Hoffmann 1990, 118). 322

148

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

suggest that Jesus has made a political claim and thus seek to present Jesus as a political adversary to Pilate. Jesus does not, however, leave the matter at the indirect confirmation  of his messianic status but, rather, points beyond this to his future role as universal Lord and judge, because of which the Sanhedrin’s endeavor is doomed to failure.329 In his answer in 26.64, Jesus combines Dan 7.13 with a reference to the citation of Ps 110.1 in Matt 22.44. While καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ can refer to nothing other than the Parousia (cf. 24.30–31),330 the talk of the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power has Jesus’ postmortal exaltation in view. The insertion of ἀπ’ ἄρτι— once again— in 26.64 is striking (cf. 23.39; 26.29). This is difficult to  interpret in terms of the Parousia,331 but with regard to Jesus’ exaltation to universal Lord, it makes sense insofar as the events accompanying Jesus’ death, depicted in Matt 27.51–53, serve as eschatological signs pointing to his exaltation.332 Conversely, in view of 27.51–53, ἀπ’ ἄρτι underscores the fact that Matthew conceives of Jesus’ death and resurrection as one coherent event. Further, the authorities witness not only the events surrounding Jesus’ death but also the empty grave that indicates the resurrection and exaltation (28.11–15).333 The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven in 26.64 identifies the end point of the salvation- historical phase  that will begin with Jesus’ exaltation and, because of this connection, can be included in the event to which the authorities are witnesses ἀπ’ ἄρτι. Jesus’ answer implies an apparent threat for the authorities: according to the psalm, he will sit at the right hand of God until God puts his enemies under his feet (Ps 110.1; cf. Matt 22.44),334 and when the Son of Man who sits at the right hand of God comes to judge the world (25.31) “on the clouds of heaven,” he will condemn those who now condemn him.335 The signs 329 Insofar as Jesus’ proclamation stands in contrast to his opponents’ plans, an adver-

sative aspect appertains to πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. Such an aspect is also seen by, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 3:426, 430; contra, for example, Hagner 1993/1995, 2:800. 330 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:429; and Nolland 2005, 1131. 331  J.  A.  Gibbs  2000,  147– 48,  seeks  to  resolve  the  problem  by  taking  26.64fin.  in reference to postmortal exaltation, yet this is clearly contradicted by Matt 24.30–31 (see n. 330). 332 Compare J. A. Gibbs 2000, 144–45; Nolland 2005, 1132. Luz 2001–2007, 3:430, sets a different emphasis. Meier 1979, 192, postulates that it is not the Sanhedrin but the community being addressed here. The introduction of the ἀπ’ ἄρτι sentence with πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, however, clearly contradicts this thesis. 333 In this connection, of further interest is Jesus’ proclamation to the disciples in Matt 16.28 that some of those present would not taste death before they see the Son of Man come into his kingdom. Compare section 2.3, n. 379. 334 Compare section 3.1.2.5. 335 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:531–32.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

149

of Jesus’ accession to power, which the authorities will see “from now on,” are at the same time signs of their own fall from power—which in God’s eyes has already occurred. The claim Jesus makes—if only indirectly336—in 26.64 offers the authorities the opportunity to accuse him of blasphemy (v. 65)337 and pronounce him to be deserving of death (v. 66). Finally, the first evangelist’s  omission of the Markan τινες (Mark 14.65) in the mockery scene (Matt 26.67– 68) fits with the decidedly negative portrayal of the authorities in the  Gospel of Matthew—the entire Sanhedrin is involved in the defamation of the Messiah. This negative portrayal of the authorities is further strengthened by the insertion of 27.3–10 into the Markan narrative thread. Matthew’s primary interest in this addition is less the fate of Judas itself than the behavior of the chief priests.338 As Acts 1.16–20 shows,339 Matthew does not freely formulate this passage.340 There are common features here not only in the 336 Jesus does not talk about himself directly in Matt 26.64b, but only indirectly, in that he speaks of the Son of Man. Accordingly, the chief priest’s reaction presupposes that he is aware that the Son of Man refers to Jesus (cf. Matt 9.6!). 337 Matthew emphasizes this even more strongly than Mark, in that he introduces the chief priest’s reaction with ἐβλασφήμησεν, thereby doubling the assertion of blasphemy, and further underscores ἠκούσατε τὴν βλασφημίαν with the preceding ἴδε νῦν. It is clear that the narrowly defined concept of blasphemy from m. Sanh. 7.5, where speaking the name of God is defined as blasphemy, does not underlie Matt 26.65, just as little as it does  9.3. The exact reference of the accusation of blasphemy in Matt 26.65 is not—following Mark— explicitly identified. Does Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah suffice (so, for example,  Broer 1988a, 31)? Or is a blasphemous claim to be found first in the motifs of the exaltation and Parousia in 26.64b (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 3:432: “Jews experienced Jesus’ claim to sit at the right hand of God on the throne and to judge the world as the Son of Man as an intrusion into divine prerogatives and as calling God’s singularity into question”)? At least in the first case, this would hardly be concerned with the fact that someone made such a  claim, but that Jesus—with his criticism of the temple—does this (cf. Broer 1988a, 33). 338 With Broer 1988a, 36; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:449; Suhl 1998, 343–44; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:475; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:557, 571. This already speaks against understanding the insertion of Matt 27.3–10 as motivated by some juxtaposition between Peter and Judas (contra E. Lohmeyer 1962, 374; Senior 1982b, 347–51; and Vogler 1985, 65– 66; see also Paul 2005, 77). 339 See further the portrayal by Papias preserved in Apollinaris, frag. 6 (Schriften des Urchristentums 3:59– 60), which does not, however, constitute a witness to an independent, third branch of transmission but rather can likely be attributed to the form of the tradition witnessed to in Acts 1.18–19 (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 3:469: “a further oral development of the text form transmitted in Acts 1:18–19 with elements of topoi from the traditional inventory of the death of villains”). 340 Compare Broer 1988b, 97; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:443– 44; Gundry 1994, 553; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:557–58; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:467, among others. Stylistically Matt 27.3–10 is a mixture of Matthean vocabulary (see, above all, τότε vv. 3, 9, ἀναχωρέω v. 5, συμβούλιον λαμβάνω v. 7, and see further Luz 2001–2007, 3:467, n. 7) and

150

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

connection of the payment for betrayal with the acquisition of a field, called  the Field of Blood, but also in the scriptural reference, although this is then explicated differently, in accordance with different etiologies for the name of the field in Matt 27.6– 8 and Acts 1.18– 19.341 Acts 1.16–20 says nothing of Judas’ remorse, and accordingly the chief priests do not appear. This does not necessarily mean that Matthew created these features,342 but they do in any case fit into his concept; and the evangelist has at least formulated  certain details himself, as connections with 27.24 show.343 Matthew has the chief priests and elders react with pointed disinterest to Judas’ confession (τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς;),344 which reflects their disinterest in a legitimate trial  and their absolute determination to have Jesus killed. His innocence is not news to them; they are indifferent to Judas’ conscience, so that in addition words that only occur in 27.3–10 (ἀπάγχομαι v. 5, κορβανᾶς v. 6, τιμή vv. 6, 9, κεραμεύς vv. 7, 10, ταφή v. 7), whose appearance here, however, is determined by the content. 341 In Acts 1.18, Judas suffers a fateful, deadly accident—as “divine judgment”—on the  field  acquired  with  the  payment  for  his  betrayal.  Also  according  to  Papias  (see  n.  339), Judas dies a miserable death on his land. By contrast, that Judas commits suicide according to Matt 27.5 (which could be inspired by Ahithophel’s suicide by hanging in 2 Sam 17.23 [see, for example, Klauck 1987, 95–96; Luck 1993, 297; R. E. Brown 1994, 656–57; Gundry 1994, 553, 555; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:565– 66; contra, for example, Moo 1983a, 189–90; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:472; Klassen 1996, 170]), corresponds with the motif of remorse, which is hardly compatible with the idea of a divine punishment. The role of the chief priests in the Matthean version, however, is dependent upon Judas’ remorse according to the narrative logic. 342 See only Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:558, 559–60; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:468– 69. The question whether Acts 1.18–19 is closer to the original version (if there was one original version) than the Matthean version is (so, for example, Broer 1988a, 41– 42; contra, for example, Benoit 1965; and Vogler 1985, 88) can remain open here and is also scarcely able to be answered (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 3:468– 69; and Harrington 1991a, 386). 343 The phrase αἷμα ἀθῷον in 27.4 resonates in Pilate’s words, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” But, above all, σὺ ὄψῃ (27.4) has a verbal parallel in ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε (27.24); αἷμα ἀθῷον is a traditional biblical phrase (cf. Deut 27.25; 1 Kgdms [1 Sam] 19.5; 25.26, 31; 3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 2.5; 4 Kgdms [2 Kgs] 21.16; 24.4; 2 Chr 36.5d; 1 Macc 1.37; 2 Macc 1.8; Ps 93.21LXX; 105.38LXX; Jer 7.6; 19.4; 22.3, 17; 33.15LXX [= 26.15MT]; cf. T. Levi 16.3; T. Zeb. 2.2; Philo, Spec. 1.204; see also 2 Bar. 64.2). With regard to Matt 27.4, in terms of content, particular attention should be paid to Deut 27.25 and 1 Kgdms (1 Sam) 19.5 (cf. Nolland 2005, 1150–51) but also to Jer 19.4, bearing in mind the reference to Jeremiah in Matt 27.9. Altogether, the density of the evidence in Jeremiah and its connection there with  the  theme  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  gives  rise  to  the  suspicion  that  the  first  evangelist’s own focus on the idea of spilling innocent or righteous blood as the reason for Jerusalem’s destruction is also inspired by having read Jeremiah (and Lamentations; but see also Ezek 24.6–9). 344 One can ask whether an intentional contrast between the Matthean community and the Jewish authorities resonates here, since according to Matt 18.21, the former is meant to distinguish itself by not turning away sinners (even notoriously relapsing ones) in their (renewed) repentance.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

151

to being responsible for Jesus’ death, they are also complicit in the death of Judas.345 Judas’ remorse functions as a contrast to the unrepentant impiety of the members of the Sandhedrin.346 Since μεταμέλεσθαι occurs in the Gospel beyond 27.3 only in 21.29, 32, where it is also a matter of the authorities’ impenitence—more precisely, likewise that of the chief priests and elders (see 21.23)—it is possible that Matthew has intentionally created a cross-reference here.347 Neither the repentance of tax collectors and prostitutes nor Judas’ remorse has dissuaded the authorities from their sacrilegious behavior. Against this background, v. 6 is full of irony:348 after what has just happened, the observance of the law (cf. Deut 23.19) emerges as purely formal (23.25–29; also 23.23–24), as a charade. Furthermore, v. 6 contains the explanation for the name of the field acquired with the thirty pieces  of silver: Field of Blood does not refer, as in Acts 1.18–19, to the blood of Judas, who is said to have died gruesomely in the field he acquired, but  rather to the blood of Jesus. In other words, the area is called the Field of Blood because Jesus’ blood is “stuck” to the money used in the purchase.349 Corresponding with this, the fulfillment quotation that follows in Matt  27.9–10350 picks up on the theme of the purchase money and the acquisition 345

Likewise, see Gielen 1998, 367; see also Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:446. Because of the brusque dismissal of Judas’ intervention by the authorities, Judas can no longer correct his transgression in having sold “innocent blood” and is at the same time left alone in the guilt thus incurred. All that remains is for him to carry out the punishment (cf. Deut 27.25) upon himself (cf. Schlatter 1933, 769; Nortjé 1994, 48; Luz 2001–2007, 3:473; and Nolland 2005, 1153). 346 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:471: “The behavior of the Jewish leaders appears cynical, because they do not even deny Judas’s assertion that Jesus is innocent.” 347 See van Tilborg 1989, 166; Heil 1991a, 68; and Nolland 2005, 1150. 348 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:566; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:473–74. 349 On the phrase τιμὴ αἵματος, cf. T. Zeb. 3.3, which is likewise concerned with qualms about dealing with blood money. 350 The citation is a combined quotation. The primary reference text is Zech 11.13, yet,  alongside  this,  the  mention  of  the  potter  and  the  field  are  reminiscent  of  Jer  18.1– 12  and 19.1–13, on the one hand, and Jer 32, on the other (on the mixed form of the citation, see Senior 1982b, 353– 62; R. E. Brown 1994, 651–52; and Wick 2001, 27–32; as well as Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:448– 49; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:568– 69; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:471, 474). The ascription to Jeremiah (an overview of the attempted explanations is offered by Knowles 1993, 60–77) is not a mistake (contra Luz 2001–2007, 3:474) but is also not due only to the rather peripheral influence of Jeremiah in the citation itself (Wolff  1976, 164, for example, regards the mention of the potter’s field as the only reason for the  ascription of the citation). On the one hand, the ascription can be explained against the background of the connections that Matthew creates between Matt 2— where another fulfillment  quotation ascribed to Jeremiah occurs in Matt 2.17–18 (here in fact taken from Jeremiah)— and the Passion Narrative (see Knowles 1993, 78–80). On the other hand, the mention of Jeremiah is probably to be understood as an indication for the reader to regard the events of

152

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of  the  field,  whereas  the  words  of  the  psalm  cited  in  Acts  1.20  address  the fate of the impious. In the process, the purchase money is strikingly emphasized by the formulation, which seems redundant, τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου351 ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. Here, the Matthean insertion of the phrase ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, which finds  support in ‫ ֵמ ֲעלֵ ֶיהם‬in Zech 11.13MT, is of particular interest. Syntactically, this can hardly be related to τοῦ τετιμημένου (hyperbaton)352 but rather— like ‫—מ ֲעלֵ ֶיהם‬ ֵ must be taken with the relative clause. However, this does not ascribe the guilt of Jesus’ blood to Israel collectively,353 as if the members 27.3–8 in light of Jeremiah or of the Jeremiah passages mentioned above (cf. van Tilborg 1989, 168, and those named at the end of this note; on possible references, see the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:558–59; particularly on Jer 19.1–13, see Gundry 1967, 124–25; Senior 1982b, 359– 61; Moo 1983b, 159– 60 [cf. Moo 1983a, 195–96]; Menken 1984, 10–11; and, above all, Knowles 1993, 69–76; and Miler 1999, 266–71). In other words, Matthew has reflected upon Zech 11.13 as well as the preceding narrative in light of the Jeremiah  passages mentioned above. It was probably significant for this association that the elders of the people and the elders of the priests are addressed in Jer 19 (v. 1, cf. Matt 27.3), and the destruction of Jerusalem is proclaimed and justified by the shedding of innocent blood (v. 4,  cf. Matt 27.4); further, in v. 11, in the context of the destruction of the city symbolized by the breaking of the potter’s vessel, there is at the same time an explicit reference to the judgment of the city’s inhabitants (cf. v. 12 and already v. 3), who are identified as ὁ λαὸς οὗτος in v. 11 (cf. Matt 27.25, and the discussion later in this section). With regard to the addressees of the word of judgment in Jer 19.1, it should further be recalled that the mention of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10.6; 15.24) was likely (in part) inspired by Jer 27.6LXX (πρόβατα ἀπολωλότα ἐγενήθη ὁ λαός μου, οἱ ποιμένες αὐτῶν ἐξῶσαν αὐτούς, ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη ἀπεπλάνησαν αὐτούς . . . [= 50.6MT]), and in the critique of the “shepherds” implied in these passages, Jer 23.1– 4, among others, probably served as a model (cf. section 2.1.2). This suggests that the critique of the leaders resonates in the mention of Jeremiah, which is entirely in line with the Matthean intention in 27.3–8 (cf. Paul 2005, 80). Taking Jer 18.1–12 into account as well, one can further ask whether Matthew had in mind the impenitence of the Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem(!) who are addressed in Jeremiah and emphasized in Jer 18.11–12. Particulars remain speculative to a certain degree, yet this does not affect the overall significance of the ascription of the quotation: the mention of Jeremiah in Matt 27.9  functions “as a means of drawing attention to an important allusion that could otherwise easily be overlooked” (Knowles 1993, 77; in this vein, see also Gundry 1967, 125; Senior 1982b, 369; Moo 1983b, 161; Ham 2005, 62– 64, 68; and McAfee Moss 2008, 178–83). 351 τοῦ τετιμημένου hardly requires that ἀγροῦ be supplied, as suggested by Bauer and Aland, col. 1628; and Hübner 1992, col. 856. Jesus is rather the implied referent. 352 The phrase could then identify the agent (on ἀπό for ὑπό with the passive, cf. BDR § 210.2), but in this case, the following relative clause would be superfluous, or it could be  meant partitively and thus identify Jesus as one of the sons of Israel, but this would not make sense with regard to content. 353 Against Rothfuchs 1969, 88, according to whom the guilt for the rejection of Jesus is ascribed to the “children of Israel” as a whole. In agreement with Rothfuchs, see Vogler 1985, 69–70; for an interpretation as a collective reference to Israel, see further, for example, Klauck 1987, 100; R. E. Brown 1994, 649; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 149. For the contrary position, see n. 355.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

153

of the Sanhedrin, the active figures on the narrative level, would appear as  representatives of the people in the strict sense of the word on the interpretive level of the fulfillment quotation. For one thing, there is no article in  ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ and, for another, the phrase belongs to the subject implied in the verb and has a partitive meaning.354 Thus the members of the Sanhedrin are the only subject in ἐτιμήσαντο, and the insertion of ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ designates them as “some of the sons of Israel.” Here as well, then, the authorities and the people are not merged into a single unified entity.355 The significance of this designation can best be understood as a contrasting motif to the behavior of the chief priests and elders: their behavior stands in blatant contradiction to their status as members of the chosen people. The Messiah of Israel, in whom Israel’s promises of salvation come to fulfillment,  is unbelievably opposed by (the leading) sons of Israel, by those within his own people. In other words, ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ signalizes the incomprehensible nature of the Sanhedrin’s impious course of action. In 27.9–10 as well, then, nothing is said of Israel as a whole bearing the guilt for the blood of Jesus. The central question is now whether this remains the case in 27.11–26. The interpretation of πᾶς ὁ λαός in v. 25 plays a decisive role in answering this question. It is clear that Matthew has set new accents in the sentencing scene with the insertion of 27.19, 24–25,356 and other changes to his Markan text, to the effect that the people gathered before Pilate bear a greater responsibility for the verdict, whereas the Roman court is thus to some degree, if not fully, exonerated.357 It is not the people and Pilate, however, who are presented as opponents from the beginning, but rather Pilate and the Jewish 354 Compare Zahn 1922, 709 (with n. 75); Bruce 1961, 340; Gundry 1967, 126–27 (cf. Gundry 1994, 557); McConnell 1969, 133; Senior 1982b, 355–56; Stendahl 1991, 126, with n. 1; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:814; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:570; Garbe 2005, 44– 45; Luz 2001–2007, 3:474; Nolland 2005, 1157; and Baxter 2012, 160. On the circumlocution of the partitive genitive with ἀπό, see BDR § 164.1. 355 Compare Gundry 1994, 557; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:570 (“ἀπό . . . is partitive . . . and harmonizes with Matthew’s tendency to distinguish between the Jewish people and their leaders”); Luz 2001–2007, 3:475; Nolland 2005, 1157; and Baxter 2012, 160; as well as Stendahl 1991, 126, with n. 1: “Matthew distinguishes between the authorities and the people, putting the responsibility on the former.” On this, see the discussion of the ascription of the quotation to Jeremiah in n. 350. 356 The verses are to be attributed to Matthean redaction; see, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:453–54. 357 One can consider whether the “political” apologetic directed at pagan contemporaries plays a role here (cf. Russell 1982, 442, n. 103; Schmithals 1987, 375–76; Fiedler 1991, 316; Kvalbein 2000, 49–50). One can further point to the fact that Matthew likely felt compelled to omit the name of the demon in 8.28–34 (Mark 5.9: legion), seeing it as “an ironic allusion to the Roman occupying power” (Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:322; trans. K. Ess). Among others, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:555, 579, and above all Carter 2003/2004, 275–76, see no exoneration of Pilate in 27.11–12.

154

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

authorities, both of whom attempt to use the people in order to achieve their goal.358 The Jewish authorities seek Jesus’ crucifixion, while Pilate seeks his  release—for “he knew that they had handed him over out of envy” (27.18). While Matthew omits the explicit mention of the chief priests as the subject in v. 18 (see Mark 15.10), it is nevertheless clear from 27.2 (παρέδωκαν) that he has no one else in mind but the members of the Sanhedrin.359 Matt 27.18 thus confirms once again that the authorities are concerned with defending  their position, which is endangered by Jesus’ popularity. Pilate apparently believes the crowds are on his side360 and therefore sees the custom of the Passover amnesty as a suitable means to make the authorities’ effort come to nothing. It is significantly Pilate himself (and not  the people, as in Mark 15.8) who initiates the Passover amnesty (Matt 27.15– 17) and thus—circumventing the chief priests and elders who were accusing Jesus (27.12–13)—involves the ὄχλος gathered361 before him.362 The crowd is given the choice, whereby Pilate attempts to influence the people’s decision  in Jesus’ favor by offering up Barabbas, a “notorious” prisoner,363 against Jesus. Accommodating the people, Pilate identifies Jesus from the Jewish  perspective as ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός (27.17), rather than speaking in Gentile terms of “the king of the Jews” (cf. 27.11, 29, 37; see also 2.2).364 While Pilate is encouraged to take this approach by his wife (v. 19), events take an unexpected turn in v. 20—for the interruption caused by the message from Pilate’s wife gives the chief priests and the elders365 the 358

Compare Gielen 1998, 377. Compare Gundry 1994, 562; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:478; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:497, n. 43, among others; contra Broer 1988b, 103 (“in Matthew, due to the omission of the chief priests, [the causal clause acquires] the sense that the people delivered Jesus out of envy” [trans. K. Ess]); R. E. Brown 1994, 802; Suhl 1998, 348; as well as Sand 1986, 552. 360 Compare Heil 1991a, 73–74. 361 συνάγω in Matthew, most of the time, means simply the gathering of people (cf., for example, 13.2; 18.20; 22.34, 41; 25.32; cf. Sand 1986, 552), not “an official public  assembly” (contra Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:453, 455 on 27.17 [trans. K. Ess]). 362 Gielen 1998, 376, even sees here an “affront against the Jerusalem officials leading the prosecution . . . whom the proconsul . . . practically ignores” (trans. K. Ess). 363 ἐπίσημον is usually interpreted in malam partem, but first of all means “notable, remarkable” and could here simply identify Barabbas as a well­known prisoner (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 3:491, 496–97). In the Matthean context, however, a pejorative sense is likely if it is correct that Matthew seeks to portray the Passover amnesty as Pilate’s attempt to circumvent the Jewish authorities’ request. Compare Gundry 1994, 560: “In order to heighten the Sanhedrin’s guilt, Matthew wants to highlight the undesirability of Barabbas, not his association with Jewish patriotism” (see also Luck 1993, 300). 364 Compare Gielen 1998, 376, 381. 365 As before in 27.12 (diff. Mark 15.3) and later in 27.41 (diff. Mark 15.31), Matthew supplements the chief priests of Mark 15.11 with the elders. Matthew thus consistently identifies the high council as the agent from 26.3 on. 359

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

155

opportunity to react to the new situation created by Pilate’s recourse to the Passover amnesty and to seduce366 the gathered people (v. 20)367 into asking for Barabbas’ release and putting Jesus to death.368 Thus the authorities, not Pilate, successfully manipulate the people to achieve their own aim. The replacement of ἀνέσεισαν (Mark 15.11) with ἔπεισαν (Matt 27.20; cf. 28.14) likely serves to make the scene transparent for the Matthean audience or enables it to be used parenetically. The seduction of the people gathered before Pilate becomes a model for any kind of misleading of the people by authorities and thus, on the evangelist’s level of communication, serves as a severe warning against trusting the authorities. The riotous character of the following scene is in no way affected by the replacement of the Markan ἀνέσεισαν (see only v. 24).369 After Matthew has depicted Pilate as the initiator of the Passover amnesty as a way to free Jesus, it is only logical that he now—after the failure of this attempt370—pointedly371 relieves Pilate of any guilt in the verdict against Jesus: ἀθῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος (τοῦ δικαίου)372 τούτου· ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε.373 Those who are thereby made responsible have, so far, following ἔπεισαν undoubtedly has this pejorative sense here (cf. Sand 1992a, col. 149; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:479, among others). 367 Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:457, aptly notes that it is implicit “that the people were still undecided until that point” (trans. K. Ess). See also Fiedler 2006, 409. 368 The Matthean formulation ἵνα . . . τὸν . . . Ἰησοῦν ἀπολέσωσιν not only strengthens the connections between the Passion Narrative and Matt 2 (see the discussion below with n. 394), where Herod seeks to destroy the baby Jesus (2.13: . . . τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό), but is at the same time reminiscent of the Pharisees’ decision in 12.14 (ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν). Compare Nolland 2005, 1173. 369 On this, see n. 403. 370 Pilate by no means admits defeat straightaway but rather, after the people’s decision to release Barabbas (v. 21), makes two more attempts to counter the Jerusalem officials’ request (vv. 22–23). 371 The scene bears a biblical atmosphere. See Deut 21.1–9 as well as Pss 26.6; 73.13; and also Isa 1.15–16. Compare further Let. Aris. 305– 6. 372 On the possibility of the originality of the longer version with τοῦ δικαίου, see Wettlaufer 2007. 373 By contrast, the Markan Pilate, after being unable to counter the people’s request, immediately acquiesced to their will (Mark 15.15). It is disputed whether the Matthean change from the Markan σταύρωσον αὐτόν (Mark 15.13–14) to the passive form σταυρωθήτω (Matt 27.22–23) is intended to exonerate Pilate (see Schelkle 1967, 150; Strecker 1971, 116; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:453; Luck 1993, 300; Gundry 1994, 563– 64; and Gielen 1998, 380, among others) or is simply due to Matthean style (see Senior 1982a, 251; R. E. Brown 1994, 825, n. 8; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:499, n. 63). Going further back in the context, one can see a tendency toward exonerating Pilate suggested in the third announcement of suffering. While in the paratactic sequence of Mark 10.34, the ἔθνη are the subject of ἐμπαίζειν, ἐμπτύειν, μαστιγοῦν, and ἀποκτείνειν, Matthew has turned this into a series of substantivized final infinitives (εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι, Matt 20.19), which is dependent on παραδώσουσιν and thus identifies the purpose behind  366

156

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Mark (see Mark 15.8, 11, 15), been labeled as ὄχλος (Matt 27.15, 20). Matthew furthermore adopts this label in v. 24—Pilate washes his hands ἀπέναντι τοῦ ὄχλου—but in v. 25, switches to πᾶς ὁ λαός. It is central but, due to the ambiguity of λαός, disputed in current scholarship whether the previously consistent differentiation between the authorities (including Jerusalem) and the common people is removed here, at the decisive moment of Jesus’ conviction, and the people as a whole are ranked among Jesus’ opponents by the change to λαός in the theologically loaded sense—or at least with the connotation—of the people of God as a whole.374 If read in this way, 27.25 bears  a  unique  significance  for  the  evangelist’s  salvation- historical  concept.375 Matthew would here—transcending the situation—seek to blame Israel as a whole. As an alternative, there is the opposing thesis that πᾶς ὁ λαός, considered within the narrative flow of 27.15– 26, is to be understood  on the same line as the previously used ὄχλος, and thus designates nothing more than the crowd gathered before Pilate,376 whereby πᾶς can be seen as prefigured by the πάντες in v. 22, which refers to the ὄχλοι (v. 20).377 With regard to the usual discussion—whether πᾶς ὁ λαός in 27.25 is simply an alternate for ὄχλος or specifically includes the entire people of  God in the guilt for Jesus’ death—it must be noted philologically that this alternative only considers the two ends of the spectrum of options. This

the chief priests’ and scribes’ delivery of Jesus. By means of this syntactic change, the emphasis is placed entirely on the chief priests and scribes as the driving force in the actions against Jesus and thereby as responsible for the crucifixion (cf. Gielen 1998, 196– 97). 374 See Citron 1954, 409–10; Trilling 1964, 72; Fitzmyer 1965, 669; Fenton 1966, 436; Schelkle 1967, 150–51; Walker 1967, 47; Kingsbury 1969, 26; Strecker 1971, 115–16; Meier 1979, 199–200; Senior 1982a, 258–59; Frankemölle 1984, 204–11; France 1985, 52, 392–93; Grundmann 1986, 555; Mora 1986, 33–39; Sand 1986, 554; Verseput 1986, 44; Patte 1987, 380; Freyne 1988, 464; Miyoshi 1989, 43; Broer 1991, 335; Fiedler 1991, 309; Heil 1991a, 8, 76; Limbeck 1991, 295; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:458; Hare 1993, 317; Luck 1993, 301–2; R. E. Brown 1994, 837; Weiss 1996, 2074; W. Kraus 1997, 416–17; W. Stegemann 1998, 4 and 21, n. 3; Feldmeier 2000, 140; Repschinski 2000, 331; Cousland 2002, 83; Bruner 2004, 2:723; Garbe 2005, 108–9, 115; Paul 2005, 92–93, 304–5; and Keller 2006, 145– 46; see also Cargal 1991, 106, who sees a connection between the blood curse and 26.28 (and 1.21) alongside the assumption of guilt (see also Repschinski 2006, 263), and therefore rejects the thesis of a definitive condemnation of Israel initiated by the assumption of guilt (Cargal 1991, 108– 12). 375 Compare only Trilling 1964, 75; Frankemölle 1984, 206–7 (on Frankemölle, cf. the discussion later in this section with n. 423); Kühschelm 1986, 171; Broer 1988b, 109; Gnilka 1988, 24–25; Luz 1993, 315; Gundry 1994, 565; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 150. 376 λαός in 27.25 is interpreted in the sense of “crowd,” and so as (just) an alternative term for ὄχλος, by, among others, Hummel 1963, 145 (27.5 probably means 27.25); Kosmala 1970, 96–99, 118; Kremers 1979, 39; Lovsky 1987, 350–51; Levine 1988, 266ff.; Strathmann and Meyer 1990, 50; Saldarini 1994, 32–33; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:592; Gielen 1998, 383– 86; and Fiedler 2006, 411; see also Haacker 1986, 50, n. 12. 377 Compare Levine 1988, 267.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

157

can be clearly seen in the example of Luke-Acts.378 Here λαός at times pointedly designates God’s people379 but often simply a crowd380 as well. The latter usage also occurs in the phrase πᾶς ὁ λαός,381 where it is even an alternate term for ὄχλος (e.g., in the feeding of the crowds in Luke 9.12–13). However, Luke never—including Acts—uses λαός to refer to non-Jewish crowds;382 λαός signalizes, so to speak, that crowds are included in God’s people. Moreover, this language is not uniquely Lukan but continues a tendency to use λαός for the people Israel383 or for Jewish crowds or people384 and for 378

With eighty-four occurrences (36+48), Luke–Acts accounts for nearly 60 percent of the New Testament uses of λαός. 379 See, for example, Luke 1.68, 77; 7.16; Acts 3.23; 13.17, 24; occasionally in explicit contrast to the ἔθνη (Luke 2.32; Acts 26.17, 23). 380 See Luke 6.17; 7.1, 29; 9.13; 18.43; 20.1, 9; Acts 3.12; 4.1, and elsewhere. 381 See Luke 7.29; 9.13; 18.43. 382 Non-Jewish crowds are called ὄχλος (Acts 13.45; 14.11, 13, 14, 18, 19; 16.22; 17.8, 13; 19.26, 33, 35) or also τὸ πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως (Acts 14.4). See also ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῆς περιχώρου τῶν Γερασηνῶν in Luke 8.37. Compare Schürmann 1990, 1:163, n. 10; and Strathmann and Meyer 1990, 52. 383 I will limit myself to a small selection of the evidence: Exod 3.7, 10, 12, 21; 6.7; 7.4; 15.13, 16; 19.5; 33.13; Lev 26.12; Num 23.9; Deut 7.6; 9.29; 2 Kgdms (2 Sam) 5.2, 12; 7.24; 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 8.16, 51; 16.2; 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 9.6; Neh 1.10; 2 Macc 1.26; 3 Macc 2.6, 16; Ps 27.9LXX; 77.71LXX; 78.13LXX; 93.14LXX; 94.7LXX; 99.3LXX; Wis 10.15; Amos 7.8, 15; 8.2; 9.14; Mic 6.2, 3, 5; Joel 2.17–19; Zech 8.8; 9.16; Isa 1.3; 40.1; 49.13; Jer 2.11; 38.33LXX (= 31.33MT); Bar 2.35; 4.5; Ezek 34.30; 36.28; 37.23, 27. In the “rewritten bible” of the first books of the Antiquitates, λαός in Josephus often means the whole people Israel (see, for example, in the depiction of the exodus at A.J. 2.311, 323, 336) but by no means consistently (see only A.J. 8.32 and the evidence in n. 384). Transitions between the aspects of meaning can also be fluid, as for example when referring to the people in contrast with the  Levites and priests (A.J. 4.68–70, 74, 164; 8.101; 9.163, 260, see also 3.258; cf. Exod 19.24; Deut 18.3; 4 Kgdms [2 Kgs] 12.9; 22.4; 2 Chr 30.3; 31.4; 34.30; Ezra 2.70; 7.13, 16; 8.15; 9.1; Neh 8.9; 10.35; 1 Esd 5.45; 1 Macc 14.44; Hos 4.9; Zech 7.5; Isa 24.2; Jer 33.7ff.LXX [= 26.7ff.MT]; 34.16LXX [= 27.16MT]; 35.1, 5LXX [= 28.1, 5MT]; Bar 1.7). And, to name just one further example, in the mourning of the people at Moses’ departure, λαός in A.J. 4.322 (see also 4.330) takes up τὸ πλῆθος (4.320, 322, see also 4.328). In the LXX, see further, for example, the use of λαός in Exod 5 (vv. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 22, 23) or Exod 18.13–26 (vv. 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26). Quite often, λαός refers to the troops (see, for example, Josh 8.3, 11; 10.7; 11.7; 1 Kgdms [1 Sam] 26.14; 30.21; 2 Kgdms [2 Sam] 10.10, 13; 12.28, 29; 15.23, 24; 16.6; 17.2; 18.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16; 19.3, 4, 9 [καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἔφυγεν ἀνὴρ εἰς τὰ σκηνώματα αὐτοῦ]; 20.15; 23.10, 11; 4 Kgdms [2 Kgs] 13.7; 1 Chr 19.7, 11, 14; 2 Chr 13.17; 14.12; Jdt 7.1, 7; 1 Macc 5.6, 30; 12.44; 16.6, 7; Ps 3.7 and elsewhere). Moreover, this usage does not occur exclusively in reference to Israel (see Exod 14.6; 17.13; Num 21.23, 33–35; Deut 20.1; 3 Kgdms [1 Kgs] 21[20].10; Nah 3.13; Ezek 17.15; see further T. Jud. 3.1, 2; 9.2). 384 See, for example, Num 21.6 (the snakes ἔδακνον τὸν λαόν καὶ ἀπέθανεν λαὸς πολὺς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ); 2 Kgdms (2 Sam) 13.34; 15.12, 30; 20.12; 22.28 (καὶ τὸν λαὸν τὸν πτωχὸν σώσεις καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐπὶ μετεώρων ταπεινώσεις, cf. Ps 17.28LXX); 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 19.21; 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 4.41, 42, 43; 2 Chr 30.13, 20; 32.4; 1 Macc 5.53; Ps 21.7LXX; 34.18LXX; Qoh 4.16; Sir 16.17; 42.11; Add Dan 7Th. In Josephus’ Bellum, it is characteristic

158

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

portions of the people385 or inhabitants of a region or city386—a tendency established in the LXX and also found, for example, in Josephus, although here such usage is not implemented with complete consistency in either case.387 In this context, it must be noted that λαός—in semantic proximity that λαός identifies the Jewish crowds, the (common) populace. See, for example, in B.J. 2.226, ὁ λαὸς πᾶς, whose assault Cumanus fears, means the Jewish crowd that has gathered in the temple at the festival and been enraged by the improper behavior of a Roman soldier (cf. 6.290). In the remaining depiction, then, the differentiation between the λαός and the insurgents emerges repeatedly (B.J. 2.425; 4.326, [363]; 5.101, 251, 335, 345, 547, 566; 6.259, 273). But λαός also identifies the common people— for example, in Josephus,  A.J. 4.54; 5.24, 99; 12.397; 13.39, 201; and elsewhere; see further also 18.352. 385 Josephus, A.J. 8.222, is instructive: Rehoboam wants to make an expedition, with an army of the two tribes remaining to him, against Jeroboam καὶ τὸν λαόν—that is, the portion of the people that had turned against him (cf. the use of λαός in A.J. 8.215, 217, 218; see further Josephus’ mention of the λαός of the tribe of Judah in A.J. 7.8 [cf., for example, 2 Kgdms {2 Sam} 19.41] or of ὁ τῶν δέκα φυλῶν λαός and ὁ τῶν δύο φυλῶν in A.J. 10.183). In 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 25.26, πᾶς ὁ λαός signifies the remnant in Judah following the exile (cf.  Jer 47.5– 6LXX), who fled to Egypt (cf. Jer 50.1, 4LXX; 51.15, 20, 24LXX). According to Liv. Pro. 2.1, Jeremiah was stoned by the people (ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ) in Egypt. In Liv. Pro. 3.14, ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραήλ identifies only the Babylonian exiles of the first(!) deportation (for the Babylonian  exiles after 587 cf., for example, 4 Bar. 5.21, 23, and elsewhere). According to Josephus, B.J. 1.457, Herod gathered the λαός at his arrival in Jerusalem (here, of course, not every Jew from every country is gathered; cf. B.J. 1.550; 2.1). See further, for example, Ezra 10.1; Neh 5.1; 1 Macc 5.16. Here too further evidence could easily be brought forth. 386 There is often a reference to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: 2 Chr 31.4 (καὶ εἶπεν τῷ λαῷ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ); 32.18; 1 Macc 10.7 (καὶ ἦλθεν Ιωναθαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἀνέγνω τὰς ἐπιστολὰς εἰς τὰ ὦτα παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκ τῆς ἄκρας); see also Zech 14.2; Isa 28.14; 30.19; 33.24; Jer 14.16; 19.11 (see οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῷ in v. 12); 21.7; 43.9LXX (= 36.9MT); 45.4LXX (= 38.4MT); Lam 1.7, 11. Likewise, in Josephus, B.J. 5.566 (on this text, cf. section 4.3, n. 221) or in 6.301, πᾶς ὁ λαός—as λαός often does in the Bellum—refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (and this as distinguished from the rebels, see n. 384). Also in 4 Bar. 5.18, the inhabitants of the city are in view with λαός (πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, but see also, for example, 2.2–3 with 1.1, 7; see further 2.7; 3.6, 11; 4.2, 5). See further, for example, Gen 19.4 (the inhabitants of Sodom); Num 13.32; 14.9 (the inhabitants of Canaan); Judg 9.42, 43, 45 (the inhabitants of Shechem; see also Sir 50.26); Judg 18.7, 27 (the inhabitants of Laish); 2 Kgdms (2 Sam) 12.31; 1 Chr 20.3 (the inhabitants of Rabbah); 2 Kgdms (2 Sam) 20.22 (the inhabitants of Abel of Bethmaacah); 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 6.30; 7.16, 17, 20 (the inhabitants of Samaria); Jer 48.10LXX (= 41.10MT); and Josephus, A.J. 10.172 (the remaining inhabitants of Mizpah, who are taken captive by Ishmael); Josephus, A.J. 6.74 (the inhabitants of Jabesh/the city of king Saul). 387 On the evidence in the LXX, cf. Strathmann and Meyer 1990, 33: just as ἔθνος occasionally refers to the Jewish people, “conversely . . . ἔθνος does not always occur for ‫ַעם‬ where it does not refer to Israel. The Egyptians (Gen 41.40, 55; Exod 1.22; 9.27, etc.), Philistines (Gen 26.11), Moabites (Num 21.29; 24.14), Sodomites (Gen 19.4), Hittites (Gen 23.7), Ethiopians (Isa 18.2; ψ 86.4), and Scythians (Ιερ 6.22; 26.24; 27.41) are also called λαός” (trans. K. Ess). In Josephus’ Bellum, of 39 occurrences, only one does not refer to Jews (B.J. 6.439). In the Antiquitates, with 239 occurrences, only 2.301; 11.212 can be adduced here. The evidence in 4 Bar. is also clear: of the 42 occurrences—according to the concordance by Denis (see the bibliography; Herzer has at times come to different text-critical decisions

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

159

to ὄχλος—can contain a social aspect: it often designates the common people in distinction from the ruling classes.388 In sum, the usual discussion about λαός in Matt 27.25 as designating either God’s people or a crowd presents a false dichotomy; instead, the widespread oscillation between these two poles in Early Jewish usage must be taken into account. In Matt 27.25, the context makes clear that πᾶς ὁ λαός denotes the crowd gathered before Pilate.389 After the preceding guidance of the reader in 2.3; 16.21; 21.10–11; and 23.37(–39), it is more precisely the inhabitants of Jerusalem who are in view.390 Accordingly, πᾶς ὁ λαός picks up not only, in the more immediate context, the πάντες from 27.22, with which Matthew had already emphasized the unity of the crowd’s action,391 but at the same time connects with 2.3 (πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα) and 21.10 (πᾶσα ἡ πόλις).392 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),393 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. In other words, with regard  in his new edition than the edition of Kraft/Purintun, upon which Denis’ work is based)— without the Christian ending in 9.10–32, only 4 Bar. 1.5 refers to non-Jews. 388 Once again, I name only a few passages as examples: Judg 16.30; Ruth 4.9, 11; 1 Kgdms (1 Sam) 6.4; 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 21(20).8; 1 Chr 28.21; 2 Chr 23.13, 20; 24.10; 35.7– 8; 36.14; Neh 5.1 (the impoverished inhabitants: καὶ ἦν κραυγὴ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ γυναικῶν αὐτῶν μεγάλη πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν τοὺς Ιουδαίους); 7.5; 1 Macc 14.28; Jer 1.18; 5.31; 33.7– 8, 11–12, 16LXX (= 26.7–8, 11–12, 16MT); 36.1LXX (= 29.1MT); 41.19LXX (= 34.19MT); 49.1, 8LXX (= 42.1, 8MT); 50.4LXX (= 43.4MT; cf. Josephus, A.J. 10.177–79); and Bar 1.3– 4, 9. 389 Compare, for example, Kosmala 1970, 96; and Fiedler 2006, 411. See also Haacker 1986, 50, n. 12, as well as those named in n. 390. 390 In this vein, see, for example, Overman 1990a, 599–600; Saldarini 1994, 38; Levine 1999, 34; and Backhaus 2004, 97: “The ‘responding’ crowd represents concretely the Jerusalem ὄχλοι stirred up by the religious leaders (cf. 27.20, 24). The adjective πᾶς (cf. 27.22: πάντες) does not describe an ethnic-religious collective extending beyond this group, but rather belongs to the staging of the θόρυβος (cf. 26.5; 27.24)” (trans. K. Ess). On πᾶς ὁ λαός, with regard to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, see n. 386. 391 At the same time, one can understand πάντες/πᾶς in connection with the tumultuous nature of the setting (cf. Backhaus’ position in n. 390, and see further n. 403). 392 Compare Olmstead 2003, 62: “ ‘All the people’ recalls both ‘the whole city’ (21.10) and ‘all Jerusalem’ (2.3).” See also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:594. 393 The explicit identification of the “king of the Jews” with the “Messiah” in 2.2, 4 is paralleled within 27.11ff. in vv. 17, 22. Might one further—as a cross-reference between 2.1ff. and 27.11ff.—point to the fact that the motif of the dream (27.19) also occurs in Matt 2 (2.12, 13, 19, 22) and there, among other things, protects the magi from an unwitting collaboration with Herod (as well as the chief priests and scribes), just as the appearance of Pilate’s wife is meant to keep him from being exploited by the high council in seeking Jesus’ execution?

160

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

to the cast of characters as well, Matt 2.3– 6 functions as a signal pointing toward the Passion Narrative.394 While Jerusalem does not yet play an active role in the course of action against Jesus in 2.3 and 21.10–11, the fact that the city is thrown into turmoil at the message of the Messiah’s arrival—in both texts—indicates that Jerusalem anticipates the conflict with the current authorities as a consequence of  his arrival. Matt 23.37 then—after the subtle allusion in 21.11—brings Jerusalem into view as the city that murders prophets and thereby points ahead to its active role in the actions against Jesus. However, to get to this point, the “persuasive work” of the authorities (27.20) was still necessary before the city would turn against Jesus. The reference of ὄχλος to a crowd from Jerusalem, which is a change from its earlier references, can be seen as prepared by 26.47, 55.395 The switch to πᾶς ὁ λαός does not render this a symbol for all Israel, but it is also more than just a stylistic variation; rather, it indicates that the current situation is an event in Israel that takes its place in the chain of resistance to God’s messengers in Israel’s history (cf. 21.33– 46). πᾶς ὁ λαός thus picks up on an accent that Matthew has already set in 27.9 with ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. The messianic shepherd finds among his people not only followers but also, from the very beginning, malicious rejection from the authorities and ultimately from those who allow themselves to be influenced by them. Matthew does not say how the authorities bring the people of Jerusalem over to their side in 27.20. Against the background of the portrayal of the trial before the Sanhedrin and the mockery of Jesus by the “passersby” in 27.39– 40, one can consider whether the temple logion lies behind the seduction of the crowd.396 Matthew surely possessed enough expertise to know that, in addressing the temple, the economic interests of the entire city (and thus also the common people) come to the fore.397 In the narrative logic, this would explain how the “passersby” have become aware of the accusation from 26.61. Matthew, however, is silent about exact details of the seduction and the “source” of the words of the “passersby,” so that here, one can ultimately only offer—more or less well-founded—speculations. Matthew  leaves  a  blank  space  here,  which  interpretation  cannot  fill  with  sufficient certainty. In any case, it can be noted that the significance of the temple  logion in the trial against Jesus—and its repetition in the context of the mockery of Jesus on the cross— fit well with the notion that Matthew thinks of the people  who turn against Jesus here as the people of Jerusalem. 394 On the connections between Matt 2 and the Passion Narrative, compare Knowles 1993, 77– 81; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:594. See further n. 416. 395 See the discussion near the beginning of this section. 396 In contrast, Hagner 1993/1995, 2:823, suggests “that Jesus was characterized as a charlatan and blasphemer, one who was misleading the people.” 397 See Theißen 1989b, 153–58, and further Harrington 1991a, 382.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

161

This interpretation of λαός in 27.25 is substantiated when one considers the two further occurrences of the word in the Passion Narrative (26.5; 27.64), since the usage suggested for 27.25 is found in both cases.398 In 26.5 as well as 27.64, λαός occurs in the direct speech of the authorities.399 The fact that Matthew has them speak of the λαός rather than the ὄχλος fits well with their self- understanding as Israel’s leaders, as Matthew articulates in the phrase “elders of the people.”400 Matt 27.24–25 is connected with 26.5 by the motif of the θόρυβος.401 While the authorities, according to 26.5, rightly fear a θόρυβος among the people—and here, in light of the preceding narrative, this means among the pilgrims who are positively minded toward Jesus (see 21.1–11, 45– 46)—in 27.20–25, since Pilate has resorted to the Passover amnesty, they must persuade the people gathered before the prefect to demand Jesus’ death; it is not until the θόρυβος in 27.24—which develops among the crowd (ὄχλος) incited by the authorities—that Pilate gives up, allowing their plan to achieve its aim. So the θόρυβος of a crowd, which the authorities had feared in 26.5, is instigated by the authorities themselves in order to get rid of Jesus in the face of the turn of events planned by Pilate and made possible by the festival custom; the situation is not in their control.402 With regard to the interpretation of λαός, this connection of the scene of tumult in 27.24–25 with 26.5 makes it clear that λαός in 27.25 is to be understood no differently than in 26.5 and thus confirms the coherence of ὄχλος and λαός in 27.24–25.403 Considered in diachronic terms of the formation Frankemölle 1992, col. 839, and Strathmann and Meyer 1990, 50, take λαός in Matt 26.5 and 27.64 in the sense of ὄχλος. Here, too, it must be added that λαός emphasizes the fact that this is about the crowds from Israel. 399 While Matt 26.5 follows Mark 14.2, Matt 27.64 belongs to the Matthean special material. 400 On the phrase “elders of the people,” see the discussion at the beginning of this section. 401 θόρυβος appears in Matthew, only in 26.5 and 27.24. 402 Compare the discussion at the beginning of this section. 403 Strecker 1971, 115–16, by contrast, has attempted to support his reading of λαός in the sense of “people of God = all Israel,” with the reasoning that “the discipline of the answer does not correspond with a crowd of people that has converged but rather emphasizes the legal aspect of the statement” (trans. K. Ess). Such a tendency toward objectification and shunning the tumultuous features is often asserted for the entire judgment scene (so, for example, Trilling 1964, 73; Senior 1982a, 239, 240, 250; Sand 1986, 553, 555; Gnilka 1988, 23; Luck 1993, 301; and Suhl 1998, 345– 47) and thereby the fundamental nature of the people’s decision is underscored. But Matthew, as mentioned above, sets a new accent with ἔπεισαν in v. 20, without foregoing the Markan element (ἀνέσεισαν). The simple λέγουσιν (v. 22) cannot be brought as evidence against this, since it is strengthened not only by πάντες (cf. n. 391), but above all, in view of v. 23, it is not to be read as a level-headed speech. Matthew does not say that the crowds now began to shout but that 398

162

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of the text, it now becomes clear from the connection to 26.5 why Matthew uses λαός in 27.25. And, moreover, since λαός does not have Israel as a collective in view in 26.5 or in 27.25 but rather indicates “people from Israel,” it is possible that this refers to different groups among the people.404 Furthermore, it becomes clear when one considers 27.64 that, even after Jesus’ death, the authorities still fear the influence of the disciples  on the λαός, the crowds of Israel. Matt 27.64 thus confirms, moreover,  that 27.25 is in no way to be read as the final word on the people’s decision to turn against Jesus. Whereas the hostility of the authorities continues  even  after  the  crucifixion  (27.62– 66;  28.11– 15)— Matthew  has  thus not only expanded the theme of conflict “toward the front” with the  prologue (Matt 2) but also extended it post-Easter—the people’s receptiveness to Jesus as it emerged during his ministry remains a possibility for the future.405 The authorities seek to counter this possibility with the rumor of the theft of the corpse. That such gossip circulates “to this day” παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις (28.15) points directly to the polemic that the Matthean community is exposed to in its Jewish surroundings. παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις has a distancing sound;406 but 28.15 does not make a general statement that the Jewish nation is no longer Israel in a theological sense,407 nor does it speak of all Ἰουδαῖοι 408—there is no article in παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις.409 It only says that the rumor of the theft of the corpse has spread among Jewish410 they were shouting even more (περισσῶς; contra Suhl 1998, 347). Moreover, Matthew here replaced the Markan aorist ἔκραξαν (Mark 15.13, 14) with an imperfect (ἔκραζον), indicating the persistence of the shouting. εἶπεν in v. 25 is also to be understood in this light. Finally, the tumultuous nature of the scene, as explicated above, is clearly revealed by μᾶλλον θόρυβος γίνεται (v. 24). 404 It is thus certainly not correct to conclude from Matt 27.15–26 that those who a few days before had struck up the “Hosanna to the Son of David” (21.9) now cry σταυρωθήτω (cf. Fiedler 2006, 323; contra Senior 1985, 116; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:589, among others; see also n. 294 on Matt 26.47, 55). 405 Compare Dunn 1991, 155; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:515; Fiedler 2006, 422–23, and—with regard to the evangelist’s level of communication—Davies and Allison 1988– 1997,  3:655:  “This  may  reflect  missionary  competition:  two  groups  have  two  different  stories for ‘the people.’ ” Contra Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:488. 406 Compare Fiedler 2006, 427. 407 Against Walker 1967, 74; Strecker 1971, 116–17; Meier 1979, 166; Frankemölle 1984, 353–54; and Hoffmann 1990, 118. 408 Accordingly, this is not about “the Jewish version . . . of the Easter experience” in general (against Sand 1986, 593; trans. K. Ess). 409 Compare Gollinger 1991b, 370; Dunn 1992, 209; Luz 2001–2007, 3:612; see also Wong 1992, 108; Nolland 2005, 1257; Fiedler 2006, 427. 410 The reference to the present in μέχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας speaks against interpreting παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις only in a geographical sense, as in “among Judeans” (but Malina 1989, 130, interprets geographically; see also Levine 1999, 20: “[T]he single reference to

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

163

circles due to the bribery of Roman soldiers by the chief priests and elders.411 The identification of πᾶς ὁ λαός in 27.25 with a crowd from Jerusalem is  finally  substantiated  by  the  perspective  of  judgment  brought  forth  in  27.25b. Here Matthew takes up a legal phrase from the Old Testament.412 With the words τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, those gathered declare their readiness to take upon themselves the responsibility for the judgment, which Pilate had dismissed. One can paraphrase: “We are prepared to be held liable with our life for the legitimacy of the sentence.” Because they thereby take innocent blood upon themselves, the penalty is inescapable413—a penalty that Matthew sees as manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem.414 the Ἰουδαῖοι may be to ‘Judeans’ rather than ‘Jews’ ”). This, however, needs to be distinguished from the question whether Matthew wanted to evoke from the readers, or hearers, an associative connection with Judea. In Matt 2.2, the magi’s question about the βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων is in direct connection with the geographic information that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea (2.1). The title ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων reappears then, as we have seen, in Matt 27 (vv. 11, 29, 37); here too, geographically, there is a reference to Judea (but see the variation to “king of Israel” in 27.42). According to 28.11–15, the rumor about the theft of the corpse goes out from Jerusalem and thus from Judea. Taking into account as well the fact that Matthew in general operates with a theologically loaded contrast between Galilee and Jerusalem in Judea, it is natural to hear a reference to Judea resonating in παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις—not in the sense that only the inhabitants of Judea are meant but such that this is about those “Jews” who, because of the rumor still in circulation, find themselves in the  wake of this “Judean” rejection of Jesus. If read in this way, there further emerges a convergence with the use of Ἰουδαῖοι, as can be found in Josephus and which Saldarini 1994, 36– 37, has pointed out as analogous to the Matthean usage in 28.15: “Josephus uses the gentile designation ‘Jews’ for that part of the people he opposes” (36). It need only be added that in Matthew this is connected with the “geographic” conception of the evangelist. 411 The catchword ἀργύριον (Matt 28.12, 15) connects 28.11–15 with the Judas pericope in 27.3– 10 (27.3, 5, 6, 9; see also 26.15): the authorities use their financial means to  proceed against Jesus. Compare Paul 2005, 114–15. 412 See, in the LXX, 2 Kgdms (2 Sam) 1.16; 3.28–29; 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 2.33, 37; Jer 28.35LXX (= 51.35MT); (33.15LXX [= 26.15MT]); Ezek 18.13. See further, in the Masoretic Text only, Lev 20.9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 27; Jos 2.19 (cf. Reventlow 1960, esp. 316ff.; and, further, Gerlemann 1984b, col. 449–50). See further L.A.B. 6.11; and, in early Christian texts, Acts (5.28) 18.6. But the case depicted by Matthew—that the blood of another is called upon one’s own head—is without parallel in the Old Testament (Broer 1991, 335; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:458; Paul 2005, 93). T. Levi 16.3 is Christian (cf. J. Becker 1970, 284– 85). 413 The idea that Matthew wants the blood curse in 27.25 to be understood in light of the words of institution in 26.28—that is, that the people calls upon itself the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Niedner 1989, 45; R. H. Smith 1990, 425–27; Cargal 1991, 109–12; Bedenbender 2000, 39– 40; and Stein 2007, 413; see also G. Jankowski 2000, 28–29)—is unambiguously contradicted by the clear reference to the judgment in 23.35, which is related to 27.25. For an attempt to integrate the horizon of judgment and the supposed soteriological dimension of the blood motif in 27.25 into a coherent concept, see Sider Hamilton 2008, esp. 98–100. 414 Likewise, see Hare 1967, 156; Haacker 1986, 48; Harrington 1991a, 392; Davies

164

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

For Matthew, this reference made the striking insertion of the children necessary.415 Those who bore the burden of Jesus’ blood did in fact, in the evangelist’s view, have to pay with their own, or their children’s, lives (cf. 22.7).416 Conversely, based on the interpretation of the destruction of Jerusalem as God’s judgment, it is understandable that Matthew outlined the role of the crowds as he did; in the end, the entire city was affected by the “judgment.”417 But since Jerusalem, as we have seen, does not represent Israel in the Matthean conception,418 the destruction of Jerusalem cannot be understood as a prefiguration of the eschatological judgment of Israel.419 Since the role of Jerusalem in 27.20–25 is, as mentioned, set up in 23.37, one can further point to the fact that the affiliation between the authorities and Jerusalem  in 27.20–25 corresponds with the sequence of the message of judgment in 23.32– 39, which is furthermore connected with 27.25 by the motif of blood (23.35):420 as will be developed in section 4.3.3, the judgment applies to the authorities and Jerusalem, not Israel as a whole, in 23.32–39 as well.

It is finally to be noted that the contrast between Jerusalem and Galilee  is continued post-Easter in 27.62–28.20. While the chief priests and the and Allison 1988–1997, 3:591–92; Suhl 1998, 348; Repschinski 2000, 331; and Luz 2001– 2007, 3:503, among others. 415 τέκνα accordingly means “the next generation,” not “all following generations.” Likewise, for example, see Hare 1979, 38; Haacker 1986, 48; Overman 1990a, 600; Harrington 1991a, 392; Wong 1992, 136; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:592; Gielen 1998, 383; Keener 1999, 671; Garbe 2005, 113, 117, 120; and Paul 2005, 312–13; contra Fascher 1964, col. 83; Trilling 1964, 71; Reinhartz 1988, 532; and Heil 1991a, 76. 416 The addition of the children constitutes a further element in the connections between Matt 2 (see the Jeremiah quotation in 2.18) and the Passion Narrative (cf. Knowles 1993, 37, 78; Garbe 2005, 32–33; cf. the previous discussion). Here it is worth noting that the mention of the children in the Jeremiah quotation (Jer 38.15LXX [= 31.15MT]) is a divergence from the Old Testament text, which speaks of Rachel’s crying over her “sons” ָ ֶ‫ל־ּבנ‬ ָ ‫)] ַע‬. This (Ῥαχὴλ ἀποκλαιομένη οὐκ ἤθελεν παύσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς [MT: ‫יה‬ connection  simultaneously  confirms  that  Matthew  seeks  to  incriminate  the  authorities.  Just as Herod brings death upon the children in Bethlehem, so do the Jewish authorities bring death upon the children of Jerusalem. In other words, Herod and the Jewish authorities seek to eliminate the Messiah—at the expense of the people. The difference between Matt 2 and Matt 27 is that the people of Jerusalem allow themselves be seduced by the authorities and entangled in their endeavor in 27.20–25. On the “children” of Jerusalem, see also Matt 23.37. 417 Compare Cousland 2002, 237 (although in connection with a generalizing interpretation in reference to Israel). 418 Compare section 3.1.2.1. 419 Against Hare 1967, 156; and Tisera 1993, 242, among others. This thesis will have to be proven in chapter 4. 420 Compare section 4.3.3.

3: Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry in Israel

165

(possibly) Pharisaic (see 27.62) elders (28.12)421 spread the rumor of the stolen body in Jerusalem (27.62– 66), the circle of disciples regroups in Galilee and from here continues its missionary ministry, with a new dimension, on behalf of Jesus.422 In conclusion, it is indisputable that the scene of judgment in 27.15–26 is the climax of the opposition to Jesus that recurs from Matt 2 on. But, as before, the hostile front is not identical to the Jewish people as a whole. Matt 27.24–25 is therefore not to be understood as an aetiology for Israel’s end.423 A crowd of inhabitants of Jerusalem is seduced by the authorities and, together with their seducers, takes on the responsibility and thus the guilt for Jesus’ death, as well as the consequence that is manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem. The crowd gathered before Pilate does not stand for all Israel but rather serves as a cautionary example that displays the consequences of allowing oneself to be persuaded by envious authorities. If the way Matthew has shaped his narrative reflects an actual conflict between  the community and the synagogue dominated by Pharisees,424 this means, in terms of narrative pragmatics, that Matthew uses the destruction of Jerusalem in order to delegitimize his opponents. Even if the ὄχλος in 27.20– 25 is not identified as the people of Jeru­ salem, as in the preceding discussion, but should instead be tied together with the preceding appearances of the crowds into one narrative entity,425 27.20–25 would show the unsteadiness and inconsistency of the ὄχλος in its relation to Jesus and thus precisely the corruptibility of the crowds. Nevertheless, even in this case—in view of the evidence in total—the judgment scene could not be regarded as absolute, at the expense of the previous portrayal,426 but would rather need to be included in the nuanced Matthean view of the crowds. It would in any case hardly make sense for Matthew to have undertaken the pointed and carefully executed differentiation of the authorities and the crowds, only to override it with one stroke in 27.20–25. In addition, as 27.64 shows, 27.25 is by no means the last word, especially as even after 27.25 Jews still appear in a positive light with Simon of Cyrene (27.32), the Galilean women (27.55–56), 421

Compare the discussion of the relation between the elders and the Pharisees in Matt 21.23, 45, in section 3.1.2.5, n. 212. 422 On the “geographical” contrast motif in Matt 28, see Heil 1991a, 102–3. 423 Contra Frankemölle 1984, 210. Frankemölle himself revoked this thesis in his commentary (see Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:484– 85). 424 See chapter 7. 425 See, for example, Cousland 2002, 227–39. 426 Compare the critique of the traditional interpretation in Hedinger 1976, esp. 204, who, however, does not carefully distinguish between the literary level of the gospels and the level of the historical Jesus.

166

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and Joseph of Arimathea (27.57– 61)—none of whom, one may note, come from Jerusalem.

3.3

Summary

The  observations  on  the  configuration  of  conflict  up  to  the  passion  and  on the portrayal of Jesus’ opponents have already been summarized in the provisional conclusion of section 3.1.3. Here it need only be added that the Matthean story of Jesus, contrary to a widespread interpretation, does not lead up to a collective rejection of Jesus in Israel. The differentiation between the crowds and the authorities presented in section 3.1 is  not  revoked  by  the  Passion  Narrative— specifically  27.25.  Rather,  it  is  simply  modified  by  the  inclusion  of  Jerusalem  in  the  battle  lines  of  the  opponents, which has been suggested already in 2.3 and is further set up in the three proclamations of suffering (16.21; 17.22–23; 20.17–19), as well as by 21.10–11 and 23.37–39. Matt 27.25 does not generalize and imply that God’s people Israel has decided against her Messiah427 but rather ascribes the responsibility for Jesus’ death to the people of Jerusalem, who allowed themselves to be persuaded by the authorities.

427 In this vein, see also Saldarini 1994, 32–33; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:592; Fiedler 2006, 411. On the contrary position, see the discussion in section 3.2 with n. 374 and n. 375.

Chapter 4

Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

In the course of analyzing the concentration of Jesus’ ministry on Israel (chapter 2) and, in particular, the reactions to this ministry (chapter 3), a differentiation between the crowds and the authorities has repeatedly emerged, as well as a contrast between Jerusalem and the crowds from all over Israel (4.25) that gathered around Jesus in Galilee and experienced Jesus’ ministry there. Both elements of the narrative defy a generalizing discussion of Israel’s rejection of Jesus within the Gospel of Matthew. In this chapter, we will now ask whether or to what extent this nuanced view is also maintained in the words of Jesus that address the consequences of negative reactions, hostility and rejection, or simply a lacking positive reaction. The reading of 27.25 presented in section 3.2 will be tested here. We begin this chapter with an analysis of the parable trilogy in Matt 21.28– 22.14 and thus with the complex of texts that is of central significance in the traditional reading, whereby Matthew is seen to advocate the replacement of Israel by the Church or the nations (section 4.1). This is followed in section 4.2 by the exegesis of the double logion in Matt 8.11–12. Section 4.3 then brings in the statements against “this γενεά” (11.16–19; 12.38– 45; 16.1–4; 23.34–36), which are commonly read as generalized accusations of Israel. In the course of considering the contexts of these statements, the laments against the Galilean cities in 11.20–24, and over Jerusalem in 23.37–39, are also addressed. Section 4.4 then turns to the concept of the crowds’ lack of understanding encountered in 13.3– 23, and, finally, the logion of the judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel  (19.28) is considered (section 4.5). The results are summarized in section 4.6.

4.1 The Parable Trilogy 4.1.1

Introduction

In the history of scholarship, the trilogy of parables in 21.28–22.14 has been of exceptional significance for the issue under discussion in this study. 

168

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Particularly  significant  is  the  parable  of  the  wicked  tenants  (21.33– 46)  with the commentary on the parable inserted by the evangelist in v. 43,1 which—in cooperation with 27.25—often functions as the central piece of evidence for the replacement of Israel with the Church.2 The parable trilogy3 is a Matthean composition.4 Matthew has placed the parable of the two sons5 (21.28–32)—unique to Matthew—in front of the parable of the wicked tenants, which is found at this point in the Markan text, and followed it with the parable of the wedding banquet, which stems from Q (22.1–14).6 The first two parables exhibit an analogous  1 On the redactional nature of v. 43, see, for example, Trilling 1964, 58– 60; Ogawa 1979a, 183– 84 (= Ogawa 1979b, 128–30); Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:186 with n. 66; Olmstead 2003, 148; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:35–36. Contrast, for example, Dillon 1966, 14–35; Snodgrass 1983, 65– 66, 70; and Nolland 2005, 868. 2 See Zahn 1922, 632–34; Trilling 1964, 55– 65, esp. 58– 63; Schmid 1965, 305– 7; Hare 1967, 153–54 (cf. Hare 1979, 38–39); Klauck 1970, 143; Kretzer 1971, 159– 60; Strecker 1971, 33, 110–11; Lange 1973, 273– 85; Meier 1979, 17, 150; Frankemölle 1984, 252; France 1985, 52, 310; Meeks 1985, 112; Senior 1985, 119–20; Kühschelm 1986, 167– 68; Sand 1986, 435; Schweizer 1986, 270; Verseput 1986, 44; Flusser 1987, 85; Luz 1989, 244 with n. 22; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:230–32; Hare 1993, 248– 49; Knowles 1993, 114, 118; Luck 1993, 236; Menninger 1994, 8, 34, 152–53; Broer 1995, 24, 33 (cf. Broer 1991, 339, 351); Hagner 1993/1995, 2:617, 623; Metzner 1995, 162; E. C. Park 1995, 184; Powell 1995b, 17; Lambrecht 1998, 119–20, 123; Luomanen 1998b, 167, 177; Schnackenburg 2002, 212; Olmstead 2003, 89–95, 117, 121, and elsewhere; Bruner 2004, 2:381– 83; also Hummel 1963, 149; Foster 2004, 232–34; and Roloff 1992b, 347– 48, who, on the basis of the context (21.29!), questions the finality of the  exclusion. However, there are—more often in recent scholarship—voices of dissent. See section 4.1.3.1, n. 99. 3 On the coherence of the three parables, see, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 3:20. 4 See Olmstead 2003, 33–46. A pre-Matthean composition, however, is advocated by van Tilborg 1972, 49–52, 62– 63; I. H. Jones 1995, 372 (with n. 97), 382, 400, and elsewhere; see also Dillon 1966, 5, 40– 41, for 21.33–22.14. 5 A few Mattheanisms occur in the parable (see Kretzer 1971, 155; Merkel 1974, 255–57; Klein 1996, 93, n. 94, 95; Olmstead 2003, 134–35). This does not necessarily mean that the entire parable is a Matthean creation. (However, redactional origin is supported by Merkel 1974, 255– 61; Schlosser 1980, 458– 61 [without v. 31c, in Schlosser, v. 31b]; and Gundry 1994, 422–24.) Considering—as Luz 2001–2007, 3:27–28, has pointed out—that the evangelist otherwise does not invent parables, it should rather be presumed that Matt 21.28–31b is based on tradition. (In this vein, see also I. H. Jones 1995, 391–93; Klein 1996, 93; Lambrecht 1998, 94–95, 97; and Luomanen 1998b, 158– 59.) The Jesus logion in v. 31c, which is likewise traditional but not originally part of the parable, replaces the original ending; v. 32 is not a Q logion (cf. Luke 7.29–30; contra, for example, Strecker 1971, 153 with n. 1; Lambrecht 1998, 95–97; Luomanen 1998b, 160– 61; and Olmstead 2003, 140) but is Matthew’s redactionally formed commentary on v. 31c (with Luz 2001–2007, 3:27; see further, for example, Gielen 1998, 222–23 with n. 44). 6 Due to the considerable differences between Matt 22.1–10 and Luke 14.16–24, the ascription of the parable to Q is not uncontested but remains the majority opinion (see,

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

169

structure.7 By placing the answer to the question about the fate of the tenants (v. 40) on the lips of Jesus’ interlocutors (v. 41), contrary to the Markan text, Matthew constructs 21.33ff. in accordance with the dialogic structure of 21.28–32, initiated by the redactional phrase τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; (cf. 17.25; 18.12; 22.17, 42; 26.66). Jesus’ narration of the parables, each beginning with ἄνθρωπος (vv. 28, 33 [diff. Mark 12.1]), ends in a question in both cases. The interlocutors’ answer, which remains on the narrative level of the parable, is followed by Jesus’ application of that answer (21.31b–32, 42– 44), which is introduced in both cases with λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς.8 Matt 21.28– 44 takes place—with the exception of the introductory formulas, consistently set in the historical present and connected asyndetically9— solely at the level of direct discourse. This is followed in 21.45– 46 by a depiction of Jesus’ interlocutors’ reaction (based on Mark 12.12), which refers to both parables, as the redactional plural τὰς παραβολάς shows.10 Matthew has thus formally combined the parables of the two sons and the wicked tenants into a single unit. The following discussion explores the thematic connection. The depiction of the reaction in vv. 45– 46 necessitates a new introduction in 22.1. The historical present of the preceding narrative gives way here to the aorist; furthermore, the parable of the wedding banquet lacks the dialogic structure of the two preceding pericopae—Jesus speaks throughout vv. 2–14.11 However, there are clear parallels in vocabulary to be observed between 22.1–14 and 21.33– 46—more markedly than between for example, Weder 1984, 177–78; Fitzmyer 1985, 2:1052; Schottroff 1987, 192–93; Wiefel 1988, 273; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:627; Vögtle 1996, 12; Hoppe 1998, 277– 80; and Klein 2006,  505– 6).  Gielen  1998,  235– 42,  offers  an  extensive  justification  for  the  thesis  of  a Q version. Against the ascription to Q are, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:194; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:47. 7 In this regard, compare also 2 Sam 12.1–7; Luke 7.41– 47; 4 Ezra 4.13–21. 8 This appears elsewhere in Matthew, only in 9.28; 15.34 with preceding καί, as well as 26.31 with τότε. See also, in Matt 21.31, 41, the nearly identical introductions to the interlocutors’ responses with λέγουσιν (αὐτῷ). 9 See verses 31, 41 λέγουσιν (αὐτῷ [only in v. 41; in v. 31, αὐτῷ has slipped in secondarily]), vv. 31, 42 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Asyndetically connected introductions to speech are typical of Matthew. Each occurrence can be traced to Matthean redaction or is found in the special Matthean material, specifically: λέγει alone (cf. λέγουσιν in 21.31), otherwise only 17.25; λέγει/λέγουσιν with a dative object, 13.51; 16.15; 19.7, 8, 18; 20.7[2x], 21, 22, 23, 33; 22.21, 42, 43; 26.25; in addition, with ὁ Ἰησοῦς as the explicitly identified  subject as in 21.31, 42, also 18.22; 26.64; with other subjects 19.20; 26.35; 27.22; only predicate and subject 27.22b. The only Markan occurrence (Mark 8.19) does not appear in Matthew due to the omission of the dialogical element in Matt 16.9. See further, with φημί, Matt 4.7; 17.26; 19.21; 21.27; 25.21, 23; 26.34; 27.65. 10 Compare ἄλλην παραβολήν in 21.33. 11 On this, see section 4.1.4, n. 160.

170

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the first two parables.12 In comparison, the connections between 21.28–32 and 22.1–14 are strikingly weak. The parable of the wicked tenants—found at this point in the Markan narrative, as mentioned previously—proves to be the focal point and axis of the Matthean composition. With regard to the thematic unity of the composition, the central question is whether it tells the salvation-historical story of the replacement of Israel by the Church that is open to the Gentiles or whether it is simply about a reckoning with the authorities of the people. 4.1.2

The Parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21.28–32)

This parable13 strengthens a typical feature of Matthean theology: simply saying yes is not enough for God; rather, doing the will of God, walking on the “path of righteousness”14 (21.32) is required (cf. 7.21). However, through Jesus’ application of the parable in vv. 31c–32 and the broader context, the parable acquires an accent that is superimposed on the parenetic dimension.15 Yet this is hardly concerned with the salvation-historical replacement of Israel.16 It is the chief priests and the elders of the people from 21.23 who are the focus of the criticism, and there is nothing to suggest that—unlike elsewhere in Matthew—the tax collectors are not Jews but rather represent the Gentiles.17 The contrast in 21.28–32 is thus 12 See the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:188– 89, as well as Luz 2001–

2007, 3:20. 13 I follow the text offered by NA26/27/28 (contra Foster 2001; Olmstead 2003, 167–76; both  support  the  reading  offered  by  Codex  Vaticanus,  among  others)— that  is,  the  first  son says “no” to the father’s command but then does go. For the argument, see Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:218–19; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:167, n. 18; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:25–26. 14 On the phrase, cf. Prov 8.20; 12.28; 16.31; 17.23; 21.16, 21LXX; Job 24.13LXX; 1 En. 82.4; 91.18–19; 92.3; 94.1; 99.10; Jub. 1.20; 23.26; 25.15; CD I, 16; 1QS IV, 2; 1QH XV, 14; 2 Pet 2.21; and Barn. 1.4; 5.4. On the ethical significance of the phrase in Matt  21.32, see the critique of the interpretation by Hagner 1992, 117–18, in Olmstead 2003, 102– 4. 15 According to Merkel 1974, 259, the “aim of the parable . . . is the polemic” contained in v. 31c (v. 31b in Merkel’s division), and v. 32 presents “the ‘key to the entire pericope’ ” (trans. K. Ess). 16 According to Meier 1979, 149–50, Matthew and his community saw Pharisees/ Jews contrasted with Gentiles in the two sons (see also Clark 1947, 166; Kretzer 1971, 158; Zumstein 1977, 377; Schelkle 1985, 29; and Schweizer 1986, 268; on this type of interpretation in antiquity and the middle ages, see Luz 2001–2007, 3:32). This works better in a different textual sequence (see n. 13). 17 The juxtaposition of “Gentile and tax collector” in Matt 18.17 (cf. 5.46– 47) clearly indicates that the latter is an Israelite (for Luke, cf., above all, the tax collector praying in the temple in 18.9–14). Likewise, Matthew—the tax collector called to be a disciple—and the tax collector in his house (Matt 9.9–13) are Jews. (Note that Jesus does not enter any

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

171

intra-Jewish.18 Moreover, this implies that the authorities do not stand for Israel as a whole here.19  This  is  firmly  underscored  by  the  differentiation between the leadership and the ὄχλοι throughout the Gospel20 and has been further clearly highlighted in the preceding pericope (21.26), which Matthew directly refers to by picking up οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ (v. 25) in v. 32.21 Jesus thus raises against the authorities precisely the accusation that they sought to avoid by refusing to answer Jesus’ question from v. 25a.22 It is striking that the (secondary) application of the parable does not proceed analogously to the parable itself. The initial reaction of the two sons can at most be presupposed: the “no” of the one son would then be read as a reference to the tax collectors and prostitutes, who were distant from God and then brought to repentance by John the Baptist; the downright emphatic “yes” of the other son23 could be taken as a reference to the authorities’ professed nearness to God. Above all, however, v. 32c goes beyond the parable itself: οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον is the negation of ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθείς in the first son’s reaction (v. 29).24 Thus Matthew integrates an additional contrast to the penitence of the tax Gentile house in the Gospel of Matthew; cf. 8.7 and the omission of the house from Mark 7.24.) Furthermore, primarily locals were generally entrusted with the tax (see Michel 1990, 97). πόρνη occurs only here in the Gospel of Matthew. 18 Likewise, see E. Lohmeyer 1962, 309–10; Schmid 1965, 304; Harrington 1991a, 300–301; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:223; Saldarini 1994, 58; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:172; Carter and Heil 1998, 158–59; Gielen 1998, 226; Luz 2001–2007, 3:33; Nolland 2005, 862; and Evans 2012, 367. See also Kynes 1991, 137, who nevertheless regards the authorities as the representatives of Israel. 19 Likewise, see, for example, Gielen 1998, 226. 20 Compare sections 3.1 and 4.1.3.1 with n. 93. 21 On v. 32 as Matthean redaction, see section 4.1.1, n. 5. 22 On this connection cf. Trilling 1980, 284; Giesen 1982, 43– 44; Gielen 1998, 215; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:26, 31. 23 ἐγώ and the address as “lord” instead of “father” suggest self- evident obedience (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:221). 24 Luz 2001–2007, 3:27, asserts that in the critique of the Jewish leaders, the bad elements of both sons from the parable are unified. This presumes, however, that the first  son’s “no” is reflected in οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ in v. 32. But it then follows that the tax collectors and prostitutes have no counterpart in the parable. It is therefore more natural to see πιστεύειν in v. 32 as analogous to entering the vineyard. Langley 1996, 234– 42, proposes that in the overall plot of the parable, it is irrelevant which of the answers the authorities decide in favor of in v. 31, since the force of the parable lies in presenting, in a qal- wāḥômer ending, the contrast between the partial disobedience of both sons with the total disobedience of the authorities. This proposal, as well, is contradicted by the fact that, in this case, the tax collectors and prostitutes (vv. 31–32) cannot easily be connected with the parable. The statement that they will enter into the kingdom of God presumes that they have done the “will of the father” (v. 31a).

172

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

collectors and prostitutes:25 not even the repentance of sinners par excellence has any effect on the hostile attitude of the authorities. With this final  sentence, the emphasis clearly lies on their misconduct. Matthew is not concerned—at least not primarily—with painting a more positive picture of the tax collectors and prostitutes.26 They rather serve simply as a foil27 to highlight the absolute impenitence of the authorities. Such misconduct has eschatological-soteriological consequences. In light of the context, v. 31b can only be understood as exclusive; the authorities are barred from access to God’s28 basileia.29 Not a word is said of Israel’s salvation or damnation in 21.28–32; the parable rather proves to be a polemical attack by Jesus against the religious leadership.30 4.1.3 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt 21.33– 46) Matthew has edited his Markan text31 to no small degree. In Matthew, the owner of the vineyard contacts the tenants only three times, but multiple  slaves  are  sent  the  first  time  and  already  here  some  are  murdered.32 With the last two parts of the triad—which is to be understood as a climactic series—of ἔδειραν, ἀπέκτειναν, ἐλιθοβόλησαν,33 Matthew creates 25

On the redactional nature of v. 32[c], see 4.1.1, n. 5, and for example, Ogawa 1979a, 180 (= Ogawa 1979b, 123–24). 26 This becomes clear already in the passages where the evangelist speaks of tax collectors in the usual negative sense (Matt 5.46; 18.17). 27 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:164; further also Luomanen 1998b, 164. 28 It is well known that Matthew prefers βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. The use of θεοῦ, however, as 21.43 shows, by no means necessarily indicates traditional material. Matthew could have written “God” here intentionally in view of the father metaphor of the parable (cf. Gundry 1994, 423; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:170; Nolland 2005, 863). 29 With Schmid 1965, 303; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:222; Gundry 1994, 422; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:169–70; and Olmstead 2003, 101, among others; contra Fiedler 2006, 330. 30 Likewise, see, for example, Gielen 1998, 214–16; Repschinski 2000, 315; see also Gundry 1994, 421–24. 31 In the parable of the wicked tenants, there is a whole series of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark (see the list in Ennulat 1994, 264– 69). The most striking of these is without doubt the nearly word-for-word agreement between Matt 21.44 and Luke 20.18. (Ennulat sees this as a serious argument for the thesis of a revision of Mark, but on this, see section 3.1.2.5, n. 230.) Since Matt 21.44 cannot be withdrawn on text-critical grounds (cf. Snodgrass 1983, 66– 68; Luz 2001–2007, 3:36 with n. 11; contra, for example, Klauck 1970, 129– 20; Nolland 2005, 879; Fiedler 2006, 330, n. 79), the influence of other early Christian tradition or of a florilegium (see Roloff 1999, 250) remains  under consideration. 32 In Mark, only the third embassy ends in death. 33 Stoning represents a particularly brutal and contemptible form of homicide (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:182).

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

173

a cross-reference to 23.37:34 Jerusalem is a city that kills prophets and stones  those  sent  to  it.  The  second  group  of  slaves  differs  from  the  first  in Matthew only in that it is bigger. The tenants’ reaction is the same (v. 36). When the son is killed,35 Matthew (like Luke) depicts the tenants first throwing him out of the vineyard.36 Furthermore, Matthew has turned the end of the parable into a brief dialogue. The question about the vineyard owner’s reaction, which is phrased openly in Mark (τί οὖν ποιήσει ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος;), is formulated more narrowly in that Matthew brings the arrival of the owner (ἐλεύσεται, Mark 12.9) into the question and adds τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἐκείνοις. The answer, with which Matthew has the authorities pronounce their own sentence, following the model of 1 Sam 12, is  significantly  expanded:  with  the  insertion  of  κακοὺς κακῶς, the tone becomes much sharper than in Mark, and in contrast with the Markan ἄλλοις, Matthew speaks concretely of other vinedressers, who are more specifically qualified by a relative clause— probably alluding to Ps 1.337— as those who will deliver the fruit in their seasons. Matthew has, above all, substantially expanded Jesus’ application of the parable. The citation of Ps 117.22–23LXX in v. 42, taken from Mark 12.10, picks up on the killing of the son in its first line (λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες) but then brings into view the reversal brought about by God and thus Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation. Following this, Matthew adds a conclusion (διὰ τοῦτο) that makes explicit the consequences of the rejection of Jesus illustrated in the parable, as well as the consequences of his resurrection.38 Formally, v. 43 correlates exactly with v. 41: κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει αὐτούς corresponds with the taking away of the kingdom, which, like the vineyard, will be given to others; the participial phrase in v. 43 corresponds with the relative clause in v. 41—the new vinedressers λιθοβολεῖν occurs in Matthew only in 21.35 and 23.37. Compare Hare 1967, 120, n. 1; Knowles 1993, 113; and Olmstead 2003, 112, 153–54; as well as Gundry 1994, 426. 35 The replacement of the Markan ἀγαπητόν (Mark 12.6) with the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ is to be seen in the context of the theocentric accent of Matt 21.33– 46: Matthew speaks of his—that is, God’s servants (21.34–35, diff. Mark 12.2–3), his fruits (21.34, diff. Mark 12.2), and finally also, entirely in line with the theocentric orientation, in 21.43  of God’s kingdom (cf. Olmstead 2003, 151–52). Snodgrass 1983, 58–59, however, assesses the omission of ἀγαπητός in Matt 21.37 as evidence for the priority of the Matthean version. 36 On this, see section 4.1.3.3, n. 138. 37 Likewise, see Trilling 1964, 57; Klauck 1970, 123; Snodgrass 1983, 61– 62; Schweizer 1986, 270; Gundry 1994, 428; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:184; Olmstead 2003, 115; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:41, among others. 38 Compare Roloff 1999, 260: “Matt 21.43 ought to be understood as the direct consequence of the statement of v. 42c” (trans. K. Ess). Contrast, for example, Trilling 1964, 60: “Διὰ τοῦτο refers to the parable as a whole” (trans. K. Ess). 34

174

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

are  positively  qualified  by  the  delivery  or  production  of  fruits. Verse 44 picks up the metaphor from v. 42 and articulates the consequences of the rejection of the son for the individual (ὁ πεσών . . .). Finally, the closing note in vv. 45– 46 has been refashioned. The implied subject in ἐζήτουν in Mark 12.12 is the chief priests, scribes, and elders from 11.27. Matthew expressly adds the chief priests and Phari­ sees as the subject. In the improved order of the Matthean narrative, the authorities’ recognition that the parables were aimed at them precedes their attempt to seize Jesus. Matthew has omitted the Markan depiction of the interlocutors’ departure; in his story, there is still another parable addressed at the authorities. Instead, the reason for the authorities’ fear of the people is explicitly stated in Matthew: they regard Jesus as a prophet. In making these changes, Matthew both strengthens the connection with 21.23– 32 (see v. 26) and, with v. 46fin., brings to mind 21.10– 11, whereby  a network of textual connections emerges that is not unimportant for the interpretation of the text. In 21.10–11, Jerusalem and the crowds stand in contrast with one another. In 23.37, Jerusalem is accused as a city that murders prophets. As we have seen, Matthew creates a cross-reference with precisely this accusation through the triad in 21.35.39 It is largely evident how the allegorical features of the parable of the tenants are to be decoded. The owner of the vineyard is God (cf. 20.1, 11), the son is Jesus,40 and the slaves are the prophets.41 However, there is debate 39 In this connection, within the broader context, the Matthean redaction in 14.5 should be mentioned. Unlike in Mark 6.20, Herod does not fear John because he is a righteous and holy man but rather fears the crowds because they regard John as a prophet. 40 In the veiled language of the parable, Jesus thereby suggests his identity as the Son of God for the first time in the presence of his opponents, as Kingsbury 1986, 632, 652– 53,  has emphasized. Kingsbury, however, reaches too far when he sees in 21.37 an intentional reference to the heavenly voice in 3.17 and 17.5 (652–53). Had Matthew wanted to allude to this, he would hardly have omitted the Markan ἀγαπητόν (Mark 12.6). 41 Compare again the cross-reference in 21.35 to 23.37! On the characterization of the prophets as servants, compare 1 Kgs 14.18; 15.29; 2 Kgs 9.7, 36; 10.10; 14.25; 17.13, 23; 21.10; 24.2; Jer 7.25; 25.4; 26.5; 29.19; 35.15; 44.4; Ezek 38.17; Amos 3.7; Zech 1.6; Ezra 9.11; and elsewhere. In the background of 21.35–36 and 23.37 lies the tradition of the violent fate of prophets. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah’s fate can be pointed to above all (Jer 20.2, 7– 8; 37.15ff.; 38.4ff.; also 11.18ff.; 15.10ff.; 17.18; 18.18ff.; for Early Jewish and early Christian reception, see Sir 49.7; Liv. Pro. 2.1; 4 Bar. 9.21–31 [Christian!]; Apoc. Paul 49; Eup. frag. 4 [at Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.2–5; cf. Denis 1970, 185; see under Jewish sources in the bibliography]) and, further, the murder of Uriah (Jer 26.20–23), the stoning of Zechariah (2 Chr 24.20–21), and the arrest of Micaiah son of Imlah (1 Kgs 22.24–28; cf. Mart. Isa. 2.12–13). According to Mart. Isa. 5.1ff. (cf. 1.7); Liv. Pro. 1.1; Apoc. Paul 49, Isaiah was sawn in two (cf. Heb 11.37). The Lives of the Prophets further mentions the stoning of Jeremiah (see above) and the killing of Ezekiel (3.2; cf. Apoc. Paul 49), Micah (6.1), Amos (7.1–2), and Zechariah (23.1). Obadiah had to “endure much” (9.2) for the sake of his teacher Elijah (see 1 Kgs 18.3ff., and Ginzberg 1909–1938, 6:343). In Liv. Pro., however,

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

175

about the interpretation of the vineyard. It is possible to understand the vineyard as a symbol for Israel.42 This interpretation is natural insofar as v. 33 clearly alludes to Isa 5.243 and vineyard is used elsewhere—in Old Testament and Early Jewish literature—as a metaphor for Israel.44 The vinedressers would then stand for the authorities—in this case, necessarily to be distinguished from Israel.45 At this point, Jesus’ parable takes a different path in comparison with the Old Testament point of reference taken up in v. 33: the failure of the vineyard is not under discussion here46 but rather the

there is no equation whereby “prophet = condition of suffering”; David, Hosea, Joel, and Nahum died “in peace” (cf. Steck 1967, 249). On the persecution/derision of prophets, see further Jer 2.30; 2 Chr 36.16; Neh 9.26; Jub. 1.12; Josephus, A.J. 9.265– 66; 10.38–29. Compare the discussion of this theme in Rabbinic literature in Fischel 1946/1947, esp. 270– 80, and in general, Steck 1967. 42 See, for example, Mussner 1967, 130; Harrington 1991a, 302, 303; Tisera 1993, 218; Saldarini 1994, 60– 61; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 381; Overman 1995, 431; Carter and Heil 1998, 161; Döpp 1998, 24; Gielen 1998, 218, 227; Sim 1998b, 149; Repschinski 2000, 41, 316; Wilk 2002, 118; Nolland 2005, 869–70; Turner 2008, 514, 517; Talbert 2010, 251; W. Kraus 2011, 223–24; and Oppong-Kumi 2013, 269, 275. According to Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:176 with n. 9, the reference of the vineyard changes in the course of the parable, from Israel at the beginning, to Jerusalem in v. 39 (but see section 4.1.3.3, n. 138), and finally to the kingdom of God (see the following discussion with n. 50). Brooke 1995,  285, concludes on the basis of traditional Jewish interpretation of Isa 5.1–7 (see section 4.1.4, n. 180) that—from the beginning—the vineyard stands for Jerusalem (in this vein, see also Runesson 2011b, 141, n. 25) and, further, the tower stands for the temple and the wine press for the altar. But then why does the digging of the wine press precede the construction of the tower in Matt 21.33? 43 Compare Klauck 1970, 122; Harrington 1991a, 304; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:620; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:178–79; Weren 1998, (7, 9–10), 19; Olmstead 2003, 110, 145, 153; and Nolland 2005, 868–70, among others. It is possible that, in Matt 21.33, the transposition of ἐφύτευσεν in front of its object ἀμπελῶνα, and of φραγμόν in front of its verb περιέθηκεν, as well as the insertion of ἐν αὐτῷ between ὤρυξεν and ληνόν, should be  read  as  an  intentional  redactional  intensification  of  the  reference  to  the  Isaiah  text  (cf. Sand 1986, 433; Weren 1998, 19; see also Gundry 1967, 43– 44; Klauck 1970, 126, 142; and Olmstead 2003, 153, on Matt 21.41b [see above]). 44 Isa 3.14; 27.2–6; Jer 12.10; L.A.B. 28.4 (?); 30.4; 3 Bar. 1.2; compare also Herm. Sim. 5.2.2; 5.5.2–3; 5.6.2. In L.A.B. 12.8–9; 18.10–11; 23.12; 39.7; 4 Ezra 5.23, vinea is to be translated as vine; compare Ps 80.9, 15; Jer 2.21; Ezek 17.5–10; Hos 10.1; Joel 1.7. Transitions are, however, occasionally fluid, as Ps 80.9– 15 illustrates, since the metaphorical identifications of Israel as a vine in vv. 9 and 15 here encompass statements that, as  Klauck 1986, 299, rightly notes, “only become comprehensible if the vineyard constitutes the background image” (trans. K. Ess). On the tradition of interpretation of Isa 5.1–7, see section 4.1.4, n. 180. 45 See, for example, Levine 1988, 209–10; Harrington 1991a, 303; Gundry 1994, 424; Saldarini 1994, 60– 62; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:176, 180; Carter and Heil 1998, 161; Gielen 1998, 227; Nolland 2005, 871; Evans 2012, 370, 375; and Oppong-Kumi 2013, 277–78. See section 4.1.3.1, n. 99. 46 Compare, for example, de Moor 1998, 65, 68.

176

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

failure of the vinedressers, who have no counterpart in Isa 5.1–7. In place of the question ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου; in Isa 5.4 and the corresponding proclamation in 5.5, the question τί ποιήσει τοῖς γεωργοῖς ἐκείνοις; appears. The problem is not that the vineyard produces bad grapes but rather that the tenants do not deliver the fruit. Accordingly, the parable does not depict the destruction of the vineyard as the penalty (Isa 5.5– 6) but rather the punishment of the tenants, while the vineyard is entrusted to new vinedressers (Matt 21.41). To summarize, if the vineyard stands for Israel, the parable would not be directed against Israel but against her leadership.47 This line of interpretation has become increasingly significant in the most  recent Matthean scholarship.48 According to the traditional interpretation, however, which is also common in recent scholarship, Matt 21.33– 46 addresses the salvationhistorical role of Israel. Verse 43 is understood to express the replacement of Israel with the (Gentile) Church.49 In order to achieve consistency in this interpretation, one must then contest the reading of the vineyard metaphor presented above. Given that, according to v. 41, the vineyard will be transferred to other vinedressers and, according to the interpretation in v. 43, the kingdom of God will be taken away, an alternative solution presents itself, whereby the vineyard metaphor is to be interpreted as ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.50 Alternately, the work in the vineyard is taken generally as occupation with “the ‘business’ . . . of God.”51 In the preceding remarks, two questions have emerged whose clarification is of primary relevance for the interpretation of the parable: Against whom is the parable directed? And what does ἀμπελών stand for in Matt 21.33– 41? In addition, there is the important question of the interpretation of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 43. The answer to one question does not automatically produce the answers to the others and, conversely, not every potential combination of answers is logically possible. The first two questions  47 In Old Testament prophecy, the authorities appear not infrequently as the particular addressees of the prophets’ words. See Isa 3.14–15; 28.14–16; Jer 12.10–11; 23.1– 4; Ezek 11.1– 13; 34.2ff. (a text that, like Jer 23.1– 4, is significant as background for the  Matthean use of the shepherd metaphor; see section 2.1.2); Mic 3.9–12. Isa 3.14 could be of particular interest for Matt 21.28– 46, since here the ruling classes’ misconduct toward God’s vineyard is attacked (αὐτὸς κύριος εἰς κρίσιν ἥξει μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτοῦ· ὑμεῖς δὲ τί ἐνεπυρίσατε τὸν ἀμπελῶνά μου . . .). Compare Saldarini 2001, 171. 48 See section 4.1.3.1, n. 99. 49 See section 4.1.1, n. 2. 50 See, for example, E. Lohmeyer 1962, 314; Hummel 1963, 149; Hare 1967, 151, 153; Steck 1967, 297; Klauck 1970, 137; Meier 1979, 150; Frankemölle 1984, 252; Hare 1993, 248; Gundry 1994, 430; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:620; and Lambrecht 1998, 119. 51 Snodgrass 1983, 74.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

177

result in three primary variants of interpretation, each of which acquires subcategories from the response to the third question. 4.1.3.1

First Variant

The traditional reading, as indicated previously, views the pericope as suggesting the loss of Israel’s preferential standing: Matt 21.43 aims at the replacement of Israel with the Church. In this interpretation, it is presumed that ἀφ’ ὑμῶν in v. 43 ultimately signifies not just the authorities addressed  in the narrative but these as representative of the people as a whole.52 It is possible, then, that ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ has in view Israel’s salvationhistorical prerogative—if the mention of the removal and conferral of the basileia are seen as suggesting an understanding of the kingdom as a present reality.53 God is the (true) king54 of the world,55 who exercises his rule in the present for the good of his chosen people (or the righteous) or will fully establish his kingdom for them at the end of time;56 he is therefore, in particular, the king of Israel.57 Verse 44 would then supplement Israel’s loss of her preferential standing with a sharpened warning of individual judgment and, in positive terms, would at the same time indicate that the loss of God’s reign over Israel as a whole does not necessarily imply damnation for all Israelites but that the salvation of the individual is rather decided by the individual’s disposition toward Jesus. Understood in this way, vv. 43– 44 would aim at a differentiated position, and the order of the verses would make very good sense. 52 See Schmid 1965, 306, 307; Walker 1967, 43– 44; Klauck 1970, 137; Kretzer 1971, 151; Lange 1973, 274; van Elderen 1974, 187; Sand 1986, 435; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:617; E. C. Park 1995, 183– 84; Lambrecht 1998, 119; also Kynes 1991, 136–37; and Luz 2001– 2007, 3:39, 42– 43, among others. 53 See Allen 1912, 232; Trilling 1964, 62; Schmid 1965, 306 (“God’s effective workings in history”; trans. K. Ess); Hare 1967, 153; Kretzer 1971, 165– 66; Pamment 1981, 231; Erlemann 1988, 232; and Deines 2005, 119. 54 On the image of the kingdom of God, see the overview in Preuss 1991/1992, 1:173– 83; see further, for example, Jeremias 1987; Janowski 1989; Schreiber 2000, 39–142; and, particularly on the Sabbath hymns from Qumran, Schwemer 1991. 55 Pss 24.7–10 (with vv. 1–2); 47.3– 4, 8–9; 93.1–2; 95.3–5; 96.10; 97.1– 6; 98.6; 99.1– 4; 103.19; Jer 10.7, 10; 1 Esd 4.46, 58; Esth 4.17b; Jdt 9.12; 2 Macc 7.9; 3 Macc 2.2(ff.); 6.2; 1 En. 9.4–5; 12.3; 25.3–7; 27.3; 84.2–3; T. Benj. 10.7; Pss. Sol. 2.30, 32; Sib. Or. 3.47–50, 767– 68; T. Mos. 4.2; 10.1, and elsewhere. 56 Exod 15.18; Num 23.21; Isa 24.21–23; 52.7(–12); Obad (17–)21; Zeph 3.15; Zech 14.9, 16–17; Pss (10.16); 29.10–11; 98.3– 6; 149.2– 4; Esth 4.17f–h; Jdt 9.12–14; 2 Macc 1.24(–29); 3 Macc 2.2–20; 6.2–15; Pss. Sol. 5.18; 17; T. Mos. 4.2–5; 10.1–10; 1QM XII, 7–16, and elsewhere. 57 See, above all, Isa 44.6; Zeph 3.15; further, Deut 33.5; Isa 33.22; 41.21; 43.15; Mic 2.13; 4.7; Ps 114.2; Esth 4.17l; Pss. Sol. 5.18–19; 17.1, 46. See also Jub. 15.31–32: Israel is God’s dominion, whereas God allows the spirits to rule over the other nations.

178

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

However, it is also possible that basileia here is to be understood as referring to future salvation.58 To “have” the kingdom must in this case be taken in the sense of Matt 5.3, 10; 19.14: it concerns the promise of future salvation; and to “bear fruit” in the ethical sense specifies the necessary  criterion for that salvation. On this reading, ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ fits well  with 21.31 and the eschatological horizon of 22.1–14. Israel as a whole has forfeited her eschatological salvation by rejecting Jesus, and v. 44 concretizes this, as delineated previously. As a central argument for the thesis of an Israel-critical impact in 21.43, it is often observed that Matthew speaks of the counterpart to ἀφ’ ὑμῶν as an ἔθνος, which is understood to refer to the Church, and to suggest the theme of the people of God.59 In other words, the authorities addressed in 21.43b could not figure alone as the counterpart to the  ἔθνος, so ἀφ’ ὑμῶν must have a more comprehensive sense. However, if Matthew had wanted to indicate a replacement of Israel with the Church, he could have simply written this. But in the negative section of the verse, he does not say that the kingdom will be taken away from Israel. In the interpretation in question, the usage of ἔθνος itself must further be clarified, which on closer inspection presents a crux interpretum.60 ἔθνος taken in the sense of “a people” signifies a national, not a religious, entity61 and is thus, in this sense, poorly suited to the concept of the Church. If Matthew had wanted to bring in the theme of the people of God, the use of λαός  would  have  been  more  fitting.  To  see  an  allusion  to  the  inclusion  of the Gentiles62 is philologically questionable, since the singular does not share this semantic nuance of the plural.63 No less difficult is the proposal that Matthew has used ἔθνος because the previous people of God is 58

See, for example, Hummel 1963, 149; Mussner 1967, 132; Gielen 1998, 228, 232; Garbe 2005, 83; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:42. 59 See Trilling 1964, 63, 65 (“there must probably indeed be an old ἔθνος in mind as a counterpart to the new ἔθνος” [63; trans. K. Ess]); Schmid 1965, 306; Sand 1986, 435; Kynes 1991, 137; Luck 1993, 236; Luz 1993, 313; and Olmstead 2003, 89–95, 117, among others. 60 Aptly Luz 2001–2007, 3:42: “Most important and most difficult is the interpretation of ‘nation’ (ἔθνος)” (emphasis added). 61 The New Testament usage of the word in the singular (thirty-two occurrences) attests  to  this  as  well.  The  only  passage  containing  a  religious  significance— 1  Pet  2.9  (ἔθνος ἅγιον)—is due to the word-for-word rendering of ‫( גוי קדוש‬Exod 19.6) in the LXX (in contrast, ‫ ַעם ָקדוׁש‬/ λαὸς ἅγιος in Deut 7.6; 14.2, 21; 26.19; 28.9; see n. 74); it is thus a “quotation” and is not based on contemporary usage. 62 See, for example, Schweizer 1986, 270; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:623 (“The singular ἔθνος . . . inevitably alludes to the eventual mission to the Gentiles”—that is, the ἔθνη); and Lange 1973, 275. 63 Compare E. Lohmeyer 1962, 314; Carter and Heil 1998, 164; and Luz 2001– 2007, 3:42.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

179

an ἔθνος.64 In addition, if ἀφ’ ὑμῶν is in fact meant to refer to the Jewish people, Matthew could easily have indicated this by speaking of the transfer of the kingdom to another “people,”65 as he had previously spoken of ἄλλοις γεωργοῖς.66 One can ask whether Matthew is inspired by a particular Old Testament passage. Since Dan 2.44fin.– 45 resonates in Matt 21.44, one might  point to καὶ αὕτη ἡ βασιλεία ἄλλο ἔθνος οὐ μὴ ἐάσῃ in Dan 2.44LXX67 and read Matt 21.43 as an intentional contrast to this, but the semantic contexts of the two texts are too different from one another.68 Further, it can be argued that in the case of an intentional allusion, we would once again expect the formulation that the kingdom will be given to another people. The phrase καὶ ποιήσω σε εἰς ἔθνος μέγα in Gen 12.2 has also been suggested as a possible textual reference.69 Here one can argue that the promise about the nations in Gen 12.3 probably bears on the motif of Jesus’ Abrahamic sonship set forth in 1.1,70 so that the following connection can be conjectured: just as the promise of blessing for the nations is fulfilled in Jesus, so also is the promise given to Abraham, to make of him  a great nation (cf. Matt 3.9). However, the fact that there is no reference to the Abraham motif, nor a signal pointing specifically to Gen 12.2, speaks  against reading 21.43 in this light. Once again, Matthew could easily have indicated such a reference by inserting the appropriate adjective. Finally, a third possibility is a reference to Exod 19.6 (cf. Exod 23.22LXX).71 This fits well insofar as the bearing of fruit corresponds with the theme of  covenant obedience addressed in the context of Exod 19.6. One can also point to the sequence—akin to Matt 21.42– 43—in 1 Pet 2.7–9, where the citation of Ps 117.22LXX (v. 7, cf. Matt 21.42) is followed in v. 9 by a series of titles used 64 See Zahn 1922, 634: “Jesus identifies his community as an ἔθνος

only because he wants to contrast it as the future bearer of the kingdom of God with the current occupant of the same position—namely, the old community, which was a nation” (trans. K. Ess). In this vein, see further Allen 1912, 232; Punge 1961, 117–18; and Trilling 1964, 61. 65 Compare Mussner 1967, 131; and Fiedler 2004, 54. 66 Characteristic of the interpretation under scrutiny here is the “cross-fading” of 21.41 and 21.43 by Olmstead 2003, 162: “the kingdom will be taken from the nation and given to another ἔθνος (21.41, 43). As a nation, Israel has ceased to be the people of God” (emphasis original). 67 See Swaeles 1959/1960, 311–12; Snodgrass 1983, 68–70; and Gundry 1994, 430; see also Luomanen 1998b, 165– 66. 68 It should also be observed that the verb λικμᾶν, used in Matt 21.44b, appears in Dan 2.44 only in Theodotion’s translation but not in the LXX; Theodotion, however, does not speak of another ἔθνος, as does the LXX, but rather of a λαὸς ἕτερος. 69 Wilk 2002, 120; Olmstead 2003, 91–95 (cf. also Olmstead 2011, 131). 70 See section 5.1. 71 Compare E. Lohmeyer 1962, 314; see also Trilling 1964, 61; Snodgrass 1983, 93; Keener 1999, 515; as well as Dillon 1966, 20.

180

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in the Old Testament to indicate Israel’s elected status, which among other things takes up ἔθνος ἅγιον from Exod 19.6. If it is correct that 1 Pet was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew,72 one could see traces of Matt 21.42– 43 in 1 Pet 2.7–9, and this would mean that at least the author of 1 Pet, as an early interpreter, read ἔθνος in Matt 21.43 in the light of Exod 19.6. However, this does not prove much for the passage in Matthew itself. Moreover, it is once again the case that Matthew has not clearly signaled a connection to the Old Testament text.73 Although one can see the participial phrase in Matt 21.43 as a functional equivalent to ἅγιος in Exod 19.6, this changes nothing in the argument that Matthew could easily have indicated a reference to Exodus by inserting the adjective. Furthermore, biblical tradition speaks more often of λαὸς ἅγιος74 than of ἔθνος ἅγιον;75 this once again raises the question as to why Matthew has used ἔθνος rather than λαός, which would have expressed the understanding presumed by many interpreters. Saldarini has argued76 that ἔθνος need not mean “a people” and has suggested a “voluntary organization or small social group” as a meaning appropriate for Matt 21.43.77 In fact, ἔθνος initially designates simply a cohesive group.78 “Nation” or “people” developed (in post-Homeric 72 On this, see Metzner 1995 (on 1 Pet 2.7–9 in particular, pp. 162–63). See also Luz 2001–2007, 1:58–59. 73 That βασίλειον (Exod 19.6)—the word was apparently often understood as a noun in Early Jewish reception (see 2 Macc 2.17; Philo, Sobr. 66; see also Jub. 16.18; Tg. Onq. on Exod 19.6; Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 19.6; Tg. Ps.­J. on Exod 19.6)—is similar to ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (21.43) does not invalidate this. 74 Deut 7.6; 14.2, 21; 26.19; 28.9; Isa 62.12; Dan 7.27LXX (καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν . . . ἔδωκε λαῷ ἁγίῳ ὑψίστου!); 2 Macc 15.24; Gk. L.A.E. 13.3; Pss. Sol. 17.26; 1 Clem 8.3 (= Apocr. Ezek.?; see JSHRZ V/1, 53); see also λαὸς ὅσιος in Wis 10.15. 75 Beyond the Exodus passages mentioned here, only Wis 17.2 can be further adduced, as far as I can see. The use of ἔθνος here can be explained by the fact that the text speaks from the perspective of the ἄνομοι. No intentional allusion to Exod 19.6 can be discerned. In addition, there is no particularly rich reception of Exod 19.6 in early Judaism (on this, see Elliott 1966, 50– 128); at least, no such reception is reflected in the extant texts. Exod 19.6 clearly serves as  a model in Jub. 16.18; 33.20, and in 2 Macc 2.17 (cf. n. 73), yet here ἁγιασμός appears in place of ἔθνος ἅγιον. Philo takes up Exod 19.6 in Sobr. 66 and Abr. 56, but in Sobr. 66 without ἔθνος ἅγιον. Josephus passes over Exod 19.3– 6 in his account of the giving of the law at Sinai in A.J. 3.75(ff.). In early Christian literature, alongside 1 Pet 2.9, Exod 19.6 was likely adapted in Rev 1.6 and 5.10—yet here, too, there is no reception of ἔθνος ἅγιον. 76 Saldarini 1994, 59– 61. 77 Saldarini 1994, 60 (see also Saldarini 2001, 171–73). Compare Harrington 1991a, 303: “The term ethnos can mean a ‘group of people’ ” (cf. n. 100). In agreement with Saldarini, see Overman 1996, 303– 4; and Fiedler 2006, 332, n. 86. See further Duling 2005, 138– 40, and the overview of the usages of ἔθνος in ancient texts at p. 129 (cf. further Hall 1997, 34–35). 78 LSJ, s.v., gives as one meaning “number of people living together, company, body of men.”

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

181

Greek79) as the primary meaning, but without completely eliminating other possibilities; this is true not only of Greco-Roman literature but also of biblical tradition. Pindar writes of ἀνέρων ἔθνος (Ol. 1.66) and ἔθνος γυναικῶν ἀνδροφόνων (Pyth. 4.252). Plato writes of the choice of “doctors or shipbuilders or any other set of craftsmen” (ἄλλου τινὸς δημιουργικοῦ ἔθνους, Gorg. 455b [Lamb, LCL]) as well as of heralds as κηρυκικὸν ἔθνος (Pol. 290b). Alongside this last reference can be seen P.Köln 260.3, where the instruction to gather τὰ ἔθνη refers to occupational groups. If εθινων in P.Petr. 32 (p. 67) is a misspelling of ἐθνῶν, ἔθνη designates here trade associations. In OGIS 90.17 and P.Petr. 59 (p. 174), (τὰ) ἱερὰ ἔθνη refers to priests and likewise υἱοὶ ἱερέων καὶ ἱεροεθνῶ(ν) in P.Oxy. 3470.16 (131 CE). 80 In Plato’s Republic (4.420b) “any ἔθνος” is contrasted with the city as a whole, thus designating a section of the population (cf. 421c), and in Republic 1.351c, the list ἢ πολὶν ἢ στρατόπεδον ἢ λῃστὰς ἢ κλέπτας ἢ ἄλλο τι ἔθνος occurs. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 10.60.5) refers to the groups of patricians and plebeians as ἔθνη. It is particularly noteworthy that in Xenophon, Symp. 3.6, Antisthenes asks Niceratus whether he knows of an ἔθνος more foolish than the rhapsodes (ἔθνος . . . ἠλιθιώτερον ῥαψῳδῶν). And in Dio Chrysostom, a contemporary of Matthew, following a list of flute players, actors, zither players,  jugglers, pugilists, wrestlers, and competitors in the pankration, the phrase καὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔθνος means “and such people” (Or. 66 §8). There is further evidence to be considered from the Old Testament and Early Jewish literature. In 2 Chr 32.7, ἔθνος refers to an army of the king of Assyria— that is, the armed “people” that accompanies him in his campaign. This is close to the usage in 1 Macc 1.34, where a unit of Seleucid occupying forces is referred to as ἔθνος ἁμαρτωλόν (cf. Dan 11.23LXX) and is further described with the phrase ἄνδρας παρανόμους. In Jer 31.2LXX (= 48.2MT), ἔθνος signifies the population of the city of Heshbon.81 Tobit’s hymn of praise in Tob 13.1–18 speaks of an ἔθνος ἁμαρτωλῶν, 82 to whom Tobit wishes to proclaim the power and greatness of God (v. 8). In the following call to repentance, the usage is varied by the simple Homer speaks, for example, of ἑτάρων ἔθνος or ἔθνος ἑταίρων (Il. 7.115; 11.585, 595; 13.165, 533, 566, 596, 648, and elsewhere). See also λαῶν ἔθνος, of the multitudes of the army in Homer, Il. 13.495, and ἔθνεα πεζῶν (Il. 11.724). 80 On this see further CPR XV 32.8. Another possible reference is the ἔθνος τῶν ὀνομαζομένων Βραχμάνων in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.102.7, although the Brahmins here could be regarded as an Indian people. 81 Jer 31.2LXX could possibly be placed alongside Lev 20.2, where τὸ ἔθνος τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς probably means the inhabitants. 82 In the Aramaic Tobit fragments from Qumran, the passage is incompletely preserved; see 4Q196 17 II, 4. On this phrase, see also Isa 1.4. 79

182

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

ἁμαρτωλοί. This hardly has in view the Assyrian people but apparently exiled Israel, 83 and this cannot refer to the people of God as a whole; according to the literary  fiction,  it  concerns  only  the  northern  kingdom,  and  this  too  not  in  its  entirety, since Tobit himself and his son Tobias (1.3, 6– 8, 11ff.; 4.3ff.) belong as little to this group as Tobias’ (later) wife Sara and her father (Tob 3.11ff.; 6.12, see also 5.14). One can perhaps situate here Prov 26.3LXX (ὥσπερ μάστιξ ἵππῳ καὶ κέντρον ὄνῳ οὕτως ῥάβδος ἔθνει παρανόμῳ), where ἔθνος need by no means refer to “a people, nation” in the sociological sense, but rather, like Tob 13.8, ἔθνος παράνομον can be varied as παράνομοι (cf. Prov 2.22; 4.14; 11.30; 13.2, and elsewhere). This is confirmed in Prov 28.17LXX, where an admonition to educate one’s son—which does not appear in the Masoretic Text—is furnished with the promise οὐ μὴ ὑπακούσῃς ἔθνει παρανόμῳ.84 Philo writes in Her. 272 of τὸ τῶν παθῶν ἔθνος. This usage can be explained by the fact that it occurs in the interpretation of Gen 15.14, and the same is true for τῶν διττῶν διανοίας ἐθνῶν . . . , ἀρετῆς τε καὶ κακίας in Congr. 129, 85 as well as the subdivision of the virtues into ἔθνη in Mut. 148;86 however, this is not the case in Somn. 2.133, where Philo characterizes the “sunless region of the impious” as occupied by “deep night . . . and endless darkness, and innumerable tribes (ἔθνη μυρία) of spectres and phantoms and dream-illusions” (Colson, LCL).87 In Spec. 2.121, ἔθνος apparently means the “common people” in contrast with the priestly tribe (cf. Spec. 2.222). The usage of ἔθνος for types of animals is attested on several occasions, both in “classical” as well as in Old Testament and Early Jewish texts.88 Finally, we can point to Rom 10.19, where in taking up Deut 32.21 (cf. 3 Bar. 16.2), ἔθνος ἀσύνετον refers to Gentile Christians—that is, not “a people” but a particular group of people.

This survey of the lexical evidence shows that, although ἔθνος is most often used in reference to “a people” or “nation,” this by no means covers the spectrum of possible usages. In phrases like ἔθνος παράνομον (Prov 26.3; 28.17) or ἔθνος ἁμαρτωλόν (Tob 13.8), the emphasis is on the adjective. This could analogously apply to the participial phrase ποιοῦν τοὺς 83

On these possibilities, see Fitzmyer 2003, 310. On this phrase, see further Prov 29.18: οὐ μὴ ὑπάρξῃ ἐξηγητὴς ἔθνει παρανόμῳ ὁ δὲ φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον μακαριστός. 85 Philo here is interpreting Gen 25.23: δύο ἔθνη ἐν τῇ γαστρί σού εἰσιν. 86 The promise from Gen 17.16 is interpreted here: καὶ εὐλογήσω αὐτόν, καὶ ἔσται εἰς ἔθνη. 87 The context is about the interpretation of Joseph’s dream in Gen 37.9–11 (Somn. 2.110–54). 88 Homer, Il. 2.87, 459, 469; Sophocles, Ant. 344; Phil. 1147; as well as Prov 30.26; Philo, Spec. 1.162. 84

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

183

καρποὺς αὐτῆς (= τῆς βασιλείας) in Matt 21.43. ἔθνος here could thus refer to a group of people89 that is more specifically identified by the participial  phrase that bears the emphasis.90 This option is supported by the contrast with ἀφ’ ὑμῶν, since taking the authorities addressed here, with whom Jesus has argued since 21.23, as representatives of the people or pars pro toto must be rejected as extremely problematic in the immediate and broader context of 21.43. The people and the authorities, as we have seen, are anything but a homogeneous mass in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew has rather continually made an effort to underscore the distinction between the two groups, and this intention also characterizes the Matthean portrayal of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem in Matt 21–23: the parable trilogy is part of a purposefully formed composition that brings the conflict between Jesus and the authorities to a head and,  in so doing, emphasizes the distinction between the (Jerusalem) leadership and the people and accordingly flows into instructions to the people about  the authorities whose incompetence has just been exposed.91 The thesis of representation therefore appears highly implausible. In particular, it must be noted that one of the contrasts between the authorities and the crowds in Matt 21– 23 occurs within 21.33– 46 itself— namely, in the final scene in  vv. 45– 46, created by Matthew, where it is explicitly stated that the chief priests and the Pharisees take the parables in reference to themselves,92 and—decisively—the crowds are differentiated from the leadership.93 In short, on the basis of the composition in Matt 21–23, it is to be expected that the parable trilogy is concerned with disqualifying and delegitimizing the religious leadership. Exactly this has already been shown for 21.28–32. 89

Compare the meanings given in LSJ; see n. 78. Olmstead 2011, 127–30, tries to invalidate Saldarini’s argument based on the semantic spectrum of ἔθνος by referring to the LXX usage of ἔθνος, but he does not address any of the texts quoted above and thus significantly simplifies the evidence. 91 See in detail section 3.1.2.5. On this argument based on the context, see further Carter and Heil 1998, 154–55. 92 Compare Weren 1984, 363; and Repschinski 2000, 316. 93 See Snodgrass 1983, 91 (with regard to all three synoptic versions): “If the Evangelists wanted to direct this parable against the Jewish people, why would all three of them counteract this intention immediately by saying that the religious authorities knew that Jesus spoke about them but could not seize him for fear of the people? In all three Gospels the judgment is pronounced against the religious leaders” (emphasis original). It should be added that this argument is in no way contradicted by 27.11–26—contrary to the postulation of Olmstead 2011, 120–21. Olmstead rightly argues that “Matthew’s parable of the passion must be read in light of his actual passion narrative” (120; emphasis original), but as presented in section 3.2, Israel as a whole is by no means generally burdened with the guilt of Jesus’ death in 27.25. Rather, in agreement with Matt 21.33– 46, here as well, the authorities appear as the primary agents, who drag the city of Jerusalem with them into ruin by leading astray the Jerusalem crowds gathered before Pilate. 90

184

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The context thus suggests that the ἔθνος that bears the fruits of the kingdom will not replace Israel as the people of God but, rather, the current authorities. If one wants to connect this with the thesis of an allusion to Exod 19.6; 23.22LXX (or to Gen 12.2)—which in my view is rather improbable—then this could be done only in such a way that, just as the history of Israel according to 1.17 leads purposefully up to Jesus, the purpose of Israel as the people of God reaches its goal in or through this ἔθνος:94 a goal that is hindered by those who were, up to now, the authorities.95 It can hardly be disputed that the ἔθνος refers to the (true) followers of Jesus—that is, those who have recognized that the stone that has been rejected is in fact the cornerstone.96 Rather than straightforwardly identifying the ἔθνος with the Church, however, one must use restraint in making any identification, given that the Church is a corpus mixtum. One could thus at the most say that the ἔθνος ποιοῦν τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς (= τῆς βασιλείας) has in view the ideal Church.97 It can be provisionally concluded that Matt 21.43 does not represent the replacement of the old people of God with a new one. Rather, based on 94

Wilk 2002, 120, takes this direction in connection with his thesis that the reference to the disciples as an ἔθνος indicates the reception of the promise to Abraham from Gen 12.2: the community of disciples “takes over . . . the task that Israel has neglected, of being a light and mediator of blessing for the nations” (trans. K. Ess). See also Snodgrass 1983, 93–94. 95 According to Gielen 1998, 228, the comparison of ὑμεῖς and ἔθνος cautiously suggests “that in v. 43a, it is no longer only the leaders of Israel who are in view, but also those who are involved, who because of them have not produced the fruit suitable to the basileia, and now are also punished with the loss of the basilea” (trans. K. Ess). But she adds, “it is, however, significant now that Matthew chooses the opposition ὑμεῖς vs. ἔθνος ποιοῦν τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς βασιλείας), but not Ἰσραήλ vs. ἔθνη or Ἰσραήλ vs. ἐκκλησία. He thus does not represent a simple substitution schema, according to which the Gentiles or the Church would now, as the new Israel, as it were, occupy the place of the ‘old’ Israel. Rather, the ἔθνος to whom the basileia will be given because of its fruit is open to and at least partially congruent with Israel” (228–29; trans. K. Ess). 96 But contrast Mussner 1967, 134, who in light of 21.31–32 and 22.8–10 regards the counterpart to the authorities as the common people, the “am­ha­ arez.” See also Mussner 1981, 54–55; and Weren 1984, 364. 97 Ogawa 1979a, 190 (= Ogawa 1979b, 139) speaks of the “ecclesia postulata, c’est-àdire l’Eglise qu’il faut réaliser, non pas l’ecclesia realis” (emphasis original); see Lambrecht 1998, 119, of “the ideal church” (see also 120). Roloff 1999, 261, sees in 21.43 “Matthew’s ecclesiological restraint, which can be observed elsewhere as well. He neither considers the ἐκκλησία to be a strictly delineated community, nor does he even suggest a direct connection between this community and the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. He simply speaks of a group of people, an ἔθνος, which is in a conditionally determined relation to the kingdom. He thereby avoids any empirical sociological assertion” (emphasis added; trans. K. Ess). Similarly Weren 1998, 24; see also Marguerat 1981, 320–23; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:42– 43. According to Garbe 2005, 84, Matthew has in view here “much less the Church than the eschatological people of salvation after the final judgment” (84; trans. K. Ess).

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

185

the explicit application of the parables to the authorities and the contrast between the authorities and the ὄχλοι in vv. 45– 46, as well as the broader and immediate context, which clearly distinguishes the crowds from the authorities, it must be concluded that ἀφ’ ὑμῶν is simply to be taken as it stands: the leadership addressed with ἀφ’ ὑμῶν constitutes the counterpart to the ἔθνος.98 The parable is thus directed against them, not against Israel,99 and it is they who will be replaced by the group of (true) followers of Jesus.100 While this has answered the question posed at the beginning of this section regarding the target against which the text is directed, the following two primary variants of the interpretation of the parable differ in terms of the understanding of the vineyard metaphor. 4.1.3.2

Second Variant

With the reasoning given in the preceding discussion, the vineyard can be taken to refer to Israel. The parable, then, considered first without vv. 42–  44, produces a clear meaning: God has established leadership in Israel that has nevertheless continually stood against God’s messengers. The killing of the son is connected with the hope of being able to seize the vineyard 98 A further detail dovetails with this reading: in 21.38, Matthew changes the Markan πρὸς ἑαυτούς (Mark 12.7) to ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, which is reminiscent of 21.25, where it is said of the authorities: οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (cf. Gundry 1994, 427: “In this way Matthew yet again applies the parable to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem”; see also Carter and Heil 1998, 162). It should further be pointed out that the metaphor of the builders in v. 42 suggests a reference to the leaders (cf. Snodgrass 1983, 96, with n. 102; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:185, n. 62; Repschinski 2000, 316–17). Furthermore, the motif of the persecution of prophets is often especially connected with the authorities in Old Testament and Early Jewish literature. See 1 Kgs 18.4, 13; Jer 26.20–23; Josephus, A.J. 10.38 (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:190, n. 80); as well as Liv. Pro. 1.1 (see, however, the burial of Isaiah by the people in 1.5!); 3.2; 6.1; 7.1; 23.1. 99 Likewise, see E. Lohmeyer 1962, 314; Mussner 1967, 131; Tagawa 1969/1970, 161; Snodgrass 1983, 90–94 (cf. Snodgrass 1998, 192–93); Erlemann 1988, 176, 234–36; Levine 1988, 208–11; Harrington 1991a, 302–3, 304; Tisera 1993, 226, 228; Gundry 1994, 424, 426, 427, 430; Saldarini 1994, 44– 45, 60– 62; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 381– 82; Overman 1995, 433–34; Kupp 1996, 91, 95, 213; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:189–90; Carter and Heil 1998, 163– 65; Döpp 1998, 24; Sim 1998b, 149; Weren 1998, 26; Frankemölle 1999, 92; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 25; Repschinski 2000, 41, 315–17; Fiedler 2006, 331–32 (cf. Fiedler 2004, 54); Turner 2008, 514, 517–18; Talbert 2010, 251–52; see also Brooke 1995, 286; and Ingelaere 1995, 51; and see section 4.1.3.2, n. 104. 100 On the basis of the interpretation of ἀφ’ ὑμῶν, Harrington 1991a, 304, limits the reference to the authorities: ἔθνος “should be understood in its most basic sense as a ‘group of people,’ in this case the leaders of the Jewish Christian community” (emphasis added). See also Saldarini 1994, 61: “The ethnos . . . is a group of leaders, with their devoted followers, that can lead Israel well.” Talbert 2010, 252, limits the ἔθνος to the twelve.

186

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and gain complete possession of it; yet the plan fails because, in reality, with the son’s murder, the point is reached at which the tenants receive their punishment and others are entrusted with the leadership of Israel.101 The parable thus interprets the course of action against Jesus as an attempt by the authorities established in Israel to assert their position on their own authority. Understood in this way, the parable of the wicked tenants takes up a leitmotif of the Matthean portrayal of the conflict between Jesus and  the leadership, which, as we have seen, is introduced already in 2.3– 6. But their endeavor is doomed to failure, because the murdered son will be resurrected and exalted by the father, as v. 42 shows. Verse 43 then articulates the consequence of the authorities’ failed attempt. For the understanding of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, two possibilities present themselves, which are not mutually exclusive. First, one can understand basileia in the sense of eschatological salvation. Verse 43 would then express the soteriological side of the judgment from v. 41: not only will Israel’s leadership be replaced because of its misconduct, but it has also forfeited its own salvation.102 Matt 21.43 would then strengthen v. 31fin. It is also possible, though, to understand basileia in a way that remains closer to the theme of the parable. With its message of the replacement of Israel’s leadership, the parable is part of the motif of conflicting claims  to leadership, which is of central significance elsewhere in the Gospel as  well. The primary legitimizing element within this problematic is the correct understanding of God’s will (see 5.20ff.103). In terms of its religious dimension—the only dimension with which Matthew is concerned—the task of the leadership consists mainly in providing for the correct interpretation of the Torah.104 According to 16.19, Peter is given the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” and this, as 16.19bc shows, is connected with the interpretation of the law105—that is, the correct interpretation of Torah, which is 101 With regard to the parable trilogy as a whole, cf. Repschinski 2000, 319: “The conflict between Jesus and his adversaries is a conflict over rightful leadership of the people of  Israel.” On this approach, see also Erlemann 1988, 176, 234; and Döpp 1998, 24. 102 See, for example, Nolland 2005, 878: “The displacement of the Jewish religious leaders is expressed not now in terms of their leadership role, but in terms of their own personal participation in the kingdom of God.” 103 On the understanding of the so-called “antitheses,” see section 3.1.2.2, n. 112. 104 Compare the approach by Horne 1998, 112–16, who understands the original parable, traced back to Jesus, to be “an indictment . . . of the temple leadership” (112) and, more specifically, sees it as addressing the question, “Who gets control of the Moses traditions?” (114). 105 Compare von Dobschütz 1928, 343; Hummel 1963, 60–63; Schweizer 1986, 223; Marcus 1988, 449–52; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:635, 638–39; Limbeck 1991, 209– 16; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:66; Hoffmann 1994, 330–31; Luz 2001–2007, 2:364– 65; Wilk 2002, 100; Nolland 2005, 681; and Fiedler 2006, 289, among others. The thesis of Hiers 1985, 240, “that the sayings about binding and loosing in Matt 16:19 and 18:18 may derive

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

187

safeguarded by Peter, passed on in the community, and traced back to Jesus as the one and true teacher (cf. 23.8). The connection between basileia and Torah, indicated by the designation “keys of the basileia,” is thereby twofold. First, the right interpretation of the law opens the basileia to humanity;106 this is concerned with the future aspect of the kingdom, which the disciples are to proclaim as near (10.7). Second, with regard to the present aspect of God’s kingship, the phrase brings to mind the notion that God exercises his reign essentially through the announcement of his will. With the transfer of the keys to the kingdom, Peter becomes the “earthly arm” of God’s reign.107 In terms of tradition history, this interpretation can easily be made plausible, since the individual elements in this thematic context are common in Matthew’s surroundings. The thought that God exercises his reign through earthly representatives can be understood as analogous to the Chronicler’s conception of the Davidic kingdom,108 which has a continued effect in T. Benj. 9.1.109 According to Wis 6.3– 4, the kings on the earth have their power from the Lord and are thus ὑπηρέται τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας. The connection between the kingdom of heaven and law is common in rabbinic literature110 but has prerabbinic roots, as Jub. 12.19; 2 Macc 1.7 show;111

from an earlier statement or statements by Jesus authorizing Peter and the twelve to exorcise demons,” which he relates to pre-Matthean tradition, is decidedly contradicted by the fact that the alternative of “bind” and “loose” cannot be integrated here; the disciples have only the one task—namely, to cast out demons. On further hypotheses, see the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:635–39. 106 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:65; Luz 2001–2007, 2:365; and Nolland 2005, 676, 681– 82. 107 The significance of this aspect is underscored by Matt 28.18–20. On this, see n. 129. 108 See 1 Chr 28.5 (Solomon is chosen to sit ἐπὶ θρόνου βασιλείας κυρίου ἐπὶ τὸν Ισραηλ); 29.23; 2 Chr 13.8; also 1 Chr 17.14. On this, see Camponovo 1984, 90–91; and Schreiber 2000, 79. 109 Here Benjamin announces to his progeny that the βασιλεία κυρίου will be taken from them. For our purposes, it is secondary whether the passage has in view the end of the kingdom of the Benjaminite Saul (see Camponovo 1984, 325; Schreiber 2000, 95) or the end of the Davidic kingdom (see Hollander and de Jonge 1985, 435). In either case, the idea is picked up here that the king—to use the words of 1 Chr 28.5—“sits on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.” 110 See Mek. 20.2: “This proclaims the excellence of Israel. For when they all stood before mount Sinai to receive the Torah they all made up their mind alike to accept the reign of God joyfully” (trans. Lauterbach, p. 230); see further Sipra on Lev 18.6 (Winter, p. 488); Midr. Teh. 20.3 (“Had you not accepted [the Torah], where would My kingdom be?” [trans. Braude, p. 289]); Lev. Rab. 2.4 (on Lev 1.2; “Said He to him: ‘. . . because at Sinai they accepted My kingship, saying, All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and obey’ [Exod 24.7]” [trans. Israelstam, p. 23]); Midr. Tanḥ. B ‫§ לך לך‬6 (Bietenhard 1:69). Compare Str-B 1:174–75, 176. 111 See Camponovo 1984, 188, 234–35.

188

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

indeed, it is already grounded in the Yahweh-kingship psalms 93 and 99.112 In 2  Macc  1.7,  Jason’s  departure  from  the  kingdom  signifies  his  departure  from  God’s reign,113 manifested in his defiance of the divine laws (4.11, 17, see also  5.8).114 Conversely, in Jub. 12.19, Abraham’s conversion, his renunciation of idols, and devotion to the one God means that he places himself under God’s sovereignty, which is concretized in the following narrative by Abraham’s obedience to God’s commandments (see 24.11).115 In addition, in Sib. Or. 3.716–20, the injunction to flee “to the immortal king” (716– 17) who “is the sole ruler” (718) is  followed by the admonition to remember the law of the highest God (719). Submission to God’s rule is linked with obedience to the law he has issued. Further, we can point once again to a passage mentioned earlier—namely, Wis 6.3– 4: the failure of the kings is determined by the fact that they have not maintained the law.116 In positive terms, they are bound to the law as servants of God’s kingship.117 Finally, we may note here the connection between kingship and the law given at Sinai in Moses’ dream in Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge (68–82), as well as the connection of Moses’ legislation with kingship in Philo, Mos. 2.3– 4 (see also Mos. 1.334; Praem. 54–55).

Read in the macrotext, 16.19 constitutes the counterpart to 23.13,118 which in the Matthean composition opens the series of woes and thereby acquires 112 If ‫ ֵעד ֶֹתיָך‬in Ps 93.5 refers to God’s statutes (so, for example, Kraus 2003, 2:819), then the kingdom of God is already linked with the notion of divine law here. This connection occurs again in Ps 99 (see vv. 1, 4, 7). 113 With Habicht 1979, at verse; Camponovo 1984, 187. 114 Compare Camponovo 1984, 187–88. In contrast, Schwemer 1991, 72–73, and Schreiber 2000, 87, interpret the statement as a reference to Jason’s violation of the temple’s holiness. 115 According to Jub. 50.9, the Sabbath is “a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel.” Camponovo 1984, 235, interprets this such that “by keeping the Sabbath, Israel acknowledges her God and thus takes shelter under his kingdom” (trans. K. Ess). As background for this characterization of the Sabbath, however, it should be taken into account, above all, that according to Jub. 2.18, the angels in heaven also celebrate the Sabbath. Compare Doering 1997, 194: “this expression refers to the special community between Israel and the heavenly world on this day: In celebrating the sabbath together with the higher angels . . . Israel experiences the kingdom of God on this day.” On this, see further Schwemer 1991, 54; and Schreiber 2000, 91–92. 116 νόμος here can hardly mean, as proposed by Hübner 1999, 83, “the law that applies in individual countries” (trans. K. Ess), but rather, either the Torah, as in 2.12; 16.6; 18.4, 9 (so Camponovo 1984, 371; Schreiber 2000, 93), or more likely the natural law—which in early Judaism was regarded as materially identical with the ethical commandments of the Torah (on this see Philo, Opif. 3; Abr. 3– 6, 275–76; cf. Heinisch 1912, 112; and Winston 1979, 153). 117 Compare Camponovo 1984, 371; and Schreiber 2000, 93. 118 Compare Garland 1979, 161; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:56, 65; Luck 1993, 250; Gundry 1994, 333; Hoffmann 1994, 330; Saldarini 1994, 49–50; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:355, 357, 365, among others.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

189

particular weight:119 the scribes and Pharisees are those who—because of their false teachings,120 in which God’s will is obscured by human statutes— close off the kingdom of heaven to others and will not enter themselves. Considered diachronically, it is probable, more specifically, that 16.19 was  created as a counterpart to 23.13 (cf. Luke/Q 11.52).121 To return to the parable of the wicked tenants, the antithesis between 16.19 and 23.13 reads as a commentary on 21.43: God had established the authorities in Israel in order to carry out his reign in Israel through the correct teaching of the Torah122 and to enable the people to enter into his kingdom.123 But the authorities—as (supposed) representatives of God’s sovereignty over Israel—do not understand the will of God as it is expressed in Scripture;124 rather, they have attempted to establish their own dominion and therefore disregarded God’s messengers. With the murder of the Son, they thought they could bring Israel into their possession forever. But their foolish plan fails. They are discharged, and God’s βασιλεία is taken from them and entrusted to the disciples (v. 43) of the resurrected Son (v. 42), who acquaint humanity with the will of God as Jesus revealed it and thereby lead them into the kingdom of heaven.125 The community of disciples thus comes into view here within its missionary task.126 One can also point here to the fact that the phrase εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας in Matt 4.23 (cf. 9.35; 24.14) is essentially defined in its context by the Sermon on  the Mount. Altogether, the vision of the βασιλεία  receives  a  specifically  ethical accent in the Gospel of Matthew.127 The plausibility of this reading within the larger context of the Gospel can also be illuminated from yet another perspective. According to 13.41, 119 The initial position in the series of the woes is likely due to Matthean redaction (cf. Polag 1982, 56–57; Gielen 1998, 344; Luz 2001–2007, 3:114). Also, with regard to the wording, Luke 11.52 is probably closer to the Q version—that is, Matt 23.13 is essentially the result of Matthean redaction (cf. Polag 1982, 56–57; Gielen 1998, 324–25; Luz 2001– 2007, 3:115). There is, however, no consensus on this question. 120 On Matt 23.2–3, see section 4.3.3, n. 318. 121 Likewise, see Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:56. 122 Compare Saldarini 1994, 62: “Kingdom should here be understood in its most central sense as reign and ruling power.” 123 On the connection between Matt 21.43a and 23.13, see also Wilk 2002, 119. 124 See the repeated references to the authorities’ lack of scriptural knowledge in Matt 9.13; 12.3, 5, 7; 19.4; 21.16, 42; 22.31. On this, see Konradt 2006, 143, 146, 151. 125 According to Carter and Heil 1998, 163, in 21.43, the authorities lose “their role as representatives or agents of and participants in God’s reign”; thus the new tenants “will take over the task of enabling the vineyard to produce the fruit which it was established to produce” (164, see also 160). 126 Likewise, see Carter and Heil 1998, 165, n. 40: “Their task is a mission one, which includes calling Israel to live faithfully to God’s will as revealed by Jesus.” 127 On this, see Luz 1992a, col. 488.

190

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the world is already the domain, the βασιλεία, of the Son of Man.128 This is illustrated by 26.64 but also and, above all, by 28.18b–20. The one exalted as the universal Lord, who possesses all authority in heaven and on earth, exercises his rule by sending out the disciples who listen to him (Matt 17.5)—and this means essentially, for Matthew, they listen to his teaching—in order to teach humanity to keep everything that he has commanded them.129 The authority given to Peter (16.19)—and, more broadly, to the community (cf. 18.18)—not only is authority within the community but also has a missionary aspect. Finally, to take 10.7 into account as well, within the disciples’ missionary message, the instruction in Jesus’ commandments, whose observance paves the way into the kingdom (cf. 5.20[– 48]), is tied in with the announcement that the kingdom is near. The interpretation of the participial phrase in 21.43 remains open. In both variants of the understanding of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, one can, with the opinio communis, relate the bearing of the fruits of the kingdom to the disciples’ activity.130 In the second variant, another possibility emerges. If v. 43a is about the task of the community in the vineyard, one can ask whether ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς (= τῆς βασιλείας) continues this theme—that is, refers to missionary service. καρπός can serve to characterize a mission’s success in Paul.131 Against the background of 9.38, the disciples’ mission to Israel (10.5ff.)  signifies  their  being  sent  εἰς τὸν θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ (= τοῦ κυρίου). In 21.34, Matthew strikingly speaks of τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτοῦ (= τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου), not of the vineyard’s fruits. The switch from τοὺς καρποὺς τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου to τῆς βασιλείας is analogous to the way Jesus speaks of the sons of God (5.9) or the Father in heaven (5.45) and the sons of the kingdom (8.12; 13.38). If the interpretation of 21.43 as the transfer of the keys is correct, one can thus read ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς τῆς βασιλείας as a contrast to the woe, which follows 128 On the connection between the Son of Man and the royal attribute in Matthew, see also 16.28; 25.31, 34. Compare Karrer 1998, 299. 129 Compare the interpretation of the “kingdom of the Son of Man” in 13.41 by Luz 2001–2007, 2:269: “It is the reign of the exalted one over heaven and earth that he now makes visible primarily through the proclamation and the life of his disciples (28:16– 20!).” On the understanding of the reign of the exalted one in the sense presented here, see further Theißen 1999, 164: “An entirely new kind of worldwide reign is announced here— a reign through ethical commandments” (trans. K. Ess; see also Backhaus 2004, 91). That the world—and not Israel in particular, as in the parable of the wicked tenants—appears as the area of Jesus’ reign in Matt 13.41 and 28.18 can be explained within the context of Matthew’s theological concept and, in any case, does not speak against understanding 21.43 from the perspective of the concept of kingship presented in 13.41; 28.18b–20. 130 See, for example, Trilling 1964, 62. 131 See Rom 1.13 and Phil 1.22. Compare Col 1.6 (cf. Hauck 1990, 618). Matthew can identify human beings metaphorically as seeds (13.18– 23; 13.38) and as fish (13.47– 48).

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

191

directly upon 23.13, about the scribes’ and Pharisees’ proselytism (23.15: ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν υἱὸν γεέννης). Matt 21.43 would then be an altogether fitting commentary on the parable: the disciples are the new vinedressers, who produce fruits in the vineyard and bring these to the Lord, just as they bring in his harvest, according to 9.37–38. In other words, with their installation as spiritual leaders of the people, sovereignty over Israel is entrusted to the disciples, in the sense that they are to gain disciples of the kingdom of heaven (13.52) through the correct proclamation of God’s will. Against this reading of the participial phrase is the observation that “fruits” are used elsewhere in Matthew in an ethical sense.132 The fact that the specific  phrase fruits of the kingdom is never used, however, does not mean much in this regard. The genitive characterizes the fruits here as in keeping with the promise of salvation or the commission. Above all, the allusion to Ps 1.3 in v. 41fin.133 points to an ethical understanding of the fruits, which will then also apply to v. 43. Understood in this way, the participial phrase also fits easily with the reading of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ just presented. The disciples’ activity in accordance with the βασιλεία proves their qualification for the task: they know the will of the king and can therefore proclaim it correctly. Indeed, they not only proclaim in word but are also the “light of the world” through their “good works” (5.14–16). In other words, teaching and activity must form a unified whole.134

To summarize these observations, according to the option of interpretation developed in this section, we can conclude that the parable of the wicked tenants takes up the leadership role claimed by the authorities as the point of departure in order to demonstrate that they have forfeited this role by opposing God’s messengers, culminating in their rejection of Jesus. More specifically, the parable recounts how they endeavor to secure their  position in Israel by killing Jesus, yet their attempt to get Jesus “out of the way” fails because God has raised and exalted his Son. Verse 43 explicates the consequences that follow for the authorities: the kingdom will remain closed off to them (23.13), and the task that God as king had previously intended for them—namely, to establish his will in Israel and to lead people to his kingdom—is transferred to the followers of Jesus. The latter— because of the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας proclaimed by Jesus or Jesus’ authoritative interpretation of Torah—bear “fruits of the basileia,” are capable of instructing people properly (28.20a),135 and so make available to 132 ποιεῖν καρπόν in 3.8, analogous to 21.43; further, see 3.10; 7.16–20; compare also 12.33; 13.8, 26. 133 On this see Gundry 1994, 428; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:184; Carter and Heil 1998, 163; Olmstead 2003, 115; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:41, among others. 134 See, in contrast, the polemic against the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23.3. 135 Similarly, see E. Lohmeyer 1962, 314: the Christian community “accepts the

192

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the people the basileia that they proclaim is near. Identifying the ἔθνος of 21.43 in this way also fits well with the role attributed to the slaves in the  following parable, who are to be understood as Jesus’ messengers:136 they call the people to the royal wedding banquet—that is, to the eschatological feast in the kingdom of heaven (cf. 8.11). 4.1.3.3

Third Variant

The third interpretive option connects with the previous reading in that the parable is directed against the leadership, but it does not construe the vineyard as a symbol for Israel. If one presumes the reading of v. 41fin.  suggested previously, then the assignment of the work in the vineyard to the vinedressers serves to enable the delivery of “good works” to God. It is therefore possible that the lease of the vineyard is to be understood in the sense of a (salvific) call to occupation with “God’s business.” The  slaves that are sent can thus be understood such that the prophets and Jesus, as divinely authorized proclaimers of God’s will, demand the proper fruits from the leadership in Israel: they ought to have guided the people with conduct in accordance with Torah, serving as a model for them. Understood in this way, the parable of the wicked tenants fits well with  the statement in 21.32 that John the Baptist showed the path of righteousness to the authorities. And, like the previous pericope, the parable of the wicked tenants would take hold of the authorities’ self-understanding and destroy it: the authorities, who see themselves as being concerned with God’s business, above all in the form of the Torah, have in reality continuously rebelled against God—that is, with their deeds, they have shown themselves to be enemies of God. Therefore God will revoke salvation from these allegedly pious men and give others a chance to prove themselves. ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ would here be understood as salvation, which the authorities  wrongly  supposed  they  possessed;  more  specifically,  one  can  also relate this to the fact that the authorities were entrusted with teaching the people the will of the king set down in the Torah. In short, like 21.28– 32, the parable of the wicked tenants would attack the authorities’ claim to piety and salvation. Since the parable is directed against the leadership in both the second and third main interpretive variants, a decision about the interpretation of inheritance that, until then, the tenants had selfishly mismanaged; [the community] will, as they had, guide the rest of the nation and thus bring forth the fruit that they had refused” (trans. K. Ess). 136 On this, see section 4.1.4.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

193

the vineyard metaphor is not of decisive significance for the issue at hand.  Such a decision is also difficult. While v. 41c speaks for reading ἀμπελών in the sense of occupation with “God’s business,” the motif of the possession of the vineyard fits poorly with this reading, but it fits well with the  understanding of the vineyard as a metaphor for Israel. This speaks to the difficult question of the limits of allegorization.137 For v. 41c, one could still point here to the corresponding participial phrase in v. 43. In the larger context of the Gospel, both variants work. The problematic of conflicting  claims to leadership addressed in the second variant seems to address a primary aspect of the situational background of Matthew’s Gospel; moreover, this produces a good connection with the question of authority. The third main variant, on the other hand, fits well with the surrounding parables, which attack the authorities’ claims to piety and salvation, without addressing their leadership role. The allusion to Isa 5.2 in v. 33 constitutes, in my opinion, a significant argument for the second main variant,138 and this is not incompatible with the other uses of the vineyard metaphor in Matthew.139 Following the textual signal at the beginning of the unit, one can relate ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 43 functionally to the “office” of the  vinedressers in the vineyard and see the aspect of the promise or denial of eschatological salvation included in this. In any case, it can hardly be disputed, in my opinion, that the parable is clearly aimed against the leadership.  The  election  of  Israel  either  is  presumed  and  confirmed  (as  proposed in the second variant) or is not addressed at all (as proposed in the third variant). 137

On this, with reference to the parable of the wicked tenants, see Klauck 1986,

307– 8. 138

This would still be true if v. 39 should allude to the killing of Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem (so, for example, Klauck 1970, 129; Lange 1973, 279; Harrington 1991a, 302; Feldmeier 1994b, 13, n. 29; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:618, 621; Olmstead 2003, 113, 154, and 239, n. 95; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:41) and thus this allusion would to a certain extent be superimposed upon the meaning of the metaphor signaled by v. 33. But the allusion is not certain (see Snodgrass 1983, 60– 61): killing “outside” the city is common (see Lev 24.14, 23; Num 15.35–36; Deut 17.5; 1 Kgs 21.10, 13; Luke 4.29; Acts 7.58). 139 Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:167, consider that “vineyard” also stands for Israel in 21.28 (see further Gielen 1998, 226, and 216, n. 21; Olmstead 2003, 100, 145; see also Carter and Heil 1998, 157). This is not impossible. In 20.1–15, too, Israel can be the intended reference (see Culbertson 1988, 265), since the context is about the disciples— that is, the reward for their discipleship (19.27–30)—whereby 19.28 directly picks up the reference to Israel, and in general “Israel is identified as the field of activity of the missionary disciples” in 10.5– 6 (Erlemann 1988, 101; trans. K. Ess). In 20.1–15 and 21.28–32, the vineyard metaphor could also be understood in the sense of occupation with “God’s business.” In short, no decisive argument for the interpretation of the parable of the wicked tenants can be drawn from the usage of the vineyard metaphor elsewhere in the Gospel, since the context does not exclude either of the two possibilities.

194

4.1.4

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt 22.1–14)

Proceeding from the assumption that Matt 22.1–14 is a Q parable whose Lukan version is found in Luke 14.16–24, we can also assume that Matthew fundamentally revised the parable in the process of placing it in the context of the parable trilogy he created. The banquet is turned into a wedding banquet that a king hosts for his son.140 Whereas in the Lukan version, a single slave announces the beginning of the meal to the guests, in Matthew, following the wording of the parable of the tenants,141 a group of slaves is sent out twice. The repetition of sending his slaves underscores the continuous, gracious effort that the host makes.142 While Luke has the guests excuse themselves with various—more or less understandable—reasons for their absence,143 Matthew sharpens the negative characterization of the guests already with their reaction to the first  group of slaves, in that he points out their unwillingness to come to the banquet (καὶ οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν).144 Because the invitation in Matthew comes from a king, this displeasure appears as an expression of arrogant audacity.145 With the second group of slaves, the invitation146 as well as the guests’ reactions are presented in more detail, which shows only distant contacts with the Lukan version.147 οἱ δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον in 22.5 simply varies οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν in 22.3, but Matthew then, probably following Q, proceeds with a more differentiated portrayal of reactions: “One 140 On the redactional nature of Matt 22.2, cf. Vögtle 1996, 48– 49; Gielen 1998, 238– 40; Hoppe 1998, 282; and Weren 2001, 665– 66, 674. 141 ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ (22.3) agrees word for word with 21.34b and πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους (22.4) with 21.36a. 142 On the loving patience of the host, see, for example, Vögtle 1996, 50, 52. 143 The idea of guests not showing up for a meal despite having accepted the invitation does not come out of nowhere (see Pliny the Younger, Ep. 1.15: “Hey there, what’s the meaning of this? You RSVP to dinner, but then you don’t go?”). 144 Seeing this as Matthean redaction is already natural because this prepares for the further emphasis in 22.6 (cf. Vögtle 1996, 15, 50). On Matt 22.5bc, see the discussion in this section with n. 148. 145 Compare Bauckham 1996, 484: “To refuse the invitation is tantamount to rebellion. In refusing it, the invitees are deliberately treating the king’s authority with contempt.” Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:52: “an effrontery.” 146 That Matthew now in 22.4 has the servants bring in the delicacies that the guests are waiting for—οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα has no counterpart in the Lukan version—further underscores the king’s care for his guests and thereby at the same time underscores their indifference. 147 The invitation of the servants is more broadly developed in Matthew (22.4) than in Luke 14.17, yet ἔρχεσθε, ὅτι ἤδη ἕτοιμά ἐστιν (Luke 14.17) has a counterpart in πάντα ἕτοιμα· δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάμους (Matt 22.4). On the reaction of the guests, see the following discussion.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

195

went away to his farm, another to his business.” These reactions vaguely bring to mind the excuses presented by the guests in Luke 14.18–19, except that Matthew gives the impression that they simply carried on with their—deferrable—daily activity, whereas Luke names special circumstances.148 Above all, Matthew takes the portrayal of the guests’ arrogant audacity to an extreme when οἱ λοιποί ridicule and kill the king’s slaves (22.6). Whereas the master’s anger in Luke 14.21 is related to the guests’ absence and excuses, and as a consequence he has his slave call the poor and crippled, the king’s anger in Matt 22.7 flares up on account of the murder of his slaves, and he expresses this anger by sending his army to kill the murderers and burn down their city before he instructs his slaves to invite other guests. Whereas the Lukan parable—which in this respect apparently maintains the arrangement of the Q version149—depicts disinterest or  incorrect  priorities,  the  version  Matthew  has  formulated  reflects  a  serious conflict. It is obvious that the son in Matt 22.2, as in 21.37, represents Jesus himself. The slaves, then, are not the Old Testament prophets, as they were before, but Jesus’ messengers, whose mission is an invitation to the “son’s wedding.”150 Here, the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, suggested in the words of the psalm in 21.42, is presumed. In this, the arrangement of the three parables in the trilogy makes good sense: they depict successively the rejection of John the Baptist (21.28–32), the rejection of Jesus himself as the culmination of the opposition already faced by the Old Testament prophets (21.33– 46), 148

Hoppe 1998, 286, ascribes this to Lukan redaction. Contra, for example, Weder 1984, 180– 81, n. 67; Söding 1996, 62; Weren 2001, 668– 69; and Hahn 1970, 54–56, 64, according to whom Matt 22.5 sounds “like a summary of the depiction found in Luke” (55; trans. K. Ess). It is possible that the mention of the excuses in Gos. Thom. 64, which are analogous to Luke, indicate an older stage of the tradition history, provided that Gos. Thom. 64 is not influenced by Luke 14.16– 24. 149 Compare, for example, Vögtle 1996, 13–19. 150 In this vein, see also Walker 1967, 67, 91–93; Hahn 1970, 79; Kingsbury 1975a, 72; Marguerat 1981, 336; Klauck 1986, 312; Knowles 1993, 116; Lambrecht 1998, 136– 37; Luomanen 1998b, 174–75; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 121; Wilk 2002, 105; Olmstead 2003, 123; Garbe 2005, 85; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:53. Others consider the Christian missionaries to be represented only in the second set of messengers, whereas the first set is taken in  reference to the Old Testament prophets (so, for example, Klostermann 1927, 174; Hasler 1962, 31; Steck 1967, 301; Weiser 1971, 66– 67; Limbeck 1991, 246; and Gielen 1998, 244, n. 66). Vögtle 1996, 57, however, postulates that Matthew in 22.6 also—indeed, above all—had the killing of Jesus in view. (Similarly, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:197, who see the mission of the Church as not being represented until the third group of messengers in 22.8–10 [likewise, see also Gundry 1994, 437; and Carter and Heil 1998, 175].) It speaks against this that Jesus appears in the parable already in the figure of the son  (v. 2). On the integration of Jesus’ messengers within the line of the prophets, compare Matt 5.12 and 23.34.

196

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and the rejection of Jesus’ messengers (22.1–14).151 The dismissive attitude toward God’s emissaries is thus presented as chronic. This motif is also served by the repeated sending of the slaves, mentioned previously, in Matt 22.3– 6. The punitive action152 depicted in 22.7 undoubtedly refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.153 By analogy with the traditional interpretation of the parable of the wicked tenants, numerous exegetes see Israel as represented in those who are invited first, whereas vv. 8– 10154 are understood to have in view the mission to the Gentiles or the inclusion of the Gentiles.155 Read in this way, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE appears as the turning point of the mission, from Israel to the Gentiles.156 151

On the sequence of John, Jesus, disciples in 21.28–22.14, compare Walker 1967, 92; Ogawa 1979a, 193 (= Ogawa 1979b, 144– 45); Marguerat 1981, 280– 81; and Olmstead 2003, 164. 152 This evidently disrupts the narrative logic of the parable. If the wedding feast has been prepared, the king cannot first send out his armies and burn down the city of murderers before he then (τότε, v. 8) sends out his servants to invite replacement guests. Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:46, 54; see further Nolland 2005, 887, on 22.7: “This particular development is being dealt with now without regard for chronological sequence in order to bring closure to a segment of the story.” 153 Likewise, see Hahn 1970, 80; Lampe 1984, 165– 66; Klauck 1986, 312; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:131–32; 3:201; Erlemann 1988, 177; Wenham 1989, 135; Limbeck 1991, 246– 47; Vögtle 1996, 53–54; Gielen 1998, 233, 237; Luomanen 1998b, 174; Olmstead 2003, 120–22; Luz 2001–2007, 3:54; and Weaver 2005, 113, among others. Contrast Rengstorf 1960, esp. 125–26; Reicke 1972, 123; Sand 1986, 438; Luck 1993, 238; and Gundry 1994, 436–37 (who suggests that Isa 5.24–25 forms the background). 154 Whereas Luke now depicts two missions, in which people are first called in from the streets and alleyways of the city, then from the roads (= highways?) and fences (Luke 14.21b–23), Matthew here offers only one mission ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν. Luke probably duplicated here (cf., for example, Vögtle 1996, 20; Söding 1996, 62– 63). 155 See, with variations in detail, Linnemann 1960, 254; Fenton 1966, 347–49; Hahn 1970, 79– 82; Kretzer 1971, 173, 176–77; Strecker 1971, 34; Weiser 1971, 67– 69; Meier 1979, 153; Marguerat 1981, 338–39; Weder 1984, 191; Bindemann 1985, 22; Drury 1985, 97–98; Sand 1986, 439; Schweizer 1986, 275; Dschulnigg 1988, 105, n. 9; Kato 1991, 8–9; Limbeck 1991, 246– 47; Hare 1993, 251 (see also Hare 1967, 154; and Hare 1979, 39); Hagner 1993/1995, 2:629–31; Kingsbury 1995, 369; Vögtle 1996, 58; H.-J. Becker 1998, 61; Gielen 1998, 232, 244; Lambrecht 1998, 133–34; Luomanen 1998b, 175; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 68; Olmstead 2003, 124; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:53–55. Garbe 2005, 85, does see “the people Israel” as those who are first invited but focuses this on “the generation of  Israel at the time of Jesus and at the time of the mission in Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem” (87; trans. K. Ess). On more than occasional voices of dissent against the “traditional” reading, see those listed in n. 158. 156 Analogously to this reading of Matt 22.7, 8–10, for Matt 24.29–30, 31, J. A. Gibbs 2000, 188–204, also postulates a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (on 24.29–30, in this vein, see Feuillet 1949/1950, 343–56; Gaston 1970, 483– 85) and the subsequent mission to the Gentiles; yet it can hardly be doubted that 24.29–31 is about the Parousia of Jesus (cf., for example, Luz 2001–2007, 3:200–203). Furthermore, if 24.31 were concerned

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

197

Taken independently, however, the parable cannot justify such an interpretation, as the text contains no indications corresponding with this reading with regard to either the first or the second group of invited guests. On  the level of the imagery, given that the wedding banquet of the king’s son is depicted, it is reasonable to see those who are first invited as the notables  of the kingdom,157 while in vv. 9–10, the common people are invited. Since the king represents God, an analogous religious qualification is likely for  the “reality” that the parable represents. Relating the contrast between the notables and the commoners to the contrast between Israel and the nations is thus only one possibility and is hardly the most obvious one; indeed, it would remain closer to the contrast in the parable if this were interpreted in terms of the contrast of the religious leadership and the (common) people. The context, of course, is crucial in determining the meaning of the parable, and in light of the preceding discussion of 21.28–32, 33– 46, the most natural approach is to regard 22.1–14 as referring to a distinction within Israel as well.158 The redactional transition in verse 22.1 shows the wedding banquet parable to be Jesus’ answer to what precedes it (καὶ ἀποκριθείς . . .), which in context can only refer to the course of action that is mentioned in 21.46 and recognized by Jesus (cf. 9.4).159 With the wedding banquet parable, the Matthean Jesus reinforces his previous criticism of the authorities by (once again) revealing their actual behavior.160 Thus the first guests— like the son who says “yes” but then does not  carry out the father’s will and like the bad vinedressers—stand for the authorities, Jesus’ antagonists.161 In 21.28–32, with their disobedience they with the mission of the disciples, in light of 22.(8–)14, they would hardly gather the ἐκλεκτοί (24.31) but rather the κλητοί. 157 In this vein, see also Bauckham 1996, 484: “Those invited to such an occasion are, naturally, the great men of the kingdom.” 158 In this vein, see also E. Lohmeyer 1962, 322–23; Schmid 1965, 311–12; Mussner 1967, 134; Levine 1988, 212–13; Harrington 1991a, 308; Saldarini 1994, 63– 64; M. Lohmeyer 1995, 382; Overman 1995, 434–35; Carter and Heil 1998, 172–75; Repschinski 2000, 42– 43; Fiedler 2006, 334; see also Weren 2001, 678, n. 47, as well as Bauckham 1996, 488 (“more plausibly”). Compare further n. 164. 159 Compare Gundry 1994, 432. The link with what comes before is further underscored by πάλιν. 160 It is entirely appropriate for the stage of conflict reached in 21.45–46 that the dialogical structure of the first two parables gives way to Jesus’ monologue in the third. After  the authorities have recognized, from Jesus’ commentary in 21.42– 44, that the parables are directed at them, they will not pass judgment on themselves once again. 161 In addition to those listed in n. 158, see further Gundry 1994, 432, 437; Repschinski 2000, 318; Yieh 2004, 55; and Nolland 2005, 889. Also, according to Wilk 2002, 124, 130, this is not about the replacement of the mission to Israel with the mission to the Gentiles; Wilk rather supports a purely geographically oriented interpretation: it is about the transfer of the missionary activity from Jerusalem “to the border regions of Palestine and

198

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

constitute the negative counterpart to the repentant tax collectors and prostitutes. In 21.33– 46, in the image of the tenants of the vineyard, they appear as the authorities in Israel, who not only, as in 21.32, are refused access to the kingdom of God, but have moreover lost their leadership function in Israel to those who confess the Son of God and deliver the fruits of the kingdom. Finally, in 22.1–10, through the image of the highwaymen, they are contrasted with those of the “common people” who have accepted the call of the messengers of Christ into the community.162 The ecclesiological perspective has changed in comparison with 21.43. The ideal form of an ἔθνος that delivers the fruits of the kingdom is no longer in view; rather, the accent lies on the fact that the good as well as the bad are invited guests. In other words, on the basis of the interpretation of 21.43 presented previously—that the verse concerns the role of leadership in Israel—one can see the ἔθνος come back into view as the slaves that are sent out in 22.2ff. If the slaves are to be decoded as Jesus’ messengers, then this is about Jesus’ evangelizing successors, who are entrusted with the keys to the kingdom and are supposed to teach people to keep everything that Jesus has commanded. However, they encounter indifference—indeed, violent resistance163 (cf. 23.34)—from the “old” authorities, while the common people are open to their message, just as they were with Jesus himself.164 The “tables” are thus “filled with guests” (22.10fin.). Understood in  to the Diaspora” (124; trans. K. Ess). This cannot, however, be forced into a chronological schema (on this problem, see the following discussion), since the point of departure for the mission to Israel is not Jerusalem but rather Galilee, according to 10.6. 162 Compare Nolland 2005, 889–90: “In view is the generous reach in the inclusion of the tax collectors and the prostitutes touched by John the Baptist’s ministry (21:31–32) and the tax collectors and sinners touched by Jesus’ ministry (9:10–13).” 163 Note that 22.7–10 could then signal a breakdown in communication: the destruction of Jerusalem is interpreted as punishment for the behavior of the authorities—the “mission” now turns away from them. This corresponds with the fact that relations with the synagogue appear in Matthew to be extremely confrontational, and at the same time distanced, in the language of “their/your synagogues” (Matt 4.23; 9.35; 10.17; [12.9; 13.54]; 23.34). If the parable is “pushed” accordingly, a distinction must nevertheless be made between the conflict with the authorities and the endeavor to gather the “lost sheep  of the house of Israel.” In other words, a potential breakdown of communication with the authorities has no effect on the task with respect to the people. 164 Matthew thereby probably preserved the original aim of the parable (cf. Weiser 1971, 64; Jeremias 1984, 61, 179; Schweizer 1986, 275; see also Schulz 1972, 400– 401; Dschulnigg 1988, 254). If the parable can be traced back to Jesus, those who are called in  “from  the  roads”  and  come  to  the  meal  can  be  seen  as  reflecting  Jesus’  own  table  fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (Q 7.34; Mark 2.15–17; Luke 19.5–7; in this vein, see Hahn 1970, 69–70). Other interpreters, however, see the parable as addressing from the beginning the failure of Israel and the path toward the Gentiles (see, for example, Vögtle 1996, 28–29; for criticism of both theses, see Söding 1996, 78–79). A  further  possibility  emerges  if  both  groups  of  invited  guests  are  defined  purely  in 

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

199

this way, the parable is precisely not an expression of a completely failed mission to Israel. The verses Matthew has added in 22.11–14 make it clear here that, in fact, there are not only “good people” to be found in the community; thus it has often been proposed that the community appears here as a corpus mixtum.165 The fact that people from the nations could be among those invited in 22.9– 10 (and thus could also fill the tables) is not to be denied in  view of 28.19, but this point is not emphasized here.166 The contrast here is in the first instance analogous to that in 21.28– 32.167 Alongside  this  is  the  fact  that  the  parable  would  conflict  with  other  statements in the Gospel in many respects, if one were to interpret the successive sending of slaves in 22.3– 4 and 22.9–10 in terms of a replacement of the mission to Israel with the mission to the Gentiles after 70 CE (22.7). First of all, as we have seen, Matt 10 does not express the termination of the mission to Israel but rather points to the parallelism of the missions to Israel and to the nations.168 Second, Matt 28.18–20 has the mission to the nations programmatically begin with Easter;169 as is demonstrated in detail in the following discussion, the salvation-historical precondition for the disciples’ universal mission is met with the salvific death and exaltation of  the Son of God. socioeconomic terms, and the parable is seen as presenting the contrast between rich and poor (see, above all, Schottroff 1987, 198–201 [and criticism of this in Vögtle 1996, 68– 71]; further Weren 2001, 668, 671, 673). For this, one can point to the fact that beggars stand at crossroads (Lucian, Men. 17). Should the original parable have had a social differentiation in view, these social categories are nevertheless transformed into religious ones in the Matthean context: the contrast is with the chief priests and Pharisees—that is, the authorities. 165 Compare Hasler 1962, 29; C. W. F. Smith 1963, 156–58; Hahn 1970, 81; Barth 1975, 55; Weder 1984, 191; Bindemann 1985, 23; Carlston 1992, 1295; Gundry 1994, 438; Vögtle 1996, 58; Lambrecht 1998, 135–36; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:56, among others. Contrast Luomanen 1998b, 175–76, 178 (see also Luomanen 1998a, 474–75). For a critical engagement with Luomanen, see Gundry 2000a. Most recently, W. Kraus 2011, 231–34, has also criticized the notion “corpus mixtum.” 166 Similarly, see Carter and Heil 1998, 175. 167 Analogy does not imply identity—that is, the tax collectors and prostitutes of 21.31–32 are to be included among the guests in 22.9–10 (cf. Wenham 1989, 135), but the guests are not limited to these. 168 See the discussion in section 2.3. 169 In contrast, Gaston 1970, 485–86, also places Matt 28.16–20 in the context of the year 70 (on Gaston’s reading of Matt 24.29–30, see n. 156) and sees here a depiction of the coming of the Son of Man that was announced in Matt 10.23. Already the mention of the eleven disciples in Matt 28.16 ought to have deterred him from this more than precarious construction. James the son of Zebedee was executed already under Agrippa I (Acts 12.1–2) and Peter, too, likely did not live to see the year 70 but probably was a victim of the pogrom under Nero (see, e.g., Böttrich 2001, 217–20).

200

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Of course, 22.7 disrupts the narrative logic of the parable itself,170 insofar as one expects chronological coherence. But this can hardly be brought forward as an argument that no significance can be ascribed to the chronological inconsistencies arising from the interpretation in question. The Israel/nations motif is without doubt the central focus of Matthew. If the evangelist had wanted to depict the replacement of the mission to Israel with the mission to the nations in 22.1–10, one would expect the parable to coherently integrate with other statements of the Gospel. Instead, the evidence we have discussed is rather to be judged as an indication that the parable is not at all about different (salvation-historical) phases, just as, in 21.28–32, the succession of the sons contains no salvation-historical relevance.171 The sequence of invitations can easily be understood as a narrative device that serves to connect with the authorities’ own understanding of themselves—namely, that as theologically educated and, in their own assessment, righteous men, they are privileged in the eyes of God172—in order to then contrast this with their actual situation coram Deo in view of their behavior toward God’s “slaves.”173 Their behavior proves their actual distance from God and their own unworthiness. A chronological structure emerges only from the arrangement of the three parables with the authorities’ consecutive reactions to John, to Jesus, and to his disciples.174 The interpretation of those first invited as referring to the authorities  alone is not contradicted by the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 22.7; rather, it is confirmed. The judgment is executed specifically  upon Jerusalem, as already became clear in the exegesis of 27.25175 and, as clearly emerges from 21.9–11, Jerusalem does not represent Israel in the Gospel of Matthew.176 Accordingly, in the Matthean sense, the destruction of Jerusalem is not to be understood as the punishment of Israel as a whole or as a sign of Israel’s condemnation.177 The sequence in 23.32– 39 also integrates seamlessly with the Matthean focus on the authorities 170

See n. 152. In this vein, see also Schmid 1965, 312. 172 On the authorities’ alleged awareness of election, compare its polemical negation in Matt 15.13 (on this, see in section 3.1.2.3). 173 When one conceives of the first invitation’s focus on the authorities as a narrative device in the aforementioned sense, the argument that Jesus ministered to the whole people or especially to the marginalized from the beginning becomes unconvincing (see, for example, Vögtle 1996, 27: “Jesus did not begin by offering the salvation of the kingdom of God first and only to the models of piety” [trans. K. Ess]). 174 On this, see the previous discussion in this section with n. 151. 175 See the discussion in section 3.2. 176 Compare section 3.1.2.1. 177 Compare Konradt 2007a, 209–11; and further Döpp 1998, 24. Contra, for example, Lange 1973, 279; Garland 1979, 210; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 124; and Paul 2005, 311. 171

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

201

and Jerusalem.178 With the consecutive words of judgment directed at the authorities—concretely the scribes and Pharisees (vv. 32–36)—and at Jerusalem (vv. 37–39), this sequence forms a direct analogy to 22.2–7, if those invited first stand for the authorities and 22.7 is to be related to their punishment in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. Beyond this, it must be noted here that 22.2–7 differentiates between those unwilling to attend the banquet (22.3, 5) and those who violently attack the “slaves” (22.6). The king’s punitive action pertains to the second group.179 This, too, indicates that Matthew does not understand the destruction of Jerusalem as a generalized judgment of Israel, let alone as a judgment that pertains to all Israel in the sense of a condemnation of the people of God. Rather, Matthew interprets the fall of Jerusalem as an action of God’s judgment within history against those who (violently) set themselves against Jesus and his messengers; for Matthew, this serves as an illustration of the fact that Jesus’ opponents do not have God on their side and, thereby, considered in terms of text pragmatics, as a warning not to take the wrong side. While 21.41 articulated that the owner of the vineyard “will destroy the evil ones evilly,” 22.7 explains how this will occur.180 Here, as there, the authorities (together with Jerusalem) are in view. 178

On this, see section 4.3.3. As mentioned above, the narrative logic is disturbed by the insertion of vv. 6–7 (see n. 152). This would be even more problematic if one were to place the host and guests in one and the same city, as is the case in the original parable. The question then arises as to “where the marriage feast of the king’s son is to take place. In the smoking ruins?” (Luz 2001–2007, 3:54; cf. Vögtle 1996, 57). However, such a reading is by no means necessary (cf. Bauckham 1996, 484: “This is an assumption inappropriately imported from the Lukan parable”). The king significantly does not— as in Luke (14.17)— send one servant  but rather several. It is therefore entirely possible that Matthew has in mind an embassy to multiple cities, as corresponds with the mission to Israel. Verses 6–7 would then direct the reader’s attention particularly to the behavior toward the messengers in Jerusalem. In historical terms, one can here still point to the stoning of Stephan (Acts 7.54– 60), the killing of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12.1–2), and the execution of James the brother of the Lord (Josephus, A.J. 20.200–202; even if, according to Josephus, precisely the Pharisees protested at this, insofar as the Pharisees are to be included among those who observe the laws meticulously [A.J. 20.201; on this see Hengel 1985, 73; Ward 1992, 785, among others; but see the distinction by C. C. Hill 1992, 190]). 180 On the connection between 21.41 and 22.7, see van Tilborg 1972, 49; Lange 1973, 279– 80; Klauck 1986, 312; Gielen 1998, 243; Olmstead 2003, 114, 154; and Luz 2001– 2007, 3:41, 54, 59, among others. If the destruction of Jerusalem is in view already in 21.41, it is worth noting that in the interpretative tradition of Isa 5.1–7, as witnessed by the Targum of Isaiah and t. Me’ilah 1.16; t. Sukkah 3.15, the tower (Isa 5.2) is taken in reference to the Jerusalem temple and thus the song of the vineyard could be interpreted as a prophecy of its destruction (on this, see Evans 1984, 83; Weren 1998, 14). Since the imagery of a tower to represent the temple is documented in 1 En. 89.50, 54, 56, 67, 73 (see Nickelsburg 2001, 384; see further Barn. 16.5), a pre-Matthean origin for this interpretative 179

202

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

While the parable of the wicked tenants depicts how the authorities’ course of action against Jesus does not lead to the realization of their goal of taking possession of the vineyard but rather to their own ruin, 22.1–10 shows that the authorities’ lack of interest in the “invitation” of Jesus’ messengers or their violent actions against them excludes them from salvation, from the eschatological feast, and leads to their own downfall. Moreover, the parable shows that their behavior has no effect on the fact that the feast will take place— the tables are filled. In short, like the two preceding  parables, the parable of the wedding banquet sharply attacks the authorities and, moreover, explains that their resistance will come to nothing, because in opposing John (21.28–32), Jesus (21.33– 46), and the disciples (22.1–10), they oppose God himself. The parable trilogy speaks of Israel (only) insofar as the parable of the wicked tenants announces the appointment of new “vinedressers” in the “vineyard” of Israel.

4.2 “Many from East and West” and “the Sons of the Kingdom” (Matt 8.11–12) A further significant piece of evidence used for the thesis of Israel’s rejection is the double logion in Matt 8.11–12. Here, it is presumed that the opposition between the “many” who come to the eschatological feast and the “sons of the kingdom” is to be interpreted in terms of a contrast between Gentiles who come to salvation and rejected Jews:181 v. 11 is seen as taking up the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion and turning it on its tradition—in which also the winepress refers to the altar—is possible, if not likely. (If Isa 5 serves as a model in 4Q500 1 [see Baumgarten 1989, 1–2; Brooke 1995, 268–72; and Evans 1995, 400; see also Weren 1998, 15–16], then this would be a further piece of evidence, but because of the fragmentary state of the text, this must in my opinion remain hypothetical, if not speculative.) Thus this interpretative tradition could have inspired Matt 21.41. (One can argue that the order of digging the winepress and building the tower dissuades a reference to the temple and altar; cf. section 4.1.3, n. 42.) But either way, it must still be noted that the synoptic parable has acquired a distinct focus with the introduction of the vinedressers (in contrast with the vineyard) as the primary agents. 181 See Brandon 1951, 228, 230; Punge 1961, 119–22; Hummel 1963, 146–48; Trilling 1964, 88–90; Dupont 1967, 153, 155; Walker 1967, 49, 90; Kretzer 1971, 86; Strecker 1971, 99–101; Zeller 1971/1972, 87– 88; Légasse 1972a, 420; Held 1975, 185; France 1977, 261– 63; Marguerat 1981, 243, 248–54; Frankemölle 1984, 111–14; Woschitz 1985, 320– 21, n. 5 and n. 328; Sand 1986, 179; Flusser 1987, 81– 84; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:303– 4; J. J. Scott 1990, 166; Kynes 1991, 137; Stanton 1992a, 151; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:205– 6; Tisera 1993, 122; Gundry 1994, 145– 46; E. C. Park 1995, 181– 82; Keener 1999, 268–70; Luz 2001–2007, 2:9, 11; Olmstead 2003, 77–78; and Kowalski 2011, 549. Contrast, however, Tagawa 1969/1970, 160– 61; Levine 1988, 124–30; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:27– 28; Burchard 1998d, 74–75; and Fiedler 2006, 204–5 (cf. Fiedler 2004, 64– 65); see also Repschinski 2000, 40.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

203

head, since the incoming stream of Gentiles does not serve to glorify Israel, but rather, the Gentiles, “as a sort of ‘replacement,’ occupy the places at the feast with the patriarchs that were intended for the Jews.”182 In light of various considerations, however, this interpretation is seen to be problematic. There is a broad consensus that these verses were inserted by the evangelist into the centurion pericope.183 It is disputed whether their location in Luke 13.28–29 is original and, above all, whether the difference in the sequences of the individual elements is to be attributed to Lukan or Matthean redaction.184 In my opinion, priority should be given to the latter option. Luke 13.24–30 is a coherent composition of Q logia.185 Verses 25–27 develop the motif of v. 24 that many will not enter through the narrow door. Verse 28 gives the reaction of those who are locked out. The fact that they see the patriarchs and prophets in the kingdom of God, unlike in the Matthean version, fits with the image from v. 25 that they  knock at the “door of heaven.” And in the context of vv. 24ff., the fact that they are contrasted with people who come from afar (v. 29) makes good sense insofar as those locked out in v. 26 are people who have encountered Jesus. In addition, the Matthean and Lukan treatment of sources that can be observed elsewhere leads us to expect that Luke adopted the composition as a block already present in Q.186 Matthew, however, rearranges groups of sayings taken from Q elsewhere in the Gospel. The assumption that this is the case here as well is supported by the fact that the logia from Q 13.24–30 are scattered in Matthew but occur in the same order (Matt 7.13–14, 22–23; 8.11–12).187 If Matthew and Luke found Q 13.28–29 in the location retained in Luke, then the Lukan sequence of the two verses is likely the original, since the verses integrate seamlessly with the context, as we have seen, whereas the Matthean order can easily be explained by the 182

Zeller 1971/1972, 87 (trans. K. Ess). See Dupont 1967, 154–55; Zumstein 1977, 366; Marguerat 1981, 243–44; Dauer 1984, 84– 85; Wegner 1985, 3–5; Sand 1986, 178; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:26; Harrington 1991a, 116; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:202; Luck 1993, 107; Gagnon 1994b, 138; Landis 1994, 13–14; Luz 2001–2007, 2:9; and Bird 2006, 443; contra Schweizer 1986, 137. 184 For the Matthean sequence as original, see Dupont 1967, 155–56; Hoffmann 1967, 207– 8; Zeller 1971/1972, 223–24; Chilton 1979, 187– 88; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:300; Luz 2001–2007, 2:8; Nolland 2005, 353; and Bird 2006, 445. In contrast, a transposition by Matthew is supported by Trilling 1964, 88; Kretzer 1971, 85; Boring 1989, 9–10; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:26; and Gundry 1994, 145. 185 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:26; and Boring 1989, 9. 186 See, for example, Luke 6.27–45 = Matt 5.39–48* (with transpositions); 7.12, 1–2; 15.14; 10.24–25; 7.3–5; 7.16–20*; 12.34–35; Luke 16.16–18 = Matt 11.12–13; 5.18, 32; Luke 17.1– 4, [6] = Mt 18.6–7, 15, 21–22; [17.20]. 187 It is further worthy of note here that from Matt 7.13 on, no other Q logia outside of Q 13.24–30 interrupt the Q sequence of the Sermon on the Plain, which is continued in Matt 7.15. In Q, the centurion pericope follows the Sermon on the Plain. Matthew has only interposed in 8.1– 4 the pericope of the healing of the lepers from Mark 1.40– 45. 183

204

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

secondary insertion of the verses into the centurion pericope.188 Proceeding from this assumption, moreover, it becomes clear that the second person plural in Luke 13.28 is original, as opposed to the “sons of the kingdom” in Matt 8.12;189 in Matt 13.38 as well, the phrase “sons of the kingdom” is Matthean redaction.190

Considered  first  of  all  within  the  context  of  Q,  the  verses  in  question show no indications of a contrast between Israel and the Gentile world. While those who are locked out are certainly to be seen as Jews, 13.29—contrary to the usual interpretation—by no means alludes to the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion.191 None of the textual sources for this tradition contain the naming of the cardinal directions, as does Q 13.29, whereas this is well documented in texts that speak of the gathering of the exiled,192 as Allison has shown.193 The distinction in Q 13.28–29 therefore reads as an intra-Jewish contrast: the exclusion from salvation of Palestinian Jews, for whom the personal encounter with Jesus (Luke 13.26) was fruitless, is contrasted with the eschatological salvation of Diaspora Jews.194 Only in relocating the verses and in placing them in the context of the centurion pericope has Matthew broken up the purely intra-Jewish orientation of the contrast found in Q; however, the connection of vv. 11–12 with v. 10, where Jesus attests to having found in the centurion a faith such as he has not encountered in Israel, does not in any way imply that Matthew replaces the intra-Jewish distinction drawn in Q 13.28–29 with a distinction between Gentiles and Jews. In v. 10, Jesus addresses τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν, not  the  centurion,  in  affirming  the  centurion’s  great  faith  that  has  overpowered Jesus’ initial rejection of him. In the broader context, this refers 188

Compare the details discussed in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:26. Likewise, see, for example, Trilling 1964, 88; Chilton 1979, 191–92, 196; and Boring 1989, (12–)14 (with documentation of the discussion); see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:30–31. Contrast Hoffmann 1967, 208; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:9 Similar constructions with υἱός are frequent in Matthew (see the evidence in section 4.3.3, n. 332). The addition of καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας in Luke 13.28 comes from Luke’s own hand (cf. Luke 11.50; 24.27; Acts 3.18, 24; 10.43) and probably also καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νότου in Luke 13.29 (cf. Jeremias 1980, 233; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:26; contrast Gundry 1994, 145; and Nolland 2005, 357). 190 See only Luz 2001–2007, 2:267–68 with n. 11. 191 On the tradition history, see Jeremias 1959, 49–53; and Zeller 1971/1972, 225–37. 192 Isa 43.5–6 (already suggested by Grimm 1972 as a reference text); Zech 8.7; Bar 4.37; 5.5; 1 En. 57.1; Pss. Sol. 11.2. “The East” alludes here to Assyria/Babylonia, “the West” to Egypt (cf. Isa 27.13; Zech 10.10). Luke adds “the North and the South” based on Ps 107.3. 193 Allison 1989, 160–61; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:27; Theißen 1989c, 48; Burchard 1998d, 74; and Fiedler 2006, 204. 194 See Allison 1989, 165–67. For a critical engagement with Allison, see Bird 2006. 189

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

205

back to 4.25 and 8.1, which recounts that ὄχλοι πολλοί from all Israel195 were drawn to Jesus’ ministry in word and deed (4.23–24) and “followed” him (4.25); then, as the broader audience of the Sermon on the Mount, the crowds were impressed with Jesus’ teachings and recognized his authority (7.28–29), so that they continued to “follow” Jesus when he descended from the mountain (8.1). In the Matthean formulation, one can see the disciples as included in 8.10 in addition to the ὄχλοι;196 not until 8.23 are they once again distinguished from the crowds.197 If one considers the addressees of Jesus’ statement in 8.10—that is, if οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες are at least included in παρ’ οὐδενὶ . . . ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ—then τοσαύτην πίστιν does not set “the great faith of the Gentile centurion against unbelief but against belief that is germinating (or small, in the disciples’ case; cf. 8.26).”198 This assessment fits with the particular aspect of the centurion’s faith that, as  presented in section 2.2.3.3, distinguishes it from the faith of the Jewish crowds: he trusts that the salvation Jesus brings reaches beyond Israel to the nations—that is, that Jesus’ ministry ultimately aims to bring salvation to all people; in his belief, he thereby anticipates what will first be proclaimed by the resurrected Jesus (28.18–20). Jesus has not found anyone in Israel with such faith in the universal scope of God’s salvific work. This very notion of the universality of salvation, encompassing Jews and Gentiles, is taken up in v. 11 with the mention of the arrival of “many from east and west.” Thus the “many” are not only Gentiles but are also Gentiles. Matthew imparts a new accent upon the traditions behind v. 11, without going against the grain of the tradition.199 Moreover, the new accent draws on certain aspects contained within the tradition itself. First, the motif of the eschatological feast, taken up in Matt 8.11, occurs in Isa 25.6–8 with a universalistic orientation, which, however, is not present in other sources for the motif.200 Further, in some texts, the motif of gathering together the scattered people Israel is connected with the motif of the influx of Gentiles.201 Matthew is concerned with salvation—for Jews 195

On the geographical details in 4.25, see section 2.2.1. With Burchard 1998d, 73; see also Held 1975, 185– 86; Marguerat 1981, 247; and Garbe 2005, 153. Hummel 1963, 147 (with n. 26), overlooks the reference of τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν as pointing back to 8.1 and sees only the disciples as being addressed. 197 It should be observed that in Matt 8.18, the object of ἐκέλευσεν is left open (diff. Mark 4.35). 198 Burchard 1998d, 74 (trans. K. Ess). 199 Compare Nolland 2005, 357: “Matthew does no more than allow for the inclusion of Gentiles in the gathering of Israel.” 200 See 1QSa II, 11–22; 1 En. 62.14; 2 En. 42.5; 2 Bar. 29.3– 8; m. Avot 3.16; see also Isa 49.10–13; Ps 107.9. 201 T. Benj. 9.2 (cf. T. Naph. 8.3); Tob 13.5, 13; 14.5– 6; see also Zech 8.23. An independent strand of tradition consists of texts according to which the nations going up to 196

206

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and Gentiles— that fulfills the promises of the Old Testament.202 The widespread assumption that Matthew turns the expectation underlying 8.11 against Israel, however, is firmly contradicted by the Matthean approach of  presenting the Christ event as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of salvation.203 Just as πολλοί does not have Gentiles alone in view, the converse also applies: the “sons of the kingdom” are not simply “the Jews,” and this is so for reasons beyond the fact that Matthew does not write πάντες.204 Taking the phrase οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας in itself, one can indeed understand  it  as  an  (ironic)  allusion  to  Israel’s  soteriological  confidence  with  regard to access to eschatological salvation.205 However, one can also associate this formulation with Jesus’ message of the basileia. In 13.38, the phrase—possibly inspired by the mention of the βασιλεία in the introduction to the parable in 13.24—refers to Christ believers; the “sons of the kingdom” are “fruits” of the ministry of the Son of Man—that is, of Jesus. This speaks for the idea that those addressed in 8.10–12 are also called “sons of the basileia” not because of their Jewish ancestry206 but because they are people to whom, as we have seen, Jesus’ ministry speaks, who have been moved by the Sermon on the Mount207—the “gospel of the Jerusalem bring Israelites (as gifts) with them (Isa 14.2; 49.22; 60.4; 66.12, 18–20; Pss. Sol. 17.31). Zeller 1971/1972, 229, rightly judges that, in this manifestation, the image of the pilgrimage of the nations scarcely testifies to “an interest in the well- being of the non-  Israelites . . . it simply becomes a means of expressing [Israel’s] own hoped for state of salvation” (trans. K. Ess).

On Matthew’s effort to show the universality of salvation as the fulfillment  of Scripture, see section 5.1. 202

203

Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:27; and Fiedler 2006, 204.

204 Compare Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:31: “The definite article may indicate 

no more than many of the named class will be cast out.” See also Zahn 1922, 341. 205 See, for example, France 1977, 262. Matt 22.1–7 cannot be cited as a parallel for this, since here particularly the self-understanding of the religious authorities—who seek to distance themselves from the people—is addressed. After what has been said in section 4.1.3, Matt 21.43 must also be excluded as a potential analogy. (This verse is often brought to bear on the explication of 8.12; see only Trilling 1964, 89, as well as Luz 2001–2007, 2:11.) In Matt 3.9, John the Baptist emphasizes, with regard to Pharisees and Sadducees, that status as children of Abraham alone is insufficient. In short, if Matt 8.12 were to be  read as an allusion to Israel’s self-understanding as a “collective of salvation,” this would be without parallel in the Gospel of Matthew. 206 Garbe 2005, 152, rightly notes: “The expression υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας is unverifiable as a traditional designation for Israel” (trans. K. Ess). 207 Similarly, see Burchard 1998d, 75; see further Tagawa 1969/1970, 160, who argues that the “sons of the kingdom” means community members, as it does in 13.38. On the basis of a geographical reading of ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ in Matt 8.10, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:28, see the Matthean sons of the kingdom as only “the wise and privileged who have lived in Eretz Israel and beheld the Messiah, and yet do not believe” (emphasis

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

207

kingdom”208—and who seek the kingdom of God and God’s righteousness (6.33). This again integrates seamlessly with the observation that, in v. 10, Matthew writes τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν209 and not, for example, ὄχλοις—with this “address” for vv. 10–12, which has no parallel in the Gospel, Matthew indicates expressis verbis that these words are directed specifically at people whom Jesus has positively affected. In other words, already with the address, vv. 10–12 are rendered transparent for the Matthean community.210 It is therefore unnecessary to assume that the phrase is used in completely different ways in the two passages—namely, once in reference to Israel and once in reference to the Church—an assumption that is already problematic in view of the redactional character of οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας. The difference between the two occurrences consists solely in the fact that the “sons of the kingdom” in 13.38 have reached the goal, while those referred to in 8.12 fail. In view of the fact that Matthew regards the judgment—also for Christ believers—as undecided, such a differentiation does not create any difficulties. As expressed in 22.14, those of the “sons  of the kingdom” who will belong to the elect will not be revealed until the final judgment. In Matthew, the Church is always “a church in the process  of becoming. . . . Praxis will show where true church has existed.”211 The crowds, however, are viewed here as the “potential Church.”212 The proposed reference of οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας in 8.12 is further substantiated  by  the  restatements  of  the  final  sentence  of  this  verse  later  in  the Gospel. While an undertone of warning for Christ believers at least resonates in 13.42, 50,213 the remaining three passages (22.13; 24.51; 25.30) are clearly set in the framework of community parenesis.214 Matt 8.12 fits  in well with this: here, Jesus threatens eschatological damnation for those added). The usage of ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ in 9.33 as parallel to ἐν τῷ λαῷ (4.23), however, speaks against a geographical understanding of 8.10. 208 On the relation between the Sermon on the Mount and the “gospel of the kingdom” (4.23), see Luz 2001–2007, 1:169: the “Sermon on the Mount does not presuppose the gospel of the kingdom—it is the gospel of the kingdom.” Contrast Burchard 1998b, 30–33. 209 It is disputed whether Matthew found this phrase present in Q (so, e.g., Wegner 1985, 211–12; and Landis 1994, 12) or shortened the phrase τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ, which occurs in Luke 7.9 (so, for example, Gundry 1994, 144). The fact that the phrase makes good sense with regard to the insertion of vv. 11–12 argues for Matthean redaction. 210 However, compare Held 1975, 185, who operates with a double reference of οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας to Israel on the one hand and the community on the other. 211 Luz 2001–2007, 2:284, in the context of Matt 13.47–50. 212 See section 3.1.1, n. 19. 213 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:270, on 13.41–42: “[T]he church is . . . the one to whom the Matthean exhortation is addressed. The text is parenetic. The disciples in the house are to take care that they do not belong to the ‘ones who give offense’ (σκάνδαλα) and the doers of lawlessness who are inside and outside the church.” 214 Compare Held 1975, 186.

208

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

followers who lack belief in the universality of salvation, which was illustrated  with  the  example  of  the  centurion  and  fundamentally  affirmed  in  v. 11. On the narrative level, this dimension of faith appears as new territory for those addressed in vv. 10–12. Verse 12 does not condemn them, but it is threatening: if they cling to the belief that messianic salvation applies to Israel alone, even after their encounter with the centurion in which Jesus disclosed the universal dimension of salvation, they will not participate in this salvation. When this is considered at the evangelist’s level of communication, it is natural to assume that, with the insertion of 8.11–12 in the pericope of the centurion, Matthew critically addresses Jewish Christians who represent a particularistic understanding of salvation.215 Matthew presents them with the consequences associated with their position. We can thus conclude that, by reworking the verses from Q 13.28–29 and inserting them into the centurion pericope, Matthew has given new meaning to these verses in two ways. First, the word of salvation now takes into view the universal dimension of salvation that includes the Gentiles; second, by speaking of the “sons of the kingdom,” with a cross-reference to 13.38, and of the “followers” as the addressees of 8.10–12, Matthew accentuates the applicability of the words of warning to the community. The verses speak to the topic of Jews and Gentiles within the community but say nothing of a condemnation of Israel.

4.3 The Words against ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη and the Woes against Galilean Cities In arguments for the expansion of the message of judgment beyond the circle of the authorities and ultimately applied to Israel as a whole, the words against ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη in 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; 16.1– 4; (17.17); 23.(34–)36; (24.34) often serve as evidence in Matthean exegesis.216 Matthew found these negative references to “this γενεά” in Mark as well as in Q,217 and the addition of ethical-religious epithets (Matt 12.39, 45; 16.4; 17.17) has 215

Similarly, see Garbe 2005, 153. See, for example, Meinertz 1957, 285–89; Walker 1967, 35–38; Schönle 1982, 29, 122, and elsewhere; France 1985, 51; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:422 (on 11.16); and Hasler 1992, col. 579– 80; as well as Garbe 2005, 119–20: “With the term generation, Matthew connects groups that he elsewhere treats as distinct entities for various reasons” (119; trans. K. Ess). 217 See Mark 8.12 (2x), 38 (not adopted by Matthew); 9.19; 13.30; as well as Q 7.31; 11.29–32, 50–51. In the Gospel of Matthew, the phrase occurs nine times: 11.16; 12.39, 41, 42, 45; 16.4; 17.17; 23.36; 24.34. In the LXX, see Ps 11.8LXX; see also ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη Ps 94.10LXX; Jer 8.3; and further Jub. 23.22. In the New Testament, alongside the occurrences already mentioned, see also Luke 17.25; Acts 2.40; Heb 3.10 (quoting Ps 94.10LXX). 216

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

209

antecedents in Old Testament and Early Jewish texts.218 γενεά can signify clan (i.e., the descendants of a common ancestor) or, as in Matt 1.17, a temporal generation (i.e., contemporaries).219 More important is the fact that γενεά does not always designate the entirety of a tribe or all contemporaries;220 rather, in a positive or negative sense, it can also refer to a certain group of people.221 Liddell/Scott also lists for γενεά the metaphorical meaning “class, kind.”222 Thus a generalization of the accusation or the message of judgment by no means results from the usage of the word in and of itself. Rather, whether Matthew uses the phrase ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη to refer to the people as a See Deut 32.5 (γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη); 32.20 (γενεὰ ἐξεστραμμένη); Ps 77.8LXX (γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ παραπικραίνουσα, γενεὰ ἥτις οὐ κατηύθυνεν τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῆς); Wis 3.19 (γενεᾶς γὰρ ἀδίκου χαλεπὰ τὰ τέλη); as well as Isa 61.3 (γενεαὶ δικαιοσύνης); Gk. En. 107.1 (γενεὰ δικαιοσύνης); Pss. Sol. 18.9 (γενεὰ ἀγαθὴ ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ); and further positive evidence in n. 221. In non- Greek texts, or texts not preserved in Greek, see further 1 En. 93.9 (apostate generation); Jub. 23.14–15 (the evil generation); 1QSb III, 7 (corrupt [?] generation). In early Christian texts, in addition to the synoptic occurrences, see further Acts 2.40 and Phil 2.15 (adapting Deut 32.5; cf. Philo, Sobr. 10). 219 See Bauer and Aland, s.v. 220 Old Testament models can be seen in the temporal understanding of the generation of the flood and the Exodus generation (on this, Lövestam 1980, 406– 9). In the latter  case, this is only about the γενεά of Israel at that time, but in the first, it is humanity as a  whole—Israel does not yet exist. In both cases, there are (few) exceptions (cf. Lövestam 1980, 410). At first glance, Matt 24.34 suggests that a temporal aspect must at least resonate in the Matthean use of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη (but on this, see further section 4.3.4). But even if ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη is understood as Jesus’ contemporaries—the world would then, with Matt 1.2–17 and Matt 24.34 taken together, come to an end with the fortieth generation from Abraham (on the forty generations in the genealogy, see Ostmeyer 2000, 186–91)—this does not eo ipso entail that all or all Jewish contemporaries are in view. 221 In the positive sense, see Ps 13.5LXX (. . . ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐν γενεᾷ δικαίᾳ); 23.6LXX (αὕτη ἡ γενεὰ ζητούντων αὐτόν as a designation of those whose hearts are pure and may go up to the mountain of the Lord [vv. 3–5]); 72.15LXX (ἡ γενεὰ τῶν υἱῶν σου [= θεοῦ] in contrast with the ἁμαρτωλοί [v. 12]); 111.2LXX (γενεὰ εὐθείων); Pss. Sol. 18.9 (possibly; see n. 218); see also Philo, Fug. 126, 129. In the negative sense, see Ps 11.8LXX; Wis 3.19; in the Masoretic Text, see further Prov 30.11–14. Especially instructive is Josephus, B.J. 5.566, where the γενεά—which was even more godless than Sodom (on this motif of “outdoing,” cf. Ezek 16.48; Lam 4.6; on the comparison with Sodom, see further Isa 1.7–10; 3.9; Jer 23.14; T. Levi 14.6; T. Naph. 4.1; and elsewhere)— means the “bandit chief” John and his people, who are distinguished from πᾶς ὁ λαός (B.J. 5.566; see also B.J. 5.442; 6.408). In addition, see further Deut 2.14 (πᾶσα γενεὰ ἀνδρῶν πολεμιστῶν) and Luke 16.8, where ἡ γενεὰ ἡ ἑαυτῶν refers to the “sons of this aeon” (cf. Hasler 1990, 241, col. 2: in Luke 16.8 γενεά designates “membership in a par­ ticular class” [emphasis original]). Also in Acts 2.40, the warning to “save yourselves from this corrupt γενεά” presumes that “this γενεά” does not refer to all individuals (see also Phil 2.15). 222 See LSJ, s.v. 218

210

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

whole or its living “generation,” or to a certain group of people, can only be decided based on the respective contexts in which the phrase is found. 4.3.1

The Simile of Playing Children and the Woes against Galilean Cities in Matt 11.16–19, 20–24

Matt 11.16–19 is part of a speech Jesus makes to the ὄχλοι (11.7ff.), which is already linked in Q with John the Baptist’s question to Jesus (Matt 11.2– 6; Luke 7.18–23). In the composition of the Gospel of Matthew, this inquiry, as we have seen, opens a block of text reaching to 16.20 in which divergent reactions to Jesus’ ministry—or, as Matthew’s own formulation in 11.2 puts it, to τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ—come to the fore.223 Jesus’ speech in 11.7–30, interrupted only in 11.20 and 11.25 by brief, renewed introductions to speech, serves here in an introductory fashion to clarify the salvation-historical stage that has been reached with the appearance of John the Baptist (11.9c– 15). The speech thus emphasizes the decisive eschatological-soteriological significance of the response to the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus  himself: one’s fate at the judgment is decided by one’s reaction to the ministry (of John and) of Jesus, as has already been set up by the addition of the macarism in 11.6, following the references back to Jesus’ works (11.5).224 In the following, we consider whether Matt 11.7–30 corresponds with the differentiated configuration of the reactions to Jesus’ ministry in the Matthean  Jesus story, as demonstrated in chapter 3, or whether the speech, in contrast to this differentiation, envisions a rejection of Jesus in Israel (as a whole) and the consequences of such a rejection. In Matt 11.7–15, the command directed at John’s disciples to hear and to see (Matt 11.4)—that is, to understand that the eschatological hopes of salvation  are  fulfilled  (11.4– 6225) in Jesus’ works (11.2, 19)—becomes a warning, with regard to the ὄχλοι, to take note of the decisive eschatological situation that has arisen since John’s appearance. The repeated question τί ἐξήλθατε . . . (Matt 11.7, 8, 9), which points back to the people’s flocking  to John in Matt 3.5– 6, and the variety of answers that are likewise posed in the form of questions, serve to establish or determine as consensus226 the fact that the crowds went out to John in order to see a prophet (cf. Matt 21.26). With 11.9ff., Jesus seeks to lead the crowds beyond their current understanding: John is not just any prophet but the eschatological prophet 223 224

See section 3.1.2.3. Aptly Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:409: “a macarism with a warning undertone” (trans.

K. Ess). 225

On this see section 2.1.3. Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:413–14; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:108; Luz 2001– 2007, 2:137–38; and Fiedler 2006, 239. 226

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

211

who paves the way for the Lord, as promised in Mal 3.1 (Matt 11.10). As Matthew makes explicit in v. 14 (see also 17.12–13),227 he is Elijah redivivus (cf. Mal 3.23–24; Sir 48.10), with whose appearance the time for the fulfillment of the prophetic promises (of salvation) begins (Matt 11.13228). The call to attention (11.15, cf. 13.9, 43) underscores the urgency of the decision.229 The simile of the playing children (11.16–19), in contrast, does not seek to bring understanding but rather addresses the rejection that John and Jesus have met with230—that is, precisely not the attitude of the ὄχλοι as Jesus himself has just identified it. The crowds do not take John the Baptist to be  possessed by a demon, but rather, as we have seen, they consider him to be a prophet (v. 9). This already suggests that “this γενεά” is not to be taken as referring to Israel in general or Jesus’ (Jewish) contemporaries in general231 but rather as a reference to groups who are opposed to (John and) Jesus.232 This approach is strengthened by the correspondence between the rejection of Jesus as a friend of sinners and tax collectors and the charge brought by the Pharisees in 9.11. In addition, Matthew has set up the reference 227

On the redactional origin of this verse, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:136 with n. 3. On this, compare Schönle 1982, 128. 229 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:143. 230 The connection of the parable (vv. 16b–17) with the introduction (v. 16a), as well as the reference of the interpretation (vv. 18– 19) to the parable, are difficult (on the possibilities of interpretation, see Zeller 1977, 253–57; Luz 2001–2007, 2:146– 48). The decisive point, in my opinion, is the fundamental attitude of rejection, which is given expression in this event (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:423). “This γενεά” behaves in the same way toward John the Baptist and Jesus. 231 In view of the emphasis in 11.9–15 on the salvation-historical “age” that has come and the predominant usage of the LXX, where γενεά overwhelmingly serves to translate the temporal ‫( ֹּדור‬on ‫ ֹּדור‬as belonging to the “temporal sphere,” see Gerlemann 1984a, col. 444; cf. Gen 6.9; 7.1; 15.16; etc.), the temporal meaning “generation, contemporaries” is often proposed for γενεά in Matt 11.16 (as for the other occurrences as well; see Verseput 1986, 106–7; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:260; Luck 1993, 138; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:115; Luz 2001–2007, 2:148– 49; Nolland 2005, 461, among others), which is then, however, also concretized as referring to the Jewish contemporaries (see, for example, Strecker 1971, 102; Menninger 1994, 138–39; and Verseput 1986, 107: “It is a collective portrayal of Israel in that hour, conceived as a whole in rejecting the offer of God standing before her.” [emphasis added]). But against the emphasis of the temporal aspect, see Meinertz 1957, 283– 89; Baumbach 1963, 85– 86; Gundry 1994, 211 (“a certain kind of people rather than a certain period of time”); and Fiedler 2006, 241 (this clan). 232 Against a reading in reference to “Israel as a whole,” see also Fiedler 2006, 241. Likewise, Harrington 1991a, 157, and Häfner 1994, 260– 61, see a concrete reference to the opponents; see further France 1985, 196, as well as Olmstead 2003, 53, according to whom the authorities are primarily in view but who sees Matt 11.20–24 as indicating “that Jesus’ indictment of ‘this generation’ cannot be limited to its leadership” (54, see also 121). 11.16–19 is taken as criticism of the crowds by, for example, Verseput 1986, 47– 48; and Weaver 1990, 131–32. 228

212

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

to the authorities by inserting the “violence saying” in 11.12,233 since βιάζεται and the corresponding noun βιασταί (linked with ἁρπάζειν!234) can hardly be understood here in anything other than a negative sense:235 “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and violent men take it by force.”236 The opposition against the messengers of the kingdom of heaven (according to Matt 3.2, John the Baptist also announces that the kingdom is near237) is in view here—that is, the opposition against John the Baptist238 and Jesus,239 which is interpreted as resistance against the kingdom of heaven itself. According to 11.7–9, the ὄχλοι, who are here addressed and instructed about the appearance of βιασταί (cf. 15.10–11; 23.1ff.), do not belong to this group; rather, they are supposed to achieve understanding, in spite of those who are attacking the kingdom. Reading further in the context, one can point, for example, to the fact that the Pharisees, in 12.23– 24, attempt to stifle the nascent christological insight of the crowds in view of Jesus’ healing ministry, which 233 The origin of the saying is obscure (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 2:136–37). In Q, the parable directly followed either v. 11 (so, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:145) or a contrast between the people and authorities that is adapted in Luke 7.29–30 (cf. Hoffmann and Heil 2002, 50–51). In the latter case, Matthew would have created a result analogous to the Q version by inserting the violence saying. On the interpretation history of the logion, see Cameron 1984, 4–213. 234 Compare Matt 13.19 (redactional!) but also 12.29. 235 See Luz 2001–2007, 2:140– 41 (with discussion of the possible interpretations). See for a different reading—in critical engagement with Luz—Häfner 1992, 26–37, who nonetheless concedes a “predominantly negative use of βία, βιάζομαι, and ἁρπάζω in Greek literature” (37 [emphasis original; trans. K. Ess]). 236 A reading of Matt 11.12 in malam partem is also supported by France 1985, 195; Sand 1986, 240; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:417; Schrenk 1990, 609–10; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:256; Harrington 1991a, 157; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:307; Gundry 1994, 209–10; and Fiedler 2006, 240. In contrast, it is interpreted positively by Mussner 1959, 608–9; Merklein 1984, 81–83; Verseput 1986, 92–99; Häfner 1992, 47–51; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:110–12. According to Kosch 1985, 25–26, Matt 11.12b is clearly to be conceived of in malam partem, whereas v. 12a speaks positively of the inbreaking of the βασιλεία (similarly Nolland 2005, 458). For a detailed list of the representatives of the alternative interpretations (including subvariants), see Häfner 1992, 21–24 with nn. 1–9. 237 Since the disciples are also messengers of the kingdom of God in this sense (see Matt 10.7) and they, too, endure hostility and affliction, the addressees can extend the ἕως ἄρτι from the level of the narrated time into their own present. 238 This fits with the fact that Jesus speaks here about the imprisoned Baptist (Matt 11.2). Compare Matthew’s explicit analogizing of the suffering of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Matt 17.12– 13. Matt 17.10– 13 repeats the explicit identification of John as Elijah  redivivus. On the inclusive understanding of ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, see Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:416–17; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:253–54; and Gundry 1994, 209. 239 Likewise, for example, see Hare 1993, 122; Luz 2001–2007, 2:141; and Deines 2005, 107.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

213

documents the arrival of the kingdom of God (12.28). In this way, too, the Pharisees lock people out of the kingdom of heaven (23.13).240 The fact that the crowds themselves are not taken in view in Jesus’ words about “this γενεά” is confirmed in the repeated and probably redactional241 λέγουσιν (vv. 17, 18, 19). Whereas the addressees are directly addressed with καὶ λέγετε in the application of the simile in Luke/Q 7.33– 34, the Matthean καὶ λέγουσιν (Matt 11.18, 19) produces a situation in which Jesus speaks to the crowds (v. 7) about a third party.242 After the crowds have been instructed about John the Baptist (and thereby indirectly about Jesus’ significance), as well as the violent opposition that sets  itself against the (proclamation of the dawning) βασιλεία, the simile now teaches them about the absurd nature of the hostile attitude of those who are attacking the kingdom of heaven. The simile and its application in vv. 18–19 thereby place the emphasis on the contradictory nature of the opposition against John the Baptist and Jesus himself and so highlight for the crowds the fact that this antagonism is not founded objectively but has the character of resistance simply for the sake of resistance. Or, in other words, they refuse to follow the messengers of the kingdom of heaven—who are above them—as a matter of principle. The polemics of the authorities (vv. 18–19), however, are incapable of displacing the evidence of Jesus’ ministry that speaks for itself, as v. 19fin.  makes clear with the reference to τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The hostile attitude of “this γενεά” thus disqualifies only the γενεά itself, not Jesus’ ministry. With regard to the crowds being addressed here, this reference to the justification of wisdom by her deeds243 strengthens the preceding exhortation 240

Compare Schrenk 1990, 610. On Matt 23.13, see further section 4.1.3. See for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:145. 242 Compare Gundry 1994, 213. (However, the ὄχλοι do not present “disciples out of all nations” [213].) In Matthew, it is precisely not the crowds—the addressees of Jesus’ “speech”—who are addressed as “this γενεά” and placed in relation to the children (against Sand 1986, 242; Garbe 2005, 70, among others) or are now “themselves the object of the speech” (against Schönle 1982, 130 [emphasis original; trans. K. Ess]). The evidence in Luke is difficult: on the one hand, the preceding context (Luke 7.29– 30) suggests a “narrow” reading in reference to the previously named Pharisees and lawyers but, on the other hand, λέγετε in vv. 33, 34 most likely points to the ὄχλοι who are apparently still being addressed (v. 24). 243 There is a broad consensus that ἔργων—instead of τέκνων (Luke/Q 7.35)—is Matthean redaction. See only Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:422; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:264; Gundry 1994, 213; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:145. Against the usual interpretation of Matt 11.19fin., also taken here, Gathercole 2003, 480– 85, has suggested reading the final  clause as a continuation of the accusation aimed against “this γενεά.” It should thus be translated as follows: “And so Wisdom has been absolved of her deeds” (484). He argues that the deeds of Wisdom are not to be identified with τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ but rather consist “in her sending John and Jesus to be (respectively) ascetic and ebullient in the course of 241

214

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

to become aware of the meaning of the event that is manifested in the ministry of (John the Baptist and) Jesus, of the advance of the kingdom of heaven, and thereby of the decisive eschatological situation at hand. In contrast, the threatening judgment already resonates with regard to “this γενεά”: for he who is rejected here as a glutton and drunkard is in reality the Son of Man (v. 19) and thus the future judge.244 While Matt 11.16–19 is targeted at the authorities as Jesus’ opponents, it must also be pointed out that a broader perspective of judgment results from the Matthean placement of the woes against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (11.20–24) within the arrangement of Matt 11.245 According to the redactional introduction in 11.20,246 the woes are directed against those cities that had the advantage of witnessing the demonstration of Jesus’ power in a particularly privileged way.247 αἱ πλεῖσται δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ is inspired by Q 10.13, but in the Matthean context, it also picks up on the mention of the deeds of Christ or wisdom (11.2, 19) and thus serves to connect 11.20–24 with the context—that is, with the theme of the correct understanding of Jesus based on his ministry and the corresponding reaction  to  it.  In  particular,  11.20– 24  underscores  the  statement  of  v.  19fin.  about  Jesus’  deeds:  since  the  biblical  promises  of  salvation  are  fulfilled  in his deeds, and they thereby point to the coming of the kingdom of God (see 12.28), they should have led those privileged to be witnesses of these δυνάμεις to the repentance demanded in 3.2 and 4.17,248 but this came to their announcement of the kingdom. The difference between their lifestyles . . . is a function of God’s deliberate strategy to convict this last generation of sin” (483); 11.19fin. then  points toward Jesus’ contemporaries’ endeavor “to decouple wisdom’s actions from Lady Wisdom herself, that is to say, to dissociate Jesus and John from the God who sent them” (484; emphasis original). However, the clear reference of τῶν ἔργων to 11.2, mentioned above, clearly speaks against this thesis, especially as the theme of the reaction to Jesus’ ministry is continued directly in 11.20 (on this, see the following). This same point renders equally unconvincing the suggestion of Leivestad 1952, 180– 81, that σοφία in 11.19 does not mean God’s wisdom but rather ironically stands for the “wisdom” of those who always find a reason not to repent. 244 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:424; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:149. 245 Luke most likely preserved the context of Q here, too, in which the woes stood near the end of the mission discourse (Q 10.13–15). 246 ἤρξατο ὀνειδίζειν in Matt 11.20 is formulated parallel to ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγειν in Matt 11.7 (= Q 7.24). 247 The prominent role of Capernaum is not only set up by Matt 4.13 but also illustrated by the preceding narratives (see 8.5–17; 9.1–34; on Capernaum, cf. Strecker 1971, 94–96). Chorazin and Bethsaida do not appear elsewhere; here one can only point to the summaries (4.23–25; 9.35; 11.1). Nor has the reaction of the inhabitants of the city presupposed in 11.20–24 been mentioned anywhere previously for Capernaum. 248 The motif of repentance taken over from Q 10.13 is emphasized in Matthew by 11.20; the absence of repentance is the cause for the following accusation.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

215

nothing in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Unlike 11.16–19, 11.20– 24 is not concerned with the opposition to Jesus that is manifest in polemical critique (11.19) but only with indifference:249 the cities are rebuked for the failure to repent.250 The collective address to the cities is inspired by biblical models, as the contrast with Tyre and Sidon shows.251 The contrast with the Gentile cities here makes clear how self-evident it should have been to repent in response to Jesus’ ministry: even these Gentile cities, known in biblical tradition for their sinfulness, 252 would have been led to repentance in view of Jesus’ δυνάμεις. The claim that the Gentile cities will fare better in the judgment than the Galilean cities does not look toward the salvation of the former;253 rather, it underscores the severity of the judgment that is issued on the latter and thus the severity of their failure.254 Given that 11.20–24 is not concerned with the positive soteriological position of the nations and does not operate with a contrast “salvation for the nations—damnation of Israel,” the question remains whether (or to what extent) the woes against the Galilean cities indicate a judgment issued upon Israel as a whole. Does 11.20–24 signal “in an exemplary way that Jesus’ ministry in Israel will end with the judgment on Israel”?255 249

In contrast, Luck 1993, 140, sees in Matt 11.20–24 “a judgment passed upon the reaction of those who behave in the way shown in the preceding verses 16–19” (trans. K. Ess). Schönle 1982, 146, reads the composition such that “already the parable in 11.16– 19, as proof of guilt, leads to the complex of the woes in 11.20–24 as threat of punishment” (trans. K. Ess). The mention of the absence of repentance in 11.20, however, provides its own proof of guilt. 250 This is illustrated narratively in the further development of the story by Matt 13.53–58. In particular, the juxtaposition of σοφία and δυνάμεις in the question from the visitors to the synagogue in 13.54 is reminiscent of 11.19–20. 251 On Tyre and Sidon, see, above all, Isa 23; Ezek 26–28; further also Jer 25.22; 47.4; Joel 4.4– 8; Amos 1.9–10; Zech 9.2– 4; on Sodom, Gen 18.16ff.; 19.1ff.; Isa 1.7–10; 13.19; Jer 23.14; 49.18; 50.40; Amos 4.11; Zeph 2.9; Lam 4.6. Further, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ (Matt 11.23) imitates Isa 14.13–15, a passage within the word of judgment against Babel in Isa 13.1–14.23. 252 On Tyre and Sidon, see Ezek 28.2– 6, 9, 16–18; Joel 4.4– 6; on Sodom, Gen 18.16ff.; 19.1ff.; Isa 3.9; Jer 23.14; Ezek 16.48– 49; Lam 4.6; further Jub. 13.17; 20.5; T. Naph. 4.1; L.A.B. 8.2; Philo, Abr. 133–36, and elsewhere. 253 Contrast Jackson 2002, 31: “[I]nhabitants of cities such as Tyre and Sidon are posed as possible participants in the salvation of the Jews.” 254 To see Matt 11.20–24 as analogous to Matt 8.11–12 (see Luz 2001–2007, 2:152, 153) is therefore doubly misleading: not only is there no Israel– Gentiles dichotomy present in Matt 8.11–12 (see section 4.2), but also, and above all, in Matt 11.20–24, the disaster that threatens the Galilean cities does not stand in contrast to salvation for the Gentiles. 255 Luz 2001–2007, 2:152 (see also Luz 2001–2007, 2:154). In this vein, see further, for example, Walker 1967, 50–52; Strecker 1971, 102; Comber 1977, 502– 4; see also Hagner 1993/1995, 1:313, 315, as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:296. The idea that

216

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

It is evident that such a generalizing interpretation can only be read into 11.20–24 on the basis of an overall view of the Gospel of Matthew. There has been no evidence as yet to support such a view. In and of itself, the text speaks  only,  in  a  rhetorical  personification,  of  the  three  Galilean  cities’  failure to react. These cities, according to 11.20, were the privileged venue for Jesus’ ministry but are certainly not identical with Jesus’ sphere of activity summarily in view in Matt 4.23 (καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ); 9.35 (καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς πόλεις πάσας καὶ τὰς κώμας); and 11.1. Corresponding with this is the fact that 11.24 points back to 10.11–15, where reactions to the disciples’ ministry are discussed within the mission discourse. Here, v. 14 addresses the possibility that the disciples’ preaching will meet with disinterest or rejection. When this is the case, the disciples should leave the house or city and shake the dust from their feet, knowing that that house or city has thereby called down judgment upon itself. The amen statement in 10.15 explicates this: “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city.” The situation is thus entirely analogous to Jesus’ judgment of Capernaum in view of the reaction to his ministry. In Matt 10, however, the behavior of one city certainly does not lead to the complete cancelation of the mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”; rather, the disciples are to turn their attention to another city, and this is connected here, as seen previously, with the statement that the messengers of Jesus will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Parousia (10.23). When one reads 11.20–24 in the light of this cross-reference to Matt 10, it becomes clear that the threatening words against the three Galilean cities in no way have in view the condemnation of all Israel. To put it pointedly, the plausibility of the generalizing interpretation of Matt 11.20–24 as a judgment of Israel is due to a hermeneutically questionable interpretive lens that presumes a priori the generalizing binary structure of Judaism and Christianity, Israel and Church. The doubtful nature of a generalizing interpretation is further substantiated by a closer look at the structure of the speech in Matt 11 and the function of 11.20–24 within that structure. In the renewed introduction in 11.20, which is linked directly with the preceding context by the mention of the δυνάμεις, the words τὰς πόλεις . . . identify only the object of the rebuke, not the actual addressees, and do not, therefore, indicate that the crowds μέχρι τῆς σήμερον  in  11.23fin.  foreshadows  28.15,  as  Luz  2001– 2007,  2:152,  proposes  (aside from the fact that 28.15 should probably be read μέχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας) is farfetched, since the points of reference are completely different. Matt 11.23 is concerned with the unreal case that Sodom would stand “until today” if the city had been witness to Jesus’ works, whereas 28.15 is about the rumor concerning the theft of Jesus’ corpse, which has been retained among Jews “to this day.”

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

217

(who have already been instructed about others in 11.16–19) no longer constitute the audience.256 When one reads 11.7–24 (we will come to vv. 25– 30 shortly) as a continuous speech, 11.20–24 not only serves analogously to 11.16–19 to present inadequate reactions to Jesus’ ministry; above all, by emphasizing the singular soteriological significance of the reaction to  Jesus’ ministry, 11.20–24 underscores for the crowds the urgency of the decision they are led to by 11.7–15: not just open hostility but even the failure to react in the only appropriate, positive way leads to ruin; a disinterested, neutral standpoint is not an option (cf. Matt 12.30!). The crowds are thus challenged to take a clear position, and 11.20–24 thereby contains a potential threat for them as well. However, Matthew does not speak of a general failure of Jesus’ and his disciples’ ministry among the crowds in Israel. Rather, Matt 11 can be regarded positively as an element within the narrative dynamic of the presentation of the ὄχλοι that culminates in 21.9,257 since 11.7–15 shows itself to be, to some extent, a connective element for the advance in understanding between 9.33 and 12.23. While 9.33 is concerned with the still undefined uniqueness of Jesus’  ministry within the framework of Israel’s history, the thought that Jesus might be the Son of David, the Messiah, matures after the instruction about the identity of John the Baptist as Elijah redivivus. Here it is noteworthy that both 9.33 and 12.23 are concerned with reactions to Jesus’ ministry or, put in the terms of 11.20, to his δυνάμεις. Not only, then, is the exhortation directed at the ὄχλοι distinguished from the judgment of the three Galilean cities within Matt 11, but 11.20–24 also does not in any way mark a caesura in terms of the role of the crowds in the narrative. Thus, within the larger narrative structure, everything speaks for the notion that Matthew does not understand 11.20–24 as pars pro toto but rather seeks to present in the scolded Galilean cities and the (Jewish) ὄχλοι varying reactions within Israel:258 indifference, on the one hand, and interest and growing understanding on the other. Within the narrative, differentiated roles are given to the ὄχλοι and the three cities; Matthew speaks in a more nuanced fashion than a generalizing reading of Matt 11.20–24 allows.259 256 On the distinction between the objects of the speech (Galilean cities) and the hearers of the speech (crowds), see, likewise, Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:119. 257 On this, see section 3.1.1. 258 Apart from that, the personifying address of the cities is also hardly to be understood as referring to all individuals. 259 With regard to Matt 11.21– 22, one can ask to what extent it is significant that both  mentions of Bethsaida in Mark 6.45; 8.22, which in the Matthean outline would follow Matt 11.21–22, are lacking in Matthew. (In Matt 14.22, πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν is omitted from the specification of εἰς τὸ πέραν [Mark 6.45], and Matthew has entirely passed over Mark

218

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The differentiating approach presented in the preceding discussion is finally confirmed by 11.25– 30. Matthew has connected these verses with  what precedes them by using ἀποκριθείς in the introductory verse:260 the praise of God appears as an “answer” to the indifference documented in 11.20–24 and its soteriological consequences. Although Jesus’ ministry has found no positive resonance in those cities, God has nevertheless revealed the significance of Jesus and his ministry261 to the νήπιοι—that is, the disciples,262 who come from among the “common people.” Moreover, the revelation to the disciples stands in contrast to the fact that God has concealed understanding from “wise and intelligent” people,263 which once again brings the (religious) elite into view,264 whose undiscerning polemic against Jesus appeared in 11.19.265 The woes in 11.20–24 are contrasted, however, not only with the praise in 11.25–26 but also with the invitation in 11.28–30.266 Alongside the νήπιοι, who represent Jesus’ followers, and the 8.22–26.) Is it possible—supporting this differentiation—to conclude that the Matthean Jesus does continue to minister to the crowds but that Matthew (in agreement with the woes) avoids having Jesus minister further in these cities? Against this, one can argue that Jesus can be found again in Capernaum (17.24); and further, the οἰκία in 13.1, 36 likely refers to Capernaum (cf. 17.25). Here too, however, no further public δυνάμεις are depicted. The corresponding texts all appear before Matt 11! 260 Compare Sand 1986, 251; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:318; as well as Nolland 2005, 470. Contrast Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:273. 261 ταῦτα (11.25) can be read most easily in the context as taking up τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (11.2; cf. 11.19, and δυνάμεις in 11.20, 21, 23; in this vein, see also Kingsbury 1975b, 21; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:276–77; Gundry 1994, 216; Yang 1997, 154– 55; and Novakovic 2003, 94; see also Hagner 1993/1995, 1:318). This means, then, that the messianic nature of Jesus’ ministry, and thereby Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, is revealed to the νήπιοι. Comparison can further be made with Matt 13.11: ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. 262 On the interpretation of νήπιοι as referring to the disciples, compare Sand 1986, 252; Deutsch 1987, 31–32; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:435–36; von Lips 1990, 284; Harrington 1991a, 167; and Fiedler 2006, 244, among others. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:163, first identifies  the νήπιοι with the “ ‘Am ha arez,’ ” but there then occurs “in v. 27 . . . an ecclesiological concentration of vv. 25–26” (164). 263 The article is absent before σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν. This could be due to the presence of “scribes” also in the Matthean community (cf. 13.52; 23.34; so Fiedler 2006, 244). 264 Compare—with differences in detail—Sand 1986, 251; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:435– 36; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:275; Harrington 1991a, 167; Fiedler 2006, 244; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:162: “the entire religious aristocracy.” In contrast, Walker 1967, 51–52; Lange 1973, 164; Kingsbury 1975b, 21; and Verseput 1986, 136, interpret the “wise and intelligent” as Israel in general. Deutsch 1987, 30–31, regards the evidence as ambivalent. 265 Conversely, 11.25 affirms the reference of 11.19 to the authorities: the wise have reacted to the works of wisdom with incomprehension because God has concealed these works from them. 266 The tradition historical connections to wisdom literature, above all to Sir 51.23– 27, need not be rehearsed here. On this, see Luck 1975, 40–50; Deutsch 1987, 113–39; and

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

219

“wise,” who stand for the authorities, a third group appears here—namely, the (heavily) burdened (πεφορτισμένοι), who do not yet belong among Jesus’ disciples267 but are invited to find rest with Jesus, since his “burden  is light” (11.30). The critique raised in Matt 23.4 against the scribes and the Pharisees—namely, that they place heavy burdens on people—makes it clear that Jesus here “recommends” himself in distinction from these authorities268 and so invites those who suffer under them. Thus, considered within the context of the Gospel, the crowds—who are apparently still being addressed (or at least once again being addressed since v. 28)—are in view here.269 While the authorities have failed them, they are able to find  salvation with Jesus or in the community. Not 11.20–24 but rather the invitation δεῦτε πρός με is the aim of Matt 11,270 and this underscores the fact that 11.20–24 is neither to be read as an anticipatory final statement about  the crowds nor to be generalized as a foreshadowing reference to the judgment of Israel; rather, as we have seen, in the context of Matt 11, the verses take on the function of impressing upon the crowds the urgency of repentance and coming to Jesus, as necessary for salvation. 4.3.2 The Evil and Adulterous Generation’s Demand for a Sign in Matt 12.38– 45 and 16.1– 4 Matt 12.38– 45 is part of a long dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees (and scribes) sparked by the Beelzebul accusation, which is the Pharisees’ reaction to the crowds’ consideration of whether Jesus might be the Son of David (vv. 23–24),271 and these verses can only be adequately interpreted within this context. Fundamental to the following discussion is von Lips 1990, 282– 85; see, further, Harrington 1991a, 169–70; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:323; Luck 1993, 142, 143; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:126–27; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:171. 267 With Deutsch 1987, 41– 42, 47; von Lips 1990, 284; Harrington 1991a, 167, 169; and Hagner 1993/1995, 1:322, 323; see also Wilk 2002, 96. Contrast Stanton 1992a, 340– 42. 268 Compare Betz 1967, 22–23; Strecker 1971, 173; Künzel 1978, 89, 92; France 1985, 200–201; Deutsch 1987, 41, 43; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:439; von Lips 1990, 283; Harrington 1991a, 167; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:323–25; Gundry 1994, 219; Luz 2001–2007, 2:172; and Wilk 2002, 96, among others. But contrast Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:288, as well as Nolland 2005, 476 with n. 97. 269 Compare Olmstead 2003, 54; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:172: “[O]ur logion still addresses the entire nation of Israel, not simply the disciples.” On the authorities’ responsibility for the condition of the crowds, see, above all, the interpretation of Matt 9.36, section 2.1.2. 270 δεῦτε here is reminiscent of the call to discipleship in Matt 4.19. However, in the foreground in 11.28– 30 is not the task to become “fishers of people” (4.19) but rather the  salvation that is to be found with Jesus and thus within his community. Does the juxtaposition of 4.19 and 11.28–30 bring to light various roles or groups within the community? 271 On the connection of Matt 12.24 with v. 23, see section 3.1.2.3.

220

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the redactional contrast between the reactions of the crowds and of the Pharisees to the brief healing recounted in v. 22 (vv. 23–24, cf. 9.32–34).272 For, in the wake of 12.23–24, it is the Pharisees at whom Jesus’ speech in 12.25–37 is directed273 and who, in turn, react to this with the demand for a sign (12.38). Jesus’ speech in 12.25–37 can be roughly divided into two subsections: vv. 25–30 confront the accusation raised by the Pharisees in v. 24, while vv. 31–37 present the soteriological consequences of the Pharisees’ evil talk.274 The redactional introduction to Jesus’ response in 12.25 (εἰδὼς δὲ τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς) recalls 9.4 (καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν),275 where the scribes appeared as Jesus’ opponents. Matt 9.2–8 and 12.25–37 are furthermore linked by the accusation of blasphemy—albeit with different addressees—and the theme of the forgiveness of sins.276 While in 9.3 the scribes accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he declares the forgiveness of sins, in his reply to the Pharisees’ accusation from 12.24, Jesus exposes them as the real blasphemers who are guilty of an unforgivable blasphemy. As vv. 25–26 illustrate the senselessness of the accusation from v. 24, so does v. 27 reveal its malice.277 The exorcists from Q 11.19 are identified  here  as  Pharisees  since  Matthew  attributes  the  Beelzebul  accusation to the Pharisees,278 who are thus shown to judge the driving out of demons differently when it is done by their own people.279 Then, in v. 28, the actual correction of the accusation follows: Jesus drives out demons, not ἐν τῷ Βεελζεβούλ but ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ,280 whose power has determined Jesus’ life from the very beginning (1.18, 20, then 272

On this, see section 3.1.1. Compare section 3.1.2.3. 274 Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν (v. 31) marks the caesura. 275 The significance of the agreement in wording is further underscored in that Matthew uses the noun ἐνθύμησις only in these two places. 276 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:200, n. 23. 277 Matt 12.27 thereby sets an accent similar to the parable of the playing children in Matt 11.16–19. See section 4.3.1. 278 Likewise, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:338; contrast, for example, France 1985, 208; Fiedler 2006, 253, with n. 66; and Verseput 1986, 223: “Jewish exorcists in general.” The thesis of Shirock 1992, 46–51, that “your sons” means Jesus’ own disciples is already untenable because of the possessive pronoun. 279 As Gundry 1994, 234–35, observes, this is not only about hypocrisy; rather, similarly to Matt 11.16–19, it is, above all, about revealing that the Pharisees oppose Jesus as a matter of principle. 280 ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ—instead of ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ (Luke = Q 11.20)—is Matthean redaction, which both links this verse with the Isaiah quotation in Matt 12.18 and builds the foundation for Matt 12.31–32 (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:456; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:340; Harrington 1991a, 183; Luz 2001–2007, 2:200 with n. 24). 273

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

221

3.16281).282 The Pharisees’ statement in 12.24 is therefore blasphemy against the spirit of God at work in Jesus, and this is unforgiveable (12.31–32). The repeated, and so emphatic, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται (αὐτῷ) in vv. 31, 32 acquires additional weight through the attached phrase οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι.283 Matthew thus emphasizes the judgment that the Pharisees will have to face. The addition of 12.33– 37 confirms this as the evangelist’s intention:  Matthew here reworks Q 6.43– 45 once again (after Matt 7.16–20) in a different form. Following the metaphor of the tree (12.33), its application in vv. 34–35, directed at the Pharisees, starts with a bang.284 As John the Baptist had previously spoken to the Pharisees and Sadducees (3.7), Jesus now addresses the Pharisees as “vipers’ brood” (see also 23.33). Matthew aims to emphasize the profound evilness of the Pharisees, which is underscored by the following πῶς-clause: due to their evilness, nothing other than evil talk can be expected of the Pharisees;285 their words against Jesus in 12.24 are an expression of their essence (πονηροὶ ὄντες). When, on the day of judgment, they are called to account for their words, their agitation against Jesus will be cause for their condemnation (12.36–37). Their charge that Jesus is in league with the devil now falls back on them; they themselves are the “brood of vipers.” In the demand for a sign that follows this, Matthew has, as indicated, once again inserted the Pharisees, now supplemented by the scribes, as Jesus’ opponents, following the trend of his redaction in 12.22–37.286 The demand for a sign appears as their reply (ἀπεκρίθησαν) to Jesus’ speech of accusation and judgment against them. The demanding tone in θέλομεν . . . ἰδεῖν is striking; the scribes and Pharisees confront Jesus as authorities.287 281

See also, in the directly preceding context, Matt 12.18. In the Matthean context, the logion in Matt 12.30 is to be read as nothing other than a part of the accusation against the Pharisees (likewise Gielen 1998, 130 with n. 18). Their task—as the religious “elites”—should have been to work together with Jesus to “gather” the shepherdless (9.36) and lost sheep (10.6); in their wickedness, however, they do exactly the opposite. The characterization of the logion as a “call to decision . . . that is directed to open and undecided people and not to the opponents of Jesus, who have already reached a decision” (Luz 2001–2007, 2:205), is entirely appropriate for the saying in the context of Luke 11.14–23 and probably also for Q 11.23, but Matthew has given the logion a different impact. 283 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:209. 284 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:210. 285 The question introduced with πῶς in Matt 12.34 is rhetorical—as before in 12.26, 29 (cf. also 23.33!). Matthew thus emphasizes the impossibility of the circumstances being addressed. 286 On the Matthean redaction, compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:463–64; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:353; Gielen 1998, 147; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:214. 287 Compare Gielen 1998, 141. 282

222

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

In context, the scribes and Pharisees underscore with their demand for a sign that they are not willing to recognize the healings as valid proof of the identity of Jesus that is being considered by the crowds (12.23)288 or of the claim articulated by Jesus himself in 12.28.289 In the background here is still the question, introduced in 11.2, of the recognition of the messianic character of Jesus’ deeds. The consistent differentiation between the crowds and the authorities in the preceding context clearly speaks against the common thesis that in Jesus’ reaction to the demand for a sign, the accusation and message of judgment are generalized by the reference to ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη.290 The context, rather, decidedly suggests that γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς in 12.39 and ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη in 12.41– 42, as in 11.16, are to be read “narrowly” and taken as referring to the addressed authorities alone.291 This is all the more valid as the attribute πονηρά is set up in the Matthean context by the redactional insertion of 12.33–35 or, more precisely, by the accusation of the Pharisees as πονηροὶ ὄντες and, following this, the mention of the evil person in v. 35b. The interpretation of γενεά demanded by 12.22–37 and especially by 12.38a is substantiated by further textual evidence. Only Matthew has set the demand for a sign in direct speech. Along with this, Matthew has taken apart the definition ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν from Q 11.29292 and instead placed γενεὰ πονηρά, supplemented by καὶ μοιχαλίς (cf. Mark 8.38), as the subject before σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ. As a result, γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς (Matt 12.39) appears as a direct reference to, or qualifying periphrasis for, the “we” of the scribes and Pharisees contained in θέλομεν (v. 38). Next, the explication of the sign of Jonah, drawing on Jonah 2.1, as a reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus in Matt 12.40 is a 288 Already the address of Jesus as διδάσκαλε indicates a different assessment than that of Matt 12.23. 289 Compare Gielen 1998, 142. 290 For this thesis, see, for example, Walker 1967, 35; Strecker 1971, 105– 6; Verseput 1986, 258–59; Menninger 1994, 141; Luz 2001–2007, 2:217; Garbe 2005, 59; Nolland 2005, 509, 510; as well as Hagner 1993/1995, 1:353 (Jesus describes the opponents “as representative of γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς”); and Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:465 (“The accusation appears to be limited to the scribes and Pharisees, but through them applies to the entire people”; trans. K. Ess). 291 Compare, above all, Gielen 1998, 142– 44, 149–50; Repschinski 2000, 135, with n. 176; as well as Fiedler 2006, 257, who (in my opinion, incorrectly) seeks to further qualify the reference within the Pharisees: “the clique of ‘some’ (!) Pharisaic adversaries of Matthew” (trans. K. Ess). See further van Tilborg 1972, 33; Sand 1974, 92; Hoffmann 1990, 113; Häfner 1994, 260– 61; and Saldarini 1994, 40– 41. Baumbach 1963, 85– 86, takes only 12.39; 16.4; and 23.36 in reference to the Pharisees but 12.41, 42, in reference to the Jewish people. 292 Compare the reconstruction in J. M. Robinson et al. 2000, 248–49.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

223

proprium of the Matthean text.293 This not only points back to the Pharisees’ resolution to destroy Jesus in 12.14 but also, and above all, points forward to 27.62– 63,294 where the chief priests, together—strikingly295— with the Pharisees296 and so with the opponents from 12.22– 45, alert Pilate to Jesus’ announcement of his resurrection after three days, in order to have the grave guarded. This endeavor ends, however, with the authorities hearing from the soldiers that Jesus has indeed been resurrected (28.11). Thus the “sign of Jonah” is in fact granted particularly to them. Moreover, it becomes clear here that even the “sign of Jonah” does not lead the authorities to repentance; rather, they persist in their opposition, concerned to assert their own authority, even in the face of the—according to Matthew—objective evidence of the resurrection.297 Matt 12.41 thus follows logically from the explication of the sign of Jonah in 12.40:298 whereas the Ninevites are brought to repentance by Jonah, not even the “sign” of Jesus’ resurrection granted to the authorities has led them to rethink matters. The Ninevites, therefore, will condemn “this γενεά” in the final judgment.299 The reference to the queen of the South also shows itself to be well integrated in the context as a result of the redactional changes made by the evangelist in 11.19 and 12.23: as the queen of the South (1 Kgs 10.1– 13; 2 Chr 9.1–12), after her initial doubt (1 Kgs 10.7; 2 Chr 9.6), recognized the wisdom of David’s successor Solomon, so too should the Pharisees have recognized the workings of wisdom (Matt 11.19) in the deeds of the messianic Son of David (12.23!). Therefore, once again, the queen of the South will be raised at the judgment with “this γενεά” and will condemn it. 293 On the Matthean origin of this explication, see Edwards 1971, 97; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:351; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:214. 294 On this, see B. Weiss 1890, 489; Verseput 1986, 262, 264– 65; Hoffmann 1990, 112–14 (cf. Hoffmann 1988, 421–23); Gundry 1994, 244– 45; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:152; Suhl 1998, 352; Luz 2001–2007, 2:217; Paul 2005, 110; and Fiedler 2006, 258, 422. One cannot, however, generalize here and speak of a sign against Israel (against Verseput 1986, 264– 65; Hoffmann 1990, 114–15, 123; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:218). On this, see the following discussion. 295 As is well known, the Pharisees do not otherwise appear in the Matthean (or at all in the synoptic) Passion Narrative(s). 296 Does Matthew thereby again intentionally refer back to Matt 12.38– 42? 297 Compare Schweizer 1986, 341; and Paul 2005, 111. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:466, speaks of a “tendency to historicize the resurrection event” (trans. K. Ess). 298 In Luke 11.31–32, the two logia of the queen of the South and of the Ninevites appear in the inverse order. Matthew probably transposed the order found in Q (likewise Edwards 1971, 96–97; Geist 1986, 278; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:464; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:351, 357; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:214, among others). 299 In the background here is the motif of the participation of the righteous in the final judgment, which appears repeatedly in Early Jewish apocalyptic. On this, see Konradt 2003, 332–33.

224

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus’ response to the demand for a sign continues without a caesura in 12.43– 45 with the words about the return of the unclean spirit, which in Q precedes the demand for a sign. With the addition of the words οὕτως ἔσται καὶ τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ πονηρᾷ, which link these verses with 12.39, 12.43– 45b becomes a parable aimed at this γενεά. The ὅταν-clause in v. 43a harkens back to the expulsion of the demon in v. 22. The topic is now the case in which the demon returns to a healed person. The demon’s ability to once again take up residence in the person requires that the “house” remain uninhabited.300 In other words, the healed person has not drawn any conclusions from the healing; unlike the two blind men in Jericho in Matt 20.34, he or she has not entered into Jesus’ discipleship. In this case, the demon will bring along seven other spirits who are (still) more evil than himself and once again take up residence in the person, so that he or she is worse off than before. The question is with whom “this γενεά” is being compared in 12.43– 45b. The majority of scholars see “this γενεά” in the person who is once again afflicted after the expulsion of the demon.301 With this approach, it is imperative that “this evil γενεά” be given a different interpretation than in 11.16; 12.39, 41, 42302—for it is the common people who have received the benefit of Jesus’ salvific ministry. The alternative is that Matthew compares “this γενεά” with the demons.303  Read  in  this  way,  12.43– 45  fits  significantly better with the context: the parable addresses the danger that  the authorities might once again influence those who have benefited from  Jesus’ ministry.304 This comparison with the demons can be seen to be set up by the harsh designation of the Pharisees as “brood of vipers” and their characterization as essentially evil (12.34). In general, authorities and demons are linked in that Matthew views them as opponents of God.305 Just as the authorities “snatch away” the kingdom of heaven according to Matt 11.12, 306 it is ὁ πονηρός who, in Matt 13.19, snatches away what has been sown in the heart.307 Further, the emphatic talk of “this γενεά, Likewise, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:221: σχολάζοντα “notes the presupposition for reoccupying the house.” See also Hagner 1993/1995, 1:357. σχολάζοντα does not appear in the Lukan parallel (Luke 11.25); this is most likely a Matthean insertion. 301 See France 1985, 214; Verseput 1986, 274; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:360– 62; Harrington 1991a, 192; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:356; Luz 2001–2007, 2:220–21; and Nolland 2005, 515. 302 See only Hummel 1963, 123; Hasler 1992, col. 580; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:356; Luz 2001–2007, 2:221; and Garbe 2005, 119, n. 232. 303 See Gundry 1994, 246; Gielen 1998, 145–46; and Repschinski 2000, 140–41. 304 Compare Gielen 1998, 146; and Repschinski 2000, 140– 41. 305 Compare Gielen 1998, 146. 306 On the interpretation, see section 4.3.1. 307 ἁρπάζει in place of αἴρει (Mark 4.15) is Matthean redaction, as is ὁ πονηρός in 300

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

225

the evil one” directly refers back to ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ,308 and thus the relation between “this γενεά” and the demons is indicated in v. 45 itself. In this reading, finally, it also becomes clear why Matthew continues  in 12.46a with ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις. The setting is still that of 12.22–24, and Matthew conceives of the crowds as witnesses to Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees (and scribes). With 12.46a, the evangelist leads the reader to understand that Jesus, in the course of his reply in 12.39– 45, has turned away from the authorities and toward the crowds.309 One need not interpret 12.43– 45 as just an announcement of the renewed influence  of  the  hostile  authorities,  which  for  Matthew  has  long  since  become a reality.310 The passage is in the first instance a warning: following the devotion it has experienced with Jesus, the “house” cannot remain empty; entry into discipleship, and thus into the circle of Jesus’ “family,” is required (12.46–50). Otherwise, one will once again fall victim to the authorities. Matt 12.22– 45 thereby exhibits a sequence also encountered elsewhere in the Gospel: the confrontation with the authorities is followed by instruction to the people about them (see Matt 15.1–9 + 15.10–11 and 21.23–22.46 + 23.1–36). It can thus be concluded that, in 12.45c as well, “this (evil) γενεά” refers to the authorities.311 Matt 12.38– 45 thereby also confirms the interpretation of 11.16– 19. Following the Markan text, Matthew has the Pharisees, now together with the Sadducees, demand a sign from Jesus once again in 16.1–2a, 4312— this time explicitly a sign from heaven. The Markan question as to why this γενεά seeks a sign (Mark 8.12) becomes a statement in Matthew that (just as in Matt 12.39313) once again qualifies those who demand a sign as an  evil and adulterous γενεά. Matt 16.4 thereby underscores the reference of γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς to the authorities.314 place of ὁ σατανᾶς. Is Matthew intentionally making a cross-reference here? ἁρπάζειν otherwise occurs in Matthew only in Matt 12.29—here on the basis of Mark 3.27. 308 Compare Repschinski 2000, 140. 309 Compare Gielen 1998, 146. 310 This is emphasized by Repschinski 2000, 141, and Gielen 1998, 146–47, 152, who, however, at the same time concludes that “the Matthean depiction of the role of the people as victim implies a tendency toward further efforts” (152; trans. K. Ess; see also Repschinski 2000, 143– 44). 311 Likewise those named in n. 303. See further Tilborg 1972, 33; and Sand 1974, 92. 312 On Matt 16.1–2a, 4, see section 3.1.2.3. 313 Jesus’ reply in Matt 16.4 corresponds word for word with 12.39, aside from the omission of the identification of Jonah as a prophet. 314 Contra, for example, Sand 1986, 320–21; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:41; and Luck 1993, 184 (the wicked and adulterous γενεά as a “designation for the people represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees”; trans. K. Ess).

226

4.3.3

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The Message of Judgment against “this γενεά” in Matt 23.34–36

As the notion of judgment appeared already in the word against “this evil (and adulterous) γενεά” in 12.38– 45 through the preceding context in 12.31–37, as well as explicitly in 12.41– 42, this concept is taken up again in Matt 23.34–36 at the end of the discourse against the scribes and Pharisees. Mark 12.37b– 40 has inspired the compositional position of the discourse— which is in its content substantially based on Q 11.39–52315—after the confrontation in the Jerusalem temple (21.23–22.46)316 and the inclusion of the ὄχλοι as members of the audience alongside the disciples (23.1).317 In vv. 2–12, the woes are preceded by a critique of not only the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees318 (since they lay heavy burdens on people [v. 4]) but also, and above all, their practices: they do not comply with the burdens they place on others (vv. 3– 4), and when they do something, it is only done in order to be seen by people (v. 5, cf. Matt 6.1–18). In general, they are only interested in social recognition and admiration (Matt 23.6–7).319 The note that they like to be called “Rabbi,” redactionally inserted in v. 7fin., serves  for Matthew as an antithesis to the instruction given in 23.8–12, in which Jesus teaches a nonhierarchical, “brotherly” social structure, which knows only God as the “fatherly” authority and, in Christ, only one teacher. It is evident that this is about the community structure of the disciples, or the ecclesia, yet this does not mean that the passage from v. 8 on is 315 Against the Q hypothesis for Matt 23, see Newport 1995, 16–17, 51–53. On further theories, see Newport 1995, 19– 48, 53–55. 316 Compare section 3.1.2.5. 317 Compare section 3.1.2.5. 318 Matt 23.3a appears at first glance to indicate a fundamental acceptance of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees (cf., for example, Garland 1979, 20–21), but in view of the preceding conflict over their teaching (on this, see Konradt 2006, 141– 50), the criticism implied in φορτία βαρέα (23.4; cf. the contrast with 11.30!), the emphasis on Jesus as the one teacher in 23.8, 10 (which more than relativizes 23.2), and the accusations raised in the following woes (see, above all, 23.13; further 23.16–26 [discussed later in this section]), 23.3a most likely functions primarily as a rhetorical strategy with regard to 23.3b (cf. Banks 1975, 176–77; Beare 1981, 448; France 1985, 324; and Przybylski 1986, 188; contra Fiedler 1994, 199, 211, and elsewhere; and Reinbold 2006, 61– 64, 65– 66). That is, Matthew seeks to place the emphasis on the “hypocritical” contradiction between the scribes’ and Pharisees’ teaching, or speech, and their action. The suggestion of Powell 1995a, 431–35, is implausible, according to whom the “speaking” in 23.3a does not refer to the interpretation of the law but only to the reading aloud of the Torah; whereas τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν means “their interpretation of Moses both through verbal teaching and practiced life- style” (432). This does not fit with the contrast between speech and  action in 23.3fin. 319 Matthew has edited and expanded Mark 12.38–39 here, whereas he has passed over the social criticism in Mark 12.40a—as he does again with Mark 12.41– 44, for the sake of a direct connection between Matt 23.37–39 and Matt 24.1–2 / Mark 13.1–2.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

227

directed at the disciples alone.320 Rather, the ὄχλοι, as listeners, are also called to turn away from those who have been the authorities up to now and toward Jesus as the one teacher (cf. Matt 11.28–30). Also, in 23.13(ff.), there is again no indication of a change to the setting that was presented in 23.1. Unlike in the Lukan setting (Luke 11.37–52), the actual audience of the woes in Matt 23.13–36 is accordingly not the scribes and Pharisees, who are addressed in the second person plural; rather, it is still the disciples and crowds (23.1).321 Matthew thus employs the rhetorical device of the apostrophe:322 the actual listeners are not the formal addressees. The woes thereby continue to warn the crowds and disciples about the scribes and Pharisees.323 The well-planned arrangement of the seven woes,324 in which three groups can be seen within a symmetrical composition325 (2+3+2 woes), is certainly the work of the evangelist.326  The  first  two  woes,  which  are  kept brief (23.13, 15), address the “relation of the scribes and the Pharisees to other people and their salvation.”327 This opening is undoubtedly well suited to the setting that has been described: if the crowds being addressed place themselves under the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, they will remain barred from the kingdom of heaven. This is followed in vv. 16–26 with a grouping of three woes that attack the scribes’ and Pharisees’ halakah, or understanding of the Torah. All three accusations here are illustrated in the preceding context.328  It  fits  with  the  theme  of  the  320

Likewise, see Frankemölle 1979b, 155. Contrast Luz 2001–2007, 3:93. Compare Minear 1974, 36–37; Frankemölle 1979b, 153, 176; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:269; and Luck 1993, 254; contra Meier 1979, 162; Newport 1995, 70; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:258, 308. 322 On the rhetorical device of apostrophe, see Lausberg 1990, §§762–65. 323 With regard to the disciples, cf. Matt 16.5–12, further 15.12–14. 324 A composition of seven woes—the number seven being symbolic of completeness—is also found in Q. Matthew has, however, already used Q 11.46 and Q 11.43 in Matt 23.4 and 23.6, 7a. In order to reach seven again, Matthew inserts two other woes in 23.15 and 23.16–22. 325 On the following subdivision, compare Saldarini 1992a, 673; Luz 2001–2007, 3:112–13; and Nolland 2005, 932. This structure is not without competition. For example, according to Fiedler 2006, 350, the first six woes constitute “three thematically related  pairs” (trans. K. Ess), whereas the seventh is the odd one out. Garland 1979, 32–33, sees a caesura between 23.28 and 23.29 and ties the seventh woe (23.39–36) together with 23.37– 24.2 but, in so doing, destroys the structure of seven. 326 It is in my opinion unquestionable that Matthew has changed the sequence found in Q (cf. Garland 1979, 17–18; Luz 2001–2007, 3:113–14). However, the order of the woes in Q cannot be reconstructed beyond any doubt, since the possibility of transpositions in Luke as well cannot be excluded. 327 Luz 2001–2007, 3:112. 328 The third woe (Matt 23.16–22) takes up the theme of the fourth antithesis in Matt 5.33–37. It should be observed here that in the Matthean understanding the theses do not 321

228

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Torah that the motif of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ blindness, which is not encountered in the Q woes, is inserted in all three woes in this group and, moreover, only in these three (Matt 23.16,329 17, 19, 24, 26)—a motif that Matthew had already, in 15.14, directed at the Pharisees and scribes who had come from Jerusalem, which, more broadly, is also illustrated in the repeated accusation of scriptural ignorance.330 The indictment culminates then in Matt 23.27–36 with two woes, in which the Matthean Jesus accuses the  scribes  and  Pharisees  generally  and  fundamentally:  first,  with  their  actual lawlessness—which contradicts their self-dramatization as righteous figures— and, second, as a climax, with persecution of the prophets  and the (truly) righteous. This seventh woe, accompanied by a sharp message of judgment, constitutes the immediate context of the word against “this γενεά” in v. 36. Like the sixth woe, Matt 23.29–31 also contrasts the external appearance that the scribes and Pharisees give themselves with their actual behavior. The words they are made to speak in v. 30 are thus formulated to convey a deeper meaning:331 They distance themselves from the murderers of prophets with the claim that, had they lived at that time, they would not have had a part in the “blood” of the prophets. (Already here the motif of blood occurs, which returns in vv. 35–36, with the message of judgment.) However, they speak of the murderers as their fathers (τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν). They thereby identify themselves, as v. 31 concludes, as sons of the prophets’ murderers; yet the accusation in v. 31 does not mean simply descent in the genealogical sense but rather affiliation or a shared identity  based on the same or similar behavior.332 The “proof” for the actual affili­ ation is then brought, first, by the word about the commission in v. 34,333 simply reflect Torah commandments but rather illustrate the scribes’ and Pharisees’ insufficient understanding of Torah (cf. Matt 5.20; on this see chapter 2, n. 2). The fourth woe  (Matt 23.23–24) takes up the priority of social behavior above ritual observance, as it appeared previously, for example, in the two citations of Hos 6.6 (Matt 9.13; 12.7). The fifth woe (Matt 23.25– 26), finally, is reminiscent of the controversy in Matt 15.1– 20. 329 Matthew here varies the opening of the woe by replacing γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι with ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί and thus turns the reader’s attention to the new leitmotif. 330 See Matt (9.13); 12.3, 5, 7; 19.4; 21.16, 42, as well as 22.41– 46. And, directed at the Sadducees, see Matt 22.31. 331 In contrast, Fiedler 2006, 355, asserts that logic here falls by the wayside. 332 Compare Sand 1991, 101–2; see also Garland 1979, 165–66; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:378. On this usage of υἱός in Matthew, cf. 9.15 (“the sons of the nuptial chamber,” meaning the wedding guests); 12.27 (“your sons” as designation of exorcists from among the Pharisees); as well as “the sons of the kingdom” (8.12; 13.38), “the sons of the evil one” (13.38), and “the son of hell” (23.15); see, further, the “sons of God” (5.9) and the “sons of the Father in heaven” (5.45). 333 On the redactional expansion of the Q version in Matt 23.34fin., see n. 352.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

229

where it is presumed that the messengers sent by Jesus334 belong in the line of the prophets.335 Second, due to the previous opposition of the scribes and Pharisees against Jesus, “the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee” (21.11), v. 30 appears to the reader as hypocrisy (see 12.14; 21.46; 22.15).336 In the Matthean context, the word about the commission, connected by διὰ τοῦτο, relates in particular to the sarcastic imperative sentence in v. 32, probably inserted by Matthew together with v. 33.337 The commission of the disciples here occurs, according to this command, in order that the measure of sins338 of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ “fathers” will be filled339 (as the persecutors of Jesus’ messengers, together with the murderers of the prophets, form a collective of guilt that spans across the ages340), and thus the judgment can descend upon them (v. 33). The rejection of the messengers of Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees, in view of their previous behavior and that of their fathers, is thereby presented as expected or foreseen by Jesus. The invective address in v. 33 points back to Matt 3.7 and 12.34, where the Pharisees (in 3.7, together with the Sadducees) are likewise in view; the rhetorical question in 23.33 further strengthens the reference to John the Baptist’s sermon of judgment.341 The orientation toward the authorities is ἐγώ is expressly added and thus emphasizes the subject of the sending. ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ in Luke 11.49 likely reflects the Q text. 335 Compare Matt 22.2– 6 with 21.34–36 (on 22.2– 6, see section 4.1.4 with n. 150) and 5.12. 336 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:132. 337 The redactional origin of Matt 23.33 can hardly be disputed. Opinions on v. 32 are divided. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:303, 306, argue that it is tradition, for which one can point to the connections with 1 Thess 2.15–16 (cf. Konradt 2003, 81; Tuckett 1990, 165– 67, rejects a connection between Matt 23.29–36 and 1 Thess 2.15–16). Matthean redaction is supported by Haenchen 1951, 52; Gundry 1994, 468– 69; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:131; see also Newport 1995, 150–51. καὶ ὑμεῖς in v. 32 should, in my opinion, be regarded as part of the preceding sentence. 338 On the notion that God has established a certain measure for sins, see Gen 15.16 (cf. Jub. 14.16); 2 Macc 6.14–15; Jub. 29.11; L.A.B. (3.3); 26.13; 36.1; 41.1; (47.9); 1 Thess 2.16; Barn. 5.11; Gos. Pet. 5.17. Compare Stuhlmann 1983, 93–98, 103–5. 339 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:315; Knowles 1993, 136; Luz 2001– 2007, 3:154; and Fiedler 2006, 355; contra Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:300. The connection between Matt 23.34 and the preceding context is completely distorted by Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:382: “So that you escape the judgment of hell, in order to bring you to your senses” (trans. K. Ess). 340 This aspect is already implied in 21.33–22.10, since here, too, the authorities at the time of Jesus (21.37–39) and of his messengers (22.3– 6) are merged with the authorities of earlier times (21.34–36). In other words, the tenants represent the authorities in Israel from the age of the prophets up to Jesus, and the post-Easter age is further integrated through 22.3– 6. 341 See the similar question in Matt 3.7: τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; 334

230

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

substantiated by these intratextual references: as the people who went out to John are distinguished from the Pharisees and Sadducees in 3.5–10, so in 12.22– 45 are the Pharisees (and scribes) distinguished from the ὄχλοι. Verse 35 takes up the perspective of judgment that appeared in v. 33. The formulation ἔλθῃ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον . . . (v. 35) and ἥξει ταῦτα πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην (v. 36) link the message of judgment with the Passion Narrative that follows, particularly with the call of the people in 27.25 (τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν). Further, the qualifying phrase αἷμα δίκαιον,  probably  influenced  by  Lam  4.13,342  finds  its  counterpart in Judas’ use of the phrase αἷμα ἀθῷον with reference to Jesus in 27.4 as well as in the corresponding words of Pilate in 27.24, especially as this is preceded by his wife’s opinion that he should have nothing to do with “this righteous man” (27.19). However, in 23.29–36, as well as in 22.2–7, Jesus’ death alone does not appear as grounds for the judgment; rather, the grounds include the continued failure to repent even post-Easter (cf. 27.62– 66; 28.11–15) and the associated rejection and persecution of Jesus’ messengers. With regard to the understanding of the phrase “this γενεά” in 23.36, and thereby in terms of the question of the “object” of God’s judgment in view here, the fact that ἔλθῃ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς and ἥξει . . . ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην are parallel in Matt 23.35–36 deserves our attention.343 The phrase ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς,344 which is very likely redactional, in context clearly refers back to the “you” of the statement of judgment in v. 33 and thus to the scribes and Pharisees. They cannot escape being sentenced to hell, because they  fill  up the measure of their fathers, so that the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah will come upon them. In the Matthean context, ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν 342 Compare Gundry 1994, 470– 71; and Moffitt 2006, 305– 8. The phrase does not 

occur all too often in the LXX; alongside Lam 4.13, see also Joel 4.19; Jonah 1.14; further, see αἷμα δικαίου in Prov 6.17. In Early Jewish literature, see also L.A.B. 62.5 (David to Jonathan about Saul’s hostile activities): Et nunc timeo ne interficiat me, ne perdat pro  me vitam suam. Sanguinem enim iustum numquam effudi. ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς in Matt 23.35 has a counterpart in ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς in Jonah 1.14. However, a connection with Lam 4.13 is supported by the fact that there, as in Matt 23.35, the topic at hand is the spilling of blood (. . . τῶν ἐκχεόντων αἷμα δίκαιον; but see also Joel 4.19) and also that, as in Matt 23.37ff., the destruction of the temple is addressed. In addition, analogously to Matt 23, the authorities are criticized along with the prophets and priests in Lam 4.13 (cf. Moffitt 2006, 306).  Further, Jer 26.15 (= 33.15LXX) can be adduced (cf. Winkle 1986, 168). Jer 26 was likely an important intertext for Matthew in general in the context of the Matthean interpretation of the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple as punishment for the killing of Jesus (and his messengers) and of the significance of innocent blood in this context (cf. Winkle 1986,  163–71; Knowles 1993, 199–203, 220, 245; and Konradt 2007a, 224). 343 In Q, both sentences likely spoke of “this γενεά.” Compare J. M. Robinson et al. 2000, 286– 89. 344 Compare Gundry 1994, 470.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

231

ταύτην in 23.36 thereby appears as nothing other than a substitute for ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς,345 which integrates seamlessly with the evidence in 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; and 16.1– 4. The change from ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς to ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην is analogous to 12.38–39, where, as seen previously, γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς (v. 39) picks up the “we” contained in θέλομεν (v. 38), referring to the scribes and Pharisees. This reading of v. 36 is further substantiated by v. 35b. The arc here can be drawn from Abel to the priest Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chr 24.20– 22346 and thereby from the beginning of Scripture to its end;347 or, less plausibly in my opinion, it can be drawn from Abel to Zechariah, the son 345

In this vein, see also Häfner 1994, 261; Hartin 2000, 280; and Repschinski 2000, 45; as well as Gundry 1994, 472: “By context ‘this generation’ means the scribes and Pharisees” (see also Gielen 1998, 341). Gundry 1994, 472, in the connection of the scribes and Pharisees with the murderers of the Old Testament prophets, sees evidence here “that [Matthew] does not take ‘this generation’ in a sense chronologically limited to Jesus’ contemporaries, but in a qualitative sense concerning the ‘unbelieving and perverted.’ ” By contrast, an expansion of the perspective of judgment between v. 35 and v. 36, or more precisely, an interpretation of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη in reference to all Israel or the generation of Israel living at that time (for a temporal understanding see, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:310; and Nolland 2005, 948), is postulated by Hare 1967, 151–52 (see also Hare 1979, 39); Strecker 1971, 113; Garland 1979, 186– 87; Meier 1979, 165– 66; Sand 1986, 474; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:296, 302; Stanton 1992a, 159; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:678; H.-J. Becker 1998, 60, 68; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:155 (cf. Luz 1998b, 266); as well as Newport 1995, 149 with n. 2, who sees from v. 32 on an expansion from the scribes and Pharisees to “all Jews in general” (70). 346 See France 1985, 330–31; Luck 1993, 253; Gundry 1994, 471; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:677; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:318–19; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:383– 84; H.-J. Becker 1998, 64 with n. 13; Taylor 2003, 289; Ham 2005, 92–94; Luz 2001–2007, 3:154– 55; Nolland 2005, 946– 47; Fiedler 2006, 356–57; Gurtner 2007, 117; Sider Hamilton 2008, 85– 89; and Kalimi 2009, 251– 52. This identification is problematic because, according to  2 Chr 24.20, the priest (!) Zechariah is the son of the priest Jehoiada. In the Old Testament, however, two people bear the name “Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah”—namely, a contemporary of Isaiah (Isa 8.2) and the prophet Zechariah in Zech 1.1. But neither the Old Testament nor extant Early Jewish tradition recounts that either one was murdered (on the prophet Zechariah [Zech 1.1], see rather Liv. Pro. 15.6). It must therefore be assumed that the names have been confused, which, however, does not present a grave problem (see Blank 1937/1938, 328–33; Luz 2001–2007, 3:155; and Knowles 1993, 138, who even postulates an intentional combination of the priest Zechariah with the minor prophet). For the identification of Zechariah in Matt 23.35 with Zechariah son of Jehoiada, one can point  to his inclusion in the Lives of the Prophets (Liv. Pro. 23). The particular sacrilege of killing “near the altar” (23.1) is an important motif addressed here, as Liv. Pro. 23.2 explains: “From that time, visible portents occurred in the Temple” (trans. Hare, OTP 2:398). 347 Compare Gundry 1994, 472; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:319; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:383– 84; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:677; Luz 2001–2007, 3:155; and Nolland 2005, 947. This would then presuppose the final position of 1– 2 Chronicles, as they are found  in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Peels 2001, esp. 586– 87, 594–99, is critical of this presupposition.

232

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of Bareis, who according to Josephus, B.J. 4.334– 44, was murdered in the temple by Zealots (4.343),348 and thus chronologically from the beginning of human history up to Matthew’s immediate context or shortly before the destruction of the temple. Which of these two options is chosen does not play a central role here—in both cases, v. 35b is intended to indicate completeness. Of central significance, rather, is the fact that this verse, as  the mention of Abel shows, does not summarize the history of Israel349— this, of course, first begins with Abraham (cf. Matt 1.2!)— which also corresponds well with the nongenealogical sense of υἱοί, noted previously, as an  expression  of  affiliation.  Likewise,  then,  “this  γενεά” does not serve as a circumlocution for Israel or the current generation of Israel but rather designates the “clan of murderers,” whose present representatives are identified as the scribes and Pharisees. Against the reading of the second-person plural in vv. 34–35 in reference to the scribes and Pharisees, the argument has been brought that Jesus has sent the disciples not just to these groups but to all Israel, so that “an imperceptible change of addressees”350 is to be assumed for v. 34, and therefore the judgment is supposed to apply to all Israel.351 As we have seen, the sending of the disciples here occurs in order to fill the measure of sins. This, however, after Matt 10, can in no way be generalized as the overall perspective of the commission of the disciples. Matt 23.34 therefore speaks to a specific  aspect, so that nothing stands in the way of a “narrow” reading of πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The counterpart to Matt 23.34 in Matt 10 is to be found, not in 10.6, but in 10.16(–23352); as a further analogy, one can point to Matt 22.2– 6.353 On the communicative level of the evangelist, all these texts point to the active confrontation between believers in Christ and representatives of the Pharisees. 348

See Fascher 1964, col. 85; Künzel 1978, 95; Harrington 1991a, 328, 329; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:301–2; and Döpp 1998, 22–23. With this reading, one must presume that υἱοῦ Βαραχίου was not in Q but is rather a Matthean insertion (for the ascription to Q, however, see Luz 2001–2007, 3:150–51); or one would have to postulate a late date for Q. 349 Against Steck 1967, 293–94; Marguerat 1981, 361; Sand 1986, 474; and Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:300. Luz 2001–2007, 3:154, does note that Cain and Abel were not Jews, yet this does not lead him to question the interpretation in terms of the history of Israel but rather to the proposal that “even the Q text has no reservations about citing the murder of Abel as the beginning of the Jewish murders of the prophets and righteous” (emphasis original). 350 See Luz 2001–2007, 3:93. In this vein further, for example, see Sand 1986, 473; and Garbe 2005, 90 (n. 70) and 106. 351 See Garbe 2005, 90–93; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:153 (cf. Luz 1993, 313–14), among others. 352 This is underscored in Matt 23.34 by the references to Matt 10.17, with καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν, and to Matt 10.23, with καὶ διώξετε ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν. 353 On the interpretation, see section 4.1.4.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

233

Finally, the insertion of the lament over Jerusalem in 23.37–39 does not expand the perspective of judgment onto all Israel.354 Matthew here repeats the connection, already encountered in 22.2–7, between the destruction of Jerusalem and the authorities’ reaction to the disciples’ mission—since, as has already become clear, Jerusalem does not stand for Israel in the Matthean conception.355 Rather, the seamless connection of the saying against Jerusalem in 23.37–39 with the discourse of woes against the scribes and Pharisees356 and, above all, the phrase ἔλθῃ ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον . . . (formed by Matthew in 23.35 as a parallel to 27.25), in turn confirm the interpretation of 27.25 presented in section 3.2. 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. The actual driving forces here are the authorities.357 As in the case of Jerusalem, they carry away into ruin those whom they have seduced. The seamless connection of the saying  against  Jerusalem  in  23.37– 39  with  the  preceding  woes  reflects  this  association.358 The rejection of a generalizing reading of 23.34–39 is further confirmed when one considers that these verses contain two different perspectives of judgment—namely, historical and eschatological. The historical event of the destruction of the city appears as punishment for abusing and killing the messengers in 22.7, and 23.38 picks up on this perspective. Integrated with this is the fact that, as we have seen, 27.25 also has in view 354 As is well known, Luke uses the Q text in a different context (Luke 13.34–35). The attachment to the woes discourse against the scribes and Pharisees is the work of Matthew’s own hand (likewise Hare 1967, 94–95; Garland 1979, 187–97; Marguerat 1981, 356; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:158; contra Schürmann 1986, 56–58; Bultmann 1995, 120; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:312; and Nolland 2005, 949). 355 In this vein, see also Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:385; contra Walter 1966, 46–47; Garland 1979, 197–200; France 1985, 331; Sand 1986, 475; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:302; Stanton 1992a, 154; Knowles 1993, 141; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:680; Newport 1995, 153–54; H.-J. Becker 1998, 60; Garbe 2005, 104; Luz 2001–2007, 3:164, 630; and Fiedler 2006, 358. 356 Hare 1967, 96, rightly points out that, due to its compositional location within the Gospel of Matthew, the saying about Jerusalem acquires an anti-Pharisaic orientation originally foreign to it. 357 A further detail that fits with this is the fact that the sequence of the participles  ἀποκτείνουσα . . . καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα in Matt 23.37, with regard to the larger context, takes up the behavior of the tenants in 21.35 who stand for the authorities (on the reference to the authorities, see section 4.1.3); or, considered diachronically, Matthew likely reformulated 21.35 in light of the saying about Jerusalem taken from Q in 23.37 (cf. Knowles 1993, 181– 82). 358 Compare Luck 1993, 246, on Matt 23: “Jerusalem’s fate . . . is . . . attributed to the behavior of its ruling classes” (trans. K. Ess).

234

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the destruction of Jerusalem as punishment for Jesus’ death.359 At the same time, however, 23.34–36 comes under the heading of an eschatological judgment due to v. 33—that is, viewed only within the context of the seventh woe in 23.29– 36, vv. 35– 36 refers to the final judgment.360 Thus the destruction of Jerusalem as an action of God’s judgment within history and the final judgment are linked with one another in 23.29– 39 in a way that  must be more specifically identified. This connection is reinforced by the  analogy between 23.29–36 and 22.2–7 and the interconnection in 23.35–36 with 27.25 through the blood motif. Now if the destruction of Jerusalem is interpreted as a collective punishment of Israel, a function of the city’s destruction as a sign for the final judgment becomes problematic, because  this is contradicted by other explicit statements in the Gospel, such as the continued task of the mission to Israel, or also Matt 19.28.361 In other words, if one reads the destruction of Jerusalem as a judgment of Israel, then one must  deny  a  connection  with  the  final  judgment  and  posit  that  the  guilt  acquired with the killing of Jesus and his messengers has been cleared by God’s act of judgment carried out on Jerusalem.362 This approach, however, is untenable already in the context of Matt 23.29–39, as we have seen, whereas this problem does not arise if one abandons the thesis of collectivity, which is questionable already on the grounds discussed previously: the consequence of taking responsibility for Jesus’ death and for the persecution of his post-Easter messengers is the destruction of the “city of murderers” (22.7) and their eschatological damnation, whereby the former indicates the certainty of the latter. 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. Neither in 23.35–36 nor in 23.37–39 is the notion of a judgment that collectively affects Israel to be found. According to 23.38, God’s judgment manifests itself concretely in that “your house will be left desolate.” The context, especially 24.1–2, suggests that ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν should be taken in reference not to the city in general but specifically to the temple (see also Matt 21.13).363 In 21.1–17, the temple is 359

Jesus’ death can be seen as implied in the “open” formulation of Matt 23.37.

360 In contrast, Luz 2001–2007, 3:155–56, considers only the destruction of Jerusalem

as a point of reference for Matt 23.35–36. See further, for example, Hare 1967, 156; and H.-J. Becker 1998, 60. 361 On this, see section 4.5. 362 See Feldtkeller 1993, 71–72; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 25–26, 42; and Garbe 2005, 120, 206, 212. 363 On the designation of the temple as a “house” in Old Testament and Early Jewish texts, see 3 Kgdms (1 Kgs) 9.1, 3, 7, 8; Isa 56.7 (cited in Matt 21.13); 60.7; 64.10; Jer 7.11; 12.7; 33.6LXX (= 26.6MT); Hag 1.9 (ἀνθ’ ὧν ὁ οἶκός μού ἐστιν ἔρημος, ὑμεῖς δὲ διώκετε

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

235

the aim of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Under the leadership of the (old) authorities, the temple—divested of its actual function—has degenerated into a “den of thieves” (21.13). In the temple, after driving out the merchants, Jesus begins his salvific ministry that shows him to be the Son of David,  yet the authorities oppose this claim (21.14–17). As Jesus teaches in the temple the following day, he once again experiences the authorities’ hostility (21.23–22.46). The temple is their “domain”364 and will remain so until its destruction. In 24.1–2, Jesus leaves the temple and proclaims its coming destruction. Since Jesus is the Immanuel, his departure symbolizes that God has withdrawn from the temple,365 which under the authorities remains a den of thieves. With God’s withdrawal, the temple is abandoned to its destruction.366 The proclamation from 23.38 is thus unfolded in 24.1–2.367 Further, attention must be paid here to the tearing of the temple curtain at Jesus’ death in 27.51, which is to be understood as a sign of judgment.368 Since Jesus’ death occurs “for many for the forgiveness of sins” (26.28), a subtle connection emerges here: by having Jesus killed, the authorities seek to assert their position in Jerusalem, or more precisely in the temple as their seat of power, and in doing so, they not only bring down judgment ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ); Tob 14.4 (. . . καὶ Ιεροσόλυμα ἔσται ἔρημος καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ κατακαήσεται καὶ ἔρημος ἔσται μέχρι χρόνου); Jub. 49.19; 2 Bar. 8.2, 4. On ἔρημος with regard to the (destroyed) temple, alongside Hag 1.9 and Tob 14.4, see further T. Levi 15.1. Jer 22.5 is about the royal family. A reference to the temple is also read by Meier 1979, 166; Harrington 1991a, 329; Gundry 1994, 473; Döpp 1998, 24; Keener 1999, 559; Garbe 2005, 105 (primarily); Luz 2001–2007, 3:162; Nolland 2005, 951; Gurtner 2007, 118; and Evans 2012, 399; see also Winkle 1986, 170–71. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:304, takes a mediating stance: Matthew “will have seen the city and temple as one” (trans. K. Ess). The thesis that ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν should be taken in the sense of the “house of Israel” (cf. Matt 10.6; 15.24; see Hare 1967, 154; Strecker 1971, 113–14; Garland 1979, 198–200, who does not see the references to the temple, Jerusalem, and the house of Israel as alternatives but rather ties all three possibilities together; see also Sand 1986, 475; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:680– 81; and Whitters 2006, 239, n. 29), however, is not indicated by anything in the context, nor, as seen above, by the preceding mention of “this γενεά” (against J. A. Gibbs 2000, 124). 364 Significantly, the temple in Matt 23.38 (following Q 13.35) is not called “God’s  house” but, rather, “your house.” 365 Compare, for example, Eloff 2008, 103. According to Haenchen 1951, 55–56, the connection of v. 39 with v. 38 causes v. 38 to mean that “the Shechina . . . now [leaves] the temple with Jesus” (trans. K. Ess). 366 Compare Garland 1979, 200–204; H.-J. Becker 1998, 71–72; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 177–78; and Garbe 2005, 107. See also Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:304: “ ‘It shall be left to you desolate’ means two things: God will leave the house, and it will be abandoned to the enemies” (trans. K. Ess). 367 This connection is based on Matthean redaction. On the Matthean composition, see n. 319 and n. 354. 368 Compare section 3.2, n. 309.

236

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

upon themselves but also seal the fate of the end of the temple—which due to them has already lost its actual significance— because the temple cult  has become obsolete through Jesus’ atoning death.369 The people of Jerusalem, whom the authorities have seduced according to 27.20, are thereby carried away to their ruin. The destruction of the temple and the city, however, by no means signifies for Matthew the end of Israel. Nevertheless, the salvation- historical  situation has fundamentally changed not only for the nations but also for Israel. Salvation has been brought about through Jesus and is to be found only with him. The old authorities have lost their leadership role. The destruction of Jerusalem and especially of the temple serves for Matthew as proof of this. If the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” learn the right lesson from this, they must cleave to the community of the disciples. The interpretation of the verse that closes this unit, Matt 23.39, is chronically contested.370 If the message of judgment in 23.38 is not to be taken in reference to Israel generally and the destruction of the temple, or Jerusalem, points to the fate of Jesus’ opponents in the final judgment, it can also be concluded, first of all, that Matt 23.39 does not aim  at a limitation of the judgment of Israel;371 indeed, it is not even concerned with Israel as a whole.372 Further, it can hardly be disputed that Matt 23.39 takes into view the greeting of Christ at the Parousia, 373 which is underscored by the analogy with the ἀπ’ ἄρτι . . . ἕως construction in 26.29. Moreover, this analogy speaks against a conditional understanding of the ἕως-clause, which is further contradicted by the fact that, with such a reading, Matt 23.39 “would have no place”374 in the eschatological scenario of Matt 24–25. The return of Christ is not 369

Compare Meier 1975, 207– 8; and Kingsbury 1993, 277, among others. On the possible interpretations, see Garbe 2005, 197–201. Matt 23.39 is read positively by Schelkle 1967, 152; Verseput 1986, 46; Mussner 1988, 220; Gundry 1994, 474; Döpp 1998, 25; Kvalbein 2000, 58; Nolland 2005, 952–53; Fiedler 2006, 358– 60; and Dschnulnigg 2007, 214–15; see also Pedersen 1995, 146. 371 Contrast Garbe 2005, 201–6, who does not read Jesus’ “seeing” as limited to the Parousia but also includes the messengers of Jesus. The ἕως-clause is taken to be conditional by van der Kwaak 1966, 168–70; Allison 1983, 77– 80; Harrington 1991a, 329; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:323–24 (“when his people bless him, the Messiah will come” [323]); see also Stanton 1992a, 248–51. 372 Therefore Garbe’s claim that Matt 23.39 can be seen as the linchpin of the Gospel of Matthew (Garbe 2005, 201) is mistaken. 373 Compare, for example, Knowles 1993, 145; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:162– 63. But contrast van der Kwaak 1966, 169; and Garbe 2005 (see n. 371). 374 Luz 2001–2007, 3:163. Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:164, who further rightly points out that the conditional interpretation “is internally illogical. The people of Jerusalem can greet the parousia- Christ with the words of Psalm 118 only after they have seen him; thus ‘until’ cannot introduce a condition.” 370

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

237

dependent on Jerusalem’s conversion. The ἕως-clause can only be understood temporally. On this basis, many exegetes read the verse negatively. The setting would then be conceived analogously to the judgment scenario in 1 En. 62, where the mighty will “see” God’s chosen on the throne at the final  judgment (62.3, 5) but whose ensuing worship and plea for mercy (62.9) is futile (62.10–12). Matt 23.39 would then be understood to continue the word of judgment375 and to bring up once again, after v. 33, the eschatological dimension of the judgment. The fact that the word of blessing draws on the Psalm citation with which the crowds greeted Jesus at his entry into Jerusalem would then have to be understood such that the praise now comes too late. At Jesus’ entry into the city, Jerusalem missed the kairos for welcoming Jesus as the one who comes in the name of the Lord. “Daughter Zion” did not accept her gentle king but rather has become responsible for his crucifixion.376 After the missed opportunity, the city—blind because of the authorities’ influence— will not see him again until his Parousia at the  judgment and will then realize that the crowds’ announcement in 21.9 was right; yet this late insight will no longer be of any help. This  negative  temporal  reading  becomes  difficult  when  we  consider  that the citation from Ps 118.26, in itself and according to its usage in Matt 21.9, suggests a positive statement377 and that a negative setting along the lines of 1 En. 62 must be entirely constructed “eisegetically.” These objections do not necessarily refute the negative temporal reading; it remains a possible interpretation, but it is no more than that, insofar as an equally possible interpretation can be justified. In the Matthean context, the particle γάρ shows 23.39 to be a justification or explanation of v. 38.378 This can be read such that οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ’ ἄρτι implies that nothing will change with regard to the desolation of Jerusalem’s “house” until Jesus’ Parousia;379 in the Matthean view of the matter, the temple had in any case become obsolete, as we have seen, and indeed the continued nonexistence of a temple in Jerusalem could serve 375 Compare, for example, Légasse 1972a, 425–26; Marguerat 1981, 371–72; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:164. 376 On the royal title in the context of the crucifixion, see Matt 27.37, 42 and, further,  27.11, 29. 377 Compare Nolland 2005, 952–53: “The view that the fragment from Ps. 118:26 is to be uttered by those facing judgment is to be rejected. Blessing belongs to welcoming and celebrating, not to fear and despair.” See further, for example, Allison 1983, 75; Stanton 1992a, 249; and Fiedler 2006, 358. 378 γάρ is probably Matthean redaction. 379 Since Matthew apparently did not reckon with a progression of world history for several decades, let alone several centuries, this would not have been a bold prognosis in view of the political constellation around the year 80 CE.

238

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

for him as evidence for the legitimacy of his own position. If one construes Matt 23.38–39 as presented previously, the theme of judgment remains present in v. 39, but it nevertheless remains a possibility to understand the following ἕως-clause positively. At the Parousia, Jerusalem will greet Jesus as the crowds did with the words of the Hallel psalm. One must assume, then, that—in contrast with the Galilean cities in Matt 11.20–24—the rhetorical personification of the city is accompanied here by the superordination of “Jerusalem” to its inhabitants (who change over the course of time), and thus the city itself is distinguished from its “children” (23.37).380 For a positive reading of 23.39b, one can argue that, alongside the negative, critical statements, Matthew is also able to ennoble Jerusalem as “the city of the great king” (5.35) and as a “holy city” (4.5; 27.53).381 Such an abstraction of the personified city from its inhabitants, however, also means that  Matt 23.39b has no implications for the people (of Jerusalem) in 27.25 and its children. We can conclude that, for the overall understanding of the text, it is not  of  great  significance  whether  the  word  of  blessing  is  contextualized  as negative or positive,382 since in neither case does it concern the ultimate fate of all Israel. Just as Matthew does not interpret the destruction of Jerusalem as an act of judgment upon Israel as a whole, or even as an expression of Israel’s condemnation, so, conversely, 23.39b does not have the salvation of all Israel in view.383 It is possible that Matthew was not primarily concerned with the second part but rather with the first part of  v. 39 (as an explanatory continuation of v. 38). On the level of the narrated world, 23.39 confirms— in any case— the crowd being addressed since 23.1  in their greeting of Jesus (21.9). Transferred onto the evangelist’s level of communication, the text appeals to the addressees, in view of their knowledge of the fate of Jerusalem, to remain on or to join the right side. Matt 23 is not Matthew’s closing reckoning with “Judaism” conceived as a whole, nor is it his collective message of judgment upon Israel; rather, it is only the final delegitimation of the Pharisaic opponents of Jesus.384 380 Contrast Nolland 2005, 953, who proposes “to understand the material as prophetic of a change of heart that will come during the period of the church’s mission.” 381 Compare Hartman 1992, col. 435–36. 382 Compare n. 372. 383 Against Fiedler 2006, 359–60, who here expressly includes the opponents: “At the Parousia—as Matthew apparently expects it . . . his adversaries (with their followers) [will] not (any longer) be able to avoid worshipping Jesus as the Messiah, and thereby attaining a share in the kingdom of God and eternal life” (360; trans. K. Ess). Paul’s theological reflections in Rom 9–11, above all in 11.25–32, should not be read into Matt 23.39. 384 Compare, above all, Saldarini 1992a, 661, 666– 80. On the social orientation of Matt 23, see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:309.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

239

With Matt 23, Matthew concludes Jesus’ activity in the temple on the second day  of  his  ministry  in  Jerusalem  (21.18).  If  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree  at  the  beginning of that day in 21.19 functions in context (at least also) as a heading for the following conflicts, then on the basis of the analysis of the parable trilogy (21.28–22.14) in section 4.1 and of the woes (23.1–39), it would follow that the cursing of the fig tree in any case does not symbolize Israel’s condemnation 385 but rather foreshadows the fate of Jerusalem and of the authorities.386 This  corresponds  with  the  fact  that  the  fig  tree  is  not  at  all  a  conventional  metaphor for Israel.387 In addition, it is by no means certain—indeed, it is not even likely—that the evangelist wanted 21.19 to be understood as symbolic at all.388 It is rather likely that the withering of the fig tree— as an episode along  the way—served him solely to demonstrate the power of faith (21.20–22).389 It is noteworthy that Matthew inserted οὐ μόνον τὸ τῆς συκῆς ποιήσετε in v. 21 and has thereby identified the withering of the fig tree explicitly as an example  for the possibilities of faith. This corresponds with the fact that he has the disciples ask, in v. 20, how the fig tree withered immediately. “What is of prime  concern is the means whereby the tree has withered, the modus operandi of the miracle, in other words, and not what the tree’s withering signifies to the reader  in its Markan context.”390

385

Contra, for example, Munck 1951, 13; Kretzer 1971, 152–53; Gaston 1975, 30; Marguerat 1981, 348; Drury 1985, 95; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:212–13; Luz 1995, 133; Böttrich 1997, 356; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 119. 386 Compare Saldarini 1994, 62: “The parable of the fig tree (21:19) probably refers to the fruitlessness of the Jerusalem leaders” (cf. n. 388). McKnight 1993, 75–76, sees the destruction of Jerusalem prefigured in Matt 21.18– 19. According to Luz 2001– 2007,  3:23, by contrast, the text leaves open “whether one is to think of Israel, of Jerusalem, or only of Israel’s leaders” (see, however, the assertion in Luz 1995, 133, see n. 385). For the Markan context, Münderlein 1963/1964, 102– 4, presumes a reference primarily to the temple (in this vein, see also Telford 1980, 49). Similarly, Böttrich 1997, 352–55, thinks of the city and temple, whereas, for example, according to Gnilka 1989, 2:125, and  Giesen  1976,  99– 111,  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree  symbolizes  the  condemnation  of Israel. 387 Compare the overview of the field of imagery for the fig tree in Böttrich 1997, 342– 45, who with regard to Israel concludes (on the Old Testament evidence): “[O]ne seeks the fig tree . . . as an image for Israel . . . in vain” (343; trans. K. Ess). 388 H. B. Green 1975, 177, asserts, “[T]he lesson of the fig- t ree . . . is here simply a  miracle story introducing sayings on prayer and faith.” Similarly, see Telford 1980, 82: “In Matthew’s account, . . . the story . . . functions purely as a paradigm for Christian faith and prayer.” Against a symbolic reference to Israel or the temple, see further Schweizer 1973, 365; Saldarini 1994, 54–55, 62; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:318; see also E. Lohmeyer 1962, 302– 4. 389 In Matt 24.32, as well, the fig tree is a symbol for neither Israel nor Jerusalem. 390 Telford 1980, 78 (emphasis original).

240

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

4.3.4 Further Passages on “this γενεά” in Matt 17.17 and 24.34 While the evangelist has used the phrase “this γενεά” in reference to the Jewish authorities in the passages addressed previously and particularly to the Pharisees, a different point of reference emerges in the complaint about the “faithless and perverse γενεά” in Matt 17.17, which occurs in the context of Jesus’ healing of the epileptic boy. Some exegetes391 see the ὄχλος in view here in the γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη.392 With the question ἕως πότε μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἔσομαι; Jesus is understood to be threatening to withdraw his own presence and thus the presence of God.393 However, the context does not suggest a reference to the ὄχλος; indeed, understood in this way, 17.17 would be completely out of place within 17.14–20. The crowd is only briefly mentioned in the transition in Matt 17.14a and otherwise plays no role whatsoever in the entire passage—unlike in the Markan text.394 The proposed reference is based entirely on the (inappropriate) assumption that γενεά elsewhere always refers to the current generation of Israel as a whole—that is, Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries—which leads 391

See Frankemölle 1984, 23–24; Verseput 1986, 48; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:107; Gundry 1994, 350; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:504; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:408. 392 The expansion of γενεὰ ἄπιστος (Mark 9.19) with καὶ διεστραμμένη (Matt 17.17), where Deut 32.5 is likely in the background (on ἄπιστος cf. Deut 32.20), is one of numerous and in part striking minor agreements (see the overview at Ennulat 1994, 209–13). If one regards as insufficient the presumption of independent redaction of Mark by Matthew  and Luke (but cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:105; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:719), and one does not resort to the, in my opinion, implausible postulation of a deutero-Markan recension (on this, see section 3.1.2.5, n. 230; particularly with regard to Mark 9.14–29, a further difficulty arises in that one must assume that the deutero- Markan redactor applied  a much stronger hand here than elsewhere), there remains the possibility of a second (oral or written) version, which Matthew and Luke have edited (on the problem, cf. Trunk 1994, 165– 67; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:405– 6). 393 Frankemölle 1984, 21–27, because of the redactional change of πρὸς ὑμᾶς (Mark 9.19) into μεθ’ ὑμῶν, hears a resonance of the covenant-theological leitmotif of Matthew and interprets the verse as “a covenant-theologically tinged threat against the ‘unbelieving and perverted’ Israel” (26; trans. K. Ess). An intentional allusion to the Immanuel Christology introduced in Matt 1.23 (Frankemölle 1984, 26) is often postulated elsewhere, as well (see Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:107, 109–10; Gundry 1994, 350–51; Luz 2001–2007, 2:408). Contrast, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:724: “That there is any allusion to 1.23 . . . is improbable.” In fact, one can question whether this alteration can be loaded with theological or christological significance in the way it often is. For Matt 17.17 is concerned  only with (the length of) Jesus’ earthly presence, not with the presence of the resurrected Jesus, as in (18.20 and) 28.20. In addition, this alteration is possibly only a matter of stylistic smoothness, as the lexical statistics reveal a Matthean preference for μετά with the genitive (61 occurrences, μετά in total 71x), whereas, relatively speaking, πρός recedes in Matthew (only 41 occurrences, as opposed to 65 in Mark). 394 In addition to Mark 9.14, see the further mentions of the ὄχλος in Mark 9.15, 17, 25.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

241

to the conclusion that this must also be the case here.395 In other words, one must postulate that Matthew has Jesus use the disciples’ inability to heal the boy as an opportunity to raise a general complaint about the faithlessness of his Jewish contemporaries. Matthew has done better than this. Considering Matt 17.17 in the context of 17.14–20, one is practically forced to see the disciples as the object of criticism here.396 The Matthean version of the pericope presents an extremely abridged adaptation of the Markan text.397 As a result, the failure of the disciples emerges as a central theme of Matt 17.14–20, framing the complaint in v. 17 (vv. 16, 19).398 The instruction to the disciples in vv. 19–20 is not an appendix in Matthew, as it is in Mark, but is rather the “actual aim of the pericope.”399 Alongside this is the fact that Matthew has replaced the Markan Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question as to the reason for their failure—namely, that this kind can only be driven out through prayer (Mark 9.29). Matthew has instead given in v. 20 a logion (likely stemming from Q 17.6) about faith and, thus, by picking up the motif of faith from v. 17, carries forward the accusation contained in the lament: whoever has faith like a mustard seed can even move mountains. One could object here that the disciples, according to v. 20, are not faithless but, rather, as elsewhere in the Gospel,400 have little faith;401 yet this shift makes sense in view of the differing forms of speech—namely, in the lament in v. 17 and the instruction in v. 20. Verse 20 thus does not present an objection to the argument that γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη refers to the disciples but indeed strengthens it: the issue at hand is the ability that the disciples should in fact have possessed through their faith and due to the authority Jesus has transferred to them (Matt 10.1, cf. 10.8). The question ἕως πότε μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἔσομαι; can also be understood from this perspective: it does not address the fundamental theological question of the presence of God but rather problematizes whether the disciples, in the absence of the earthly Jesus, will be able to fulfill their  395

See, for example, Frankemölle 1984, 23–24. Held 1975, 180– 81; Zumstein 1977, 439; Harrington 1991a, 258; Gielen 1998, 144; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 240, n. 223; Nolland 2005, 712; and Fiedler 2006, 298, interpret 17.17 as a reference to the disciples. Sand 1986, 359, sees the disciples as being included; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:724, connect the reference to the crowds and the disciples with one another: “Jesus is casting a mournful eye over his disciples who have, by their ‘little faith,’ retrogressed to the spiritual level of the multitude.” 397 On the literary- critical problem, see n. 392. 398 Compare Held 1975, 178, 181. 399 Held 1975, 179 (trans. K. Ess); see also Luz 2001–2007, 2:405. 400 Compare Matt 6.30; 8.26; 14.31; 16.8. On the motif of “little faith” in Matthew, see, for example, Zumstein 1977, 239–55. 401 See Frankemölle 1984, 23; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:408, among others. 396

242

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

commission as it is presented in Matt 10.402 In short, Matt 17.17 is Jesus’ lament—aimed at the post-Easter situation of the Matthean community— that the disciples are unable to do anything without him, although they ought to be capable, according to 10.1. A further piece of evidence substantiates the argument that the lament refers to the disciples: in v. 16, Matthew has the boy’s father explain that he had brought his son to the disciples (προσήνεγκα αὐτὸν τοῖς μαθηταῖς σου, in contrast to Mark 9.17’s ἤνεγκα τὸν υἱόν μου πρὸς σέ). Jesus’ lament about the “faithless and perverse γενεά” is then followed in v. 17 by the command φέρετέ μοι αὐτὸν ὧδε. According to the context, the imperative sentence can only be read as addressed to the disciples, to whom the boy was previously brought by his father.403 One can hardly, then, presume anything else for the preceding lament.

Matt 17.17 thus does not support the thesis that γενεά collectively aims at Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries. At the same time, we can conclude that the reference of γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραμμένη to the disciples does not imply that these are placed on the same level with Jesus’ opponents. First, the  epithets  in  17.17  differ  significantly  from  the  characterization  of  the  opponents as evil and adulterous (12.39, 45; 16.4). Second—and this is the decisive point—the phrase here does not occur in the context of an announcement of judgment but rather of a lament.404 If the temporal aspect of γενεά, is emphasized, one could point to a common denominator in all the pieces of evidence: the eschatological generation is fundamentally characterized by the fact that it does not react appropriately to the ministry of the Messiah.405 At the same time, one can take into account here the significant  distinctions between the disciples and Jesus’ opponents, insofar as the association with this generation is presented very differently in the two cases 402 In terms of the composition, it should be pointed out that the preceding transfiguration narrative in Matt 17.2–9 is about Jesus’ transformation into his resurrected form, thus anticipating here the time of the earthly Jesus’ absence. 403 The omission of αὐτοῖς (Mark 9.19) in Matt 17.17—a minor agreement with Luke 9.41 (!)—does not contradict the notion that the Matthean Jesus has his disciples in view here (against Gundry 1994, 350); on the contrary, the reader can easily conclude that the disciples are in view from the context, whereas the ὄχλος, which is in any case mentioned only in passing, is too far away. In other words, if Matthew had wanted the accusation to refer to the crowds, he could have—and would have had to—mark this in the introduction to the speech. 404 This would still need to be taken into account even if the ὄχλοι were being addressed in 17.17. 405 Compare Lövestam 1980, 409–13; on Matt 17.17, see Nolland 2005, 712: “Here the disciples represent the present generation in its failure to respond to the ministry of Jesus, much as ‘some of the scribes and Pharisees’ do in Mt. 12:38–39.”

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

243

and Matt 17.17 is to be understood as exaggerated and presenting only certain aspects of the disciples’ character, not as a fundamental assessment. The dominance of the temporal aspect in the Matthean use of γενεά406 that is usually postulated, however, is by no means certain. Matt 17.17 itself can be regarded as an indication that Matthew tends to understand “this γενεά” as referring in each case to a certain group of people.407 Matt 23.36 points in the same direction.408 In Jesus’ announcement in Matt 24.34 (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται), the temporal meaning of γενεά appears, as suggested previously, to come to the fore,409 since vv. 32–33 address the nearness of the Parousia that is brought into view in vv. 29–31.410 If “this generation” will not pass away before Christ’s return, the Parousia must—at the time of the evangelist—be imminent.411 That this did not turn out to be the case may be regarded as a theological problem, but it is no exegetical argument against the proposed meaning of γενεά. Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, here too an exegetical difficulty emerges:412 if the Gospel of Matthew is to be dated around 80 CE, one must posit a time span of more413 than fifty years for “this generation.” Against this objection, one could at the most point to the fact that, in 1.12–16, Matthew has 406

Compare section 4.3.1, n. 231.

407 The argument by Luz 2001–2007, 2:408, that the disciples are too small a group to

be a γενεά, is unconvincing in view of the evidence given in section 4.3, n. 221. 408 See section 4.3.3. 409 Compare Wiefel 1998, 419: “Whereas this γενεά is mentioned otherwise only in an accusatory-threatening context, here, it appears in order to express a measure of time” (trans. K. Ess). For an interpretation of γενεά as a reference to the generation living at the time of Jesus, see also Sand 1986, 496–97; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:336; Luck 1993, 264; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:715; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:366– 68; and Nolland 2005, 988– 89; see also Erlemann 1995, 140 (on Mark 13.30par): “generation of the end times” (trans. K. Ess). It is taken apodictically by Luz 2001–2007, 3:208: “As in the other cases where it is used, γενεά clearly means ‘generation.’ Reinterpretations, of which there have been many even to the present, are useless.” Schweizer 1986, 299, considers a reference of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη “to the Judaism that is rejecting Jesus” (trans. K. Ess; in this vein, see also Schniewind 1962, 246; and Mussner 1987/1988, 25–26 [but without a negative qualification]). Walker 1967, 37, n. 84, however, sees here the meaning “human race”; but this  would render Matt 24.34 a statement hardly to be exceeded in its banality: humanity will exist until Jesus’ Parousia. 410 On the interpretation of Matt 24.29–31 by J. A. Gibbs 2000, 188–204, see section 4.1.4, n. 156. 411 Contra Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:407. 412 This is not about the theological problem, alluded to above, of Jesus’ possible mistake about the time of the Parousia (Luz 2001–2007, 3:208, n. 13; Nolland 2005, 989), as it emerges in a post-Matthean temporal perspective, but rather it is about a problem inherent to the text at Matthew’s level of communication. 413 The end has not yet been decided.

244

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

also been generous in counting the generations of the time from the exile to the birth of Jesus. The insertion of children as the next generation in 27.25—apparently with the intention of bridging the span of time between Jesus’ death and the destruction of Jerusalem414—points, however, in a different direction. In light of the preceding occurrences of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, therefore, an alternative ought to be considered—namely, that the emphasis in 24.34 also lies on the negative qualification of this γενεά. The question need not be decided here, for no interpretation imposes an Israel- specific reference: if γενεά in 24.34 is read temporally, it does not make sense—especially after 24.9–14—that this should mean only Jew­ ish contemporaries. If one emphasizes the fact that the γενεά opposes the ministry of (Jesus and) his disciples, once again, 24.9 makes the limitation to Jewish opponents impossible. With this, we can conclude that “this γενεά” does not function in Matthew as a collective designation for Israel or for the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus. In 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; 16.1– 4; and 23.34–36, “this γενεά” refers to the authorities; they are for Matthew the “evil and adulterous γενεά.” In addition, this fits well with the fact that Matthew omitted “this adulterous  and sinful γενεά” from Mark 8.38, where the phrase more broadly refers to the contemporaries in general. Matt 17.17, where a reference to the disciples is most likely, further confirms the Matthean tendency to use γενεά in order to qualify a certain group of people. For the thesis of an impending punishment of Israel due to the people’s behavior toward Jesus, or even of the condemnation of Israel, the words against “this γενεά” therefore cannot be claimed as evidence. Rather, they are integrated with the differentiation between the crowds and the authorities.

4.4 Speaking in Parables and the Incomprehension of the Crowds in Matt 13.3–23 Unlike the texts addressed in sections 4.1 and 4.3, 13.3–23 does not reflect  the  reaction  of  the  authorities  and  Jesus’  opponents.  Here,  it  is  rather (the) crowds who are in view, since according to the context, αὐτοῖς in Matt 13.10, 13, 14 and ἐκείνοις in 13.11 can only refer, as in 13.3a, to the ὄχλοι or πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος (13.2). Within the flow of the narrative, this negative assessment of the crowds is surprising. In 12.23, they had suggested that Jesus might be the Davidic Messiah, and 21.9 shows that they do not abandon this recognition of Jesus. Matt 13.10–17 highlights a different aspect than the narrative thread analyzed in section 3.1. Precisely what this aspect signifies (and whether, as is often argued,  414

On this, cf. section 3.2.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

245

Israel’s failure and condemnation are in view here415)  is  clarified  in  the  following discussion. The connection of the “parable theory” (13.10–17) with the parable of the sower and its interpretation is present already in Mark 4.3–20. In Matthew, the three segments of text are bound together into one unit more strongly than in Mark, as the following discussion shows. At the same time, Matt 13.3– 23 fits seamlessly with the preceding context in terms of  content—namely, the assessment of Jesus’ ministry that appeared in John the Baptist’s question in 11.2–3 and thereby the reaction to his ministry— since Jesus reflects on these topics in the parable of the sower. He is concerned with the (lacking) acceptance of the message of the kingdom of God (13.19, cf. 4.17, 23; 9.35 and 10.7). In three of the cases depicted, the sowing remains fruitless. It can be inferred from 13.10–17 that the crowds are in view here. The integration of 13.3–23 with the surrounding context shows itself further in the continued distinction of the disciples from the crowds in 13.10–17, as Matthew had already established in 12.46–50:416 while Jesus’ statement about his brothers and sisters in Mark 3.34–35 refers to those who sit in a circle around him, designated generally as ὄχλος in v. 32, Matthew has inserted the disciples here (Matt 12.49–50). With 13.3–23, the positive statement about the disciples in 12.46–50 is joined by an explicitly 415

Gnilka 1961, 89, 103, sees here unquestionably Israel’s hardness of heart and situates the passage within the supposed Matthean tendency to “convey to the reader of his Gospel the strong impression of the Jewish people’s unbelief, which justifies their replacement as God’s chosen people” (97; trans. K. Ess). Trilling 1964, 78, postulates that, by replacing the Markan ἵνα with ὅτι in 13.13, Matthew brings this passage into harmony with his fundamental conviction that “Israel has been condemned due to her own guilt” (trans. K. Ess). Kingsbury 1969, 52, sees “the [!] Jews” portrayed here as “a hardened people that stands under judgment”; they lose “the prerogatives connected with being the chosen people of God” (48). According to Sand 1986, 281, this is about “telling the Jews that they have not lived up to the claim to be the chosen people of God” (trans. K. Ess). Particularly on Matt 13.12, Sand comments: “The Jews have ensured through their own fault that their original calling will be taken away (carried off) from them” (280; trans. K. Ess). Very similarly, Luz 2001–2007, 2:246, comments on 13.12 that “Israel will lose its election because it does not accept Jesus’ preaching” (cf. n. 424). See further n. 442. Against this widespread model of interpretation (here illustrated by only a few examples), see Harrington 1991a, 198, who sees Matt 13.3–23 as addressing “an inner-Jewish situation” (see discussion with n. 462) and Vahrenhorst 2001, 162, who sees a positive perspective in the final clause of the Isaiah quotation καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς in 13.15. Yet, against this, it can be argued that this final clause, as well, is linked syntactically with μήποτε. In addition, Vahrenhorst appeals to 23.39—unjustly, as this verse is not about Israel (see section 4.3.3). On Roloff’s position, see n. 462. 416 On the contextual connection, compare Roloff 2005, 2: Matt 12.46–50 is supposed to “set the direction for the following and provide reading instructions for the discourse” (trans. K. Ess). On Matt 12.46–50, see section 3.1.1, n. 68.

246

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

negative statement about the crowds. Viewed from a diachronic perspective, it becomes clear that, as is laid out in Matt 12.46–50, Matthew advances the clear differentiation between the crowds and the disciples in 13.10–17 through the positive characterization of the disciples but not through a portrayal of the ὄχλοι that is significantly gloomier than in Mark. Rather,  one can point to the fact that Matthew skipped over the clear designation of the crowds as οἱ ἔξω (Mark 4.11).417 The altered portrayal of the disciples in Matthew can already be recognized in the reformulation of Mark 4.10 in Matt 13.10. Unlike in Mark 4.10, Matthew does not change the setting418 but simply has the disciples come closer to Jesus.419 The disciples now ask, not “about the parables” (Mark 4.10) but why Jesus speaks to the crowds in parables.420 The disciples thereby appear as a clearly distinct group already in their question, as was clearly set up in 12.46–50 but also emerged already in the commission of the disciples in 9.36ff. In their question, there is further a hint that they doubt that the coded form of speaking in parables—so long as no interpretation is added—is capable of moving the crowds to enter into discipleship.421 This, however, according to 13.11–17, is not what the parables are intended to achieve. The parable theory, which answers the disciples’ question (Mark 4.11–12), has been heavily edited and expanded in Matthew. Here, Jesus’ answer takes place in two steps (13.11–12, 13–17), and both are characterized by the direct contrast of the disciples and the crowds. The first line  of reasoning422 in vv. 11–12 argues with the passivum divinum δέδοται 417

Evans 1989, 109, sees here the intention “to tone down the distinction” at work. ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ μόνας in Mark 4.10 presupposes that the crowd from 4.1–2 has distanced itself. 419 Does the setting here presume that the disciples are with Jesus in the boat? The boat could then bear a connotation, based on Matt 8.18–27, as a metaphor for the community (against this possibility, cf. Kingsbury 1969, 23–24). 420 The formulation in Mark 4.10 is not clear in its meaning. Matthew’s version can be read as one possible interpretation of the Markan statement. By contrast, in Luke, the disciples do not ask about the reason for speaking to the crowds in parables but rather about the meaning of the parable itself (Luke 8.9). This, too, is a possible understanding of Mark 4.10—that is, Matthew and Luke have interpreted the unclear Markan sentence in different ways (cf. Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 2:387). Parables or figurative comparisons are  also present prior to Matt 13 (see, for example, Matt 7.24–27; 9.15–17; 11.16–19). But here, for the first time, Jesus’ proclamation is expressly characterized as speech in parables. In  Matt 12.25, Matthew omitted ἐν παραβολαῖς ἔλεγεν (Mark 3.23). 421 Compare Nolland 2005, 533: “Speaking to the crowds in parables is represented as a new move, and the disciples ask for an explanation of this strategy.” 422 The ὅτι introducing Jesus’ answer (v. 11) is not to be taken as a ὅτι-recitativum but rather—as in v. 13b—as a causal conjunction. Likewise, see Wilkens 1964, 308; van Elderen 1974, 182; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:389; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:372; Gundry 418

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

247

(v. 11) from the perspective of God’s revelatory action (cf. 11.25–27). With the insertion of γνῶναι in 13.11, Matthew has already turned the reader’s attention toward the insight that is explicitly ascribed to the disciples and is just as explicitly denied to the crowds through the replacement of ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται (Mark 4.11) with ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται. Matt 13.11, however, does not constitute the entire explanation but is supplemented in Matthew by the double logion from Mark 4.25 brought forward to Matt 13.12. More precisely, v. 11 presents the situation that Jesus reacts to by speaking in parables. Verse 12 makes it clear that the parables do not serve to overcome the crowds’ incomprehension but rather ratify it.423 Matthew does not explicate what it is that will yet be given to those who already have and will be taken away from those who do not have, yet in light of v. 11, particularly in view of the connection indicated by γάρ, it can be deduced that these verses are about awareness.424 Those “who have” are the disciples, and what they have is that which has been given to them according to v. 11:425 the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of 1994, 255; Lambrecht 1998, 159; Münch 2004, 89 with n. 71; Nolland 2005, 533; and Ewherido 2006, 104; contra M‘Neile 1957, 189, and the translations in Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:479; and Roloff 2005, 20. 423 Compare Nolland 2005, 534: “This verse . . . explains why the point made in v. 11 can stand as the basis for the present strategy of using parables with the crowds.” See also Wenham 1979, 520. 424 In this vein, see also, for example, Schmid 1965, 219; Evans 1989, 109; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:391 (“Knowledge is rewarded with knowledge, ignorance with ignorance.”); Hagner 1993/1995, 1:373; Gundry 1994, 256; Keener 1999, 381; and Ewherido 2006, 104; see also du Plessis 1987, 43. The notion that increase and decrease of understanding result in soteriological consequences might resonate here but is not emphasized in v. 12 itself—that is, it is not in the foreground, so that those who understand also (in addition to understanding) receive eschatological salvation, while those who lack understanding receive judgment (contra Kingsbury 1969, 46– 47; Sand 1986, 280; and Münch 2004, 109). That this is concerned in particular with the notion “that Israel will lose its election” (Luz 2001–2007, 2:246 [cf. n. 415], see also Gnilka 1961, 92 [“the cessation of Israel’s preferential position”; trans. K. Ess; cf. Gnilka 1967, 121–22]; van Elderen 1974, 186) does not emerge from the context in Matt 13 (see, rather, the following discussion), nor, as Luz 2001–2007, 2:246, suggests (see also van Elderen 1974, 186– 87; Wiefel 1998, 250, n. 21), can this be read into 13.12 from the perspective of 21.43 (on 21.43, see section 4.1.3). Considered diachronically, the idea that 21.43 might even be inspired by 13.12 (Trilling 1964, 58; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:246) is entirely unlikely, in view of the fact that the single point of contact between the verses is found in the pair δοθήσεται and ἀρθήσεται (in 21.43, in reverse order!), in contrast with a significant syntactic and concrete  difference. (In 21.43, the kingdom of God is not given to the one who already has but is taken away from the one and given to others.) The closest parallel to Matt 13.12 in the Gospel is 25.29. On the juxtaposition of δοθήσεται and ἀρθήσεται, see Gk. L.A.E. 13.5 (ὅτι ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία ἡ πονηρὰ καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτοῖς καρδία συνετιζομένη τὸ ἀγαθόν). 425 Contra Burchard 1998c, 81, according to whom δέδοται and οὐ δέδοται in v. 12

248

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

heaven. They are able to understand Jesus’ ministry as a messianic event and to recognize therein the approach of the kingdom of God (cf. 12.28).426 Through the interpretation of the parable of the sower, they are further instructed about the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven or, in the parables that follow in 13.24–33, about the kingdom itself and thus grow in the knowledge of the μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν. According to 13.35, Jesus proclaims what is hidden through the parables, and this hidden knowledge is counted among the μυστήρια of 13.11.427 The crowds, however, in lacking the insight that the kingdom of heaven is advancing in Jesus’ ministry, lack the fundamental requirement for understanding the parables,428 so that their deficiency comes to light in their inability to comprehend the parables of the kingdom of heaven in their significance and  their immediate relevance. If v. 12b is not to be read as simply a rhetorical emphasis or dramatization, it is implied here that the crowds do not observe Jesus’ ministry with complete incomprehension. In the interpretation of the parable of the sower, one can find a parallel to this in the second and third case (vv. 20–  22). They are not, however, advanced enough to recognize the reality of the kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry and to get involved in it. Once again, this is seen to be illustrated in vv. 20–22 but, to a certain extent, is also set up already in 12.43– 45.429 The state of simply being interested cannot be a permanent condition. Either interest solidifies into entry into discipleship  or the one who is only interested ultimately returns to the state he was are not addressed in the relative clauses but in δοθήσεται and ἀρθήσεται. But this does not fit with the perfect in v. 11, and, conversely, the connection with γάρ does not speak against δέδοται or οὐ δέδοται being addressed in the relative clauses, if one considers that v. 11 alone does not answer the disciples’ question but vv. 11–12 as a whole. In other words, v. 12 is not meant to establish that the disciples were given the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven because it will be given to those who have (contra, in addition to Burchard, Gnilka 1961, 92 [“This is meant to establish why God grants insight to some and withholds it from others”; trans. K. Ess]; Trilling 1964, 77). Verse 12 rather explains why the situation identified in v. 11 causes the speech in parables— that is, the  introductory question in v. 10 should resonate here in the understanding of the connection indicated by γάρ. 426 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:389, on τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν: “Its content, according to the consensus of modern scholarship, is the pres­ ence of the kingdom in Jesus and his ministry” (emphasis original). 427 Compare, for example, Münch 2004, 124–25. 428 Matt 13.35 is not in tension with 13.11–17; for in 13.35 it is said only that the parables make known what is hidden but not that the crowds are also able to comprehend this (cf. Münch 2004, 124–25). 429 As explained in section 4.3.2, Matt 12.43 addresses the danger that the authorities might acquire a renewed influence on the people to whom Jesus has ministered but who  have not yet taken the decisive step into discipleship.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

249

in before hearing the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας. Speaking in parables, according to 13.11–12, serves this separation, in that it widens the gap between those who understand and those who do not.430 This is underscored by the caesura in 13.36; the second part of the speech431 applies only to the disciples. Then, in v. 13a, Matthew has Jesus take up the disciples’ question from v. 10 verbatim.432 Yet this does not conclude his explanation; rather, Matthew segues into a second line of reasoning, in which now—following v. 13a— the assertion about the crowds takes precedence, in contrast to v. 11. Above all, that which v. 11 formulated in passivum divinum is now expressed in the active voice:433 the reader’s attention is now turned toward hearing and seeing on the part of humanity. The integration of 13.3–23 into the broader context, noted previously, is underscored here by the fact that the mention of hearing and seeing is reminiscent of Jesus’ injunction that John’s disciples tell their teacher ἃ ἀκούετε καὶ βλέπετε (11.4). This cross-reference at the same time underscores that 13.13–17 is concerned with hearing and seeing Jesus’ ministry. Corresponding with the direct contrast of the crowds and the disciples in Matt 13.11–12, in vv. 13–17, the addition of the macarism from Q (cf. Luke 10.23–24) in Matt 13.16–17 now contrasts the crowds’ failure to hear and see with the disciples’ ability to do so.434 The phrase καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν ὅτι ἀκούουσιν, which is not found in Luke 10.23, is likely the redactional work of the evangelist, who has created an exact contrasting parallel to Matt 13.13.435 Unlike the ὄχλοι, the disciples have received Jesus’ ministry—in the words of 11.2, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ—with “eyes that see” and “ears that hear.” The positive characterization of the disciples that emerges here is further documented in the fact that Matthew consequently omits Jesus’ reproach of the disciples’ lack of understanding found in Mark 4.13,436 430 Compare Evans 1989, 110: “Those who are not Jesus’ disciples, because of their spiritual insensitivity, are only bewildered further by Jesus’ parables, and so lapse deeper into ignorance.” 431 On the highly controversial structure, see Kingsbury 1969, 12–15. 432 Diachronically, one can see Mark 4.11b being adapted here. In the direct parallel in 13.11bβ, Matthew had created a contrast with the disciples’ statement in 13.11bα, instead of taking up Mark 4.11b. Only ἐκείνοις here comes from Mark 4.11. 433 Compare, for example, Lambrecht 1998, 159; and Münch 2004, 100–101. 434 ὑμῶν is emphatically placed in the initial position in Matt 13.16. The following particle δέ bears an entirely adversative emphasis. 435 The indicated parallel nature of the statements corresponds with the fact that the reference to the expectation of prophets and the righteous in v. 17 corresponds with the scriptural quotation Matthew has inserted in vv. 14–15. 436 In the contrast between the understanding disciples and the uncomprehending

250

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and  at  the  end  of  the  parable  discourse,  the  disciples  explicitly  confirm  that they have understood everything (13.51437). In the broader context of the Gospel, it can further be pointed out that Matthew has passed over Markan talk of the hardening of the disciples’ hearts in Mark 6.52 as well as in 8.17–18. Even more importantly, in Matthew’s version of the story of Jesus walking on water (Matt 14.22–33 / Mark 6.45–52), the disciples recognize Jesus as the Son of God (Matt 14.33) and thus demonstrate that their hearts are anything but hardened. And in Matt 16.12, Matthew once again explicitly affirms that the disciples have understood  (τότε συνῆκαν . . .). In contrast, the crowds, although they see Jesus’ deeds, do not see what is transpiring in them; and although they have heard his message, they do not hear what is now at stake. As has often been noted, Matthew has replaced the Markan ἵνα with ὅτι in 13.13b, corresponding with v. 11, and thereby  has  significantly  altered  the  sense:  the  Matthean  Jesus  does  not  speak ἐν παραβολαῖς in order that the crowds do not understand and thus do not come to repentance but rather because they are without understanding.438 Matthew presumes here, as 11.2– 6 also demonstrates, that Jesus’ messianic identity can be recognized in his deeds. If the crowds have not arrived at this insight, this is their failure, and speaking in parables is a reaction to this failure. Compared with Matt 11.7–30, the perspective has shifted  significantly:  there,  the  crowds  are  exhorted  to  take  note  of  the  decisive eschatological situation at hand and are invited to discipleship.439 The appeal from 11.15, “Whoever has ears, let him hear!” returns in 13.9, but it is now emphasized that “they hear and yet do not hear” (13.13) or hear and do not understand (13.19). While Matt 13.13b draws on Mark 4.12, it is characteristic that Matthew, in Matt 13.14–15, cites the words of Isaiah (Isa 6.9–10) that are crowds, Matthew is not concerned with whether the disciples have recognized that Jesus addressed the hearing of the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας in the parable; he explains this to them in 13.18–23. For Matthew, it is important that they have understood the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας itself. Matthew has likewise been consistent in leaving out οὐδὲ συνίετε; πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν; ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες οὐ βλέπετε καὶ ὦτα ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀκούετε; from Mark 8.17–18 in the chastisement of the disciples in Matt 16.9, so that no tension with Matt 13.10–17 arises (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:586, 591). 437 This verse is again a Matthean proprium. 438 Compare Wilkens 1964, 311–12; Klauck 1986, 252; Evans 1989, 107, 110; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:392; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:163, 173; Luz 2001–2007, 2:246; and Ewherido 2006, 105, among others. Matthew thereby avoids the notion of a praedes­ tinatio ad malum in favor of human responsibility (cf. 2.17; 27.9). Compare Strecker 1971, 106, n. 2. Roloff 2005, 22, sees here the “predestinarian resonance of the statement” as “mellowed” but “by no means eliminated” (trans. K. Ess). 439 On Matt 11.7–30, see section 4.3.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

251

behind the Markan verse440 and thereby expressly places the scene within  a  biblical  horizon  (see  also  Jer  5.21;  Ezek  12.2).  Like  the  fulfillment quotations in 2.17–18 and 27.9–10, which are applied to hostility against  Jesus,  the  evangelist  thus  makes  it  clear  that  the  deficient  reaction of many people is no reason for confusion but rather fully accords with the testimony of Scripture. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Matt 13.14–15, in terms of both form and content, does not belong  in  the  series  of  fulfillment  quotations  of  2.17– 18;  27.9– 10:  here,  the  citation  does  not  address  hostility  but  a  deficient  understanding  or  incomprehension.441 It  is  significant  for  our  purposes  here  that  the  “hardening”  of  the  καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου in the citation in no way indicates that the incomprehension of the ὄχλοι is to be read as a general statement about God’s people Israel as a whole.442 We can point, first, to the differentiated  or oscillating usage of λαός in the Old Testament and Early Jewish tradition, presented in the discussion of Matt 27.25.443 Second, the introduction to the citation, announcing that Isaiah’s prophecy is “fulfilled” in or by the 440 The quotation is hardly an interpolation, but rather, despite objections raised against its originality (Gnilka 1961, 103–5 [cf. Gnilka 1967, 127]; Kingsbury 1969, 38–39; Rothfuchs 1969, 23–24; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:393–94; Stendahl 1991, 131–32), is to be attributed to Matthew’s hand (with Grundmann 1986, 340; Luz 2001–2007, 2:237– 38; Münch 2004, 93–95; Nolland 2005, 535; and Roloff 2005, 23–25, among others). This is substantiated by the fact that the Matthean insertion of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ in 13.19 is likely inspired by the quotation (see v. 15; cf. n. 450 and n. 472). 441 Matthew could have easily created a greater proximity to Matt 2.17–18 and 27.9–10 with the introduction to the quotation or by selecting Jer 5.21 instead of Isa 6.9–10. Altogether, caution is called for with regard to considering Matt 13.14–15 as a part of the series of fulfillment quotations (with Soares Prabhu 1976, 35; Sand 1986,  279, 280; and Nolland 2005, 535, among others; contra, for example, Evans 1989, 110; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:373; Lambrecht 1998, 153; and Roloff 2005, 23–25). The use of ἀναπληροῦται in the introduction does point to a concrete proximity to this group of quotations, but the fulfillment quotations possess a relatively firmly established introductory formula (there is always the simplex πληροῦν and τὸ ῥηθὲν διά, not ἡ προφητέια), and they are Matthew’s commentary, not Jesus’ speech. In other words, the particularities of the introduction indicate an independent context in Matt 13.14–15. Conversely, these particularities do not imply that Matt 13.14–15 is “un-Matthean” (Gnilka 1961, 105) or is to be discarded as a gloss (see n. 440); rather, they only mean that Matthew  did  not  want  to  situate  this  quotation  within  the  series  of  the  other  fulfillment  quotations. 442 In this vein, see also Saldarini 1994, 31; contra, for example, Hare 1967, 149–50; Sand 1986, 280; Luck 1993, 160; Luz 2001–2007, 2:247; and Ewherido 2006, 6, 105, 109– 10, and elsewhere. On Garbe’s thesis, see n. 466. 443 See the discussion in section 3.2. In the case of the Isaiah quotation in Matt 13.14– 15, the demonstrative pronoun implies that there are others in addition to the λαός in view, which indicates that this is not about “the people of God” in an emphatic sense.

252

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

crowds (αὐτοῖς),444 indicates that Matthew wants to point to a correlation here,445 whereby an aspect of “filling up the measure” might resonate in  the prefix ἀνα-: what is said of the λαός in Isa 6.9–10 is now taking place in the crowds and, moreover, reaches the full measure here, in accordance with the proximity of the kingdom of heaven. The use of the Isaiah quotation in Matt 13.14–15 stands alongside 15.7–9. Here too, the quotation (Isa 29.13) speaks of “this people” (ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, Matt 15.8). Here, too, the citation of Isaiah is not meant to indicate that all Israel at the time of Jesus honors God only with their lips, being far from him in their hearts and teaching human commandments, but rather, in context, it concerns the Pharisees and the scribes.446 And, here too, this reference for the citation’s application is explicitly identified in the introduction (ἐπροφήτευσεν περὶ ὑμῶν Ἠσαΐας, 15.7).

The Isaiah citation in Matt 13.14–15 is closely connected with the surrounding context not only in the theme of hearing and seeing but more broadly also in the theme of repentance that fails due to hardened hearts, deaf ears, and closed eyes (μήποτε . . . ἐπιστρέψωσιν). In ἐπιστρέφειν one finds a verbal variation on the exhortation to repent in view of the nearness  of the kingdom, with which Jesus’ proclamation in 4.17 began. Further, the final segment (καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς) can be connected with the goal God pursues in sending Jesus. Thus, we can conclude that, with the citation of Isaiah in 13.14–15, Matthew emphasizes that the crowds’ hardened hearts, deaf ears, and closed eyes prevent the adequate reception of Jesus’ ministry, and thereby the necessary repentance, so that God’s purpose of healing them through Jesus’ ministry447 does not reach its goal among the crowds. Matthew does not, however, describe this situation as being intended by God. Nor does it follow from 13.13–15 that the situation is irreversible for each individual. In general, the text does not suggest that speaking in parables is to be understood as punishment for those who do not understand.448 Rather, it has the function of holding the people accountable for their unwillingness to see and to hear449 and of promoting the contrast between For an instrumental understanding of αὐτοῖς, see Gundry 1994, 257 (“by them”). In this vein, see also, for example, Hagner 1993/1995, 1:374: “typological correspondence.” 446 See also, for example, Saldarini 1994, 30; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:203; and Fiedler 2006, 279; contra Luz 2001–2007, 2:332. 447 On the significance of Jesus’ healing activity, see section 2.1.3. 448 Contra, for example, Gnilka 1961, 103 (“The parabolic discourse is, in Matthew’s eyes, a punishment that the people receives for its hardness of heart”; trans. K. Ess); Meier 1979, 90; and Lambrecht 1998, 161. 449 Compare Roloff 2005, 34. 444 445

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

253

the disciples and those who are simply interested but do not advance to the recognition of Jesus’ true significance. Judgment is impending for the latter, but the verdict has by no means been pronounced with 13.11–15—for the possibility of a change of heart is not ruled out from the start. Matt 13.11–15 takes stock of the situation with regard to the crowds but does not close the book on it; it is more appropriate to speak of a provisional conclusion. Further, these verses are not concerned with judgment that threatens Israel as a whole. Both aspects can be illustrated in 13.18–23. While Matthew has followed Mark in situating the parable theory between the parable of the sower and its interpretation, he has related the two sections more closely to one another by redactionally framing the interpretation with the aspect of (not) understanding (vv. 19, 23) that was raised in the parable theory, so that 13.3–23 emerges more clearly as a single unit of text.450 In the second and third cases, interpreted in vv. 20–21, 22, the motif of incomprehension is not explicitly repeated, and other accents are placed here.451 On the whole, however, a dichotomy analogous to that drawn in 13.10–17, of those who understand and those who do not, can also be seen in 13.18–23:452 those who bear fruit and those who do not stand in contrast to one another.453 Further, the object of understanding in 13.19 is the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (diff. Mark 4.14–15), which picks up on τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν in v. 11.454 With regard to 13.10–17, given the compositional position indicated previously and the connection with 13.3– 9, 18–23 that Matthew furthers, it follows that the parable of the sower and its interpretation must be taken into account when interpreting 13.10–17.455 450 This is further underscored by the insertion of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ in 13.19, as Matthew thereby adopts a key word from the Isaiah quotation in vv. 14–15. 451 According to Sand 1986, 282; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:486; and Ewherido 2006, 116, 121–22, among others, the motif of the lack of understanding is to be supplemented for the second and third cases, as well. See also Klauck 1986, 207 (“καὶ μὴ συνιέντος applies to the first three sections and with καὶ συνιείς in v. 23 constitutes an inclusio” [trans. K. Ess]), as well as Kingsbury 1969, 61; and Grundmann 1986, 343, on v. 20 and v. 23. Contrast Nolland 2005, 539: “Presumably Matthew will allow that some understanding has taken place in the subsequent instances.” 452 Gundry 1994, 260, emphasizes the contrast between understanding and not understanding for Matt 13.18–23, as well: Matthew’s “primary interest lies in the distinction between understanding and not understanding (see vv 19 and 23), not in the four distinctions original to the interpretation.” See further, for example, von Gemünden 1993, 231. 453 One can further point to the fact that the triadic internal differentiation in v. 23 corresponds with the three-part internal differentiation within the group of those who bear no fruit (cf. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:385). 454 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 2:245. 455 This is further underscored in that the interpretation of the parable in Matt 13.18– 23, unlike the Markan version, is not set apart by a renewed introduction to Jesus’ speech. Matthew rather offers one continuous speech from Jesus to the disciples in 13.11–23. The

254

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

In view of the indicated connection, it is evident that the understanding disciples return to view in the fourth group of the parable’s interpretation— that is, in those who bear fruit (13.23). The first three groups (vv. 19– 22),  in contrast, shed light in various ways on the situation of the crowds, who according to 13.13–15 are without understanding. Further, it is clear from the contextual integration of the parable interpretation that the parable does not (primarily) address internal problems of the community456 (since the field  is  not  the  Church)  but,  rather,  comprehensively  deals  with  the  reaction to the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας. The second and third examples (13.20–22) address cases in which people initially react positively to the word: they associate with the community for a certain amount of time—the omission of οἱ ἔξω from Mark 4.11 in Matt 13.11, noted previously, fits in well with  this point—but then for various reasons do not fully join the community in the long run. According to the context, these are ultimately subsumed under the category of the crowds. In light of the interpretation of the parable in 13.18–23, this makes it clear that the boundary between the disciples and the crowds is by no means drawn as clearly as it at first appears in 13.10– 17. More important than this, however, is another aspect of the passage: as indicated previously, the sower’s activity has in view first of all Jesus’ own  ministry,457 his proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven (4.23; 9.35, cf. λόγος τῆς βασιλείας in 13.19), and the various ways it is received. As shown in chapter 2, Jesus’ earthly ministry in Matthew is decidedly ὑμῶν (δέ) that is emphatically placed in the initial position in v. 16 is taken up by the likewise emphasized ὑμεῖς οὖν, which opens the sentence in v. 18. In the renewed introduction to speech in 13.24, marking a new paragraph, αὐτοῖς then, as confirmed by 13.34, refers back to the ὄχλοι, entirely in line with the αὐτοῖς in v. 3 (cf. vv. 10, 13). 456 Matt 13.18–23 is often, however, situated within an ecclesial horizon. Thus Sand 1986, 283, sees in the text a warning that “the community troubled by lawlessness, persecution, and hardship, by secularization and earthly worries . . . [should] not just hear but also understand the word of the kingdom (of God), in order thereby to do the will of God” (trans. K. Ess). According to Luz 2001–2007, 2:250, “Matthew obviously believes that there are people in the church who are not at all touched by the word of the kingdom and some in whom the word is stunted before it bears fruit.” Roloff 2005, 40– 42, sees the interpretation of the parable as showing “four possibilities of behavior for the members of the community regarding the λόγος τῆς βασιλεῖας [sic]” (42; trans. K. Ess; emphasis added). Lambrecht 1998, 164, postulates: “The explanation is meant more as parenesis and exhortation; it is directed to the church community of Matthew.” And according to Gundry 1994, 250, the speech in parables is concerned with the distinction between “false disciples” and “true disciples,” but this is based on a misunderstanding of the ὄχλοι as disciples (251: “the crowds represent the whole mixed body of professing disciples, the false as well as the true” [on Gundry’s view of the ὄχλοι, see section 3.1.1, n. 19]). On the ecclesial interpretation, see further, for example, Kingsbury 1969, 54– 63. For rejection of a focus on an intracommunity problem, see Harrington 1991a, 198, 201; see further Ewherido 2006, 119–20, 122. 457 Compare Kingsbury 1969, 34; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:399; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:379; Gundry 1994, 251, 252, 258; and Roloff 2005, 13.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

255

situated within the framework of the exclusive mission to Israel. When one considers this narrative context, and more specifically the thematic interconnection between 13.18– 23 and the reflection on the Jewish crowds’ lack  of  understanding  in  13.10– 17,  then  the  field  here,  as  noted  previously,  is  neither the Church nor the world, as it is in 13.38 (at least not primarily).458 Rather, the passage is concerned in the first instance with reflection about  Jesus’ ministry specifically in Israel.459 The parable does not speak, as we have seen, of the ministry’s complete failure,460 but rather (ultimately) places successful and unsuccessful sowing side by side, or opposite one another, and thus reflects on how the community emerges within Israel and from  Israel. The dichotomy of Israel and Church (taken for granted today), therefore, is not to be read into the text here by identifying the first three groups  with Israel or “the Jews.”461 The text is not concerned here with a contrast between Israel’s failure on the one hand and the emergence of the ecclesia on the other. Rather, the context indicates that it is concerned with a process of differentiation within Israel. With regard to the Matthean community’s conception of itself, Matt 13.3–23 implies: “The Matthean community views itself as part of Israel, indeed the ‘best’ part.”462 Accordingly, the crowds’ lack of understanding, established in 13.10– 17,  is  not  to  be  identified  with  a  “hardness  of  heart”463 in all Israel.464 458 Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:487, and Burchard 1998c, 89, however, take this in reference to the world. 459 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:399: “The issue is Israel’s response to Jesus and his proclamation.” 460 Here one cannot, like Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:399, see Israel’s response to Jesus addressed in the parable, on the one hand (see n. 459), but on the other, as often occurs (alongside those listed in n. 415 and n. 442, see e.g., Hagner 1993/1995, 1:375 [“unbelief of Israel”] and 376), speak without differentiation of “Israel’s failure” (Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:403). 461 Compare, for example, Kingsbury 1969, 35: “[T]he contrast is . . . between the Word as proclaimed to the Jews, who have not responded to it, and the Word as proclaimed to the disciples, or Church, who have.” One can ask whether, in this “solution” to the parable, the dichotomy of Israel and Church, Judaism and Christianity, familiar from our context, functions from the outset as a hermeneutical filter. 462 Harrington 1991a, 198, further explains: “It [the Matthean community] must explain to itself and to anyone else who may be interested why some Jews accept the gospel and some do not.” See also Roloff 2005, 28, who regards as “rather questionable” the idea that in 13.10–17 Matthew “wants to point to a fundamental condemnation of Israel that has already occurred at the time of Jesus. . . . A better argument can be made that he wanted to keep this image open with regard to his own time as well. The uncomprehending people, then, would depict those people from Israel who closed their minds to the missionary message of Jesus’ followers” (trans. K. Ess). 463 In view of the replacement of the Markan ἵνα with ὅτι, there can in any case be no discussion of a “hardening of hearts” caused by God (cf. Burchard 1998c, 83). 464 Contra Hare 1967, 149–50; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:475, 483–84 (cf. Gnilka 1961, 89,

256

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Rather, through the surrounding parable of the sower, it becomes clear that the proclamation in Israel is by no means met only with rejection and incomprehension,465 and the contrary viewpoint, as we have seen, cannot be drawn from the Isaiah citation in Matt 13.14–15.466 In addition, with regard to the crowds, 13.3– 23 reflects the development that has occurred up  to that point, without an interruption of communication467 or a fundamental change in Jesus’ behavior toward the crowds.468 Jesus rather continues to minister to the crowds, teaches them, and even explicitly exhorts them to hear and understand (ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε, in 15.10; see also 23.1–39).469 This confirms the thesis proposed previously that Matt 13.11– 15 does not  contain an unalterable conclusion, especially since 21.9 shows that the crowds do indeed develop a certain christological insight beyond the level of 12.23. There is one more aspect to be discussed in this connection. While the group of those who hear the word, understand, and bear fruit has in view the (true) disciples, it should also be kept in mind that the disciples themselves, according to 9.36–10.42, are commissioned by Jesus to proclaim the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας. Thus they find themselves portrayed in the parable  not only in the fourth group but also to a certain extent in the role of the sower.470 The development that takes place on the narrative level during 97, 103); Lambrecht 1998, 178; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:237, 246, among others. Against the thesis that Matthew implies a hardness of heart of Israel as a whole, see also Roloff 2005, 35, according to whom the reference of αὐτοῖς in v. 14a to the “hearers of Jesus’ parabolic proclamation” (v. 10) speaks “against an understanding of the quotation as a fundamental statement about the hardness of heart of the whole Jewish people and its inability to hear Jesus’ message” (trans. K. Ess). 465 It should be observed, apart from this, that Matthew continuously formulates the interpretation of the parable in the singular (see οὗτός ἐστιν in vv. 19, 20, 22, 23; cf. Sand 1986, 282; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:485; Luz 2001–2007, 2:248; Nolland 2005, 540; and Roloff 2005, 39). Matthew is clearly concerned with the individual “seeds,” not with group liability. 466 Garbe 2005, 209, relativizes the significance of the statement on the “hardness of heart” with regard to Israel with the thesis that this is “limited to the Israel contemporary with Jesus” (trans. K. Ess). This, however, is not the decisive point, and can hardly be sustained, since 13.3–23 is without doubt, on the evangelist’s level of communication, transparent for the community’s own experiences. 467 Contra Burchard 1998c, 82– 83, 86. Against the thesis of a breakdown in communication, see also Roloff 2005, 34, as well as Nolland 2005, 537. 468 The thesis of Kingsbury 1969, 13, 31, 130–31, that Matt 13 is the “turning-point” (130) of the Gospel (followed by Drury 1985, 82– 83; see also Ryan 1978, 33) is therefore mistaken. For criticism of Kingsbury’s thesis, see also Luomanen 1998b, 125 with n. 6; Luz 2001–2007, 2:229; 292; Münch 2004, 98–99; and Roloff 2005, 2–3. 469 Conversely, the danger of uncomprehending hearing also threatens the disciples. In 13.43, the call to awaken (cf. 11.15; 13.9) applies to them. 470 Compare Kingsbury 1969, 35: “The sower is Jesus. At one time he delivered his message personally; after Easter, as the exalted Kyrios, he speaks through his Church.” See

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

257

Jesus’ earthly ministry here becomes transparent for the situation reached by the community’s mission. On this level, 13.18–23 is in principle open to a rereading from the perspective of 28.19—that is, it can be applied to the mission to all nations, so that the meaning of the field is to be broadened  along the lines of 13.38; yet in view of the contextual reference to the Jewish crowds in 13.10– 17, it is likely that a reflection of the efforts for the “lost  sheep of the house of Israel” (10.6) at least stands in the foreground, as has been presumed in the exegesis up to now. The preceding observations are to be understood within the social situation of the community, which therefore should be briefly addressed here.471 Some are without understanding from the beginning.472 The fact that Matthew, in 13.19, speaks of the πονηρός instead of Satan is likely to be interpreted as intentionally ambiguous, in terms of the context of the Gospel as a whole: on the one hand, Matthew has Satan in view in the πονηρός, but at the same time, as we have seen, he has portrayed the authorities as intrinsically evil (see, above all, 12.34–35 on the Pharisees).473 Moreover, the redactional verb ἁρπάζειν links 13.19 with the violence saying in 11.12, according to which “violent men (βιασταί)”—which has in view the authorities as Jesus’ opponents—seek to take the kingdom of heaven by force.474 For 13.19, it follows that, if the proclamation is wasted on some people from the beginning, it is because they are under the influence of the authorities/ Pharisees.475 Others receive the word “with joy” at first but then fall away when  also Carter and Heil 1998, 71: “[T]he sower who went out . . . to sow [v 3b] also portrays the disciples.” See also Nolland 2005, 539, on the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας: “The activity is intended to embrace both the preaching of Jesus and that of the early church.” The thesis that 13.18– 23 is at least also to be read as a reflection of the community’s mission can be  seen alongside the interpretation of weeds among the wheat in 13.36– 43—for the sowing of the good seed by the (exalted) Son of Man is to be taken in reference to the resurrected one sending out his disciples in order to make disciples of all people (cf. Vögtle 1971b, 271). 471 Compare chapter 7. 472 It is occasionally deduced from τὸ ἐσπαρμένον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ that, in this case, as well, there is first an acceptance of the word (see, for example, Kingsbury 1969, 55; and von  Gemünden 1993, 231), but the insertion of ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ can probably be sufficiently  explained by the effort to connect the interpretation with 13.10–17 (see 13.15: ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου . . . , μήποτε . . . τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν). The word is thus sown in the hearts  of  the  people  in  the  first  group,  but  they  do  not  understand  in  their  hearts.  Nor  is  the remark that they “hear” (cf. v. 19) in tension with vv. 13–15, as v. 14 shows (“they hear and do not understand”), and v. 13 (καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν) means nothing other than this. Thus the fact that someone hears the word in v. 19 is not “tantamount to saying that he becomes a Christian” (against Kingsbury 1969, 55). 473 Compare section 4.3.2. For comparison, one can point out that the designation of the devil as ὁ πειράζων in 4.3 stands alongside Jesus’ being tempted by the authorities in 16.1; 19.3; 22.18, 35 (cf. Gundry 1994, 55). 474 On the interpretation, see in section 4.3.1. 475 The sole reference of ὁ πονηρός in Matt 13.19 to Satan is the common interpretation

258

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

“affliction  or  persecution  for  the  sake  of  the  word”  arises  (13.21,  cf.  5.10– 12;  10.18). Here, too, it is essentially affliction at the hands of the authorities— more  specifically the Pharisees— that comes to mind in view of the social context of the  Matthean community (or communities). Matt 13.21 reflects the experience that  some who are at first positively affected by the message of the ecclesia withdraw  because of social pressure and (the threat of) victimization; the verse thereby points to the conflict the community is experiencing. Further, there is the danger  that comes from worldly cares and treacherous wealth (13.22).476

In reading Matt 13.18–23 with reference to the mission of the community, it must also be observed that this does not appear as purely unsuccessful; rather, with v. 23, these verses also point to the fact that the proclamation of the community continues to bring in new disciples. Further, just as it was concluded previously that 13.10– 17 does not function as a final stroke  on the level of the Matthean narrative, so also on the level of the evangelist’s communication with his community, it applies mutatis mutandis that 13.10–23 cannot be read as anything other than a provisional conclusion. The community can look back on the development of its missionary efforts on the basis of the parable theory and the interpretation of the parable of the sower and can reflect on the status quo that has been reached. Their  mission,  however,  is  by  no  means  finished,  and  in  light  of  the  enduring  missionary task,477 13.18–23 at the same time points to the future and thus drives the current situation forward. The community may continue to hope that—alongside the rejection their message often encounters for the reasons given previously—the word also falls upon good soil and does so not only in the mission to the Gentiles but also in the mission to Israel. The contrast, then, between the disciples and the crowds is not fixed in a static  sense but rather addresses a dynamic process: there are, so to speak, also crowds that become disciples. We can conclude that Matt 13.3–23 does not speak of the hardening of hearts of all Israel; rather, the disciples appear as a group that has emerged (and continues to exist) through Jesus’ ministry in Israel. Neither is the assessment of the crowds’ lack of understanding to be read as a definitive  assertion of condemnation. In terms of the portrayal of the crowds, we must (see, for example, Kingsbury 1969, 56; Harrington 1991a, 196; Gundry 1994, 259; Luz 2001–2007, 2:248; Nolland 2005, 539; and Roloff 2005, 43– 44). Unlike the discussion above, van Tilborg 1972, 43, situates the authorities in Matt 13.19. He regards it as likely “that Mt in his παντὸς ἀκούοντος τὸν λόγον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ μὴ συνιέντος has thought of the Jewish leaders as the prototype of everybody who refuses to accept the good tidings of the Kingdom.” 476 Both are also connected in Matt 6.19–34. 477 On the continuation of the mission to Israel, see section 2.3.

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

259

take into account the fact that each particular text addresses a particular aspect. Matt 13.10–23 does not present the definitive evaluation of the  crowds any more than 21.9 does.478 In the cast of characters in the Matthean story of Jesus, the ὄχλοι are a complex and differentiated entity that must be perceived in this complexity and brought to bear on the level of communication of the evangelist. On the one hand, 13.3– 23 serves to reflect upon,  classify, and process negative experiences in the community’s mission; on the other, the texts that express a positive reaction among the crowds in contrast to the authorities read as encouragement for further missionary efforts. However, even in 13.18–23, the accent does not lie on the negative experiences alone, and while 13.10–23 looks back at past history, the situation in view here is simultaneously rendered dynamic insofar as the task of proclaiming the kingdom of heaven has not yet come to an end.

4.5

The “Judgment” of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in Matt 19.28

In concluding this chapter, we need only briefly address the promise Jesus  makes to his disciples in Matt 19.28 that at the renewal of all things,479 when the Son of Man has taken his seat on the throne of his glory,480 they will sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Considered diachronically, the logion—likely from Q (cf. Luke 22.30)481—is a Matthean 478

The positive portrayal of the fruit-bearing disciples can also not be taken absolutely as the one and only statement about the community. Rather, in the context of the Gospel as a whole, this is balanced out by more critical overtones (see, for example, 7.21– 23; 22.11–14). Therefore, an ecclesially oriented rereading of Matt 13.18–23 is possible, although this cannot be regarded as the evangelist’s primary intention, particularly in view of  the  connection  with  the  “parable  theory.”  This  simultaneously  confirms  that,  in  the  larger context, the border between disciples and ὄχλοι has not been drawn so sharply as it appears when reading Matt 13 alone. And this again underscores the necessity, as explicated above, of observing the individual texts as bearing particular aspects. Matt 13 does not contain the whole picture but rather contributes to it. 479 In light of the passing away of heaven and earth in Matt 5.18; 24.35, παλιγγενεσία can hardly be taken in reference simply to the resurrection of the dead (but see Derrett 1984, 51–55; also preferred by Luz 2001–2007, 2:517; postulated as one aspect by Burnett 1983, 64– 65), but rather means more comprehensively, as most scholars assume, the new creation of the world (see, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:172; Sim 1993b, 4–12; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:565; and Nolland 2005, 798–99). The restitution of Israel as the twelve tribes (see, for example, Gundry 1994, 392), which begins with the mission of the disciples, can be integrated as one aspect of the new creation. 480 Whether the ὅταν- clause is the work of the evangelist, as it is in the parallel passage in 25.31 (see, for example, Broer 1975, 151–52; see also Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 3:55), or serves to a certain extent as a model for 25.31, cannot be determined with sufficient certainty (cf. Luz 2001– 2007, 2:510). 481 Most interpreters ascribe the logion to Q (see, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:169–70; Karrer 1993, 159– 60; Sim 1993b, 3; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:39, 55;

260

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

insertion into the Markan context of Mark 10.28–31. After the failed calling of a rich man to discipleship has emphasized that affluence is a serious  impediment to entry into the kingdom of heaven, Peter—as spokesperson for the disciples—asks what those who have left everything to follow Jesus will have. The Markan Jesus in Mark 10.29–30 responds with an answer formulated as a general statement (οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν . . .), whose counterpart is found in Matt 19.29. In the Matthean context, though, the promise inserted in 19.28 precedes this response with a statement that, in view of the twelve thrones, can hardly be read in any other way than in reference to the circle of the twelve disciples (later without Judas). Thus the twelve here do not stand for believers in Christ as such.482 Not until v. 29 is the reference generalized.483 Verse 28, in contrast, is first of all concerned  with the particular reward of the disciples, who have left everything and traveled around with Jesus.484 Although the emphasis in v. 28, according to the context, is on the subject, not the object, of κρίνειν,485 it nevertheless cannot be ignored that the disciples’ position of honor in the kingdom of God is formulated in reference to Israel with the imagery of sitting upon twelve thrones and the κρίνειν of the twelve tribes.486 κρίνειν is not uncommonly understood in the sense of “to rule,”487 in alignment with the spectrum of meaning in the Hoffmann 1998, 253, 262; and Fiedler 2006, 315). But see the cautious evaluation by, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:510. 482 Contra, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:516–17, 128f, and Broer 1975, 164, who here, too, shift the element of transparency of the twelve for the present disciples into the foreground. Critical of this is Hoffmann 1998, 257, who rightly concludes: “19.28 is specifically concerned with the twelve” (trans. K. Ess). See also those listed in n. 483. 483 In this vein also, for example, see Sand 1986, 399; Morris 1992, 496; Wiefel 1998, 340– 41; and Nolland 2005, 801; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:58. Matthew has significantly shortened Mark 10.29– 30. The latter promises a “hundredfold” gift,  which is developed in two directions—namely, with regard to both the earthly life and the eschaton: “now in this age houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields in the midst of persecutions, and in the world to come, eternal life.” Matthew,  however, looks only to the hundredfold gift and the inheritance of eternal life. In view of the omission, the first is probably meant to be solely eschatological. 484 On the Matthean concept of the circle of the twelve, see in section 6.3. Matt 5.12, 19; 10.41– 42; 11.11; 18.1– 4; and 20.23 reveal that Matthew is aware of the notion that there are various degrees of honor in the kingdom of heaven. 19.28 can be located within this idea: here the highest rank is promised to the twelve (cf. Wong 1992, 142). 485 Compare Broer 1975, 164; and Wong 1992, 142. 486 At the same time, the verse’s primary function of emphasizing the disciples’ place of honor in the kingdom of God already urges caution in deriving—based on the juxtaposition of Matt 19.28 and 25.31– 46— a conceptually developed differentiation of the final  judgment as consisting of one judgment for Israel and one for Gentiles. On this question, see further in section 5.4. 487 Thus, for example, Beare 1981, 399; Gundry 1994, 393; and Davies and Allison

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

261

Hebrew ‫ׁשפט‬.488 There is, however, no clear philological evidence to support this.489 One can only say that “judgment” is an important function of a ruler and, in this respect, “judgment” can indicate sovereign rank. According to Pss. Sol. 17.26, the judgment (κρίνειν) of the “tribes of the people who have been made holy by the Lord their God” is one of the apparently permanent tasks of the Davidic Messiah, who, as Pss. Sol. 17.27 goes on to say, “will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to lodge among them.” The influence  of such a conception could also be seen in Matt 19.28. κρίνειν would not, then,  refer  specifically  to  the  execution  of  the  final  judgment  but  rather  would be an expression of the sovereign rank of the twelve in the kingdom of God. An analogous understanding appears in the Lukan reception of Q 22.30, where the mention of sitting on thrones and judging the twelve tribes is preceded by the statement that the disciples will eat and drink at Jesus’ table at the eschatological feast, which speaks against a specific  reference to the final judgment.490 If κρίνειν does not signify specifically  the disciples’ function on the day of judgment but rather their place within the kingdom of God, this can be linked with the restitution of the twelve tribes, which is inaugurated with Jesus’ attendance upon the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15.24, cf. 10.6). There would then be no reference whatsoever to a condemnation of Israel in 19.28. The same, however, is true mutatis mutandis if 19.28 is interpreted in terms of a participation of the twelve in the final judgment,491 in which 1988–1997, 3:55–56; see also Turner 2008, 475 with n. 3. If κρίνειν is understood in the sense of “to rule,” a coherent concept results when παλιγγενεσία is taken in reference to the eschatological restitution of the twelve tribes (cf. Gundry 1994, 393): the twelve disciples function as rulers over the restituted twelve tribes of Israel. One could then compare T. Jud. 25.1: “And after this Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be resurrected to life and I and my brothers will be chiefs (wielding) our scepter in Israel: Levi, the first; I, second; Joseph,  third; Benjamin, fourth; Simeon, fifth; Issachar, sixth; and all the rest in their order” (trans.  Kee, OTP 1:801). Menninger 1994, 143– 44, however, brings in the notion of the remnant here and takes 19.28 in reference to the Church as the “true” Israel. Berger 1994, 136, reads κρίνειν in Matt 19.28 and Luke 22.30 as meaning “to bring about justice.” 488 On this, see Liedke 1984, col. 1001–3. 489 For the meaning “to rule,” BDAG, s.v. 5bβ (p. 569) cites 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 15.5; Ps 2.10; 1 Macc 9.73; and Pss. Sol. 17.29, yet the meaning “to judge” cannot be excluded for any of these occurrences (cf. the distinction in Wis 3.8a: κρινοῦσιν ἔθνη καὶ κρατήσουσιν λαῶν). Luz 2001–2007, 2:517, concludes decisively: “That κρίνω could mean ‘to rule’ is a philological fiction that is clearly false, even though it has enjoyed near- universal acceptance since H. Grotius, who may have been the first to suggest it.” 490 Analogously to Matt 19.28, in Luke 22.30, κρίνειν is often interpreted in the sense of “to rule.” See, for example, Schneider 1992, 2:451; and Klein 2006, 673. 491 The limitation of the statement to the twelve distinguishes Matt 19.28 from the related image in 1 Cor 6.2–3. (On this and related Early Jewish statements, see Konradt 2003, 330–34.)

262

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

(otherwise) the Son of Man functions as judge (cf. 16.27; 25.31).492 Philologically, one would have to conclude in this case that κρίνειν makes no claims about the outcome of the judgment. That is, κρίνειν itself does not imply that the twelve disciples will “convict” or “condemn” the twelve tribes.493 Such an interpretation could only be read into 19.28 based on the larger context of the Gospel, but no evidence has emerged to support this reading. Had Matthew wanted to advocate a collective condemnation of Israel, he could have done so unambiguously with κατακρίνειν (cf. 12.41– 42).494 In positive terms, the outcome of the judgment is left open.495 This approach cannot be weakened by references to Early Jewish texts in which the motif of the participation of the righteous in the final judgment is connected with the notion of punishment and damnation.496 The context in texts such as 1 En. 38.5; 48.9; 91.12; 95.3; 98.12 is, namely, the present oppression of the righteous by sinners. The texts function as a comfort in the face of current affliction; they have the reversal of present  circumstances in view.497 It is evident that this is not the same context in which Matt 19.28 is embedded.498 Contextually, the reader must rather once again observe—alongside the immediate context in Matt 19—the connection of 19.28 with the mission discourse. Matt 19.28 is the first allusion to the circle of the twelve  since  its  first  mention  in  10.1– 4,  which  refers  to  the  disciples’  mission  to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in terms of the restitution of the twelve tribes. Whereas in Matt 10 the twelve form the core of the people of God that is to be gathered (thereby establishing their fundamental role for Israel), this role is underscored by 19.28.499 The notion of 492 In support of 19.28 as referring specifically to the final judgment, one can add that the image of the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory returns in 25.31, and there refers to the final judgment. 493 In this vein, see also Garbe 2005, 192–93; and Nolland 2005, 801: “Judging does not mean condemning: as in Mt. 25:31– 46, there are two options.” However, Matt 19.28 is taken in reference to the notion of a judgment of destruction by Broer 1975, 157– 65; and Hoffmann 1998, 264. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:171, sees the judgment here as conceived primarily in terms of punishment but resists speaking of a judgment of destruction. Fiedler 2006, 316, interprets 19.28 one- sidedly as a positive reference to the fulfillment of Israel’s hope for salvation. 494 The distinction in 1 Cor 11.32 is semantically instructive: κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. Thus, here, precisely the judg­ ment understood as a pedagogical judgment is meant to avert (eschatological) condemnation (on this, see Konradt 2003, 439–51). 495 Similarly, see Garbe 2005, 191–92. 496 Against Broer 1975, 157(–165). 497 Compare the discussion in Konradt 2003, 333–34. 498 Rather, Matthew has passed over the reference to affliction in Mark 10.30! 499 On 19.28, compare Harrington 1991a, 281: “The point is that at the eschaton Jesus and his disciples will be revealed as the most important persons among the Jewish people.”

4: Consequences of Negative Reactions to Jesus’ Ministry

263

judgment already resonates in the harvest metaphor in 9.37–38, which precedes 10.1– 4, without being in the spotlight; the emphasis in 9.37– 38 is rather on the size of the task of gathering the people in the face of its desperate situation.500 As the interpretation of 10.23 has shown, this task does not come to an end for the disciples until the Parousia. 501 Its outcome thus remains open. This openness of the mission corresponds with the openness of the statement of judgment in 19.28: which of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” will remain lost and which will be among those who enter into the kingdom of God will be revealed at the judgment. It is thus to be concluded that, even if 19.28 is not taken in reference to a function of the disciples in the kingdom of God but rather to their participation in the final judgment, there is nothing to indicate that Matthew  has here an eschatological punishment and damnation of Israel in mind. This is supported by the fact that the concept of judgment with a positive and negative outcome also appears elsewhere in Matthew (see, above all, 16.27; 25.31– 46).502

4.6

Summary

The differentiated view of the configuration of conflict in the Matthean Jesus  story developed in chapter 3 is not called into question by the texts discussed in this chapter—texts that have often been brought forward in support of the thesis that Israel as a collective entity will be punished or has forfeited her position. The parable trilogy in 21.28–22.14 does not in any way portray the salvation-historical replacement of Israel by the Gentile Church but is rather a part of Jesus’ final confrontation with the hostile authorities. This  flows into the discourse against the scribes and Pharisees in 23.1– 39, whose  audience includes not just the disciples but also the crowds (23.1). The differentiation between the authorities and the crowds is neither dismantled nor revoked; rather, to the contrary, it remains a given or is even reinforced. Matt 21.43 aims at the replacement of the authorities with the disciples with regard to the leadership role within Israel. The transfer of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ here is to be understood as articulating that, from now on, the task of bringing about God’s reign through the instruction of the people about God’s will is entrusted to Jesus’ disciples. They are enabled to do this task by the authoritative teaching of Jesus, who came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets (5.17) and has revealed the true meaning of the Torah. 500

On the interpretation of Matt 9.37–38, see the discussion in section 2.3. See the discussion in section 2.3. 502 On the distinction of types of judgment, see Konradt 2003, 11–17. 501

264

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The differentiation between the authorities and the people is further confirmed by the statements against “this γενεά” in 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; and 23.34–36. Here, too, no tendency to generalize the charge emerges, but rather Matthew incorporates these statements into Jesus’ conflict with the  authorities. The destruction of Jerusalem (22.7; 23.37–39) is also situated within this context. For Matthew, this does not represent the condemnation of Israel but serves the evangelist as a delegitimization of the authorities; in the city’s destruction it becomes apparent who is on God’s side and who is not. In other words, the destruction of Jerusalem becomes a warning that those who set themselves against Jesus and his ecclesia will have to face eschatological punishment. The parable trilogy and the words against this γενεά thus confirm the  differentiated view of the Matthean Jesus story developed in chapters 2 and 3. Alongside this is the fact that there is no generalizing proclamation of judgment aimed against Israel to be found in the Gospel of Matthew; nor is there a generalizing proclamation of the loss of salvation or election. Matt 8.11–12 does not contrast salvation for Gentiles with judgment of Israel, but rather—oriented toward an internal problem of the community—asserts the universality of salvation (for Jews and non-Jews) against those believers in Christ who have been affected by Jesus’ message of the basileia but remain closed to the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation that Jesus has brought about. Through the parable of the sower and its interpretation in 13.3–23, as well as the parable theory embedded there, Mathew advances the distinction between the disciples and the crowds. This cannot, however, be equated with the contrast between Church and Israel. Rather, a process of differentiation taking place within Israel is depicted here—a process that, furthermore, is not yet complete but continues through the persisting task of the mission to Israel. Finally, this is accompanied by the fact that for Matt 19.28, as well, there is nothing to indicate that a one-sided criminal court in judgment of the twelve tribes is in view, rather than an open court whose purpose is to assess their works. Taking account of the remarks made in chapter 2 as well, it is finally  to be concluded that the emphatic concentration on Israel in Jesus’ mission does not serve to establish the people’s guilt and liability to judgment. Rather, the focus on Israel positively indicates the significance of Israel’s  special position in the theological thought of the first evangelist. The question of how this relates to the inclusion of the nations in salvation and the formation of the ecclesia is addressed in the next two chapters.

Chapter 5

Israel and the Gentiles

On the basis of the findings in the preceding chapters, some solutions to  the central question, outlined in the first chapter of this study, of how the  transition from 10.5– 6 to 28.19 is to be understood can henceforth be ruled out—namely, solutions that link the turn toward the nations with the (collective) rejection of Jesus in Israel, the failure of his mission to Israel, or Israel’s guilt and condemnation. Nor does the Matthean Jesus pave the way for the post-Easter mission to the nations with an intentional or even extensive pre-Easter mission to non-Jews. Nevertheless, the universalistic dimension of 28.18–201 does not come unexpectedly. From the very beginning, Matthew provides signals that point ahead to 28.18–20.2 We first examine this universal dimension of the Matthean Jesus story  prior to 28.16–20 in section 5.1. Section 5.2 presents the counterpart to the remarks in section 2.1 by considering the christological foundation of the universal mission in Matt 28.19. On this basis, section 5.3 brings the relationship between 10.5–6 and 28.19 into context with the narrative concept through which Matthew develops Jesus’ messianic identity. Section 5.4 finally seeks to  clarify the precise relationship between the missions to the nations and Israel.

5.1 The Universal Dimension of the Matthean Jesus Story prior to 28.16–20 As suggested in section 2.1.1.1, a first indication of the universal dimension of the salvation connected with Jesus can already be found in the 1 The great importance of this text within the Gospel of Matthew has been pointed out again and again. See, for example, Michel 1950/1951, 21 (“the key to understanding the entire book” [emphasized in original; trans. K. Ess]); Matera 1987, 245 (“the climax of the entire Gospel”); Sand 1992b, 60– 61 (“key text” [60; trans. K. Ess]); and Hays 2005, 185 (“the telos towards which Matthew’s whole narrative has been driving” [emphasis original]). 2 Compare, for example, Frankemölle 1982, 110–11; Eckstein 1997, 385– 86; and Garbe 2005, 122–24.

266

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

introductory verse of the Gospel: the designation of Jesus as “Son of David” is supplemented by the designation “Son of Abraham.” Observed in isolation from the Matthean context, this phrase by no means straightforwardly implies that the Gentile world thus comes into view. Abraham could rather be named because he is the ancestor of Israel and the history of election begins with him. Thus the insertion of υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ in 1.1 would further strengthen the orientation toward Israel that is expressed with the christologoumenon of Jesus’ Davidic sonship: Jesus is the goal of Israel’s history of election that began with Abraham.3 The mention  of  Abraham  could  further  reflect  the  fact  that,  in  Early  Jewish  tradition, Abraham was stylized as the embodiment of the ideal Israelite. Jesus would then be presented in 1.1 as the Davidic Messiah and ideal Israelite.4 At the same time, however, Abraham is regarded in Early Jewish tradition  as  the  first  convert.5 As such, he becomes in Philo the “standard of nobility for all proselytes (ἅπασιν ἐπηλύταις εὐγενείας κανών)” (Virt. 219).6 In view of the promise-theological dimension of the preceding designation of Jesus in Matt 1.1 as υἱὸς Δαυίδ, it may, however, be more significant that in Genesis a promise of blessing encompassing the world of  the nations is connected with Abraham (Gen 12.3; 18.18; 22.18; 26.4). The significance for Matthew of this universalistic horizon becomes clear when  one takes into account the references to Abraham later in the Gospel. In their immediate context, the words “God is able to raise up from these stones children to Abraham,” spoken by John the Baptist in Matt 3.9, are to be seen primarily as an element of the challenge to the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ conviction that they will be saved on the basis of their status as children of Abraham. In view of the larger context of the Gospel as a whole, however, John raises a possibility here that will later in fact be realized: through the mission to the nations, God raises up new children for Abraham7—that is, Gentiles are brought into the salvation history that An Israel-oriented interpretation of υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ is supported by Krentz 1964, 411, 414; Harrington 1991a, 28; Kynes 1991, 13; Hare 1993, 6; Keener 1999, 73–74; and Runesson 2011c, 309; see also Dormeyer 1992, 1363; and Wilk 2002, 83, n. 5. 4 See Krentz 1964, 411, 414. 5 According to Early Jewish Abraham haggadah, Abraham was the first to come to belief in the one God. See Jub. 11.16–12.21; Apoc. Ab. 1– 8; L.A.B. 4.16; 6.1– 8.3; 23.5; Philo, Abr. 68– 84; Virt. 211–19; Josephus, A.J. 1.155–57; Ps.-Eup., frag. 1 (at Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.8); see also Jdt 5.5–9. Compare Nickelsburg 1998, 152– 67. 6 Compare Philo, Mos. 1.7: Abraham as the first ἐπηλύτης. On Abraham as the “father of the proselytes” or the first proselyte, see further b. Hag. 3a; Midr. Tanḥ. B ‫לך לך‬ §6 (Bietenhard 1:69). 7 The motif of the inclusion of non-Jews among the children of Abraham plays a role elsewhere in early Christian recourse to Abraham as well, as Gal 3 and Rom 4 illustrate. 3

5: Israel and the Gentiles

267

began with Abraham.8 This reading of Matt 3.9 is affirmed by the renewed  reference to Abraham (and the other patriarchs) in 8.11, which is explicitly connected with the aspect of the universality of salvation. The πολλοί who will have a place at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not exclusively people from the nations, but these are included among them.9 In the kingdom of heaven, the children of Abraham—believers in Christ from Israel and the other nations—will celebrate the eschatological feast with Abraham.10 In light of 3.9 and 8.11, it is likely that Matthew sought to indicate the universality of salvation in Jesus in 1.1 as well with the reference to his Abrahamic ancestry.11 More precisely, as suggested previously, Matt 1.1 might thereby be a further piece of evidence for the early Christian reception of the promise of blessing to Abraham as encompassing all nations (cf. Acts 3.25; Gal 3.8).12 Further, on this reading, the inverted order of υἱὸς Δαυίδ and υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ in Matt 1.1 makes sense. The (post-)Easter extension of the ministry of salvation to the Gentile world is preceded by the phase of Jesus’ earthly ministry in which he was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Thus, to a certain extent, Matt 1.1 signals the “chronology” of these two phases. If Matthew makes a reference to the universality of salvation with the words υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ, this need not be set as an exclusive alternative against Abraham’s significance as Israel’s patriarch. Rather, the two aspects can be positively interconnected: precisely as the patriarch of Israel, Abraham is 8

On the reference of Matt 3.9 to the mission to the Gentiles, compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:293, 309; Harrington 1991a, 56; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:50; Tisera 1993, 33; Olmstead 2003, 75; Luz 2001–2007, 1:137; and W. Kraus 2011, 206; see also Siker 1991, 81. In contrast, according to Fiedler 2006, 77, Matt 3.9 has in view the restitution of the twelve tribes in the end times, without, however, excluding the interpretation in reference to “the people of the Gentile world” (78; trans. K. Ess). 9 See in section 4.2. 10 In light of 3.9, the distinction between the children of Abraham and the guests, as presented by Wilk 2002, 117 (with n. 258), should not be pressed. 11 In this vein, see also Gaechter 1963, 35–36; Albright and Mann 1971, 3, 5; Stegemann 1971, 267– 68; H. B. Green 1975, 52; Kingsbury 1975a, 12; Beare 1981, 65; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:7; H. Gollinger 1991a, 203– 4; Standaert 1992, 1247; R. E. Brown 1993, 67– 68; Tisera 1993, 32–39; Gundry 1994, 9–10; LaGrand 1995, 171–72; E. C. Park 1995, 178–79; Bauer 1996, 149; Senior 1998b, 34–35; Oberforcher 1999, 21; Kvalbein 2000, 57; Ostmeyer 2000, 186; Carter 2003/2004, 263; Novakovic 2003, 44– 45; Olmstead 2003, 73; Backhaus 2004, 89; Bruner 2004, 1:5– 6; Eloff 2004, 81; Yieh 2004, 32; Frankemölle 2005, 48; and Sparks 2006, 652–53; see further Zahn 1922, 43– 44. 12 Compare Vögtle 1971b, 259; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:7; Betz 1991, 272–73; Davies 1992, 502–3; E. C. Park 1995, 7; Oberforcher 1999, 21; Kvalbein 2000, 57; Ostmeyer 2000, 186; Eloff 2004, 81; Yieh 2004, 32; Wilk 2005, 53, 56; and Sparks 2006, 653, among others.

268

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

at the same time the bearer of the promise for the nations. Israel’s election appears to have been aiming at the universality of salvation from Abraham on, and at the same time, conversely, with υἱὸς Ἀβραάμ as the first indicator, the universal scope of salvation is tied to Israel’s history of election. In other words, in the connection of the universality of salvation that has appeared in Jesus with the salvation history begun with Abraham, it is made clear that it is God’s salvation made known in Israel in which the Gentile world receives a share through the fulfillment of  the promise to  Abraham in Jesus.13 Matthean universalism is thus grounded in Israel, just as, vice versa, with Abraham, and so from the very beginning, Israel is directed toward the Gentile world. Precisely this positive correlation between the ministries of salvation to Israel and the Gentiles is of central significance to Matthew. This  becomes evident already in the sections of the prologue that follow— first  in the genealogy in 1.2–16 and then in the pericope of the magi in 2.1–12. In terms of ancient genealogies, Matt 1.2–16 is striking in that the evangelist inserts four women14 into the basic genealogical structure.15 This abnormality is further underscored by the fact that the great matriarchs of Israel—Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah—are not listed. Interpreters commonly look for a common denominator in the inclusion of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah,”16 and rightly so.17 One prevalent position sees as a common denominator the fact that the four women were non-Jews.18 For 13 Compare Wilk 2002, 116, on the eschatological banquet in Matt 8.11: “Here Israel’s patriarchs appear as the host, and not Jesus; this underscores that people in fellowship with him receive a share in the fulfillment of Israel’s history of election” (trans. K. Ess). In the  mention of the Messiah’s Abrahamic sonship, Bornkamm 1975c, 309, sees a continuation of Pauline thought: “From the one universal heir to the promise to Abraham, and only through him, does blessing and Abrahamic childship come to all nations (Gal. 3 16.29)” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 14 On the peculiarity of naming women in genealogies, see Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 243– 44. 15 On the redactional origin of the four women, see Luz 2001–2007, 1:81. 16 But contrast, for example, Heil 1991b; Nolland 1997; and Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 248–50. 17 Luz 2001–2007, 1:85, has compiled the decisive arguments: “A unified interpretation is suggested by the ‘provocative’ choice of the four women,” and this is further supported by “the four-fold identical ‘begotten . . . from . . .’ (ἐγέννησεν . . . ἐκ τῆς).” The latter simultaneously distinguishes the four women from Mary (Luz 2001–2007, 1:84; cf. H. Stegemann 1971, 255; however, contrast Smit 2010, 197–98). 18 See Rothfuchs 1969, 100; H. Stegemann 1971, esp. 260– 66; Nolan 1979, 62– 63; Schweizer 1986, 9; Limbeck 1991, 23; Hare 1993, 6; Tisera 1993, 44– 46; Gundry 1994, 14–15; Bauer 1996, 148– 49; Eckstein 1997, 385; Keener 1999, 78– 81; Ostmeyer 2000, 180– 81; Jackson 2002, 28, 93– 99; Olmstead 2003, 74; Slee 2003, 129; Wick 2003, 78; Backhaus 2004, 89–90; Hays 2005, 172–73; Luz 2001–2007, 1:85; and Feneberg 2009, 116; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:171 (some exegetes concede this

5: Israel and the Gentiles

269

Rahab and Ruth, this is evident from the Old Testament texts themselves (Josh 2; 6; Ruth 1.4). In the case of Tamar (Gen 38), the text is silent, and Jewish tradition takes various directions. According to one tradition, witnessed by Jub. 41.1 and T. Jud. 10.1, she is a daughter of Aram of the family of Terach.19 Philo, Virt. 220–22, however, presents Tamar as an idolatress point for only some of the women; see, for example, Heil 1991b, 540–41, for Rahab and Ruth). There is no lack of alternative suggestions (see the overview in Johnson 1969, 154–59; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:170–72), but they are not convincing. Regarding the four women as sinners (a common view in the early Church [see the references in MayordomoMarín 1998, 245, n. 239]; in modern exegesis, see, for example, Str-B 1:15; Kittel 1990, 1–2; see also Morris 1992, 23, for three of the four women) works for Rahab but not for Tamar (see Gen 38.26) and not at all for Ruth. In 2 Sam 11–12, too, David is the guilty one (12.7ff.!), not Bathsheba. (Heil 1991b adheres to an element of sinfulness, but only for Tamar and Bathsheba, and at the same time qualifies the argument. The sins of Judah [540] and David [541] are alluded to, thereby pointing toward Jesus’ significance: Jesus is “the Davidic Christ, who will deliver the people of Israel from the sinfulness introduced by the previous Davidic kings, as signaled by Tamar and the wife of Uriah” [543].) The suggestion that God’s wondrous guidance is indicated in the four women or that these women experienced extraordinary events in whose good outcome God’s influence is manifest (with differences in detail, see Stendahl 1960, 101; Vögtle 1971c, 94–95 [“God’s . . . sovereign workings, which do not shun detours,” 95; trans. K. Ess]; Zakowitch 1975, 1; Waetjen 1976, 215–16, 218; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:9 [the women are “chosen vessels, whom God employs in order to achieve his will in an unusual way. Thus they can point ahead to Mary”; trans. K. Ess]; R. E. Brown 1993, 73–74; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:10; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:142; Weren 1997a; Schnackenburg 2002, 17; and Williams 2002, 111–12; see also Sand 1986, 44; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:171–72) has the advantage that— although it is not necessary, given the significantly different syntactic construction here—one can also incorporate Mary (Matt 1.16) into this schema (see for example Weren 1997a); yet already “the general and abstract nature of the common denominator” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:84; cf. Mayordomo-Marín 1998, 247– 48) speaks against this interpretation. Further, this does not explain why, for example, the matriarch Sarah is absent. Schnider and Stenger 1979, 195, see the aspect of conception within a foreign sphere as the common denominator of all five women. However, the foreign element is variously defined: whereas Rahab and Ruth are Gentiles, Tamar and Bathsheba (actually) belong to  another man. Can conception by the Holy Spirit truly be seen as analogous to this? In contrast to these proposals, Smit 2010, 193, has argued “that it is better to view all  five  women  primarily  as  a  group  of  women, and to consider the gender aspects of their occurrence in the genealogy first.” According to Smit, other aspects— such as, for  example, Gentile origin— always apply only to a subset of the five women. 19 This does not refer to the son of Shem (Gen 10.22) but rather the son of Kemuel from Gen 22.21, who is thus a grandson of Nahor, the brother of Abraham (cf. Jub. 34.20; on this see Bauckham 1995, 314–18). Tamar is presented here precisely not as a Gentile (against H. Stegemann 1971, 260, among others). Heil 1991b, 539, sees the reason for including Tamar in Matt 1.3 against the background of Gen 24.3– 4 and 28.1– 4 in the fact that, as explained in T. Jud. and Jub., unlike Judah’s (first) wife (Gen 38.2), she is not a  Canaanite. “By explicitly naming her Matthew reminds the reader that Judah continued the Abrahamic line not by his Canaanite wife but by the non- Canaanite Aramean, Tamar”

270

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

from Palestinian Syria,20 who converts to belief in the one God; thus she is seen here as a non-Jew who, like Rahab and Ruth, became a proselyte. If Matthew was aware of this tradition, 21  then  Tamar  fits  the  thesis  that  the reason for naming the four women is to be seen in their Gentile origin. Finally, with Bathsheba, the Old Testament text is likewise silent, but unlike for Tamar, there is to my knowledge no evidence of reflection about  her origin in extant Early Jewish literature.22 It is noteworthy here that she is not mentioned by name, as the others are, but is identified as “the wife  of Uriah.” In itself, this could be read as a reference to David’s wrongdoing (cf. 2 Sam 12).23 Considered in context with the three other women, however, it is likely that this label is meant to identify her as a non-Jew by way of her first husband Uriah, who was a Hittite (2 Sam 11.3, 6, and elsewhere). In other words, Matthew had to resort to this unusual formulation because he could only indicate her non-Jewish origin by referring to her husband, since the reader would otherwise have been unable to interpret the mention of Bathsheba with the intended meaning simply on the basis of their knowledge of tradition.24 This thesis is slightly modified by Hood’s  (Heil 1991b, 539). But why does Matthew then include the Canaanite Rahab, although her inclusion has no grounding in Scripture? 20 One might consider that Philo’s designation was also inspired by the tradition witnessed in Jub. 41.1; T. Jud. 10.1, that Tamar is a descendant of Kemuel (Gen 22.21), the only difference being that Philo, with the LXX, presupposes his designation as πατὴρ Σύρων (cf. n. 21), and that thus for Philo it is only significant that Tamar is a proselyte,  while her origin in the family of Terah is irrelevant. 21 It should be taken into consideration here that the tradition, witnessed by Jub. and T. 12 Patr., presumes the Hebrew text of Gen 22.21. In the LXX, ‫ ֲא ִבי ֲא ָרם‬is translated as πατέρα Σύρων. 22 According to 2 Sam 11.3, she was the daughter of an otherwise unknown Eliam (LXX: Ἐλιάβ). In 1 Chr 3.5, he is replaced with Ammiel (LXX: Ἀμιήλ). According to 2 Sam 9.4–5, the same name is ascribed to the father of Machir, who had taken in Mephibosheth. Does 1 Chr 3.5 imply that Bathsheba is a sister of Machir (see further 2 Sam 17.27)? The Chronicler has, however, omitted the episode narrated in 2 Sam 9. Runesson 2011c, 312, postulates that “Bathsheba was the daughter of an officer in David’s army, Eliam, son of  Ahitophel of Gilo . . . She was thus an Israelite.” This thesis is based on the equation of the Eliam in 2 Sam 11.3 with the Eliam in 2 Sam 23.34, which, however, is very uncertain to say the least (cf. Ebach 2009, 48). 23 See only Heil 1991b, 541; Bauer 1996, 146; Nolland 1997, 537, 539; MayordomoMarín 1998, 232, 246; Kennedy 2008, 95–96; and Wucherpfennig 2008, 70–72. 24 Compare H. Stegemann 1971, 261– 62; Zakowitch 1975, 2–3; and, further, Gundry 1994, 15. To answer the potential question of whether other women could have been included in the genealogy under this criterion, one could point to the wife of Solomon and mother of Rehoboam, the Ammonite Naamah. (1 Kgs 14.21, 31; 2 Chr 12.13; Levine 1988, 79, brings this objection against the interpretation of the four women in question here.) But her absence can be understood only too well—for Solomon’s liaison with her is connected with his apostasy from the one God (cf. 1 Kgs 11.5!). In distinction from the four women named in the genealogy, Naamah is not a woman who aligns herself with Israel and the

5: Israel and the Gentiles

271

proposal that Matthew does not present four Gentile women but adds Uriah himself as an exemplary Gentile to the three preceding women of nonJewish origin.25 The fact that Uriah is not part of the genealogy in a strict sense does not invalidate this option, since the same is true for the addition of the brothers in 1.2, 11, and of Zerah in 1.3. The inclusion of the four non-Jewish women/persons in Jesus’ genealogy not only christologically anticipates the universal dimension of the salvation brought by Jesus, strengthening the mention of Jesus’ Abrahamic sonship in 1.1; simultaneously, it suggests that Israel was always open to non-Jews.26 It should be noted here that the four women/persons can be understood as proselytes with no further ado.27 They embody Israel’s openness to people who affiliate themselves with the faith of Israel. Like  the notion of the Abrahamic sonship, the universal dimension of salvation is thereby in a sense anchored in Matthew’s understanding of “Israel.” When the community of salvation grounded in Jesus’ ministry comes to include both Jews and non-Jews (by birth), this does not signify a fundamental break with the preceding salvation history. Rather, here too, an

worship of the one God of Israel—on the contrary, she is a woman who became the gateway to the worship of foreign gods and thereby to apostasy from God. H. Stegemann 1971, 263– 64, argues here that Matthew did not submit the biblical tradition to a systematic review, and Naamah was not as well-known as the other four women. (Bauer 1996, 149, varies this argument in support of an apparently intentional omission “because the implied reader would have been less familiar with her than with the others.”) Ostmeyer 2000, 181, in contrast, postulates that Naamah was not overlooked but intentionally omitted because the motif of the foreign women was reserved for the first section of the genealogy, from  Abraham to David (cf. 1.17). This is difficult already because, as the mother of Solomon,  Bathsheba is, strictly speaking, in the second section of the genealogy (cf. H. Stegemann 1971, 255). 25 Compare Hood 2011, 120, 127, 138. (According to Hood 2011, 107–8, Bathsheba is presented as Jewish by her father’s name. Cf. n. 22.) Similarly, already Fiedler 2006, 41, argued that Matthew was not concerned with Bathsheba but with Uriah himself, who fought on the side of Israel though he was clearly a non-Jew. Uriah, together with Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth, is taken to be a role model for community members of non-Jewish origin. 26 Compare Limbeck 1991, 23. 27 Philo, Virt. 220ff. says exactly this with regard to Tamar, who functions, in Philo’s portrayal, as a female counterpart to Abraham (212–19). Ruth appears as a proselyte in her words to her mother-in-law Naomi already in Ruth 1.16: “Your people is my people, and your God is my God.” L.A.B. 61.6 has David say that Ruth “chose for herself the ways of the almighty and walked in them.” Rahab appears in Heb 11.31 and 1 Clem. 12.1, 7– 8 as an example of faith and in Jas 2.25 as an example for justification by works, whereby  her faith, like the example of Abraham in 2.21, is presumed (cf. Konradt 1998, 246). Her “faith” could easily be derived from Josh 2.10–11 (“. . . for the Lord, your God, is God in heaven above and on earth below”); according to Josh 6.25, “she has lived in Israel to this day.” In short, she too appears as a proselyte. On the four women as proselytes, see Sim 1995, 22; and Jackson 2002, 94–99.

272

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

element inherent in the history of Israel leading up to Jesus reaches its fulfillment. What God had always intended in the election of Abraham is  fulfilled here. The universal dimension of salvation is furthermore indicated in Matt 2.1–12 in the narrative of the magi,28 whose Gentile origins29 are underscored by their speaking of the “king of the Jews.”30 In accordance with the aspect of universality, the magi receive their knowledge of the birth of the king through a celestial event:31 they are able to identify a specific star  as his star32 and to decode its rising33 as an indication of the birth of the king.34 The star was a common symbol of authority in the Greco-Roman world since the time of Alexander the Great.35 Against this background, the mention of “his star” reads as an indication of the universal dimension of the reign of the “newborn king”36 and thus points ahead to 28.18b. If Matthew and his addressees knew of the expectation of a world ruler from the East, as attested by Josephus (B.J. 6.312–13),37 among others, this would 28 Kingsbury 1976, 595, sees here the continuation of the motif of Jesus’ Abrahamic sonship that was exposed in Matt 1.1. 29 There is a broad consensus that the magi are of Gentile origin (see, for example, Hengel and Merkel 1973, 144; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:27; Tisera 1993, 53– 61; Senior 1998b, 45; and Wick 2003, 78–79). Contrast, however, Mann 1958, 498 (“there is not the slightest hint in Matthew that the Magi were Gentiles”); and Sim 1999; compare also Evans 2012, 51 (“perhaps they should be understood as Jewish”). 30 The phrase returns in Matt 27.11, 29, 37, always as a designation used by non-Jews, whereas the Jewish authorities speak of the “king of Israel” in the mocking of Jesus in 27.42. Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:229: “ ‘king of the Jews’ would be difficult on the lips of Jews.” 31 Compare Garbe 2005, 28. 32 On the notion of a “personal” star rising at birth, see Hengel and Merkel 1973, 148– 49. 33 ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ (Matt 2.2) here does not mean “in the East” but “at its rising.” (On this, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:236; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:36; and Luz 2001– 2007, 1:102, n. 1.) 34 See Hengel and Merkel 1973, 151 (“According to the general ancient view, precisely the μάγοι were attributed with the ability to recognize earth-shattering events, such as the birth of a new world leader”; trans. K. Ess); and Paul 2005, 142. In contrast, Powell 2000b (4), 12, does not see Matt 2.2 as presuming that the magi possess any special knowledge. 35 On the archaeological-iconographical evidence, see Küchler 1989. 36 Compare Küchler 1989, 186; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:167. However, the star also occurs in Jewish literature, though only occasionally—namely, for Alexander Jannaeus, Herod the Great (!), and (post-Matthean) in a varied form for Bar Kokhba (on this, see Küchler 1989, 183– 85). One might consider whether the reader perceived Matt 2 as a counternarrative to the veneration of Nero by the Parthian king Tiridates in 66 CE. (See, above all, Cassius Dio, Hist. rom. 63.1–7; see further Suetonius, Nero 13; and Pliny the Elder, Nat. 30.16–17; on this, see Hengel and Merkel 1973, 152.) Frenschkowski 1988, 24, answers this question decidedly in the affirmative (see also Paul 2005, 143– 44). 37 On this, see Theißen 1999, 147–51.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

273

further accentuate the findings already presented.38 In any case, however, when the magi go to worship the newborn king, it is clear that not only Israel’s but also non-Jews’ hope of salvation rests upon the king of the Jews.39 With regard to the larger context, one can point here to the fact that in 25.34, 40— and thus in the context of the depiction of the final judgment  of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη—the exalted Jesus is designated as king; the royal title is thus taken up here by Jesus himself. In his eschatological activity, the king of Israel shows himself to be simultaneously king of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη—the king of the world. Following their (political) knowledge of the Jews, the magi search for the newborn king in Jerusalem,40 only to then be led on toward Bethlehem. The reminiscence of Isa 60.641 in the first two of the triad of gifts in Matt  2.11 (χρυσός and λίβανος) suggests that Matt 2 takes up the (centripetal) motif of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion,42 although this is altered in two respects, being transformed messianically (since the magi come to worship the king of the Jews43) and modified insofar as their journey  reaches its destination not in Jerusalem but in Bethlehem. In accordance with this modification, Jerusalem is given a negative role, which the city  already plays in 2.3, just as it will in the Passion Narrative, ultimately leading to its destruction. Matthew thus seeks in 2.1–12 to evoke associations 38 Provided that an allusion to Num 24.17 (cf. further CD VII, 19–20; [1QSb V, 27]; 1QM XI, 6; 4Q175 9–13; as well as the occurrences that are probably due to Christian redaction in T. Levi 18.3; T. Jud. 24.1) might resonate in Matt 2 (see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:231, 234–35; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:37; Harrington 1991a, 42; Tisera 1993, 59; Gundry 1994, 27; Paul 2005, 36; Fiedler 2006, 57; Feneberg 2009, 121; Evans 2012, 52, among others; cautiously, Mayordomo 2011, 273–75; and, critically, Sim 1999, 991–93; Nolland 2005, 111), it should be noted that Matt 2 presents a contrast to the statements about the victory over the nations in Num 24.17–19. 39 Magi are encountered “often at royal courts” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:112). Powell 2000a, 464– 68, identifies the magi against this background as “royal servants” (467, 473).  If Matthew intended such an association (cf. Dan 2.2, 10), this could be developed in the sense of a contrasting motif: the magi direct their expectations of salvation, not toward their own ruler(s) but toward the king of the Jews. But such an intention of the evangelist cannot be asserted with sufficient certainty. 40 In Matt 2.2, there is not yet any mention of being led by the star to Jerusalem (but see, for example, Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:166), nor is this presupposed in the narrative logic. This motif first appears in 2.9 (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:40; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:27,  among others). 41 Compare Hengel and Merkel 1973, 141, 143; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:250; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:41; Harrington 1991a, 44; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:31; Tisera 1993, 60; Byrne 2002, 61; and Nolland 2005, 117; contra Sim 1999, 997. 42 Affirmatively, for example, Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 1:249– 50, 253; Gnilka  1988/1992, 1:34; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:166; Carter 2003/2004, 273–74; and Garbe 2005, 28, 122. See, cautiously, Luz 2001–2007, 1:114. 43 But compare Ps 72.10–11 and Pss. Sol. 17.31a.

274

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

with the motif of the pilgrimage but reorients this such that the arrival of the nations is transformed into a journey to the Messiah, to Immanuel, and is no longer thought of as an arrival in Jerusalem. With regard to the connection, noted previously, of Matthean universalism with the ministry of salvation to Israel, it should be emphasized that Matthew has the magi come to the king of the Jews (2.2), whose task is first  of all to shepherd God’s people Israel (2.6). The fact that the mention of the “king of the Jews” is not only attributable to the play on the royal title in Matt 244 can be seen in the analogy to the Canaanite woman’s redactionally formed call to Jesus as the “Son of David” in 15.22. For the magi, the king of the Jews is also their king. Matt 2.1–12 and 15.21–28 thereby indicate that the ministry of salvation to Israel and the universal dimension of salvation are not separate threads running alongside one another. Rather, there is an internal connection between them: the Gentiles turn to Jesus as the Messiah of Israel.45 In conjunction with the metaphor in Matt 15.26–27, it thus becomes clear that the turn toward the nations does not require passing by Israel and does not represent an alternative to ministry to Israel but rather presupposes it. Just as Abraham as the patriarch of Israel is at the same time the bearer of universal blessing, so also is his “son” Jesus (1.1), precisely as the Messiah for Israel (2.4– 6), simultaneously the one in whom the Gentiles’ hopes of salvation also lie. It should also be noted that the coming of non-Jews to Jesus in Matt 2 is not contrasted with the hostility of Israel46 but only with the hostility of the authorities together with Jerusalem.47 Next, the citation of Isa 8.23; 9.1 in Matt 4.15–16 is characteristic of the Matthean theological concept. Here, Matthew shows that Jesus’ return to Galilee, and then his path from Nazareth to Capernaum, are in fulfillment  of Scripture.48 In interplay with 2.6 (. . . ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ) and 4.23 (διδάσκων . . . καὶ κηρύσσων . . . καὶ θεραπεύων . . . ἐν τῷ λαῷ),49 ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει here indicates the orientation of Jesus’ ministry toward Israel, while ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει,50 or τοῖς καθημένοις ἐν 44

On this, see the discussion in section 3.1.2.1. Compare Bauer 1995, 319, on Matt 2.1–12. 46 Contra Hengel and Merkel 1973, 144; Sand 1986, 50; and Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:42. 47 Likewise, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:238. There can therefore be no discussion of an implicit “anti-Jewish sharpness” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:113) here. 48 The absence of τὰ μέρη τῆς Ιουδαίας in contrast with Isa 8.23LXX corresponds not only with the Masoretic Text but also with the Matthean context and thus does not necessarily indicate the use of the Masoretic Text; this could also be plausibly understood as Matthean editing of the LXX. According to Menken 1998a, 539, “a revised LXX text” underlies this verse. 49 On this, see in section 2.2.1. 50  It  is  possible  that  the  Matthean  wording  of  the  quotation  here  is  influenced  by  Ps 106.10aLXX or also by Isa 42.7. 45

5: Israel and the Gentiles

275

χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου,51 points to the state of the people as being in need of salvation (cf. 1.21; 9.36; 10.6), which God addresses by sending Jesus (φῶς εἶδεν μέγα or φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς).52 Alongside this Israel-oriented perspective, however, stands the reference to “Galilee of the nations.” Matthew could hardly have understood this phrase as a statement about the demographic structure of Galilee.53 For Matthew, Galilee is the location of Jesus’ activity in Israel. The phrase rather serves as a signal for the sending of the disciples to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 28.16–20, which is likewise located in Galilee.54 The universal dimension of salvation thereby, to a certain extent, sets the direction for Jesus’ activity in Israel; the latter becomes transparent for the former.55 Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν thus suggests that the assertion of salvation from 4.16 will undergo an expansion: the nations will be added to the λαός for whom a light rises with Jesus’ ministry.56 In other words, the interplay of Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν in 4.15 with 28.16–20 signals that 4.16 will also apply to the nations. The light radiates beyond the λαός originally in view in 4.16 onto the Gentile world (cf. 15.26–27). In accordance with this, in the Matthean version of the citation, the last line reads φῶς ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς. We can only speculate whether Num 24.17 (again) serves as a model here.57 The genitive attribute refers back not only to σκιᾷ but also to χώρᾳ. Compare Weren 1997c, 463; and Beaton 2002, 108, among others. 53 Likewise, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:383–85; Giesen 2001, 34; and Luz 2001– 2007, 1:158. This is contra Kretzer 1971, 79; G. Lohfink 1983, 273; France 1985, 101;  Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:193; and Byrne 2002, 64– 65. On the structure of the population, see Freyne 1980, 43– 44; and Chancey 2002, esp. 47–119. Carter 2000, 517, sees the phrase as characterizing “Galilee’s occupied status, . . . a land possessed by, belonging to, ruled or controlled by Gentile imperialists, Assyria and Rome (see 2 Kgs 17:24–27).” 54 The majority of interpreters agree. See Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:97, 98; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:73; Luck 1993, 44; E. C. Park 1995, 179– 81; Hultgren 1998, 344; Senior 1998b, 62; Giesen 2001, 34; Beaton 2002, 110; Chancey 2002, 172–73; W. Kraus 2003, 259– 60; Olmstead 2003, 76; Deines 2005, 219; Gale 2005, 55; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:158; contra G. Lohfink 1983, 273; Nolland 2005, 173; and Fiedler 2006, 96. 55 The connection between Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν in 4.15 and the statement of salvation oriented toward Israel in 4.16 is not fully encompassed by the geographical sense that the location of ministry to Israel later becomes the point of departure for the mission to the Gentiles as well. 56 It is striking that, in the scholarly literature, the meaning of the phrase Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν is often discussed in support of the universalistic perspective of the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the statement in 4.16— which is first and foremost Israel- oriented—  remains unemphasized, and, above all, the (positive) context of the two perspectives is not reflected upon. The reason for this may be that the interpretation of the commission  to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as the response to the (alleged) rejection of Jesus by Israel as a whole is often taken for granted. 57 See Soares Prabhu 1976, 100; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:97; Beaton 2002, 109; Deines 2005, 220, n. 357; Hays 2005, 184; and Fiedler 2006, 98. One can also point to Ps 96.11LXX; and Isa 58.10; see further T. Zeb. 9.8. 51

52

276

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

In the Matthean context, the verb is in any case reminiscent of the rising of the star in 2.2 (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ)58 and thus connects 4.16 with the universalistic perspective of the pericope of the magi. It must be emphasized that there is nothing in the Isaiah citation to suggest that the universality of salvation coincides with a condemnation of the λαός of 4.16.59 It is much more appropriate to interpret the context of 4.15– 16 as articulating that the ministry of salvation to Israel is the first step on  the path that will, at the same time, bring salvation to the (other) nations.60 For Matthew’s theological approach, it is significant here that he is able to support this comprehensive soteriological horizon of Jesus’ mission with a scriptural citation.61 As already in 1.1(–17), it once again becomes apparent that the evangelist is concerned with locating precisely the universality of the ministry of salvation within a biblical perspective and disclosing this universality as the fulfillment of Scripture and thus as the realization of  that which Abraham’s election and God’s history with Israel were aimed at from the very beginning. In other words, for Matthew, a rejection of the mission to the Gentiles amounted to a departure from Scripture. The evangelist presents this concern once again in 12.17–21 with another fulfillment quotation from Isaiah— this time from Isa 42.1– 4.62 The contextual connection of the quotation is frequently seen (only) in the correspondence between v. 19 and the command of secrecy taken over from Mark 3.12 in v. 16.63 Precisely this proposed bridge is untenable, however, 58

Compare Beaton 2002, 109; and Deines 2005, 220, n. 357. In contrast, see Luz 2001–2007, 1:158, on Matt 4.14–16: “The Gentiles come to salvation because the kingdom is taken away from Israel’s leaders (21:43).” Such an interpretation finds no support in 4.15– 16 itself; it emerges in Luz on the basis of his general  understanding of the Gospel of Matthew. 60 The reference back to 2.2 in 4.16 underscores this point. 61 Compare Luz 2001–2007, 1:158. See also Eckstein 1997, 391, 392. 62 The wording of the quotation raises the suspicion that this is an independent translation of the Hebrew text influenced by the LXX (and possibly by the Targum tradition;  cf. Gundry 1967, 110–16; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:323; and Stendahl 1991, 115). Various points of connection with the Matthean context, as will be demonstrated in the following discussion, suggest that the evangelist himself is responsible for the final form  of the quotation (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:453; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:323, 327). According to Menken 1999, 47–51, Matthean redaction can be considered probable only for ἀγαπητός and, with some qualifications, for ἀπαγγέλλειν and ἐκβάλλειν; the basis is a revised LXX text (36– 46). Luz 2001–2007, 2:192, considers “a pre-Matthean christological testimonium that late in the process was connected, perhaps by Matthew himself, with the summary of Mark 3:7–12.” (On the thesis of a testimonium, see, for example, Albl 1999, 185–90; against this assumption, see Menken 1999, 33.) 63 See, for example, Lindars 1961, 151; Strecker 1971, 69; Sand 1986, 258, 259; Harrington 1991a, 180; Luz 2001–2007, 2:191; and Fiedler 2006, 251; see also Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:450–51. This can then be extended diachronically to the effect that Matthew has only adopted the command of secrecy from Mark 3.12 at all in order to be able to 59

5: Israel and the Gentiles

277

because v. 19 concerns the behavior of the παῖς, while in v. 16, the crowds are commanded to remain silent.64 Nevertheless, the citation is better integrated in the context than is generally acknowledged.65 In 12.14, following the Sabbath controversy, the Pharisees determine to kill Jesus, and he withdraws. Given that, in the end, Jesus does not seek to avoid his suffering, it can be deduced that the reason for Jesus’ ἀναχωρεῖν here  is  that  the  time  for  his  self- sacrifice  (cf.  20.28)  has  not  yet  arrived  (cf. 26.18). Rather, Jesus still has work to do in Israel. This is exactly what happens in v. 15, for ὄχλοι πολλοί follow him and are healed by him. In this context, it is plausible to view v. 19 in reference to the conflict with the  Pharisees: Jesus does not (yet) seek a conflict with them about their plan  or his identity (see, in contrast, 21.33– 46) but instead withdraws.66 The formulation οὐκ ἐρίσει, which deviates from both the Masoretic Text and the LXX,67 in any case fits well with such an understanding.68 The metaphors of the bruised reed and the smoldering wick in v. 20ab, which in themselves could be applied in multiple ways, bring to mind, in the Matthean context, the desolate state of the crowds (9.36; 10.6). In other words,  v.  20ab  reflects  Jesus’  ministry  to  the  “languishing,  lost  sheep,”  which was spoken of in v. 15 in the form of θεραπεύειν69 and remains his task until his death. The freely formulated ἕως-clause in v. 20c70 includes append the quotation that was important to him (cf. the argumentation at Luz 2001–2007, 2:191). In contrast, Neyrey 1982, 459– 67, has proposed close contextual references to the entire chapter of Matt 12. 64 See Menken 1998a, 255. Having the τις from v. 19b also serve as the subject of the verbs in v. 19a (see Wilk 2002, 99) is not syntactically plausible. 65 Compare, above all, Menken 1998a, esp. 257– 64. 66 Compare Menken 1998a, 262 (“he will not engage upon quarrels with [the Pharisees] concerning their plan to kill him”) and Fiedler 2006, 251 (“Jesus withdraws ‘from there’ because he—as always—sees through the plans of his opponents, but does not seek a fight with them [cf. v. 19]”; trans. K. Ess; cf. Fiedler 2005, 193); see also Cope 1976, 34;  Verseput 1986, 198–99; and Hagner 1993/1995, 1:338; contra Neyrey 1982, 468– 69. 67 According to Menken 1999, 50, the use of ἐρίζειν can easily be traced back to the LXX revision he postulates as the basis for Matt 12.18–21 (see n. 62). 68 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:452, 453; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:324, 326; and Stendahl 1991, 111–12. 69 Compare McConnell 1969, 123; Barth 1975, 120; Neyrey 1982, 467– 68; Schnackenburg 1991, 219; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:141; Menken 1998a, 262– 63, 264; Novakovic 2003, 142– 43; and Fiedler 2005, 194, 201. Nolland 2005, 494, has in mind “the tax collectors and sinners, valued by Jesus but marginalised in their own community (9:10–13).” 70 ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀλήθειαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν / ‫ׁש ָּפט‬ ְ ‫יוציא ִמ‬ ִ ‫( לֶ ֱא ֶמת‬Isa 42.3c) and ἕως ἂν θῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κρίσιν / ‫( ַעד־יָ ִׂשים ָּב ָא ֶר ץ ִמ ְׁש ָּפט‬Isa 42.4b) are brought together in Matt 12.20c, whereby εἰς ἀλήθειαν / ‫—לֶ ֱא ֶמת‬with reference to the resurrection and Jesus’ universal authority grounded therein (28.18b)—is changed to εἰς νῖκος (according to Menken 1999, 50, εἰς νῖκος is based on a pre-Matthean textual variant, which appears already in the Hebrew textual tradition in which ‫ לֶ ֱא ֶמת‬was changed to ‫ לָ נֶ ַצח‬under the influence of Hab 1.4;

278

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection within this context:71 in his death, he does not succumb to his enemies but, rather, through his resurrection and exaltation, wins the “victory” whereby the foundation is laid for him to bring justice to victory as the exalted Lord.72 Linked with this, however, is  the  notion  that  the  hope  of  the  nations  will  be  fulfilled,  which  in  the  Matthean version of the quotation—with the LXX—refers concretely to his “name.” While one might first think of the παῖς within the framework of the citation, in terms of the larger context, the naming in 1.21, 23,73 is of fundamental relevance.74 The announcement in 1.21b is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’ passion,75 and the Immanuel motif of 1.23 is taken up in the promise of the resurrected Christ in 28.20b. Matt 12.21 thereby confirms  the reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection in v. 20c. In addition, the connection of 12.21 with the command to baptize in 28.19 should be noted: the hope of the ἔθνη in his name corresponds with the fact that πάντα τὰ ἔθνη are to be baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Within the structure of the citation, v. 21 creates a bridge with v. 18d. Matthew will have accordingly understood the announcement of justice76 along the lines of 28.19–20—that is, in terms of the teaching of Jesus’ commands Menken 1999, 44, sees this version as witnessed by 1QH XII, 25); ἀναλάμψει καὶ οὐ θραυσθήσεται (Isa 42.4a) is absent, probably because the statement cannot be unified with  Jesus’ passion (cf. Lindars 1961, 149; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:453; Menken 1998a, 254). 71 A reference to the resurrection in Matt 12.20c is also supported by Menken 1998a, 263, 264; and Giesen 2002, 140– 41; see further Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:453. 72 This reading implies a more extensive reference of the ἕως-clause that includes the Parousia event. But taking Matt 12.20c only in reference to the final judgment ignores  the  significance  of  Jesus’  death  and  resurrection  as  a  salvation- historical  caesura  and  thereby overlooks the present dimension of the establishment of κρίσις envisioned in v. 20c. (For a reference only to the final judgment, see, for example, Tisera 1993, 181: “a  subtle reference to the universal judgment [Matt 25.31– 46].” See also Hahn 1963, 110; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:195: “We should think here less of Jesus’ resurrection than of his judging as the Son of Man.”) For an alternative understanding of εἰς νῖκος in the sense of “permanently,” see Kraft 1975, 156. 73 Matt 1.21: τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν; Matt 1.23: καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ. 74 Compare Beaton 2002, 153, as well as, following him, Nolland 2005, 495; see also Wilk 2002, 138. 75 See in section 5.2.2.3. 76 κρίσις here, as in 23.23, means justice (likewise Hagner 1993/1995, 1:338; Gundry 1994, 229; Menken 1998a, 261; Beaton 1999, esp. 10–15 [cf. Beaton 2002, 144– 45]; Giesen 2002, 140; and Fiedler 2006, 252; also preferred by Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:325; see further Tisera 1993, 174–76). The word does signify judgment elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew (5.21–22; 12.41– 42; 23.33; often in the phrase ἡμέρα κρίσεως, see 10.15; 11.22, 24; 12.36), but this does not fit with the context in 12.18, 20 (contra Verseput  1986, 201; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:194).

5: Israel and the Gentiles

279

that disclose God’s will and justice (see also 24.14).77 The establishment of justice will ultimately reach completion with Jesus’ Parousia.78 Matthew has thus read the citation from Isa 42.1– 4 in view of Jesus’ conflict with the authorities (v. 19 as well as v. 20c), interpreted the statements in v. 20ab in terms of Jesus’ compassionate ministry to the crowds, and with the free, interpretive rendering of Isa 42.3c– 4b in v. 20c, created a reference to Jesus’ death (the culmination of the conflict) and resurrection, which in 28.19–20 is followed by the ministry to the nations envisioned in 12.18d, 21. The citation thereby connects in part with what is narrated in the immediately preceding context but, at the same time, looks ahead to later events. The same is true of the fulfillment quotation  in 1.22–23 from Isa 7.14,79 where the motif of the virgin birth picks up on the preceding context, whereas the statement that “they” will give Jesus the name “Immanuel”80 is first fulfilled in the confession of the post- Easter  community (cf. 18.20; 28.20). Likewise, the fulfillment quotations in 2.15  and 21.4–5 also describe events whose preconditions are established in the preceding  context,  but  which  are  not  fulfilled  until  a  later  event,  though  here this takes place in the immediately following narrative.81 In all three cases, the foundation for the later event is laid in what has already been recounted.82 Given that, in 12.18–21, v. 20c interpretively takes up the topic of Jesus’ death, introduced by the Pharisees’ plan (12.14), with the notion of bringing κρίσις to victory (which is grounded in Jesus’ death and resur­ rection), this also applies here mutatis mutandis. In view of the post-Easter situation of the universally oriented commission in 28.19, it is furthermore reasonable to extend this to the statements about the universality of salvation in 12.18d, 21. The connection between vv. 18d, 21, and v. 20c should then be read such that bringing κρίσις to victory constitutes the prerequisite 77

Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:325. Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:453, sees “the κρίσις that the servant must bring to the nations brought into proximity with the gospel of the basileia . . . through the word of proclamation ἀπαγγελεῖ” (trans. K. Ess). In contrast, Cope 1976, 42, takes Matt 12.18d in reference to the final judgment, in light of Matt 25.31– 46.  Compare Verseput 1986, 198: “the proclamation that the judgment of God has drawn near.” 78 See n. 72. 79 On the following, see Menken 1998a, 253–54. 80 Instead of καλέσεις, Matthew writes καλέσουσιν in 1.23 (on the redactional origin, see, for example, Beaton 2002, 89, 94). 81 The flight to Egypt (Matt 2.13–14), strictly speaking, only creates the precondition for God to call his Son out of Egypt (2.15). This is not fulfilled until 2.19– 21. In terms of  the preceding context, the quotation from Zech 9.9; Isa 62.11 in Matt 21.5 refers to the instructions to the disciples to bring a donkey and her colt in 21.2–3. That Daughter Zion is told of the coming of her king is not fulfilled until 21.8–9. 82 Compare Menken 1998a, 254: “[T]he immediately preceding events make a later realization possible.”

280

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

for the proclamation of κρίσις among the nations, in which the hope of the nations begins to be fulfilled. If these considerations are valid, then Matthew has made use of the first reference to Jesus’ death in the context of the conflict with the authorities in order to insert a quotation that he was able to read, from his christological perspective, in terms of this conflict and its salvific, “victorious”  outcome.83  The  significance  of  the  quotation  for  the  evangelist  is  to  be  found  more  specifically  in  the  fact  that,  for  him,  the  universality  of  salvation is grounded precisely in Jesus’ death and resurrection.84 With the quotation from Isa 42.1– 4, Matthew is able to prove this connection on the basis of Scripture—of course only in conjunction with his free rendering of Isa 42.3a– 4b, which he interprets with the insertion of εἰς νῖκος, in Matt 12.20c. Thus 12.18–21 not only strengthens the establishment of the universal dimension of the Christ event in Scripture, which was already achieved in 4.15– 16, but with regard to the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection in this context, carries this notion further with the statement in v. 20c.85 At the same time, with Isa 42.3ab, Matthew is able to refer to Jesus’ compassionate ministry among the crowds in Israel, which he had summarily recalled in Matt 12.15 with the words καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας. Thus, as in 4.15–16, so also in 12.18–21, the ministry to Israel stands together with the end goal of universal salvation. We have already discussed in detail in section 2.2.3 the three narratives in 8.5–13, 28–34, and 15.21–28, where Jesus heals non-Jews extra ordinem already during his earthly ministry. They, too, are signals of a later  phase  of  the  Christ  event,  in  which  its  significance  for  the  Gentile  world will emerge. In 8.29, πρὸ καιροῦ explicitly indicates that there is a point in time foreseen for the expansion of salvation in God’s plan. Alongside these passages, there is a further series of texts that contain an underlying universal perspective. Thus the disciples, according to 5.13–14, are the “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.”86 In the 83

Matthew has therefore most certainly put thought into the placement of the quotation; this is contra Nolland 2005, 492: “The setting provided in vv. 15–16 seems to be little more than an ‘excuse’ for placing the quotation at this point in the narrative . . . it is unclear what determined the present location.” 84 Regarding Matt 12.14–21 as indicating that “Jesus’ orientation towards the nations of the world . . . [is] a consequence of the rejection that Jesus experienced in Israel” (Garbe 2005, 59; trans. K. Ess) is contradicted by the fact that Jesus withdraws from the Pharisees in 12.15 but continues to work among the people and thus continues his messianic ministry to Israel. 85 On the variation of the motif of Jesus’ divine sonship in the use of παῖς, see in section 5.2.2.2 and in section 5.3. 86 See also λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ in Matt 5.15 and the open formulation ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων in 5.16.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

281

parable  of  the  weeds  among  the  wheat,  according  to  13.38,  the  field  is  the cosmos. According to 25.32, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη will be placed before the judge. In 12.41– 42, we even see the notion that, with the Ninevites and queen of the South, (righteous) Gentiles participate in the judgment of “this γενεά.”87 In addition, already in the Israel-focused commission, there is mention of testimony to the ἔθνη (10.18). According to 24.9, the disciples will be hated by πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, and above all, 24.14 anticipates the commission in 28.18–20: καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (see also 26.13). And not least, the confession of the Gentile soldiers in view of the events that accompany Jesus’ death in 27.54 points to the inclusion of the nations in the salvation connected with Jesus’ death and resurrection. In sum, the universal dimension of Jesus’ mission, which is made manifest in 28.18–20 in the formal command to the disciples to make disciples of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, is already exposed in 1.1, symbolically anticipated in 8.5–13, 28–34; 15.21–28, and in some logia, such as 5.13–14, presumed de facto; yet in the context of the portrayal of Jesus’ earthly ministry, it remains conceptually on a different narrative level that interprets that ministry through the signals in the prologue and the fulfillment quotations in  4.15–16; 12.18–21. However, 28.18–20 is not set up by a targeted inclusion of non-Jews during Jesus’ earthly ministry. On the one hand, therefore, the way is paved for 28.18–20, and it is in view in the preceding narrative from 1.1 on; on the other hand, it presents a novelty with the intentional turn to all nations. To further explore the narrative concept documented here, the christological foundation of the universal commission in Matt 28.18–20 is explored in the following section.

87  This  is  inspired  by  the  idea  that  the  righteous/holy  will  participate  in  the  final  judgment (see 1 En. 38.5; 48.9; 91.12; 95.3; 98.12; 1QpHab V, 3– 6; 1 Cor 6.2–3). In Matthew itself, see further 19.28 (par. Luke 22.30). However, on occasion, more is read out of Matt 12.41– 42 than is contained in the verses. A positive resonance of the proclamation of the kingdom of God among Gentiles is in any case not explicitly mentioned. (See only Hagner 1993/1995, 1:355: “[T]he Gentiles will be able to see what the Pharisees cannot.”) Matt 12.41– 42 only brings in examples from Scripture as a contrast in order to qualify the behavior of “this γενεά.” Much less do these verses signal “in advance this great turning of God’s way from Israel to the Gentiles,” as Luz 2001–2007, 2:218, postulated. Matt 12.41– 42 neither speaks explicitly of the proclamation’s orientation toward the Gentiles, nor are these verses generally concerned with Jesus’ rejection in Israel. Matthew opposes the scribes and Pharisees (on this, see section 4.3.2).

282

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

5.2 The Christological Foundation of the Universal Mission in Matt 28.18–20 5.2.1 The Universal Authority of the Resurrected Christ The location of the scene in 28.16–20 in Galilee, which is prompted by Mark 14.28; 16.7, is set up in the Matthean context by Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν in 4.15, as we have seen. The place where the light rose upon the people sitting in darkness now becomes the point of departure for the ministry to the nations. The event’s more specific location on the “mountain to which Jesus had directed  them” is reminiscent of various earlier passages:88 Jesus has taught (5.1, cf. 8.1), healed (15.29–31),89 and prayed (14.23) on a mountain. The connection to 5.1 acquires greater importance here, since Jesus instructs the disciples to teach the nations everything he has commanded them. Above all, however, 28.16 points to the transfiguration, the anticipation of Jesus’ glory in resurrection (17.1– 9),90 as well as the third temptation scene (4.8–10), in which the devil offered Jesus dominion over all the world, which in Matthew (perhaps redactionally91) takes place on a mountain.92 Jesus’ claim of authority in 28.18b underscores the significance of this cross- reference in the overall plan of the Gospel.93 With 28.18b, the words of commission in 28.19–20a, unlike 10.5–8, are preceded by a statement from Jesus about himself. While the commission of the disciples in Matt 10 was based on Jesus’ previous ministry to which the disciples were witness, the christological premise of the second commission is now given in Jesus’ claim to authority. Functionally, in terms of the respective foundations for commission, Jesus’ self-presentation 88

Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:616, 621–22. In light of these textual references, the continuity with Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry can be seen to be signalized in εἰς τὸ ὄρος in 28.16. 90 The link with Matt 17.1– 9 is established more specifically by the fact that Jesus “comes up” (προσέρχομαι) only in 17.7 and 28.18 (cf. Tisera 1993, 296; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:542). Elsewhere, conversely, others always come to Jesus. 91 In support of a redactional insertion of εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν in Matt 4.8, see, for example, Allen 1912, 33; M‘Neile 1957, 41; D. Hill 1972, 101; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:369; Giesen 2001, 41; Nolland 2005, 166; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:148; contra, for example, Lagrange 1927, 62; Schulz 1972, 177; Donaldson 1985, 83– 84; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:84; and Schürmann 1990, 1:210 with n. 169. 92 Gundry 1994, 594, poses a false alternative in postulating that the connection with 5.1 should be given precedence over a reference to 4.8–10. (But, for a primary reference to 5.1, see also Fiedler 2006, 429; see further Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:539.) It should rather be emphasized that various threads of the preceding narrative are bundled together in 28.16–20. On the connection between 4.8–10 and 28.16–20, compare Lange 1973, 168; Donaldson 1985, 101–3; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:369–70; Giesen 2001, 41; Byrne 2002, 63, 72; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:153. Critical of this is Nolland 2005, 167. 93 On this, see further in section 5.2.2.1. 89

5: Israel and the Gentiles

283

in 28.18b thus corresponds with the narrative context in 4.23–9.35. The fundamental— in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word— significance  of  28.18b  for that which follows is also shown by a comparison with the words of the resurrected Christ in Luke 24.47– 49 and John 20.21–23.94 There, too, the disciples are sent out, and Jesus’ promise of his supporting presence in Matt 28.20b corresponds to a certain extent with the promise or gift of the spirit in Luke 24.49 and John 20.22. The preceding assertion of authority, however, is unique to the Matthean story of the epiphany.95 In my opinion, it is quite probable that this assertion stems from Matthew’s own hand.96 Read in the context of the Gospel as a whole, the Matthean formulation of 28.18b with (1) the passivum divinum ἐδόθη, (2) μοι, and (3) πᾶς is reminiscent of πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου in 11.27.97 The emphasis there on Jesus’ unique fellowship with his father and the derivation of his authority from that fellowship (ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου) need not be repeated in 28.18b. Instead, the open πάντα from 11.2798  is  specified  here  as  πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.99 Jesus’ mention of his ἐξουσία again recalls various passages from the preceding narrative. While 7.29 indicates Jesus’ authority as teacher, the gift to the disciples of ἐξουσία over unclean spirits in 10.1 implies Jesus’ own authority to heal (cf. 8.9 in the larger context). Matt 9.6 underscores Jesus’ authority—transferred to the community in 9.8100—to forgive sins ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Finally, Jesus’ great dispute with the authorities in 21.23–22.46101 is initiated by the question about Jesus’ ἐξουσία. The new element in 28.18b is the emphasis that Jesus is given all authority in heaven and on earth.102 While 28.18b sharpens the emphasis upon ἐξουσία in comparison with 11.27, at the same time, comparison with other statements of authority in the Gospel illuminates the accent that is placed upon the aspect of universality: Jesus now proclaims his universal ἐξουσία, which appertains to him as the universal Lord exalted to the right hand of God (cf. 22.44; 26.64). 94

On this, compare Barth 2002, 13.

95 On the difficult question of genre, see Meier 1977b, 420– 24; Perkins 1993, 574– 78; 

and Luz 2001–2007, 3:617–19. 96 See Lange 1973, 170, and Kingsbury 1974, 574–79, esp. 576, who, however, consider the entire passage 28.16–20 to be redactional; contra, for example, Strecker 1971, 210; Bornkamm 1975c, 291; and Meier 1977b, 410; see also Luz 2001–2007, 3:617, n. 17 (“Verse 18b could be traditional”). 97 Compare, for example, Geist 1986, 113–16; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:616, 624. 98 On this, see in section 5.2.2.2. 99 In 11.25, and so in the immediate context of 11.27, Jesus calls to his Father with κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς (cf. Q 10.21). In 28.18b, God has transferred to Jesus all ἐξουσία in heaven and on earth, and thereby Jesus himself is installed as the universal Lord. 100 On this, see section 6.1. 101 On the composition, see section 3.1.2.5. 102 Compare Schaberg 1982, 2; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:624; contra Lange 1973, 176–77.

284

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

This accent becomes further defined when one considers the reference  to Dan 7.13–14 in Matt 28.18–20.103 Matthew has already taken up Dan 7.13 in 24.30 (par. Mark 13.26), as well as in Jesus’ statement before the chief priest in Matt 26.64 (par. Mark 14.62).104 Particularly in light of these preceding allusions, it can hardly be disputed that the formulation in Matt 28.18b is at least in part inspired by ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία in Dan 7.14LXX.105 The significance of Dan 7.14LXX here is also substantiated by the fact that there, too, the significance of the dominion of the Son of Man for πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is highlighted in the immediately following context,106 and further, the promise of a supporting presence ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος in Matt 28.20b corresponds with the reference to the eternal existence of the Son of Man’s dominion in Dan 7.14b. The universality of the ἐξουσία, emphasized by the insertion of πᾶσα and of ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, is once again revealed as the Matthean proprium in 28.18b. Intratextually, this corresponds with the Son of Man’s dominion over the entire cosmos in 13.38, 41. It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  Matthew  had  a  concrete  point  in  time in view with ἐδόθη and, if so, when. A likely possibility, at first glance,  would be Jesus’ resurrection107 or, in light of 26.64,108 his resurrection in connection with his death, given that Matthew seeks to tie the two together into a single coherent event.109 The evidence for ἐξουσία considered previously, however, shows that the statement in 28.18b links the resurrected Lord with the earthly Jesus, rather than separating them. Matt 11.27 practically 103 For detailed discussion on this, see Schaberg 1982, 111–30 (with discussion of objections). See also Michel 1950/1951, 22; Gaston 1970, 385– 86; Lange 1973, 212–17; Meier 1975, 211–12; France 1985, 413; Geist 1986, 117–18, 121–22; Harrington 1991a, 415; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:886; Moses 1996, 188– 89; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:682– 83; van Aarde 1999, 683– 84; Riches 2000, 248–51; Viviano 2001, 16–17; Luz 2004, 132–33; Hays 2005, 185– 86; and Lee/Viljoen 2010, 67; see also Nolland 2005, 1264. Arguing against a reference to Dan 7.13–14, see Vögtle 1971b, 253– 60; Hahn 1980, 31, 35; Bauer 1988, 111–12; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 153; see also Donaldson 1985, 176–77, 181; and Gundry 1994, 595. Malina 1970/1971, 91–96; Frankemölle 1984, 50– 61; and Mora 1991, 101– 2, see the decree of Cyrus in 2 Chr 36.23 as the central point of reference. For criticism, see Meier 1977b, 418–20; and Friedrich 1983, 151– 60. 104 Matthew “corrects” in 24.30, as in Matt 26.64, to ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Mark 13.26: ἐν νεφέλαις; Mark 14.62: μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), in accordance with the LXX (Theodotion, like Mark 14.62, has μετά). 105 The Masoretic Text offers the triad ‫ּומלְ כּו‬ ַ ‫( ָׁשלְ ָטן וִ ָיקר‬cf. Theodotion: ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία), instead of the one-part formulation found in LXX. On the agreement of Matthew with Dan 7.13LXX, compare n. 104. 106 The thematic references are, however, different. 107 See, for example, France 1985, 413; and Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:507. 108 Compare Vögtle 1971b, 262: “If a detail explaining the conferral of power from v. 18 is to be looked for within the Gospel of Matthew, this is doubtless to be found in Matthew’s version of the prediction in 26.64b” (trans. K. Ess). 109 See section 5.2.2.3 on ἀπ’ ἄρτι in 26.64 and 27.51–53.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

285

anticipates 28.18b,110 and 14.22–33 shows that already the earthly Lord participated in divine power,111 which is also presumed in 26.52–54. It is therefore more plausible that the novelty of 28.18b is not to be seen in the authority itself or in the full measure of the ἐξουσία112 but rather in the fact that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God and declares his ἐξουσία as universal.113 He already possessed this authority before, but now with his enthronement as universal Lord,114 he is in a position to exercise it.115 With Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation, the καιρός (cf. 8.29) for the mission to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη has arrived. In 28.19, the particle οὖν explicitly shows this universal mission as the consequence of Jesus’ universal authority. The disciples—who proclaim the “gospel of the kingdom” ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ (24.14) and teach Jesus’ commandments (28.20a)— are the vehicle of the dominion of the exalted one, which spans the entire cosmos.116 110

On the interpretation of Matt 11.27, see in section 5.2.2.2. On this, see in section 5.2.2.2. 112 In contrast, Vögtle 1971b, 257, for example, sees the new element in the fullness of the ἐξουσία in 28.18b. He asserts that this “very probably speaks of a truly new acquisition of God-given power: it is the unlimited participation, the full possession of God’s allencompassing sovereign power, that [Jesus] first claims as the resurrected Christ, and not before” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). In this vein, see also Strecker 1971, 211–12; and Bornkamm 1975c, 293: “The new element in Matt. 28 is . . . only the universal expansion of his ἐξουσία over heaven and earth” (trans. K. Ess). 113 Compare Sand 1986, 599: the authority is “not given [to the resurrected Christ] as something fully new, but rather, as something that was always present, finds its confirma­ tion in the victory over death” (emphasis added; trans. K. Ess). See also Nolland 2005, 1265: “Matt. 28:18 is most likely to represent a reaffirmation of authority after the rejection of Jesus by the Jerusalem authorities which led to his death. Through resurrection God has vindicated Jesus, who is now able to freshly affirm his authority.” 114 Against the notion of enthronement in 28.16–20, see Lange 1973, 236–37, 238, 242– 45; see also J. A. Gibbs 2000, 153. It is correct that Matt 28.18–20 does not depict or allude to the event of the enthronement. This has rather already occurred and is here presupposed (cf. Friedrich 1983, 143– 44, 162; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:507; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:618) or made known. 115 One can to a certain extent compare Jesus’ baptism in 3.16–17: Jesus is not endowed with the Holy Spirit (Matthew has also altered τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν [Mark 1.10] to ἐρχόμενον ἐπ’ αὐτόν [Matt 3.16], but this can also be explained from Matt 12.18/Isa 42.1) and accepted as the Son of God here for the first time (cf. 1.18,  20), but his presentation as the Son of God by the voice from heaven (on the formulation with οὗτός ἐστιν and on the audience, see section 5.2.2.1) marks “the formal inauguration of his ministry” (Hagner 1993/1995, 1:58). See also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:335: Matt 3.16 serves “to reveal or confirm Jesus’ already existing status and worthiness as the  eschatological bearer of God’s Spirit and therefore as the servant of the Lord.” Luck 1993, 35, interprets the event following Jesus’ baptism such that he is made certain of his “sonship and thereby of his task” (trans. K. Ess). 116 Compare Matt 21.43 in the interpretative option presented in section 4.1.3.2. 111

286

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The preceding discussion of 28.18b, however, has not yet provided an exhaustive treatment of the christological foundation for 28.19–20. In order for this to be further illuminated, it is necessary to consider the narrative development of Jesus’ divine sonship. This is all the more relevant in view of the fact that the confession of the soldiers in 27.54 is oriented toward Jesus as the Son of God and also, in 28.16–20, the christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship is of key significance, as the following discussion will show. 5.2.2 The Narrative Development of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in the Gospel of Matthew The focus on Israel in Jesus’ earthly mission is accompanied, as is shown in chapter 2, by the emphatic presentation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Already in Matt 1, though, it becomes clear that this portrayal does not fully encompass Jesus’ messianic identity. Jesus is at the same time the Son of God. In the Old Testament, the motif of divine sonship is found in, among other things, royal ideology (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Ps 89.27–29) and is taken up in the context of the expectation of the Davidic Messiah in 4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13 and probably also in 4Q246.117 The christological concept of the evangelist continues this approach, in that the Davidic and the divine sonships are positively correlated. At the same time, the approach is modified by the inversion of the motif of “adoption” on a significant point: it  is no longer the Davidic ruler who is “adopted” as the son of God; rather Jesus the Son of God is “adopted” by Joseph and thus incorporated into the Davidic line.118 For Matthean Christology, this reversal of the “adoption” process is of landmark significance. It is the divine sonship that constitutes  the core of Jesus’ messianic identity. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus’ divine sonship is not only linked with aspects such as his unique closeness to God (cf., 11.27), his participation in divine authority (cf. 14.22–33; 26.52–54), and his obedience to the will of the Father119 (4.1–11; 26.39, 42; 27.40– 43);120 it also plays a significant  117 On 4Q246, see section 2.1, n. 7. On the Messiah as the Son of God, see also 4 Ezra 7.28; 13.37, 52. 118 On this, see section 2.1.1.1. 119 Behind the motif of obedience in the Matthean portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God (see on this, for example, Luz 1991, 231–34), once again, Old Testament and Early Jewish tradition comes into view—namely, the characterization of the righteous one as a son of God found in the wisdom tradition (Sir 4.10; Wis 2.18; 5.5), which likewise inspires the language of the “sons of God” in reference to followers of Jesus in Matt 5.9, 45 (on this, cf. Theißen 1989a, 161– 62; and Konradt 2004a, 86, 89). 120 See, on this, Luz 1991, 231: the title Son of God “designates Jesus’ particular and unique relationship to God, and the unique position that God has given to him. . . . But the most important Matthean accent consists in the fact that the Son of God maintains his

5: Israel and the Gentiles

287

role in the evangelist’s narrative concept in the context of the ministry of salvation—beyond Israel—to the nations. The christological and salvationhistorical lines of the narrative correspond here: the two-tier concept of attention to Israel alone as a signature of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the extension of that attention to the nations in the commission by the resurrected Christ is accompanied by the sophisticated uncloaking of Jesus’ identity in the narrative development of Matthean fulfillment Christology.  What has been thetically outlined here is elucidated and developed in the following discussion. 5.2.2.1

The Exposition of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in the Prologue (Matt 1.1– 4.16)

Section 2.1.1.1 establishes that Jesus’ divine sonship is introduced already in 1.18–25. It is to be added here that, in 1.18–25, the notion of Jesus’ divine sonship is characterized by two motifs that are key to Matthean Christology as a whole. First, as with the christologoumenon of Davidic sonship,121 here too we can point to the foundational statement about the purpose of Jesus’ mission in 1.21: the Son of God appears as he who saves from sin. Second, with the fulfillment quotation in 1.23, Matthew exposes  the Immanuel motif, whose fundamental significance is made evident in  the final words of the Gospel in 28.20 (cf. also 18.20). The fact that 1.23 is  particularly concerned with a statement about Jesus as the Son of God is signaled by the identical introduction to the fulfillment quotations in 1.22–  23 and 2.15, where the first explicit statement about Jesus’ divine sonship appears with the quotation from Hos 11.1. Matt 26.29 and 28.20 underscore the connection between the Immanuel motif and the christologoumenon of divine sonship:122 in Jesus, the Son of God, God is with humanity. In 3.13–17, Jesus’ baptism culminates in his being proclaimed as the Son of God by the voice from heaven.123 On the basis of the change of the personal address (Mark 1.11) to the objectifying οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, it has often been concluded that this is a public proclamation.124 sonship in his path of obedience to the Father. This means: in his story of Jesus, Matthew supplements the vertical dimension of the title ‘Son of God’ with a horizontal, ethical dimension” (trans. K. Ess). 121 Compare section 2.1.3. 122 On 26.29, see section 5.2.2.3; and on the key significance of the christologoumenon  of divine sonship in 28.16–20, see section 5.2.2.3. 123 The central Old Testament references are Ps 2.7 and Isa 42.1– 4 (cf., for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:336–39). A reference to Gen 22.2—and therefore also the presence of an Isaac typology—is unlikely (against Huizenga 2009, esp. 153– 87). 124 See, for example, Meier 1979, 58; Sand 1986, 71; Davies and Allison 1988–1997,

288

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Against this, however, speaks the fact that Matthew not only gives no indication that the voice can be heard by all those present but also, with the insertion of αὐτῷ after ἠνεῴχθησαν in 3.16,125 indicates explicitly that this is an event perceived by Jesus.126 The presence of the crowds as witnesses to the event is not mentioned.127 Furthermore, it is not even clear that John the Bap­ tist heard the voice.128 Considering 3.13–17 within the broader context, this must rather be regarded as unlikely in light of 11.2–3.129 The most plausible audience of the voice from heaven is the heavenly court.130 Since the heavens have opened for Jesus (3.16, αὐτῷ!), he—and he alone—hears as well. An additional factor to be considered as a reason for the change to οὗτός ἐστιν . . . is that Matthew wanted to exclude the possibility of understanding the voice in terms of Ps 2.7 (υἱός μου εἶ σύ), which depicts the “adoption” of the Davidic king as the Son of God,131 and thus Matthew sought to avoid the 1:330, 339; Senior 1998b, 56; Keener 1999, 134; Hahn 2002, 1:529; Troxel 2002, 33; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:143. Söding 1997, 726, sees 3.17 as a public authentication of Jesus’ commitment in 3.15 “to fulfill all righteousness” (trans. K. Ess). 125 ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί, as the minor agreement with Luke 3.21 suggests, probably stems from the Q version of the baptism pericope. (Its existence is probable, above all, because the temptation pericope in Q 4.1–13 presumes the theme of divine sonship as connected with Jesus’ baptism; cf. Luz 2001–2007, 1:140 with n. 2.) αὐτῷ is probably redactional. If Matthew had Ezek 1.1– 4 in view when integrating (and adapting) the Q version into Matt 3.16 (cf. France 1985, 95; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:329; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:186; Gundry 1994, 52; Fiedler 2006, 85; and also Nolland 2005, 155, n. 7; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:143), this would underscore the “subjective” visionary nature of Matt 3.16–17. 126 Accordingly, Matthew adopted the Markan εἶδεν. Compare Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:186: “Matthew narrates this event, not as public, but as Jesus’ vision” (trans. K. Ess). See further Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:78; and Nolland 2005, 156–57. Contra Harrington 1991a, 62, as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:330 (with regard to textual criticism, Davies and Allison do not consider αὐτῷ in 3.16 to be original; see 1:328, n. 67). Schneider 1988, 290, differentiates between the opening of heaven together with the descent of the Spirit, perceived only by Jesus, and the voice from heaven, portrayed “as generally audible” (see also LaGrand 1995, 181– 82; and Gielen 1998, 51). 127 In any case, 3.5 (referenced by Luz 2001–2007, 1:143) is not evidence that crowds are present, since τότε in 3.13 can mark the beginning of a new scene (so Kingsbury 1975a, 14). However, τότε also occurs in Matthew within narrative units (see 2.7; 3.5, 15; 4.5, 10, 11; 9.29; 15.28, and elsewhere). 128 For John the Baptist as witnessing the event, see, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:330; Luck 1993, 34; Luz 2001–2007, 1:143; Feneberg 2009, 138, 145; Talbert 2010, 56–57 (while the vision is “seen by Jesus alone” [56–57], the heavenly voice “is heard by Jesus and John” [57]); and Kingsbury 1975b, 11, who however revised his position in a later publication (cf. n. 133). 129 If the question from John the Baptist in 11.2–3 can more or less be harmonized with  3.14,  this  is  much  more  difficult  for  3.17  on  the  basis  of  a  public  proclamation  (cf. Kingsbury 1996, 51). 130 Likewise, see Nolland 2005, 157. 131 Compare section 2.1.1.1 with n. 74.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

289

impression, suggested by the Markan version, that Jesus was (first) accepted  as the Son of God at his baptism; in Matthew, he is the Son of God from the very beginning.132 In short, in 3.17 Matthew did not intend to depict a public proclamation,133 except perhaps for the readers of his Gospel.134 Jesus’ divine sonship next constitutes the christological basis of the temptation narrative in Matt 4.1–11. The conditional phrase εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ in 4.3, 6 does not serve to place Jesus’ divine sonship in doubt, and accordingly, the respective imperative sentences that follow do not demand that Jesus prove the status in question. Rather, this status is presumed, and the devil  seeks  to  entice  Jesus  in  the  first  two  temptations  to  unauthorized  and inappropriate demonstrations of the power he possesses as the Son of God.135 In fact, however, Jesus proves his divine sonship precisely by refusing such demonstrations in obedience to God.136 A fundamental feature of the Matthean conception of the Son of God emerges here: as the Son of God, Jesus participates in divine authority, but strict adherence to God’s will is just as much a part of divine sonship—even when it comes to utilizing divine authority. Thus, for the first temptation, Jesus is guided by the  Spirit into the desert; his fast is in accordance with God’s will, and it would therefore damage his link with the will of God (and be opposed to his trust in God) if he were to ease his situation (ἐπείνασεν, v. 2) with the transformation (which is within his power137) of stones into bread.138 Likewise, for 132

Likewise, see Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:79. Compare, further, Frankemölle 1984, 94; and Broer 1992, 1277 (cf. Broer 1980, 124). 133 Aptly, see Dormeyer 1992, 1369: “The voice from heaven resounds . . . with a proclamation given impersonally . . . but no one except Jesus hears it” (trans. K. Ess). In this vein, see also France 1985, 95; Kingsbury 1986, 647– 49 (see also Kingsbury 1996, 51); see further Nolland 2005, 157 (cf. n. 130). 134 Compare Nolland 2005, 156: “[W]e must clearly identify Matthew’s readers as in his own mind the primary recipients of this revelation.” See also Heil 1981, 114. 135 See Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:361: “[T]he introductory εἰ expresses a real condition (‘since’ . . .). Jesus’ status as ‘Son of God’ is not questioned; rather it is the presupposition for the devil’s temptation.” Compare further Bonnard 1963, 44; Kynes 1991, 31; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:65; Gundry 1994, 55; Nolland 2005, 163; Fiedler 2006, 90; Luz 2001–2007, 1:151; Crowe 2012, 160; and Evans 2012, 83; contra M‘Neile 1957, 38. 136 On the significance of the motif of obedience in 4.1–11, compare Kingsbury 1975b, 12; Heil 1981, 115; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:367; Luz 1991, 231–32; Broer 1992, 1274–75; and Söding 1997, 733. The relevance of this element of Jesus’ divine sonship is suggested already in 3.13–17, insofar as Jesus’ baptism is here associated with the “fulfillment of righteousness” (cf. Kingsbury 1975b, 9; Broer 1992, 1275; on the intense  debate over the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη in Matt 3.15 see, on the one hand, Luz 2001– 2007, 1:141– 43, and on the other, Deines 2005, 127–32). 137 Aptly, see Söding 1997, 727: “Satan’s request can only be a temptation because Jesus, as the Son of God, does in fact have the power to turn stones into bread” (trans. K. Ess). 138 Compare Hagner 1993/1995, 1:65. When, at the end of the text in v. 11, it is said that the angels served Jesus (διηκόνουν αὐτῷ), this might mean that they provided him

290

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the second temptation, it would contradict the link of the Son to the Father if the Son were to willingly force the Father to intercede and save him in accordance with the promised protection139 (vv. 5–7).140 The third episode takes a different direction, but here, too, Jesus’ divine sonship remains the key element, although it is not explicitly mentioned. The devil no longer seeks to provoke Jesus to a particular action on the basis of his divine sonship141 but now offers Jesus sovereignty over the world in exchange for Jesus’ worshipping him instead of God—that is, Jesus is now supposed to completely betray the link with God that distinguishes him as the Son of God.142 Jesus the Son of God, however, as it is commanded in the passage he cites in response (Deut 6.13; 10.20), serves God alone. This climax to the temptation scenes, as we have seen, points ahead to the “mountain scene” in 28.16–20:143 the resurrected Christ, who had first obediently walked the path to the cross, is given all ἐξουσία in heaven and on earth from God.144 In terms of the larger composition, the temptation narrative stands near the end of the prologue (1.1– 4.16). The Son of God begins his ministry in Israel in 4.17, having stood the test of the temptation. In sections 2.1 and 3.1.1, it is shown that Matthew has emphatically highlighted Jesus’ Davidic messiahship in his ministry and made this messiahship the object of the crowds’ christological reflection. At the same time, on the evangelist’s level  of communication, Jesus’ divine sonship has been emphatically revealed in the prologue, and the reader thus perceives the following narrative with this awareness, even though, as will be seen, Jesus’ divine sonship is not a topic of discussion that extends beyond the circle of the disciples into the general public in 4.17–20.34.

with food (manna?; cf. M‘Neile 1957, 42; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:374, among others). 139 According to Söding 1997, 736, “in the context of the Matthean story, the threefold σύ is to be read christologically: the devil quotes Ps 91.11–12 as a promise that applies particularly to the Son of God” (trans. K. Ess). 140 In this vein, see also Söding 1997, 737. 141 Accordingly, the conditional clause εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ is now absent. 142 Compare Nolland 2005, 166: “[I]n this final temptation the stakes are higher: to comply would involve the abandonment of Jesus’ calling as the Son . . . and the transfer of his allegiance to the devil.” On the divine sonship as a continuous theme in 4.1–11, see further, for example, Söding 1997, 721–22. 143 Compare section 5.2.1 with n. 92. 144 Alongside this are references in 4.1–11 to the passion. On this, see section 5.2.2.3, n. 198.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

291

5.2.2.2 Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matt 4.17–20.34

As is the case with the Davidic sonship motif, Matthew’s creative intent is revealed when one compares the Matthean passages containing the Son of God motif in the portrayal of Jesus’ public ministry up to the entry into Jerusalem with the Markan text. In Mark, the christologoumenon of divine sonship occurs twice in the context of exorcisms on the lips of demons: once in a summary (Mark 3.11), and once at the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (5.7). Matthew adopted only Mark 5.7 (Matt 8.29) but omitted Mark 3.11 or, rather, replaced it in Matt 12.15– 21 with a fulfillment quotation145 that clearly refers back to the proclamation of divine sonship in 3.17, with the reference to Jesus as the παῖς and ἀγαπητός of God, in whom he is well pleased.146 The replacement of Mark 3.11 bears implications for Matt 8.29: whereas the Gerasene demoniac’s invocation of Jesus as the Son of God in Mark 5.7 appears as an illustrative example in light of the preceding summary in 3.11, Matt 8.29 presents a unique instance in Matthew. It should be remembered here that 8.28–34 portrays Jesus ministering to two Gentiles and, with the phrase πρὸ καιροῦ, indicates the not-yet-arrived kairos of the mission to the Gentiles.147 This means that, due to the replacement of Mark 3.11 with Matt 12.17–21, the invocation of Jesus as the Son of God on the lips of demons is absent from the depiction of Jesus’ ministry in Israel.148 The first evangelist’s creative intent is revealed above all, however, in  the fact that he has employed a Q logion in 11.27, which articulates Jesus’ divine sonship, and further has added the Son of God motif to Peter’s confession (Matt 16.16, diff. Mark 8.29), which he set up through Matt 14.33. To begin with 11.27, the aspect of Jesus’ identity raised by John the Baptist’s question in 11.2– 3, which finds expression in his ministry, is  brought to an initial climax within the arrangement of Matt 11 in the word of revelation in 11.27. Jesus presents himself as the son—that is, the Son of God149—to whom “everything” is given by the Father. This statement has 145 Matt 12.15ab follows Mark 3.7; Matt 12.15c takes up Mark 3.10a; Mark 3.7b, 8, was already incorporated in Matt 4.25 (on this, cf. section 2.2.1). 146 Further, Matt 12.18c brings to mind 3.16. On the connection of Matt 12.18 with 3.16–17, compare Sand 1986, 259; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:338; Gundry 1994, 229; Luz 2001– 2007, 2:193; and Beaton 2002, 128–31, among others. 147 On this, see section 2.2.3.1. 148 See further section 5.3. 149 On the interpretation of the absolute “son” in reference to Jesus’ status as Son of God, compare Kingsbury 1975a, 42, 64– 65; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:319–20; Luz 2001– 2007, 2:164– 65; and Fiedler 2006, 245; as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:282. Contrast Meier 1979, 82– 83, who postulates a reference to the “Son of Man” in addition to the “Son of God.”

292

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in view the unity of action Jesus shares with the Father, which is expressed elsewhere in the element of Jesus’ ἐξουσία, which stems from God (see, above all, 7.29; 9.6; 21.23–27; 28.18). In verse 27b– d, πάντα is not limited to Jesus’ divine knowledge or the revelation.150 Rather, it brings the theme of the Son’s and the Father’s unity of action into focus with the portrayal of the Father’s unique knowledge of the Son and the Son’s unique knowledge of the Father, which this unity presupposes.151 This aspect is then developed in vv. 28–30, following the statement about the role of the Son as revelator, with regard to the announcement of the will of God through Jesus.152 In other words, πάντα here refers comprehensively to the divine authority granted to Jesus, as it is evidenced in his ministry.153 As we have seen, 28.18 picks up on this, stressing the universality of Jesus’ authority.154 In 11.25–27, the climactic christological statement of v. 27 is connected with the statement about God’s revelatory action among the disciples (v. 25), to whom ταῦτα—that is, Jesus’ works as indicating his messianic authority (cf. 11.2)—are revealed (cf. 13.11).155 The revelation bestowed upon the disciples is further illustrated in the pericope of Jesus’ walking on the water, which Matthew has significantly reshaped (Matt 14.22– 33 /  Mark 6.45–52). Whereas the Markan pericope ends with the disciples in astonishment, and the narrator affirms this with the statement that the disciples did not understand about the loaves (Mark 6.30– 44) but rather their hearts were hardened, Matthew has the disciples advance to the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God.156 Here, for the first time, the confession of  Likewise, see Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:437: “The comprehensive πάντα must—in view of the following sentence—include the universal revelatory knowledge, but cannot be limited to this. Just as creation and revelation are juxtaposed with regard to the Father in v. 25, so too is Jesus equipped with authority and knowledge” (trans. K. Ess). In contrast, a reference only to Jesus’ knowledge is taken by France 1985, 199; Deutsch 1987, 33–34; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:279– 80; Hagner 1993/1995, 1:320; Gundry 1994, 216; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:166. See further Meier 1979, 79– 80, 81– 82. 151 Verse 27b– c not only speaks of Jesus’ exclusive knowledge of the Father but offers a two-sided statement and, within this, the Son’s exclusive knowledge through the Father stands first. If οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός (v. 27c) were to expand on πάντα in v. 27a, the statement would rather be expected to follow v. 27a directly. 152 Broer 1992, 1276, rightly notes that “knowledge of the divine will is likely also contained in knowledge of the Father revealed by the Son” (trans. K. Ess). 153 Compare Fiedler 2006, 245. 154 Compare Mayer-Haas 2003, 425 (“πάντα in Matt 11.27 is very likely synonymous with πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς”; trans. K. Ess); Lange 1973, 166, on 28.18b (“the Matthean πᾶσα ἐξουσία probably exactly expresses and interprets the meaning of πάντα from 11.27”; trans. K. Ess); and also Verseput 1986, 141. 155 On the understanding of Matt 11.25, see section 4.3.1 with n. 261 and n. 262. 156 Matt 14.22–33 is closely linked thematically with 8.23–27. Peter’s cry of κύριε, σῶσόν με in 14.30 has a counterpart there in the words of the disciples in the boat, κύριε, 150

5: Israel and the Gentiles

293

the Son of God is found on the lips of human beings; however, it does not come from the crowds, as is the case with the Son of David (12.23; 21.9), but rather from the disciples themselves. Two aspects are important as the foundation for this confession. First, in walking across the raging water and finally calming the wind (cf. 8.23–  27), Jesus demonstrates an authority that places him near to God (cf. Job 9.8157), as it is impossible for human beings to walk on water.158 Jesus’ majestic ἐγώ εἰμι in 14.27, which often occurs in the Old Testament in connection with God’s revelation159 and is reminiscent thereof,160 underscores this aspect.161 Second, in vv. 28–31, Matthew has inserted a rescue scene: Peter goes toward Jesus on the water, begins to sink as he becomes skeptical when looking at the waves, but is saved by Jesus (cf. v. 30: κύριε, σῶσόν με; cf. esp. Ps 69.2– 4, 15–16). In addition, the raging water is calmed as Jesus boards the boat with Peter (v. 32, cf. 8.26). The Son of God thus appears as savior at the same time (cf. Pss 18.17; 144.7; and 107.23–32).162 This event thus points toward something beyond itself and thereby gains a deeper significance: in Jesus, the Immanuel (1.23), God’s salvific power is manifested, as is signaled in 1.21: “By rescuing Peter (and the disciples) Jesus calls Peter (and the disciples) . . . to a faith in the power of Jesus to save his people.”163 The confession of Jesus as the Son of God in 14.33 is to be viewed within this soteriological context. σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα (8.25), and like the disciples in 8.26, Peter in 14.31 is scolded for being ὀλιγόπιστος. In connection with 8.23–27, the disciples’ confession of the Son of God in 14.33 thus also reads as an answer to the people’s question in 8.27: ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν; (cf. Heil 1981, 84, 102; as well as Hagner 1993/1995, 2:421; and Nolland 2005, 603). 157 On Job 9.8 as the closest Old Testament “parallel” to Matt 14.25, see Heil 1981, 38– 43; and Angel 2011, 306–7. 158 Compare the polemic against Antiochus in 2 Macc 5.21: He believed “in his arrogance that he could make the land sailable and the sea walkable.” For an overview of the religious-historical comparative material, see Berg 1979, 37–39, and Luz 2001–2007, 2:319–20, who draws the conclusion: “In antiquity walking on water was of great interest to people—not only and not primarily the Jews. It was a dream . . . It is impossible for human beings and is reserved for God, unless humans are in a special way sons of God or achieve divine powers by magic” (320). See also Paul 2005, 159– 60. 159 See Deut 32.39; Isa 41.4; 43.10, 25; 45.18–19; 46.4; 51.12, and elsewhere. 160 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:506; Harrington 1991a, 224; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:13; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:423; Luz 2001–2007, 2:320; and Fiedler 2006, 276. Cautiously, see Nolland 2005, 601. 161 Compare Kingsbury 1975b, 19: “properly to be understood . . . as a divine revelation-formula.” See also Lange 1973, 345; and Heil 1981, 59: “The ἐγώ εἰμι . . . signifies  the self- identification of Jesus as the revealer of Yahweh.” 162 On this aspect of the confession of the Son of God in 14.33, compare Geist 1986, 390, as well as Heil 1981, 63. 163 Heil 1981, 64.

294

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Within the structure of the Gospel, the christological insight of 14.33 revealed to the disciples in this event forms the basis for the expansion of Peter’s confession in 16.16 with the title of divine sonship: σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.164 In the preceding chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, the Christ-title had a clear Davidic coloration.165 At the same time, the conceptual coherence of the Davidic and divine sonships in Matthean Christology, as established in 1.18–25 and taken up in 22.41– 46, must be kept in mind:166 Jesus’ messianic identity is unfolded through the connection between the Davidic sonship and divine sonship. The Matthean version of Peter’s confession must now be considered in this light as well. The confession of the Messiah does not in itself articulate the disciples’ special awareness. The crowds also arrive at this insight—in the form of the recognition of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship (21.9)—and do so on the basis of the ministry of salvation to Israel as experienced in the healings. A deeper awareness of Jesus’ messiahship—namely, as the Son of God—is reserved for the disciples. Accordingly, in Peter’s confession in Matt 16.16, the Christ-title is not supplemented additively by the title of divine sonship, but rather, the latter qualifies the former (cf. again 22.42).167 As this deeper recognition of the Messiah refers back, within the larger narrative, to the exceptional experience of the disciples and particularly Peter on the sea (14.22–33), this privileged christological insight is attributed to God’s revelatory activity in the macarism that Matthew has inserted in 16.17168 as part of Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession.169 While Jesus 164 The possibility of an allusion to Hos 2.1LXX in the addition of the participle τοῦ ζῶντος (so Goodwin 2005, 272–77) is contradicted by the grammatical differences (plural/singular, article usage). Aside from this, the phrase “living God” is common in the Old Testament, Early Jewish, as well as early Christian tradition (see the evidence in Konradt 2003, 43, n. 103 and n. 105). On the various ways it is used, see Stenger 1978; and on the monographic treatment of Old Testament usage, see Kreuzer 1983. 165 In 1.1, Matthew uses “son of David, son of Abraham” in apposition to “Jesus Christ”; in 1.16, Christ corresponds with the royal title for David (see section 2.1.1.1); in 2.2– 4, Herod appropriately understands the question about the “king of the Jews” as a question about the Christ; and in 11.2, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ points back to Jesus’ previous ministry, which Matthew had explicitly linked with Jesus’ Davidic messiahship by incorporating 9.27–31. 166 See section 2.1.1. 167 Compare Heil 1981, 106 (“[T]he messiahship of Jesus is interpreted in terms of his divine sonship.”); Luck 1993, 186– 87 (“a specification and not only the ‘attempt’ to  gather further Christ-titles”; trans. K. Ess); Hagner 1993/1995, 2:468 (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ as “Matthew’s interpretive  expansion”;  this  expansion  “defines  the  Messiah  as  more  than  a human figure, as someone who is uniquely a manifestation of God” [emphasis added]);  as well as Gundry 1994, 329. 168 This verse is probably a creation of the evangelist (cf. Vögtle 1971d, 169–70 [see also Vögtle 1985, 124–25]; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:54; Luz 2001–2007, 2:355–56; Fiedler 2006, 286; contra, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:602), which in context points to 11.25–27 and 13.16–17. 169 The mode of revelation narrated in 14.22–33 and identified in 16.17 cannot, in my

5: Israel and the Gentiles

295

is recognizable (even to the crowds) as the Davidic Messiah in his deeds (cf. 11.2), his divine sonship—which in Matthew is linked with an authority exceeding even that expressed in Jesus’ healing activity170—is made accessible only on the basis of special revelation.171 The fact that Matthew has Jesus speak in 16.17 of his heavenly Father—corresponding with the title “Son of God” contained in the confession— also clarifies that the revelatory  statement is concerned with qualifying Jesus’ messiahship as indicated by ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. The motif of revelation from Matt 16.17 returns in a different form at the transfiguration (17.1– 9). A “vision” (ὅραμα) is revealed to the disciples  (v.  9);  they  see  Jesus  in  the  glorified  paschal  form  of  the  exalted  Lord.172 Directly before the transfiguration story, Jesus announces in 16.28  that some of those present will see the Son of Man arrive in his kingdom (cf. 13.41) during their lifetime. If this announcement refers to 28.16–20,173 then 17.1–9 has to be regarded as a proleptic view of what was announced in 16.28.174 In 17.2, when Matthew redactionally compares the illumination of Jesus’ face and his clothing with the sun (cf. 13.43) and light, he underscores that Jesus belongs to the heavenly world,175 which is represented opinion, be strictly distinguished, especially given that the form of the macarism in 16.17 is reminiscent of 13.16 and that which is granted to the disciples to see (with understanding eyes) is to be subsumed under that which they “see” in 14.22–33. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:15, however, sees here a point of difference. 170 Heil 1981, 90, appropriately notes on Matt 8.27: “The very formulation . . . of the question in 8:27 indicates that the storm-stilling functions as an Überbietung or ‘outdoing’ of Jesus’ power as a healer-exorcist” (emphasis original). The narrative in 14.22–33 of Jesus’ walking on water, which culminates in the confession of the Son of God, takes up the theme of 8.23–27 and, with 14.33, gives an answer to the question in 8.27 (see n. 156). 171 Compare, for example, Broer 1992, 1278. 172 Compare Donaldson 1985, 154–56; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:100; Luck 1993, 193–94; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:498; Luz 2001–2007, 2:398; and Fiedler 2006, 294. It is worth considering that, in the redactional designation of the event as a ὅραμα in 17.9, Matthew had in mind especially Dan 7.13, 15LXX (cf. Lange 1973, 433; Moses 1996, 90–91), and thus the passage of the book of Daniel that is not only incorporated in 24.30 and 26.64 but likely also alluded to in 28.18–20. This would further underscore the character of Matt 17.1–9 as anticipating the reality of the resurrection. On the cross-references between 17.1–9 and 27.51–28.20, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:394. Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:706–7, see in 17.1– 8 and 27.32–54 “a diptych in which the two plates have similar lines but different colours” (706). 173 On Matt 16.28, see section 2.3, n. 379. 174 Compare Donaldson 1985, 150–51. 175 On the metaphor of light with regard to the fate of the righteous in the end times, see Dan 12.3; Wis 3.7; 1 En. 38.4; 58.3; 92.4; 104.2; 108.12–15; 2 En. 66.7 (“Blessed are the righteous, who escape the great judgment of the Lord, for they will shine seven times more brightly than the sun.”); 4 Ezra 7.97 (“The sixth order, when it is shown to them how

296

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

by Moses and Elijah.176 Through the proclamation in 17.5 of Jesus as the Son of God, repeated here after 3.17, the exalted Lord who belongs to the heavenly world is thus presented here as the Son of God. While οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα agrees word for word with 3.17,177 the imperative ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ is added in 17.5, corresponding with the audience of the disciples. In the larger context, this imperative has a counterpart in the resurrected Christ’s reference to his commandments in the great commission of 28.18–20. Within the Matthean narrative structure, the transfiguration not only  continues the motif of the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God before the disciples from 16.16–17 but also takes up the command to remain silent. In 16.20, as suggested by Mark 8.30, Matthew has Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession end with the warning to tell no one that he is the Christ. In context, it is clear that this is about the recognition of Christ as the Son of God. This aspect of Jesus’ identity must not yet be made available to the public beyond the circle of the disciples. Following the transfiguration scene, Matthew once again picks up the Markan command to be silent: the disciples must tell no one what has happened, “until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (17.9). In other words, they must remain silent until that which is anticipated in the transfiguration has come to pass— namely, the  enthronement of the Son of God.178 If the contexts that follow both 16.16–20 and 17.1–9 are taken into account, the broader christological framework in which the divine sonship is seen in Matthew becomes clear. In 14.22–33, Jesus’ divine power became their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on” [trans. Metzger, OTP 1:540]); 7.125; 2 Bar. 51.3, 10, and elsewhere. On light as an attribute of God, see Ps 104.2; Hab 3.4; Dan 2.22 (Masoretic Text, Theodotion); 1 En. 1.8; 2 En. 39.4; L.A.B. 12.9; Gk. L.A.E. 36.3; Lat. L.A.E. 28.2; Pss. Sol. 3.12; Apoc. Ab. 17.15–16; 18.11; 4 Bar. 6.9; 9.3; Philo, Somn. 1.75; 1 John 1.5, and elsewhere. On light generally as a marker of the heavenly world, see 1 En. 14.15–22; 71.1ff.; 2 En. Prol. 6; 20.1, 4; 25.1–5; 42.5; Apoc. Ab. 18.11; 19.4; 1 Tim 6.16. For the metaphor of clothing, see 1 En. 62.15–16; 2 En. 22.8; Rev 3.5; 4.4; 6.11; 7.9, 13–14. 176 On this function of Moses and Elijah, see Luz 2001–2007, 2:397, 398. This does not necessarily exclude further meanings. It is entirely possible that Moses and Elijah—secondarily—function at the same time as representatives of the Torah and the Prophets (on this interpretation, see, for example, Lange 1973, 426; Pedersen 1975, 254– 55; Meier 1979, 122; Harrington 1991a, 254, 255; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:95; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:233; and also Hagner 1993/1995, 2:493; Fiedler 2006, 295; rejecting this reading, Luz 2001–2007, 2:398, as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:697–98). 177 This agreement is due to redactional harmonization. As seen above, Matthew has, first, written οὗτός ἐστιν in 3.17 in place of the personal address in Mark, and second, added ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα to the heavenly speech in 17.5. 178 On this central motif in the transfiguration narrative, see Donaldson 1985, 150– 51;  and Luz 2001–2007, 2:396–97.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

297

apparent in his walk across the water and his salvific intervention, and it  was this power that evoked the disciples’ confession, which Peter takes up in 16.16. In 17.1– 9, the disciples see Jesus in the glorified form of the exalted  Lord. In both cases, Jesus’ unique authority and position is thus connected with the motif of divine sonship. In 16.21, however, Matthew portrays Jesus confronting the disciples for the first time with his violent death, and after  the experience of the transfiguration, he once again refers to his imminent  suffering (17.12) during the descent from the mountain (v. 9).179 In doing so, Matthew does not present the passion as a christological theme that is distinct from the motif of divine sonship but, rather, intertwines the two themes. In other words, for Matthew, it is not just Jesus’ unique authority that is part of his divine sonship but also his obedient path to the cross. At the same time, the salvific action of the Son of God is thereby concretized.  In Matt 16, Peter had yet to further develop his understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship accordingly.180 5.2.2.3

The Passion and Exaltation of the Son of God

Whereas the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God remains limited to the disciples, who are sworn to secrecy, until his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus speaks of himself publicly as the Son of God for the first time in the context of the conflict with the authorities in Jerusalem, but he does so indirectly in the form of parables—namely, the parable of the wicked tenants (21.37, 42– 44)181 and the wedding banquet (22.2). Already here, the killing 179 Whereas the reference to Jesus’ suffering occurs in Jesus’ question in Mark 9.12b, Matthew has added this to the remembrance of John the Baptist’s fate in the form of Jesus’ prophecy (Matt 17.12b). Matthew thereby not only underscores the analogy between John the Baptist’s fate and that of Jesus (see οὕτως καί) but also creates a parallel to the prediction of the resurrection from v. 9 (cf. Luz 2001–2007, 2:394). On the cross-references between Matt 17.1–13 and 16.13–23, compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:717, and Luz 2001–2007, 2:394, with the apt conclusion: 17.1–13 “has the effect of a narrative ‘reprise’ of 16:13–23.” In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus will then once again take Peter and the two sons of Zebedee with him (26.37). Since Matthew omitted Mark 5.37 (cf. also Matt 24.3 with Mark 13.3), Matt 17.1–13 and 26.37– 46 are the only texts in the Gospel of Matthew in which this configuration occurs. One can consider whether this link, too, is  meant to indicate the connection between the passion and the resurrection and exaltation. 180 That Peter’s understanding of the Son of God (and that of the other disciples, cf. 14.33) must further mature with the integration of the passion does not mean that he has a false understanding. Sim 1993a, 414, misinterprets the evidence when, in the context of his thesis that 27.54 should not be understood as a fully valid confession (cf. n. 220), he concludes— on the basis of the significance of the passion for the Matthean understanding  of the Son of God—that a false understanding of Jesus’ sonship appears in 14.33. Matt 16.17 clearly contradicts this interpretation. 181 Compare section 3.2.

298

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

and exaltation of the Son emerge as the key elements. His lordly position as Son of God is then addressed indirectly in 22.41– 46: as we have seen, in the Matthean context, the citation from Ps 110.1—which functions to problematize the exclusive Davidic sonship of the Messiah—points to Jesus’ majesty as the Son of God.182 In terms of the compositional arrangement, 22.41– 46 acquires something of a pivotal function in the Matthean Jesus story. Jesus stands here at the end of his earthly ministry, during which he has attended only to Israel in his role as the Davidic Messiah. Now the passion is imminent, where the motif of the Son of God, as we will now show, is of key significance.183 While the soteriological dimension of the Matthean model of Jesus’ divine sonship is made clear already in 1.18–25 as well as in the pericope of Jesus’ walk across the water in 14.22–33, this dimension is emphatically reinforced in the Passion Narrative. Matthew concisely expresses the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death by adding εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν to the words of institution in 26.28. Matthew left out these very words in the portrayal of John the Baptist, in contrast with Mark 1.4. In Matthew, the forgiveness of sins is linked not with the baptism of John but with Jesus’ death. In the  preceding  narrative,  this  soteriological  significance  is  reflected  in  the  authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins in 9.6, as well as Jesus’ ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in general.184 Both elements together develop the basic christological statement of 1.21:185 “For Matthew the forgiveness of sins stands at the center of Jesus’ mission.”186 The connection between 1.21 and Jesus’ passion is not only achieved through 26.28 but also further substantiated in that the name Jesus, which in 1.21 is explained in the statement of salvation, is inserted in the titulus crucis in 27.37: the Markan ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων becomes in Matthew οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. It is plausible to assume that Matthew here creates an intentional reference to the interpretation of the name in 1.21,187 and thereby, in line with 26.28, connects Jesus’ death with the forgiveness of sins.188 182

On the alteration of the introductory question in 22.42, see section 2.1.1.2. Matthew found the connection of the Son of God motif with the Passion Narrative present in Mark in the interrogation scene (Mark 14.61) as well as the confession of the centurion (Mark 15.39). One can further point to the address to God as Father in Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane in Mark 14.36. 184 Compare section 2.1.3 on Matt 9.9–13. 185 In contrast, Luomanen 1998b, 224–26, rejects a connection between Matt 1.21 and 26.28, and takes 1.21 solely in reference to Jesus’ ministry in Israel. 186 Luz 2001–2007, 3:381. 187 Compare Senior 1985, 131; Heil 1991a, 80; Luck 1993, 305; Repschinski 2006, 264; and Herzer 2009, 139. 188 In the Matthean narrative, the tearing of the temple curtain in Matt 27.51 (par. Mark 15.38) is (also) a part of this theme: with Jesus’ salvific death, the temple has completed  183

5: Israel and the Gentiles

299

Bringing 9.2–8 and 9.9–13 once more into view, we see that here the forgiveness of sins is integrated with the context of Jesus’ healing activity (as the Davidic Messiah) and his ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in general, here in the form of tax collectors; the forgiveness of sins happens in the concrete encounter with Jesus.189 With the interpretation of Jesus’ death in the words of institution in 26.28, the forgiveness of sins is placed—for the post-Easter community celebrating the Lord’s supper—in a context that has been detached from the pre-Easter form of Jesus’ earthly presence, which is dominated by the leitmotif of Davidic sonship. With regard to the christological conception that is manifest here, we must note the Matthean redactions in 26.29. Matthew not only emphasizes the temporal caesura with the words ἀπ’ ἄρτι (cf. 23.39 and 26.64) but also, by inserting μεθ’ ὑμῶν, creates an echo of the Immanuel motif from 1.23,190 which in that verse is connected with Jesus’ divine sonship.191 In addition, Matthew has Jesus speak not of the kingdom of God (Mark 14.25) but of “my Father’s kingdom” The phrase is unique in the Gospel of Matthew;192 this too points to Jesus divine sonship.193 It is thus to be concluded that Matthew connects Jesus’ death for the forgiveness of sins in 26.28–29 with the christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship.194 At the same time, in light of Matt 1–2, the phrase “king of the Jews” in the titulus crucis (27.37) points back to Jesus’ Davidic messiahship,195 so that here, in the context of the interpretation of Jesus’ death, the cohesiveness of Jesus’ Davidic and divine sonships once again becomes clear.196 After Matthew adopts Jesus’ mention of God as his Father—inspired by the Markan αββα ὁ πατήρ (Mark 14.36)—two times in the prayer at

its service as the location of the forgiveness of sins mediated through cult (cf. Hagner 1993/1995, 2:849, among others). 189 At the same time, as seen above, the disciples are granted the authority to forgive sins in 9.8. On this, see section 6.1. 190 Likewise, see Luz 2001–2007, 3:382: “The ‘with you’ (μεθ’ ὑμῶν) added by Matthew is reminiscent of the basic christological motif of the Gospel: Jesus, who saves people from their sins (1:21), is Immanuel, the ‘God with you’ (μεθ’ ὑμῶν ὁ θεός: 1:23).” In other words, the connection between the forgiveness of sins and the Immanuel motif from 1.21–23 returns in 26.28–29. 191 See section 5.2.2.1. 192 Alongside Matt 26.29, see 13.43: “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” 193 This can be compared with 16.17, where Jesus ascribes Peter’s confession of the Son of God to the revelatory action of his heavenly Father. 194 Compare Kingsbury 1975b, 26. 195 On the connection of the “king of the Jews” in Matt 2.2 with the christologoumenon of Jesus’ Davidic sonship, see the discussion in section 2.1.2. 196 On this, see the following discussion.

300

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Gethsemane (Matt 26.39, 42197), the motif of the passion of the Son of God is strengthened by an insertion at Jesus’ arrest: the violent attempt of a disciple to prevent this arrest (Matt 26.51 / Mark 14.47) is expressly rejected by the Matthean Jesus (26.52–54). For, if he wanted, he could easily evade the arrest: ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι ἄρτι πλείω δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων; Here, once again, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ authority, which his Father has equipped him with because of his unique position as the Son of God.198 This goes hand in hand with the connection between Jesus’ ability to destroy the temple and build it again in three days (δύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι) and his divine sonship in 26.61– 64. In 26.64, Matthew emphatically highlights Jesus’ death as the moment of his enthronement by inserting the words ἀπ’ ἄρτι in Jesus’ answer.199 The phrase ἀπ’ ἄρτι recalls 23.39 as well as 26.29. Both of these texts bring Jesus’ death into view (23.37; 26.26–28) and mark it as a turning point: the phase of Jesus’ earthly presence makes way for his exaltation to universal Lord.200 That the statement of exaltation in v. 64 is closely bound to the christologoumenon of divine sonship—or that Jesus interprets his divine sonship with v. 64201—becomes clear in the allusion in 26.64 to the verse Jesus cited in 22.44 (Ps 110.1). For in 22.41– 46, Matthew transforms the introductory question into τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ περὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ; τίνος υἱός ἐστιν; and in doing so, specifically links the statement of exaltation from Ps 110.1  with Jesus’ divine sonship. Finally, the central significance of Jesus’ divine sonship in the Passion  Narrative emerges in the crucifixion scene. In 27.39– 40, where passersby  mock Jesus, taking up the temple logion from 26.61, Matthew has inserted 197 Whereas Mark only conveys Jesus’ first prayer, Matthew introduces direct speech 

also in the second prayer and thus doubles the salutation πάτερ μου. On God as Father in the context of prayers in the Gospel of Matthew, see Mowery 1989, 402–3. 198 In the larger context, Matt 26.53 brings to mind the second episode of the temptation pericope (4.5–7; cf. Söding 1997, 739; Luz 2001–2007, 3:420–21; Fiedler 2006, 396, n. 63). There, the devil—who is tempting the Son of God (4.6)—refers to the angels who would bear the Son of God, falling from the pinnacle of the temple, on their hands. 199 Compare W. Kraus 1997, 423; contra Geist 1986, 338. 200 On the interpretation of Matt 26.64, see further section 3.2. 201 This is not contradicted by the fact that Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of Man in 26.64, since in the Gospel of Matthew, “Son of Man” is “not a title which expresses what Jesus is, his status or dignity, but a narrative expression of Jesus’ special language, which Jesus uses in order to comment on and pre-tell his whole history from his humility until his final exaltation and vindication” (Luz 1992b, 17). Thus with the self- designation  as “Son of Man,” Jesus comments on his own path, and the essential function of this usage of the phrase “Son of Man” is to bind together the various phases of his ministry. Accordingly, Son of Man and Son of God do not have the same function in 26.63– 64. Compare the connection of the Son of Man and Son of God in 16.13–16.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

301

εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ and thereby picked up the context of 26.61– 64. At the same time, the conditional sentence brings to mind the identical words spoken by the devil in 4.3, 6.202 Once again, the issue at hand is that Jesus as the Son of God, in obedience to the will of the Father, does not make use of the power he possesses but instead fulfills the will of God. Considering  this passage diachronically, we observe that Matthew found the conditional phrase in the temptation narrative of Q, as shown by Luke 4.3, 9. In that he adopts it once again redactionally in Matt 27.40, the Son of God’s obedience at the temptation becomes a foreshadowing of the passion. Matthew’s effort to link the temptation of the Son of God in 4.1–11 with the passion also emerges, conversely, in his editing of the temptation pericope.203 Thus in 4.10, with the insertion of ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ into Jesus’ response to the devil’s offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for his worship, a cross- reference with the first proclamation  of suffering in 16.21–23 is created (see v. 23),204 where Matthew found ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ already in Mark 8.33.205 With this subtle reference to the passion in 4.10,206 Matthew implies that, in accordance with the will of God (26.39, 42), Jesus’ path to installation as universal Lord— understood in a very different sense from that envisioned by the devil in 4.9 (cf. 20.25–28)—leads via his death to salvation for the “many” (26.28), through which God’s plan for salvation as outlined in Scripture will be fulfilled (26.54, 56). Any attempt to dissuade Jesus from this path, as Peter  tries to do in 16.22, can only be based on an initiative of Satan, who seeks to prevent the salvation effected by Jesus. Christologically, this connection between 4.1–11 and the passion, which could be further illustrated with other points,207  underscores  the  central  significance  of  the  christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship within the passion. 202

Compare Senior 1985, 132; Kingsbury 1993, 273; and Söding 1997, 739– 40. On the connection between Matt 4.1–11 and the passion, compare Donaldson 1985, 99–100; Söding 1997, 730–33, 737, 739, 747– 48; and Kammler 2003, passim, among others. 204 In Matt 4.1–11, σατανᾶς occurs first and only in 4.10. Before and after this, Matthew uses διάβολος (4.1, 5, 8, 11) or ὁ πειράζων in v. 3. This underscores that there is undoubtedly an intentional cross-reference here. 205 ὀπίσω μου (Matt 16.23) is omitted in 4.10, as this is appropriate only for a disciple (cf. Gundry 1994, 58; and Söding 1997, 745, among others). 206 Compare Donaldson 1985, 100; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:372; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:90, 92; Kammler 2003, 180; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:153. 207 Thus, for example, the connection between 4.1–11 and the Passion Narrative is further substantiated by the link between 26.53 and 4.6–7, which was indicated in n. 198. In a broader sense, one can also point to the first episode of the temptation in 4.3– 5. Just  as Jesus does not shrink from suffering in the passion, so here, he takes on further hunger (v. 2) after forty days of fasting (cf. Hagner 1993/1995, 1:65). Söding 1997, 730, sees the 203

302

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Further, Matthew has also incorporated the Son of God motif into the mocking of Jesus by the chief priests, scribes, and elders in 27.41– 43, and in doing so, makes the challenge to Jesus’ divine sonship emerge as the central aspect of the crucifixion scene.208 Following the derisive comment, based on Mark 15.31–32, that Jesus has saved others but cannot save himself (Matt 27.42), Matthew has the authorities continue in v. 43—with the words of the impious taunters from Ps 21.9LXX—that Jesus has trusted in God and God should now save him, if he wants.209 Thus Matthew presents the mockery as advancing from the challenge that Jesus should save himself to the discussion of salvation by God. This shift is then followed by the justification, which refers to 26.64, that Jesus has claimed divine sonship  (see also 21.37; 22.2). The premise here is that if Jesus is God’s son, then God will step in to save him.210 And this is exactly what happens but in a different way than is envisioned by the mocking passersby and authorities—namely, in a certain sense “through death.” While Jesus rejects a demonstration of his authority even on the cross, he is resurrected by God and established as the universal Lord and, in addition, is identified by God himself as his son through the signs that accompany his death (27.51–53):211 not only is the curtain in the temple torn (Matt 27.51 / Mark 15.38),212 but at the same time, there is an earthquake,213 accompanied by the resurrection of many saints who have passed away, who

bridge between 4.3–5 and the passion in the fact that Jesus “willingly exposes himself to human contingency throughout his earthly life for the sake of his salvific mission (1.21)—  in the end at Golgotha, at the outset in the desert” (trans. K. Ess). See also Söding 1997, 731: “The privations that Jesus takes on in this service, culminating in the cross, are prefigured in his hunger” (trans. K. Ess). Kammler 2003, 178, postulates particularly a connection with 27.40: Jesus “fundamentally does not [use] his divine power for his own benefit” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 208 In this vein, see also, for example, Senior 1976, 323: “The prime issue of the death scene has become a challenge to Jesus’ sonship.” 209 On the use of Ps 21.9LXX, see section 3.1.2.5, n. 202. 210 In Matt 27.43, in addition to the use of Ps 21.9LXX, an allusion to Wis 2 can possibly be seen in εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός. (See, above all, Wis 2.13, 16, 18; cf. Senior 1985, 134; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:609, 620; Graham 1997, 503– 4; Luz 2001–2007, 3:539; Nolland 2005, 1199; and Fiedler 2006, 415.) However, it cannot be proven with sufficient certainty that Matthew knew the book of Wisdom. The alternative is that Matthew  was familiar with a tradition similar to the one that is taken up in Wis 2. It should particularly be observed that the motif of confirmation of the Son of God through his postmortal  fate is present in Wis 2–3, as well (see also Wis 4.7–5.16). 211 Compare, for example, W. Kraus 1997, 422–24; and Wilk 2002, 143. 212 On the tearing of the curtain as a sign of judgment against Jerusalem, see section 4.3.3. 213 On earthquakes as an eschatological sign, see Isa 24.18; Joel 2.10; 1 En. 1.6–7; 102.2–3; T. Mos. 10.4; 2 Bar. 70.8.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

303

appear in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection.214 In the Matthean context, the confession of the centurion and his troops—ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος— not only stands in contrast to the preceding mockery but also appears as a response to the events that accompany Jesus’ death. These events reveal Jesus’ divine sonship to the soldiers.215 At the same time, the soldiers’ words (ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος) take up the titulus crucis in 27.37 (οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων),216 the “authors” of which Matthew apparently considers to be the soldiers who crucified Jesus and stood watch under  the cross.217 If this is correct, those who are speaking in 27.54 are precisely the people who also—as a continuation of their mockery of Jesus (see 27.27– 31)— affixed  the  titulus crucis. Now, however, they positively reinforce the statement of 27.37 in light of the divine sonship mentioned in the words of mockery in 27.39– 43. Once again, the interplay of Davidic sonship, expressed in the label “king of the Jews,” and divine sonship becomes apparent, just as this interplay also appears in the juxtaposition of “king of Israel” (27.42) and “Son of God” (27.40, 43) in the mockery itself. Given that, within the narrative, the soldiers in 27.54 are to be identified with those  who had earlier mocked (27.27– 31) and crucified (27.35– 36) Jesus218—in 27.36 Matthew makes explicit that the soldiers sit down after the crucifixion and keep  guard over Jesus219—27.54 appears in the context as an expression of regret and repentance.220 The soldiers thereby form a contrast with the Jewish authorities: 214 On connections between Matt 27.51b–53 and Ezek 37.7–14, see Allison 2011, 155– 61; see further, for example, Senior 1976, 321 (see also Senior 1987, 280– 83); Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:477; Tisera 1993, 288; Gundry 1994, 576; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:504–5; and Gurtner 2007, 146–51. 215 Compare Senior 1976, 312, 323–24; Maisch 1986, 98; Witherup 1987, 583; Hoffmann 1990, 121; Sim 1993a, 406–7; Tisera 1993, 289–90; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:848; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:507; W. Kraus 1997, 422–23; Troxel 2002, 31; Luz 2001–2007, 3:569; and Angel 2011, 314, among others. Whether a critique of emperor worship resonates here—the Son of God is Jesus, not the emperor (so Mowery 2002, 110; Carter 2004, 537; and Sim 2005, 102)—can be left open for the context under discussion here. 216 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:469; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:508; οὗτός ἐστιν in 27.37 is a Matthean insertion, as is Ἰησοῦς. 217 Compare Sand 1986, 559. There is in any case no change of subject indicated in 27.35–37. Nevertheless, the sequence of events is odd, if the same persons are presumed to be the agents throughout 27.35– 37 (cf. Nolland 2005, 1194). Matthew first mentions that  the soldiers sit down, and then afterwards in v. 37 adds the posting of the charge against Jesus. 218 Compare Witherup 1987, 583; Sim 2005, 100–101; Weaver 2005, 121–22; and Gurtner 2007, 164– 65. 219 With οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν in 27.54, Matthew points directly to 27.36 (καὶ καθήμενοι ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ). 220 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:635: “a fundamental reformation of opinion.” See further, for example, Meier 1979, 205, n. 249; Heil 1991a, 87; Gundry 1994,

304

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the latter are dissuaded from their path neither by the events that occur at Jesus’ death nor later by the empty tomb.

The difficulty of the sequence of events in 27.51– 54221 cannot be resolved simply by deleting μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ in v. 53.222 The setting is rather to be regarded as a narrative attempt to lend a paschal tone to Jesus’ death, in order to connect it as closely as possible with the resurrection into one cohesive event; to mark it as the beginning of the era of salvation,223 as this corresponds with the “dating” of the enthronement in 26.64; and at the same time, to guarantee the priority of Jesus’ resurrection with μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ.224 Of central significance to  the Matthean understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship is the connection— which comes into view here and was already exposed in the “diptych” in 16.13–23—between Jesus’ authority and position as Lord, on the one hand and, on the other, his obedient path to the cross for the salvation of “many” (26.28).225 It is entirely in line with the contraction of Jesus’ death and resurrection into one coherent event that Matthew not only portrays the passion of 578; Weaver 2005, 121–22; and Gurtner 2007, 165; contra Schwindt 2007, 101; and, above all, Sim 1993a, 418–22 (see also Sim 2005, 103–5): Matthew is supposed to have given no indication that the soldiers in 27.54 should be assessed differently than those in 27.27–37. “At the level of the storyline, the utterance of the centurion and his fellow soldiers is best viewed as an admission of guilt and a cry of defeat” (Sim 1993a, 419). Matt 27.51–54 is to be understood “as a proleptic judgment scene” (421). With regard to the soldiers, this means: “[T]hese murderers of the Son of God represent the wicked on the day of judgment  who  will  tremble  with  fear  and  regret  their  sins  when  they  face  the  final  judge”  (422). This is unconvincing. In addition to the observations collected in Luz 2001–2007, 3:570, which support an unreservedly positive understanding of the soldiers’ words, the great significance of the theme of forgiveness in the Gospel of Matthew should be pointed  out (see 6.14–15; 18.21–35). Furthermore, it should be observed that the Jewish authorities’ opposition persists even after Jesus’ death (27.62– 66; 28.11–15) and that 22.2–7 and 23.29–36 integrate the persecution of Jesus’ messengers into the guilt that is the basis for God’s judgment against them. 221 The saints appear in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (27.53), but Matthew then returns to the crucifixion scene with v. 54 and has the soldiers react to the quake καὶ τὰ γενόμενα, which evidently include the appearance of resurrected saints. 222 Against Luck 1993, 309; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:634; Troxel 2002, 36– 37; and Schwindt 2007, 99–100, among others. 223 Compare Meier 1975, 207–9; and Maisch 1986, 121–22. Critical of this reading, see Herzer 2009, 140– 41. 224 On the latter, compare Tisera 1993, 289; Senior 1994, 422; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:852; and Fiedler 2006, 419. Critical of this, see Luz 2001–2007, 3:569. 225 Further, the redactionally formed analogy between the prophecy of resurrection in 17.9 and the announcement of suffering in 17.12 should be noted here (cf. section 5.2.2.2, n. 179).

5: Israel and the Gentiles

305

Jesus emphatically as the passion of the Son of God226 but that the christologoumenon of divine sonship, as indicated previously, is of key significance in the final scene of the Gospel as well. So, first, in the command  to baptize, baptism is “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (28.19).227 In addition, the promise of a supporting presence in 28.20 takes up the Immanuel motif of 1.23, which is linked with Jesus’ divine sonship. Further, one must take into account the connection between 28.18b and 11.27, where Jesus speaks of himself as the Son, as he does in 28.19.228 In addition, with regard to the christological aspect of the installation of the Son of God as the universal Lord, the connection with the temptation of the Son of God in 4.1–11 is noteworthy: while this culminates in 4.8–10 in the devil’s offer to give all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus in terms of earthly sovereignty, Jesus appears at the end of the Gospel as the one upon whom—as the obedient Son of God—God bestows all ἐξουσία over heaven and earth (28.18b).229 Not least, 17.1–8 should finally be noted,230 where Jesus is revealed to the disciples in the form of the exalted Son of God who belongs to the heavenly realm (17.5).231 226

Compare the corresponding title of the article by W. Kraus 1997 (“The Passion of the Son of God.”); further, for example, see Kingsbury 1993, 272–78 (on Matt 27.38–54). 227 Kingsbury 1975b, 16, 27–28 (cf. Kingsbury 1974, 580–84); Bauer 1988, 112; and J. A. Gibbs 2000, 153–54; see also Donaldson 1985, 178. However, there is no reason to question, on this basis, an allusion to the Son of Man from Dan 7.13–14 in Matt 28.18–20 (on this, see in section 5.2.1; against Bauer 1988, 112; J. A. Gibbs 2000, 153), since—as 26.63– 64 makes sufficiently clear (see n. 201)— it is misguided to regard the Son of God  and Son of Man as mutually exclusive alternatives. (This is contra Bauer 1988, 112: “[I]n 28.16–20 Matthew presents Jesus not as Son of man, but as Son of God.”) 228 Compare Kingsbury 1974, 581. 229 The fundamentally different character of this rule is obvious. Whereas the earthly rulers oppress their peoples (20.25), Jesus reigns as a gentle king (21.5, cf. 11.29) with the “easy yoke” (11.30) of his commandments, which his disciples are to teach to the nations (28.20). 230 Apart from this, like 4.8–10, 17.1–8 is located on an ὄρος ὑψηλόν. The phrase occurs in Matthew only in 4.8 and 17.1. 231 More broadly, the connection to the pericope of Jesus’ walking on water through the motif of doubt in 28.17 should further be included here (cf. 14.31)—διστάζειν occurs in Matthew (and in the entire New Testament) only in these two passages. In view of this reference, it is natural to see the doubt in 28.17 within a context parallel to that of 14.31. In 14.28–31, faced with the waves, a skeptical Peter doubted his empowerment through Jesus and thereby ultimately doubted Jesus’ authority. Jesus’ rescuing act provides the proof of this authority, which the disciples in the boat respond to with the confession of the Son of God. In 28.17, the disciples, or some of them (on the interpretation of οἱ δέ, see van der Horst 2006, 162– 63), do not doubt that Jesus has appeared to them, but rather they harbor doubts about what this appearance means with regard to Jesus’ position—that is, with regard to his identity. In other words, this is about “the difficulty of realizing the divine  dimension in Jesus” (Lange 1973, 478; trans. K. Ess). Read in this way, the first words of  the resurrected Christ in 28.18b have a revelatory character aimed at overcoming doubt:

306

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

We can conclude that Matthew ascribes a soteriologically fundamental significance to Jesus’ death in the words of institution, as well as through  the reference to 1.21 in the titulus crucis (27.37). In terms of Christology, he emphatically portrays Jesus’ death as the passion of the obedient Son of God (26.39, 42, 53; 27.40, 43) and, at the same time, links this inextricably with the exaltation of the Son of God to universal Lord (22.44; 26.63– 64; 28.18). The Son of God exalted to God’s right hand announces his universal authority to his disciples in 28.18, which they had already received a “foretaste” of in 14.22–33. This is connected with the fact that—unlike in the Gospel of Mark—the disciples are already given the awareness of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God before Easter, but Jesus requires this knowledge be kept secret (16.20;232 17.9).233 Jesus’ identity as the Son of God does not become a “public” topic until the passion and resurrection. Matt 17.9 expressly establishes the command to keep silent as remaining in effect until Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Accordingly, 28.19 reflects the end  of this limitation, as the command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit implies that Jesus is proclaimed as the Son of God.234 Prior to the passion, Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of God is available only to the disciples, and even they only partially understand this—namely, only in terms of Jesus’ divine authority.235 Matt 26–28 integrates Jesus’ obedient path to the cross into the conception of the Son of God— the one who is exalted to universal Lord is the crucified Son of  God, who has died for many for the forgiveness of sins. We have seen that Matthew establishes the christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship as setting the direction for the depiction of his ministry from the very beginning, while at the same time linking the divine sonship inextricably with Jesus’ death and exaltation and, only then, after having linked Jesus’ ministry in Israel closely christologically with his Jesus reveals to his disciples that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to him. On the doubt of the disciples in 28.17, compare now Poplutz 2009, esp. 46– 47. 232 On the reference to Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of God with ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, see section 5.2.2.2. 233 The command to silence taken from Mark 3.12 acquires a different reference in Matt 12.16. In contrast to Mark, where this is addressed to the demons and connected with making Jesus’ divine sonship known, in the Matthean context it is rather directed at the crowds. The natural point of reference in this context is Jesus’ withdrawal in light of the Pharisees’ decision to kill him in 12.14–15. Unlike in Matt 16.20; 17.9, the announcement of Jesus’ presence that is prohibited to the crowds has no concrete christological point of reference. 234 In this respect, there is a sort of messianic secret in Matthew, as well. On this, see Kingsbury 1986, 643. 235 Bearing in mind the link between 16.16 and 14.(22–)33, this is impressed upon the reader by 16.13–23.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

307

Davidic messiahship, allowing the revelation and proclamation of Jesus in his identity as the Son of God to go beyond the circle of the disciples. The way in which Matthew achieves this raises the question of the extent to which this christological development offers a key to understanding the relationship between the ministry to Israel and the inclusion of the nations in the Matthean narrative concept.

5.3 The Messiah as the Son of David and Son of God and the Missions to Israel and to the Nations in the Matthean Narrative Concept In section 5.1, it became clear that, while Matthew decidedly portrays Jesus’ earthly ministry as directed at Israel alone, there is no “break” to be detected in the narrative in terms of the development from 10.5– 6 to 28.18–20.236 Rather, the universal dimension of salvation that emerges in 28.18–20 is in the background of the portrayal of Jesus’ ministry to his people from the very beginning, without calling the continuation of the ministry to Israel into question. Matthew does not present universalism and ministry to Israel as competing or even mutually exclusive options. On the contrary, they appear already in 1.1 as two dimensions of salvation that Matthew sees as connected in the Old Testament history of promise— Matthean universalism is based in Israel, and conversely, for Matthew, Israel has been directed toward the nations since Abraham. Matthew anchors the extension of the ministry of salvation to the nations in Israel’s history of salvation by indicating that God’s history with Israel was aimed toward this goal from the very beginning. This internal connection between the ministry of salvation to Israel and the universal dimension of salvation finds a concentrated expression  in the Matthean understanding of the soteriological significance of Jesus’  death. The preceding deliberations on the passion of Jesus—in its soteriological relevance and as the location or moment of the Son of God’s enthronement—in combination with the connection between the exalted Lord’s universal authority and the universal mission to the nations in 28.19 lead to the conclusion that, for Matthew, the obedient Son of God’s salvific death for the “many” is the soteriological foundation that establishes  the new salvation-historical period in which the ministry of salvation is extended to the Gentile world.237 For 26.28, this means that πολλοί is to be 236

Against Luz 2001–2007, 1:50.

237 Matthew’s theological concept is therefore not yet sufficiently identified if Jesus’ ele-

vation to universal Lord is taken as the sole foundation for the universal dimension of the commission in Matt 28.19 and the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death is left unmentioned.

308

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

understood in a universal sense.238 At the same time, however, in light of the connection between 26.28 and 1.21, Jesus fulfills his task, oriented—  in  the  first  instance— toward  Israel,  “to  save  his  people  from  their  sins”  with his salvific death.239 περὶ πολλῶν thus signalizes the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation that Jesus has brought about as the completion of his mission to Israel.240 This connection can be further defined by considering the notion of  fulfillment.  The  notion  of  fulfillment  is  characteristic  of  the  Gospel  of Matthew as a whole, and the significance of this concept also emerges  in the framework of the passion. Matthew found the language of fulfillment of Scriptures already present in Mark 14.49. However, he has not only linked this language in Jesus’ speech in 26.54 with the motif of the divine δεῖ of the present events but also strengthened it with the narrative comment in 26.56, without explicating precisely which Old Testament texts are in view. Matthew probably did not have in mind here “the motif of the suffering righteous one”241 alone, nor only the citation in 27.9–10, or 26.31, 242 or the rest of the scriptural allusions in the passion. Rather, when one considers the significance of Jesus’ death as the soteriological  foundation for the extension of salvation to the nations, it is clear that Matthew also has in mind specifically the promise of salvation for the  nations, which he brought into view with the fulfillment quotation from  Isa 42.1– 4 in Matt 12.18–21243 and which he found established in the promise of salvation for the nations given to Abraham (Gen 12.3; 18.18; 22.18; 26.4). 238 Likewise, see, for example, Wolff 1976, 132; Heil 1991a, 38; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:401; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:773; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:449–50 (cf. Frankemölle 1998, 357); Carter 1996, 215, 219; and Olmstead 2003, 85; contra Gundry 1994, 528 (“the elect”), and  Luz  2001– 2007,  3:381:  “The  church  that  is  celebrating  the  Lord’s  Supper  identifies  with the disciples who are drinking from one cup, and thus with ‘for many’ the church will think primarily of itself. Thus the meaning of ‘for many’ (περὶ, ὑπὲρ πολλῶν) in Matthew and Mark is not fundamentally different from that of ‘for you’ (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) in Luke and Paul.” 239 Compare Wilk 2002, 107. 240 At this point of the double relevance of Jesus’ death—that is, its significance in the context of Jesus’ mission to Israel and his fulfillment of the promises of salvation given to  Israel, as well as its significance regarding the foundation of the ministry of salvation to all  nations—the understanding of the Matthean concept presented here meets the approach by Wilk (see Wilk 2002, 107–8, 136, 137, 146, 151; and Wilk 2005, 57: “Jesus’ mission to Israel and his sovereignty over all nations converge in the salvific significance of his death  for ‘many’ [20.28; 26.28]”; trans. K. Ess). 241 See Fiedler 2006, 397 (trans. K. Ess). 242 See Harrington 1991a, 375. In 26.56b, Jesus is abandoned by the disciples, as he had announced in 26.31 and delineated biblically with the quotation of Zech 13.7. 243 On the reference of Matt 12.20c to Jesus’ death and resurrection, see section 5.1.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

309

In combination with the connection between the two dimensions of the theme of promise, as displayed in 1.1 through the juxtaposition of Jesus’  Davidic  and  Abrahamic  sonship,  this  suggests  that  the  significance of the sequence of “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham” that was shown  in  section  5.1  can  be  further  specified.  The  order  of  these  titles  not only refers to the sequence of the mission to Israel alone followed by the  inclusion  of  the  (other)  nations  but  rather  suggests  more  specifically  that the ministry of salvation to the nations is directly bound to the fulfillment  of  the  promise  of  salvation  to  Israel.  If  the  universality  of  salvation grounded in Jesus’ death and resurrection is the final objective of  the  story  of  Jesus,  which  fulfills  the  scriptural  promises  of  salvation,  so  also is Jesus’ ministry to Israel, with which God keeps the promises made to Israel, the only possible path toward this objective. Matt 1.1 thereby reflects to a certain extent the basic narrative structure of the Gospel: the  fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, which includes the nations, is preceded by the fulfillment of the promises to Israel through God’s ministry  to his people in the form of the Davidic Messiah—not only “temporally” but also due to theological necessity. Only in this way can the promise be fulfilled that was given to Abraham, the ancestor of Israel and father of  the proselytes. Through the signals in the prologue and the fulfillment quotations in  4.14–16; 12.17–21, Matthew has situated Jesus’ ministry to Israel within a universalistic perspective on a secondary level of understanding, thus showing that the fulfillment of the promise of salvation for the nations is  bound to the ministry to Israel. Christologically, this goes hand in hand with the fact that the presentation of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah for Israel is also underpinned already in the prologue by Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, which on the level of the narrated world at first remains  hidden or accessible only to the disciples. While Jesus’ death and resurrection, and his revelation as the universal Lord equipped with universal authority (28.18), is the kairos in which all promises have been fulfilled  and the ministry of salvation is extended to all nations, so too are the passion and resurrection, as we have seen, simultaneously the place in which Jesus’ identity as the Son of God becomes a “public” topic, as presented in section 5.2.2.3. These findings can hardly be attributed to a random coincidence in the  narrative. Rather, they lead to the center of the Matthean concept, whose Christology is fundamentally characterized precisely by the interplay of Jesus’ Davidic and divine sonship. The narrative program whereby these two aspects are unfolded as the key terms of Jesus’ messiahship is significant, on the one hand, for the “logic” of the conflict narrative: the authorities’  misunderstanding of the Messiah as a descendant of David alone (22.41– 46)

310

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

corresponds with their false belief that they can get Jesus out of the way;244 the secret of Jesus’ messianic identity articulated in the christologoumenon of the virgin birth remains hidden to them.245 On the other hand, and above all, this narrative concept is significant in terms of the relationship between the ministry to Israel and the extension of salvation to the nations. While the focus on Israel in Jesus’ earthly ministry correlates with the emphasis on his Davidic messiahship, the extension of salvation to the nations is connected with the salvific death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son of God.246 And just as the universality of the salvation connected with Jesus’ coming is signalized from the very beginning and is indicated prior to the depiction of his ministry in Israel but first becomes applicable in the resurrected Christ’s commission  of the disciples, so too is Jesus the Son of God from the very beginning, which at  first  remains  in  the  background  during  the  depiction  of  his  ministry  in  Israel, only to emerge in the framework of his death and exaltation. In short, just as the emphasis on Israel’s special position in the history of election is linked with Jesus’ Davidic messiahship, so too has Matthew linked the christologoumenon of divine sonship— centrally oriented around the salvific death  and exaltation of the Son of God—with the universality of salvation. The connection between the christologoumenon of divine sonship and the universality of salvation— as is made clear in the significance of Jesus’ salvific death  and his exaltation to universal Lord as the moment of Jesus’ full emergence as the Son of God and as the foundation of salvation for the nations—is underpinned by the fulfillment quotation in 12.17– 21. There, the reference to Jesus as the παῖς of God,247 which is to be understood in terms of an identification as the Son of  God, is likewise found in a universal soteriological horizon, as illustrated by the 244 In terms of tradition history, this can be compared with the mortal figure of the 

Messiah in 4 Ezra 7.29. John 12.34, in contrast, has the people present the conviction that the Messiah will remain for eternity. Potential reference texts here are Isa 9.6 and Ezek 37.25; see also Ps 89.37 (cf. Dietzfelbinger 2001, 1:394). 245 This corresponds with the fact that the messianic insight of the people—which in 12.23–24; 21.9, 15–16 prompts the authorities’ intervention—is related to Jesus’ Davidic messiahship. In the prologue, this is prefigured with the magi pericope in 2.1– 12. In this,  it is characteristic of the authorities’ hardness of heart that they do not abandon their endeavor even when, with the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus confronts them with the failure of their action against him as the Son of God (21.42– 44). They rather declare Jesus’ claim to divine sonship to be a blasphemy punishable by death (26.63– 64), although they themselves, as the story of the guards at the grave shows (27.62– 66), take into account the possibility that Jesus will be resurrected. 246 That non-Jews confess Jesus as the Son of God in 27.54 does not indicate the transfer of salvation from Israel to the Gentiles but rather positively indicates the universality of the salvation brought about by the crucified Son of God. 247 Compare section 5.2.2.2 with n. 146, on the connection between Matt 12.18 and 3.16–17.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

311

significance of the παῖς for the ἔθνη, according to v. 18c and v. 21. In addition, it is at least possible that the demon’s invocation of Jesus as the Son of God in 8.29 is likewise to be seen in light of the Matthean connection between Jesus’ divine sonship and the universality of salvation.248 While Jesus does perform exorcisms during his ministry in Israel, Matthew relates this solely with the aspect of Jesus’ Davidic sonship in the crowds’ reflection in 12.23.

In terms of the history of theology, the Matthean conception can be seen as a variant—or further development—of the Jewish-Christian tradition taken up by Paul in Romans 1.3– 4:249 Jesus Christ is “born of the seed of David, . . . declared to be the Son of God.”250 In Matthew, as in Rom 1.3, Jesus’ earthly existence is connected with his Davidic sonship. Here, as there, the exaltation of the resurrected Christ represents a second phase. Here, as there, one can speak of a two-tiered Christology.251 However, in Matthew, this does not indicate two phases in Jesus’ identity itself but rather two phases of that identity being unfurled, since Jesus is, according to Matthew, the Son of God from his birth. The identification as Son of God is thereby the comprehensive  characteristic of Jesus’ identity and is accordingly already woven into the presentation  of  Jesus’  earthly  path,  as  presented  previously.  More  specifically, the evangelist’s genuine achievement is having consistently linked the phased christological concept with his salvation-historical concept—in order to connect God’s ministry to his people in the Messiah with the inclusion of the other nations. The central interest of the Matthean retelling of the Jesus story is to be found precisely here. The way that Jesus’ identity is unveiled narratively in different phases is made to serve this conceptual nexus. Thus far, the precise meaning of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 28.19 has been left open, as has the question of how exactly to define the relationship between  the mission to Israel and the other nations.

5.4 The Relationship between the Mission to τὰ ἔθνη (28.19) and to Israel (10.6) There has been and still is contentious debate in scholarship over whether πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 28.19 refers to all Gentiles or all nations—that is, whether the phrase includes or excludes Israel.252 For the exclusive reading, 248

On this, see section 5.2.2.2. Compare Dormeyer 1992, 1367; Theißen 1999, 146, n. 5; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:90, n. 24. Against this, see Verseput 1987, 540. 250 Compare 2 Tim 2.8; Ign. Smyrn 1.1. On the link between resurrection and divine sonship, compare Acts 13.32–33; and Heb 1.3–5; 5.5. 251 Compare Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:22, 30–31; and Theißen 1999, 146, n. 5. 252 The inclusive reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is supported by Trilling 1964, 26–28; 249

312

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

alongside the predominant usage of ἔθνη to refer to Gentile peoples in the Old Testament and Early Jewish literature,253 scholars point, above all, to the opposition between Israel and ἔθνη in 10.5– 6.254 Furthermore, the interpretation of ἔθνη as Gentiles is the obvious reading in other Matthean passages as well.255 The inclusive reading, on the other hand, asserts that the Matthean usage of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 24.9, 14; 25.32 is different than other usages of (τὰ) ἔθνη.256 An inclusive reading is, in fact, possible in all three of these passages, though not necessary. Vögtle 1971b, 259; S. Brown 1977, 29; Meier 1977a; France 1985, 413–14; Verseput 1986, 45; Mora 1991, 107; Stanton 1992a, 158; Wong 1992, 98–108; Kingsbury 1993, 272; Tisera 1993, 304– 6; Gundry 1994, 595; van Aarde 1994, 81– 82 (cf. van Aarde 2007, 419); Menninger 1994, 43– 45; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:887; E. C. Park 1995, 185; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:684; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:547; Hultgren 1998, 344; Lindemann 1999, 189 (cf. Lindemann 2009, 398–99); Stuhlmacher 1999, 117 (= Stuhlmacher 2000, 27); J. A. Gibbs 2000, 67; Landmesser 2001, 15–17; Dormeyer 2004, 123; Paul 2005, 309; Krentz 2006, 33–34; Talbert 2010, 313; Cuvillier 2011, 164; and Viljoen 2011, 679. According to Luz 2001–2007, 3:631, 28.19 is indeed “fundamentally universal and is for all nations” (emphasis original), but he immediately qualifies this: while the mission commandment “does not exclude a continuing mission to Israel, Matthew probably no longer has great hopes for it” (similarly Luz 2000, 65). Yet more decidedly—and in connection with a different reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη—see Luz 1993, 312: “The time for the mission to Israel has concluded. It was on the whole a failure” (trans. K. Ess). πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is read exclusively in the sense of “all Gentiles” by B. Weiss 1890, 498; E. Lohmeyer 1962, 417–18; Hare 1967, 147– 48; Walker 1967, 111–13; Lange 1973, 270–71, 302; Hare and Harrington 1975; Harrington 1991a, 414–15; Luz 1993, 315–16; Scheuermann 1996, 245– 46; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 31–32; Giesen 2002, 130; Wick 2003, 82; Fiedler 2006, 430–31; and Wilk 2005, 52–53, who sees the promise to the patriarchs in Gen 28.13–15 as a decisive point of reference. However, considerable differences are to be noted among the representatives of the exclusive reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη with regard to the overall understanding, which result from various positions on the significance and validity of Matt 10.6 and on “Israel” in general in Matthean theology. (See Walker, on the one hand and, on the other, Fiedler, A. von Dobbeler, or Wilk.) 253 See the select examples Exod 33.16; Deut 7.6; Tob 14.6; 1 Macc 13.6; Joel 4.2; Zech 14.2; Isa 2.2; 40.17. Compare Wilk 2005, 52–53. 254 Emphasized, for example, by Garbe 2005, 181: “The contrast between Israel and the nations of the world in 10.5 and 15.24 . . . weighs so heavily that Israel is also most likely not included in the expression πάντα τὰ ἔθνη” (trans. K. Ess). See also Garbe 2005, 180: “If in one passage it is made so clear to the reader that Israel is not counted among the nations, it is natural to assume that the reader should expect a clear signal in another passage that this differentiation is meant to be nullified” (trans. K. Ess). 255 See—in addition to Matt 10.5—above all 6.32; 10.18; 20.19. 256 See, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:684. Furthermore, one can point out that in the LXX, uses of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη occur that include Israel as well. Israel is hardly excluded in Isa 56.7 (ὁ γὰρ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; on this text, see later in this section). An understanding of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη that includes Israel is further present in Jer 35.11–14LXX (= 28.11–14MT); Dan 3.2 (4–)7; and Jdt 3.8 (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, Israel included, are to honor Nebuchadnezzar); see also Esth 4.11; 1 Macc 1.42; 2.18; Ps 116.1LXX; Isa 14.12.

5: Israel and the Gentiles

313

In 24.14, the juxtaposition of εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν and the proclamation of the gospel ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ257 can be understood to indicate an all-encompassing interpretation of εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.258 With the analogous construction, however, 24.14 points back to 10.18, where τοῖς ἔθνεσιν refers to non-Jewish peoples. The addition of πᾶς can be sufficiently explained  by the now universal geographical horizon of the mission. Therefore, a reading in the sense of “all Gentiles” at least cannot be excluded. In light of 24.14, then, this option also exists for 24.9.259 The phrase ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν would in this case not be identical to the Markan ὑπὸ πάντων (Mark 13.13). Rather, following the word-for-word adoption in Matt 10.22 of καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων (Mark 13.13)—referring to the mission to Israel—the expansion into ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν would have the function of supplementing Matt 10.22: the disciples will have the same experience among non-Jewish peoples as they had during the mission to Israel. However, ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ remains a strong argument for an inclusive interpretation. The reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 25.32 is linked with the interpretation of the notion of judgment in Matthew. If one presumes that there is for Matthew only one judgment for all people, which is depicted in 25.31– 46, this suggests an inclusive reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in 25.32.260 One can, however, point to the fact that previously in the eschatological discourse (Matt 24–25), Matthew had already mentioned the gathering of the elect (24.30–31). If this can be systematized, one can conclude that these elect are not affected by the judgment depicted in 25.31– 46—regardless of whether the “brothers” in 25.40, 45, are understood as needy people in general or as Christian missionaries.261 In addition, 257 Matt 24.14 is based on Mark 13.(9fin.), 10. But while Mark speaks of the proclamation of the gospel εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, Matthew has inserted here ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ and—probably inspired by εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς in Mark 13.9fin.— added εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 258 Pointedly, Zahn 1922, 666, n. 7, indicates, “πάντα τὰ ἔθνη here, just as in v. 9, no more designates . . . the Gentiles to the exclusion of Israel than ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη designates the world to the exclusion of Palestine, but rather the entirety of humanity divided into nations including Israel” (trans. K. Ess). See further Meier 1977a, 98–99; Segal 1991, 24; and Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:397. 259 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη in Matt 24.(9), 14, is read as exclusive by, for example, B. Weiss 1890, 400– 401; Lange 1973, 291; H. B. Green 1975, 199; Hare and Harrington 1975, 366; Scheuermann 1996, 246; and Garbe 2005, 181. For the inclusive reading, in addition to those named in n. 258, see Trilling 1964, 27–28; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:317; Stanton 1992a, 158; Wong 1992, 102– 4; Tisera 1993, 248–50, 260; and Landmesser 2001, 16–17. 260 In this vein, see Trilling 1964, 26–27; Meier 1977a, 99–101; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:422–23; Wong 1992, 104– 6; Tisera 1993, 272–75; Gundry 1994, 511, 595; E. C. Park 1995, 185; and Landmesser 2001, 17; see further Pokorný 2006, 221. On the contrary position, see the following discussion with n. 264. 261 On the options for interpretation, see the overviews in Niemand 1997, 288–300, as well as Luz 2001–2007, 3:267–74.

314

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in 19.28, there is explicit mention of the “judgment” of the twelve tribes of Israel, in which the twelve disciples will take part.262 Matt 25.31– 46 might thus relate to 19.28 in the same way that 24.14 (possibly) relates to 10.22. This is, however, by no means certain, if one observes that there are statements about the judgment alongside one another in Early Jewish texts that, strictly speaking, cannot be logically harmonized.263 In the context of Early Jewish statements on the judgment, therefore, it is by no means self-evident that Matthew developed a uniform, coherent conception that can be constructed by systematizing individual statements. In short, for 25.32 as well, an exclusive interpretation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη cannot be ruled out;264 it is also, however, nothing more than one possibility.

A complex set of evidence thus emerges that explains the persistently contentious state of the discussion but hardly allows for a clear decision. Nor does a comparison of the content of 10.6–8 with that of 28.19–20 bring the discussion any further. Axel von Dobbeler, with an exclusive understanding of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, has presented the thesis of a complementary relationship between the two commissions, whereby they are differentiated “not only in their audience, but also in their nature.”265 Von Dobbeler has in mind here not only the specific theological  horizon of the ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”—that is, the restitution of the twelve tribes266—but also the content of the commissions.267 According to 10.6– 8, the disciples are to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of heaven and heal the sick in their mission to Israel. Matt 28.19, on the other hand, speaks of μαθητεύειν,  which  is  further  defined  by  the  modal  participles  βαπτίζοντες and διδάσκοντες. There is no mention here of healing.268 262

On this text, see section 4.5. On this, see K. Müller 1994, 43, as well as Konradt 2003, 16–17. 264 This is supported by, for example, B. Weiss 1890, 431; Lange 1973, 298; Hare and Harrington 1975, 363, 364– 65; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 31; and Garbe 2005, 172– 82. 265 A. von Dobbeler 2000, 20 (trans. K. Ess). 266 See A. von Dobbeler 2000, 28. Compare section 2.3. 267 See A. von Dobbeler 2000, 34– 41. 268 Parallel to A. von Dobbeler, Cousland 2002, 113, also made this observation and concluded: “Hence, the focus of the two missions is very different.” The divergence of the commissions has further been emphasized by Wick 2003, 83– 86, as well as Wilk 2005, 57. According to Wilk, the “mission to Israel . . . in 28.19–20 is neither expanded nor nullified; rather, the resurrected Christ has assigned a further task to the disciples, which  points them directly to all nations” (trans. K. Ess). Wilk, too, thereby points to the differing purposes of the missionary tasks: “The disciples are active in Israel in that they— continuing Jesus’ earthly ministry (cf. 4.17; 11.5, and elsewhere)—proclaim the coming of the kingdom of heaven, and reveal this through healings and similar miracles (10.7– 8); they are operative among the nations in that they—following Jesus’ mission (cf. 3.16– 17; 23.8, 10)—baptize people and commit them to Jesus’ instructions through teaching” 263

5: Israel and the Gentiles

315

There can be no doubt that, given the differing locations of the commissions in the narrative, the emphases differ as well. There can be just as little dispute over the fact that the missions to Israel and the Gentiles were tailored differently in practice—Jews had no need to be converted to the one God of Israel. Nevertheless, with regard to their content, the commissions in 10.6– 8 and 28.19–20 cannot be as strictly distinguished from one another as von Dobbeler would have it. Although in comparison with 4.23 and 9.35, with which Matthew characterizes Jesus’ own ministry, only κηρύσσειν (24.14) and διδάσκειν (28.20) appear explicitly in the context of the mission to the Gentiles, the absence of θεραπεύειν can  best  be  understood  as  a  reflection  of  the  actual  decline  in  healings  from  the reality of the community.269 In any case, the healing stories in 8.5–13, 28– 34, and 15.21–28—which point ahead to the later ministry to all nations—speak decidedly against the possibility that the healings with which the disciples were charged were programmatically limited to the mission to Israel.270 Conversely, the mission in Israel also aims to create followers of Jesus271—that is, to make people disciples. Just as the nearness of the kingdom of heaven is to be proclaimed to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10.7), so too, according to 24.14, “this gospel of the kingdom” will be proclaimed ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ. Apparently, for Matthew, Jesus’ teachings that the disciples from πάντα τὰ ἔθνη are obligated to follow are also the primary content of the instructions given to Israel, since 28.20a refers back to the earthly Jesus’ teachings—that is, his teaching before the crowds from Israel272 and the task assigned to the community in 16.19 and 21.43.273 Finally, there is no evidence against the notion that baptism was also a self-evident element of the post-Easter mission to Israel.274 (trans. K. Ess). Here again, this does not identify a sound distinction. This is also true of Wilk’s thesis that the disciples are supposed to “on the one hand, gather Israel to Jesus as the messianic shepherd, and on the other, integrate the nations into their own community as that of the disciples of the Son of Man” (Wilk 2002, 129; trans. K. Ess). How does the gathering to Jesus not simultaneously signify integration into the community of disciples? 269 Compare the indication of a problem with regard to healings that is conveyed in Matt 17.14–20! 270 Tisera 1993, 331, therefore rightly notes on 28.19–20: “The preaching and healing which have been charged in the mission discourse (Matt 10) with a future perspective, are implicitly included in this final mission charge.” 271 On the “call of the savior” in Matt 11.28–30 as a call to discipleship, see Wilk 2002, 96. See further, in addition to 4.20, 22; 9.9; and also 19.21. Matthew uses μαθητεύειν, in addition to 13.52 and 28.19, also with regard to Joseph of Arimathea in 27.57. 272 See Matt 4.23; 7.29; 9.35; 11.1; 21.23. 273 On this, see the discussion in section 4.1.3.2. A. von Dobbeler 2000, 41, concedes that the intersection of the two commissions is Jesus’ interpretation of the Torah. 274 Against A. von Dobbeler 2000, 41. Wilk 2002, 152–53, n. 516, regards as “not impossible” the notion that in the Matthean understanding, baptism “is to be performed only on non-Jews” (trans. K. Ess). One piece of evidence supporting the position represented here can possibly be derived from Matt 3.11. Namely, if John’s proclamation of the baptism

316

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Thus as the commission in 28.19–20 can scarcely be distinguished from the mission to Israel or linked only to the mission to the Gentiles in terms of content, no strong argument emerges that can clarify the meaning of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. This question, however, is not of decisive significance for  understanding the theological concept; its importance is often overestimated. Placing the primary emphasis on the question of Israel’s inclusion or exclusion in 28.19—with the alternative that either the mission to Israel is superseded here by the mission to the Gentiles or Matthew at least regards Israel “as simply one among other ἔθνη”275—takes the wrong approach from the start. The disciples are already entrusted with the task of tending to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in 10.6– 8, and 10.23 at the latest makes it clear that this is a task that will persist until the Parousia.276 There is no need for new instructions on that point. Accordingly, in 28.19, the point of emphasis is that the disciples are now no longer sent to Israel alone but to all nations.277 The much-debated question of whether Israel is still included is, for Matthew, in no way at issue here.278 His interest is, conversely, that from now on all (other) nations are included.279 In other words, if Matthew understands πάντα τὰ ἔθνη to mean all “Gentile nations,” then 28.19 supplements 10.6. However, even if πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is meant inclusively, it would be premature to conclude that Israel is just one more nation among the others; even in this case, 28.19 does not nullify 10.6 but rather broadens the scope of the disciples’ ministry on the basis of 10.6.280 And with the Spirit by one more powerful in 3.11 points ahead to 28.19 in the Matthean context (so, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 1:138; contra Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:317–18; and Wilk 2002, 112)—the spiritual baptism would then be distinct from the parallel “baptism by fire”— it should be noted that John proclaims this to a Jewish audience. 275 Luz 2001–2007, 3:630. Luz’s considerations on the interpretation of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη operate only within this alternative. 276 See, on this, in section 2.3. 277 Compare Keener 1999, 719: “On either translation, therefore, what is important to remember is that the Gentile mission extends the Jewish mission—not replaces it; Jesus nowhere revokes the mission to Israel (10:6), but merely adds a new mission revoking a previous prohibition (10:5).” Compare Fiedler 2006, 430; and W. Kraus 2011, 205. 278 Even if one understands πάντα τὰ ἔθνη to be exclusive, there is therefore by no means a “universalism without Israel” (against Lange 1973, 270, 302; trans. K. Ess). 279 Read in this way, once again the emphasis on the universal sovereignty of the resurrected Christ does not require an inclusive reading of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. (On this argument, see Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:684 [“universal lordship means universal mission”]; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:630.) Jesus operated with his Israel-oriented ἐξουσία already during his earthly mission. 280 Only the limitation introduced in Matt 10.5b is nullified. It has already been pointed out that the aorist forms there can be understood as indicating that the prohibitions are an instruction for the individual case defined by the context (see section 2.3 with  n. 380)—namely, for the disciples’ contribution to Jesus’ ministry to Israel in Galilee as the location prophesied by Scripture where the light will dawn upon the people who sit in

5: Israel and the Gentiles

317

the fact that the commissions in Matt 10 and Matt 28 cannot be strictly distinguished in their content does not affect the continued validity of the  specific  theological  horizon  of  the  mission  to  Israel  that  emerges  in  Matt 10—the restitution of Israel that began with Jesus’ appearance—for the post-Easter period as well.281 At the same time, the emphasis on Israel’s special salvation-historical position in the Matthean Jesus narrative can be sufficiently understood only on the basis of the current relevance of this perspective.282 The usual approach of asking which role remains for Israel in view of 28.19 thus begins at the wrong end. Following the narrative structure, the  (continued)  task  of  the  mission  to  Israel  and  its  specific  theological  horizon rather provoke the question of how the conversion of people from the nations relates to the mission to Israel. It should first of all be recalled  here that the universality of salvation is already introduced by the motif of Jesus’ Abrahamic sonship in 1.1, but Abraham is at the same time the founding father of Israel and the beginning of the story of God’s election and salvation of Israel, and as such, Abraham opens Jesus’ genealogy in

darkness (4.15–16). With the geographical aspect of 10.5b taken into account, this phase is shown to be effectively superseded, not by 28.19, but by Jesus’ own departure from Galilee in 19.1, as argued in section 2.3. (Matthew redactionally added μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας in 19.1.) 281 On this point, A. von Dobbeler 2000, 41, is correct: “With regard to Israel, this is about the restitution of the people; with regard to the Gentiles, it is about conversion to the living God” (trans. K. Ess). In contrast, Wilk 2002, 130, postulates that, in view of the rejection he experienced in Israel, Jesus moved away from the original intention “to gain Israel as a whole for her messianic shepherds (4.12–11.1)” (emphasis original) and has (already) in 11.28ff. focused “his ministry in Israel on the call to discipleship” (trans. K. Ess). This distinction, and thus also the proposed transition, is hardly credible. The rejection that Jesus’ messengers had to expect is extensively addressed already in Matt 10. 282 Against this, Meier 1979, 29–39, postulates a salvation-historical model for Matthew in which everything previous to the salvation-historical turning point of Jesus’ death and  resurrection  (see  also  Meier  1976,  30– 35)  has  lost  its  significance:  “[T]he  death-  resurrection as turning point in salvation-history has brought the believer into a new age, free of the old barriers of nation, race, and Mosaic Law” (1979, 38). The Matthean emphasis on Jesus’ ministry to Israel is thereby reduced to the function of serving as a foil for the post-Easer situation, which leaves the weight of the Matthean depiction of Jesus’ earthly ministry distinctly underdetermined. Furthermore, there can be no discussion of a nullification  of  the  Torah  in  Matthew.  Conversely,  the  proposal  of  Sim  1995,  42,  “that  the  Matthean community itself did not interpret 28.19 as a command to pursue a mission to the Gentiles”—that is, that the mission to the Gentiles was accepted in theory but played no role, or only a marginal one, in the praxis of the community (see also section 2.3, n. 382)— is contradicted by the weight of 28.16– 20 in the final chord of the Gospel and  the careful preparation for it (see section 5.1). The approaches of Meier and Sim each in their own ways present one-sided readings that cannot do justice to the complexity of the evidence as a whole. For a critical discussion of Sim’s approach, see Senior 1999, 8–11.

318

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

such a way that the universal dimension of salvation appears as positively linked with the election of Israel from the very beginning. Given that 3.9 has the universal mission in view, Gentile Christians are conceived of here with the salvation-historical category of the children of Abraham. This fits with the four non- Jewish women/persons in the genealogy, who  signal that Israel was always open for the inclusion of Gentiles. In Matt 28.19, this openness becomes a missionary agenda. Alongside this comes a further observation: the content of the proclamation among the nations, according to 24.14, is “this gospel of the kingdom.” For Matthew, τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον means Jesus’ own proclamation283— possibly even Jesus’ ministry as a whole.284 Here, as well as in 26.13, the gospel of the kingdom, which is to be preached to the nations, tends to be identified with the Matthean Jesus story itself.285 Regardless of how exactly the reference of εὐαγγέλιον in 24.14 is to be defined, it is true in any case that  Gentile Christians who join the Matthean community become acquainted with the Jesus story as the fundamental story of salvation and thereby also of their Christian identity in a form that, in large part, tells of Jesus’ (and his disciples’) mission to Israel; locates Jesus’ ministry consistently and emphatically within God’s history with his people Israel; and focuses on highlighting that Jesus’ ministry inaugurates the eschatological restitution of the people of God. Accordingly, through the magi and the Canaanite woman, Matthew depicts non-Jews who expect their salvation from Jesus as the Messiah of Israel.286 With regard to the people from the nations who are to be integrated into the community of disciples, whom Matthew has in view in 28.19, this very likely has a paradigmatic function.287 Thus,  for  the  evangelist,  the  path  toward  the  final  goal  via  the  mission to Israel is not just a simple historical memory.288 Rather, this path is 283

Compare Luz 2001–2007, 3:194. Compare Kingsbury 1975a, 130–31; and Stanton 1992b, 1194–95. Cautiously, see Luz 2001–2007, 1:169: “Whether one is to think of Jesus’ deeds . . . must remain an open question; in any case it is not prohibited.” 285 According to Luz 2001–2007, 1:169, in 24.14; 26.13 “εὐαγγέλιον is not yet completely identified with the Matthean work, but the tendency is already there.” 286 On this, see in section 5.1. More broadly, the centurion from Capernaum should also be located here (see section 2.2.3.3). 287 In this vein, see also Senior 1999, 19–20: “Gentiles could come in, but they were expected to believe in the Jesus proclaimed by Matthew’s community and, therefore, to reverence the Jewish character of Jesus’ message. The major examples of Gentiles who come to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel all display this kind of reverence for Judaism . . . Matthew anticipated those Gentiles who not only exhibit faith in Jesus but also understand that the Jewish character of Jesus and his teaching is essential to the gospel.” 288 Compare Oberforcher 1999, 22, with regard to Matt 1.1.: “Jesus can accede to the universal inheritance of Abraham only via the Davidic sonship!” (trans. K. Ess). 284

5: Israel and the Gentiles

319

a  theologically  significant  element  of  the  new  narrative  of  salvation  in  which the identity of the Matthean ecclesia is grounded. Precisely in the expansion of salvation to the nations, the evangelist understands the community of believers in Christ as the (only) legitimate custodian of Israel’s theological tradition. The community praises the “God of Israel” (15.31), who in sending Jesus has honored the promises of salvation to his people and, in direct connection with this fulfillment, has also honored the promises to the nations and continues to do so in the mission of the disciples. On this point, it should also be noted that, in 28.16, Matthew does not speak generally of the disciples but explicitly of the eleven disciples and thus recalls the circle of the twelve (now no longer including Judas).289 This is certainly not incidental. Matthew had introduced the twelve disciples in the context of the mission to Israel (10.1– 4) in order to make it clear that this mission was concerned with the restitution of the twelve tribes. If οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταί in 28.16 is to be read as a reference to that context, this would further strengthen the connection between Matt 10 and Matt 28.290 It should further be observed that the twelve—alongside a few other appearances291—are encountered in the context of the last supper (Matt 26.20; cf. Mark 14.17[, 20]) and thus where the fulfillment of Jesus’ task in Israel  and also the inclusion of the nations are brought into view in the soteriological interpretation of Jesus’ death in the words of institution (26.28).292 In addition, however, one can read the mention of the eleven disciples as a motif of continuity from another perspective as well—it points to the fact that Jesus’ ministry has not failed in his death and the temporary scattering of the disciples (26.31). These two aspects need not be seen as alternatives: 28.16–20 is the reinstatement of the disciples in their missionary service, now extended to all nations.

The enduring significance of the mission to Israel in terms of the restitution of Israel and the conceptual connection of the universal mission with the mission to Israel do not mean that Matthew thinks of the inclusion of Gentile Christians in terms of a formal conversion to Judaism. The reason 289 Compare the explicit designation of Judas as εἷς τῶν δώδεκα in Matt 26.14, 47 (par. Mark 14.10, 43). 290 In contrast, Wilk 2002, 131–32, takes the mention of twelve disciples on the one hand, and eleven on the other, as an indication “of the respective uniqueness and orientation of the two commissions” (132; trans. K. Ess). But since the reason for the reduction to eleven is evident to the reader, 28.16 can hardly be read otherwise than as a motif of continuity that connects the two commissions with one another: the mission to the Gentiles is tied in with the task of restoring the people of God. 291 See Matt 20.17 (par. Mark 10.32) as well as Matt 26.14, 47 (par. Mark 14.10, 43; see n. 289) and, indirectly, Matt 19.28 (par. Luke 22.30). Mark 4.10; 9.35; and 11.11 have no counterpart in Matthew. 292 See in section 5.3.

320

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

that circumcision is not mentioned in 28.19 can hardly be because it was practiced as a matter of course.293 Rather, for Matthew, Gentile Christians are not, strictly speaking, proselytes in the traditional sense.294 The presupposition that Gentile Christians in the Matthean community were circumcised must be seen as rather unlikely for several reasons. First, it is implausible in view of the development of the Church as a whole.295 Second, it must be recalled that, for Matthew, a new salvation-historical situation has emerged with the universal soteriological significance of Jesus’ death,  and the community’s rituals of baptism and the Eucharist place believers in Christ in relation to this salvific event. Furthermore, the weight that Matthew has given to the programmatic statement about the disciples’ active missionary ministry to all nations on the basis of the universal ἐξουσία of the exalted Lord (28.18–20) makes little sense if the Matthean community simply continued the normal Jewish practice of conversion to Judaism. In short, unlike the “scribes and Pharisees” in 23.15, the ecclesia does not seek proselytes but seeks, rather, to make disciples and integrate them into the ecclesia of Jesus through baptism. This renders a complex result: in the framework of the mission to the nations, Gentiles are made disciples through baptism and instruction in Jesus’ commandments to the disciples; they are not, if they are male, made Jews by circumcision. They are, however, with their entry into the ecclesia, incorporated into a salvation history that began with Abraham, the 293 This is contra Mohrlang 1984, 44–45; Levine 1988, 181–85; White 1991, 241–42, n. 100; Sim 1996, 184–94 (cf. Sim 1995, 45– 46); Slee 2003, 141– 44; and Runesson 2011a, 399; see also Saldarini 1994, 157 (cf. Saldarini 1991, 49 with n. 38); and W. Kraus 2011, 208– 11. Against the presumption that the Matthean Gentile Christians were circumcised, see, for example, Meier 1975, 205–7; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:493; 3:685; Feldtkeller 1993, 150–51; Hare 2000, 265– 66; Riches 2000, 220–22, 317–18; and Tuckett 2011, 126–27. 294 On the thesis of proselytes, see, in addition to Mohrlang, Levine, and Sim (see n. 293), further Jackson 2002, 2, 21, 102–11, in the context of her interpretation of Matt 15.21–28. 295 Matthew and his community would otherwise not be in conformity with the decision of the so-called apostolic conference (48 CE) for the circumcision-free mission to the Gentiles. But this decision was of course supported by Peter, whom Matthew, far more than Mark, portrays as the central figure in the circle of disciples. Matthew thus evidently  testifies  to  a  Christianity  in  which  Peter  was  regarded  as  a  significant  authority  (Matt  16.17–19!). It can therefore, despite 5.18–19, hardly be presumed that the Matthean community affirmed the mission to the Gentiles while rejecting the decision of the apostolic  conference that Peter had supported. In historical terms, it can further be pointed out that the inclusion of Gentiles without circumcision has a point of contact in the non-Jewish sympathizers in the synagogues (see, for example, Wander 1998). The difference consists in the fact that these sympathizers were granted full membership in the Christian communities. In the religious-historical context, it should further be kept in mind that circumcision in Hellenistic Judaism was—to say the least—not emphasized to an equal degree everywhere. (See the overview of the evidence in Saldarini 1994, 158– 60.)

5: Israel and the Gentiles

321

forefather of Israel, and in which the mission to the “lost sheep” of Israel presents a permanent task in the framework of the eschatological renewal of the people of God. A clear ambivalence in the Gospel of Matthew is revealed here: Jesus’ death is the new foundation of salvation for Israel and the nations; at the same time, in the juxtaposition of the mission to the Gentiles and the restitution of Israel, Israel retains her special role in the history of election. The fact that the salvation brought about by Jesus’ death applies to the nations as much as to Israel indicates equality between Gentiles and Israel, despite a persisting distinction.296 In other words, Gentiles join Israel insofar as they are incorporated into the children of Abraham or receive a share in the ministry of salvation that originated in Israel. On the other hand, the dividing line between Israel and the Gentiles loses its fundamental significance through the Christ event.297 It has become clear in the preceding discussion that Matthew does not regard the ministry to πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as an innovation triggered by the alleged collective rejection of Jesus in Israel but rather as nothing other than the fulfillment of Scripture. Finally, alongside the universal promise  of blessing to Abraham and the citations from Isa 8.23–9.1 and 42.1– 4 in Matt 4.15–16 and 12.18–21, there is a further passage from Isaiah that deserves analysis on this point—namely, Isa 56.1–8.298 Here, the gathering of Israel’s scattered members (v. 8299) is directly linked with the inclusion of the other nations. Further, with a critical reference to the exclusive requirements for entry into the community of the Lord (LXX: εἰς ἐκκλησίαν κυρίου) of Deut 23.2–9,300 the inclusion of the nations is also linked with 296 Compare Wilk 2005, 58, who sees Matt 28.18–20 as the “endpiece of a missionary concept . . . in which non-Jews and Jews are placed on equal terms, but not made equal; for only as the Christ for Israel is Jesus also ‘Lord’ for Gentiles (cf. 15.21–28; 22.41– 45)” (trans. K. Ess). 297 From a historical perspective, this ambivalence can be characterized as a phenomenon of transition: the christological focus of God’s salvific action with the universal  significance of Jesus’ death— particularly in connection with the development of an independent “ritual sign language” in the form of baptism and Eucharist (on this, cf. Theißen 2001, 169–222)—contains the potential to conclude that the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles has been leveled; but this tendency is balanced in the overall structure of Matthean theology by the strong weight of the connection with Israel’s salvation tradition. 298 In view of the connection between Matt 4.15–16 and 28.16–20 (see section 5.1), the designation of God’s servant as φῶς ἐθνῶν in Isa 42.6 and Isa 49.6 should also be pointed out, particularly as Isa 42.1– 4 is taken up in Matt 12.18–21. 299 In the Masoretic Text, this is ‫נִ ְד ֵח י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬. In the LXX, this is τοὺς διεσπαρμένους Ἰσραήλ. 300 Such a reference is clearly supported by the combination of foreigners and eunuchs in Isa 56.3– 8, since Deut 23.2–9 opens with a prohibition against admission for the castrated and eunuchs (23.2). On the reference to Deut 23, see Donner 1985, 87– 88; Westermann 1986, 250; W. Kraus 1996, 21–22; and Blenkinsopp 2003, 83, 138.

322

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the notion that the separation of foreigners from God’s λαός (Isa 56.3301) will be overcome, and they will participate in God’s διαθήκη (v. 6, cf. Matt 26.28). The fact that Isa 56.7 is cited in Matt 21.13, following Mark 11.17, suggests that Isa 56.1–8 is an important scriptural reference for Matthew. Given the evangelist’s excellent knowledge of Scripture, which is documented throughout the Gospel, and his intimate knowledge of Isaiah in particular,302 it is implausible to presume that Matthew has simply taken up the citation from Mark without being aware of its original context in Isaiah.303 In Isa 56.7, in line with the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations (Isa 2.1–5304), the inclusion of foreigners in salvation is directed toward Zion. God wants to bring to his holy mountain foreigners who have turned to him and hold fast to his covenant and to gladden them in his house of  prayer,  for— according  to  the  final  sentence  in  Isa  56.7— ὁ . . . οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Matthew has quoted this sentence in 21.13 but without πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. A likely explanation for this abridgment is that, in the Matthean interpretation of history, Jerusalem—and the temple—has lost its special role due to the city’s conduct toward Jesus (and his messengers). The ministry of salvation to all nations does not take place in that the Gentile nations also come to Zion but in that people from all nations are integrated into the ecclesia of Jesus. The fact that salvation for all nations is not realized in the temple-centric arrival of foreigners in Zion but through the disciples’ mission and thus in Jesus’ ecclesia does not speak against the significance of Isa 56.1– 8 as one  scriptural reference that, for the evangelist, illustrates the universal mission to the nations is in accordance with Scripture.305 One should rather speak 301

See also Zech 2.15 and Isa 19.25. Compare, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 1:126. 303 Matthew elsewhere shows that he was capable of identifying scriptural quotations and recognizing allusions. Particularly with regard to Isaiah, it should be pointed out that Matthew recognized the adoption of Isa 6.9–10 in Mark 4.12 and expanded it in 13.13– 15. A few examples will suffice to further illustrate this point. In the entry into  Jerusalem, a formal quotation takes the place of the allusion to Zech 9.9 in Mark 11.2. In Matt 24.15, the explicit reference to the prophet Daniel is added to the mention of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (cf. Mark 13.14; see Dan [9.27]; 11.31; 12.11). And in Matt 4.4, the surplus in the quotation from Deut 8.3, as compared with Luke 4.4, is most likely due to Matthean redaction—that is, Matthew knew the passage being quoted and was able to add to it. 304 See, above all, Isa 2.2: ὅτι ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐμφανὲς τὸ ὄρος κυρίου καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπ’ ἄκρων τῶν ὀρέων καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὑπεράνω τῶν βουνῶν· καὶ ἥξουσιν ἐπ’ αὐτὸ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 305 Reference should also be made to Isa 56.1, where motifs that are of great significance for Matthew occur together: the doing of justice (cf., above all, Matt 6.1), the proximity of salvation (LXX: ἤγγισεν γὰρ τὸ σωτήριόν μου παραγίνεσθαι, cf. Matt 3.2; 4.17; 10.7; and 26.45), and the revelation of ἔλεος (cf. Matt 9.13; 12.7; 23.23). 302

5: Israel and the Gentiles

323

of a creative reinterpretation of the Zion-centered hope of salvation for the nations.306 As suggested previously, Matthew was able to see this transformation as determined by the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem, and the destruction of the city and the temple, understood as God’s judgment, served as confirmation of this perspective. As the temple forfeited its significance due to  Jesus’ salvific death, for Matthew, the point of reference for the salvation  of the world was no longer Zion but the ecclesia. And, likewise, the chosen location of God’s presence was no longer Jerusalem or the temple but rather—mediated by the presence of Immanuel (1.23) among his people (18.20; 28.20)—the ecclesia.307 In the framework of Israel’s theological traditions, this constitutes a serious transformation.308 The question of how the ecclesia of Jesus relates to Israel in the Gospel of Matthew is pursued separately in the following chapter.

5.5 Summary Despite the evangelist’s strong tendency to concentrate Jesus’ earthly ministry on Israel, the universality of salvation that emerges as the aim of the Gospel in the missionary statement of 28.18–20 is prepared from 1.1 on 306 On the transformation of the Zion tradition, see Riches 2000, 256: “[H]opes for the in-gathering of the dispersion on Mount Zion are replaced with the call to make disciples out of all the nations, to draw them into the community of the church in which Jesus is present.” Donaldson 1985, 180– 88, proposed a Zion typology for locating 28.16–20 on  a  mountain.  In  support  of  this,  one  can  point  to  the  high  significance  of  Ps  2.7  for  the christologoumenon of divine sonship, since the immediately preceding verse speaks of the installation of the king upon Zion (Ps 2.6). Furthermore, not only in Isa 56.7 but also in Isa 2.2, there is explicit mention of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. A further connection with Isa 2 is the obligation to everything that Jesus had commanded (Matt 28.20), which has a counterpart in Isa 2.3 in that instruction (LXX: νόμος) goes out from Zion (Donaldson 1985, 183). However, contra Donaldson, the distinction between the centrifugal image of the commission of the disciples and the centripetal conception of the pilgrimage of the nations cannot be downplayed by making πορευθέντες in Matt 28.19 into simply a filler  (cf. Donaldson 1985, 183– 84). Rather, one must here reckon with a free, creative reception of the tradition that results from replacing Zion with Christ. (See Donaldson 1985, 184: “It is Christ who has replaced Zion as the centre of eschatological fulfillment, and the mountain  motif in Matthew acts as a vehicle by which Zion expectations are transferred to Christ.”) This replacement can be seen as suggested already in the allusion to Isa 60.6 in Matt 2.11 (cf. Donaldson 1985, 185, and section 5.1). 307 The reference to the significance of the inclusio in Matt 1.23; 28.20 is a firmly established standard observation of Matthean exegesis. (See only Lange 1973, 329–30, 344– 45; France 1985, 416; and Luz 2001–2007, 1:96.) It should be observed here that 18.20; 28.20 are about the presence of Jesus. 308 Compare the statements in the preceding discussion on the significance of Jesus’  death as the new soteriological foundation.

324

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

through numerous textual signals in the prologue, through the three narratives in 8.5–13, 28–34, and 15.21–28, as well as through signals occurring on a metanarrative level (fulfillment quotations). In this way, Matthew  indicates that Jesus’ ministry to Israel will, in the end, lead to the universal soteriological perspective carried out in the mission to the nations. This mission begins with the revelation of the resurrected Christ as the universal Lord exalted to God and is grounded in the universal soteriological significance of Jesus’ death. In this, the ministry of salvation to the nations  presumes the ministry to Israel. It is the salvation made known in Israel in which the nations participate. This goes hand in hand with the fact that, for the evangelist, the inclusion of the nations accords with Scripture: according to Matthew’s conviction, whoever rejects the mission to the nations does not stand on the firm ground of Scripture. More  specifically,  the  central  aspect  of  the  Matthean  narrative  program is to be seen in that the evangelist interlaced the missions to Israel and the nations with the development of Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of David and the Son of God. The presentation of the Davidic Messiah’s ministry to his people is followed by the inclusion of the nations in salvation on the basis of the death of the Son of God for the “many” and the installation of the Son of God as the universal Lord, equipped with universal authority. Just as the universal dimension of salvation is indicated prior to Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’ ministry in Israel, so too is Jesus’ identity as the Son of God presented before his portrayal as the Davidic Messiah. Jesus’ salvific death and resurrection, or exaltation, are for Matthew the kairos in which his divine sonship becomes a “public” topic, as does  the  universal  significance  of  the  salvation  Jesus  has  brought  about.  The two soteriological horizons of the two commissions in 10.5– 6 and 28.19 are thus to be seen in connection with the narrative Christology of the Matthean Jesus story. With regard to the understanding of 28.19, the decisive question is not, therefore, whether πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (still) includes Israel or refers exclusively to the Gentile nations—for the ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” has already been shown to be a per­ manent task of the disciples in 10.6, 23, and has been located within the Israel- specific horizon of the restitution of the twelve tribes. In 28.19, the  emphasis is on the fact that the disciples are from now on also sent to the rest of humanity. In conclusion, there is an internal connection between the way in which Matthew has linked the ministry to Israel with the inclusion of the nations and the narrative christological concept of his Jesus story. The turn to the nations is tied to the evangelist’s christological conception, and the revelation  of  the  universality  of  salvation  is  coupled  with  Jesus’  salvific  death  and the installment of the Son of God as universal Lord. The succession of

5: Israel and the Gentiles

325

the two commissions in Matt 10.5– 6 and 28.19 is an integral element of the narrative concept through which Matthew unfolds Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of David and the Son of God. Conversely, this concept serves to mediate between Israel’s special position and the universality of salvation. The turn to the nations, however, is not a response to the alleged collective rejection of Jesus in Israel.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

Israel and the Church

Several aspects relevant to identifying the relationship between Israel and the Church have already been addressed in the preceding chapters and need only be brought together here. At the same time, the thesis that Matthew does not support a condemnation of Israel must prove itself in the course of further identifying exactly how Israel and Church relate to one another. To begin, it might be useful to recall the hermeneutical problem addressed in the introduction to this study—namely, that today’s common usage of Church and Israel in terms of Judaism and Christianity as two separate religions all too easily guides the reading of Matthew’s Gospel.1 In other words, it cannot be presumed a priori that the Church and Israel are seen as equivalent—and thereby competing—entities, as they appear in the common thesis that Matthew considers the Church to be the new Israel, or the new people of God, and thus the replacement for the “Old Testament” people of God.2 Matthew himself nowhere identifies the ecclesia expressly as Israel or  the (new) people of God. He would have had an excellent opportunity to do so in 21.43, yet even here, as we have seen, there is no mention of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ being transferred to another or a new λαός. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that an understanding of the Church as the new people of God could emerge from a contextual reading or an overview of the Gospel’s statements. The λαός statement in 1.21 is of particular significance here in connection with the covenant language in 26.28, given that  the two texts point to one another in the motif of forgiveness of sins. Thus, for 1.21, it has often been postulated that the statement of salvation oriented toward the λαός is not realized anywhere other than in the ecclesia, and accordingly, λαός is redefined as the ecclesia in the course of the narrative.3 1

Compare chapter 1. Compare chapter 1. 3 λαός in 1.21 is interpreted as referring to the Church—or also to the Church—by, for example, Hahn 1963, 108; Rothfuchs 1969, 60; Tagawa 1969/1970, 159; Bornkamm 1975c, 2

328

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

The theological concepts addressed briefly here are pursued further in  section 6.2, guided by the question of whether Matthew conceived of the ecclesia as God’s people of the “new” covenant. In Matthean ecclesiology, however, the community is certainly not envisioned simply as the recipient of salvation brought about by Jesus.4 Rather, the community is also charged with missionary service, which still includes service to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” in particular. For Matthew, life as a disciple always implies a missionary dimension. Accordingly, the relation between Church and Israel can only be discussed within the twofold ecclesiological perspective of one’s own salvation and mission. Since the missionary dimension has already been given a preliminary assessment in section 2.3 (and section 5.4), I will be brief here. It is, however, of fundamental significance  to an adequate understanding of the relation between Church and Israel that this dimension be included here (section 6.1). Section 6.3 reflects on  the extent to which the formation of the ecclesia, if it is not connected with a replacement of Israel as the people of God, is nevertheless linked with a transformation of Israel’s position.

6.1

The Missionary Dimension of Matthean Ecclesiology

The  significance  of  the  missionary  dimension  of  Matthean  ecclesiology  can scarcely be overstated.5 This dimension not only is revealed in the 308; Meier 1979, 200; Anno 1984, 209–11; Frankemölle 1984, 217; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:210; McKnight 1993, 66– 67; Menninger 1994, 144; Hübner 1995, 3:102–3; Metzner 1995, 161; Powell 1995b, 5– 6; Kupp 1996, 81– 82, 107, 171, 199; Gundry 2000b, 405– 6; Beaton 2002, 94, n. 36; and Novakovic 2003, 65– 66. In contrast, λαός in 1.21 is read as a reference to Israel by Hummel 1963, 136; Gnilka 1988/1992, 1:19; Saldarini 1994, 29; Repschinski 2006, 255–56; Luz 2001–2007, 1:95; and Cuvillier 2011, 162; see also Garbe 2005, 45– 47. According to Hummel 1963, 150, “the old honorific titles Ἰσραήλ and λαός [remain] . . . in Matthew even for the unbelieving Jewish people. But they are relativized in their significance. Without the guarantees of a salvific past, [the people] are  headed toward a threatening future of judgment” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). See also Hummel 1963, 155–56. 4 As a side note, there is no guarantee of salvation; rather, for Jesus’ followers, or believers in Christ, access to the kingdom of God rests on the condition of right behavior. On the inward looking parenetic dimension of Matthew’s concept of judgment, see Matt 7.13–27; (13.47–50); 16.27; 18.6–9, 23–35; 22.11–14; 24.42–25.30. 5 Compare, for example, Baumbach 1967, col. 892: “The mission . . . does not represent one among many tasks of the Church, but rather appertains to the essential nature of the Church” (trans. K. Ess). This is contra Overman 1990b, 121: “The rather small amount of attention which this kind of activity [the mission] receives in Matthew . . . suggests that this was no longer a central activity and focus of the community.” As has already become clear in section 2.3 and is substantiated in the following discussion, the significance of the  mission in the Gospel of Matthew remains here markedly underdetermined. (On Overman in this regard, see further chapter 7, n. 19.) The following discussion of the missionary

6: Israel and the Church

329

final chords of the Gospel sounded in 28.18– 20 but appears in the preceding portrayal of the disciples’ role in the context of Jesus’ earthly ministry as well, where it is oriented around the messianic task of gathering Israel. As was shown in section 2.3, in interpreting Matt 10, the disciples are included in God’s merciful devotion to his people through Jesus’ messianic ministry. The disciples become a vehicle for God’s ministry to Israel—and, beyond Israel, to all people. It is not too much to say that this is a fundamental element of the Church in the Matthean understanding: for Matthew, the Church is essentially characterized by its missionary task. Within the arrangement of the first main section (4.17– 11.1) after the  prologue  (1.1– 4.16),  the  calling  of  the  first  disciples  in  4.18– 22  and  the  commission of the disciples in 9.36–11.1 together form an ecclesiological frame around the systematic presentation of Jesus’ authoritative ministry in 4.23–9.35. The missionary orientation of discipleship emerges already in the calling of the first pair of brothers as a sign of what is to come: Jesus  will make Peter and Andrew (and, with them, the other disciples) “fishers  of people.” With this beginning, 4.23–9.35 reads ecclesiologically as the disciples’ preparation for the service to which they are appointed in 9.36– 11.1.  If  Matt  5.(13– )16  identifies  the  theme  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  that is explained in the body of the discourse (5.17–7.12),6 here, too, the focus is on the disciples’ task in and for the world,7 and 5.17–7.12 develops how the disciples can be the light of the world. The significance attributed  to διδάσκειν in the commission of the disciples to all nations in 28.19–20 dovetails seamlessly with this. In 8.1–9.35, the disciples become witnesses to Jesus’ healing ministry, which they are charged to continue in 10.1, 8. Here, as elsewhere in the

dimension of Matthean ecclesiology is concerned not only with the itinerant mission portrayed in the Gospel but also with mission in the sense of the “promotion” of the Christian faith among local contacts. One can only speculate on the way in which the Matthean community carried out its missionary work. (In this vein, see also Foster 2004, 220.) 6 On this, see Burchard 1998b, esp. 36–38. 7 Compare Deines 2005, 255: “The task that Jesus entrusts to the disciples, to be the salt and the light for the world, is realized . . . in their missionary existence, with the goal of calling Israel and the nations into community with this Lord” (trans. K. Ess). In line with this, Deines characterizes the Sermon on the Mount “as preparation for the missionary task” (450 [emphasis original; trans. K. Ess]). With respect to Deines 2005, 183–256, however, it must be pointed out that in 5.16, with the phrase “good works,” Matthew places the accent entirely on the (effect of the) disciples’ ethical praxis, and this praxis is oriented around the Torah, as Jesus has taught it (5.17– 48; see chapter 2). In addition, Deines’ distinction that the Gospel of Matthew does not address “primarily the community members but rather the missionaries and emissaries of these communities” (451; trans. K. Ess) is questionable. Rather, the point is precisely that the Matthean view of the community is altogether heavily characterized as missionary.

330

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Gospel, there is a close interconnection between Christology and ecclesiology (which is characteristic of Matthew).8 Matthew not only has tied the stilling of the storm together with sayings on discipleship (8.18–27)—and thus turned the episode into an ecclesiological story—but has also placed an ecclesiological accent in 9.2–8.9 In that he has the crowds in 9.8 praise God as the one who has given authority (to forgive sins) to human beings, the narrative horizon extends beyond Jesus’ own authority and looks to the corresponding authority of the community.10 As discussed in section 2.1.3, the topic of forgiveness of sins is immediately continued in the calling of Matthew the tax collector and Jesus’ meal with the tax collectors (9.9– 13).11 Reading this sequence in view of the ἐξουσία given, according to 9.8, to the disciples, it becomes clear that this is not just about the authority to be exercised within the community. The authority for the forgiveness of sins is at the same time an important element in the framework of the disciples’ missionary ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and to all people.12 Viewed in this way, the crowds’ praise contains a subtle significance: the crowds praise God for something that benefits themselves,  since the disciples, equipped with the authority to forgive sins, are charged to minister to the crowds in word and in deed. While the disciples are distinguished in 11.2–16.20 as the circle of those who do God’s will (12.46–50), who understand the secrets of the kingdom of heaven (13.10–17), and who recognize Jesus as the Son of God (14.33; 16.16), so too do they appear in 11.2–16.20 as the vehicle of  Jesus’  salvific  ministry  to  his  people.  Matthew  linked  the  two  feeding miracles (14.13–21; 15.29/32–39) with Jesus’ healing ministry to his people by inserting the healings in 14.14 and in 15.29–31.13 In terms of ecclesiology, in both of these miracle stories, not only does the disciples’ 8

On the ecclesiological theme in Matt 8–9, compare the approaches of Burger 1973; and Luz 1987, 153–55. 9 Compare Bornkamm 1975b. 10 Compare Greeven 1955, 75–76; Dupont 1960, 952–58; Hummel 1963, 37; Meier 1979, 71–72; Geist 1986, 304–5; Briscoe 1989, 112; Klauck 1989, 310–11; Schnackenburg 1991, 205; Gundry 1994, 165; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 1:313–14; Luz 2001–2007, 2:28–29; Nolland 2005, 383; Fiedler 2006, 215; J. Park 2006, 221; Repschinski 2006, 259; and Stein 2007, 139, among others. Contra Gielen 1998, 92, according to whom the crowds “praise Jesus’ ἐξουσία as divine, nevertheless do not yet recognize it as Jesus’ particular authority, but regard it as a fundamental possibility for human beings” (trans. K. Ess). With yet a different reading, Schenk 1963, 275, reads τοῖς ἀνθρώποις as a dativus commodi. 11 See in section 2.1.3. 12 On the soteriological plight implied by τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ, see section 2.1.3. 13 Compare Sand 1986, 304; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:314. On the compositional schema, see section 2.2.3.2, n. 287.

6: Israel and the Church

331

small faith appear once again (14.15–18),14 but their role as mediators to the crowds15 also emerges.16 In view of the sequence of events in 15.21–39, where Jesus proceeds to give bread to the children (i.e., the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” [15.24]) in 15.29–39,17 and the symbolic significance  of the gift of bread as a metaphor for the ministry of salvation introduced in 15.26–27, this underscores that the disciples’ role in the feeding miracles can be seen as analogous to their task in 9.36–10.8.18 Jesus makes the disciples “colleagues in the salvific service and mediators of his offer  of salvation.”19 This relationship is illuminated from another perspective by 13.3–23, which seeks to address failings in the mission without negating the task itself.20 Both aspects—the permanent missionary responsibility to the “lost sheep,” as well as coping with failure—must rather be seen together in their tension with one another. Further, 21.43 is once again relevant here: if the transfer of God’s βασιλεία means the disciples are entrusted with the task of conveying God’s will to humanity (cf. 16.19; 28.20) and thus of guiding people to the kingdom of heaven, the missionary task of the community also comes into view here.21 With regard to 12.46–50, it is further to be observed that this is not just about distinguishing the disciples from the crowds; rather, the

14

See Held 1975, 173; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:314. It is striking that Matthew, especially in the first version, strengthens the explicit mention of the ὄχλοι in comparison with Mark. In Mark 6.32– 44, the ὄχλος is explicitly named only in Mark 6.34; in contrast, see Matt 14.13, 14, 15, 19(2x). And the few occurrences of ὄχλος in Mark 8.(1,) 2, 6(2x) contrast with those in Matt 15.(30, 31,) 32, 33, 35, 36, 39. 16 In Mark 6.41, Jesus gives the disciples the loaves of bread ἵνα παρατιθῶσιν αὐτοῖς, but he distributes the fish himself. Matthew has subdued the note about the fish  and  replaced  the  final  clause  with  the  addition  of  οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ ὄχλοις to the preceding main clause ([Jesus] ἔδωκεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοὺς ἄρτους, Matt 14.19). One can ask to what extent Matthew sought to illuminate more strongly the disciples’ activity and participation in Jesus’ messianic work by means of this syntactic coordination (with a common verb!; cf. 9.36ff.). The construction returns again in Matt 15.36. Here Mark (8.6) at least mentions the actual distribution of the bread by the disciples following the final  clause (. . . ἵνα παρατιθῶσιν, καὶ παρέθηκαν τῷ ὄχλῳ). 17 See in section 2.2.3.2. 18 There are some echoes of the Eucharist to be heard in the Matthean feeding pericopae, but these are by no means to be taken as the key category for interpretation—that is, the feeding pericopae are primarily not to be read as a portrayal of the community’s practice of communion (with Sand 1986, 305; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:9; and Carter 1993, 65; contra Meier 1979, 97). 19 Sand 1986, 306 (trans. K. Ess). 20 On Matt 13.3–23 more extensively, see section 4.4. 21 Compare section 4.1.3.2. 15

332

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

disciples are more specifically presented before the forum of the ὄχλοι as the family of Jesus and thereby as models to the ὄχλοι.22 In the missionary perspective outlined here, the Church does not appear as an entity that enters into competition with Israel. Rather, the Church relates to Israel positively in its missionary task. It remains to be seen  whether  other  texts  provide  sufficient  evidence  that  Matthew  could  have seen Israel as replaced by the Church.

6.2

The Ecclesia as God’s People of the New Covenant?

While the question of whether Jesus is the promised savior, posed in 11.2–3, is appropriately answered in 16.16, this stands alongside the fact that the progressive emergence of the disciples as a distinct group (also in contrast with the crowds) in 11.2– 16.20 flows into a promise added to Peter’s confession, which has the formation of the ecclesia in view. In other words, the prospect of the formation of the ecclesia is prepared by the preceding portrayal of the disciples. This explicit discussion of the formation of the ecclesia as the end point of 11.2–16.20, where the hostile opposition of the Jewish authorities against Jesus appeared clearly, does not, however, necessarily mean that the ecclesia is here envisioned as an entity that competes with Israel as the new people of God.23 In any case, ἐκκλησία is by no means simply an alternate term for Israel or λαός. 22

Compare van Tilborg 1972, 161: Jesus “holds up his disciples as a model for the ὄχλοι.” This stands alongside the fact that the crowds in Matt 5–7 are witnesses to the Sermon on the Mount, with which the disciples are introduced not just generally to a life in accordance with God’s will but also particularly to their missionary existence (5.13–16; see the preceding discussion with n. 7). 23 Contra a common tendency of interpretation. See, for example, Schmid 1965, 249, on ἐκκλησία: “Names and terms are . . . taken from the Old Testament, and they identify the Church, which Jesus seeks to ‘build’—to found—as the new people of God. This expresses that this people will be the continuation of the old Israel, but will also supersede it, for the current people of God is (or will be) condemned by God (cf. 21.33– 46), and the new, spiritual Israel should no longer be nationally limited” (trans. K. Ess). Wiefel 1998, 300, speaks of the “reestablishment of the people of God” (trans. K. Ess). According to Gnilka 1985, 136, there comes into view in 16.18 “the salvation-historical process of replacement: in place of the ekklèsia Israel, the Messiah’s ekklèsia from the nations emerged” (trans. K. Ess). Carter 1996, 93–94, postulates, “In using ekklēsia, the gospel recognizes its audience as continuing Israel’s special place in the history of God’s saving work.” Menninger 1994, 153–54, connects Matthew’s use of ἐκκλησία with the thesis that he understood the Church as the “true Israel.” Similarly, according to Metzner 1995, 161, the Church is “the new people of God dedicated to Jesus” (trans. K. Ess). The formation of the ecclesia is often interpreted as a reaction to the supposedly general rejection of Jesus in Israel in 11.2–16.20. See, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:642 (“the birth of

6: Israel and the Church

333

In the Greek-speaking world, ἐκκλησία refers to the regularly convened “plenary assembly of full citizens of the πόλις who were legally responsible and fit for military service.”24 The LXX translators use ἐκκλησία—alongside συναγωγή—to translate ‫ ָק ָהל‬, which means simply “assembly, gathered crowd of people”25 and is specified by its context.26 Further, ἐκκλησία (or ‫ ) ָק ָהל‬is not in itself a positive term but can also be used to refer to a gathering of evildoers, 27 although there is a general tendency to use ἐκκλησία positively in reference to Israel. With this usage, ἐκκλησία occurs not only in military or other political contexts28 but also

the ecclesia—of Jew and Gentile—is traced directly to the failure of Israel to live up to her eschatological calling.” [see in this section, n. 44, on Davies and Allison]) or Luz 2001– 2007, 2:362 (“After the evangelist has related in several stages how Jesus and his disciples ‘withdrew’ from Israel, he now announces where the disciples’ separation from the people becomes clear—the construction ‘of his church’ ” [emphasis added]). 24 Coenen 2000, 1136 (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). Compare Schrage 1963, 179; Roloff 1992a, col. 999; and Trebilco 2012, 165– 66. 25 See H.-P. Müller 1984, col. 609; and Rose 1994, 1:323. 26 The significance of the use of the word in the LXX (and in other Early Jewish literature) is, as a context for Matthew, to be considered independently of the question of the genesis or derivation of the early Christian use of ἐκκλησία. Against the longstandard, straightforward derivation of the early Christian use from the LXX, Schrage 1963, 180–94, has brought forward a series of objections. Schrage’s own thesis is that the use of ἐκκλησία should be understood to be critical of the Law, as a means of disassociation  from  the  synagogue,  which  was  firmly  linked  with  the  (instruction  of  the)  Torah (195–202); this thesis, however, is not convincing. (See the critique in Berger 1976, 184; and Roloff 1993, 84.) According to Stuhlmacher 1966, 210–11, the early Christians were inspired by the reception of ‫ ָק ָהל‬in apocalyptic literature to adopt the term for self- identification. (See also Roloff 1992a, col. 1000.) Berger 1976, 168– 84, points to  the development of the public assembly in the Hellenistic period and emphasizes structural analogies between Hellenistic, Jewish-Hellenistic, and Christian ἐκκλησίαι. Most recently, Trebilco 2012 has again argued “that the use of ἐκκλησία in LXX was the most crucial  factor”  (188).  Trebilco  traces  the  first  use  of  ἐκκλησία among groups of Christ believers back to the Hellenists in Jerusalem (186, cf. n. 39). Their preference for the term ἐκκλησία over συναγωγή can be explained by the simple fact that “the more prominent term in the LXX—συναγωγή—was already in use” (189) by contemporary Jewish communities (cf. 190–98). 27 See the use of ἐκκλησία πονηρευομένων in Ps 25.5LXX (Ps 26.5MT: ‫) ְק ַהל ְמ ֵר ִעים‬. In 1QH X, 30 (cf. Ps 26.12), ‫ ִמ ְּק ָהלָ ם‬refers to the assembly of the enemies of the supplicant. 4Q169 3– 4 III, 5, 7, uses ‫ ָק ָהל‬for the assembly of those who give “smooth” instructions. 1QM XI, 16, is concerned with the punishment of Gog and his entire ‫ ; ָק ָהל‬1QM XIV, 5, speaks of ‫( ְק ַהל ֹּגויִ ים‬see also 4Q491 8–10 I, 3). See further 1QM XV, 10, and Philo, Spec. 2.44. In Sir 26.5, ἐκκλησία ὄχλου identifies the gathering of a crowd. 28 See Judg 20.2; (21.5, 8); 1 Sam 17.47; 1 Chr 28.2, 8; 2 Chr 10.3; 23.3; 28.14; Neh 5.7, 13 (assembly for the rectification of social injustices); Jdt 6.16, 21; 7.29; 14.6; 1 Macc  5.16; 14.19; Josephus, B.J. 1.550, 654, 666; 4.159, and elsewhere; see also Sir 33.19; 38.33. In a judicial context, see, for example, Sir 23.24. Compare the convocation of the entire ‫“ ָק ָהל‬for a judgment, or for the community council, or for a convocation of war” in 1QSa I, 25–26 (trans. García Martínez/Tigchelaar).

334

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in reference to liturgical or cultic assemblies, 29 sometimes in the plural.30 Josh 9.2e–f LXX  and  Neh  8.2  are  specifically  about  the  reading  of  the  law  before  the  ἐκκλησία.31 Philo also uses ἐκκλησία in the context of the giving or the reading of the law (Decal. 32.45, Post. 143; see also Mut. 204, Virt. 108).32 Following Berger, a structural analogy can be detected here with the ἐκκλησία in the Hellenistic polis—unlike that of the classical period—since, in the monarchical system, the assembly of the people became a place where laws were no longer negotiated but royal decrees were simply read out and the role of the people was reduced to the acclamation.33 The use of ἐκκλησία is not reserved for the assembly of the whole people34 but can also be used for individual groups.35 Often, the relationship to God is 29 See 2 Chr 6.3; 7.8; 29.23, 28, 31–32; 30.2, 4, 13, 17, 23–25; Ps 21.23, 26LXX; 25.12LXX; 34.18LXX; 39.10LXX; 67.27LXX; 88.6LXX; 106.32LXX; 149.1LXX; see also 2 Chr 1.3, 5; Ezra 10.1; Joel 2.16; Sir 50.13, 20; 1 Macc 4.59; Pss. Sol. 10.6. In 1 Kgs 8.14, 22, 55, 65, ἐκκλησία identifies the people gathered for the consecration of the temple. Further, the ἐκκλησία κυρίου in Deut 23.2–9 is aimed primarily at the cultic community. (Philo, Virt. 108, however, then takes Deut 23.9 as a reference to the Jewish community in general [cf. Berger 1989, 215]; on the reception of Deut 23 in Philo, see also Leg. 3.81; Post. 177; Deus 111; Ebr. 213; Conf. 144; Migr. 69; Mut. 204–5; Somn. 2.184; Spec. 1.325ff.) See further Lam 1.10 and Neh 13.1. Compare, among the Qumran texts, 4Q403 1 II, 24; 4Q427 7 I, 18; 11QTa (11Q19) XVI, 14–15, 16, 18; XVIII, 7; XXVI, 7, 9. In some cases, political and liturgical meetings cannot be strictly differentiated; see, for example, 2 Chr 20.5, 14, as well as 1 Chr 13.2, 4. In 1 Chr 28.1ff., David presents his successor, Solomon, to the ἐκκλησία of the princes of Israel gathered before him (LXX inserts ἐν μέσῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας in 28.2) and also exhorts the keeping of the commandments (1 Chr 28.8). This is followed in 1 Chr 29.20, with the demand to praise the Lord. 30 In plural, see Ps 25.12LXX; 67.27LXX. 31 Compare 1 Chr 28.8 (see n. 29), as well as Deut 4.10; 9.10; 18.16. 32 See also Josephus, A.J. 4.309. 33 See Berger 1976, 168–73. 34 On the reference to Israel as a whole, see, for example, 1 Macc 2.56; 2 Chr 7.8. The syntagma ἐκκλησία Ἰσραήλ (Deut 31.30) occurs several times, often strengthened by πᾶσα (1 Kgs 8.14, 22, 55; 1 Chr 13.2; 2 Chr 6.3, 12, 13; 10.3; 1 Macc 4.59; Sir 50.13). 35 2 Chr 20.5; 23.3; 30.25 mentions the ἐκκλησία Ιουδα. In 2 Chr 28.14, ἐκκλησία refers to the assembly of the chiefs of the Ephraimites. In Ezra-Nehemiah, ἐκκλησία occasionally serves to identify the group of the returned exiles (Ezra 2.64; 10.8, 12, 14; Neh 7.66; 8.2, 17). In Jdt 6.16, 21, ἐκκλησία means the gathering of the elders of the city “Bethulia” (probably a cryptogram for Jerusalem [Zenger 1981, 435]); but in Jdt 7.29, ἐκκλησία refers to the people of the city revolting against the leaders (see further Jdt 14.6). Those occurrences that have the liturgical assembly in view should also be mentioned here; see further 1 Sam 19.20 (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τῶν προφητῶν, cf. Josephus, A.J. 6.222); 1 Macc 3.13 (ἐκκλησίαν πιστῶν); and also Ps 88.6LXX (ἐκκλησία ἁγίων). See n. 27 on Ps 25.5LXX and Sir 26.5. A further instructive occurrence is Judg 21.5– 8, where the “sons of Israel” who have come together for the ἐκκλησία are not identical to Israel as a whole (in contrast with the emphasis in Judg 20.1–11). See also the ‫ קהל חסידים‬in 11Q5 XVIII, 12.

6: Israel and the Church

335

explicitly  identified  with  the  phrase  ἐκκλησία κυρίου36 or θεοῦ,37 whereby in Deut 23.2, 3, 4, 9; 1 Chr 28.8; 29.20; and Neh 13.1, the cultic-liturgical aspect emerges. In general, ἐκκλησία is characteristically used to refer to the people or groups of the people “as God’s company . . . , which is qualified by the response to  Yahweh’s call.”38

The usage of ‫ק ָהל‬/ἐκκλησία— ָ or, more precisely, ‫ק ַהל ֵאל‬/ἐκκλησία ְ τοῦ θεοῦ—as a self-designation, which apparently occurred already in early Judean communities of believers in Christ (see 1 Cor 15.9; Gal 1.13; 1 Thess 2.14),39 by no means necessarily reflects a self- understanding as a  new, eschatological Israel.40 From this usage, one can only conclude that the groups of believers in Christ within Israel saw themselves as the (eschatological) assembly prepared by God. Such a self-understanding can readily be linked with the idea of being charged with a missionary task among the rest of God’s people. Thus Roloff concludes that the early Christian usage of ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ as a self-designation expresses that the community “understood itself to be the company elected by God and determined by him to be the center and crystallization-point of the eschatological Israel now being called into existence by him.”41 Matt 16.18 can be read within this horizon of meaning and thereby in the context of the community’s task, discussed in sections 2.3 and 6.1, to tend to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew neither identifies the  36 Deut 23.2, 3, 4, 9; 1 Chr 28.8; 29.20; Mic 2.5, where, following the model of Josh 18.1–19.51, a renewed distribution of land is imagined, in which Jerusalem, or the city’s powerful upper class, will not be taken into account because of the economic oppression of the poor (cf. Utzschneider 2005, 58–59), and this assembly of Israel—which asserts the will of God— is identified as ἐκκλησία κυρίου. See also Philo, Ebr. 213 (citing Deut 23.2). 37 See Neh 13.1 (drawing on Deut 23.4–6); Philo, Leg. 3.8; Ebr. 213 (both appealing to Deut 23.2). See further 1QSa II, 4 (also concerned with entry into the assembly/community); 1QM IV, 10. See also the ἐκκλησία τοῦ πανηγεμόνος in Philo, Mut. 204. 38 Coenen 2000, 1140 (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). This is well-illustrated in the example of Judg 21.5– 8: the gathering of the ἐκκλησία is identical to “coming up to the Lord” (v. 8), which, however, not all Israel does (cf. n. 35). Further, there are various similar occurrences of ‫ ָק ָהל‬among the Qumran texts, such as 1QSa II, 4; 11Q5 XVIII, 12; or CD XII, 6; see also CD VII, 7; XI, 22. 39 On this, see Schenke 1990, 87; and Roloff 1993, 83–85. According to Trebilco 2012, 186, “the use of ἐκκλησία originated with the Jerusalem Hellenists in particular.” 40 Berger 1976, 185–86, is rightly against the postulation of a covenant-theological typology expressed with the usage of ἐκκλησία. 41 Roloff 1990, 412. Compare Berger 1976, 198: “The concept is without doubt first of all that the qahal or ecclesia of God is established by Jesus, and namely in Israel” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess); see also Berger 1976, 199: “Israel and her election are in any case not up for debate with regard to the term ‘God’s ecclesia,’ nor in competition with it” (trans. K. Ess).

336

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Church with Israel nor lets the Church step into Israel’s position. Rather, the ecclesia is the part of Israel (and of the rest of the world) that has recognized the Christ event (in the comprehensive sense of the Matthean Jesus story) as the eschatological salvific act of Israel’s God and has allowed itself be  called to discipleship and follow Christ. It is the part of Israel that, to use the words of the parable of the sower, has accepted the λόγος τῆς βασιλείας (13.19) and bears fruit accordingly.42 The ecclesia—with the Matthean Jesus speaking more specifically of his ἐκκλησία—is, in other words, the eschatological community of salvation gathered by Jesus or in the mission, which is qualified by the confession of Jesus as the Son of God (16.16) and a life  in accordance with his teachings (28.20a) and which gathers in his name (18.20).43 Its nucleus is the circle of disciples that Jesus created during his ministry in Israel, which, according to the Matthean conception, is open to people from all nations post-Easter. Its basic missionary dimension indicates that the ecclesia is a dynamic, not a static, entity. It is not the fixed  result of a movement to gather followers that has now come to an end; the already “gathered portion” of humanity is itself the vehicle of further gathering. The community of the disciples in particular, as the ecclesia of Jesus initially gathered in Israel, is given a permanent task with respect to the rest of the nation; they are placed in the service of God’s eschatological ministry to his people, inaugurated with Jesus’ ministry.44 In other words, the offer of salvation to all Israel has not become obsolete with the gathering of the disciples in Israel. Rather, the disciples, who themselves were previously among the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”45 and at the same time represent the portion of the flock that has already been gathered, understand  themselves to be permanently beholden to Jesus’ compassion for his people (9.36) and therefore as sent to gather those sheep who are still lost. The shepherd/flock metaphor was shown in chapter 2 to be a central category of the  Matthean portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and his ministry to the crowds from Israel. This metaphor also occurs, however, with an ecclesial orientation in

42

On Matt 13.3–23, see section 4.4 with n. 462. On this, see S. von Dobbeler 2002, 210–14. 44 Compare Fiedler 2006, 289, according to whom “in the eyes of Matthew, the Christ-Jesus-community is something like the nucleus of God’s people Israel to be gathered in the end time” (trans. K. Ess). The idea that the mention of Jesus’ ecclesia in Matt 16.18 draws particularly on Deut 4.10; 9.10; 18.16; 31.30, and that a typological reference to the ἐκκλησία of Israel at Sinai is present (Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:629), can only be read into—not out of—Matt 16.18 itself. 45 Compare Hahn 1963, 109: “The community understands itself . . . primarily as the flock of disciples from among the Jews, as the lost sheep of Israel, to whom Jesus has  come” (trans. K. Ess). 43

6: Israel and the Church

337

Matthew. Following Mark 14.27, Jesus’ announcement in Matt 26.31 that all the disciples will be caused to stumble because of him is supported by his citation from Zech 13.7: “For it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock  will be scattered.’ ”46 The sheep metaphor is again used with an ecclesial orientation in Matt 18.12–14. This does not mean that, at the end of the Gospel, the shepherd of Israel has become the shepherd of the disciples (symbolizing the ecclesia47) alone48 and that one can thus speak of a transfer of Jesus’ “pastoral office” from  Israel to the community in the course of the Jesus story. Rather, both usages of the metaphor can be unproblematically integrated into a comprehensive conception. Jesus is sent as shepherd to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The disciples form, in a sense, the flock of sheep that has already been gathered, who will be scattered in the course of the passion but who, as announced in 26.32 (cf. 28.7, 10), will gather again post- Easter. It fits with the thesis of an integrative conception that, in  the ecclesial orientation of Matt 18.12–14, unlike Luke/Q 15.4–7, there is no (more) mention of lost sheep but rather of sheep gone astray. Matthew thus differentiates that the mission is concerned with ministry to the “lost sheep,” but 18.12–14, by contrast, addresses those who have already been gathered under Jesus the shepherd and have then gone astray, whom the community must go after so that they are not lost again (cf. 18.14: ἵνα ἀπόληται ἓν τῶν μικρῶν τούτων). Further support for the thesis of an integrative conception is found in the fact that Jesus is also presented as a shepherd in his function as the Son of Man and judge (25.32–33).49

The suggested classification of ecclesia and Israel dovetails seamlessly with  the promise to Peter that he (as representative of the disciples) will be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (16.19). It has already been pointed out in section 4.1.3 that this concerns a halakic or ethical instruction, whose fundamental meaning in the context of the task of making disciples of people becomes clear in 28.19–20. For Matthew, it is essentially the authority to instruct given to the community that distinguishes it in its service in and to Israel and the rest of humanity. It is incumbent upon the disciples to open the kingdom of heaven to humanity through the interpretation of God’s will on the basis of Jesus’ teaching or to be the light of the world in their own practice and so lead people to praise God (5.14–16). Taking into account 23.13, the ecclesia appears here in competition with the scribes and Pharisees. This corresponds with the observation that 16.19 is preceded by an urgent warning against the Pharisees’ and scribes’ teaching 46 Luz 2001–2007, 3:388, links the reference to the disciples here with the proposal that the readers will additionally think of “the entire nation (cf. 10:5– 6)” whose shepherd is Jesus. 47 On this transparency, see the fundamental discussion in Luz 1980, 377–97. 48 This is contra the tendency in Menninger 1994, 142– 48. 49 On this, see Chae 2006, 219–25.

338

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

(16.12). Further, the connection between 16.19 and 21.43 is once again relevant here: the transfer of the keys to the kingdom of heaven in 16.19 corresponds with the transfer of God’s basileia in 21.43, which in the context of the parable of the wicked tenants depicts the task of the disciples as the new vinedressers in God’s vineyard.50 Matthew thus advocates a replacement not of Israel but of the old leadership—the old “shepherds”—with the Church.51 One further aspect is to be added to these observations. The end of section 5.4 pointed out the creative reinterpretation of the Zion-oriented hope of salvation for the nations.52 The formation of the ecclesia appeared in competition with the traditional expectations of salvation connected with Jerusalem. The “light of the Lord” (Isa 2.5) is not to be found on Zion; rather, Jesus’ disciples are—in following Jesus (cf. 4.16)—the light of the world (Matt 5.14). Considering that Matthew has linked the authorities and Jerusalem in opposition to Jesus, one can speak of the replacement of the authorities and the transformation of the hope of salvation connected with Jerusalem as two aspects of one substitution event. This can possibly be further concretized by the replacement of the temple in particular. While the tearing of the temple curtain in 27.51 indicates the end of the temple, abandoned by God (23.38) and made obsolete by Jesus’ atoning death,53 the forgiveness of sins brought about by Jesus’ death is made present in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the community to whom Jesus has promised his presence (18.20; 28.20) and thus God’s presence. With regard to the “building up” (οἰκοδομεῖν) of the ecclesia, one can ask whether it is not just the general image of the Church as a house (cf. 1 Cor 3.10– 15; Eph 2.20) that is meant to resonate here but, more specifically, the  image of the community as temple (cf. 1 Cor 3.16–17; Eph 2.21; 1 Pet 2.554).55

50

See section 4.1.3.2. Compare the discussion in section 2.1.2. 52 See in section 5.4. 53 Compare the discussion in section 4.3.3. 54 See further Gal 2.9 (?); 1 Tim 3.15; 1 Pet 4.17; Rev 3.12; Ign. Eph. 9.1. Following J. Becker 2006, 12–16, this is an old image; he argues that 1 Cor 3.16–17 can be traced back to Jerusalem tradition and reflects the understanding of the Church in the early Jerusalem congregation (15). The conception of the community as temple has Early Jewish parallels in Qumran. (See 1QS V, 6; VIII, 5; IX, 6; XI, 8; 4Q174 1i+21+2 2– 4, and elsewhere; cf. Gärtner 1965, 16– 46; Klinzing 1971, 50–93.) In the context of the rejection of the Jerusalem cult, this conception is to be understood as follows: the community is a substitute for the temple, which is defiled by the illegitimate and unworthy priestly service.  Further reference should be made to the connection of the expectation of an eschatological temple (e.g., 1 En. 90.29; 91.13; T. Benj. 9.2; Sib. Or. 3.290) with the expectation of God’s dwelling among his people in Jub. 1.17 (cf., without the temple, Rev 21.3 [cf. 21.22]). 55 In this vein, for example, see B. P. Robinson 1984, 90–91; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:603, 627–28; see also Luz 2001–2007, 2:362– 63; and Kupp 1996, 225. 51

6: Israel and the Church

339

The metaphor of building is of course widespread and therefore not necessarily restricted to the temple in Matt 16.18.56 Matthew does not, in any case, speak of the community explicitly as God’s temple.57 For 21.42 as well, an allusion to the community as the temple is possible but not certain.58 That is, it is possible that here, too, the image of the community as simply a building is in the background. However that may be, one can see both aspects of the substitution event directly linked with one another here: Jesus, the stone rejected by the (old) builders, has become the cornerstone (of the new temple/the house of the community); the old builders are thereby rejected, while Jesus builds his community through the mission of his disciples. Because the community is built on rock— that is, on a firm foundation (cf. 7.24– 27)— it  is enduring. This is underscored by the promise in 16.18c that the gates of Hades will not overpower the Church (cf. also 28.20b).59 56

See Jer 18.9; 24.6; 31.4; 33.7; 42.10; Amos 9.11; 4Q171 III, 16; and elsewhere. Against a reference in Matt 16.18 to the image of the community as temple, see Klinzing 1971, 205–7; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:62; and, cautiously, Gurtner 2008, 136. A few interpreters, on the basis of the respective occurrences of οἰκοδομεῖν, consider a connection between 16.18 and 26.61 (see, for example, Luz 2001–2007, 2:363; Nolland 2005, 672), so that the image of the community as temple would then be implied in 26.61. This verse would then again contain a subtle irony: whereas the witnesses think of the reconstruction of the temple within three days (unlike Mark 14.58, Matthew does not have the witnesses speak of “another temple, not made with hands”), the building of the temple of the community does in fact begin after three days. But an allusion to the community in 26.61 is by no means certain (against such an allusion, cf. Klinzing 1971, 204). 58 In this vein, for example, see Zahn 1922, 634; and Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:185– 86. This is contra Klinzing 1971, 209. 59 On 16.18c as a promise of continued existence, see, for example, Schmid 1965, 249–50; Schweizer 1986, 223; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:472; and Luz 2001–2007, 2:364. The interpretation of 16.18c is, however, difficult in its particulars (on the variety of proposed  interpretations, see the overview in Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:630–32). πύλαι ᾅδου (cf. Homer, Il. 5.646; 9.312; Od. 14.156; Diogenes Laertius 8.34; Lucian, Men. 6; in Old Testament and Early Jewish literature, cf. Isa 38.10; 3 Macc 5.51; Wis 16.13; Pss. Sol. 16.2; 2 En. 42.1) is often understood as pars pro toto and thus in the sense of the realm of the dead as a whole (see, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:64; Luck 1993, 188; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:471; Frankemölle 1994/1997, 2:222). In support of this, it is often pointed out that the phrase “keys to the kingdom” in 16.19 implies the image of a gate, and thus 16.18c can be formulated with this in view (see Marcus 1988, 446). κατισχύσουσιν can then be understood in the intransitive sense of “be stronger” (in this vein, for example, see Hommel 1989, 124; Luz 2001–2007, 2:364). Other interpreters point out that Hades houses not only the dead but also “the demonic agents of death and destruction” (Marcus 1988, 444, see also Jeremias 1990b, 926–27; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:633). This would then more strongly be an image of battle, in which the demonic powers assail the Church but are unable to conquer it. In both variations, one can ask whether they sufficiently take  account of the “gates of Hades” and can therefore consider a further possibility: to stand at the gates of Hades (3 Macc 5.51) or arrive at them (Isa 38.10, see also Wis 16.13) is an expression for immediate, mortal danger. It should be observed that the language of death in Early Jewish and early Christian tradition is often soteriologically loaded, beyond a 57

340

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

It can be concluded here that 16.18–19 gives no indication that Matthew understood the construction of the ecclesia in terms of a substitution for Israel. In the ecclesia’s claim of being enabled to open the kingdom of heaven to humanity due to Jesus’ disclosure of the will of God set down in the Torah and the Prophets, it becomes apparent that the ecclesia understands itself as the only legitimate trustee of Israel’s theological tradition. This does not, however, mean that the ecclesia succeeds Israel; rather, this self-understanding should be seen within the framework of a claim to leadership within Israel.60 This still leaves the question of the extent to which the λαός statement in 1.21 (αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν) suggests an understanding of the ecclesia as the (new) people of God in the larger context of the Gospel, particularly in light of 26.28. The connection of 26.28 with the fundamental christological assertion in 1.21 is made evident by the Matthean insertion of εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν in the words of institution. In offering his life, Jesus completes the task assigned to him in 1.21. The redactional insertion of Jesus’ name in the titulus crucis in 27.37

purely biological or physical sense, and sinners remote from God can be characterized as dead. (See Konradt 1998, 47–56, with relevant passages.) In Pss. Sol. 16.2, the proximity to the πύλαι ᾅδου is found in this context: as the supplicant was far from God, his soul was “standing with the sinner, very near to the gates of hell” (trans. R. B. Wright 2007). In this light, Matt 16.18c could be concerned less with a promise of protection or continued existence than an encouragement in connection with the task assigned to the ecclesia according to 28.19–20a (cf. Nolland 2005, 675–76). The mention of the “gates of Hades” would then be concerned with the idea that Hades seeks to pull people in through its gates. Matt 16.18c would then fit well with 16.19: the gates of Hades appear as an opponent to the ecclesia in its task to bring people to the kingdom of heaven. Matt 16.18c promises the community that the gates of Hades will (ultimately) not be victorious in their effort. In support of this interpretation, one can point to the description of the soteriological plight of the people with the Isaiah quotation in 4.15–16: Jesus’ ministry and the mission of his disciples are concerned with tending to people who sit ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου. Against this reading is the fact that αὐτῆς in 16.18c refers directly to the ecclesia, and it is therefore to be expected that the verse is concerned with the idea that the gates of Hades are unable to have any effect against the ecclesia itself. Thus this is not just about the “missionary field” but precisely the existence of the Church itself, as is also natural in light of the preceding mention of the foundation of rock. In short, the interpretation remains difficult. It  is, however, not of decisive relevance in determining the relationship between the Church and Israel. 60 In this respect as well, the formation of the ecclesia does not appear as a secondary initiative triggered by the failure to win over all Israel or by the authorities’ rejection of Jesus. (See, however, for example, Wilk’s position, section 5.4, n. 281.) Jesus begins his ministry with the calling of the disciples (4.18– 22), and already here, their task to “fish  for people” (4.19) becomes visible. In addition, Matthew presents the opponents’ rising up against Jesus as also anticipated in Scripture (see esp. the fulfillment quotations in 2.17–  18; 27.9–10).

6: Israel and the Church

341

underscores this connection, as seen previously.61 Further, the phrase αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, alluding to Exod 24.8, takes up the concept of covenant that is firmly linked with language of the people of God (1.21). Because  the reference to Exod 24.8 is typological, it is often concluded that, like Luke 22.20 and 1 Cor 11.25, Matt 26.28 is also concerned with the new covenant.62 In addition to Exod 24.8, the connection between the motif of forgiveness of sins and the πολλοί brings to mind Isa 53.11–12 as an intertext;63 further, the link between forgiveness of sins and covenant further suggests an association with Jer 31.31–34 as well.64 It is not necessary here to see these options as mutually exclusive alternatives. The decisive question in this context is in any case suggested already by the reference to Exod 24.8 and by the connection between 26.28 and 1.21: For Matthew, has Jesus’ death established a new covenant that results in the establishment of the new people of God as the community of those who receive the salvation brought about by Jesus in the ecclesial table fellowship? Is the conception of the ecclesia as God’s people of the new covenant suggested in the connection between 1.21 and 26.28? If one answers this question in the affirmative, the result is that λαός emerges from the perspective of the end of the Gospel as a statement to be taken in reference to the Church.65 This, however, conflicts with the observation that 1.21 is clearly oriented toward Israel in the verse’s immediate context. With the genealogy, Matthew has located Jesus within Israel’s history of election or, one could 61

See in section 5.2.2.3. See Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:401; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:773; Davies and Allison 1988– 1997, 3:472–73, 477; and Luz 2001–2007, 3:380. See also Menninger 1994, 155; M. Müller 1999, 169–70; and Ham 2000, 64– 66. 63 Compare Harrington 1991a, 368; Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:401; Hagner 1993/1995, 2:773; Frankemölle 1998, 356; Wiefel 1998, 450; and Ham 2000, 60– 61; see also Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:465, 473; contra Luz 2001–2007, 3:381; Fiedler 2006, 391. 64 A reference to Jer 31.31–34 is advocated by Gundry 1967, 58; Knowles 1993, 208– 9; Menninger 1994, 80, 154–55; Carter 1996, 218; Senior 1998a, 110; and Ham 2000, 61– 62; see also Hagner 1993/1995, 2:773; and M. Müller 2012, 32–33; contra Wolff 1976, 131–32; and, cautiously, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:474–75, who point to the introduction of the motif of atonement in the Targumim on Exod 24.8 (475; see also Lichtenberger 1996, 221–22). 65 On the ecclesiological interpretation of Matt 1.21, see n. 3 in this chapter. If Ps 129.8LXX (αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται τὸν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ) were in the background of Matt 1.21, the replacement of Israel with λαός could be explained in that Matthew presumes a concept of the people of God that has been changed by the Christ event. (See, for example, Novakovic 2003, 65– 66.) On the one hand, this explanation is not necessary, and on the other, it must be noted that the verbal agreement with Ps 129.8LXX is minor. Even if one presumes a free rendering or an independent translation of the Hebrew text (the function of the clause is, after all, to explain the name “Jesus”), it is striking that Matthew speaks of their sins, and πασῶν has no counterpart. 62

342

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

say, within Israel’s covenant history that began with Abraham.66 In this, ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ is already clearly identified as a reference to Israel, which is  strongly underpinned by 2.6. In addition, the clear reference to the Jewish people or members of the Jewish people remains intact up until the final  usage of λαός, in 27.64.67 Moreover, if Matthew had wanted to assert an understanding of the Church as the (new) people of God, he would have had an excellent opportunity to make this clear in 21.43, as seen previously. The context and further usage of λαός therefore decidedly speak against constraining 1.21 ecclesiologically from the perspective of 26.28. Matt 1.21 has in view the fulfillment of the promise of salvation to Israel. If 26.28 is read within the narrative structure of the Gospel from the perspective of 1.21 (and not 1.21 from the perspective of 26.28, on the basis of an ecclesiologically limited understanding of the words of institution), the fulfillment  of the promise of salvation for Israel is completed in Jesus’ death.68 At the same time, as we have seen, the blood poured out περὶ πολλῶν extends the horizon onto the entire world.69 For the broader understanding, it may be helpful to distinguish between the “objective” realization of salvation for Israel (and other nations) and the “subjective” acceptance of salvation (by the disciples). 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. Further, unlike in Paul and Luke, where the salvific  significance  of  Jesus’  gift  of  his  own  life  is  applied  to  those  partaking  in the Lord’s Supper with ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in the words that interpret the significance of the bread and wine (Luke 22.19, 20; 1 Cor 11.24), Matthew,  following  Mark  14.22,  24,  identifies  Jesus’  death  as  having  occurred  for many.70 This specifically does not take into view the disciples  alone but  rather expresses the universal soteriological significance of Jesus’ salvific  66

It is probable that Matthew prepared the soteriological motif of 1.21 already in the genealogy, by means of the emphatic mention of the exile and possibly also the striking accumulation of names connected with the priesthood in the Old Testament (cf. section 2.1.1.1). 67 On the semantic aspects, see the discussion in section 3.2. 68 In this respect, see once again the reference of 27.37 to 1.21 (cf. in section 5.2.2.3): Jesus, the savior from sin, is the king of the Jews. 69 See in section 5.3. 70 This corresponds with the absence in (Mark and) Matthew of the instruction of repetition, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (Luke 22.19; 1 Cor 11.24, 25).

6: Israel and the Church

343

death. In Matt 26.26–29, it is not until v. 29 that the personal application to the disciples emerges, when the perspective turns to the eschatological meal in the kingdom of heaven. Thus 26.28 is not concerned with a “new” covenant established with the ecclesia that replaces God’s “old” covenant with Israel. Rather, the connection between 26.28 and 1.21 points precisely to the integration of 26.28 into God’s covenant history with Israel. If this is correct, it is more suitable to speak of 26.28 as a renewal of the one covenant,71 since this corresponds with Old Testament covenant theology72 and within the Matthean Jesus story itself is suggested by the motif of continuity that characterizes the Gospel as a whole.73 It should be added here that, in Matt 26.28, the renewal of the covenant goes hand in hand with its expansion or universalization,74 71 Likewise, see Frankemölle 1998, 356–57; and Fiedler 2006, 390. With regard to the Markan version, see Lang 1993, 201–3; with regard to the καινὴ διαθήκη in Luke 22.20, see, for example, Kirchschläger 1998, 125–26. Generally on the paradosis of the Lord’s Supper, see Backhaus 1996, 42– 43: “The Sinai covenant and the new covenant are not antithetical to one another, but rather antitypical. Because of this, in the Lord’s Supper paradosis, there is absolutely no notion of an annulment of the Sinai covenant, but rather an eschatological ‘connection’ and universal broadening. . . . The ‘new covenant’ is the one soteriologically deepened and universally unbounded covenant with God” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 72 For discussion on this point, see the contributions in Zenger, ed., 1993. Particularly on Jer 31.31–34, see the chapter by Schenker 1993, with the conclusion: “The new covenant is the old covenant, but immune to violation” (112; trans. K. Ess). On Jer 31.31–34 see further Levin 1985, 140– 41; and Zenger 1994a, 114–17 (cf. Zenger 1993, 29); contra Gross 1995, 99–100, 104– 6. 73 If Matthew had in mind, alongside Exod 24.8, also the reception of the Exodus verse in Zech 9.11— which is quite probable in view of the significance of Zechariah in  the Matthean Jesus story overall (see Bruce 1961; Ham 2005; McAfee Moss 2008) and, in particular, the quotation of Zech 9.9 in Matt 21.5 (cf. Lindars 1961, 132–34; Ham 2005, 100–101; Nolland 2005, 1079; McAfee Moss 2008, 151–55)—this could substantiate the interpretation of Matt 26.28 in the sense of a renewal of the covenant, since in Zech 9.11 the allusion to Exod 24 serves to establish the liberation of those exiled in Babylon as a new salvific act of God, from the perspective of God’s covenant with Israel (cf. Ham 2005,  100). The forgiveness of sins in Matt 26.28 could then be seen as analogous to the release of the prisoners in Zech 9.11. 74 Similarly, Frankemölle 1996a, 110, 117–18, speaks of an opening of God’s covenant with Israel toward the Gentiles. Frankemölle, however, following Lohfink and Zenger (see N.  Lohfink 1991; N. Lohfink and Zenger 1994), notes already for the Tanak a “universalization  in the concept of covenant” (99; trans. K. Ess), such that Matthew can here be plotted along this same line. Against this, Crüsemann 1994, esp. 27–34, has argued that nowhere in the Tanak, not even in Ps 25 (cf. N. Lohfink 1991, 120– 30), is there an explicit mention of the  inclusion of Gentiles in the “covenant,” but rather, “covenant” remains an Israel- specific  category throughout the Tanak. From a historical- exegetical perspective, this cannot be contradicted, in my opinion. Isa 56.4, 6, too, can still be regarded in terms of the integration of individual non-Jews as proselytes (cf., for example, Gross 1993, 163: “Isa 56.3–7 is about individual, law-observant non-Israelites, who are integrated into the people of

344

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

since the universal salvific significance of Jesus’ death, as discussed previously, forms the foundation of the mission to the Gentiles in Matthew’s theological conception. The prerequisite for the individual efficacy of the salvation Jesus has  brought about is the individual acceptance of that salvation through entry into discipleship (cf. 28.19a).75 In contrast, this salvation remains inaccessible to those who reject the message of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ death. The ecclesia—those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper—thus constitutes the community of those who, by entering into discipleship, have accepted the salvation that has been brought about for everyone with the renewal of the covenant and who have in this sense become participants in the covenant.76 In the celebration of the meal, this salvation is made present. For Matthew, however, the forgiveness of sins thus granted does not guarantee access to the kingdom of heaven. This is also dependent on a righteous way of life in accordance with Jesus’ teachings for those who confess Jesus as Lord and the Son of God (see, for example, 7.21–27). Here we can conclude that the connection between Matt 1.21 and 26.28 does not indicate that Israel is replaced as God’s people by the ecclesia but rather that the fulfillment of the promise of salvation for Israel grants  the same access to salvation to Gentiles as well (περὶ πολλῶν).77 In other words, the formation of the ecclesia does not signify the end of Israel, nor is the ecclesia the “new Israel.”78 Jesus’ people (ὁ λαὸς αὐτου) and his Church (μου ἡ ἐκκλησία) are not identical. Rather, the narrative indicates that Israel and ecclesia are situated on different soteriological levels: Israel appears as the addressee or recipient of God’s salvific act in Jesus Christ  (Matt 2.6; 4.16, 23; 15.24)—and remains so, even after Easter. The ecclesia, in contrast, is the community that emerged in the course of the diverging reactions to Jesus in Israel (and is further formed from the nations or continues to develop with members from Israel as well as Gentiles)— YHWH” [italics original; trans. K. Ess]). It is a different matter whether, taking an approach from the perspective of the Bible as a whole, one may interpret universalistic statements of the Old Testament in terms of covenant theology (cf. the response to Crüsemann in Zenger 1994b). For Matthew, we can conclude that in 26.28 the incorporation of Gentiles into salvation is directly connected with the concept of covenant. 75 In Matt 1.21, the incongruity in number between τὸν λαόν and τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν is striking. Already here, then, Matthew introduces an individuating aspect into the collective language of λαός. In this connection, one can further point to the singular formulation in Matt 13.19–23. On this, see section 4.4, n. 465. 76 Compare Frankemölle 1998, 356. 77 Precisely this opening up of salvation also resonates in Matt 4.15–16 in the juxtaposition of λαός and τὰ ἔθνη. 78 On the widespread notion of the ecclesia as the new or true Israel in Matthean exegesis, see chapter 1, n. 19 and n. 20.

6: Israel and the Church

345

a community of those who have seized the chance for salvation by entering into discipleship and are, at the same time, obligated to continue to pass on God’s “offer of salvation” to Israel (and the nations). In light of the plurality of pre-Rabbinic Judaism, rightly emphasized in recent scholarship in Jewish studies, the differentiation between Israel and an individual group outlined here fits well with the larger picture of  Judaism. The Christ-believing ecclesia claims sole possession of the true awareness of God and God’s will. Nevertheless, it is problematic to characterize  the  ecclesia  as  “true  Israel,”  as  this  identification  could  suggest  the mistaken conclusion that non-Christ-believing Judaism is no longer “Israel.”79 The question posed in the heading of this section—whether Matthew understood the ecclesia as God’s people of the new covenant—must therefore be answered in the negative. Given that Israel is neither condemned nor replaced by the nations and/ or the Church, but rather remains God’s people and the addressee of the messianic ministry of salvation, it still remains to consider what the development of the ecclesia implies for the understanding of Israel’s role as God’s people. In other words, to what extent is the development of the ecclesia connected with a transformation of the notion of the people of God?80

6.3

Israel’s Position and the Formation of the Ecclesia

While the Matthean conception cannot be understood in terms of a theory of substitution or succession, the previous discussion has nevertheless suggested 79 Menninger 1994, 63–133, has sought to substantiate and further articulate the thesis that Matthew understood the Church as the “true Israel” by arguing that Jesus is emphatically portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew as the Davidic Messiah of Israel and teacher of Israel. But this only indicates the Jewish- Christian character of the Gospel and the special significance ascribed to Israel; it in no way necessarily implies that the Church,  in replacement of Israel (see Menninger 1994, 152–53), constitutes the “true Israel” or, as Menninger further proposes, the holy “remnant” of Israel (on the remnant concept, see Menninger 1994, 133–51). The conception of the holy “remnant” postulated by Menninger is nowhere articulated in the Gospel of Matthew. But see also Meier 1979, 111–12, who ascribes to Matthew an understanding of the Church as “the faithful remnant of Israel in the last days” (111); Hagner 1996, 48, 59; and Turner 2008, 68 (on 1.21); as well as Viljoen 2011, 672 (“the true, faithful remnant of Israel in continuity with the Old Testament covenant community”). 80 When Frankemölle 1998, 342(ff.), condenses the positions debated in Matthean scholarship into the alternative “ ‘unwithdrawn covenant’ or disinheritance?” (342; trans. K. Ess), this description is perfectly suited to the usual discussion. With the decision between these two alternatives, however, no more than one—if fundamental—fork in the road is chosen. But beyond this, one must then ask to what extent the Christ event—with the formation of the ecclesia as the eschatological community of salvation and the integration of Gentiles into the offer of salvation— entails an altered configuration of the “covenant.”

346

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

that theological motifs connected with the notion of the people of God in Old Testament and Early Jewish texts now characterize the ecclesia of Jesus. Insofar as an “exclusive interrelation”81 between Yahweh and Israel is contained in the notion of God’s people and therefore God’s presence represents an essential aspect of Israel’s special role as the people of God,82 it must be noted that, in the Matthean concept, God’s presence is found post-Easter in the form of Immanuel’s presence in his ecclesia and is experienced by Israel (and Gentiles) through the ecclesia’s missionary ministry authorized by Jesus. Further, with regard to the way of life lived in accordance with God’s will to which God’s people is obligated, the ecclesia claims for itself exclusive knowledge of God’s will through Jesus’ teachings. And insofar as Israel, as the people of God, serves “an intermediary function between Yahweh and all nations,”83 it is clear that, according to Matthew, this function is performed by the disciples.84 More specifically, their intermediary function bears upon people from  the nations as well as the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” If one does not simply ask whether Matthew explicitly conceives of the ecclesia as being in competition with Israel using the category of God’s people for the Church but, rather, attends to questions of content that are linked conceptually with the notion of the people of God, then it can be said that important characteristics of the people of God have become ecclesial attributes. Furthermore, for a sufficient treatment of Israel’s continued role as the  people of God in the Matthean conception, the extension of the offer of 81

Albertz 1987, 378 (trans. K. Ess). See Num 23.21; Deut 20.1; 31.8; Judg 1.19, 22; 1 Kgs 8.57; Isa 41.10; 43.2, 5; Jer 30.11; 46.28; Hag 1.13; 2.4; Zech 8.23; Ps 46.8, 12; 2 Chr 20.17; 32.7, 8; see also Ezra 1.3; 2 Chr 36.23. However, God’s presence with individuals is mentioned more often in the Old Testament, for example, with Isaac (Gen 26.3, 24), Jacob (Gen 28.15; 31.3, 5), Joseph (Gen 39.2, 3, 21, 23), Moses (Exod 3.12; 18.19), Joshua (Deut 31.23; Josh 1.5, 9, 17; 3.7; 6.27), David (1 Sam 16.18; 18.12, 14, 28; 2 Sam 5.10; 7.3, 9; 1 Chr 11.9, and elsewhere), or Jeremiah (Jer 1.8, 19; 15.20; 20.11); see also Ps 23.4; 91.15. For an overview of the evidence, see Vetter 1971, 4; and Kupp 1996, 138–55. 83 Albertz 1987, 378 (trans. K. Ess). 84 Wilk 2002, 111, places this aspect in the center of a modified substitution theory:  “The community of disciples . . . as a result of the fully unfounded rejection and killing of Jesus by the people Israel and its leaders, and because of the resurrection of Jesus, takes the place of this people; nevertheless, the adoption of this role is not related to the reception of eschatological salvation (which is neither barred to the Israelites nor guaranteed to the disciples) but, rather, to the mandate to live as the community of the ‘children of Abraham’ and thereby as light for the nations” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). With regard to the thesis that the community of disciples takes Israel’s place, the following considerations will formulate this matter more cautiously on the basis of the textual evidence in Matthew. It appears to be more appropriate to speak of a transformation of Israel’s role and of the theological coordinate system altogether. That the thesis of Jesus’ being killed by the people Israel is untenable has been shown in section 3.2. 82

6: Israel and the Church

347

salvation to the Gentile world must be addressed once again. Section 5.4 already pointed to the complex and ambivalent evidence for the relation between Israel and the Gentile world. On the one hand, Matthew maintains Israel’s special position grounded in the history of election, but on the other hand, he places the nations and Israel on the same level soteriologically in their common access to salvation brought about in Christ.85 The characteristic dichotomy of the people of God and other nations—of λαός and ἔθνη— has  thereby  lost  its  constitutive  significance;  this  also  indicates  a  substantial modification of the traditional conception of the people of God. It should be added here that the formation of the ecclesia differs significantly from other processes of differentiation within Judaism precisely  in the fundamental openness of the ecclesia to Gentiles, without requiring conversion to Judaism. This is accompanied by the fact that an understanding of the ecclesia as a special community or community of salvation in Israel is ultimately insufficient.86 With the Israel-oriented nature of his Jesus story, Matthew emphasizes the roots of the ecclesia in Israel and the connection between this event and Israel’s previous history that leads to Jesus. But the programmatic extension of the ministry of salvation to the Gentiles, grounded in Jesus’ death and resurrection, is concerned with the formation of the community of salvation in the whole world. This is underscored by the fact that the future verb οἰκοδομήσω in 16.18—like the future verbs in 21.43 in light of 21.42—points ahead to the time after Jesus’ resurrection.87 The construction of the ecclesia begins with the commission of the disciples to make disciples of all nations (28.19). This point of reference for οἰκοδομήσω fits with the observation that, for  Matthew, the disciples who traveled with Jesus are evidently identical with the twelve.88 The introduction of the twelve in 10.1– 4 in the context 85

Compare especially section 5.4. Saldarini 1994, 200, gives the evidence different weight, situating the inclusion of non-Jews within the context of the openness of (Diaspora) synagogues to non-Jews. See also Saldarini 1994, 202: “Matthew’s mostly Jewish group welcomed gentiles and was being urged by Matthew to welcome them more. In doing this, they acted like many diaspora Jewish communities that had patrons, followers, and members from the gentile world.” In addition, see Saldarini 1996, 248– 49; and Overman 1996, 407. The categorical difference, established by the programmatic universalization of the missionary task in  28.18b– 20,  is  nullified  here.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  Saldarini,  the  position  cited  here is accompanied by the fact that the christological-soteriological basis of 28.19 is not discussed. 87 Likewise, for example, see Meier 1979, 112–13; Hahn 2002, 1:540; and Söding 2004, 37. 88 The replacement of Levi (Mark 2.14) with the disciple Matthew (Matt 9.9) dovetails with this. Willitts 2011, 174, however, postulates that in 9.36–10.4, the twelve were selected from “a group of disciples larger than twelve.” This, however, is highly unlikely, 86

348

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of the mission discourse stands alongside the explicit mention of the eleven disciples (lacking Judas) in 28.16. Matthew does tell—semantically ambiguously—of the ἀκολουθεῖν of the crowds,89 of the healed in 20.34, and of many women (27.55). Matt 8.19–22 and 19.21 address discipleship in the “technical” sense without restriction to the twelve, and Matthew has additionally made Joseph of Arimathea into a disciple (ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ, 27.57). Yet he does not emphasize a pre-Easter growth of the community of disciples around Jesus in the sense of the establishment of the ecclesia. This does not begin until Jesus is no longer physically among his people (cf. 17.17)—that is, the establishment of the ecclesia is the work of the resurrected Christ, whereby the eleven disciples form the nucleus of the ecclesia. The narrative preceding 28.16–20 also depicts how they are “qualified” for this. They are eye-   and earwitnesses  of Jesus’ messianic work (cf. 11.2), whose fundamental elements were depicted in 4.23–9.35. Matt 9.36–11.1 introduces the basic ecclesiological concept that the disciples continue Jesus’ ministry; however, as seen previously, Matthew does not tell a story in which the disciples leave Jesus in order to minister independently (cf. Mark 6.7, 12–13; Luke 9.1, 6; 10.1, 17)90 but, rather, continues in 11.1 with Jesus going on to teach and proclaim his message. In 11.2–16.20, the disciples appear as those who understand Jesus’ ministry and do his will.91 Peter being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven fits in with this portrayal. Matt 16.21– 20.34 brings into view the  relevance of the cross in discipleship as well as—in the same vein—the relationships within the community (cf., above all, Matt 18). The eschatological  discourse  (Matt  24– 25)  finally  impresses  upon  them  the  need  for attention in view of the coming judgment. In this way, equipped with all the necessary knowledge, they are sent out in 28.16–20. Taking into account the link between 16.18 and 28.19 mentioned previously, the universal dimension of the Matthean conception of the ecclesia clearly emerges. Thus  it  is  ultimately  insufficient  to  simply  point  to  the  historical  location of the Gospel of Matthew in the context of the intra-Jewish processes of formation after 70 CE92 and conceive of the ecclesia as a special since 10.1 does not speak of twelve of Jesus’ disciples but “his twelve disciples (τοὺς δώδεκα μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ),” without giving any indication that they are not identical with the group that was previously mentioned simply as “his disciples” (9.37). 89 See section 3.1.1 with the evidence in n. 17. 90 Compare section 2.3. 91 To speak of the “rise of the community of disciples” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:9) for the section 11.2– or 12.1–16.20 is not exactly correct, in my opinion. The circle of the disciples is already established. It “only” emerges with regard to some important features in 11.2– 16.20. And ecclesia does not come into being, strictly speaking, until after Easter. 92 See also chapter 7.

6: Israel and the Church

349

messianic group within Israel93 that is distinguished because it does not separate itself as a sect but remains related to Israel (and allows the inclusion of a few non-Jews94) in the context of its fundamental missionary dimension. The decisive point is rather that the formation of the Church in the Matthean conception is linked with the inclusion of non-Jews (as non-Jews). The gathering of Israel, which remains the task of the ecclesia, occurs in a community that is accessible to non-Jews as well. The significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection as a new fundamental salvation-  historical datum with universal scope corresponds with the fact that Jesus’ ecclesia, which consists of Jews and Gentiles, appears as an entity sui generis in comparison with other Jewish groups. The altered constellation becomes clear in the example of the disciples’ task to be the light of the world (5.14–16). Light is frequently used in Early Jewish literature as a metaphor for the Torah95 as well as for those who live in accordance with the Torah and (thereby) communicate it to others. Paul, in Rom 2.17–20, uses this image to characterize Jewish self-understanding in describing the role of Israel among the Gentiles (cf. Isa 49.6 together with 49.3, and 42.6). More common, however, is the metaphorical use for individuals or groups who are shown to be righteous through the actual observance of the Torah or who are entrusted with instruction of the Torah.96 In 2 Bar. 77.13, for instance, the mention of “lamps that gave us light” accompanies the reference to the “shepherds of Israel”; the leaders of the people are thus in view here. In T. Levi 4.3; 14.3– 4, the Levites appear as bearers of light.97 Matthew ascribes this position to the disciples, who are charged with the task of teaching on the basis of Jesus’ commandments (28.20a, cf. 16.19). The disciples, however, are neither the shepherds of Israel alone nor the light for the nations98 as the holy remnant of Israel or 93

See, however, the approach by Saldarini 1994, 44– 67, 84– 85, 107–16. On the parenthetical comment, see the postulation by Sim 1995, 42–44, that 28.19 has no significance for the praxis of the Matthean community (see section 5.4, n. 282). In  the context of Sim’s approach, it should be added that, according to him, Gentiles must convert to Judaism if they want to belong to the Matthean community, which Sim sees as a decidedly Jewish group (see in section 5.4). 95 See Ps 119.105; (Isa 51.4); Wis 18.4; T. Levi 14.3– 4; 19.1; L.A.B. 9.8; 11.1; 15.6; 19.4; 4 Ezra 14.20–21; 2 Bar. 17.4–18.2; (38.1–2); 59.2; 77.16; also Philo, Mos. 2.44. In the Matthean context, it is therefore not surprising that in 5.17 there follows a fundamental statement about the Torah (cf. Burchard 1998b, 37–38). 96 Compare Deines 2005, 231. 97 In T. Levi 18.(3), 9, the eschatological priest is in view. (In this vein, see also 4Q541 9 I, 3–5, and probably 1QSb IV, 27; on this, see Zimmermann 1998, 259– 61, 282.) 98 Contra Wilk 2002, 111 (see n. 84). There is in the Gospel of Matthew at least no explicit mention of the task of the people—which Wilk sets in the foreground with regard to the Gospel’s Israel-theological perspective—to be a light to the Gentiles as children of 94

350

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

in the place of Israel. Rather, the disciples—and this includes those disciples gained from the Gentiles—are charged to be the light of the world, for all other people, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Therefore, while it was established previously that the phrase people of God is not transferred to the Church but remains reserved for Israel, it should also be noted that a new “system of coordinates” emerges from the formation of the ecclesia and the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation grounded in Jesus’ death and resurrection—a new system that affects the understanding of Israel’s role as the people of God. Soteriologically, from now on, salvation is to be found via entry into discipleship and thereby into Jesus’ ecclesia. This is true for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” as well as for Gentiles. Rom 11.25–26 has no counterpart in the Gospel of Matthew.99 In the course of this transformation, the special position of God’s people Israel is concentrated in the “role” of the privileged addressee of Jesus’ messianic devotion and of his disciples’ ministry. In this, the restitution of God’s people Israel remains the horizon of the mission to Israel, although the restitution—as is also true mutatis mutandis of the task to make disciples of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη—in fact takes place in that individuals join the ecclesia in the event of “missionary success.” And just as a simple model of succession or substitution does not do justice to the Matthean evidence, so too is a characterization of the ecclesia simply as the community of salvation within Israel insufficient. Matters are more complex  than that. The transformation of the traditional coordinate system can be well illustrated with the covenant motif in 26.28, analyzed in section 6.2. With the renewal of the covenant through Jesus’ salvific death— in the sense of a  new offer of salvation from God or a renewal of the relationship with God that includes the forgiveness of sins (cf. Jer 31.33–34)—comes, above all, the completion of Jesus’ salvific ministry in and for Israel (1.21). Nevertheless, on the one hand, this covenant renewal does not relate to Israel alone but, rather, is accompanied by a universalization—the inclusion of Gentiles in salvation. On the other hand, this offer of salvation now becomes effective within the ecclesia that celebrates the Lord’s Supper—namely, in the individual acceptance of salvation through entry into discipleship. With the transformation of the traditional coordinate system, long-established correlations are dismantled. Thus the renewal of the covenant through Jesus’ death integrates Gentiles into salvation, without any indication of Abraham. (On Wilk’s corresponding interpretation of ἔθνος in Matt 21.43, see section 4.1.3.1, n. 94.) And 5.14–16 is by no means about a task of the disciples/community regarding Gentiles alone. On this, see further the discussion above. 99 On Matt 23.39, see in section 4.3.3.

6: Israel and the Church

351

a corresponding universalization of the notion of God’s people.100 Nor is the group of those who accept God’s offer of renewed covenant presented as the (new) people of God. With the διαθήκη in 26.28, salvation is established101 for all people—that is, through Jesus’ death, the covenant is renewed as an offer of salvation to everyone. A configuration analogous  to the covenant established in Exod 24.6–8 (or Josh 24.25–27), where the people of God enter into the covenant as God’s counterpart, is not to be found here. In other words, the partner in covenant here is the circle of the twelve, who nevertheless function as the mission-oriented nucleus for the gathering of “many,” whom Jesus’ salvific activity is meant to benefit.  It should be recalled here that the twelve appear not only in 10.1– 4 in the mission to Israel but also— in modified form, following Judas’ death— in  28.16–20. The relation between covenant and people of God has thereby shifted significantly.102 The Matthean concept thus cannot be captured by simple formulations. One might almost say that Matthew, like a scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven, brings out of his storehouse the new and the old (Matt 13.52) and links them together into a complex theological concept. Bringing out the old, he adheres to Israel’s special position grounded in the history of election and takes this as a fundamental motif underlying his Jesus story. At the same time, however, he asserts the universality of the salvation brought about in Christ. Israel remains God’s people and the recipient of God’s devotion. At the same time, Matthew has Jesus’ ministry achieve its purpose in that Jesus builds his ecclesia of and for all peoples and promises his presence with them until the end of the world.  Important  aspects  that  are  significant  for  the  (self- )understanding  of Israel as the people of God characterize the ecclesia in Matthew, yet he does not draw the conclusion that Jesus’ ecclesia is understood as the people of God in opposition to Israel. Conversely, the Matthean interpretation 100 This also applies to Matt 4.15–16. For it does not—as Backhaus 2004, 93, postulates—result from the connection between Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν and λαός “that the Messiah ultimately also counts the Gentiles among that people to whom the ‘great light’ will be bestowed” (trans. K. Ess; but in the same vein as Backhaus, see also, for example, Beaton 2002, 108); this connection rather entails only that the light that initially rises upon the λαός sitting in the darkness will also have a significance for the ἔθνη. Gentiles are integrated into the childship of Abraham but not into Israel (contra, for example, Tagawa 1969/1970, 161– 62). 101 Compare Löning 1998, 114: “In the Eucharist paradosis, διαθήκη identifies the  renewed foundation of the relationship with God, which saves from the eschatological crisis through Jesus’ death for the many” (trans. K. Ess). 102 This is not a unique phenomenon in early Christian literature. For a significantly more “innovative” interpretation in comparison with Matthew, see the reception of the Abrahamic covenant in Gal 3.15–18 (see also 4.21–31).

352

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

of the Christ event—namely, its being established as God’s decisive action that integrates Gentiles into salvation in a new way, which was the aim of God’s salvific initiative ever since the election of Abraham— does not  imply a marginal conceptual innovation in terms of its ecclesiological consequences. Rather, it touches on the very center of Jewish identity, defined  by the dichotomy between Israel and the Gentiles.103 This  complexity  is  not  a  matter  of  deficient  theological  clarity  but,  rather, expresses the attempt to consistently connect the Jesus story as a new story of salvation in its universal significance with the previous history of salvation, beginning with Abraham’s election, and disclose that story as the fulfillment of Scripture. This attempt reveals that Matthew is  a theologian deeply anchored in Israel’s theological traditions—for whom it is therefore an unshakable certainty that Israel is God’s people—who understands the Christ event from this perspective and who, at the same time, precisely from the perspective of Israel’s theological traditions, sees the integration of the nations into salvation as the central signum of the age of salvation instituted with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Matthew’s conceptual innovation can be well illustrated by once again taking into account that Isa 56.1–8 likely served as an intertext for the evangelist.104 A comparison between Isa 56.1–8 and the Matthean concept reveals paradigmatically the connection with Scripture as well as the christological and ecclesiological transformation of the traditional system of coordinates. The association between the gathering of Israel (56.8) and the arrival of the nations in Zion (56.3–8) in connection with overcoming the separation of foreigners from the people of God—critically aimed at the regulations of the ἐκκλησία κυρίου in Deut 23.2–9—corresponds in the Gospel of Matthew with the gathering of Israel in the ecclesia and the integration of Gentiles into this group on the basis of the salvation brought about in Christ.

6.4

Summary

The Gospel of Matthew attests to the replacement of the authorities with Jesus’ disciples, and the ecclesia asserts the claim to be the only legitimate trustee of Israel’s theological tradition. However, there is no indication that the evangelist conceived of the Church as the new or true people of God, as opposed to Israel. In Matthew, Church and Israel are not equivalent entities 103 Compare Backhaus 2004, 82: “The knowledge of interpretation organized in Matthew’s  Gospel  cannot  on  the  whole  be  sufficiently  described  as  a  radicalization  of  the  self-understanding of the parent body and a reconceptualization of its value paradigms. It is rather substantially determined by the acceptance of a fundamental conceptual innovation” (emphasis original; trans. K. Ess). 104 Compare section 5.4.

6: Israel and the Church

353

that are on equal footing and therefore potentially in competition with one another. The Church appears rather as the community of salvation that has emerged (and is still emerging) from Israel and the (other) nations and is, at the same time, commissioned to integrate people from Israel and the (other) nations into the community of salvation and “unlock the kingdom of heaven” to them (cf. 16.19) by proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom (24.14, cf. 10.7) and giving instruction on the basis of Jesus’ commandments (28.20a). The connection between 1.21 and 26.28 does not justify the thesis that Matthew regarded the Church as the new people of God. The “objective” realization of the task ascribed to Jesus in 1.21 of saving his λαός from sin through his death must be distinguished from the “subjective” acceptance of the salvific event by entry into discipleship. Further, 26.28  is not concerned with the replacement of God’s covenant with Israel but, rather, with its renewal and universalization. At  the  same  time,  a  significant  transformation  of  Israel’s  role  as  the  people of God occurs in connection with the formation of the ecclesia. Israel does appear as the (primary) addressee of the messianic ministry of salvation, yet not only do important characteristics of the people of God (such as God’s presence) become ecclesial attributes but also the dichotomy between the people of God and the (rest of the) peoples of the world, essential  to  Jewish  identity,  has  lost  its  fundamental  significance  with  Jesus’  death and resurrection. Accordingly, the ecclesia is the community of salvation not just in Israel but in the whole world. The hope of salvation for the nations is no longer oriented around Zion but is realized in the ecclesia. The formation of the ecclesia (16.18–19) does not begin for Matthew until after Easter and is thereby connected from the very beginning with the universal commission to make disciples of all people (28.19). During Jesus’ earthly activity, there is only the circle of the twelve disciples, which represents the nucleus of the Church that develops post-Easter. The ecclesia is distinguished from other groups within Israel in that its universal scope constitutes an essential aspect of its identity in Matthew’s theological concept. Accordingly, a significant conceptual innovation with respect to the  Early Jewish theological “system of coordinates” arises with the formation of the ecclesia. In this, the evangelist’s central concern is to consistently locate Jesus’ ministry within God’s history with his people Israel, on the one hand, and to link this history with Jesus’ universal soteriological significance, on the other.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 7

Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

In attempting—with all the caution required in drawing conclusions from narrative texts1—to derive the historical situation of the Matthean community2 from the narrative and theological concept of the Gospel,3 one can begin by pointing to the “major consensus” established in current scholarship and shared here: “that Matthew’s interface with Judaism . . . is the fundamental key to determining the social context and theological perspective of this gospel.”4  The  vehemence  of  the  conflict  with,  above  all,  the Pharisees, in connection with the Matthean tendency to differentiate between the crowds and the authorities and emphasize the community’s task to tend to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” can hardly be regarded as anything other than an indication that the community found itself in a current and pressing conflict with the Pharisaic opponent5 that had gained 1

Hagner 1996, 27, rightly points out “that the reconstruction of the life-situation of an evangelist is necessarily a speculative enterprise. It is a kind of educated guesswork.” 2 Although the Matthean community is spoken of in the singular in the following discussion, it should be added that this is not meant to exclude the possibility that there was a circle of communities as, for example, Stanton 1992d, 388, postulates: “Matthew wrote for a cluster of small Christian communities.” Further compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:695 (“a community or group of house churches, probably associated with a school of teachers”); and Riches 2004, 52–53. 3 In the following reflections on the situation of the Matthean community or communities, I must limit myself to a thetic sketch; a detailed discussion would require its own monograph. 4 Senior 1999, 5. In the passage omitted from this quotation, Senior identifies the two main variations with which “Matthew’s interface with Judaism” is concretized in current scholarship: “either as a current relationship or as a painful part of the past history of the community.” As will be discussed in this chapter, the first variant points in the right  direction, in my opinion. Luz can be referred to as a prominent proponent of the second variant (see n. 7). 5 Compare, above all, Saldarini 1994, 46–52.

356

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

substantial influence in the synagogues during the processes of reorganization of Judaism following 70 CE, at least in the evangelist’s region.6 It is highly unlikely that these aspects are simply a retrospective attempt to come to terms with a past conflict.7 6

On the interpretation of the appearance of the Pharisees in the Matthean Jesus story  with  regard  to  the  conflict  in  which  the  community  finds  itself,  see,  for  example,  Senior 1985, 35; Overman 1990b, 35–38, 68–70, 79–90, 115–16; Saldarini 1994, 44– 67; H.-F. Weiss 1996, 2067– 68, 2078; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 43; and Repschinski 2000, 326– 27. See also Pantle-Schieber 1989, 153–54; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:692–95; and Luz 1998b, 271 (particularly on Matt 23.2). Space does not allow for a detailed discussion of the challenging approach by Runesson 2008, esp. 120–30, who argues that the Matthean Christ believers themselves have their origin in the Pharisaic movement and that Matthew’s Gospel has to be read within the context of an intra- Pharisaic conflict: “the  Matthean separatists had left the Pharisees and, in relation to them, constitute a sect” (128, emphasis original). One reason this thesis is problematic, in my opinion, is that it does not sufficiently take into account the conflict over the interpretation of the Torah between the  Matthean Jesus and the Pharisees, since clearly differing understandings of the Torah are manifest in this conflict. 7 According to Luz, however, the Gospel of Matthew reflects the attempt to “work through” the painful process of separation (Luz 2001–2007, 1:53; cf. Luz 1993, 319). The community “was no longer in direct contact with the synagogue” (Luz 2001–2007, 1:213, n. 29). For Luz, the Matthean polemic acquires an inward-looking function in the sense of a “conflict following a decision” (Luz 1993, 323 [trans. K. Ess]). For, “precisely in cases  where the decision is difficult and painful, the necessity of a subsequent reduction of dissonance is evident. The rejected alternative—namely, the Pharisaic-dominated majority Judaism—is subsequently portrayed as a bad alternative” (Luz 1993, 323 [trans. K. Ess]). Luz’s classification of the conflict goes hand in hand with his evaluation of the mission  to Israel as having come to an end (Luz 1993, 316). If one arrives here at a different conclusion—and further, as mentioned above, if one takes into account the differentiation between authorities and crowds and finally observes that there are indications in the  Gospel of Matthew that the Pharisaic counterpart was somewhat attractive to the community members—then the thesis that Matthew’s polemic is only looking back on a conflict  becomes questionable. Highly implausible is the attempt by Hakola 2008 to explain the stereotypical, negative portrayal of the scribes and Pharisees on the basis of social identity theory—without presuming a real, underlying conflict—as the result of a process of “selfcategorization,” in which the emphasis on differences from outsiders stands alongside the highlighting of commonalities among group members. Furthermore, the portrayal of the Pharisees as hypocrites would serve to process the group members’ own cognitive “dissonance between the principle of emphasizing the keeping of the whole Law and the more liberal religious practice of the community” (138–39), in that this is externalized “by making it a main characteristic of those who represent the most virulent defenders of the Law in Matthew’s gospel, namely the Pharisees” (139). However, Hakola does not present an argument that sufficiently explains every feature of the Matthean portrayal of  the scribes and Pharisees. The consistency with which the opposition is not only portrayed as hypocritical and incompetent but also practically “demonized” as profoundly evil (see, above all, Matt 12.22– 45, discussed in section 4.3.2), the way in which the Pharisees’ opposition to the people’s growing insight into Jesus’ identity is presented on the narrative level (12.23– 24), or the warnings that the disciples must expect flogging in the synagogues  (10.17; 23.34)—all these aspects point in an entirely different direction.

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

357

The point of disagreement here is not just a matter of Christology in the narrow sense of whether Jesus is the awaited Messiah or not.8 Rather, this question is linked with a disagreement about the interpretation of the Torah,9 for which, in the community’s view, the instructions of Jesus as the one true teacher (23.8) are the decisive authority. The programmatic declaration in 5.17 that Jesus has come not to abolish but to fulfill the Torah and  the Prophets can hardly be directed only toward a libertinistic Christian group, as has occasionally been proposed.10 Rather, this statement might also be read as a rebuttal of the Pharisaic accusation that believers in Christ do not act in accordance with Torah.11 Matthew, in return, engages in a polemic against the Pharisees’ lack of scriptural knowledge and their misunderstanding of God’s will, portraying them as “blind guides” (15.14; 23.16, 24).12 Matthew rejects the Pharisaic accusation with Jesus’ explicit affirmation  of  the  fundamental  validity  of  all commandments, even the minor ones (5.18); at the same time, however, the distinction between the major and minor commandments introduced in 5.18–19 (see also 23.23) makes it possible for him to emphasize compassion (9.13; 12.7; 23.23) and love of neighbor (5.43– 48; 19.19; 22.39– 40), as well as the Decalogue 8 Contra Fiedler 2004, 67, according to whom “the crucial difference from the opponents of Matthew consists in nothing other than Matthew’s and his community’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah,” whereas he regards “a fundamental, concrete difference from Torah interpretations as undertaken by Pharisaic scribes” as “impossible” on the basis of 5.17–19 and 23.2, 3a (66 [trans. K. Ess]). But already in 5.20, it is implied that the scribes’ and Pharisees’ level of righteousness, which rests on their insufficient interpretation of Torah, does not suffice for entry into the kingdom of heaven, because they do not  neglect only minor commandments but major ones (cf. 23.23); the “antitheses” illustrate this (on Matt 5.20– 48, see Konradt 2006, 136–39, and in section 3.1.2.2). Further, Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees over questions of Torah (see the passages in n. 12) clearly demonstrate the difference, at least as it is posited or perceived by the evangelist. On Matt 23.2–3, see section 4.3.3, n. 318. 9 Compare, above all, Overman 1990b, 68–71, 80–90; Saldarini 1994, 124–64; and Konradt 2006, 136–52. 10 See, for example, Barth 1975, 62–70, 149–54; and Houlden 1994, 118–19. An antiPauline stance is posited by, for example, Heubült 1980, 145; Sim 1998b, 199–211, esp. 207–9 (cf. most recently Sim 2012, 70–71); and Theißen 2011, 471. 11 Compare Konradt 2006, esp. 145– 46; as well as Overman 1990b, 88; Gielen 1998, 78–79, 284; Luomanen 1998b, 90–91; and Eckstein 2001, 306. Thiessen 2012 attempts to concretize the Pharisees’ accusation; he points to the fact that, in contemporary Jewish texts, the accusation of abolishing the law occurs in the context of hellenizers and the Antiochan persecution and further in Josephus’ Bellum as an accusation against the Zealots, where it is connected with the destruction of the temple. Against this background, Thiessen suggests the possibility that the Matthean community was confronted with the accusation “that they were law-abolishers who were responsible for the Temple’s destruction” (552). 12 See the conflicts in Matt 9.10–13; 12.1–14; 15.1–20; 19.3–12; 22.34–40; 23.16–26.

358

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

commandments that address interpersonal areas (15.4– 6, 19; 19.18–19), and to marginalize certain ritual-cultic commandments without claiming their fundamental abrogation and admitting the Pharisaic accusation to be true. In this, the reference to Hos 6.6 is of central significance for the  Matthean apologetic.13 It cannot be ignored that this Matthean Torah hermeneutic is well suited to make the ecclesia more accessible for non-Jews, but it must likewise be emphasized that Matthew has in view non-Jewish believers in Christ who are fundamentally committed to Jesus’ teachings and thereby to his interpretation of the Torah (cf. 5.17– 48).14 As suggested previously, the tendency that emerges in the Gospel of Matthew to differentiate between the crowds and the authorities makes sense in the context of a current conflict between ecclesia and synagogue.  With the ὄχλοι, the Jewish crowds come into view, which the community seeks to gain in their missionary efforts.15 A scene such as that in 12.23– 24, redactionally shaped by the evangelist, can be read in this context as a reflection of counterpropaganda that the Church provoked with its proclamation.16 Likewise, 28.15 indicates current counterpropaganda aimed against the ecclesial message, which Matthew in return seeks to unmask with his narrative.17 As discussed previously, Matt 13.3–23 addresses negative experiences during the mission but also envisions partial success, and on the whole, the generally positive portrayal of the Galilean crowds might aim to encourage further efforts. Given this situation, with regard to its members, one can hardly imagine the Matthean community as a sharply delineated group that has drawn clear boundaries with the pagan as well as the Jewish environment. In any case, the Matthean Jesus story does not indicate a community that has 13

For further discussion of the Matthean hermeneutic of law, see Konradt 2006. Compare Senior 1999, 20. 15 See also, for example, Comber 1978, 433–34: “The crowds of the gospel narrative are a cipher for the Jewish people of Matthew’s time, who are doubtful about whether to follow the new direction set by the Pharisees or to join a community of Jewish- Christians such  as  Matthew’s  gospel  reflects.  In  depicting  a  fundamentally  positive  relationship  between Jesus and the crowds, Matthew is saying indirectly that his Jewish contemporaries are still the objects of Jesus’ beneficence. Matthew appeals to the ‘Jewish crowds’  of his own day not to follow the leadership of the Pharisees but to join the fellowship of the disciples of Jesus.” See further, for example, Donaldson 1985, 115; Saldarini 1994, 40 (cf. Saldarini 1996, 244– 45); as well as Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:419–20 and 3:707: “despite all opposition and failure, for Matthew the Jewish mission was still open. This is why the Jewish crowds still sometimes appear in a neutral or even positive light.” 16 Compare Meiser 1998, 260, on 9.34; 12.24; 21.15: “It probably also corresponds with his own experience, when the hierarchs appear in Matthew as agents of active counterpropaganda in their hostile reaction to the recognition of Jesus that is sprouting among the people (Matt 9.34; 12.24; 21.15–16)” (trans. K. Ess). 17 Compare, for example, Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:697. 14

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

359

withdrawn into its own sect, reflecting its special existence in sharp separation from the (rest of its) Jewish (and pagan) environment in the Gospel. Although this element can be found in nuce in a text such as Matt 13.10–17, it cannot be applied absolutely; rather, it should be integrated within the larger picture, in which the missionary orientation must be registered as an essential aspect of the Gospel of Matthew. This missionary dimension in the Matthean ecclesiology might correspond with a social orientation of a community that is fundamentally open to and targeted at outsiders— a community in which, alongside a nucleus of firm believers and more or  less committed members (the problem of small faith can only be briefly  mentioned here18), there were also those who were simply interested. Consequently, a certain amount of fluctuation existed.19 More specifically, one should consider the possibility that, in composing his Jesus story, Matthew had in view a clientele of those who were already interested or whose interest he hoped to awaken, such that the book itself pursues a promotional or missionary purpose. The portrayal of positive reactions to Jesus among the crowds would, in any case, fit well with  this image. The sharp polemic against the Pharisees as blind guides, the emphasis on their lack of understanding, and the “dark” picture Matthew paints of the Jewish authorities in general served, then, not only to stabilize the community internally but also to lead those who were merely interested toward a decision for the community. The exposure of the rumor about the theft of Jesus’ corpse (28.11–15) and the interpretation of Jerusalem’s destruction also fit in here.20 The latter becomes, in the Matthean interpretation, a warning that those who set themselves against Jesus and his ecclesia will face eschatological judgment. In other words, the destruction of the

18

See Matt 6.30; 8.26; 14.31; 16.8; 17.20.

19 In contrast, Overman 1990b, esp. 110–12, paints a picture of a strictly delineated,

closed group. For Overman, this assessment goes hand in hand with the decisive classification of the Matthean community as within Judaism at the turn of the era, which  was characterized by “factionalism and sectarianism” (9; cf. 6–34). In other words, Overman regards the Matthean community in light of Jewish groupings, as they stand behind the Damascus Document or can be suspected as the groups transmitting texts such as 1 En. or 4 Ezra. This is at the least a one-sided perspective. In any case, under the spotlight of these analogies, the fundamental missionary dimension of the Matthean community remains in the shadows, with its significance downplayed by Overman (see  Overman 1990b, 119–22; cf. section 6.1, n. 5). (On the difference between Matthew and Qumran with regard to the attitude toward outsiders, see, for example, Wansbrough 2000, 21–22.) 20 On the rumor, compare Gollinger 1991b, 373: “[Connected] with the evidence of the criminal origin of the fraud hypothesis is . . . an aspect of missionary promotion with regard to the Jewish people in Matthew’s day, whom Matthew seeks to convince of the Christian interpretation of the Easter events” (trans. K. Ess).

360

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

city  functions  in  the  community’s  conflict  with  the  Pharisaic  synagogue  to disqualify the opposition and legitimate the community’s own position. Conversely, the sheer size of the polemic shows that the Pharisaic opposition exercised no trivial attraction; even members of the community were receptive to the Pharisaic teachings, and there was a threat that they might be brought away from Jesus’ teaching.21 In particular, the explicit warning of the disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees in 16.1222 should be taken as evidence of this, as should 15.12–14.23 The probable significance of 13.21 for the situation of the community was mentioned in section 4.4.24 Beyond this, one can ask whether the reframing of the parable of the lost sheep to address the problem of community members straying from the path (18.12–14),25 as well as the intensification of the  ethos of forgiveness in the Gospel of Matthew (see, above all, Matt 18.21– 35), are to be read, at least additionally, in association with the fluctuation  between the Matthean community and the Pharisaic synagogue—the doors remain open for those who wish to return.26 Finally, one must consider the extent to which the situation of competition concerned not only the Jewish “crowds” but also interested non-Jews. In 23.15, Matthew engages in a sharp polemic against the Pharisees’ attempts to gain proselytes. The Matthean Jesus story offers in reply a different model for the integration of non-Jews into salvation. There is still contentious debate in Matthean scholarship as to whether the Matthean community should be seen as a part of Judaism27 or—in view 21

Compare, for example, Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:45; and Gale 2005, 30. According to Gielen 1998, 125, Matthew seeks “to establish a clear separation from the non- Christbelieving Pharisees, who were unsettling at least portions of the Matthean community” (trans. K. Ess). See also Gielen 1998, 85, 101, 106–7, 117. 22 On the polemical accent of placing the Pharisees together with the Sadducees, see in section 3.1.2.3. 23 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:538; and Repschinski 2000, 163. 24 See in section 4.4. 25 Compare section 6.2. 26 In this connection, one can possibly also point to Matt 24.9–10, according to which, in the course of the hardship facing the disciples, there will be defection and betrayal (cf. Luomanen 1998a, 477). 27 In this vein, for example, see Hummel 1963, 28–33, 55–56, 159; Bornkamm 1975a, 17; S. Brown 1980, 216; Davies 1989, 332; Overman 1990b, passim (cf. Overman 1990a, 601); Dunn 1991, 151–56; Harrington 1991a, 21; Segal 1991, 4; White 1991, 222 (“[T]he Matthean community must be viewed still as a sect within the larger fabric of Judaism in its day, rather than having obtained the status or self- definition of a separate religion.”  [emphasis original]); Saldarini 1994, passim (“The Matthean group is a fragile minority still thinking of themselves as Jews and still identified with the Jewish community by others.” [1]); Sim 1998b, esp. 142–50; A. von Dobbeler 2000, 42; Hartin 2000, 277; Repschinski 2000, 343– 49; Fiedler 2004, 69–73; and further also Davies and Allison 1988–1997,

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

361

of the emergence of their own form of organization—one should rather speak of an already completed separation.28,29 The alternatives are often formulated with the metaphor of muri—that is, the Matthean community is described as still being located intra muros or already extra muros. This debate is closely connected with the question of whether the Matthean community is a purely Jewish-Christian group, which might be better defined as Christ- believing Judaism;30 a largely or at least predominantly Jewish-Christian community;31 or rather a mixed Christianity.32 3:695–96. Douglas 1981, 151, postulates “that Matthew and his community were ‘on the way out’ of the synagogue.” 28 See, for example, Meier 1979, 15–17; Schweizer 1986, 9–13; Stanton 1992a, 124– 31, 139– 42, 156–57, 280– 81, and elsewhere; Menninger 1994, 47–52; E. C. Park 1995, 167; H.-F. Weiss 1996, 2078–79; Hare 2000, 276; Foster 2004, 20, 78–79, 253, 259– 60; Ewherido 2006, 210, 215–17; Luz 2001–2007, 1:54; as well as Weren 2005, 53, 58. Subvariations emerge here due to the controversy over whether the separation lies in the (relatively) recent past (e.g., Hare 1967, 165; Stanton 1992a, 156 [“Matthew’s community has recently parted company with Judaism after a period of prolonged hostility.”], and elsewhere; Menninger 1994, 47–52; Hagner 1996, 32–53; and Feldmeier 1998, 92–93 [cf. Feldmeier 2000, 141]) or the separation is looked back on from some distance (e.g., Strecker 1971, 30–35; Frankemölle 1984, 219–20; and Luck 1993, 15). See further n. 32. 29 For an overview of the positions addressed, see Stanton 1992a, 124–39 (see also Stanton 1985, 1906–21); Menninger 1994, 23– 62; Foster 2004, 22–79; and Luz 2001– 2007, 1:52–54. 30 Thus Overman 1990b, 2 (and elsewhere), speaks of “Matthean Judaism” (see also Overman 1996, 10; as well as Runesson 2008, 100). See further Overman 1990b, 5: “The people of Matthew’s community did not understand themselves as ‘Christians.’ On the contrary they were Jews.” Accordingly, he postulates, “One sees very little evidence of Gentiles (non-Jews) in the Matthean community” (157). See further, above all, Saldarini 1994, 1, 4, 7– 8, and elsewhere; Sim 1998b, 163, and elsewhere; Hartin 2000, 277; and Runesson 2008, 99–106. For a critical response to this approach, see Hagner 2003. For a critical discussion of the alternative “Jewish- Christianity” or “Christian Judaism,” primarily aimed at Saldarini and Hagner as typical representatives, see Carter 2007, who argues against both options that “neither label adequately embraces the Gospel’s engagement with its late- first- century world, particularly its negotiation of the Roman imperial  world” (155, cf. also 178–79). 31 See, for example, Przybylski 1986, 192; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:695, 702 (but see also n. 32); Harrington 1991a, 2 (“a largely Jewish- Christian community”); and Senior 1998b, 21 (“but a growing number of Gentile converts were beginning to swell its membership”); see also Keener 1999, 49–50; and Fiedler 2006, 20–22. 32 See, for example, J. P. Martin 1975, 43–45; Anno 1984, 195; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:192 (“a mixed community”); Dormeyer 1992, 1381; Wong 1992, passim (see esp. 187–95); Eckstein 1997, 387–90; Giesen 2002, 123; and Weren 2005, 60. The views that (1) the conflict with Judaism (in the singular) already lies in the distant past (see n. 28), (2) the Gospel of Matthew should be located within a decidedly or at least predominantly Gentile- Christian context, and (3) even the evangelist himself should (possibly) be identified as a Gentile Christian (see Clark 1947; Trilling 1964, 215; Strecker 1971, 34– 35; van  Tilborg 1972, 171; Meier 1979, 15–17; Sato 2001; as well as Gaston 1975, 33–34; and Cook 1983, 145– 46) are no longer relevant in current scholarship. But see still Hare 1993, 2,

362

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Without approaching a consensus, recent scholarship has seen many supporters of situating the Matthean community within Judaism.33 Those who hold this position rightly point out that, while the phrase “their/your synagogues”34 does indicate distance,35 it by no means necessitates the conclusion that the community has separated from Judaism.36 The organizational independence of the community and the hosting of its own gatherings in competition with the dominantly Pharisaic synagogue can easily be understood within the context of an inner-Jewish process of differentiation.37 Moreover, if the general discussion of a separation from Judaism on the social composition of the community (“a church that contained Christian Jews but that was already largely Gentile Christian in composition”) and Tuckett 2011, 108–16, for—once again—questioning the Jewishness of the evangelist on the basis of the unusual quotation of the Shema in Matt 23 (but see, on this, Foster 2003). 33 See n. 27. 34 See Matt 4.23; 9.35; 10.17; 12.9; 13.54; 23.34. 35 Compare Hummel 1963, 29 (“For Matthew’s church, the synagogues are as such the synagogues of Pharisaic Judaism. They do not participate in services in the syna­ gogue.” [emphasis original; trans. K. Ess]); Hare 1967, 104–5; Przybylski 1986, 193–95; Overman 1990b, 60– 62; Harrington 1991a, 72; Luz 2001–2007, 1:166; and, most recently, resolutely Levine 2011, among others. For a different approach, see Nolland 2005, 182– 83; Runesson 2008, 117–19; and Fiedler 2006, 102, who points to the fact that the possessive pronoun is lacking in passages such as 6.2, 5; 23.6, where, had Matthew wanted to indicate a break with the synagogue, it “would be expected” (trans. K. Ess). Fiedler concludes that “Matthew’s community members apparently go to the same synagogue(s) as his adversaries” (trans. K. Ess). According to Fiedler, the possessive pronoun indicates “only from the perspective of the author writing outside of Israel that the synagogues in Galilee and Judea are meant, which Jesus and his followers frequent just as naturally as the rest of the Jewish population there” (trans. K. Ess). Fiedler’s position, however, cannot be maintained for all relevant passages (see n. 34), but it does suggest that not all passages in themselves indicate dissociation (on the following, cf. Saldarini 1994, 66– 67, as well as Przybylski 1986, 193– 94). Thus for the narrative summary in Matt 4.23 (par. Mark 1.39) and 9.35, it is indeed the case that “their synagogues” refers to the synagogues in Galilee but without any apparent dissociation. In Matt 13.54, αὐτῶν is redactional and concerned with the rejection that Jesus experiences in Nazareth, yet the statement here can still be understood in the sense of 4.23. On the other hand, in the context of 12.9, “their synagogue” is the synagogue of the Pharisees, and the redactional mention of the flogging “in their/your synagogues” in 10.17  and 23.34—both of which occur in Jesus’ speech—clearly indicates dissociation. It should further be pointed out here that Mark’s ἀρχισυνάγωγος Jairus (Mark 5.22) has become in Matt 9.18 simply an ἄρχων. 36 See, for example, S. Brown 1980, 215–16; Przybylski 1986, 193–200; Dunn 1991, 154; Saldarini 1994, 66– 67; Ingelaere 1995, 58; Gielen 1998, 120–22; and Repschinski 2000, 53–54. Contra Trilling 1964, 79; Hare 1967, 104–5; Sand 1986, 87; Giesen 1988, 88; Stanton 1992a, 128–29; E. C. Park 1995, 134; H.-F. Weiss 1996, 2079; H. B. Green 2001, 247– 48; and Viljoen 2011, 675–76, among others. 37 Compare Hummel 1963, 28–33, with the conclusion that the Matthean church “finds itself in a phase of consolidating its own distinctive life, without, however, detaching itself from the Jewish group” (33 [originally italicized; trans. K. Ess]).

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

363

(in the singular) is meant in terms of a sociohistorical statement, one must ask whether such language is not so abstract as to be unable to articulate the concrete social developments indicated by the vehement fight over  the interpretation of the Torah, as well as the understanding of Israel’s theological traditions in general, including the sharp polemic against the Pharisaic opponent.38 If the situation of the community is reflected in the  largely positive depiction of the crowds, who are often closely associated with  discipleship,  and  especially  reflected  in  the  narrative  thread  that  shows the Pharisees or the authorities in general seeking to counter Jesus’ positive reception among the people (9.33–34; 12.23–24; 21.15–16; 27.62– 64), then it is likely that the Matthean community and the Pharisaic group aim their efforts to gain supporters at the same people.39 The polemic in the Gospel serves to delegitimize the opponents.40 Further, Matt 10.17 and 23.34 suggest that flogging in the synagogues is still a part of the community’s experience, which indicates that the synagogue—despite the distance articulated in the Gospel— still plays a significant role in the community  members’ lives41 and is also particularly a place of missionary activity. While  the  evidence  indicated  here  at  first  glance  suggests  support  for the intra muros position, the adequacy of the metaphor of muri itself demands scrutiny. Backhaus, with a bold but entirely fitting countermetaphor, has commented that the muri are “cognitive wandering sand dunes.”42 The location intra or extra muros is ultimately a question of (ancient and present-day) perspective.43 It is doubtful that the Pharisees still saw in the group of Christ believers a form of Judaism, albeit in their eyes a misguided  one,  especially  if  the  group  contained  (a  significant  number  of)  uncircumcised Gentile Christians.44 Matthew, on the other hand, clearly 38

Saldarini 1994, 2, pointing to the complexity of social processes, opposes altogether the discussion that circles around the stark alternative “inside or outside of Judaism”: “Categories which place Matthew’s group either in or out of Judaism are too absolute and sociologically rigid to be useful analytical tools.” 39 Compare Saldarini 1994, 40: “For the author of Matthew and his second-generation group, the crowds seem to represent the people of Israel who must still be won away from their false leaders.” See also, for example, Repschinski 2000, 132, on 12.23–24: “The important role of the crowds suggests that there was a struggle between the Matthean community and their opponents over the allegiance of the crowds. This would point to a situation of a struggle intra muros of Judaism.” 40 Compare Saldarini 1992a, passim. 41 Compare Saldarini 1994, 66; see also Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:534; Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 3:695, n. 20. 42 Backhaus 2004, 79 (trans. K. Ess). 43 Compare Hagner 2003, 198–99. 44 A detail should be added here: in Matt 12.1–21 and 15.1–28, Jesus withdraws following a conflict with the Pharisees (12.15; 15.21), and in both cases, there follows a text  that illuminates the universal dimension of salvation (4.12–16 can in a certain sense also

364

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

did not see his position as a break from the faith of Israel but rather the opposite. Socially, Judaism is clearly his primary life context. At the same time, however, with the expansion at Easter of the ministry of salvation to all nations, something fundamental changed for him. The ecclesia, as we have seen, is not simply a community of salvation within Israel. This last point leads to an aspect that indicates that the efficacy of the  muri metaphor for conceiving the social situation is indeed quite limited: the intra/extra muros debate falls short as a historical—or more precisely sociohistorical—question, insofar as it tends to consider the relationship between the Matthean community and Judaism in isolation from the community’s and the synagogue’s embeddedness within the larger social context. If the majority position is correct that the Gospel of Matthew originated in Syria, possibly more specifically the metropolis of Antioch,  one must take a more advanced sociohistorical approach.45 This applies all the more since the Matthean community addresses itself directly to nonJews as well in its mission46 and sees itself as authorized to do so on the basis of the Christ event as the new fundamental narrative of salvation and God’s eschatological salvific act. With regard to the intra/extra muros be included here). This is not to be understood as prefiguring that Jesus withdraws from Israel and turns to the other nations—for 12.15 speaks of the ἀκολουθεῖν of ὄχλοι πολλοί. But  the  redactional  repetition  of  this  “formula”  might  reflect  that  the  openness  of  the  ecclesia to people from among the Gentiles constitutes an important factor in the Matthean community’s dissociation from the Pharisees (and the synagogues dominated by them). One can here further point out that 12.1–14 and 15.1–12 are concerned with the Sabbath and dietary halakah—that is, with important Jewish identity markers. 45 Antioch is advocated by Streeter 1956, 500–523; Meier 1979, 15 (see also Meier 1983, 22–27); Zumstein 1980, 131–38; Gundry 1994, 609; Carter 1996, 24–25; Senior 1998b, 21; Sim 1998b, 53– 62; Slee 2003, 118–22; Garleff 2004, 83– 84; Jefford 2005, esp. 44– 47; and Fiedler 2006, 19–20, among others; see also Kingsbury 1996, 152; Keener 1999, 42 (“a community in Antioch appears more likely than the alternatives”); Zetterholm 2003, 211–16; Riches 2004, 52; Tomson 2008, 332; Feneberg 2009, 40– 41, 86; cautiously Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 1:143– 47 (“no more than the best educated guess” [147]); and Luz 2001–2007, 1:56–58, who, however, still considers that it was “certainly in a larger Syrian city” (1:58). For Syria in general, see for example Gnilka 1985, 128–31 (cf. Gnilka 1988/1992, 2:515, where Antioch or Damascus are primary candidates); Schweizer 1986, 138– 40; and Feldtkeller 1993, 17, who prefers the region between Emesa, Cyrrhus, and Hierapolis. In contrast, Overman 1990b, 158–59 (see also Overman 1996, 17–19), and Saldarini 1992, 26–27, connect their ascription of the Matthean community to a Jewish context with the thesis of the community’s location in Galilee. Gale 2005, 57– 63, particularly thinks of Sepphoris. Compare Harrington 1991a, 10; Segal 1991, 25–29; Weren 2005, 60 (“Matthew’s community consisted of a large number of . . . small home churches spread over towns and villages in the Upper Galilee, the Golan, and the Southern part of Syria.”); W. Kraus 2011, 234–39; and Runesson 2011, 381– 82. On the alternatives debated in scholarship, see the overview in Stanton 1985, 1941– 42. 46 On Sim’s position, see section 5.4, n. 282.

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

365

debate, this means that, keeping to the metaphor, the muri that demarcate Judaism from the Gentiles (cf. Let. Aris. 139) have lost their constitutive significance. It therefore seems advisable to give up the metaphor of muri, or the alternative “inside or outside,” in determining the community’s relationship to Judaism47 and to “simply” conclude: Judaism constitutes the primary context for the life of the Matthean community, and more specifically, the historical situation in which the Matthean Jesus story is anchored is substantially characterized by the conflict between believers in Christ  and the predominantly Pharisaic synagogue. In regard to the point in time when the community turned to the mission to the Gentiles, it must be concluded that this cannot be deduced with any certainty from the Gospel of Matthew. A passage such as Matt 8.11–12 might indicate that there was some resentment against the mission to be cleared up among (some) community members.48 On the whole, the emphasis on the particularity of Jesus’ earthly mission as oriented toward Israel could be read as a reaction to the critical question as to whether Israel’s special position grounded in the history of election is called into question or ultimately nullified by the universalization of salvation.49 Matthew seeks to counter this critique by emphasizing that the inclusion of Gentiles has no effect on the fulfillment of the promises of salvation for Israel.50 This hypothesis  also  further  clarifies  Matthew’s  insertion  of  four  non- Jewish  women/persons in the genealogy as an indication of Israel’s openness to Gentiles and his illumination of not only Jesus’ ministry to Israel but also the universality of salvation on the basis of Scripture; these elements would 47 For criticism of the reduction of the more complex constellation into the simple alternative intra or extra muros, see also Baxter 2012, 3– 8. 48 Matt 8.11–12, as shown in section 4.2, contains a threat: whoever believes in Jesus only as the Messiah of Israel and not also (thereby) as the savior for the Gentiles denies the central aspect of the universality of salvation. Such sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the darkness. On the possibility that Matthew saw himself as confronted by conservative community members with reservations about the integration of nonJews, see, for example, Slee 2003, 134; Foster 2004, 20; as well as Balabanski 2008, 170–71. 49 S. Brown 1977, 30–31, reads the juxtaposition of 10.5–6 and 28.19 as indicating a distinction between the evangelist and some community members who oppose the universal mission on the basis of the commission in 10.5– 6, which Brown classifies as community tradition (see also Kühschelm 1986, 165– 66). In the preceding discussion here, however, the primary task has been to understand the relation between 10.5– 6 and 28.19 first of all in the context of the evangelist’s own theological concept. This does not, conversely, exclude the possibility that, with his narrative concept, the evangelist is reacting to differences within the community. 50 Considered in this light, the Matthean version of the healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter in Matt 15.21–28, and particularly the woman’s argumentation in v. 27, would emphasize that Israel does not lose anything through the integration of Gentiles.

366

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

then also be read as an argumentative strategy to overcome resentment against the mission to Gentiles. Yet, even if such resistance was present, this need not mean that Matthew seeks with his Jesus story to support a new practice in the community.51 It is equally possible that this was a long-established practice that was being called into question by newly arrived conservative Jewish-Christians; a  possible  scenario  here  would  be  the  influx  of  Jewish- Christians  from  Judea following the Jewish-Roman War.52 Another possibility would be that the Matthean community, because of their acceptance of non-Jews as full members, was subject to Pharisaic criticism, which (increasingly) affected community members.53 If the interpretation proposed here is correct, the Matthean Jesus story also provides no conclusive evidence that the Jewish- Roman War of 66– 70 CE signified for the community a  turning point from the mission to Israel to the mission to the Gentiles.54 If the Matthean community belongs in the area of Antioch, it should be noted that an openness to the Gentile world occurred there early on—yet one cannot presume that this was equally the case in all Christ-believing groups in Antioch and its surroundings. In short, the question of when (and 51 Consider the position of S. Brown 1980, 217–21, as well as Luz in the first edition of vol. 1 of his commentary, where he posits that the community “failed in its mission to Israel, experienced the divine judgment of the destruction of Jerusalem, and is now called to a new start by the evangelist” (Luz 1985, 67 [trans. K. Ess]; see also Harrington 1991a, 416; and Slee 2003, 126, 131, 144). Luz then revised his view in the course of the continued commentary—namely, interpreting 24.9–14 as an indication of a mission to the Gentiles already under way (see Luz 2001–2007, 3:631). Saldarini 1994, 74, concludes from Matt 15.21–28 that “the Matthean group is still wrestling with the problem of gentile membership; it justifies it by their great faith but maintains the boundaries and practices of Judaism, interpreted in a different way” (15:1–20; 5:17–19). However, Saldarini does not take sufficiently into account the position of Matt 15.21– 28 within the Matthean story of Jesus. A new situation exists with 28.19–20. 52 Luz 1993, 311, suspects that the community altogether originated in Palestine (see also S. Brown 1980, 214). See n. 54. 53 Consider the similar suggestion by Senior 1999, 19: “evidence in Matthew’s Gospel may suggest that some in Matthew’s community resisted that idea of a Gentile mission, perhaps in part under the pressure of Jewish attacks on the validity of the Jewish character of Matthew’s community.” 54 Contra Luz 1993, 311: “The Matthean community is, I think, a Jewish-Christian Jesus community, which originated in Palestine, had earlier carried out a mission to Israel there, failed, ultimately—probably in the build-up to the Jewish war of 66–70—had to separate from the synagogue and leave Israel, found a new home in Syria, and there began to carry out a mission to Gentiles” (trans. K. Ess). According to Weren 2005, 52, 58, in the course of increasingly cutting the chord from its Jewish context, the Matthean community came into contact with “a broad multi-cultural network of Christian communities” (58). The reorientation of the community is thus understood here essentially as an intraChristian process of integration.

7: Considerations on the Situation of the Matthean Community

367

to what degree) the community began the mission to the Gentiles cannot be answered with sufficient plausibility. This is connected to the fact that no sufficiently certain statement can  be made about the exact proportion of “Gentile Christians” in the community. Given that the Matthean group sees itself in competition with the Pharisees and that Judaism appears as the primary social context, it can likely be concluded that the Matthean community was at least predominantly Jewish; thus “Gentile Christians” constitute the minority. But we cannot say how large this minority was, how quickly it was growing at the time of the composition of the Gospel, or whether it even already existed prior to the time of the composition.55

55

At most, one can once again point to the “general climate” of Antioch as a possible, if not probable, macrocontext.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 8

Summary

In investigating the intellectual-historical context that characterizes Matthew’s theological thought, the fundamental significance of Israel’s theological tradition emerges in the Gospel from beginning to end. This can be seen not only in that Matthew retells the Jesus story with continuous reference to Scripture but also in the characterization of Israel’s special position. Matthew not only locates Jesus emphatically within God’s history with Israel, begun with the election of Abraham, and highlights him as that history’s ultimate goal in the opening of his Gospel in 1.1–17 but also programmatically concentrates Jesus’ (and his disciples’) entire pre-Easter ministry on Israel: He is sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15.24). His task is to save his λαός from its sins (1.21) and to shepherd it (2.6). He is the light that dawns upon the λαός that sits in darkness (4.16), in that he teaches, proclaims the gospel of the kingdom, and heals all sickness and affliction ἐν τῷ λαῷ (4.23). Accordingly, Matthew has the crowds from all Israel—and only from Israel—gather together with Jesus and follow him (4.25), places on their lips the cry that “such a thing has never been seen in Israel” (9.33), and has them praise the God of Israel for the healings (15.29–31). Even the three scenes in which Jesus encounters non-Jews (8.5–13; 8.28–34; 15.21–28) are integrated into the Matthean approach of concentrating Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry on Israel. In all three texts, Matthew makes it clear that the healings take place extra ordinem. The kairos (cf. 8.29) of ministry to the Gentiles has not yet arrived. Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry is thus consistently situated within God’s history with his people: God is the God of Israel, who fulfills the promises of salvation given to his  people in Jesus’ mission. This orientation toward Israel corresponds christologically with the Matthean emphasis on Jesus’ Davidic messiahship, which is condensed in the titular form with the many references to Jesus as “Son of David” but whose significance cannot be fully grasped by an examination of the explicit  occurrences of this title alone. Conceptually, the connection between

370

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Jesus’ Davidic messiahship and the presentation of Jesus as the Son of God is of central significance here. Separating the two christologoumena from  one another and attempting to find a hierarchy in their significance for the  purpose of demoting the Davidic sonship fundamentally falls short of the Matthean concept.1 Rather, in Matthew’s christological thought, Jesus’ Davidic and divine sonships constitute two sides of the same coin. Matthew is thereby able to draw on the motif of the “adoption” of the Davidic king as the Son of God in Old Testament royal ideology but modifies this  by inverting the process of adoption: the Son of God is adopted as the Son of David.2 This does not demote the Davidic sonship but, rather, places the emphasis on the notion that God’s Son Jesus is situated within the history of God’s promises to Israel and ministers to his people in his “role” as the Son of David. Conceptually  significant  here  is  the  presentation  of  Jesus  as  the  Davidic-Messianic shepherd of his people (see, above all, Matt 2.6; 15.24). This is characterized by Matthew’s emphasis on the people’s desolate situation. Jesus’ ministry is one of compassion for the “languishing” and “lost sheep” (9.36; 10.6). This merciful ministry takes the concrete form of Jesus’ healing activity: the Davidic Messiah appears principally as the healing Son of David. Within Early Jewish messianology, this does present a new accent, yet its genesis can be sufficiently explained by the connection  with Old Testament and Early Jewish expectations of salvation.3 More specifically, it is striking that Matthew particularly links the reference to Jesus as Son of David with the healing of the blind. In addition to concrete physical healing, a symbolic aspect resonates here: Jesus heals people from their blindness in a metaphorical sense as well—blindness that is caused by the authorities, who are “blind guides” (15.14; 23.16, 24). This is furthermore accompanied by the connection between Jesus’ healing activity and the forgiveness of sins (9.2–8). The disciples’ mission— founded on Jesus’ compassion (9.36)—to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10.6) signifies that they are placed in the service of the messianic  ministry to Israel and thus participate in Jesus’ “pastoral office,” whereby  the first mention of the circle of the twelve in 10.1– 4 indicates that this mission is concerned with the eschatological restitution of Israel. This remains the disciples’ task until the Parousia (10.23). For Matthew, Israel’s privilege, founded in the history of election, does not consist in the “possession” of salvation. Rather, before the coming of 1

On Kingsbury’s approach, see in section 2.1. See Ps 2.7; 89.27–28; 2 Sam 7.14, transformed messianically in 4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13, and probably also in 4Q246 (see section 2.1, n. 7). 3 See the discussion in section 2.1.3. 2

8: Summary

371

Jesus, Israel found itself in a state of calamity, in Matthew’s view: the people sits in darkness (4.16) and must be saved from sin (1.21).4 The privilege of God’s people Israel, rather, lies in the fact that the salvific ministry of the  Messiah applies to Israel before all others, exclusively so before Easter, and also post-Easter, insofar as the continued ministry of salvation is anchored in Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry. Diachronically, it should be noted that, in comparison with Mark, the new accent here is not the universality of salvation but rather the pre-Easter particularity of the ministry of salvation to Israel, while the inclusion of the Gentiles does not occur until post-Easter.5 Jesus’ ministry triggers various reactions in Israel, whereby the distinction between the authorities and the crowds is characteristic of Matthew: while the crowds, against the evangelist’s source materials, are regularly relieved of negative features at the expense of the authorities, Matthew paints a thoroughly dark picture of the Jewish authorities, characterized by evilness and hypocrisy, whereby the Pharisees appear as the main adversaries. The repetition of direct contrasts between the reactions of the authorities and those of the crowds pointedly expresses the evangelist’s interest (9.33–34; 12.23–24; 21.1–17). This distinction is already inherent in the shepherd/sheep metaphor: in Matthew, the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” are the crowds, and their desolate situation points to the failure of the old shepherds. Analogous with texts such as Jer 23.1– 6 and Ezek 34, the sending of Jesus as the messianic shepherd of his people signifies the replacement of the old  shepherds. The authorities become bitter opponents of the messianic shepherd and seek to oppose his positive reception among the crowds (see esp. 9.33–34; 12.23–24; 21.15–16), in whom the recognition that Jesus is the Son of David matures until his entry into Jerusalem (21.9). The details of the development of this conflict need not be repeated here. It should, however, be noted that the Passion Narrative, or 27.11–26 in particular, does not revoke this differentiation; thus the positive reaction of the crowds is not marginalized as simply a brief episode. Rather, the contrast of authorities and crowds stands alongside a further element—namely, the juxtaposition of Jerusalem as the city that kills prophets ([21.9–11]; 23.37–39) and  as  the  location  of  Jesus’  crucifixion  and  Galilee. In the “theological geography” of the evangelist, while Galilee is the location foretold in Scripture where the light will dawn upon the λαός (4.15–16), where the disciples (except for Judas) come together again after the events in Jerusalem, and which thus becomes the starting point for the formation of 4 Compare the considerations in section 2.1.1.1, on the emphasis of the Babylonian exile in 1.11, 17, and on the third portion of the genealogy in 1.2–17. 5 Compare Frankemölle 1982, 100.

372

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

the Church (28.16–20), Jerusalem’s negative role is set up already in Matt 2.3. In 21.10, the shaking of the whole city at Jesus’ entry picks up on the fright of the whole city in 2.3; at the same time, the identification of Jesus  as a prophet from Galilee (21.11) creates a subtle cross-reference to the lament over the prophet-murdering city in 23.37–39. Above all, with the juxtaposition of the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish crowds who acclaim Jesus as the Son of David, Matthew makes it clear that the former by no means serves in Matthew’s narrative concept as the representative of all Israel. In section 3.2, it was further seen that the options usually considered for 27.25—whether λαός is simply an alternate term for ὄχλος here or Matthew instead emphatically burdens the whole people of God with the guilt of Jesus’ death—present a false alternative in view of the oscillation that is observed in Early Jewish usage between these two poles. The change from ὄχλος to πᾶς ὁ λαός is not to be regarded as simply a stylistic variation, nor does it make the crowds gathered before Pilate and seduced by the authorities (27.20) into a symbol for all Israel; rather, the change places a new accent insofar as Matthew points with these words to the fact that the event is taking place in Israel. In light of the preceding guidance of the reader (πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, 2.3; πᾶσα ἡ πόλις, 21.10; Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας, 23.37), the population of Jerusalem is understood as the referent here. This fits with the insertion of  the children in the blood curse: the consequence of taking on the responsibility for the shedding of innocent blood (cf. 23.35–36; 27.4) is punishment in the form of the destruction of the city, which occurred one generation later. The destruction of Jerusalem does not serve in Matthew’s conception as a sign of Israel’s condemnation; it is not conceived as punishment for any collective guilt of Israel. Matthew rather employs the destruction of Jerusalem as proof that opposition against Jesus is equivalent to opposition against God. For Matthew, then, one can read in the destruction of Jerusalem who is on God’s side and who is not. And with regard to the final judgment, it becomes clear in the city’s fate that Jesus’ opponents  and their descendants fall prey to God’s eschatological punishment and will not be able to escape being sentenced to hell (23.33). If the Gospel of Matthew is dealing with intense current controversies with the synagogue, which is under Pharisaic leadership, and the community is struggling to bring those who are undecided over to their side (or must ensure that those members who are in doubt are strengthened), then in a text-pragmatic view, the judgment scene reads as an urgent warning not to let oneself be persuaded and led astray by the Pharisees, as happened before in Jerusalem when the people were led astray by the chief priests.

8: Summary

373

This understanding of the destruction of Jerusalem is accompanied by the fact that there is no other evidence in Matthew that supports a condemnation of Israel. The parable trilogy in 21.28–22.14 is aimed against the authorities; it addresses their opposition to God’s messengers, from the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist, to Jesus and his messengers. Accordingly, 21.43 is concerned not with the replacement of Israel by the Church but rather the replacement of the authorities with Jesus’ disciples—and this with regard to their task in the vineyard Israel. The words against ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη in Matt 11.16–19; 12.38– 45; 16.1– 4; and 23.34–36 are likewise aimed at the authorities, not the people as a whole. Matt 8.11–12 does not contrast salvation for Gentiles with the exclusion of Israel but, rather, connects the prospect of the universality of salvation with a threat against those disciples or sympathizers who oppose the inclusion of Gentiles on the basis of a particularistic understanding of salvation. Thus these verses do have something to say on the topic of Jews and Gentiles within the community, but they make no mention of the condemnation of Israel. Finally, Matt 13.3–23 does not contrast the failure of Israel with the emergence of the Church but, rather, according to the context, depicts a process of differentiation within Israel. The emphasis on the crowds’ lack of understanding, which on the Gospel’s level of communication serves to address failures in the mission, cannot be taken absolutely as the definitive statement about the ὄχλοι at the expense of the nuanced image that Matthew paints as a whole but must, rather, be integrated as one element within the larger picture. The task of the disciples with regard to the Jewish crowds remains in force; the largely positive portrait of the ὄχλοι makes good sense in terms of text pragmatics against the background of the permanent task of the mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew’s depiction of the crowds as being positively affected by Jesus and even as near to the disciples makes sense if this is meant to support a continued effort to win them over.6 They should be perceived as the “potential Church.”7 This corresponds in 13.3–23 with the fact that the interpretation of the parable of the sower is relevant not only to Jesus’ ministry but also to the disciples’ mission. In this view, 13.3– 23  does  not  draw  a  final  conclusion  but  reflects  an  open process, and alongside the prospect of failure, the disciples are also shown the prospect of their proclamation having a positive effect. The openness of this process corresponds with the absence of any indication that the κρίνειν of the twelve tribes in 19.28 envisions a one-sided judgment—that is, condemnation—of Israel. 6 7

In this vein, see also, for example, Saldarini 1994, 43. On the “potential church,” see Luz 2001–2007, 1:163. Compare section 3.1.1, n. 19.

374

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Alongside the mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” in 28.16–20, the commission to make disciples of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη appears. The integration of Gentiles into the ministry of salvation after the Israeloriented particularity of Jesus’ earthly ministry as the Messiah of Israel, however, does not indicate a “break” in the Matthean Jesus story;8 it is not a response to the alleged collective rejection of Jesus in Israel but rather emerges organically out of the ministry to Israel as the aim of the history of salvation begun with the election of Abraham.9 In Matthew’s narrative concept, Jesus’ earthly ministry is indeed consistently oriented toward Israel, but the depiction of this ministry is located from the start within a universalistic dimension through signals in the prologue—such as the identification of Jesus as a son of Abraham (1.1), the insertion of four women/ persons of non-Jewish ancestry in Jesus’ genealogy (1.2–16), and the magi pericope (2.1– 12)— as well as through the fulfillment quotations in 4.14–  16 and 12.17–21. Further, the narratives of the healing of the centurion’s son in Capernaum in 8.5–13, the Gadarene demoniac in 8.28–34, and the Canaanite woman’s daughter in 15.21–28 symbolically anticipate the integration of Gentiles into the ministry of salvation, and at the same time, faith is presented as the decisive criterion (8.10, 13; 15.28). In 8.10 and 15.28— and only in these two passages—faith is praised as particularly great. The point of reference for this is likely that the centurion and the Canaanite woman trust that the ministry of salvation linked with Jesus will extend beyond Israel. The Matthean insertion of πρὸ καιροῦ in 8.29 indicates explicitly that there is a determined kairos for the expansion of the ministry of salvation to the Gentiles. This kairos is for Matthew the event of Jesus’ death (cf. 26.18, 45), resurrection, and installation as universal Lord. The universal commission in 28.18–20 is anchored in the universal authority of the exalted lord. To understand the Matthean concept, it is important here to observe the association between the passion and the installation of Jesus as universal Lord. As the obedient Son of God, Jesus resists the devil’s “offer” to give him all the kingdoms of the world (4.8–10) and instead takes on his destined path to the cross (cf. 26.39, 42, and 26.53–54, 56); as the obedient Son of God, whose blood is poured out for the salvation of “many” (26.28), Jesus is resurrected and installed as the universal Lord. The insertion of ἀπ’ ἄρτι in 26.64 explicitly reveals Jesus’ death as the point of his 8

Contra Luz 2001–2007, 1:50. Compare Backhaus 2004, 102: “The claim to election, as Matthew sees it, carries God’s history with his people forward in that it expands into God’s history with the nations, and so does not break off the drama between God and his people, but brings it to its final goal” (trans. K. Ess). 9

8: Summary

375

enthronement. At the same time, in terms of soteriology, Jesus’ death is interpreted as the salvific event that establishes the expansion of the ministry of salvation to the Gentiles. περὶ πολλῶν in 26.28 is to be understood universally—that is, through Jesus’ death, the forgiveness of sins is made available to all people. Alongside this is the fact that the ἐξουσία statement in 28.18b does not describe an entirely new status of the resurrected Christ; rather, the emphasis lies on his now announcing his universal authority. This can be linked with the interpretation and significance of Jesus’ death:  the announcement of Jesus’ universal authority, which establishes the mission to the Gentiles, takes place after the soteriological foundation for the universal ministry of salvation has been laid in his death. Matt 28.19 rests upon this very thing.10 The interpretation of Jesus’ death further illuminates the conceptual connection between the ministry to the Gentiles and the fulfillment of the  promises  given  to  Israel.  With  his  salvific  death,  Jesus  at  the  same  time  completes his Israel-oriented task to save his people from sin (1.21). That is, with the fulfillment of the promises of salvation to Israel, the foundation for the ministry of salvation to the Gentiles is simultaneously laid. This connection of the universal dimension of salvation with the messianic ministry to Israel is also expressed in that the Canaanite woman turns to Jesus as the “Son of David” (15.22), just as the magi had asked after the “king of the Jews” (2.2). This connection further characterizes the evangelist’s reception of Abraham: as the patriarch of Israel, Abraham is also the bearer of the promise for the nations. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Gentiles gain a share in the salvation proclaimed in Israel. Matthean universalism is thus Israel-oriented, just as Israel, conversely, is directed toward the Gentile world from the election of Abraham onward. It is of central importance for understanding the Matthean concept that these salvation-historical threads are connected with the narrative conception in which Matthew develops Jesus’ messianic identity as the Son of David and Son of God. While the Israel-oriented particularity of Jesus’ earthly ministry is connected with the emphasis on his Davidic messiahship, Matthew has linked the christologoumenon of Jesus’ divine sonship with the death of the Son of God and his resurrection and installation as universal Lord, in which the inclusion of Gentiles in salvation is established. 10 Compare Davies and Allison 1988–1997, 2:168: “Matthew appears to have interpreted  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  eschatological  events  which  mark  a  decisive turning point in salvation-history, the dawn of a new era, the era in which God’s OT promises concerning the Gentiles are realized . . . The scheme requires that the Gentiles come into the church after the saving events” (emphasis original). It should be added that in the Matthean concept, strictly speaking, the Church, too, first begins with Easter.

376

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

Just as the universality of salvation is alluded to from the very beginning, prior to Jesus’ ministry in Israel, but first emerges clearly with Jesus’  death and resurrection, so too does the divine sonship, introduced as a central aspect of Jesus’ messianic identity in the prologue, remain in the background during the depiction of his ministry in Israel. It is revealed here only to the disciples, while this aspect emerges at the end of the Gospel as a key christological theme within Jesus’ passion and exaltation, and extends beyond the circle of the disciples. With this concept, Matthew varies the two-tiered Christology as it appears in the tradition taken up by Paul in Rom 1.3– 4 and presents a two-stage development of Jesus’ messianic identity. As in Rom 1.3– 4, Jesus’ earthly ministry is categorized under his Davidic messiahship; however, the exaltation does not newly establish him as the Son of God. Rather, he is the Son of God from the very beginning, although this aspect of his identity first becomes evident  to the wider public in the course of the passion. The central characteristic  of  the  Matthean  conception  can  thus  be  seen  more  specifically  in  that he has used this two-tiered Christology in order to mediate between Jesus’ ministry in and for Israel—which takes up Israel’s special electionhistorical position—and the universality of salvation brought about in Jesus. In this connection, the identity of the earthly and exalted Lord11 emphasized  by  Matthew  signifies  that  Jesus’  Davidic  sonship  is  not  to  be regarded as having lost its christological relevance with his establishment as universal Lord.12 Rather, this aspect constitutes an important element of the basic story of salvation that gives the Matthean community its theological identity. Likewise, the expansion of salvation to all nations does not leave Israel’s special position as simply a historical memory; rather, due to the accentuation of this special position in the Matthean Jesus story and the emphatic connection of universal salvation with the promise of salvation given to Israel, this aspect appears as an essential and permanently significant  element  of  the  theological  self- conception  of  the  community,  which  owes  its  existence  to  Jesus’  salvific  ministry  and  whose  task  it  is  to continue to proclaim this message before Israel and the (other) nations. Matt 28.19 does not revoke Israel’s special position. The usual discussion of whether the ministry of salvation now applies exclusively to Gentiles or whether Matthew at least allows Israel to remain as one people alongside 11

On this, see the fundamental discussion in Bornkamm 1975c; further, for example, see Zumstein 1977, 104– 6 (“une unité essentielle entre le Ressuscité et le Jésus terrestre” [105; emphasis original]). 12 If it were otherwise, it would not be possible to sufficiently explain why Matthew  elsewhere emphasized it so strongly in the first place.

8: Summary

377

the others takes the wrong direction from the outset. The ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” is established as a permanent task of the community already in Matt 10, and in the theological thought of the evangelist, the mission to Israel is situated in its own theological horizon, determined by the preceding history of salvation: this mission is concerned with the restitution of the twelve tribes. Nevertheless, it is just as important that the nations have received equal access to salvation through Jesus’ death and resurrection. The overall picture is thus ambivalent. Matthew represents Gentiles and Israel to a certain extent on equal footing, despite the abiding distinction between them. Beyond the fact that Jews need not be converted to the one God, and beyond the specific theological horizon of the mission to Israel, the missions to Israel and the Gentiles cannot be differentiated by a clear distinction in the content of the missionary tasks.13 Although the two are given different emphases, these are connected with the different stages that the narrative has reached in Matt 10 and Matt 28, respectively. In Matt 10.5–8, the disciples are charged with ministering to Israel by proclaiming the approaching kingdom of heaven and healing the sick. There is no mention here of integrating anyone into the community of discipleship, which is a central aspect of 28.19. This corresponds with the stability—aside from Judas’ betrayal—of the circle of disciples until the end: for Matthew, the disciples who traveled with Jesus are the twelve,14 and accordingly, it is the eleven disciples who gather in Galilee in 28.16. The building of the ecclesia announced in 16.18 does not begin for Matthew until after Easter15—that is, Jesus’ announcement in 16.18 is to be seen in connection with the commission of the eleven disciples who form the nucleus of the ecclesia that is to be built. Jesus builds his community in that he charges the disciples with the universal mission. The connection between 16.18 and 28.19–20 is further underscored by the fact that not only is the christologoumenon of divine sonship of key significance in 28.18– 2016 but also 16.18 is a response to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God. As the Son of God, he has at his disposal the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” and can bestow them upon Peter. As the Son of God, he builds his ἐκκλησία by authorizing the eleven disciples for the universal mission. And the salvation brought about by Jesus as the Son of God on the cross is realized in and through the ecclesia. Conversely, the confession of Jesus as the exalted Son of God who sits at God’s right hand, 13

See in section 5.4. See in section 6.3. 15 On the reference of the future in 16.18, see in section 6.3. 16 On this, see in section 5.2.2.3. 14

378

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

whose death opens salvation to all people, is the central hallmark of the ecclesial community of disciples. The announcement in 21.43 is to be situated here as well. The future verbs here also point to an event connected with Jesus’ death and resurrection, as the directly preceding verse 21.42 already suggests. The topic here, too, is the missionary task of the community: the transfer of God’s kingdom to the disciples, who bring fruit in accordance with the basileia (cf. 5.16), signifies that the task of conveying God’s will in the vineyard of Israel and  so guiding people to the kingdom of heaven falls to the disciples—in place of the authorities who are condemned in consequence of their rejection of Jesus. Matt 28.19–20 then picks up on this, with a universal orientation and an ecclesial-missionary focus. The charge to μαθητεύειν applies postEaster to the mission to Israel as well; the education of the ecclesia signifies a new facet for the mission to Israel— namely, that beyond the contents  of the charge in 10.5–8, this mission is also concerned with integrating people into the ecclesia. The preceding discussion has already alluded to an important aspect of defining the relationship between Israel and Church. According to their  missionary task, the disciples are a vehicle of the ministry of salvation, which also and especially applies to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The  significance  of  the  missionary  dimension  in  Matthean  ecclesiology  can hardly be overstated. Church and Israel do not appear in this regard as competing entities, but rather, the Church is positively related to Israel in its missionary charge. Yet even insofar as the ecclesia is not just the vehicle of the ministry of salvation but simultaneously the community of salvation itself, the notion of the substitution of Israel by the Church cannot be drawn from the Gospel of Matthew. The Church is not conceived as the new people of God. The term λαός remains reserved for Israel. This applies for 1.21, as well. The statement about salvation there is not to be subjected to a rereading from the perspective of 26.28, insofar as the members of the ecclesia who celebrate the Lord’s Supper are those who receive a share in the forgiveness of sins effected by Jesus through his death. Rather, 26.28 implies that, through the renewal of the covenant that has taken place in Jesus’ salvific death, forgiveness of sins has become accessible to all Israel  and, beyond that, to Gentiles. The statement of 1.21—that Jesus will save his people (i.e., Israel, cf. 2.6) from their sins—is in this sense “objectively” fulfilled. This is to be distinguished from the “subjective” acceptance of  the forgiveness of sins, which is realized by entering into (the community of) discipleship and celebrating the Lord’s Supper. At the same time, theological motifs that are connected in Old Testament and Early Jewish literature with the notion of the people of God, such as God’s presence, life in accordance with God’s commandments, or the

8: Summary

379

task to be light for others occur in the Gospel of Matthew as ecclesial attributes. This does not mean that Matthew regarded the Church conceptually, if not terminologically, as the new Israel; rather, it is more suitable to think in terms of a transformation of the traditional theological system of coordinates. Matthew thus did not have the Church take Israel’s place—rather, the ecclesia appears as a new entity that causes the significance and role  of Israel as the people of God to shift. This is further underscored by the fact that the dichotomy of Israel and the Gentile world has lost its fundamental significance with Jesus’ death and resurrection. In this transformation process, the role of Israel becomes focused in being the special—but, after Easter, no longer the exclusive—addressee of the offer of salvation or the messianic ministry, whereby it is certain for Matthew that the “lost sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel”  find  salvation  from  their  sins  only  within  the ecclesia. Finally, the transformation of the theological system of coordinates becomes clearly visible in that the hope of salvation for the nations is not  realized  in the  form  of  a  pilgrimage  to  Zion  but  through  the  influx  of Gentiles into the ecclesia. This aspect dovetails seamlessly with the role of Jerusalem in the Matthean narrative concept discussed previously. It should be added that the temple in particular—which according to the citation of Jer 7.11 in Matt 21.13 has deteriorated into a den of thieves—has become obsolete through Jesus’ salvific death. There is a subtle irony to  be seen here: the Jerusalem authorities—the “custodians of the temple”— themselves bring about the end of the temple through the killing of Jesus. In its place, the presence of Jesus with his community becomes the central notion of God’s presence. With this creative interpretation of Israel’s theological traditions, the Matthean community claims to be the only legitimate trustee of those traditions. With this self-conception, the community enters into competition with the “old” authorities. While the ecclesia does not replace Israel in the Matthean conception, it nevertheless claims to replace the “old” authorities (21.43). Peter, and with him the ecclesia, are entrusted with the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (16.19). In the Matthean community’s self-conception, however, this is a claim made not just within Israel but in the entire inhabited  world;  it  is  thus  insufficient  to  conceive  of  the  Church  as  a  special  community within Israel or theologically only as the already restored portion of Israel that will be gathered at the eschaton. The Church is, rather, the community of salvation that comes into existence in the framework of the eschatological gathering or restitution of the people of God, as well as in the framework of the mission to the Gentiles. At the same time, as self-evident and even banal as it may seem, it should be explicitly noted that the Pharisaic dominated synagogue alone appears as the community’s

380

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew

competition, not a pagan religious association, since the dispute concerns the theological tradition of Israel. An overview of the preceding remarks reveals Matthew’s theological conception to be characterized by an integrative approach with regard to the relationship between Israel and the Gentile world. Matthew emphasizes Israel’s special position but also just as emphatically asserts that salvation is open to Gentiles and reconciles the two facets with one another, as presented previously. The universal significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection establishes equal access to salvation for Gentiles, as we have seen, but does not nullify Israel’s special position. An isolated consideration of Jesus’ death and resurrection as the fundamental soteriological datum is impossible in the first Gospel because the Christ event is continuously plotted into the history of salvation on the firm ground of Scripture. The synagogal opponent is virtually “demonized” in Matthew. Situating this polemic historically within the conflict between the Pharisees and  believers in Christ, where the latter were evidently exposed to concrete hardship,17 may help to explain the Matthean portrayal without legitimating it.18 Inasmuch as the Pharisees do not represent Judaism in Matthew, one can further point out that it would be historically imprecise to label the Gospel’s anti-Pharisaic thrust as anti-Judaism. But even this does not yet convey the decisive point for the critical hermeneutical reflection of the  text from today’s perspective. It is crucial, rather, to translate the conflict  documented in the Gospel of Matthew into a dialogue based on a “culture of dialogic difference”19 that was yet unknown to the first century CE, in  which the separation occurred with bitterness and mutual condemnations.

17

See Matt 5.10–12; 10.16–25; 23.34; 24.9. See Theißen 1990, 542– 47. 19 Schwöbel 1997, 177 (trans. K. Ess). 18

Bibliography

Primary Sources Editions of the Bible Novum Testamentum Graece, post Eberhard et Erwin Nestle. 2012. Edited by K. Aland et al. 28 ed. [26 ed., 1979; 27 ed., 1993]. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 1983. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. 2 ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 1935. Edited by A. Rahlfs. Repr. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum auctoritate Societas/Academiae Scien­ tiarum Gottingensis editum. 1931–. Edited by R. Hanhart, W. Kappler, U. Quast, A. Rahlfs, J. W. Wevers, and J. Ziegler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. 1983. Edited by R. Weber. 3 ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Jewish Sources Collections and Fragments The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 1983/1985. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday. Denis, A.-M. 1970. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca: una cum historicum et auctorum Judaeorum hellenistarum fragmentis. Pages 45–246 in PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill. Holladay, C. R. 1983. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Volume I: Histori­ ans. SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 10. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. ———. 1989. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Volume II: Poets. SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 12. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch­römischer Zeit. 1973–. Edited by W. G. Kümmel. 5 vols. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn.

382

Bibliography

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Septuagint Add Dan Apoc. Ab.

Apoc. El. Apocr. Ezek. Bar

2 Bar. 3 Bar.

4 Bar.

1 En. 2 En. Gk. En. 1 Esd

4 Ezra

Eup.

Plöger, O. 1973. Zusätze zu Daniel. Pages 63– 87 in JSHRZ 1.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Philonenko-Sayar, B., and M. Philonenko. 1982. Die Apokalypse Abrahams. JSHRZ 5.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Schrage, W. 1980. Die Elia­Apokalypse. JSHRZ 5.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Eckart, K.-G. 1979. Das Apokryphon Ezechiel. Pages 45–55 in JSHRZ 5.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See above, Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Grunneweg, A. H. J. 1980. Das Buch Baruch. Pages 165–81 in JSHRZ 3.2. 2 ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Klijn, A. F. J. 1976. Die syrische Baruch­Apokalypse. Pages 105– 91 in JSHRZ 5.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Hage, W. 1979. Die griechische Baruch­Apokalypse. Pages 15– 44 in JSHRZ 5.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Picard, J.-Cl. 1967. Apocalypsis Baruchi graece. Pages 61–96 in PVTG 2. Leiden: Brill. Herzer, J. 2005. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). Translated with an Introduction and Notes. SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 22. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature. Kraft, R. A., and A.-E. Purintun. 1972. Paraleipomena Jeremiou. SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 1. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature. Schaller, B. 1998. Paralipomena Jeremiou. JSHRZ 1.8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Uhlig, S. 1984. Das Äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Böttrich, C. 1995. Das slavische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5.7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Black, M. 1970. Apocalypsis Henochi graece. Pages 1– 44 in PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill. See above, Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Pohlmann, K.-F. 1980. 3. Esra Buch. Pages 375– 425 in JSHRZ 1.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See above, Editions of the Bible: Vulgata. Klijn, A. F. J. 1992. Die Esra­Apokalypse (IV. Esra). Nach dem lateinischen Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen. GCS. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Schreiner, J. 1981. Das 4. Buch Esra. JSHRZ 5.4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See pages 179–86 in Denis 1970 (Collections and Fragments).

Bibliography

Ezek. Trag.

Jdt

Jos. Asen.

Jub.

L.A.B.

Gk. L.A.E.

Lat. L.A.E.

383

Walter, N. 1980. Pages 93–108 in Fragmente jüdisch­hellenistischer Historiker. JSHRZ 1.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See pages 207–16 in Denis 1970 (Collections and Fragments). Vogt, E. 1983. Tragiker Ezechiel. Pages 113–33 in JSHRZ 4.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Zenger, E. 1981. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ 1.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Burchard, C. 1979. “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph  und Aseneth.” DBAT 14:2–53. ——— . 1983. Joseph und Aseneth. JSHRZ 2.4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Berger, K. 1981. Das Buch der Jubiläen. JSHRZ 2.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Charles, R. H. 1902. The Book of Jubilees, or the Little Genesis. Translated from the editor’s Ethiopic text and edited, with introduction, notes, and indices. London: A & C Black. Dietzfelbinger, C. 1979. Pseudo­Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae. 2 ed. JSHRZ 3.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Harrington, D. J. 1974. The Hebrew Fragments of Pseudo­Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Preserved in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel. SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 3. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature. Kisch, G. 1949. Pseudo­Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Publications in Mediaeval Studies 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press. Pseudo-Philo. Les Antiquités Bibliques, I. 1976. With introduction and critical text by D. J. Harrington. Translated by J. Cazeaux. Revised by C. Perrot and P.-M. Bogaert. SC 229. Paris: Cerf. Merk, O., and M. Meiser, 1998. Das Leben Adams und Evas. JSHRZ 2.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Nagel, M. Vie grecque d’Adam et Eve (unprinted typescript). Printed pages 815–18 in Denis 1987 (see Concordances). Tischendorft, C., ed. 1866. Apocalypsis Mosis. Pages 1–23 in Apoc­ alypses Apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis, item Mariae dormitio. Additis Evangeliorum et actuum Apocry­ phorum supplementis. Leipzig: Mendelssohn. Meyer, W. 1878. Vita Adae et Evae. Pages 185–250 in Abhandlungen der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14.3. Munich: Die Akademie. Merk, O., and M. Meiser. 1998. Das Leben Adams und Evas. JSHRZ 2.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn.

384

Bibliography

Let. Aris.

Liv. Pro.

1 Macc

2 Macc

3 Macc 4 Macc

Mart. Isa. Ps.-Eup.

Ps.-Phoc.

Pss. Sol.

Sib. Or.

Meisner, N. 1973. Aristeasbrief. Pages 35–87 in JSHRZ 2.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Pelletier, A. 1962. Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, texte critique, tra­ duction et notes, index complet des mots grecs. SC 89. Paris: Cerf. Schermann, T. 1907. Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices apos­ tolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicate. Leipzig: B. G. Teubneri. Schwemer, A. M. 1997. Vitae Prophetarum. JSHRZ 1.7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Schunck, K.-D. 1980. 1. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 1.4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Habicht, C. 1979. 2. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 1.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Klauck, H.-J. 1989. 4 Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 3.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Hammershaimb, E. 1973. Das Martyrium Jesajas. Pages 15–34 in JSHRZ 2.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See pages 197–98 in Denis 1970 (Collections and Fragments). Walter, N. 1980. Pages 137– 43 in Fragmente jüdisch­hellenistischer Historiker. JSHRZ 1.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See pages 149–56 in Denis 1970 (Collections and Fragments). Walter, N. 1983. Pages 182–216 in Pseudepigraphische jüdisch­ hellenistische Dichtung: Pseudo­Phokylides, Pseudo­ Orpheus, Gefälschte Verse auf Namen griechischer Dichter. JSHRZ 4.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Gebhardt, O. von. 1895. Die Psalmen Salomos. TUGAL 13.2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Holm-Nielsen, S. 1977. Die Psalmen Salomos. JSHRZ 4.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Wright, R. B. 2007. The Psalms of Solomon. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Context and Related Studies 1. London: T&T Clark. Gauger, J.-D. 1998. Sibyllinische Weissagungen. Griechisch­ deutsch. New translation and edition based on the edition by A. Kurfeß. Sammlung Tusculum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Geffcken, J. 1902. Die Oracula Sibyllina. GCS 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Bibliography

Sir

T. Ab.

T. Mos.

T. 12 Patr.

Tob

Wis

385

Merkel, H. 1998. Sibyllinen. JSHRZ 5.8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Sauer, G. 1981. Jesus Sirach. JSHRZ 3.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Vattioni, F. 1968. Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Naples: Istituto Orientale de Napoli. Janssen, E. 1980. Testament Abrahams. Pages 193–256 in JSHRZ 3.2. 2 ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Schmidt, F. 1986. Pages 46–109 in Le Testament grec d’Abraham. Introduction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction. TSAJ 11. Tübingen: Mohr. Stone, M. E. 1972. The Testament of Abraham. The Greek Recen­ sions. SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 2. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature. Brandenburger, E. 1976. Die Himmelfahrt Moses. Pages 57– 84 in JSHRZ 5.2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Tromp, J. 1993. Pages 1–25 in The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary. SVTP 10. Leiden: Brill. Becker, J. 1974. Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. JSHRZ 3.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Charles, R. H. 1908. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Oxford: Clarendon. Jonge, M. de. 1978. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. PVTG 1.2. Leiden: Brill. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Ego, B. 1999. Buch Tobit. JSHRZ 2.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. See Editions of the Bible: Septuaginta. Georgi, D. 1980. Weisheit Salomos. JSHRZ 3.4. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn.

Philo of Alexandria Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt. 1896–1930. Edited by L. Cohn and P. Wendland. 7 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. Philo Alexandrinus. Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung. 1964 [vols. 1– 6]–1969 [vol. 7]. Edited by L. Cohn, I. Heinemann, M. Adler, and W. Theiler. 7 vols. 2 ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Philo. 1929–1962. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

386

Bibliography

Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus. De Bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch. 1959–1969. Edited with introduction and notes by O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. 2000–. Edited by S. Mason. Leiden: Brill. Vol. 3: Judean Antiquities 1– 4. 2000. Translation and commentary by L. H. Feldman. Vol. 4: Judean Antiquities 5–7. 2005. Translation and commentary by C. Begg. Vol. 5: Judean Antiquities 8–10. 2005. Translation and commentary by C. Begg. Vol. 9: Life of Josephus. 2001. Translation and commentary by S. Mason. Josephus. 1926–1965. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, L. H. Feldman, R. Marcus, and A. Wikgren et al. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. 1994—. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Vol. 1: Rule of the Community and Related Documents. 1994. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. 1995. Vol. 3: Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents. 2006. Vol. 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non­Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. 1997. Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 1999. Vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. 2002. García Martínez, F. 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. Leiden: Brill. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. 1997/1998. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch. 1986. Edited by E. Lohse. 4 ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Maier, J. 1995. Die Qumran­Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer. 2 vols. Munich: Reinhardt. Die Texte aus Qumran II. Hebräisch/Aramäisch und Deutsch. 2001. Edited by A. Steudel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mishnah, Talmud, Tosefta Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung. 1912—. Edited by G. Beer and O. Holtzmann. Later edited by K. H. Rengstorf and S. Herrmann. Gießen: A. Töpelmann. Berakot (Gebete). Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang. 1912. Edited by O. Holtzmann.

Bibliography

387

Sanhedrin (Hoher Rat)—Makkot (Prügelstrafe). Text, Übersetzung und ausführli­ che Erklärung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang. 1933. Edited by S. Krauss. Abot (Väter). Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung. Nebst einem textkri­ tischen Anhang. 1927. Edited by K. Marti and G. Beer. Die Tosefta, Seder II: Moëd, 3: Sukka—Jom tob—Rosch ha­ Schana. 1993. Translated with notes by H. Bornhäuser and G. Mayer. Rabbinische Texte Erste Reihe. Vol. 2.3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. The Soncino Talmud. Seder Mo‘ed. Shabbath. 1938. Translated into English with notes, glossary, and indices by H. Freedman. Edited by I. Epstein. London: Soncino Press. Der Babylonische Talmud. Nach der ersten zensurfreien Ausgabe unter Berücksich­ tigung der neueren Ausgaben und handschriftlichen Materials. 1996. Edited and newly translated by L. Goldschmidt. 12 vols. 4 ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. The Tosefta. Translated from the Hebrew. 1977–1986. Edited and translated by J. Neusner. 6 vols. New York: Ktav.

Midrash Midrasch Tanḥuma B: R. Tanḥuma über die Tora, genannt Midrasch Jelammedenu. 1980–1982. Edited by H. Bietenhard. 2 vols. Judaica et Christiana 5– 6. Bern: Lang. The Midrash on Psalms (Midrash Tehillim). 1976. Translated by W. G. Braude. 3 ed. Vol. 1. Yale Judaica Series 103. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pesikta Rabbati, Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. 1968. Translated by W. G. Braude. 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series 18. New Haven: Yale University Press. Midrash Rabbah. Leviticus. 1951. Edited by H. Freedman and M. Simon. Translated by Rev. J. Israelstam and J. J. Slotki. Vol. 4. London: Soncino Press. Mekilta de­Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. 1976 [1933]. Translated by J. Z. Lauterbach. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Sifra. Halachischer Midrasch zu Leviticus. 1938. Translated by J. Winter. Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums 42. Breslau: Münz. Mechilta. Ein tannaitischer Midrasch zu Exodus. 1990 [1909]. Translated and with notes by J. Winter and A. Wünsche. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms. Bibliotheca Rabbinica. Eine Sammlung alter Midraschim. 1967 [1880– 85]. Translated by A. Wünsche. 5 vols. Leipzig: Otto Schulze. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms.

Targum Chilton, B. D. 1987. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier.

388

Bibliography

Diez Macho, A. 1968–1979. Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Bibliotheca Vaticana. 6 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Grossfeld, B. 1988. The Targum Onqelos to Exodus, Translated, with Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 7. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier. McNamara, M., and M. Maher. 1994. Targum  Neofiti  1:  Exodus,  Translated,  with  Introduction and Apparatus, Targum Pseudo­Jonathan: Exodus, Translated, with Notes. The Aramaic Bible 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. Sperber, A. 1959. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Vol. I: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill.

Christian and Gnostic Texts Q Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe. Griechisch und Deutsch. 2002. Edited by P. Hoffmann and C. Heil. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fragmenta Q. Textheft zur Logienquelle. 1982. Edited by A. Polag. 2 rev. ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. The Critical Edition of Q. Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. 2000. Edited by J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Apostolic Fathers Die Apostolischen Väter. 1986. Edited and translated with introduction and notes by J. A. Fischer. 9 ed. Schriften des Urchristentums 1. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas. 1998. Edited and translated with introduction and notes by U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch. Schriften des Urchristentums 3. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet. 1984. Edited and translated with introduction and notes by K. Wengst. Schriften des Urchristentums 2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. 1990. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. 2 vols. 6 ed. Tübingen: Mohr. Busch, P. 2006. Das Testament Salomos. Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kom­ mentiert und in deutscher Erstübersetzung. TUGAL 153. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Classical Authors Cassius Dio. Dio’s Roman History. 1914–1927. Translated by E. Cary. 9 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann.

Bibliography

389

Dio Chrysostom. Discourses, Fragments, Letters. 1949–1951. Translated by J. W. Cohoon. 5 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ———. Sämtliche Reden. 1967. Translated with an introduction and notes by W. Elliger. Zürich: Artemis Verlag. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. 1933–1967. With an English translation by C. H. Oldfather, C. L. Sherman, C. B. Welles, R. M. Geer, and F. R. Walton. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 1925. Translated by R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The Roman Antiquities. 1937–1950. Translated by E. Cary on the basis of the version of Edward Spelman. 7 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann. Epictetus, Teles, Musonius. Ausgewählte Schriften, Griechisch­Deutsch. 1994. Edited and translated by R. Nickel. Sammlung Tusculum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Herodotus. Historien, Griechisch­ deutsch. 2001. Edited by J. Feix. 2 vols. 6 ed. Sammlung Tusculum. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler. Homer. Ilias: Griechisch und deutsch; mit Urtext, Anhang und Registern. 2001. Translated by H. Rupé. 11 ed. Sammlung Tusculum. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler. ———. Odyssee: Griechisch und deutsch; mit Urtext, Anhang und Registern. 2000. Translated by A. Weiher, with introduction by A. Heubeck. 11 ed. Sammlung Tusculum. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler. Juvenal. Satiren: Lateinisch—deutsch. 1993. Edited and translated with notes by J. Adamietz. Sammlung Tusculum. Munich: Artemis & Winkler. Lucian. 1913–1967. Translated by A. M. Harmon, K. Kilburn, and M. D. Macleod. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pindar. Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. 1997. Edited and translated by W. H. Race. LCL 56. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Plato. Werke in acht Bänden, Griechisch und Deutsch. 1990. Edited by G. Eigler. Special edition. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias. 1967. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Vol. 3. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus. Briefe/Epistularum Libri Decem, Lateinisch­ deutsch. 1995. Edited by H. Kasten. 7 rev. ed. Sammlung Tusculum. Zürich: Artemis & Winkler. C. Plinius Secundus the Elder. Naturkunde: Lateinisch­ deutsch. 1973–1994. Edited by R. König and G. Winkler. Translated by R. König. 37 vols. Sammlung Tusculum. Munich: Heimeran. Sophocles. Dramen, Griechisch und deutsch. 1995. Edited and translated by W. Willige. Revised by K. Bayer. With notes and afterword by B. Zimmermann. 3 ed. Sammlung Tusculum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. C. Suetonius Tranquillus. Die Kaiserviten/De vita caesarum—Berühmte Männer/ De viris illustribus, Lateinisch­ deutsch. 1997. Edited and translated by H. Martinet. Sammlung Tusculum. Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler.

390

Bibliography

Xenophon. Symposium. 1998. Edited and translated with an introduction and commentary by A. J. Bowen. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Papyri and Epigraphica CPR

OGIS

P.Köln

P.Oxy. P.Petr.

Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, Band XV. Griechische Texte XI. Papiri Greci di Socnopaiu nesos e dell’ Arsinoites. 1990. Edited by G. Messeri Savorelli. Vienna: Hollinek. Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Supplementum sylloges inscriptionum graecarum. 1903–1905. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig: Hirzel. Kölner Papyri (P.Köln). 1987. Revised by M. Gronewald et al. Abhandlungen der Rheinisch—WestfälischenA kademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. 6. Papyrologica Coloniensia 7. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 1898—. Edited with translations and notes by B. P. Grenfell et al. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Flinders Petrie Papyri. 1905. With transcriptions, commentaries, and index by J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly. Vol. 3. Cunningham Memoirs 11. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

Reference Works Dictionaries and Lexicons Bauer, W. 1988. Griechisch­ deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Tes­ taments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Edited by K. Aland and B. Aland. 6 rev. ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. 1999. Greek­English Lexi­ con of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3 ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Balz, H., and G. Schneider, eds. 1990. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by V. P. Howard, J. W. Thompson, J. W. Medendorp, and D. W. Stott. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1992. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. 2 ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. 1961. A Greek­English Lexicon. Revised and augmented by H. St. Jones. 5 repr. of 9 ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. 1992/1996. A Greek­English Lexicon of the Sep­ tuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. 1990 [1933–79]. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Study ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1964–1976. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

391

Concordances Denis, A.-M. 1987. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testa­ ment. Concordance, corpus des textes, indices. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste. ———. 1993. Concordance latine des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Cor­ dance, corpus des textes, indices. Corpus Christianorum. Thesaurus Patrum Latinorum. Supplementum. Turnhout: Brepols. Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath. 1975 [1897–1906]. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. with suppl. repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum Graece von Nestle- Aland, 26. Aufl. und zum  Greek New Testament. 1987. 3 ed. Edited by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung und vom Rechenzentrum der Universität Münster. Berlin: de Gruyter. Leisegang, J. 1926–1930. Indices ad Philonis Alexandrini Opera. (Philonis Alexan­ drini Opera quae supersunt 7, edited by L. Cohn and P. Wendland.) 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter. Mayer, G. 1974. Index Philoneus. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rengstorf, K. H. 1973–1983. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Grammar Studies Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. 1984. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised by F. Rehkopf. 16 rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. 1961. A Greek Grammar of the New Testa­ ment and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bornemann, E., and E. Risch. 1978. Griechische Grammatik. 2 ed. Frankfurt a.M.: Diesterweg.

Secondary Literature Aarde, A. van. 1994. God­With­Us: The Dominant Perspective in Matthew’s Story and Other Essays. HvTStSup 5. Pretoria: Hervormde Teologiese Studies. ———. 1999. “Matthew 27:45–53 as the Turning of the Tide in Israel’s History.” HvTSt 55: 671–92. ———. 2007. “Jesus’ Mission to All of Israel Emplotted in Matthew’s Story.” Neot 41: 416–36. Abegg, M. G., and C. A. Evans. 1998. “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 191–203 in Qumran­Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Abrahams, I. 1967 [1917/1924]. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. 2 vols. Repr. New York: Ktav.

392

Bibliography

Albertz, R. 1987. “Israel I. Altes Testament.” Pages 369–79 in TRE 16. Albl, M. C. 1999. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill. Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. 1971. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 26. New York: Doubleday. Allen, W. C. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. 3 ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Allison, D. C. 1983. “Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy.” JSNT 18: 75–84. ———. 1989. “Who Will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11–12–Luke 13.28–29.” IBS 11: 158–70. ———. 2011. “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27.” Pages 153– 81 in Life beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? Edited by W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden. Biblical Tools and Studies 13. Leuven: Peeters. Anderson, J. C. 1994. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSNTSup 91. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Angel, A. R. 2011. “Crucifixus Vincens: The ‘Son of God’ as Divine Warrior in Matthew.” CBQ 73: 299–317. Anno, Y. 1984. “The Mission to Israel in Matthew: The Intention of Matthew 10:5b– 6 Considered in the Light of the Religio-Political Background.” PhD diss., Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago. Arnal, W. 1995. “Redactional Fabrication and Group Legitimation: The Baptist’s Preaching in Q 3:7–9, 16–17.” Pages 165– 80 in Conflict and Invention: Literary,  Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by J. S. Kloppenborg. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity International. Atkinson, K. 1999. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118: 435– 60. Aurelius, E. 2001. “Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas— Matthäus.” NTS 47: 428– 41. Backhaus, K. 1995. “Kirchenkrise und Auferstehungschristologie. Zum ekklesiologischen Ansatz des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 127–39 in Surrexit Dominus vere: Die Gegenwart des Auferstandenen in seiner Kirche. Edited by J. Ernst and St. Leimgruber. Paderborn: Bonifatius. ———. 1996. “Gottes nicht bereuter Bund. Alter und neuer Bund in der Sicht des Frühchristentums.” Pages 33–55 in Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments. Edited by R. Kampling and T. Söding. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 2004. “Entgrenzte Himmelsherrschaft. Zur Entdeckung der paganen Welt im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 75–103 in “Dies ist das Buch . . .” Das Mat­ thäusevangelium. Interpretation—Rezeption—Rezeptionsgeschichte. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Bonifatius. Bacon, B. W. 1930. Studies in Matthew. New York: Holt. ———. 1980. “Die ‘Fünf Bücher’ des Matthäus gegen die Juden.” Pages 41–51 in Das Matthäus­Evangelium. Edited by J. Lange. Wege der Forschung 525. Darmstadt:

Bibliography

393

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Translation of “The ‘Five Books’ of Matthew Against the Jews.” The Expositor 15 (1918): 56– 66. Balabanski, V. 2008. “Mission in Matthew against the Horizon of Matthew 24.” NTS 54: 161–75. Bammel, E. 1961. “Matthäus 10,23.” ST 15: 79–92. Banks, R. 1975. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barta, K. A. 1988. “Mission in Matthew: The Second Discourse as Narrative.” Pages 527–35 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1988. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Barth, G. 1975 [1960]. “Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus.” Pages 54–154 in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. 7 ed. WMANT 1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 2002. Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit. 2 ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Bartnicki, R. 1987. “Der Bereich der Tätigkeit der Jünger nach Mt 10,5b– 6.” BZ Neue Folge 31: 250–56. ———. 1988. “Die Jünger Jesu in Mt 9,35–11,1.” ColT 58: 39–56. Bauckham, R. 1995. “Tamar’s Ancestry and Rahab’s Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy.” NovT 37: 313–29. ———. 1996. “The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1–14) and the Parable of the Lame Man and the Blind Man (Apocryphon of Ezekiel).” JBL 115: 471–88. Bauer, D. R. 1988. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond Press. ———. 1995. “The Kingship of Jesus in the Matthean Infancy Narrative: A Literary Analysis.” CBQ 57: 306–23. ———. 1996. “The Literary and Theological Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 129–59 in Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies. Edited by D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell. SBLSymS 1. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Baumbach, G. 1963. Das Verständnis des Bösen in den synoptischen Evangelien. Theologische Arbeiten 19. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. ———. 1967. “Die Mission im Matthäus-Evangelium.” TLZ 92: 889–93. Baumgarten, J. M. 1989. “4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord’s Vineyard.” JJS 40: 1– 6. Baxter, W. 2006. “Healing and the ‘Son of David’: Matthew’s Warrant.” NovT 48: 36– 49. ———. 2012. Israel’s Only Shepherd. Matthew’s Shepherd Motif and His Social Set­ ting. Library of New Testament Studies 457. London: T&T Clark. Beare, F. W. 1970. “The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels.” JBL 89: 1–13. ———. 1981. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Commentary. Oxford: Blackwell.

394

Bibliography

Beaton, R. 1999. “Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew’s Use of Isaiah 42.1–4?” JSNT 75: 5–23. ———. 2002. Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel. SNTSMS 123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beauchamp, P. 1988. “L’Évangile de Matthieu et l’héritage d’Israël.” RSR 76: 5–38. Becker, H.-J. 1990. Auf der Kathedra des Mose. Rabbinisch­theologisches Denken und antirabbinische Polemik in Matthäus 23,1–12. ANTZ 4. Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum. ———. 1998. “Die Zerstörung Jerusalems bei Matthäus und den Rabbinen.” NTS 44: 59–73. Becker, J. 1970. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen. AGJU 8. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1996. Jesus von Nazaret. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2006. “Die Gemeinde als Tempel Gottes und die Tora.” Pages 9–25 in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament. Edited by D. Sänger and M. Konradt. NTOA/SUNT 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Becker, M. 1997. “4Q521 und die Gesalbten.” RevQ 18: 73–96. Bedenbender, A. 2000. “ ‘Sein Blut komme über uns. . . .’ Überlegungen zum Passionstext Matthäus 27,1–26.” Texte und Kontexte 23: 32– 48. Benoit, P. 1965. “Der Tod des Judas.” Pages 167–81 in Exegese und Theologie. Gesam­ melte Aufsätze. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. Berg, W. 1979. Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher Motive im Neuen Testament— dargestellt an den Seewandelerzählungen. Hochschulsammlung Theologie. Exegese 1. Freiburg i.Br.: Hochschulverlag. Berger, K. 1972. “Ehescheidung und Ehebruch.” Pages 508–75 in Die Gesetzesausle­ gung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament, Teil 1: Markus und Parallelen. WMANT 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1973/1974. “Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments.” NTS 20: 1– 44. ———. 1976. “Volksversammlung und Gemeinde Gottes. Zu den Anfängen der christlichen Verwendung von ‘ekklesia.’ ” ZTK 73: 167–207. ———. 1989. “Kirche I/II. Altes Testament und Frühjudentum/Neues Testament.” Pages 198–218 in TRE 18. ———. 1993a. Manna, Mehl und Sauerteig. Korn und Brot im Alltag der frühen Christen. Stuttgart: Quell. ———. 1993b. Qumran und Jesus. Wahrheit unter Verschluß? Stuttgart: Quell. ———. 1994. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. Tübingen: Francke. Bergmeier, R. 1995. “Beobachtungen zu 4 Q 521 f 2, II, 1–13.” ZDMG 145: 38– 48. Betz, H. D. 1967. “The Logion of the Easy Yoke and of Rest (Matt 11.28–30).” JBL 86: 10–24. ———. 1991. “The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation.” Pages 258– 75 in The Future of Early Christianity. Edited by B. A. Pearson. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Bibliography

395

Beyer, K. 1968 [1962]. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. SUNT 1. 2 rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bindemann, W. 1985. “Das Mahl des Königs. Gründe und Hintergründe der Redaktion von Mt 22,1–14.” Theologische Versuche 15: 21–29. Bird, M. F. 2006. “Who Comes from the East and the West? Luke 13.28–29/Matt 8.11–12 and the Historical Jesus.” NTS 52: 441–57. Blank, S. H. 1937/1938. “The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature.” HUCA 12–13: 327– 46. Blanton, T. R. 2013. “Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus’ Teaching on the Torah.” JBL 132: 393– 413. Blenkinsopp, J. 2003. Isaiah 56– 66: A New Translation with Introduction and Com­ mentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday. Boerman, D. 2005. “The Chiastic Structure of Matthew 11–12.” CTJ 40: 313–25. Bonnard, P. 1963. L’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu. CNT 1. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé. Boring, M. E. 1989. “A Proposed Reconstruction of Q 13:28–29.” Pages 1–22 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1989. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Bornkamm, G. 1968. “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe.” Pages 37– 45 in Geschichte und Glaube. Erster Teil. Vol. 3 of Gesammelte Aufsätze. BEvT 48. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1975a [1960]. “Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 13– 47 in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. 7 ed. WMANT 1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1975b [1960]. “Die Sturmstillung im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 48–53 in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. 7 ed. WMANT 1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1975c [1960]. “Der Auferstandene und der Irdische. Mt. 28,16–20.” Pages 289–310 in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. 7 ed. WMANT 1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Böttrich, C. 1997. “Jesus und der Feigenbaum. Mk 11:12–14,20–25 in der Diskussion.” NovT 39: 328–59. ———. 2001. Petrus. Fischer, Fels und Funktionär. Biblische Gestalten 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Brandenburger, S. H. 1998. “Der ‘Gesalbte des Herrn’ In Psalm Salomo 17.” Pages 217–36 in Wenn drei das Gleiche sagen: Studien zu den ersten drei Evangelien. Edited by St. H. Brandenburger and Th. Hiecke. Collection Theologie 14. Münster: Lit. Brandon, S. G. F. 1951. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Brandscheidt, R. 1990. “Messias und Tempel. Die alttestamentlichen Zitate in Mt 21,1–17.” TTZ 99: 36– 48.

396

Bibliography

Briscoe, P. 1989. “Faith Confirmed through Conflict—The Matthean Redaction of Mark 2:1–3:6.” Pages 104–28 in Back to the Sources: Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Dermot Ryan. Edited by K. J. Cathcart and J. F. Healey. Dublin: Glendale Press. Broer, I. 1975. “Das Ringen der Gemeinde um Israel. Exegetischer Versuch über Mt 19,28.” Pages 148– 65 in Jesus und der Menschensohn. Edited by R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1980. Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthäus. SBS 98. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1986. “Anmerkungen zum Gesetzesverständnis des Matthäus.” Pages 128– 45 in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 108. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1988a. “Bemerkungen zur Redaktion der Passionsgeschichte durch Matthäus.” Pages 25– 46 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Schenke. SBS. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1988b. “Der Prozeß gegen Jesus nach Matthäus.” Pages 84–110 in Der Prozeß gegen Jesus. Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1991. “Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Versuch einer Annäherung anhand von zwei Texten (1 Thess 2,14–16 und Mt 27,24f).” Pages 321–55 in Salz der Erde—Licht der Welt. Exegetische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1992. “Versuch zur Christologie des ersten Evangeliums.” Pages 1251– 82 in vol. 2 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1995. Das Verhältnis von Judentum und Christentum im Matthäus­ Evangelium. Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1994. Münster: Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum. Brooke, G. J. 1995. “4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Vineyard.” DSD 2: 268–94. Brooks, O. S. 1981. “Matthew XXVIII 16–20 and the Design of the First Gospel.” JSNT 10: 2–18. Brooks, S. H. 1987. Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material. JSNTSup 16. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Brown, R. E. 1993. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New updated ed. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1994. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commen­ tary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. Brown, S. 1977. “The Two-Fold Representation of the Mission in Matthew’s Gospel.” ST 31: 21–32. ———. 1978. “The Mission to Israel in Matthew’s Central Section (Mt 9:35–11:1).” ZNW 69: 73–90.

Bibliography

397

———. 1980. “The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission.” NovT 22: 193–221. ———. 1989. “Universalism and Particularism in Matthew’s Gospel: A Jungian Approach.” Pages 388–99 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1989. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Bruce, F. F. 1961. “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative.” BJRL 43: 336–53. Bruner, F. D. 2004. Matthew: A Commentary. 2 vols. Revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Buck, E. 1986. “Anti-Judaic Sentiments in the Passion Narrative According to Matthew.” Pages 165–80 in Anti­Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 1 of Paul and the Gospels. Edited by P. Richardson. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Bultmann, R. 1995. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. With an afterword by Gerd Theißen. FRLANT 29. 10 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Burchard, C. 1973. “Jesu Taten nach Matthäus 8 und 9.” ZTK 70: 272– 87. ———. 1998a. “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frühen christlichen Überlieferung.” Pages 39– 62 in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Edited by E. Lohse, C. Burchard, and B. Schaller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Repr. pages 3–26 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testa­ ments. Edited by D. Sänger. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———.  1998b.  “Versuch,  das  Thema  der  Bergpredigt  zu  finden.”  Pages  409– 32  in  Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr, 1975. Repr. pages 27–50 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Edited by D. Sänger. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 1998c. “Senfkorn, Sauerteig, Schatz und Perle in Matthäus 13.” SNTSU Series A 13 (1988): 5–35. Repr. pages 77–107 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Edited by D. Sänger. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 1998d. “Zu Matthäus 8,5–13.” ZNW 84 (1993): 278– 88. Repr. pages 65–76 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Edited by D. Sänger. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Burger, C. 1970. Jesus als Davidssohn. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1973. “Jesu Taten nach Matthäus 8 und 9.” ZTK 70: 272– 87. Burnett, F. W. 1983. “Παλιγγενεσία in Matt. 19:28: A Window on the Matthean Community?” JSNT 17: 60–72. Byrne, B. 2002. “The Messiah in Whose Name ‘the Gentiles Will Hope’ (Matt 12:21): Gentile Inclusion as an Essential Element of Matthew’s Christology.” ABR 50: 55–73. Cameron, P. S. 1984. Violence and the Kingdom: The Interpretation of Mt 11:12. ANTJ 5. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. Camponovo, O. 1984. Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjü­ dischen Schriften. OBO 58. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Caragounis, C. C. 1990. Peter and the Rock. BZNW 58. Berlin: de Gruyter.

398

Bibliography

Cargal, T. B. 1991. “ ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’: A Matthean Double Entendre?” NTS 37: 101–12. Carlston, C. E. 1992. “Christology and Church in Matthew.” Pages 1283–304 in vol. 2 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Carson, D. A. 1982. “The Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal.” JETS 25: 161–74. Carter, W. 1992. “Kernels and Narrative Blocks: The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 54: 463–81. ———. 1993. “The Crowds in Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 55: 54– 67. ———. 1996. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. ———. 2000. “Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15–16.” JBL 119: 503–20. ———. 2003/2004. “Matthew and the Gentiles: Individual Conversion and/or Systemic Transformation?” JSNT 26: 259–82. ———. 2004. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio­ Political and Religious Read­ ing. JSNTSup 204. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Repr. London: T&T  Clark. ———. 2005. “Matthean Christology in Roman Imperial Key: Matthew 1.1.” Pages 143– 65 in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. Edited by J. Riches and D. C. Sim. JSNTSup 276/ECC. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2007. “Matthew’s Gospel: Jewish Christianity, Christian Judaism, or Neither?” Pages 155–79 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by M. Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress. Carter, W., and J. P. Heil. 1998. Matthew’s Parables: Audience­ Oriented Perspec­ tives. CBQMS 30. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Catchpole, D. R. 1970/1971. “The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. XXVI. 64).” NTS 17: 213–26. ———. 1992. “The Centurion’s Faith and Its Function in Q.” Pages 517– 40 in vol. 1 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Chae, Y. S. 2006. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT Second Series 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Chancey, M. A. 2002. The Myth of Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charette, B. 1990. “A Harvest for the People? An Interpretation of Matthew 9.37f.” JSNT 38: 29–35. Charles, J. D. 2002. “Garnishing with the ‘Greater Righteousness’: The Disciple’s Relationship to the Law (Matthew 5:17–20).” BBR 12: 1–15. Charlesworth, J. H. 1992. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1996. “Solomon and Jesus: The Son of David in the Ante-Markan Traditions

Bibliography

399

(Mk 10:47).” Pages 125–51 in Biblical and Humane. Edited by L. B. Elder, D. L. Barr, and E. S. Malbon. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1999. “Messianology in Biblical Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 21–52 in Qumran­ Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Chester, A. 1991. “Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures and Pauline Christology.” Pages 17– 89 in Paulus und das antike Judentum. Edited by M. Hengel and U. Heckel. WUNT 58. Tübingen: Mohr. Chilton, B. D. 1979. God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTSU Series B 1. Linz: Plöchl. ———. 1982. “Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage.” JSNT 14: 88–112. Citron, B. 1954. “The Multitude in the Synoptic Gospels.” SJT 7: 408–18. Clivaz, C., A. Dettwiler, L. Devillers, and E. Norelli, eds. 2011. Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities. WUNT 281. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Clark, K. W. 1947. “The Gentile Bias in Matthew.” JBL 66: 165–72. Coenen, L. 2000. “ἐκκλησία.” Pages 1136–150 in vol. 2 of Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament. Edited by L. Coenen. 2 vols. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. Collins, J. J. 1994. “The Works of the Messiah.” DSD 1: 98–112. ———. 1995. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1997. “A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1–3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 225– 40 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Stud­ ies in Biblical Intertextuality. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1998. “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 100–119 in Qumran­Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Comber, J. A. 1977. “The Composition and Literary Characteristics of Matt 11:20– 24.” CBQ 39: 497–504. ———. 1978. “The Verb Therapeuō in Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 97: 431–34. Cook, M.-J. 1983. “Interpreting ‘Pro-Jewish’ Passages in Matthew.” HUCA 54: 135– 46. Cope, O. L. 1976. Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven. CBQMS 5. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Cousland, J. R. C. 1999. “The Feeding of the Four Thousand Gentiles in Matthew? Matthew 15:29–39 as a Test Case.” NovT 41: 1–23. ———. 2002. The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 102. Leiden: Brill. Crowe, B. D. 2012. The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew. BZNW 188. Berlin: de Gruyter. Crüsemann, F. 1994. “ ‘Ihnen gehören . . . die Bundesschlüsse’ (Röm 9,4). Die alttestamentliche Bundestheologie und der christlich-jüdische Dialog.” Kirche und Israel 9: 21–38.

400

Bibliography

Culbertson, P. 1988. “Reclaiming the Matthean Vineyard Parables.” Encounter: Creative Theological Scholarship 49: 257–83. Cuvillier, É. 1997. “Particularisme et universalisme chez Matthieu: quelques hypothèses à l’épreuve du texte.” Bib 78: 481–502. ———. 2011. “La construction narrative de la mission dans le premier évangile: Un déplacement théologique et identitaire.” Pages 159–75 in The Gospel of Mat­ thew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Dahl, N. A. 1955/1956. “Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthäus.” NTS 2: 17–32. Dauer, A. 1984. Johannes und Lukas: Untersuchungen zu den johanneisch­lukanischen Parallelperikopen Joh 4,46–54/Lk 7,1–10—Joh 12,1– 8/Lk 7,36–50; 10,38– 42—Joh 20,19–29/Lk 24,36– 49. Forschungen zur Bibel 50. Würzburg: Echter. Davies, W. D. 1989. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Brown Judaic Studies 186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Repr. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1992. “The Jewish Sources of Matthew’s Messianism.” Pages 494–511 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress. Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison. 1988–1997. The Gospel According to Saint Mat­ thew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Davis, C. T. 1973. “The Fulfillment of Creation. A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy.”  JAAR 41: 520–35. Deines, R. 2003. “Josephus, Salomo und die von Gott verliehene τέχνη gegen die Dämonen.” Pages 365–94 in Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch­ jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. D. Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2005. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. Mt 5,13–20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. WUNT 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dermience, A. 1982. “La péricope de la Cananéenne (Mt 15,21–28). Rédaction et Théologie.” ETL 58: 25– 49. Derrett, J. D. M. 1984. “Palingenesia (Matthew 19.28).” JSNT 20: 51–58. Deutsch, C. 1987. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Disciple­ ship in Matthew 11.25–30. JSNTSup 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Dietzfelbinger, C. 1979. “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im Verständnis des Matthäus.” ZNW 70: 1–15. ———. 2001. Johannes 1–12. Vol. 1 of Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. ZBK NT 4. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Dillon, R. J. 1966. “Towards a Tradition-History of the Parables of the True Israel (Matthew 21,33–22,14).” Bib 47: 1– 42. Dobbeler, A. von. 2000. “Die Restitution Israels und die Bekehrung der Heiden. Das Verhältnis von Mt 10,5b.6 und Mt 28,18–20 unter dem Aspekt der Komplementarität. Erwägungen zum Standort des Matthäusevangeliums.” ZNW 91: 18– 44. Dobbeler, S. von. 2001. “Auf der Grenze. Ethos und Identität der matthäischen Gemeinde nach Mt 15,1–20.” BZ Neue Folge 45: 55–78.

Bibliography

401

———. 2002. “Die Versammlung ‘auf meinen Namen hin’ (Mt 18:20) als Identitätsund Differenzkriterium.” NovT 44: 209–30. Dobschütz, E. von. 1928. “Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet.” ZNW 27: 338– 48. Doering, L. 1997. “The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 179– 205 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange. TSAJ 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 1999. Schabbat. Sabbathalacha und ­praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum. TSAJ 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Donaldson, T. L. 1985. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Donner, H. 1985. “Jesaja LVI.1–7: Ein Abrogationsfall innerhalb des Kanons— Implikationen und Konsequenzen.” Pages 81–95 in Congress Volume: Sala­ manca 1983. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill. Döpp, H.-M. 1998. Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems und des Zweiten Tempels im Jahre 70 in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten n.Chr. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 24. Tübingen: Francke. Dormeyer, D. 1992. “Mt 1,1 als Überschrift zur Gattung und Christologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums.” Pages 1361– 83 in vol. 1 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2004. “Die Rollen von Volk, Jüngern und Gegnern im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 105–28 in “Dies ist das Buch. . . .” Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation—Rezeption—Rezeptionsgeschichte. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Schöningh. Douglas, R. C. 1981. “On the Way Out: Matthew’s Anti-Pharisaic Polemic.” Studia biblica et theologica 11: 151–76. Drury, J. 1985. The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory. New York: Crossroad. Dschulnigg, P. 1988. Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament. Die Gleich­ nisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testa­ ment. Judaica et Christiana 12. Bern: P. Lang. ———. 2007. “Israel. Kennt das Matthäusevangelium eine abschließende Heilsverheißung für Israel?” Pages 212–15 in Fragmentarisches Wörterbuch. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und christlichen Theologie. Edited by K. Schiffner, K. Wengst, and W. Zager. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Duling, D. C. 1975. “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David.” HTR 68: 235–52. ———. 1978. “The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic.” NTS 24: 392– 410. ———. 1992a. “Matthew’s Plurisignificant ‘Son of David’ in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic and Miracle.” BTB 22: 99–116. ———. 1992b. “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period.” Pages 177–211 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. WUNT 66. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2005. “Ethnicity, Ethnocentrism, and the Matthean Ethnos.” BTB 35: 125– 43.

402

Bibliography

Dunn, J. D. G. 1989. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2 ed. London: SCM Press. ———. 1991. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press. ———. 1992. “The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period.” Pages 177–211 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. WUNT 66. Tübingen: Mohr. Dunn, J. D. G., ed. 1992. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. WUNT 66. Tübingen: Mohr. Dupont, J. 1960. “Le paralytique pardonné (Mt 9, 1–8).” NRTh 82: 940–58. ———. 1967. “ ‘Beaucoup viendront du levant et du couchant . . .’ (Matthieu 8,11–12; Luc 13,28–29).” ScEccl 19: 153– 67. Ebach, J. 2000. Josef  und  Josef.  Literarische  und  hermeneutische  Reflexionen  zu  Verbindungen zwischen Genesis 37–50 und Matthäus 1–2. BWANT 187. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Ebersohn, M. 1993. Das Nächstenliebegebot in der synoptischen Tradition. Marburger theologische Studien 37. Marburg: Elwert. Eckstein, H.-J. 1997. “Die Weisung Jesu Christi und die Tora des Mose nach dem Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 379– 403 in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by C. Landmesser, H.-J. Eckstein, and H. Lichtenberger. BZNW 86. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2001. “Die ‘bessere Gerechtigkeit.’ Zur Ethik Jesu nach dem Matthäusevangelium.” TBei 32: 299–316. Edwards, R. A. 1971. The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q. SBT Second Series 18. London: SCM Press. Elderen, B. van. 1974. “The Purpose of Parables According to Matthew 13:10–17.” Pages 180–90 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Elliott, J. H. 1966. The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Peter 2:4– 10 and the Phrase βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα. NovTSup 12. Leiden: Brill. Eloff, M. 2004. “Exile, Restoration and Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus ὁ Χριστός.” Neot 38: 75–87. ———. 2008. “Ἀπό . . . ἕως and Salvation History in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 85– 107 in Built upon the Rock. Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ennulat, A. 1994. Die “Minor Agreements.” Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems. WUNT Second Series 62. Tübingen: Mohr. Erlemann, K. 1988. Das Bild Gottes in den synoptischen Gleichnissen. BWANT 126. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1995. Naherwartung und Parusieverzögerung im Neuen Testament. Ein Beitrag zur Frage religiöser Zeiterfahrung. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 17. Tübingen: Francke. Evans, C. A. 1984. “On the Vineyard Parables of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12.” BZ Neue Folge 28: 82– 86.

Bibliography

403

———. 1989. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 1995. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. AGJU 25. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003. “How Septuagintal Is Isa. 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9?” NovT 55: 105–10. ———. 2012. Matthew. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ewherido, A. O. 2006. Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century C.E.: The Evidence from Matthew’s Chapter on Parables (Matthew 13:1–52). Studies in Biblical Literature 91. New York: P. Lang. Falcetta, A. 2003. “The Logion of Matthew 11:5– 6 par. From Qumran to Abgar.” RB 110: 222– 48. Fascher, E. 1964. “Jerusalems Untergang in der urchristlichen und altkirchlichen Überlieferung.” TLZ 89: 81–98. Feldmeier, R. 1994a. “Die Syrophönizierin (Mk 7,24–30)—Jesu ‘verlorenes’ Streitgespräch?” Pages 211–27 in Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden. Edited by R. Feldmeier and U. Heckel. WUNT 70. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1994b. “Heil im Unheil: Das Bild Gottes nach der Parabel von den bösen Winzern (Mk. 12,1–12 par).” TBei 25: 5–22. ———. 1998. “Verpflichtende Gnade. Die Bergpredigt im Kontext des ersten Evangeliums.” Pages 15–107 in “Salz der Erde.” Zugänge zur Bergpredigt. Edited by R. Feldmeier. Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2000. “Israel als Gegenüber des Judenchristentums. Das Beispiel des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 140– 46 in Israel als Gegenüber. Vom Alten Orient bis in die Gegenwart. Studien zur Geschichte eines wechselvollen Zusammenlebens. Edited by F. Siegert. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Feldtkeller, A. 1993. Identitätssuche des syrischen Urchristentums. Mission, Inkul­ turation und Pluralität im ältesten Heidenchristentum. NTOA 25. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Feneberg, R. 2009. Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi. Biogra­ phie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium. Herders Biblische Studien 58. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Fenton, J. C. 1966. The Gospel of St Matthew. 2 ed. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Feuillet, A. 1949/1950. “La synthèse eschatologique de Saint Matthieu (XXIV– XXV).” RB 56: 340– 64; 57: 62–91, 180–211. ———. 1961. “Les origines et la signification de Mt 10,23b. Contribution a l’étude du problème eschatologique.” CBQ 23: 182–98. Fiedler, P. 1991. “Die Passion des Christus.” Pages 299–319 in Salz der Erde—Licht der Welt. Exegetische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

404

Bibliography

———. 1994. “Das Matthäusevangelium und ‘die Pharisäer.’ ” Pages 199–218 in Nach den Anfängen fragen. Edited by C. Mayer, K. Müller, and G. Schmalenberg. Gießener Schriften zur Theologie und Religionspädagogik 8. Gießen: Selbstverlag des Fachsbereichs Evangelische Theologie und Katholische Theologie und deren Didaktik. ———. 2004. “Israel bleibt Israel. Überlegungen zum Kirchenverständnis des Matthäus.” Pages 49–73 in “Dies ist das Buch. . . .” Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation—Rezeption—Rezeptionsgeschichte. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Schöningh. ———. 2005. “ ‘Der Gottesknecht’: Israel (Jes 42,1– 4) und Jesus (Mt 12,18–21).” Pages 193–208 in Studien zur biblischen Grundlegung des christlich­jüdischen Verhältnisses. SBAB 35. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2006. Das Matthäusevangelium. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Fischel, H. A. 1946/1947. “Martyr and Prophet (A Study in Jewish Literature).” JQR 37: 265– 80, 363– 86. Fisher, L. R. 1968. “ ‘Can This Be the Son of David?’ ” Pages 82–97 in Jesus and the Historian. Edited by F. T. Trotter. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1965. “Anti-Semitism and the Cry of ‘All the People’ (Mt 27:25).” TS 26: 670–71. ———. 1985. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 28A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. ———. 2003. Tobit. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter. Flusser, D. 1987. “Zwei Beispiele antijüdischer Redaktion bei Matthäus.” Pages 78–96 in Jesusworte und ihre Überlieferung. Vol. 1 of Entdeckungen im Neuen Testa­ ment. Edited by M. Majer. 2 vols. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Ford, G. E. 1911/1912. “The Children’s Bread and the Dogs (Mt. xv. 21–28; Mk. vii. 24–30).” ExpTim 23: 329–30. Foster, P. 2001. “A Tale of Two Sons: But Which One Did the Far, Far Better Thing? A Study of Matt 21.28–32.” NTS 47: 26–37. ———. 2003. “Why Did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22:37.” JBL 122: 309–33. ———. 2004. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel. WUNT Second Series 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. France, R. T. 1977. “Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples.” Pages 252– 81 in New Testa­ ment Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. H. Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press. ———. 1985. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1989. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Exeter: Paternoster Press. ———. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2008. “Matthew and Jerusalem.” Pages 108–27 in Built upon the Rock. Stud­ ies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

405

Frankemölle, H. 1979a. “Evangelist und Gemeinde. Eine methodenkritische Besinnung (mit Beispielen aus dem Mattäusevangelium [sic]).” Bib 60: 153–90. ———. 1979b. “ ‘Pharisäismus’ in Judentum und Kirche. Zur Tradition und Redaktion in Matthäus 23.” Pages 123– 89 in Gottesverächter und Menschenfeinde? Juden zwischen Jesus und frühchristlicher Kirche. Edited by H. Goldstein. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1982. “Zur Theologie der Mission im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 93–129 in Mission im Neuen Testament. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 93. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1984 [1974]. Jahwe­Bund und Kirche Christi. Studien zur Form­ und Tradi­ tionsgeschichte des “Evangeliums” nach Matthäus. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge 10. 2 ed. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1992. “λαός.” Pages 837– 48 in EWNT 2. ———. 1994/1997. Matthäus. Kommentar. 2 vols. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1996a. “Die matthäische Kirche als Gemeinschaft des Glaubens. Prolegomena zu einer bundestheologischen Ekklesiologie.” Pages 85–132 in Ekklesi­ ologie des Neuen Testaments. Edited by R. Kampling and Th. Söding. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1996b. “Die Tora Gottes für Israel, die Jünger Jesu und die Völker. Zu einem Aspekt von Schrift und Tradition im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 85–118 in Schrift und Tradition. Edited by K. Backhaus and F. G. Untergaßmair. Paderborn: Schöningh. ———. 1998. “Der ‘ungekündigte Bund’ im Matthäusevangelium? oder: Von der Unverbrüchlichkeit der Treue Gottes im Matthäusevangelium zu Israel und zu den Völkern.” Pages 329– 63 in Jüdische Wurzeln christlicher Theologie. Studien zum biblischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Texte. BBB 116. Bodenheim: Philo. Also published as pages 171–210 in Der ungekündigte Bund? Antworten des Neuen Testaments. Edited by H. Frankemölle. QD 172. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1998. ———. 1999. “Antijudaismus im Matthäusevangelium? Reflexionen zu einer angemessenen Auslegung.” Pages 73–106 in “Nun steht aber diese Sache im Evange­ lium. . . .” Zur Frage nach den Anfängen des christlichen Antijudaismus. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Schöningh. ———. 2005. “Die Sendung der Jünger Jesu ‘zu allen Völkern’ (Mt 28,19).” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 8: 45–51. Frenschkowski, M. 1988. “Traum und Traumdeutung im Matthäusevangelium. Einige Beobachtungen.” JAC 41: 5– 47. Freyne, S. 1980. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (323B.C.E. to 135C.E.): A Study of Second Temple Judaism. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier. ———. 1985. “Vilifying the Other and Defining the Self: Matthew’s and John’s Anti-  Jewish Polemic in Focus.” Pages 117– 43 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press.

406

Bibliography

———. 1988. “Unterdrückung von Seiten der Juden: Das Matthäusevangelium als eine frühe christliche Antwort.” Concilium 24: 462– 67. Friedrich, G. 1983. “Die formale Struktur von Mt 28,18–20.” ZTK 80: 137– 83. Fuchs, A. 1971. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthäus und Lukas. Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkritik. AnBib 49. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Fuller, R. H. 1975. “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe. Ein Testfall für die Echtheitskriterien der Worte Jesu.” Pages 317–29 in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie. Edited by G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr. Füllkrug-Weitzel, C. 1986. “Die kanaanäische Frau und die Verheißung Israels, Mt. 15,21–28.” Texte und Kontexte 31/32: 40– 60. Gaechter, P. 1963. Das Matthäus­Evangelium. Ein Kommentar. Innsbruck: Tyrolia. Gagnon, R. A. J. 1994a. “Luke’s Motives for Redaction in the Account of the Double Delegation in Luke 7:1–10.” NovT 36: 122– 45. ———. 1994b. “The Shape of Matthew’s Q Text of the Centurion at Capernaum: Did it Mention Delegations?” NTS 40: 133– 42. Gale, A. M. 2005. Redefinig  Ancient  Borders:  The  Jewish  Scribal  Framework  of  Matthew’s Gospel. New York: T&T Clark. Garbe, G. 2005. Der Hirte Israels. Eine Untersuchung zur Israeltheologie des Mat­ thäusevangeliums. WMANT 106. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. García Martínez, F. 1993. “Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 8: 171–208. Garland, D. E. 1979. The Intention of Matthew 23. NovTSup 52. Leiden: Brill. Garleff, G. 2004. Urchristliche Identität in Matthäusevangelium, Didache und Jako­ busbrief. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 9. Münster: Lit. Gärtner, B. 1965. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament. SNTSMS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaston, L. 1970. No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jeru­ salem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1975. “The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles: The Setting of Matthew’s Christology.” Int 29: 24– 40. Gathercole, S. 2003. “The Justification of Wisdom (Matt 11.19b/Luke 7.35).” NTS 49: 476– 88. Geist, H. 1986. Menschensohn und Gemeinde. Eine redaktionskritische Untersu­ chung zur Menschensohnprädikation im Matthäusevangelium. Forschungen zur Bibel 57. Würzburg: Echter. Gemünden, P. von. 1993. Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Eine Bildfelduntersuchung. NTOA 18. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Gerhardsson, B. 1979. The Mighty Acts of Jesus According to Matthew. Scripta minora. K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 5 (1978–79). Lund: Gleerup. ———. 1981. “Confession and Denial before Men: Observations on Matt. 26:57–27:2.” JSNT 13: 46– 66. Gerlemann, G. 1984a. “ ‫ֹּדור‬.” Pages 443–45 in vol. 1 of THAT. Edited by E. Jenni. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser.

Bibliography

407

———. 1984b. “‫ ָֹּדם‬.” Pages 448–51 in vol. 1 of THAT. Edited by E. Jenni. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1984c. “‫יׂשראל‬.” Pages 782–85 in vol. 1 of THAT. Edited by E. Jenni. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser. Gewalt, D. 1986. “Die Heilung Blinder und Lahmer im Tempel (Matthäus 21,14).” DBAT 23: 156–73. Gibbs, J. A. 2000. Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Mat­ thew’s Gospel. Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia. Gibbs, J. M. 1963/1964. “Purpose and Pattern in Matthew’s Use of the Title ‘Son of David.’ ” NTS 10: 446– 64. Gielen, M. 1998. Der  Konflikt  Jesu  mit  den  religiösen  und  politischen  Autoritäten  seines Volkes im Spiegel der matthäischen Jesusgeschichte. BBB 115. Bodenheim: Philo. ———. 2008. Die Passionserzählung in den vier Evangelien. Literarische Gestaltung—theologische Schwerpunkte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Giesen, H. 1976. “Der verdorrte Feigenbaum—Eine symbolische Aussage? Zu Mk 11,12–14.20f.” BZ Neue Folge 20: 95–111. ———. 1982. Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zum δικαιοσύνη- Begriff  im  Matthäus- Evangelium. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 181. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. ———. 1988. “Jesu Krankenheilungen im Verständnis des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 79–106 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Schenke. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2001. “Galiläa—mehr als eine Landschaft. Bibeltheologischer Stellenwert Galiläas im Matthäusevangelium.” ETL 77: 23– 45. ———. 2002. “Jesu Sendung zu Israel und die Heiden im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 123–56 in Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Edited by C. Niemand. Linzer philosophisch–theologische Reihe 7. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. ———. 2011. “Jesus und die Nichtjuden. Aufgezeigt an der Überlieferung der Wundererzählung vom Knecht des Hauptmanns von Kafarnaum (Lk 7,1–10 par. Mt 8,15–13).” Pages 51– 69 in Erinnerung an Jesus. Kontinuität und Diskontinu­ ität in der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung. Edited by U. Busse, M. Reichardt, and M. Theobald. BBB 166. Göttingen: V & R unipress. Ginzberg, L. 1909–1938. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. Gnilka, J. 1961. Die Verstockung Israels. Isaias 6,9–10 in der Theologie der Synop­ tiker. SANT 3. Munich: Kösel-Verlag. ———. 1967. “Das Verstockungsproblem nach Matthäus 13,13–15.” Pages 119–28 in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und systematische Beiträge. Edited by W. P. Eckert, N. P. Levinson, and M. Stöhr. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 2. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1985. “Das Kirchenbild im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 127– 43 in À cause de l’Évangile. Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes. Edited by F. Refoulé. LD 123. Paris: Cerf.

408

Bibliography

———. 1988. “Der Prozeß Jesu nach den Berichten des Markus und Matthäus mit einer Rekonstruktion des historischen Verlaufs.” Pages 11– 40 in Der Prozeß gegen Jesus. Historische Rückfrage und theologische Deutung. Edited by K. Kertelge. QD 112. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1988/1992. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. 2 ed. HTKNT 1.1–2. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1989 [1979]. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. 3 ed. EKKNT 2.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Goldstein, H. 1990. “ποιμήν κτλ.” Pages 126–27 in EDNT 3. ———. 1992. “ποιμήν κτλ.” Pages 301– 4 in EWNT 3. Gollinger, H. 1991a. “Heil für die Heiden—Unheil für die Juden? Anmerkungen zu einem alten Problem mit dem Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 201–11 in Israel und Kirche heute. Beiträge zum christlich–jüdischen Dialog. Edited by M. Marcus, E. W. Stegemann, and E. Zenger. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1991b. “ ‘. . . und diese Lehre verbreitete sich bei Juden bis heute.’ Mt 28,11– 15 als Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Israel und Kirche.” Pages 357–73 in Salz der Erde—Licht der Welt. Exegetische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Good, D. 1990. “The Verb ἀναχωρέω in Matthew’s Gospel.” NovT 32: 1–12. Goodwin, M. J. 2005. “Hosea and ‘the Son of the Living God’ in Matthew 16:16b.” CBQ 67: 265– 83. Graham, S. L. 1997. “A Strange Salvation: Intertextual Allusion in Mt 27,39– 44.” Pages 501–11 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Grams, R. 1991. “The Temple Conflict Scene: A Rhetorical Analysis of Matthew 21– 23.”  Pages 41– 65 in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Edited by D. F. Watson. JSNTSup 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Grassi, J. A. 1977. “The Last Testament-Succession: Literary Background of Matthew 9:35– 11:1 and Its Significance.” BTB 7: 172–76. Green, H. B. 1975. The Gospel According to Matthew. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes. JSNTSup 203. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Green, W. S. 1987. “Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question.” Pages 1–13 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greeven, H. 1955. “Die Heilung des Gelähmten nach Matthäus.” WD 4: 65–78. Grimm, W. 1972. “Zum Hintergrund von Mt 8,11f/Lk 13,28f.” BZ Neue Folge 16: 255–56. Gross, W. 1993. “Israel und die Völker: Die Krise des YHWH-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch.” Pages 149– 67 in Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1995. “Neuer Bund oder Erneuerter Bund. Jer 31,31–34 in der jüngsten Diskussion.” Pages 89–114 in Vorgeschmack. Ökumenische Bemühungen um die Eucha­ ristie. Edited by B. J. Hilberath and D. Sattler. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag.

Bibliography

409

Grundmann, W. 1986. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 6 ed. THKNT 1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Guardiola-Sáenz, L. A. 1997. “Borderless Women and Borderless Texts: A Cultural Reading of Matthew 15:21–28.” Semeia 78: 69–81. Gundry, R. H. 1967. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Spe­ cial Reference to the Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1994. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2 ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2000a. “In Defense of the Church in Matthew as a Corpus Mixtum.” ZNW 91: 153– 65. ———. 2000b. “Salvation in Matthew.” Pages 402–14 in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Gurtner, D. M. 2007. The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of Jesus. SNTSMS 139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2008. “Matthew’s Theology of the Temple and the ‘Parting of the Ways’: Christian Origins and the First Gospel.” Pages 128–53 in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gurtner, D. M., and J. Nolland, eds. 2008. Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gurtner, D. M., J. Willitts, and R. A. Burridge, eds. 2011. Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity: Studies in Memory of Graham N. Stanton. Library of New Testament Studies 435. London: T&T Clark. Haacker, K. 1986. “ ‘Sein Blut über uns.’ Erwägungen zu Matthäus 27,25.” Kirche und Israel 1: 47–50. Habicht, C. 1979. 2. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ 1.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. Haenchen, E. 1951. “Matthäus 23.” ZTK 48: 38– 63. Häfner, G. 1992. “Gewalt gegen die Basileia? Zum Problem der Auslegung des ‘Stürmerspruches’ Mt 11,12.” ZNW 83: 21–51. ———. 1994. Der verheißene Vorläufer. Redaktionskritische Untersuchung zur Darstellung Johannes des Täufers im Matthäus­Evangelium. SBB 27. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2010. “Ein übereinstimmendes Falschzeugnis—zur Auslegung von Mt 26,61.” ZNW 101: 294–99. Hagner, D. A. 1992. “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology.” Pages 101–20 in Wor­ ship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. Edited by M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige. JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ———. 1993/1995. Matthew 1–13. Matthew 14–28. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33A.B. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books. ———. 1996. “The Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 243– 69 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1985. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 24. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Repr. pages 27– 68 in Treasures New and Old: Recent Contri­ bution to Matthean Studies. Edited by D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell. SBLSymS 1. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.

410

Bibliography

———. 2003. “Matthew: Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?” NTS 49: 193–209. Hahn, F. 1963. Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament. WMANT 13. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1970. “Das Gleichnis von der Einladung zum Festmahl.” Pages 51–82 in Ver­ borum Veritas. Edited by O. Böcher and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. ———. 1980. “Der Sendungsauftrag des Auferstandenen. Matthäus 28,16–20.” Pages 28– 43 in Fides pro mundi vita. Missionstheologie heute. Edited by Th. Sundermeier. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. ———. 1995 [1963]. Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Chris­ tentum. 5 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2002. Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments. Theologiegeschichte des Urchris­ tentums. Vol. 1 of Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hakola, R. 2008. “Social Identity and a Stereotype in the Making: The Pharisees as Hypocrites in Matt 23.” Pages 123–39 in Identity Formation in the New Testa­ ment. Edited by B. Holmberg and M. Winninge. WUNT 227. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ham, C. A. 2000. “The Last Supper in Matthew.” BBR 10: 53– 69. ———. 2005. The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope. New Testament Monographs 4. Sheffield: Sheffield  Phoenix. Hampel, V. 1989. “ ‘Ihr werdet mit den Städten Israels nicht zu Ende kommen.’ Eine exegetische Studie über Matthäus 10,23.” TZ 45: 1–31. Hare, D. R. A. 1967. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew. SNTSMS 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1979. “The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Pages 27– 47 in Antisemistism and the Foundations of Christianity. Edited by A. Davies. New York: Paulist Press. ———. 1993. Matthew. IBC. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox. ———. 2000. “How Jewish Is the Gospel of Matthew?” CBQ 62: 264–77. Hare, D. R. A., and D. J. Harrington. 1975. “ ‘Make Disciples of all the Gentiles’ (Mt 28:19).” CBQ 37: 359– 69. Harrington, D. J. 1991a. The Gospel of Matthew. SP 1. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. ———. 1991b. “ ‘Jesus, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham . . .’: Christology and Second Temple Judaism.” ITQ 57: 185–95. ———. 1991c. “Sabbath Tensions: Matthew 12:1–14 and Other New Testament Texts.” Pages 45–56 in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi, D. J. Harrington, and W. H. Shea. New York: Crossroad. Hartin, P. J. 2000. “The Woes Against the Pharisees (Matthew 23,1–39): The Reception and Development of Q 11,39–52 within the Matthean Community.” Pages 265–83 in From Quest to Q. Edited by J. M. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. W. Meyer. BETL 146. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Bibliography

411

Hartman, L. 1992. “Ἱεροσόλυμα, Ἰερουσαλήμ.” Pages 432–39 in EWNT 2. Harvey, G. 1996. The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature. AGJU 35. Leiden: Brill. Hasler, V. 1962. “Die königliche Hochzeit, Matth. 22,1–14.” TZ 18: 25–35. ———. 1990. “γενεά.” Pages 241– 42 in EDNT 1. ———. 1992. “γενεά.” Pages 579–81 in EWNT 1. Haubeck, W., and H. von Siebenthal. 1997. Matthäus bis Apostelgeschichte. Vol. 1 of Neuer sprachlicher Schlüssel zum griechischen Neuen Testament. Gießen: Brunnen. Hauck, F. 1990. “καρπός κτλ.” Pages 617–18 in TWNT 3. Hays, R. B. 2005. “The Gospel of Matthew: Reconfigured Torah.” HTS 61: 165–90. Hedinger, U. 1976. “Jesus und die Volksmenge. Kritik der Qualifizierung der óchloi  in der Evangelienauslegung.” TZ 32: 201– 6. Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row. Heil, J. P. 1981. 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: Biblical Institute Press. ———. 1991a. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Narrative– Critical Reading of Matthew 26–28. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1991b. “The Narrative Roles of the Women in Matthew’s Genealogy.” Bib 72: 538– 45. ———. 1993. “Ezekiel 34 and the Narrative Strategy of the Shepherd and the Sheep Metaphor in Matthew.” CBQ 55: 698–708. Heinisch, P. 1912. Das Buch der Weisheit. EHAT 24. Münster: Aschendorff. Held, H. J. 1975 [1960]. “Matthäus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten.” Pages 155–287 in Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held. 7 ed. WMANT 1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Hengel, M. 1968. “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Mc 12,1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” ZNW 59: 1–39. ———. 1985. “Jakobus der Herrenbruder—der erste ‘Papst’?” Pages 71–104 in Glaube und Eschatologie. Edited by E. Gräßer and O. Merk. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2001. “Jesus der Messias Israels.” Pages 1– 80 in Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie. Vier Studien. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 138. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hengel, M., and H. Merkel. 1973. “Die Magier aus dem Osten und die Flucht nach Ägypten (Mt 2) im Rahmen der antiken Religionsgeschichte und der Theologie des Matthäus.” Pages 139– 69 in Orientierung an Jesus. Zur Theologie der Syn­ optiker. Edited by P. Hoffmann. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Herzer, J. 2009. “Auferstehung und Weltende als Rätsel? Zur Funktion und Bedeutung von Mt 27,51b–53 im Kontext der matthäischen Jesuserzählung.” Pages 115– 44 in Evangelium ecclesiasticum. Matthäus und die Gestalt der Kirche. Edited by C. Böttrich et al. Frankfurt a.M.: edition chrismon.

412

Bibliography

Heubült, C. 1980. “Mt 5,17–20. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthäus.” ZNW 71: 143– 49. Hiers, R. H. 1985. “ ‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations.” JBL 104: 233–50. Hill, C. C. 1992. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hill, D. 1972. The Gospel of Matthew. NCB. London: Oliphants. ———. 1978. “On the Use and Meaning of Hosea VI. 6 in Matthew’s Gospel.” NTS 24: 107–19. ———. 1980. “Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology.” JSNT 6: 2–16. Hirunuma, T. 1981. “Matthew 16:2b–3.” Pages 35– 45 in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Edited by E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee. Oxford: Clarendon. Hoffmann, P. 1967. “Πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας. Redaktion und Tradition in Lc 13,22– 30.” ZNW 58: 188–214. ———. 1982 [1972]. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. 3 ed. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge 8. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1988. “Das Zeichen für Israel. Zu einem vernachlässigten Aspekt der matthäischen Ostergeschichte.” Pages 416–52 in Zur neutestamentlichen Überlief­ erung von der Auferstehung Jesu. Edited by P. Hoffmann. Wege der Forschung 522. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1990. “Die Auferweckung Jesu als Zeichen für Israel. Mt 12,39f und die matthäische Ostergeschichte.” Pages 110–23 in Christus bezeugen. Edited by K. Kertelge, T. Holtz, and C.-P. März. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1989. Repr. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1994. “Der Petrus-Primat im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 94–114 in Neues Testament und Kirche. Edited by J. Gnilka. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1974. Repr. pages 326– 49 in Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Jesus­Bewegung. SBAB 17. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1998. “Herrscher in oder Richter über Israel? Mt 19,28 / Lk 22,28–30 in der synoptischen Überlieferung.” Pages 253– 64 in Ja und nein. Christliche Theolo­ gie im Angesicht Israels. Edited by K. Wengst and G. Saß. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Hoffmann, P., and C. Heil, eds. 2002. Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe. Griechisch und Deutsch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Hollander, H. W., and M. de Jonge. 1985. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill. Holtzmann, H. J. 1901. “Das Evangelium nach Matthäus.” in Die Synoptiker. 3 ed. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 1.1. Tübingen: Mohr. Hommel, H. 1989. “Die Tore des Hades.” ZNW 80: 124–25. Hood, J. B. 2011. The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations. Matthew 1.1–17. London: T&T Clark. Hoppe, R. 1998. “Das Gastmahlgleichnis Jesu (Mt 22,1–10/Lk 14,16–24) und seine vorevangelische Traditionsgeschichte.” Pages 277–93 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Chris­ tologische Studien. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Bibliography

413

Horbury, W. 1998. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press. Horne, E. H. 1998. “The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment.” JSNT 71: 111–16. Horst, P. W. van der. 2006. “Once More: The Translation of οἱ δέ in Matthew 28.17.” Pages 161– 63 in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco­Roman Context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. WUNT 196. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Houlden, J. L. 1994. “The Puzzle of Matthew and the Law.” Pages 115–31 in Cross­ ing the Boundaries. Edited by St. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton. Biblical Interpretation Series 8. Leiden: Brill. Howell, D. B. 1990. Matthew’s Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel. JSNTSup 42. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Hübner, H. 1987. “Israel III. Neues Testament.” Pages 383– 89 in TRE 16. ———. 1992. “τιμάω.” Pages 855–56 in EWNT 3. ———. 1995. Hebräerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung—Epilegomena. Vol. 3 of Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1999. Die Weisheit Salomos. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Apokryphen 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Huizenga, L. A. 2009. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 131. Leiden: Brill. Hultgren, A. J. 1974. “The Double Commandment of Love in Mt 22:34– 40: Its Sources and Compositions.” CBQ 36: 373–78. ———. 1979. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Sto­ ries in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg. ———. 1998. “Mission and Ministry in Matthew.” Word & World 18: 341– 47. Hummel, R. 1963. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Mat­ thäusevangelium. BEvT 33. Munich: Kaiser. Hunziker-Rodewald, R. 2001. Hirt und Herde. Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis. BWANT 155. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Ingelaere, J.- C. 1995. “Universalisme et particularisme dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Matthieu et le Judaïsme.” RHPR 75: 45–59. Jackson, G. S. 2002. “ ‘Have Mercy on Me’: The Story of the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15.21– 28.” JSNTSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2003. “Enemies of Israel: Ruth and the Canaanite Woman.” HTS 59: 779–92. Jankowski, G. 2000. “ ‘Sein Blut komme über uns und unsere Kinder.’ Erwägungen zu Mt 27,25.” Texte und Kontexte 23: 16–29. Janowski, B. 1989. “Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Gesamtentwurf.” ZTK 86: 389– 454. Jefford, C. N. 2005. “The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch: Agreements and Differences.” Pages 35– 47 in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish­ Christian Milieu? Edited by H. van de Sandt. Minneapolis: Fortress. Jeremias, J. 1959. Jesu Verheißung für die Völker. Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1953. 2 rev. ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 1968. “ποιμήν κτλ.” Pages 485–502 in TDNT 6.

414

Bibliography

———. 1980. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht­ Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums.  ΚΕΚ  Sonderband.  Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1984 [1947]. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 10 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1987. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe­König­Psalmen. FRLANT 141. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1990a. “ποιμήν κτλ.” Pages 484–501 in TWNT 6. ———. 1990b. “πύλη, πυλών.” Pages 920–27 in TWNT 6. Johnson, M. D. 1969. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. SNTSMS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, I. H. 1995. The Matthean Parables: A Literary and Historical Commentary. NovTSup 80. Leiden: Brill. Jones, J. M. 1994. “Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew’s Presentation of the Genealogy and the Davidic Title.” CBQ 56: 256–72. Jonge, M. de. 1989. “Jesus, Son of David and Son of God.” Pages 95–104 in Inter­ textuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok. Judge, P. J. 1989. “Luke 7,1–10. Sources and Redaction.” Pages 473–90 in L’Évangile de Luc—The Gospel of Luke. Rev. and enlarged ed. of L’Évangile de Luc: Prob­ lèmes littéraires et théologiques. Edited by F. Neirynck. BETL 32. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Kalimi, I. 2009. “The Story about the Murder of the Prophet Zechariah in the Gospels and Its Relation to Chronicles.” RB 116: 246– 61. Kammler, H.-C. 2003. “Sohn Gottes und Kreuz. Die Versuchungsgeschichte Mt 4,1– 11 im Kontext des Matthäusevangeliums.” ZTK 100: 163– 86. Karrer, M. 1991. Der Gesalbte. Die Grundlagen des Christustitels. FRLANT 151. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1993. “Christliche Gemeinde und Israel. Beobachtungen zur Logienquelle.” Pages 145– 63 in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum. Edited by P. Mommer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1998. Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament. GNT 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2003. “Von David zu Christus.” Pages 327– 65 in König David—biblische Schlüs­ selfigur und europäische Leitgestalt. 19. Kolloquium (2000) der Schweizerischen  Akademie der Geistes­ und Sozialwissenschaften. Edited by W. Dietrich and H. Herkommer. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Kato, Z. 1986. Die Völkermission im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschicht­ liche Untersuchung. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 252. Bern: P. Lang. ———. 1991. “Das Evangelium für alle Völker. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über die Entfaltung der Heilsgeschichte bei Matthäus im Vergleich mit Markus.” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 40: 1–13.

Bibliography

415

Keener, C. S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2005. “ ‘Brood of Vipers’ (Matthew 3.7; 12.34; 23.33).” JSNT 28: 3–11. Keller, Z. 2006. Der Blutruf (Mt 27,25). Eine schweizerische Wirkungsgeschichte 1900–1950. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kellermann, U. 2007. Das Achtzehn­Bitten­ Gebet. Jüdischer Glaube in neutesta­ mentlicher Zeit. Ein Kommentar. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Kennedy, J. 2008. The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1– 4:11. WUNT Second Series 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kertelge, K. 1970. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschicht­ liche Untersuchung. SANT 23. Munich: Kösel-Verlag. Kiilunen, J. 1989. Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht. Ein redaktions­ kritischer Versuch über Mk 12,28–34 und die Parallelen. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Series B 250. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Kilpatrick, G. D. 1946. The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon. Kingsbury, J. D. 1969. The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction­ Criticism. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. ———. 1974. “The Composition and Christology of Matt 28:16–20.” JBL 93: 573– 84. ———. 1975a. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1975b. “The Title ‘Son of God’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” BTB 5: 3–31. ———. 1976. “The Title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 95: 591– 602. ———. 1986. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary-Critical Observations.” JBL 105: 643–55. ———. 1987. “The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Study.” CBQ 49: 57–73. ———.  1993.  “The  Significance  of  the  Cross  within  the  Plot  of  Matthew’s  Gospel:  A Study in Narrative Criticism.” Pages 263–79 in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism. Edited by C. Focant. BETL 110. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1995. “The Rhetoric of Comprehension in the Gospel of Matthew.” NTS 41: 358–77. ———. 1996 [1986]. Matthew as Story. 7 ed. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kirchschläger, W. 1998. “ ‘Bund’ in der Herrenmahltradition.” Pages 117–34 in Der ungekündigte Bund? Antworten des Neuen Testaments. Edited by H. Frankemölle. QD 172. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Kittel, G. 1996. “Θαμάρ, Ῥαχάβ, Ῥούθ, ἡ τοῦ Οὐρίου.” Pages 1–3 in TWNT 3. Klassen, W. 1996. Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? London: SCM Press. Klauck, H.-J. 1970. “Das Gleichnis vom Mord im Weinberg (Mk 12,1–12; Mt 21,33– 46; Lk 20,9–19).” BL 11: 118– 45. ———. 1986. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. 2 ed. NTAbh Neue Folge 13. Münster: Aschendorff. ———. 1987. Judas—ein Jünger des Herrn. QD 111. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder.

416

Bibliography

———. 1989. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr).” Pages 286–312 in Gemeinde—Amt—Sakrament. Neutestamentliche Perspektiven. Würzburg: Echter. Klein, H. 1993. “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Psalm 8.” Pages 183–98 in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Edited by R. Bartelmus, Th. Krüger, and H. Utzschneider. OBO 126. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 1996. Bewährung im Glauben. Studien zum Sondergut des Evangelisten Mat­ thäus. Biblisch-theologische Studien 26. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 2004. “Die Christologie in der Kindheitsgeschichte des Matthäus am Beispiel von Mt 1,18–25.” Pages 159–70 in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Chris­ tology in Its Judeo– Hellenistic Milieu. Edited by J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec. JSNTSup 272. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2006. Das Lukasevangelium. 10 ed. KEK 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klinzing, G. 1971. Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klostermann, E. 1927. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 ed. HNT 4. Tübingen: Mohr. Knibb, M. A. 1995. “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls.” DSD 2: 165–84. Knowles, M. 1993. Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected­Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction. JSNTSup 68. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Konradt, M. 1997. “Menschen- oder Bruderliebe? Beobachtungen zum Liebesgebot in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen.” ZNW 88: 296–310. ———. 1998. Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief. Eine Studie zu seiner sote­ riologischen und ethischen Konzeption. SUNT 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2003. Gericht und Gemeinde. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor. BZNW 117. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2004a. “ ‘. . . damit ihr Söhne eures Vaters im Himmel werdet.’ Erwägungen zur ‘Logik’ von Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in Mt 5,38– 48.” Pages 70–92 in Gewalt wahrnehmen—von Gewalt heilen. Theologische und religionswissen­ schaftliche Perspektiven. Edited by W. Dietrich and W. Lienemann. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ———. 2004b. “Die Sendung zu Israel und zu den Völkern im Matthäusevangelium im Lichte seiner narrativen Christologie.” ZTK 101: 397– 425. ———.  2006.  “Die  vollkommene  Erfüllung  der  Tora  und  der  Konflikt  mit  den  Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 129–52 in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament. Edited by D. Sänger and M. Konradt. NTOA/ SUNT 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2007a. “Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 195–232 in Josephus und das Neue Testament. Wechselseitige Wahrne­ hmungen. II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo­Hellenisticum. Edited by Ch. Böttrich and J. Herzer. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Bibliography

417

———. 2007b. Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium. WUNT 215. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2009. Review of J. Willits, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd King: In Search of “The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” TLZ 134: 569–71. ———. 2010. “ ‘Whoever humbles himself like this child. . . .’ The Ethical Instruction in Matthew’s Community Discourse (Matt 18) and its Narrative Setting.” Pages 105–38 in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Lan­ guage and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. Edited by R. Zimmermann and J. G. van der Watt. WUNT Second Series 296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kosch, D. 1985. Die Gottesherrschaft im Zeichen des Widerspruchs. Traditions­ und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Lk 16,16 // Mt 11,12f bei Jesus, Q und Lukas. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 257. Bern: P. Lang. ———. 1989. Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q. NTOA 12. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Kosmala, H. 1970. “ ‘His Blood on Us and on Our Children’ (The Background of Mat. 27,24–25).” ASTI 7: 94–126. Kowalski, B. 2011. “Wunder bei den Heiden: Der heidnische Hauptmann (Mt 8,5–13) und die kanaanäische Frau (Mt 15,21–28).” Pages 537–59 in The Gospel of Mat­ thew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Kraft, R. A. 1975. “Eis Nikos = Permanently/Successfully: 1 Cor 15.54, Matt 12.20.” Pages 153–56 in Septuagintal Lexicography. Edited by R. A. Kraft. SBLSCS 1. Rev. ed. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Krämer, H. 1981. “Eine Anmerkung zum Verständnis von Mt 15,6a.” WD 16: 67–70. Kraus, H.-J. 1989. Theologie der Psalmen. 2 ed. BKAT 15.3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 2003. Psalmen. 2 vols. 7 ed. BKAT 15.1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Kraus, W. 1996. Das Volk Gottes. Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus. WUNT 85. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. “Die Passion des Gottessohnes. Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu im Matthäusevangelium.” EvT 57: 409–27. ———. 2003. “Das ‘Heilige Land’ als Thema einer Biblischen Theologie.” Pages 251– 74 in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. Edited by W. Kraus and K.-W. Niebuhr. WUNT 162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2011. “Zur Ekklesiologie des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 195–239 in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Kremers, H. 1979. Judenmission heute? Von der Judenmission zur brüderlichen Soli­ darität und zum ökumenischen Dialog. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Krentz, E. 1964. “The Extent of Matthew’s Prologue: Toward the Structure of the First Gospel.” JBL 83: 409–14. ———. 2006. “ ‘Make Disciples’—Matthew on Evangelism.” CurTM 33: 23– 41.

418

Bibliography

Kretzer, A. 1971. Die Herrschaft der Himmel und die Söhne des Reiches. Eine redak­ tionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Basileiabegriff und Basileiaverständnis im Matthäusevangelium. SBM 10. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Kreuzer, S. 1983. Der lebendige Gott. Bedeutung, Herkunft und Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnung. BWANT 116. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Krieger, K.-S. 1986. “Das Publikum der Bergpredigt (Mt 4,23–25). Ein Beitrag zu der Frage: Wem gilt die Bergpredigt?” Kairos 28: 98–119. ———. 2001. “Maps of Palestine in Matthew 4,23–25 and Bellum 3:35–58.” Pages 263–77 in Internationales Josephus­Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000. Edited by J. U. Kalms. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 10. Münster: Lit. Küchler, M. 1989. “ ‘Wir haben seinen Stern gesehen . . .’ (Mt 2,2).” BK 44: 179–86. Kuhn, H.-W. 1989. “Das Liebesgebot Jesu als Tora und als Evangelium. Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt.” Pages 194–230 in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Edited by H. Frankemölle and K. Kertelge. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Kuhn, K. G. 1950. Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim. WUNT 1. Tübingen: Mohr. Kühschelm, R. 1986. “Das Verhältnis von Kirche und Israel bei Matthäus.” BL 59: 165–76. Künzel, G. 1978. Studien zum Gemeindeverständnis des Matthäus­Evangeliums. Calwer theologische Monographien. Series A 10. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Künzi, M. 1970. Das Naherwartungslogion Matthäus 10,23. Geschichte seiner Aus­ legung. BGBE 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kupp, D. D. 1996. Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine presence and God’s People in the First Gospel. SNTSMS 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kvalbein, H. 1997. “Die Wunder der Endzeit. Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 und Matth 11,5p.” ZNW 88: 111–25. ———. 2000 [1998]. “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews? A Contribution to a Disputed Issue in Recent Scholarship.” Pages 45– 62 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Translation of “Hat Matthäus die Juden aufgegeben? Bemerkungen zu Ulrich Luz’ Matthäus-Deutung.” TBei 29 (1998): 301–14. Kwaak, H. van der. 1966. “Die Klage über Jerusalem (Matth. XXIII 37–39).” NovT 8: 156–70. Kynes, W. L. 1991. A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Laato, A. 1997. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. LaGrand, J. 1995. The Earliest Christian Mission to “All Nations” in the Light of Mat­ thew’s Gospel. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 1. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Lagrange, M.-J. 1927. Évangile selon Saint Matthieu. 4 ed. EBib. Paris: J. Gabalda.

Bibliography

419

Lambrecht, J. 1995. “The Great Commandment Pericope and Q.” Pages 73–96 in The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Edited by R. A. Piper. NovTSup 75. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1998. Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew. Louvain theological and pastoral monographs 10. Leuven: Peeters. Lampe, G. W. H. 1984. “A.D. 70 in Christian Reflection.” Pages 153– 71 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landis, S. 1994. Das Verhältnis des Johannesevangeliums zu den Synoptikern. Am Beispiel von Mt 8,5–13; Lk 7,1–10; Joh 4,46–54. BZNW 74. Berlin: de Gruyter. Landmesser, C. 2001. Jüngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der matthäischen Soteriologie im Anschluß an Mt 9,9–13. WUNT 133. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lang, B. 1993. “Der Becher, als Bundeszeichen: ‘Bund’ und ‘neuer Bund’ in den neutestamentlichen Abendmahlstexten.” Pages 199–212 in Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Lange, J. 1973. Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Mattäus [sic]. Eine traditions-  und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mt 28,16–  20. Forschungen zur Bibel 11. Würzburg: Echter. Langley, W. E. 1996. “The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28–32) against Its Semitic and Rabbinic Backdrop.” CBQ 58: 228– 43. Lausberg, H. 1990. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 3 ed. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Lee, K., and F. P. Viljoen. 2010. “The Ultimate Commission: The Key for the Gospel According to Matthew.” AcT 30: 64–83. Légasse, S. 1972a. “L’ ‘antijudaisme’ dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu.” Pages 417– 28 in L’Évangile selon Matthieu. Rédaction et théologie. Edited by M. Didier. BETL 29. Gembloux: J. Duculot. ———. 1972b. “L’épisode de la Cananéenne d’après Mt. 15,21–28.” BLE 73: 21– 40. Lehnert, V. A., and U. Rüsen-Weinhold, eds. 2007. Logos—Logik—Lyrik. Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Leivestad, R. 1952. “An Interpretation of Matt 11,19.” JBL 71: 179– 81. Levin, C. 1985. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Levine, A.-J. 1988. The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation His­ tory: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles . . .” (Matt. 10:5b). Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 14. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edward Mellen Press. ———. 1999. “Anti-Judaism and the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 9–36 in Anti­Judaism and the Gospels. Edited by W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity International. ———. 2011. “Matthew’s Portrayal of the Synagogue and Its Leaders.” Pages 177–93 in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters.

420

Bibliography

Lichtenberger, H. 1996. “ ‘Bund’ in der Abendmahlsüberlieferung.” Pages 217–28 in Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition. Edited by F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger. WUNT 92. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1997. “ ‘Bittet den Herrn der Ernte, daß er Arbeiter in seine Ernte sende’ (Mt 9,38/Lk 10,2).” Pages 269–78 in Evangelium—Schriftauslegung—Kirche. Edited by J. Ådna, Sc. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Liedke, G. 1984. “‫ׁשפט‬.” Pages 999–1009 in vol. 2 of THAT. Edited by E. Jenni. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser. Limbeck, M. 1991. Matthäus­Evangelium. 3 ed. SKKNT 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Lindars, B. 1961. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old  Testament Quotations. London: SCM Press. ———. 1992. “Capernaum Revisited: John 4,46–53 and the Synoptics.” Pages 1985– 2000 in vol. 3 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Lindemann, A. 1999. “Israel im Neuen Testament.” WD 25: 167–92. ———. 2009. “Jesus, Israel und die Völker. Zum Jesusbild der neutestamentlichen Evangelien.” Pages 368– 405 in Die Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte. Stu­ dien zu ihrer Theologie und zu ihrer Geschichte. WUNT 241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Linnemann, E. 1960. “Überlegungen zur Parabel vom großen Abendmahl Lc 14,15– 24 / Mt 22,1–14.” ZNW 51: 246–54. Lips, H. von. 1990. Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament. WMANT 64. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Loader, B. 1994. “The New Dead Sea Scrolls: New Light on Messianism and the History of the Community.” Colloq 25: 67–85. Loader, W. R. G. 1982. “Son of David, Blindness, Possession, and Duality in Matthew.” CBQ 44: 570–85. Lohfink, G. 1983. “Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung  von Mt 4,23–5,2 und 7,28f.” TQ 163: 264– 84. Lohfink, N. 1988. “Der Messiaskönig und seine Armen kommen zum Zion. Beobachtungen zu Mt 21,1–17.” Pages 179–200 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Schenke. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1990. “Die Universalisierung der ‘Bundesformel’ in Ps 100,3.” TP 65: 172– 83. ———. 1991. “Der neue Bund und die Völker.” Kirche und Israel 6: 115–33. Lohfink,  N.,  and  E.  Zenger.  1994.  Der Gott Israels und die Völker. Untersuchun­ gen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen. SBS 154. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Lohmeyer, E. 1962. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. Nachgelassene Ausarbeitungen und Entwürfe zur Übersetzung und Erklärung. KEK Sonderband. Edited by W. Schmauch. 3 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lohmeyer, M. 1995. Der Apostelbegriff im Neuen Testament. Eine Untersuchung

Bibliography

421

auf dem Hintergrund der synoptischen Aussendungsreden. SBB 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Löning, K. 1998. “Eschatologische Krise und (Neuer) Bund. Zum Stellenwert des Bundes­Motivs im Zusammenhang neutestamentlicher Soteriologien.” Pages 78– 116 in Der ungekündigte Bund? Antworten des Neuen Testaments. Edited by H. Frankemölle. QD 172. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Lövestam, E. 1962. “Die Davidssohnfrage.” SEÅ 27: 72– 82. ———. 1980. “The ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη Eschatology in Mk 13,30 parr.” Pages 403–13 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. BETL 53. Gembloux: Duculot. Lovsky, F. 1987. “Comment comprendre ‘Son sang sur nous et nos enfants’?” ETR 62: 343– 62. Luck, U. 1975. “Weisheit und Christologie in Mt 11,25–30.” WD 13: 35–51. ———. 1993. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. ZBK NT 1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Luomanen, P. 1998a. “Corpus Mixtum—An Appropriate Description of Matthew’s Community?” JBL 117: 469– 80. ———. 1998b. Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Mat­ thew’s View of Salvation. WUNT Second Series 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2002. “The ‘Sociology of Sectarianism’ in Matthew: Modeling the Genesis of Early Jewish and Christian Communities.” Pages 107–30 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Edited by I. Dunderberg, Chr. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill. Luz, U. 1980. “Die Jünger im Matthäusevangelium.” ZNW 62 (1971): 141–71. Repr. pages 377– 414 in Das Matthäus­Evangelium. Edited by J. Lange. Wege der Forschung 525. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1985. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 1. Teilbd.: Mt 1–7. EKKNT 1.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 1987. “Die Wundergeschichten von Mt 8–9.” Pages 149– 65 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1989. “Das Matthäusevangelium und die Perspektive einer biblischen Theologie.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 4: 233– 48. ———. 1990. “Die Jüngerrede des Matthäus als Anfrage an die Ekklesiologie oder: Exegtische Prolegomena zu einer dynamischen Ekklesiologie.” Pages 84–101 in Christus bezeugen. Edited by K. Kertelge, T. Holtz, and C.-P. März. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1989. Repr. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1991. “Eine thetische Skizze der matthäischen Christologie.” Pages 221–35 in Anfänge der Christologie. Edited by C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1992a. “βασιλεία.” Pages 481–91 in EWNT 1. ———. 1992b. “The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ.” JSNT 48: 3–21. ———. 1993. “Der Antijudaismus im Matthäusevangelium als historisches und theologisches Problem. Eine Skizze.” EvT 53: 310–27.

422

Bibliography

———. 1995. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Translation of Die Jesusge­ schichte des Matthäus. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ———. 1998a. “Matthäus und Q.” Pages 201–15 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Chris­ tologische Studien. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1998b. “Wehe euch, ihr Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäer, Heuchler! Ja und Nein zu einem schwierigen Text.” Pages 265–76 in Ja und nein. Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels. Edited by K. Wengst and G. Saß. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ———. 2000. “Has Matthew Abandoned the Jews? A Response to Hans Kvalbein and Peter Stuhlmacher concerning Matt 28:16–20.” Pages 63– 68 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2001–2007. Matthew: A Commentary. Edited by H. Koester. Translated by J. E. Crouch. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Translation of Das Evan­ gelium nach Matthäus. EKKNT 1.1– 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–2002. Vol. 1 is translated from 5 rev. ed. of EKKNT 1.1. ———. 2004. “Intertexts in the Gospel of Matthew.” HTR 97: 119–37. Lybæk, L. 1997. “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6,6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies.” Pages 491–99 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Maisch, I. 1986. “Die österliche Dimension des Todes Jesu. Zur Osterverkündigung in Mt 27,51–54.” Pages 96–123 in Auferstehung Jesu—Auferstehung der Christen. Deutungen des Osterglaubens. Edited by L. Oberlinner. QD 105. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Malina, B. J. 1970/1971. “The Literary Structure and Form of Matt. XXVIII. 16–20.” NTS 17: 87–103. ———. 1989. Review of A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History. BTB 19: 129–30. Mann, C. S. 1958. “Epiphany—Wise Men or Charlatans?” Theology 61: 495–500. Manning, G. T. 2004. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSNTSup 270. London: T&T Clark. Marcus, J. 1988. “The Gates of Hades and the Keys of the Kingdom (Matt 16:18–19).” CBQ 50: 443–55. Marguerat, D. 1981. Le Jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Le monde de la Bible 6. Genève: Editions Labor et Fides. Martin, F. 1975. “The Image of Shepherd in the Gospel of Sant [sic] Matthew.” ScEs 27: 261–301. Martin, J. P. 1975. “The Church in Matthew.” Int 29: 41–56. März, C.-P. 1986. “Lk 12,54b–56 par Mt 16,2b.3 und die Akoluthie der Redequelle.” SNTSU Series A 11: 83–96. Matera, F. J. 1987. “The Plot of Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 49: 233–53.

Bibliography

423

Mayer-Haas, A. J. 2003. “Geschenk aus Gottes Schatzkammer” (bSchab 10b). Jesus und der Sabbat im Spiegel der neutestamentlichen Schriften. NTAbh Neue Folge 43. Münster: Aschendorff. Mayordomo, M. 2011. “Matthew 1–2 and the Problem of Intertextuality.” Pages 257– 79 in Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities. Edited by C. Clivaz et al. WUNT 281. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mayordomo-Marín, M. 1998. Den Anfang hören. Leserorientierte Evangelienex­ egese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1–2. FRLANT 180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. McAfee Moss, C. 2008. The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew. BZNW 156. Berlin: de Gruyter. McConnell, R. S. 1969. Law and Prophecy in Matthew’s Gospel: The Authority and Use of the Old Testament in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Basel: F. Reinhardt Kommissionsverlag. McDermott, J. M. 1984. “Mt. 10:23 in Context.” BZ Neue Folge 28: 230– 40. McKnight, S. 1986a. “Jesus and the End-Time: Matthew 10:23.” Pages 501–20 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1986. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1986b. New Shepherds for Israel: An Historical and Critical Study of Mat­ thew 9:35–11:1. PhD diss., University of Nottingham. ———. 1993. “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective.” Pages 55–79 in Anti­Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith. Edited by C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress. Meeks, W. A. 1985. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities.” Pages 93–115 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Meier, J. P. 1975. “Salvation-History in Matthew: In Search of a Starting Point.” CBQ 37: 203–15. ———. 1976. Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt. 5:17– 48. AnBib 71. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. ———. 1977a. “Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19?” CBQ 39: 94–102. ———. 1977b. “Two Disputed Questions in Matt 28:16–20.” JBL 96: 407–24. ———. 1979. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gos­ pel. New York: Paulist Press. ———. 1983. “Antioch.” Pages 12– 86 in Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. Edited by R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier. New York: Paulist Press. ———. 1986. “Matthew 15:21–28.” Int 40: 397– 402. Meinertz, M. 1957. “ ‘Dieses Geschlecht’ im Neuen Testament.” BZ Neue Folge 1: 283–89. Meiser, M. 1998. Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus. Eine redaktionskritische Unter­ suchung zu den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 96. Berlin: de Gruyter. Menken, M. J. J. 1984. “The References to Jeremiah in the Gospel According to Matthew (Mt 2,17; 16,14; 27,9).” ETL 60: 5–24.

424

Bibliography

———. 1998a. “The Quotation from Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:18–21. Its Relation with the Matthean Context.” Bijdragen 59: 251– 66. ———. 1998b. “The Textual Form of the Quotation from Isaiah 8:23–9:1 in Matthew 4:15–16.” RB 105: 526– 45. ———. 1999. “The Quotation from Isaiah 42,1– 4 in Matthew 12,18–21. Its Textual Form.” ETL 75: 32–52. Menninger, R. E. 1994. Israel and the Church in the Gospel of Matthew. American University Studies. Series 7. Theology and Religion 162. New York: P. Lang. Merkel, H. 1974. “Das Gleichnis von den ‘ungleichen Söhnen’ (Matth. XXI. 28–32).” NTS 20: 254– 61. Merklein, H. 1984. Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip. Untersuchung zur Ethik Jesu. 3 ed. Forschungen zur Bibel 34. Würzburg: Echter. ———. 1995. Die Jesusgeschichte—synoptisch gelesen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Metzner, R. 1995. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1. Evangeliums auf  den 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT Second Series 74. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 2003. “Der Rückzug Jesu im Matthäusevangelium. Ein literarisches Déjà-vuErlebnis.” ZNW 94: 258– 68. Meyer, R., and P. Katz. 1990. “ὄχλος.” Pages 582–90 in TWNT 5. Michel, O. 1950/1951. “Der Abschluß des Matthäusevangeliums. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Osterbotschaft.” EvT 10: 16–26. ———. 1990. “τελώνης.” Pages 88–106 in TWNT 8. Miler, J. 1999. Les citations d’accomplissement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. Quand Dieu se rend présent en toute humanité. AnBib 140. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Minear, P. S. 1974. “The Disciples and the Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew.” AThR Supplementary Series 3: 28– 44. ———. 2004/2005. “When Jesus Saw the Crowds.” ExpTim 116: 73–78. Miyoshi, M. 1989. “Die Theologie der Spaltung und Einigung Israels in der Geburtsund Leidensgeschichte nach Matthäus.” AJBI 15: 37–52. M‘Neile, A. H. 1957 [1915]. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. 7 ed. London: Macmillan. Moffitt,  D.  M.  2006.  “Righteous  Bloodshed,  Matthew’s  Passion  Narrative,  and  the  Temple’s Destruction: Lamentations as a Matthean Intertext.” JBL 125: 299–320. Mohrlang, R. 1984. Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives. SNTSMS 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moo, D. J. 1983a. The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives.  Sheffield:  Almond Press. ———. 1983b. “Tradition and Old Testament in Matt 27:3–10.” Pages 157–75 in vol. 3 of Gospel Perspectives: Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Edited by R. T. France and D. Wenham. 6 vols. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Moor, J. C. de. 1998. “The Targumic Background of Mark 12:1–12: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants.” JSJ 29: 63–80.

Bibliography

425

Moore, W. E. 1988/1989. “Violence to the Kingdom: Josephus and the Syrian Churches.” ExpTim 100: 174–77. Mora, V. 1986. Le refus d’Israël. Matthieu 27, 25. LD 124. Paris: Cerf. ———. 1991. La symbolique de la création dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. LD 144. Paris: Cerf. Morgenthaler, R. 1971. Statistische Synopse. Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag. Morosco, R. E. 1984. “Matthew’s Formation of a Commissioning Type-Scene out of the Story of Jesus’ Commissioning of the Twelve.” JBL 103: 539–56. Morris, L. 1992. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Moses, A. D. A. 1996. Matthew’s Transfiguration Story and Jewish- Christian Con­ troversy. JSNTSup 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Mowery, R. L. 1989. “The Activity of God in the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 400– 411 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1989. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 2002. “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew.” Bib 83: 100–110. Müller, H.-P. 1984. “‫ ָק ָהל‬.” Pages 609–19 in vol. 2 of THAT. Edited by E. Jenni. 2 vols. Munich: Kaiser. Müller, K. 1994. “Gott als Richter und die Erscheinungsweisen seiner Gerichte in den Schriften des Frühjudentums. Methodische und grundsätzliche Vorüberlegungen zu einer sachgemäßeren Einschätzung.” Pages 23–53 in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung. Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament. Edited by H.-J. Klauck. QD 150. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Müller, M. 1999. “The Theological Interpretation of the Figure of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: Some Principal Features in Matthean Christology.” NTS 45: 157–73. ———. 2012. “Bundesideologie im Matthäusevangelium. Die Vorstellung vom neuen Bund als Grundlage der matthäischen Gesetzesverkündigung.” NTS 58: 23– 42. Münch, C. 2004. Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium. Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion. WMANT 104. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Munck, J. 1951. “Israel and the Gentiles in the New Testament.” JTS New Series 2: 3–16. Münderlein,  G.  1963/1964.  “Die  Verfluchung  des  Feigenbaumes  (Mk.  XI.  12– 14).”  NTS 10: 89–104. Mussner, F. 1959. “Der nicht erkannte Kairos (Mt 11,16–19 = Lk 7,31–35).” Bib 40: 599– 612. ———. 1967. “Die bösen Winzer nach Matthäus 21, 33– 46.” Pages 129–34 in Antiju­ daismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und systematische Beiträge. Edited by W. P. Eckert, N. P. Levinson, and M. Stöhr. Abhandlungen zum christlichjüdischen Dialog 2. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1981. “Israel und die Entstehung der Evangelien.” Pages 48–57 in Jüdische Existenz und die Erneuerung der christlichen Theologie. Versuch der Bilanz des christlich­jüdischen Dialogs für die Systematische Theologie. Edited by M. Stöhr. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 11. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1987/1988. “Wer ist ‘dieses Geschlecht’ in Mk 13,30 parr.?” Kairos 29: 23–28. ———. 1988. “Die Stellung zum Judentum in der ‘Redenquelle’ und in ihrer

426

Bibliography

Verarbeitung bei Matthäus.” Pages 201–25 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Schenke. SBS. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Neirynck, F. 1988. “Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο and the Structure of Matthew.” ETL 64: 21–59. ———. 1991. “John 4,46–54. Signs Source and/or Synoptic Gospels.” JETL 60 (1984): 367–75. Repr. pages 679– 88 in Evangelica II. 1982–1991 Collected Essays. BETL 99. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1997. “Q 6,20b–21; 7,22 and Isaiah 61.” Pages 27– 64 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Newport, K. G. C. 1995. The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23. JSNTSup 117. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Neyrey, J. H. 1981. “Decision Making in the Early Church: The Case of the Canaanite Woman (Mt 15:21–28).” ScEs 33: 373–78. ———. 1982. “The Thematic Use of Isaiah 42,1– 4 in Matthew 12.” Bib 63: 447–73. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1998. “Abraham the Convert: A Jewish Tradition and Its Use by the Apostle Paul.” Pages 151–75 in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by M. E. Stone and Th. A. Bergren. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity International. ———. 2001. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81– 108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Niebuhr, K.-W. 1997. “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten (4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung).” Pages 637– 46 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1999. “Die Antithesen des Matthäus. Jesus als Toralehrer und die frühjüdische weisheitlich geprägte Torarezeption.” Pages 175–200 in Gedenkt an das Wort. Edited by Chr. Kähler, M. Böhm, and Chr. Böttrich. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Niedner, F. A. 1989. “Rereading Matthew on Jerusalem and Judaism.” BTB 19: 43– 47. Niemand, C. 1997. “Matthäus 25,31– 46—universal oder exklusiv? Rekonstruktion der ursprünglichen Textintention im Spannungsfeld moderner Wertaxiome.” Pages 287–326 in Patrimonium Fidei. Traditionsgeschichtliches Verstehen am Ende? Edited by M. Perroni and E. Salmann. SA 124. Rome: Centro Studi S. Anselmo. Nolan, B. M. 1979. The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Mt 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel. OBO 23. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Nolland, J. 1996a. “No Son-of-God Christology in Matthew 1.18–25.” JSNT 62: 3–12. ———. 1996b. “What Kind of Genesis Do We Have in Matt 1.1?” NTS 42: 463–71. ———. 1997. “The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy.” NTS 43: 527–39. ———. 2005. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Nortjé, L. 1994. “Matthew’s Motive for the Composition of the Story of Judas’s Suicide in Matthew 27:3–10.” Neot 28: 41–51. Novakovic, L. 1997. “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew.” HBT 19: 148–91. ———. 2003. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT Second Series 170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Oberforcher, R. 1999. “Die jüdische Wurzel des Messias Jesus aus Nazaret. Die

Bibliography

427

Genealogien Jesu im biblischen Horizont.” Pages 5–26 in Alttestamentliche Gestalten im Neuen Testament. Beiträge zur Biblischen Theologie. Edited by M. Öhler. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Ogawa, A. 1979a. L’histoire  de  Jésus  chez  Matthieu.  La  signification  de  l’histoire  pour la théologie matthéenne. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 116. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. ———. 1979b. “Paraboles de l’Israël véritable? Reconsidération critique de Mt. XXI 28–XXII 14.” NovT 21: 121– 49. Olmstead, W. G. 2003. Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables: The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21.28–22.14. SNTSMS 127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2011. “A Gospel for a New Nation: Once More the ἔθνος of Matthew 21.43.” Pages 115–32 in Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity. Studies in Memory of Graham N. Stanton. Edited by D. M. Gurtner, J. Willitts, and R. A. Burridge. Library of New Testament Studies 435. London: T&T Clark. Oppong- Kumi,  P.  Υ.  2013.  Matthean Sets of Parables. WUNT Second Series 340. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ostmeyer, K.-H. 2000. “Der Stammbaum des Verheißenen: Theologische Implikationen der Namen und Zahlen in Mt 1.1–17.” NTS 46: 175–92. Overman, J. A. 1990a. “Heroes and Villains in Palestinian Lore: Matthew’s Use of Traditional Jewish Polemic in the Passion Narrative.” Pages 592– 602 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1990b. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1995. “Matthew’s Parables and Roman Politics: The Imperial Setting of Matthew’s Narrative with Special Reference to His Parables.” Pages 425–39 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1995. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 34. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1996. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity International. Paesler, K. 1999. Das Tempelwort Jesu. Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung im Neuen Testament. FRLANT 184. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Paffenroth, K. 1999. “Jesus as Anointed and Healing Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew.” Bib 80: 547–54. Pamment, M. 1981. “The Kingdom of Heaven According to the First Gospel.” NTS 27: 211–32. Pantle-Schieber, K. 1989. “Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung von ἐκκλησία und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium.” ZNW 80: 145– 62. Park, E. C. 1995. The Mission Discourse in Matthew’s Interpretation. WUNT Second Series 81. Tübingen: Mohr. Park, J. 2006. “Sündenvergebung im Matthäusevangelium. Ihre theologische und soziale Dimension.” EvT 66: 210–27.

428

Bibliography

Paschke, B. 2012. Particularism and Universalism in the Sermon on the Mount. A Narrative­ Critical Analysis of Matthew 5–7 in the Light of Matthew’s View on Mission. NTAbh Neue Folge 56. Münster: Aschendorff. Patte, D. 1987. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Mat­ thew’s Faith. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 2000. “The Canaanite Woman and Jesus: Surprising Models of Discipleship (Matt. 15:21–28).” Pages 33–53 in Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re­Viewed. Edited by I. R. Kitzberger. Biblical Interpretation Series 43. Leiden: Brill. Paul, D. J. 2005. “Untypische” Texte im Matthäusevangelium? Studien zu Charak­ ter, Funktion und Bedeutung einer Textgruppe des matthäischen Sonderguts. NTAbh Neue Folge 50. Münster: Aschendorff. Pedersen, S. 1975. “Die Proklamation Jesu als des eschatologischen Offenbarungsträgers (Mt. xvii 1–13).” NovT 17: 241– 64. ———. 1995. “Israel als integrierter Teil der christlichen Hoffnung (Matthäus 23).” ST 49: 133– 49. Peels, H. G. L. 2001. “The Blood ‘from Abel to Zechariah’ (Matthew 23,35; Luke 11,50f.) and the Canon of the Old Testament.” ZAW 113: 583– 601. Perkins, P. 1993. “Matthew 28:16–20, Resurrection, Ecclesiology and Mission.” Pages 574–88 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1993. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Pesch, R. 1967. “Der Gottessohn im matthäischen Evangelienprolog (Mt 1–2). Beobachtungen zu den Zitationsformeln der Reflexionszitate.” Bib 48: 395– 420. ———. 1989/1991. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. 5 ed. HTKNT 2.1–2. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Pietsch, M. 2003. “Dieser ist der Sproß Davids . . .” Studien zur Rezeptionsge­ schichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum. WMANT 100. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Plessis, J. G. du. 1987. “Pragmatic Meaning in Matthew 13:1–23.” Neot 21: 33–56. Ploner, M. T. 2011. Die Schriften Israels als Auslegungshorizont der Jesusgeschichte. Eine narrative und intertextuelle Analyse von Mt 1–2. SBB 66. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Pokorný, P. 1995. “From a Puppy to the Child: Some Problems of Contemporary Biblical Exegesis Demonstrated from Mark 7.24–30/Matt 15.21–8.” NTS 41: 321–37. ———. 2006. “Die matthäische Theologie—eine bewusste Rückkehr zur Lehre Jesu?” Pages 213–23 in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum. Edited by Chr. Böttrich. Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 11. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. Polag, A., ed. 1982. Fragmenta Q. Textheft zur Logienquelle. 2 rev. ed. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Pomykala, K. E. 1995. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. SBLEJIL 7. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Poplutz, U. 2009. “Verunsicherter Glaube. Der finale Zweifel der Jünger im Matthäusevangelium  aus  figuranalytischer  Sicht.”  Pages  29– 47  in  Studien zu Matthäus

Bibliography

429

und Johannes / Etudes sur Matthieu et Jean. Edited by A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz. ATANT 97. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Powell, M. A. 1990. “The Plot to Kill Jesus from Three Different Perspectives: Point of View in Matthew.” Pages 603–13 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1992. “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel.” NTS 38: 187–204. ———. 1995a. “Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew 23:2–7).” JBL 114: 419–35. ———. 1995b. God with Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2000a. “The Magi as Kings: An Adventure in Reader-Response Criticism.” CBQ 62: 459–80. ———. 2000b. “The Magi as Wise Men: Re-Examining a Basic Supposition.” NTS 46: 1–20. Preuss, H. D. 1991/1992. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Przybylski, B. 1986. “The Setting of Matthean Anti-Judaism.” Pages 181–200 in Paul and the Gospels. Vol. 1 of Anti­Judaism in Early Christianity. Edited by P. Richardson. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Puech, É. 1992. “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521).” RevQ 15: 475–522. Punge, M. 1961. “Endgeschehen und Heilsgeschichte im Matthäus-Evangelium.” PhD diss., Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald. Radermakers, J. 1971. “La Mission, engagement radical. Une lecture de Mt 10.” NRTh 93: 1072– 85. Ray, W. A. 1967. “The Relationship between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in the Gospel of Matthew: A Study in Redaktionsgeschichte.” PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary. Reicke, B. 1972. “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem.” Pages 121–34 in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Edited by D. E. Aune. Leiden: Brill. Reinbold, W. 2006. “Das Matthäusevangelium, die Pharisäer und die Tora.” BZ Neue Folge 50: 51–73. Reinhartz, A. 1988. “The New Testament and Anti-Judaism: A Literary-Critical Approach.” JES 25: 524–37. Rengstorf, K. H. 1960. “Die Stadt der Mörder (Mt 22,7).” Pages 106–29 in Juden­ tum, Urchristentum, Kirche. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 26. Berlin: Töpelmann-Verlag. Repschinski, B. 2000. The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form und [sic] Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean  Community and Formative Judaism. FRLANT 189. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2006. “ ‘For He Will Save His People from Their Sins’ (Matthew 1:21): A Christology for Christian Jews.” CBQ 68: 248– 67. ———. 2008. “Die Heidenmission in den synoptischen Evangelien.” ZKT 130: 423– 44.

430

Bibliography

———. 2009. Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen. Das jüdische Gesetz in den syn­ optischen Jesuserzählungen. FB 120. Würzburg: Echter. Reventlow, H. G. 1960. “ ‘Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt.’ ” VT 10: 311–27. Riches, J. 2000. Conflicting Mythologies: Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark  and Matthew. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 2004. Matthew.  T&T  Clark  Study  Guides.  Sheffield:  Sheffield  Academic,  1996. Repr. London: T&T Clark. Riedl, J. 1991. “Mt 1 und die Jungfrauengeburt.” Pages 91–109 in Salz der Erde— Licht der Welt. Exegetische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Ringe, S. H. 1985. “A Gentile Woman’s Story.” Pages 65–72 in Feminist Interpreta­ tion of the Bible. Edited by L. M. Russell. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Ritter, C. 2003. Rachels Klage im antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie. AGJU 52. Leiden: Brill. Robinson, B. P. 1984. “Peter and His Successors: Tradition and Redaction in Matthew 16.17–19.” JSNT 21: 85–104. Robinson, J. M., P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg, eds. 2000. The Critical Edition of Q. Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress. Rochais, G. 1981. Les récits de résurrection des morts dans le Nouveau Testament. SNTSMS 40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roloff, J. 1990. “ἐκκλησία.” Pages 410–15 in EDNT 1. ———. 1992a. “ἐκκλησία.” Pages 998–1011 in EWNT 1. ———. 1992b. “Das Kirchenverständnis des Matthäus im Spiegel seiner Gleichnisse.” NTS 38: 337–56. ———. 1993. Die Kirche im Neuen Testament. GNT 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1997. “Das Reich des Menschensohnes. Ein Beitrag zur Eschatologie des Matthäus.” Pages 275–92 in Eschatologie und Schöpfung. Edited by M. Evang, H. Merklein, and M. Wolter. BZNW 89. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 1999. “Zur matthäischen Deutung der Winzerparabel (Mt 21,42– 44).” Pages 247– 62 in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte. Edited by U. Mell and U. B. Müller. BZNW 100. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2005. Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthäusevangelium. Edited by H. Kreller and R. Oechslen. Biblisch-theologische Studien 73. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Rölver, O. 2010. Christliche Existenz zwischen den Gerichten Gottes. Untersuchun­ gen zur Eschatologie des Matthäusevangeliums. BBB 163. Göttingen: V&R unipress. Rose, M. 1994. 5. Mose. Teilband 1: 5. Mose 12–25. Einführung und Gesetze. ZBK AT 5.1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Rothfuchs, W. 1969. Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus­Evangeliums. Eine biblisch­ theologische Untersuchung. BWANT 88. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Bibliography

431

Runesson, A. 2008. “Rethinking Early Jewish–Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intergroup Conflict.” JBL 127: 95–132. ———. 2011a. “Building Matthean Communities. The Politics of Textualization.” Pages 379– 408 in Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First­ Century Settings. Edited by E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson. WUNT 271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2011b. “Judging Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. Between ‘Othering’ and Inclusion.” Pages 133–51 in Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity. Studies in Memory of Graham N. Stanton. Edited by D. M. Gurtner, J. Willitts, and R. A. Burridge. Library of New Testament Studies 435. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2011c. “Giving Birth to Jesus in the Late First Century. Matthew as Midwife in the Context of Colonisation.” Pages 301–27 in Infancy Gospels. Stories and Identities. Edited by C. Clivaz et al. WUNT 281. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rusche, H. 1979. “Für das ‘Haus Israel’ vom ‘Gott Israels’ gesandt. Jesus und die Juden in der Deutung von Mt 15,21–28.” Pages 99–121 in Gottesverächter und Menschenfeinde? Juden zwischen Jesus und frühchristlicher Kirche. Edited by H. Goldstein. Düsseldorf: Patmos. Russell, E. A. 1982. “The Image of the Jew in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 427– 42 in SE VII (TU 126). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Ryan, T. J. 1978. “Matthew 15:29–31: An Overlooked Summary.” Horizons 5: 31– 42. Sabourin, L. 1977. “ ‘You Will Not Have Gone through All the Towns of Israel, before the Son of Man Comes’ (Matt 10:23b).” BTB 7: 5–11. Safrai, S. 1976. “The Temple.” Pages 865–907 in vol. 2 of The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. 2 vols. CRINT 1.2. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum. Saldarini, A. J. 1991. “The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish- Christian Conflict.” Pages  38– 61 in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross­Disciplinary Approaches. Edited by D. L. Balch. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1992a. “Delegitimation of Leaders in Matthew 23.” CBQ 54: 659–80. ———. 1992b. “The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish- Christian Conflict in the Galilee.”  Pages 23–38 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. ———. 1994. Matthew’s Christian­Jewish Community. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1996. “Boundaries and Polemics in the Gospel of Matthew.” BibInt 4: 239– 65. ———. 2001. “Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism.” Pages 166– 84 in The Gos­ pel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by D. E. Aune. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sand, A. 1974. Das Gesetz und die Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthäus. Biblische Untersuchungen 11. Regensburg: Pustet. ———. 1986. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet. ———. 1991. Das Matthäus­Evangelium. EdF 275. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1992a. “πείθω.” Pages 148–50 in EWNT 3.

432

Bibliography

———. 1992b. “ ‘Schule des Lebens.’ Zur Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 57– 82 in Theologie im Werden. Studien zu den theologischen Konzeptionen im Neuen Testament. Edited by J. Hainz. Paderborn: Schöningh. Sato, M. 2001. “Ist Matthäus wirklich Judenchrist?” AJBI 27: 155–73. Sauer, G. 1987. “Die Messias-Erwartung nach Mt 21 in ihrem Rückbezug auf das Alte Testament als Frage an die Methode einer Biblischen Theologie.” Pages 81– 94 in Altes Testament und christliche Verkündigung. Edited by M. Oeming and A. Graupner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schaberg, J. 1982. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19b. SBLDS 61. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Schaller, B. 2001. “Jüdische und christliche Messiaserwartungen.” Pages 201–10 in Fundamenta Judaica. Studien zum antiken Judentum und zum Neuen Testa­ ment. Edited by L. Doering and A. Steudel. SUNT 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schelkle, K. H. 1967. “Die ‘Selbtverfluchung’ Israels nach Matthäus 27,23– 25.” Pages  148–56 in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und systematische Beiträge. Edited by W. P. Eckert, N. P. Levinson, and M. Stöhr. Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog 2. Munich: Kaiser. ———. 1985. Israel im Neuen Testament. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schenk, W. 1963. “ ‘Den Menschen’ Mt 9,8.” ZNW 54: 272–75. ———. 1987. Die Sprache des Matthäus. Die Text­Konstituenten in ihren makro­ und mikrostrukturellen Relationen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schenke, L. 1990. Die Urgemeinde. Geschichtliche und theologische Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schenker, A. 1993. “Der nie aufgehobene Bund. Exegetische Beobachtungen zu Jer 31,31–34.” Pages 85–112 in Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Scheuermann, G. 1996. Gemeinde im Umbruch. Eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie zum Matthäusevangelium. Forschungen zur Bibel 77. Würzburg: Echter. Schlatter, D. A. 1933. Der Evangelist Matthäus. Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbstän­ digkeit. Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium. 2 ed. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Schlosser, J. 1980. Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus. Vol. 2. EBib. Paris: J. Gabalda. Schmeller, T. 1994. “Jesus im Umland Galiläas. Zu den markinischen Berichten vom Aufenthalt Jesu in den Gebieten von Tyros, Caesarea Philippi und der Dekapolis.” BZ Neue Folge 38: 44– 66. Schmid, J. 1965. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 5 ed. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet. Schmithals,  W.  1987.  “Der  Konflikt  zwischen  Kirche  und  Synagoge  in  neutestamentlicher Zeit.” Pages 366– 84 in Altes Testament und christliche Verkündi­ gung. Edited by M. Oeming and A. Graupner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schnabel, E. J. 1985. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT Second Series 16. Tübingen: Mohr.

Bibliography

433

Schnackenburg, R. 1985/1987. Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. NEB 1.1–2. Würzburg: Echter. ———. 1991. “ ‘Siehe da mein Knecht, den ich erwählt habe . . .’ (Mt 12,18). Zur Heiltätigkeit Jesu im Matthäusevangelium.” Pages 203–22 in Salz der Erde—Licht der Welt. Exegetische Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Oberlinner and P. Fiedler. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2002. The Gospel of Matthew. Translated by R. R. Barr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schneider, G. 1972. “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12,35–37).” Bib 53: 65–90. ———. 1988. “ ‘Im Himmel—auf Erden,’ eine Perspektive matthäischer Theologie.” Pages 283–97 in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium. Edited by L. Schenke. SBS. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 1992. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 2 vols. 3 ed. ÖTK 3.1–2. Gütersloh: Mohn. Schnelle, U. 2013. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 8 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schnider, F., and W. Stenger. 1979. “Die Frauen im Stammbaum Jesu nach Mattäus. Strukturale Beobachtungen zu Mt 1,1–17.” BZ Neue Folge 23: 187–96. ———. 1981. “ ‘Mit der Abstammung Jesu verhielt es sich so:. . . .’ Strukturale Beobachtungen zu Mt 1,18–25.” BZ Neue Folge 25: 255– 64. Schniedewind, W. M. 1999. Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. New York: Oxford University Press. Schniewind, J. 1962. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 10 ed. NTS 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schönle, V. 1982. Johannes, Jesus und die Juden. Die theologische Position des Mat­ thäus und des Verfassers der Redenquelle im Lichte von Mt. 11. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 17. Franktfurt a.M.: P. Lang. Schottroff, L. 1987. “Das Gleichnis vom großen Gastmahl in der Logienquelle.” EvT 47: 192–211. Schrage, W. 1963. “ ‘Ekklesia’ und ‘Synagoge.’ Zum Ursprung des urchristlichen Kirchenbegriffs.” ZTK 60: 178–202. Schreiber, S. 2000. Gesalbter und König. Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften. BZNW 105. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2001. “Cavete Canes! Zur wachsenden Ausgrenzungsvalenz einer neutestamentlichen Metapher.” BZ Neue Folge 45: 170–92. Schrenk, G. 1990 [1933]. “βιάζομαι, βιαστής.” Pages 608–13 in TWNT 1. Schröter, J. 2002. “Von der Historizität der Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion um den historischen Jesus.” Pages 163–212 in Der historische Jesus. Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung. Edited by J. Schröter and R. Brucker. BZNW 114. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schulz, S. 1972. Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Schürer, E. 1973/1987. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135). A New English Version. Revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. I–III. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

434

Bibliography

Schürmann, H. 1963. “Mt 10,5b–6 und die Vorgeschichte des synoptischen Aussendungsberichtes.” Pages 270– 82 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Edited by J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mußner. Regensburg: Pustet. ———. 1968. “Zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Mt 10,23.” Pages 150– 56 in Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1986. “Die Redekomposition wider ‘dieses Geschlecht’ und seine Führung in der Redenquelle (vgl. Mt 23,1–39 par Lk 11,37–54). Bestand—Akolouthie— Kompositionsformen.” SNTSU Series A 11: 33– 81. ———. 1990. Das Lukasevangelium. Teilbd. 1: Kommentar zu Kap.1 1,1– 9,50. 4 ed. HTKNT 3.1. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Schweizer, E. 1973. “Matthäus 21–25.” Pages 364–71 in Orientierung an Jesus. Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Edited by P. Hoffmann. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1974. Matthäus und seine Gemeinde. SBS 71. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag. ———. 1986. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD 2. 4 ed. of 16 rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schwemer, A. M. 1991. “Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern aus Qumran.” Pages 45–118 in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr. Schwindt, R. 2007. “Kein Heil ohne Gericht. Die Antwort Gottes auf Jesu Tod nach Mt 27,51–54.” BN Neue Folge 132: 87–104. Schwöbel, C. 1997. “Gemeinsamkeiten entdecken—Spannungen aushalten. Bemerkungen zu einer theologischen Hermeneutik des christlich-jüdischen Dialogs.” Kirche und Israel 12: 173–77. Scott, J. J. 1990. “Gentiles and the Ministry of Jesus: Further Observations on Matt 10:5– 6; 15:21–28.” JETS 33: 161– 69. Scott, J. M. C. 1996. “Matthew 15.21–28: A Test-Case for Jesus’ Manners.” JSNT 63: 21– 44. Seebass, H. 1992. Herrscherverheißungen im Alten Testament. Biblisch-theologische Studien 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Segal, A. F. 1991. “Matthew’s Jewish Voice.” Pages 3–37 in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross­Disciplinary Approaches. Edited by D. L. Balch. Minneapolis: Fortress. Senior, D. P. 1976. “The Death of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Holy Ones (Mt 27:51–53).” CBQ 38: 312–29. ———. 1982a. The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study. BETL 39. Repr. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1982b. “The Fate of the Betrayer: A Redactional Study of Matthew XXVII,3–10.” ETL 48 (1972): 372– 426. Repr. pages 343–97 in The Passion Nar­ rative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study. BETL 39. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1985. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier.

Bibliography

435

———. 1987. “Matthew’s Special Material in the Passion Story: Implications for the Evangelist’s Redactional Technique and Theological Perspective.” ETL 63: 272–94. ———. 1994. “Revisiting Matthew’s Special Material in the Passion Narrative: A Dialogue with Raymond Brown.” ETL 70: 417–24. ———. 1998a. “The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Re-Assessing Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament with the Passion Narrative as Test Case.” Pages 89–115 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1998b. Matthew. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon. ———. 1999. “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 61: 1–23. Senior, D. P., ed. 2011. The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christian­ ity. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Shirock, R. 1992. “Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19.” JSNT 46: 41–51. Sider Hamilton, C. 2008. “ ‘His Blood Be upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew.” CBQ 70: 82–100. Siegert, F. 2002. “ ‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . . !’ Jesus als ‘Tempel’ in den Passionsüberlieferungen.” Pages 108–39 in Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Geschehen—Wahrnehmung—Bewältigung. Edited by J. Hahn. WUNT 147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Siker, J. S. 1991. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox. Sim, D. C. 1993a. “The ‘Confession’ of the Soldiers in Matthew 27:54.” Heythrop Journal 34: 401–24. ———. 1993b. “The Meaning of παλιγγενεσία in Matthew 19,28.” JSNT 50: 3–12. ———. 1995. “The Gospel of Matthew and the Gentiles.” JSNT 57: 19– 48. ———. 1996. “Christianity and Ethnicity in the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 171–95 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by M. G. Brett. Biblical Interpretation Series 19. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1998a. “Are the Least Included in the Kingdom of Heaven? The Meaning of Matthew 5:19.” HTS 54: 573–87. ———. 1998b. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1999. “The Magi: Gentiles or Jews?” HTS 55: 980–1000. ———. 2005. “Rome in Matthew’s Eschatology.” Pages 91–106 in The Gospel of Mat­ thew in Its Roman Imperial Context. Edited by J. Riches and D. C. Sim. JSNTSup 276/Early Christianity in Context. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2012. “Fighting on All Fronts: Crisis Management in the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 62–78 in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Lit­ erature. Edited by D. C. Sim and P. Allen. Library of New Testament Studies 445. London: T&T Clark.

436

Bibliography

Slee, M. 2003. The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE: Communion and Conflict. JSNTSup 244. London: Sheffield Academic. Smit, P.-B. 2010. “Something about Mary? Remarks about the Five Women in the Matthean Genealogy.” NTS 56: 191–207. Smith, C. R. 1997. “Literary Evidences of a Fivefold Structure in the Gospel of Matthew.” NTS 43: 540–51. Smith, C. W. F. 1963. “The Mixed State of the Church in Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 82: 149– 68. Smith, R. H. 1990. “Matthew 27:25. The Hardest Verse in Matthew’s Gospel.” CurTM 17: 421–28. Snodgrass, K. R. 1983. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation. WUNT 27. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1988. “Matthew and the Law.” Pages 536–54 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1988. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 1998. “Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment.” BBR 8: 187–215. Soares Prabhu, G. M. 1976. The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Mat­ thew. AnBib 63. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Söding, T. 1994/1995. “Solidarität in der Diaspora. Das Liebesgebot nach den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen im Vergleich mit dem Neuen Testament.” Kairos 36/37: 1–19. ———. 1996. “Das Gleichnis vom Festmahl (Lk 14,16–24 par Mt 22,1–10).” Pages 56–84 in Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments. Edited by R. Kampling and T. Söding. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1997. “Der Gehorsam des Gottessohnes. Zur Christologie der matthäischen Versuchungserzählung (4,1–11).” Pages 711–50 in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by C. Landmesser, H.-J. Eckstein, and H. Lichtenberger. BZNW 86. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2004. “ ‘Lehret sie, alles zu halten, was ich euch aufgetragen habe’ (Mt 20,20 [sic]). Bemerkungen zum theologischen Anspruch des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 21– 48 in “Dies ist das Buch. . . .” Das Matthäusevangelium. Interpretation— Rezeption—Rezeptionsgeschichte. Edited by R. Kampling. Paderborn: Schöningh. Söllner, P. 1998. Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt. Eschatologisches und Himm­ lisches Jerusalem im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 25. Tübingen: Francke. Sparks, K. L. 2006. “Gospel as Conquest: Mosaic Typology in Matthew 28:16–20.” CBQ 68: 651– 63. Standaert, B. 1992. “L’Évangile selon Matthieu. Composition et genre littéraire.” Pages 1223–50 in vol. 2 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Stanton, G. 1985. “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980.” ANRW 25.3:1889–951. Part 2, Principat, 25.3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Bibliography

437

———. 1992a. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. ———. 1992b. “Matthew: βίβλος, εὐαγγέλιον, or βίος.” Pages 1187–201 in vol. 2 of The Four Gospels 1992. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1992c. “Matthew’s Christology and the Parting of the Ways.” Pages 99–116 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. WUNT 66. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1992d. “The Communities of Matthew.” Int 46: 379–91. ———. 1994. “Revisiting Matthew’s Communities.” Pages 9–23 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1994. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 33. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Steck, O. H. 1967. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersu­ chungen zur Überlieferung des deuternomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Stegemann, H. 1971. “ ‘Die des Uria.’ Zur Bedeutung der Frauennamen in der Genealogie von Matthäus 1,1–17.” Pages 246–76 in Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Edited by G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1993. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Ein Sachbuch. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1996. “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Messianism.” RevQ 17: 479–505. Stegemann, W. 1998. “Gab es eine jüdische Beteiligung an der Kreuzigung Jesu?” Kirche und Israel 13: 3–24. Stein, H. J. 2007. “ ‘Zur Vergebung der Sünden.’ Erwägungen zu den israeltheologischen und ekklesiologischen Implikationen des matthäischen Abendmahls.” Pages 137–50 in Logos—Logik—Lyrik. Engagierte exegetische Studien zum bib­ lischen Reden Gottes. Edited by V. A. Lehnert and U. Rüsen-Weinhold. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Stendahl, K. 1960. “Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Mt 1–2.” Pages 94–105 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 26. Berlin: Töpelmann-Verlag. ———. 1991. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. ASNU 20. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1954. Repr. Ramsey, N.J.: Sigler Press. Stenger, W. 1978. “Die Gottesbezeichnung ‘lebendiger Gott’ im Neuen Testament.” TTZ 87: 61– 69. Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. 1922. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck. Strathmann, H., and R. Meyer. 1990. “λαός.” Pages 29–57 in TWNT 4. Strauss, M. L. 1995. The Davidic Messiah in Luke– Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfill­ ment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Strecker, G. 1971 [1962]. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. 3 ed. FRLANT 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

438

Bibliography

Streeter, B. H. 1956 [1924]. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. 9 ed. London: Macmillan. Struppe, U., ed. 1989. Studien zum Messiasbild im Alten Testament. SBAB 6. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Stuhlmacher, P. 1966. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. 2 ed. FRLANT 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1999. “Zur missionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Mt 28,16–20.” EvT 59: 108–30. ———. 2000. “Matt 28:16–20 and the Course of Mission in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Age.” Pages 17– 43 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and the Gentiles. Edited by J. Ådna and H. Kvalbein. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stuhlmann, R. 1983. Das eschatologische Maß im Neuen Testament. FRLANT 132. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Suhl, A. 1968. “Der Davidssohn im Matthäus-Evangelium.” ZNW 59: 57– 81. ———. 1998. “Beobachtungen zu den Passionsgeschichten der synoptischen Evangelien.” Pages 321–77 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: de Gruyter. Swaeles, R. 1959/1960. “L’arrière-fond scripturaire de Matt. XXI. 43 et son lien avec Matt. XXI. 44.” NTS 6: 310–13. Tagawa, K. 1969/1970. “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew.” NTS 16: 149– 62. Talbert, C. H. 2010. Matthew. Paideia. Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Tatum, W. B. 1977. “ ‘The Origin of Jesus Messiah’ (Matt 1:1, 18a): Matthew’s Use of the Infancy Traditions.” JBL 96: 523–35. Taylor, N. H. 2003. “The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Transmission of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse.” HTS 59: 283–311. Telford, W. R. 1980. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction­ Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig­Tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and Its Rela­ tion to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition. JSNTSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Theißen, G. 1987. Urchristliche Wundergeschichten. Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtli­ chen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. 5 ed. SNT 8. Gütersloh: Mohn. ———. 1989a. “Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5,38– 48/Lk 6,27–38) und deren sozialgeschichtlicher Hintergrund.” Pages 160–97 in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 3 ed. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1989b. “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu. Prophetie im Spannungsfeld von Stadt und Land.” Pages 142–59 in Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 3 ed. WUNT 19. Tübingen: Mohr. ———. 1989c. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. NTOA 8. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 1990. “Aporien im Umgang mit den Antijudaismen des Neuen Testaments.” Pages 535–53 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Edited by E. Blum, Chr. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Bibliography

439

———. 1999. “Vom Davidssohn zum Weltenherrscher. Pagane und jüdische Endzeiterwartungen im Spiegel des Matthäusevangeliums.” Pages 145– 64 in Das Ende der Tage und die Gegenwart des Heils. Begegnungen mit dem Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Edited by M. Becker and W. Fenske. AGJU 44. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2001. Die Religion der ersten Christen. Eine Theorie des Urchristentums. 2 ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. ———. 2011. “Kritik an Paulus im Matthäusevangelium? Von der Kunst verdeckter Polemik im Urchristentum.” Pages 465–90 in Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur. Texte und Kontexte. Edited by O. Wischmeyer and L. Scornaienchi. BZNW 170. Berlin: de Gruyter. Theißen, G., and A. Merz. 1996. Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thielman, F. 1999. The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity. New York: Crossroad. Thiessen, M. 2012. “Abolishers of the Law in Early Judaism and Matthew 5,17–20.” Bib 93: 543–56. Thoma, C. 1993. “Redimensionierungen des frühjüdischen Messianismus.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 8: 209–18. Thomas, D. W. 1960. “Kelebh ‘Dog’: Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old Testament.” VT 10: 410–27. Thompson, W. G. 1974. “An Historical Perspective in the Gospel of Matthew.” JBL 93: 243– 62. Tilborg, S. van. 1972. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1989. “Matthew 27:3–10: an Intertextual Reading.” Pages 159–74 in Intertex­ tuality in Biblical Writings. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok. Tisera, G. 1993. Universalism according to the Gospel of Matthew. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 482. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. Tomson, P. J. 2008. “Das Matthäusevangelium im Wandel der Horizonte: vom ‘Hause Israels’ zu ‘allen Völkern’ (28,19).” Pages 313–33 in Judaistik und neutestamentli­ che Wissenschaft. Standorte—Grenzen—Beziehungen. Edited by L. Doering, H.-G. Waubke, and F. Wilk. FRLANT 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Torijano, P. A. 2002. Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. JSJSup 73. Leiden: Brill. Trebilco, P. 2012. Self­ designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trilling, W. 1963. “Der Einzug in Jerusalem. Mt 21,1–17.” Pages 303–9 in Neutesta­ mentliche Aufsätze. Edited by J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, and F. Mußner. Regensburg: Pustet. ———. 1964. Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus­Evangeliums. SANT 10. 3 rev. ed. Munich: Kösel-Verlag. ———. 1980. “Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus.” BZ Neue Folge 3 (1959): 271– 89. Repr. pages 273–95 in Das Matthäus­Evangelium. Edited by J. Lange. Wege der Forschung 525. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

440

Bibliography

Troxel, R. L. 2002. “Matt 27.51–4 Reconsidered: Its Role in the Passion Narrative, Meaning and Origin.” NTS 48: 30– 47. Trunk, D. 1994. Der messianische Heiler. Eine redaktions­ und religionsgeschichtli­ che Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium. Herders Biblische Studien 3. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Tuckett, C. M. 1990. “Synoptic Tradition in I Thessalonians?” Pages 160– 82 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. Edited by R. F. Collins. BETL 87. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2004. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Studies on Q. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Repr. London: T&T Clark. ———. 2011. “Matthew: The Social and Historical Context—Jewish Christian and/ or Gentile.” Pages 99–129 in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Turner, D. L. 2008. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Utzschneider, H. 2005. Micha. ZBK AT 24.1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Vahrenhorst, M. 2001. “Gift oder Aznei? Perspektiven für das neutestamentliche Verständnis von Jes 6,9f. im Rahmen der jüdischen Rezeptionsgeschichte.” ZNW 92: 145– 67. ———. 2002. “Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören.” Matthäus im halachischen Dis­ kurs. WMANT 95. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Verseput, D. 1986. The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Com­ position of Matthew 11–12. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII. Theologie 291. Frankfurt a.M.: P. Lang. ———. 1987. “The Role and Meaning of the ‘Son of God’ Title in Matthew’s Gospel.” NTS 33: 532–56. ———. 1994. “Jesus’ Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple: A Geographical Motif in Matthew’s Gospel.” NovT 36: 105–21. ———. 1995. “The Davidic Messiah and Matthew’s Jewish Christianity.” Pages 102– 16 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1995. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 34. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Vetter, D. 1971. Jahwes Mit­ Sein—ein Ausdruck des Segens. AzTh 45. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Viljoen, F. P. 2011. “Matthew, the Church and Anti-Semitism.” Pages 665– 82 in The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity. Edited by D. P. Senior. BETL 243. Leuven: Peeters. Viviano, B. T. 2001. “The Trinity in the Old Testament: From Daniel 7:13–14 to Matt 28:19.” Pages 3–20 in Trinity—Kingdom—Church: Essays in Biblical Theology. NTOA 48. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Vogler, W. 1985. Judas Iskarioth. Untersuchungen zu Tradition und Redaktion von Texten des Neuen Testaments und außerkanonischer Schriften. 2 ed. Theologische Arbeiten 42. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Vögtle, A. 1971a. Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Beiträge zur Evangelienfor­ schung. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos.

Bibliography

441

———. 1971b. “Das christologische und ekklesiologische Anliegen von Mt 28,18–20.” Pages 253–72 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Beiträge zur Evangelien­ forschung. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1971c. “Die Genealogie Mt 1,2–16 und die matthäische Kindheitsgeschichte.” Pages 57–102 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Beiträge zur Evangelien­ forschung. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1971d. “Messiasbekenntnis und Petrusverheißung. Zur Komposition Mt 16,13–23par.” Pages 137–70 in Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Beiträge zur Evangelienforschung. KBANT. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1971e. Messias und Gottessohn. Herkunft und Sinn der matthäischen Geburts­ und Kindheitsgeschichte. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1985. “Das Problem der Herkunft von ‘Mt 16,17–19.’ ” Pages 109– 40 in Offenbarungsgeschehen und Wirkungsgeschichte. Neutestamentliche Beiträge. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1996. Gott und seine Gäste. Das Schicksal des Gleichnisses Jesu vom großen Gastmahl (Lukas 14,16b–24; Matthäus 22,2–14). Biblisch-theologische Studien 29. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Waetjen, H. C. 1976. “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew.” JBL 95: 205–30. Wainwright, E. M. 1991. Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel Accord­ ing to Matthew. BZNW 60. Berlin: de Gruyter. Walck, L. W. 2011. The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 9. London: T&T Clark. Walker, R. 1967. Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium. FRLANT 91. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Walter, N. 1966. “Tempelzerstörung und synoptische Apokalypse.” ZNW 57: 38– 49. Wander, B. 1998. Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen. WUNT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wansbrough, H. 2000. “The New Israel. The Community of Matthew and the Community of Qumran.” SNTSU Series A 25: 8–22. Ward, R. B. 1992. “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries.” ANRW 26.1:779–812. Part 2, Principat, 26.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter. Weaver, D. J. 1990. Matthew’s Missionary Discourse: A Literary Critical Analysis. JSNTSup 38. Sheffield: JSOT Press. ———. 1996. “Power and Powerlessness: Matthew’s Use of Irony in the Portrayal of Political Leaders.” Pages 179–96 in Treasures New and Old: Recent Contribu­ tions to Matthean Studies. Edited by D. R. Bauer and M. A. Powell. SBLSymS 1. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. ———. 2005. “ ‘Thus You Will Know Them by Their Fruits’: The Roman Characters of the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages 107–27 in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. Edited by J. Riches and D. C. Sim. JSNTSup 276/Early Christianity in Context. London: T&T Clark. Webb, R. L. 1991. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio­Historical Study. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

442

Bibliography

Wedderburn, A. J. M. 1999. “Matthew 10,23b and the Eschatology of Jesus.” Pages 165–81 in Das Ende der Tage und die Gegenwart des Heils. Begegnungen mit dem Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Edited by M. Becker and W. Fenske. AGJU 44. Leiden: Brill. Weder, H. 1984. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern. Traditions­ und redaktions­ geschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen. 3 ed. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wegner, U. 1985. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum (Mt 7,28a; 8,5–10.13 par Lk 7,1– 10). Ein Beitrag zur Q­Forschung. WUNT Second Series 14. Tübingen: Mohr. Weiser, A. 1971. Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien. SANT 29. Munich: Kösel-Verlag. Weiss, B. 1890. Das Matthäus­Evangelium. 8 ed. KEK I/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weiss, H.-F. 1996. “Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium. Zur Frage des ‘Antipharisäismus’ im ersten Evangelium.” ANRW 26.3:2038–98. Part 2, Princi­ pat, 26.3. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. New York: de Gruyter. Wenham, D. 1979. “The Structure of Matthew XIII.” NTS 25: 516–22. ———. 1989. The Parables of Jesus: Pictures of Revolution. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Weren, W. 1984. “Israël en de kerk. Het substitutiedenken en de lijnen van Jes. 5,1–7 naar Mt. 21,33– 44.” TvT 24: 355–73. ———. 1997a. “The Five Women in Matthew’s Genealogy.” CBQ 59: 288–305. ———. 1997b. “Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem: Mt 21,1–17 in the Light of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.” Pages 117– 41 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1997c. “Quotations from Isaiah and Matthew’s Christology (Mt 1,23 and 4,15– 16).” Pages 447– 65 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1998. “The Use of Isaiah 5,1–7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1–12; Matthew 21,33– 46).” Bib 79: 1–26. ———. 2001. “From Q to Matthew 22,1–14. New Light on the Transmission and Meaning of the Parable of the Guests.” Pages 661–79 in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Edited by A. Lindemann. BETL 158. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2005. “The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community.” Pages 51– 62 in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish­ Christian Milieu? Edited by H. van de Sandt. Minneapolis: Fortress. Westermann, C. 1986 [1970]. Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 40– 66. 5 ed. ATD 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wettlaufer, R. D. 2007. “A Second Glance at Matthew 27.24.” NTS 53: 344–58. White, L. M. 1991. “Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social Location of the Matthean Community.” Pages 211– 47 in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross­Disciplinary Approaches. Edited by D. L. Balch. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Bibliography

443

Whitters, M. F. 2006. “Jesus in the Footsteps of Jeremiah.” CBQ 68: 229–47. Wick, P. 2001. “Judas als Prophet wider Willen. Mt 27, 3–10 als Midrasch.” TZ 57: 26–35. ———. 2003. “Matthäus und die Mission.” Zeitschrift für Mission 29: 77–90. Wiefel, W. 1988. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. THKNT 3. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. ———. 1998. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THKNT 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Wilckens, U. 1987. Der Brief an die Römer. 1. Teilbd.: Röm 1–5. 2 ed. EKKNT 6.1. Zürich: Benziger. ———. 1998. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 17 ed. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wilk, F. 2002. Jesus und die Völker in der Sicht der Synoptiker. BZNW 109. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2005. “Eingliederung von ‘Heiden’ in die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Abrahams. Die Aufgabe der Jünger Jesu unter ‘allen Weltvölkern.’ ” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 8: 52–59. Wilkens, W. 1964. “Die Redaktion des Gleichniskapitels Mark. 4 durch Matth.” TZ 20: 305–27. Williams, R. H. 2002. “An Illustration of Historical Inquiry: Histories of Jesus and Matthew 1.1–25.” Pages 105–23 in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Sci­ ence Approaches. Edited by A. J. Blasi, J. Duhaime, and P.-A. Turcotte. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press. Willitts, J. 2007. Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd King. In Search of “The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” BZNW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2011. “The Twelve Disciples in Matthew.” Pages 166–79 in Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity. Studies in Memory of Graham N. Stanton. Edited by D. M. Gurtner, J. Willitts, and R. A. Burridge. Library of New Testament Studies 435. London: T&T Clark. Winkle, R. E. 1986. “The Jeremiah Model for Jesus in the Temple.” AUSS 24: 155–72. Winston, D. 1979. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Witherup, R. D. 1987. “The Death of Jesus and the Raising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51–54 in Context.” Pages 574– 85 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1987. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Wolff, C. 1976. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. TU 118. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wolter, M. 2003/2004. “Reconstructing Q?” ExpTim 115: 115–19. ———. 2004. “ ‘Ihr sollt aber wissen. . . .’ Das Anakoluth nach ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε in Mk 2,10–11 parr. ” ZNW 95: 269–75. Wong, K.- C. 1992. Interkulturelle Theologie und multikulturelle Gemeinde im Mat­ thäusevangelium. Zum Verhältnis von Juden­ und Heidenchristen im ersten Evangelium. NTOA 22. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Woschitz, K. M. 1985. “Erzählter Glaube. Die Geschichte vom starken Glauben als Geschichte Gottes mit Juden und Heiden (Mt 15,21–28 par).” ZKT 107: 319–32.

444

Bibliography

Wright, N. T. 1992. The New Testament and the People of God. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Wucherpfenning, A. 2008. Josef der Gerechte. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Matthäus 1–2. Herders Biblische Studien 55. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Yang, Y.-E. 1997. Jesus and the Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel. JSNTSup 139. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Yieh, J. Y.-H. 2004. One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report. BZNW 124. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zahn, T. 1922. Das Evangelium des Matthäus. 4 ed. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Leipzig: Deichert. Zakowitch, Y. 1975. “Rahab als Mutter des Boas in der Jesus- Genealogie (Matth. I 5).” NovT 17: 1–5. Zangenberg, J. 2007. “Pharisees, Villages and Synagogues. Observations on the Theological  Significance  of  Matthew’s  Geography  of  Galilee.”  Pages  151– 69  in Logos—Logik—Lyrik. Engagierte exegetische Studien zum biblischen Reden Gottes. Edited by V. A. Lehnert and U. Rüsen-Weinhold. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 27. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Zeller, D. 1971/1972. “Das Logion Mt 8,11f/Lk 13,28f und das Motiv der ‘Völkerwallfahrt.’ ” BZ Neue Folge 15: 222–37; 16: 84–93. ———. 1977. “Die Bildlogik des Gleichnisses Mt 11,16f. / Lk 7,31f.” ZNW 68: 252–57. Zenger, E. 1981. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ 1.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn. ———. 1993. “Die Bundestheologie—ein derzeit vernachlässigtes Thema der Bibelwissenschaft und ein wichtiges Thema für das Verhältnis Israel—Kirche.” Pages 13– 49 in Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. ———. 1994a [1991]. Das Erste Testament. Die jüdische Bibel und die Christen. 4 ed. Düsseldorf: Patmos. ———. 1994b. “Juden und Christen doch nicht im gemeinsamen Gottesbund? Antwort auf Frank Crüsemann.” Kirche und Israel 9: 39–52. Zenger, E., ed. 1993. Der Neue Bund im Alten. Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Tes­ tamente. QD 146. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder. Zetterholm, M. 2003. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social- Scientific  Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge. Zimmermann, J. 1998. Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT Second Series 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zumstein, J. 1977. La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1980. “Antioche sur l’Oronte et l’Évangile selon Matthieu.” SNTSU Series A 5: 122–38.

Index of Ancient Sources Septuagint references that differ from the Masoretic Text (esp. Ps, Jer) are listed according to Masoretic numbering.

1. Old Testament

Numbers

Genesis 1–2 10.22 12.2 12.3 15.14 17.16 18.18 22.18 22.21 24.3– 4 25.23 26.4 28.1– 4 28.13–15 37.9–11 37.28 38 38.2 38.8 38.26 49 49.8–12

121n189 269n19 179, 184, 184n94 179, 266, 308 182 182n86 266, 308 266, 308 269n19 269n19 182n85 266, 308 269n19 312n252 182n87 141n288 269 269n19 130 269n18 75n330 19, 32n93, 97n52

Exodus 3.6 19.6 21.32 23.22 24.(6–)8

130n229 178n61, 179, 180, 184 141 179, 184 341, 343n73, 351

Leviticus 19.18 20.2 26.4–5

133 181n81 77n348

21.6 24.17–19 28.9–10 35.30

157n384 19, 273n38, 275 111 146

Deuteronomy 2.14 4.10 6.4–9 6.5 6.13 7.15 8.3 9.10 10.20 17.6 18.16 19.15 21.1–9 23.2–9 23.19 24 25.5–10 27.25 28.4–5, 11 30.9 31.30 32.5 32.20 32.21

209n221 336n44 132n238 132 290 50n184 322n303 336n44 290 146 336n44 146 155n371 321, 334n29, 335, 352 151 121n189 130 150n343 77n348 77n348 334n34, 336n44 209n218, 240n392 209n218 182

Joshua 2 2.10 6 6.25

269 271n27 269 271n27

446

Index of Ancient Sources

Joshua (continued) 9.2 9.6 24.25–27

334 55n218 351

Judges 21.5– 8

335n38

1 Samuel 12 16.14–23 19.5 19.20

173 41n140 150n343 334n35

2 Samuel 5.2 5.6– 8 7 7.10–16 9.4–5 11–12 11.3, 6 12 12.1–7 17.23 19.9 22.28

32 45n161 19, 21n22 20n19, 28, 286, 370n2 270n22 269n18 270 270 169n7, 269n18 150n341 157n383 157n384

1 Kings 5.9–14 8.14, 22 10.1–13 11.5 14.21, 31

41n140 334n29 223 270n24 270n24

2 Kings 25.26

158n385

Isaiah 1.4 1.15–16 2.1–5 3.14 5.1–7 6.9–10 7.14 8.2 8.23–9.1 9.2 9.6 11.1–5 11.12 14.2 19.25 25.6–8

181n82 155n371 322, 323n306, 338 176n47 175, 176, 193, 201n180 250, 252, 322n303 279 231n346 274, 321 77n348 310n244 20, 32n94 37n120 206n201 322n301 205

26.19 27.12 27.13 29.13 29.18–19 35.5–6 38.10 42.1–4 42.6 42.7 43.5– 6 44.6 49.3 49.6 49.10–13 49.22 53.4 53.11–12 56.1– 8 56.7 60.4 60.6 61.1 61.3 62.11 66.12, 18–20

41 76n343 204n192 252 41 41, 55n217 339n59 43n151, 276, 279, 280, 285n115, 287n123, 308, 321 321n298, 349 274n50 204n192 177n57 349 321n298, 349 205n200 206n201 43n151 341 321, 322, 343n74, 352 312n256, 322, 323n306 206n201 273, 323n306 41 209n218 97, 279n81 206n201

Jeremiah 3.15 5.21 7.11 15.2 18.1–12 19.1–13 23.1– 6 26.7–11 26.15 28.11–14 31.15 31.31–34 31.33–34 32 33.15 48.2 50.6

36 251 145, 379 42n147 151n350 150n343, 151n350 18n5, 35n110, 36, 38, 152n350, 371 147 230n342 312n256 164n416 341, 343n72 350 151n350 18n5 181 152n350

Ezekiel 1.1–4 12.2 24.6–9 34 34.4, 16 34.5, 8

288n125 251 150n343 36, 37, 38, 44, 371 37, 44 37

Index of Ancient Sources 34.23 34.24 37.7–14 37.25

33, 36, 44 18n5 303n214 18n5, 310n244

Hosea 2.1 6.6 11.1

294n164 40, 77n351, 109, 111, 132, 358 287

Joel 4.19

230n342

Amos 9.11 9.13–15

21n22 77n348

Jonah 1.14 2.1

230n342 222

Micah 5.1 5.3

32 33, 36

Habakkuk 1.4

277n70

Zephaniah 3.15

177n57

Haggai 1.9

234n363

Zechariah 1.1 2.15 3.8 6.12 8.7 8.23 9.9 9.10 9.11 10.2–3 10.10 11.4–14 11.11 11.12 11.13 13.7

231n346 322n301 18n5 18n5 204n192 205n201 97, 279n81, 322n303 20n20 343n73 37n118, 44 204n192 142n290 142n290 141 141, 142, 151n350, 152 142n290, 308n242, 337

Malachi 3.1 3.23–24

211 211

447

Psalms 1.3 2 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.9 8.3 14.5 18.17 22.2 22.9 22.19 23 24.6 25 26.5 26.6 26.12 68.27 69.2– 4, 15–16 72.10–11 73.13 73.15 74.1 78.8 78.52–53 80.9–15 89.4–5 89.6 89.27–30 89.37 91.11–12 93 93.5 99 107.3 107.9 107.10 107.23–32 110.1 112.2 118 118.22 118.25–26 118.26 119.176 126.6 132.17 144.7 146.8

173, 191 19, 20 131n231 323n306 28, 286, 287n123, 288, 323n306, 370n2 20n17 24, 31n86, 97n48, 125n202 209n221 293 125n202 125n202, 302 125n202 34n106 209n221 343n74 333n27 155n371 334n30 334n30 293 273n43 155n371 209n221 35n110 209n218 35n111 175n44 19 334n35 19, 28, 286, 370n2 19, 310n244 290n139 188 188n112 188 204n192 205n200 274n50 293 134, 148, 298, 300 209n221 236n374 173, 179 96 237 37n120 77n348 18.5 293 45

448

Index of Ancient Sources

Job 9.8

2. Early Jewish Literature 293

Proverbs 6.17 26.3 28.17 29.18

230n342 182 182 182n84

Ruth 1.4 1.16

230 179 312n256 148, 284, 295n172, 305n227 284, 305n227 295n172 322n303 181 322n303 322n303

159n388 333n28 334 335

1 Chronicles 3.5 3.19–24 13.2, 4 17.14 28.2ff. 28.5 28.8 29.20 29.23

270n22 26n62 334n29 187n108 333n28 187n108 334n29, 335 334n29, 335 187n108

2 Chronicles 7.8 9.1–12 12.13 13.8 20.5(, 14) 23.3 24.20–22 28.14 30.25 31.4 32.7

266n5

Apocryphon of Ezekiel 44n157

Baruch (LXX) 4.37 5.5

204n192 204n192

8.2, 4 29.3– 8 29.7 70.2 73.2 77.13

235n363 205n200 42 76n343 42 349

3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse) 16.2

182

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou)

Nehemiah 5.1 5.7, 13 8.2 13.1

1– 8

2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse)

Daniel 2.44– 45 3.2, 4–7 7.13 7.14 7.15 9.27 11.23 11.31 12.11

Apocalypse of Abraham

frag. 5 269 271n27

Lamentations 4.13

Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

334n34 223 270n24 187n108 334n29, 334n35 334n35 231 334n35 334n35 158n386 181

5.18

158n386

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 38.5 48.9 57.1 62 62.3, 5 62.9 62.10–12 62.14 89.50, 54, 56 91.12 93.9 95.3 98.12

262, 281n87 262, 281n87 204n192 237 237 237 237 205n200 201n180 262, 281n87 209n218 262, 281n87 262, 281n87

Greek Fragments of Enoch 107.1

209n218

2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 42.5 66.7

205n200 295n175

4 Ezra 4.13–21 4.32, (35,) 39 7.28 7.29

169n7 76n343 286n117 310n244

Index of Ancient Sources 7.97 7.123 8.53 12.31–34 12.32 13.33–38 13.37, 52

296n175 42n144 42n144 20n17, 31n87, 43n152 18n5 43n152 286n117

8.5, 9 15.5 16.16 19.5 21.21

64n273 64n273 64n273 64n273 64n273

Jubilees 188n115 266n5 187, 188 177n57 137n265 180n73, 180n75 209n218 42n144 188 180n75 270n20 235n363 188n115

2.1 3.14 15.6 23 23.1, 2

158n385 158n385 231n346 231n346 231n346

3.8 5.5–9 6.16, 21 7.29

312n256 266n5 334n35 334n35

Letter of Aristeas 96.99 132 139– 42 305– 6

92n21 132n328 54n209, 365 155n371

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 4.16 6.1– 8.3 6.11 23.5 23.12 30.5 60.2–3 61.6 62.5

1.34 2.56 3.13 10.7

181 334n34 334n35 158n386

2 Maccabees (LXX) 1.7 2.17 4.11, 17 5.8 5.21 7.12

187, 188 180n73, 180n75 188 188 293n158 92n21

3 Maccabees (LXX) 5.51

339n59

4 Maccabees (LXX) 17.16

92n21

Pseudo-Eupolemus frag. 1

266n5

Pseudo-Phocylides

Judith (LXX)

266n5 266n5 163n412 266n5 35n110 35n111 41n140 271n27 230n342

Life of Adam and Eve (Greek) 13.5

Lives of the Prophets

1 Maccabees (LXX)

Joseph and Aseneth

2.18 11.16–12.21 12.19 15.31–32 15.33 16.18 23.14–15 23.26–31 24.11 33.20 41.1 49.19 50.9

449

247n424

8

132n238

Psalms of Solomon 11.2 16.2 17–18 17 17.4 17.20 17.21–25 17.21 17.22 17.26–27 17.28–31 17.30 17.31 17.32 17.33–34 17.35–36 17.37–39 17.40 17.45 18

204n192 340n59 98n55 19, 20n17, 20n19, 31n87, 34n107, 36n115 19 36n115 20nn17–19, 36n115, 43 20n19, 31n87 20n17, 20n18 20n21, 261 43 20n20 205n201, 273n43 18n5, 20n21 20n18 20n17 20n18 20n21, 31n87, 33, 35n110, 36 20n19 19

450

Index of Ancient Sources

Psalms of Solomon (continued) 18.5, 7 18.9

18n5 209n218

Sibylline Oracles 3.716–20

188

Sirach (LXX) 4.10 23.24 26.5 48.10 51.12h

286n119 333n28 333n27 211 18n5

Testament of Abraham A 3.12 A 19.14–15

92n21 107n106

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Benjamin 9.1 9.2 10.7

187 205n201, 338n54 177n55

Gad 2.3

141n288

Judah 3.1, 2 9.2 10.1 24.1 24.5 25.1

157n383 157n383 269, 270n20 273n38 18n5 261n487

Levi 4.3 14.3– 4 15.1 16.3 18.3 18.9

349 349 235n363 163n412 273n38, 349n97 349n97

Zebulun 3.3

151n349

Tobit (LXX) 1.3, 6– 8.11ff. 5.14 6.12 13.1–18 13.5, 13 13.8 14.4 14.5– 6

182 182 182 181 205n201 182 235n363 205n201

2.18 3.8 3.19 4.7–5.16 5.5 6.3–4 7.20 13.4 16.13 17.2

Qumran Damascus Document VII, 7 VII, 19–21 XI, 13–14 XI, 22 XII, 6 XII, 23–XIII, 1 XIII, 9 XIV, 19 XIX, 10–11 XX, 1

302n210 302n210

335n38 18n5, 19n7, 20n17, 20n20, 273n38 113n138 335n38 335n38 18n5 35n110 18n5 18n5 18n5

1QH X, 30

333n27

1QM IV, 10 XI, 6 XI, 16 XIV, 5 XV, 10

335n37 273n38 333n27 333n27 333n27

1QpHab V, 3–6

281n87

1QS IX, 11

18n5

1QSa I, 25–26 II, 4 II, 11–22 II, 12, 14, 20

333n28 335n37 205n200 18n5

1QSb II, I7 V, 20–29

209n218 18n5, 19n7, 20n17, 20nn19–20

4Q161 8–10 15–29

Wisdom of Solomon (LXX) 2 2.13, 16

286n119, 302n210 261n489 209n218 302n210 286n119 187, 188 41n140 92n21 339n59 180n75

18n5, 19n7, 20nn17–21, 31n87, 43

4Q169 3–4 III, 5, 7

333n27

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q174 1i+21+2 10–13

De congressu eruditionis gratia 18n5, 19n7, 19n11, 21n22, 31n87, 286, 370n2

4Q175 9–13

273n38

4Q196 17 II, 4

181n82

19n7, 286, 370n2

4Q252 V, 1–5

18n5, 19n7, 20n21, 31n87

113n138

frag. 6+4

42n144 18n5, 19n7, 20n17, 31n87, 42n144 20n17, 42n144

20n17

4Q491 8–10 I, 3

202n180

4Q504 2 IV, 6– 8

32n96

4Q521 in general 2 II

42, 43n152 18n5, 42

11Q5 (=11QPsa) XVIII, 12 XXVII, 9–10

335n37 41n140

11Q14 1 II, 12–15

42n144

11Q19 LXI, 6–7

146

De ebrietate 335n37

De mutatione nominum 148 204

3

143

182 334, 335n37

188n116

334

De praemiis et poenis 54–55

66

2.110–54 2.133

188

180n75

182n87 182

De specialibus legibus 1.73 2.44 2.121 2.222

92n21 333n27 182 182

De virtutibus 108 211–19 220–22

334 266n5 269, 271n27

De vita Mosis 1.7 1.334 2.3– 4

266n6 188 188

Legum allegoriarum 3.8

Philo De Abrahamo 3–6 56 68–84 275–76

334 334 132n238

De somniis 333n27

4Q500 1

32 45 65

De sobrietate

4Q376 1 III, 1–3

De decalogo

De posteritate Caini

4Q285 frag. 1 frag. 5

182

De opificio mundi

4Q265 7 I, 6–7

129

213

4Q246 in general

451

335n37

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 188n116 180n75 266n5 188n116

272

182

Quod omnis probus liber sit 124

92n21

452

Index of Ancient Sources

Rabbinic Texts Mishnah

Josephus Antiquitates judaica 1.155–57 1.288 2.231 2.280 2.311 3.75ff. 3.132 3.258 4.54 4.66 4.68–70 4.322 5.24 6.74 6.290 7.8 8.32 8.45 8.4– 49 8.101 8.168 8.170 8.215 8.222 9.163, 260 10.172 10.183 12.397 13.39, 201 13.257–58 13.298 13.301 18.17, 23 18.352 20.200–202

266n5 92n21 92n21 92n21 157n383 180n75 92n21 157n383 158n384 92n21 157n383 157n383 158n384 158n386 92n21 158n385 157n383 41n140 41n140 157n383 92n21 92n21 158n385 158n385 157n383 158n386 158n385 158n384 158n384 51 119n181 18n4 119n181, 129n223 158n384 201n179

158n385 158n385 158n385 129n223 158n384 51n188 232 158n386, 209n221 158n386 272

Contra Apionem 2.190 2.206

3.16

205n200

Sanhedrin 7.5

149n337

Tosefta Me’ilah 1.16

201n180

Shabbat 15.11–16 15.16

113n138 111

Sukkah 3.15

201n180

Talmud Babli Hagigah 3a

266n6

Sanhedrin 97b–99

31n87

Shabbat 128b

113n138

Midrashim Lev. Rab. 2.4 (on 1.2)

187n110

Mek. 20.2

Midr. Tanḥ B

‫§ ךל ךל‬6

187n110 187n110, 266n6

Midr. Teh. 20.3 29.1

187n110 35n107

Sifra Lev 18.6

187n110 3. New Testament

Matthew

Bellum judaicum 1.457 1.550 2.1 2.118 2.226 2.466– 80 4.334– 44 5.566 6.301 6.312–13

Avot

132n238 132n237

1 1.1– 4.16 1.1

1.1–17 1.2–3 1.2 1.6–11 1.6 1.11

23, 29, 31, 33, 48 23, 49, 102–7, 287–90, 329 21n25, 23–24, 25, 26, 30, 31n87, 45, 179, 266, 267, 271, 272n28, 274, 281, 294n165, 307, 309, 317, 318n288, 323, 374 23–27, 30, 74, 209n220, 268– 72, 276, 369, 371n4, 374 32n93 25, 232 39n130 25, 26 26, 371n4

Index of Ancient Sources 1.12–16 1.16 1.17 1.18–25 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21–23 1.21

1.22(–23) 1.23

1.25 2 2.1–12 2.1– 6 2.1 2.2– 4 2.2

2.3– 6

2.3 2.4 2.5– 6 2.6

2.9 2.11 2.12 2.13–14 2.15 2.17–18 2.17 2.18

243 25, 27, 28, 32, 269n18, 294n165 25, 184, 209, 271n24, 371n4 27–29, 30, 47n173, 287, 294, 298 27, 47n173, 220, 285n115 62n264 21n25, 27, 220, 285n115 299n190 2n9, 8n28, 23n38, 27, 38, 47, 48, 50, 86, 94n34, 108, 156n374, 275, 278, 287, 293, 298, 299n190, 302n207, 306, 308, 327, 340– 45, 350, 353, 369, 371, 375, 378 28, 279, 287 27n67, 28, 42n144, 240n393, 278, 279n80, 287, 293, 299, 305, 323 47n173 38, 78, 102–5, 139, 165, 273, 274 31–33, 74, 124n201, 268, 272–74, 310n245, 374 25 32n93, 104, 163n410 294n165 31, 33, 103, 124, 159, 163, 272nn33–34, 273n40, 274, 276, 300n195, 375 49, 102, 103, 104, 108, 124, 125, 135, 142n290, 147, 159, 160, 186, 274 99, 102, 104, 105, 159, 160, 166, 273, 372 30, 33, 53, 103, 159n393 45, 103 2n9, 31n87, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 45n164, 50, 73, 75, 142n290, 274, 342, 344, 369, 370, 378 104, 273n40 103, 273, 323n306 159n393 114, 155n368, 159n393, 279n81 28, 279, 280, 287 151n350, 251, 340n60 250n438 164n416

2.19–21 2.19 2.20–21 2.22 3.1–12 3.2 3.5–10 3.5– 6 3.7–10 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.13–17 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16–17 3.16 3.17 4.1–11 4.1 4.2 4.3–5 4.3 4.5–7 4.5 4.6 4.8–10 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12–16 4.12 4.13 4.14–16

4.15 4.16 4.17–11.1 4.17

453 279n81 159n393 51, 83 114, 159n393 105–7 75, 212, 214 135, 230 47n172, 90n3, 105, 106, 210, 288n127 91, 105, 107, 135 91, 106, 119, 128n216, 130, 137, 221, 229 107, 191n132 106n104, 107, 179, 206n205, 266, 267, 318 106, 191n132 53n205, 106n105, 315n274 287– 89 106n102, 288n127 288n129 288n124, 289n136 285n115, 314n268 221, 285n115, 288– 89, 291n146 174n40, 288n124, 288n129, 289, 291, 296 286, 289, 290n142, 290n144, 301, 305 137, 301n204 289, 301n207 301n207 137, 289, 301 290, 300n198 238, 301n204 289, 300n198, 301 282, 305, 374 282n91, 301n204, 305n230 301 301 289n138, 301n204 78, 363n44 114n147 214n247 53, 78, 79, 83, 274–76, 280, 281, 309, 317n280, 321, 340n59, 344n77, 351n100, 371, 374 74, 275, 282 50, 78, 275, 276, 338, 344, 369, 371 49, 102n77, 107–10, 115, 329 39, 50, 59, 75, 102n77, 214, 245, 252, 290, 314n268

454

Index of Ancient Sources

Matthew (continued) 4.18–22 4.18 4.19 4.20, 22 4.23–9.35 4.23–25 4.23

4.24 4.25

5–7 5.1 5.3, 10 5.9 5.10–12 5.11–12 5.12 5.13–16 5.13–14 5.14–16 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17–7.12 5.17– 48 5.17–20 5.17–19 5.17 5.18–19 5.18 5.19 5.20– 48 5.20 5.21– 48 5.23–24 5.32 5.33–37 5.35 5.43– 48 5.45 5.46– 47 6.1–18

50, 329, 340n60 54 219n270, 340n60 91 49–53, 74, 75, 78, 86, 91, 123, 283, 329, 348 39, 49, 50, 51, 52, 85, 205, 214n247 39, 50, 52, 53n201, 75, 78, 123, 136, 189, 198n163, 207n207, 207n208, 216, 245, 254, 274, 315, 344, 362n35, 369 39, 51, 52 50–52, 54, 56, 90, 91, 92, 105n100, 167, 205, 291n145, 369 39, 49, 92, 332n22 57n233, 282 178 190, 228n332, 286n119 258, 380n17 85n384 195n150, 229n335, 260n484 85n384, 329, 332n22 280, 281 78n356, 191, 337, 349, 350n98 338 280n86 280n86, 329n7, 378 107n109, 329 108, 329n7, 358 110 357n8, 366n51 108, 110n121, 263, 349n95, 357 320n295, 357 107, 259n479, 357 107n111, 260n484 107, 108, 186, 190 107, 108, 137n268, 190, 228n328, 357n8 17n2, 107n109, 108 145n310 121n189 227n328 238 133n241, 357 190, 228n332, 286n119 170n17 137n268, 226

6.1 6.2, 5 6.13 6.14–15 6.16 6.19–34 6.32 6.33 7.6 7.11 7.13–14 7.15 7.16–20 7.18–23 7.21–27 7.21–23 7.21 7.24–27 7.28–29 7.29 8–9 8.1–9.35 8.1–17 8.1– 4 8.1 8.5–13

8.5–7 8.6 8.7 8.8–9 8.10–12 8.10 8.11–12 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14–15 8.16–17 8.17 8.18–27 8.18–22 8.23–34 8.23–27 8.23 8.25 8.26

137n268, 322n305 137, 362n35 137n263 304n220 137 258n476 312n255 207 63n271 136n260 203 203n187 191n132, 221 210 46, 344 259n478 170 246n420, 339 51, 92n19, 93, 94, 95, 100n67, 205 71, 73, 95, 125, 283, 292 50n182, 53n204, 75, 95, 108 49, 52, 53, 329 108 203n187 205, 282 17, 53n202, 55, 66–74, 85, 214n247, 280, 281, 315, 324, 369, 374 61n258, 69, 70 66n289, 69, 71n315, 72 67, 69, 71n315, 171n17 66n289, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 283 71, 206, 207, 208 66, 67, 71, 73, 204, 205, 374 2, 14, 67n294, 73, 167, 202– 8, 215n254, 264, 365, 373 192, 267 190, 204, 206n205, 207, 228n332 66, 374 56n226 39n133, 43, 71, 73 17n1, 46n167 246n419 50n182, 102n74, 205n197, 330, 348 58n237 292n156, 293, 295n170 205 293n156 205, 293

Index of Ancient Sources 8.27 8.28–34

8.28 8.29 8.31 8.32 8.34 9.1 9.2–11 9.2– 8 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.9–13

9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13

9.14–17 9.15 9.18 9.22 9.23, 25 9.27–31 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.32–34 9.32 9.33–34 9.33 9.34 9.35–36 9.35

56, 293n156, 295n170 17, 51n193, 53, 56–59, 74, 85, 153n357, 280, 281, 291, 315, 324, 369, 374 56, 58n235 57, 59, 66, 74, 280, 285, 291, 311, 369, 374 57n228 57n234 58n235, 100n68, 101n69 54, 58n237 113 46, 47, 50n182, 86, 108–9, 135, 220, 299, 330, 370 47, 73 109, 110, 115n153, 149n337, 220 108, 136, 197, 220 94, 136, 149n336, 283, 292, 298 93, 94n32, 95n36, 108, 299n189, 330 37, 47, 50n182, 77n351, 109, 111, 120, 170n17, 298n184, 299, 330 347n88 48n174 109n119, 110, 112n131, 138, 211 37, 47 40, 77n351, 109, 110n121, 112, 117, 132, 138, 228n328, 357 50n182, 246n420 228n332 102n74, 362n35 73 90 44, 45, 52, 56n222, 294n165 21n25, 40, 52 169n8 73 52, 53, 80n364, 90, 94–96, 101, 110, 114, 115, 220 45 106, 135, 363, 371 53, 55, 83n376, 90n7, 95, 96, 135, 207n207, 217, 369 38, 90n8, 95n35, 115, 118, 124n199, 135, 358n16 76, 84n381 39, 50, 52, 75, 123, 136, 189, 198n163, 214n247, 216, 245, 254, 315, 362n35

9.36–11.1 9.36–10.8 9.36

9.37–38 9.37 9.38 10

10.1– 4 10.1 10.5– 42 10.5– 8 10.5– 6

10.5

10.6– 8 10.6

10.7– 8 10.7 10.8 10.10 10.11–15 10.11 10.13–15 10.14 10.15 10.16–25 10.16–23 10.16 10.17–22

455 50, 75n330, 78, 246, 256, 329, 348 84n381, 331 26, 36–39, 40, 46, 47, 75, 77, 78n351, 80n364, 90, 138, 142n290, 219n269, 221n282, 275, 277, 336, 370 76, 77, 84, 191, 263 84n381 190 3, 74– 85, 86, 199, 216, 232, 242, 262, 282, 317, 319, 329, 377 25, 76, 77n351, 86, 95n41, 262, 263, 319, 347, 351, 370 39, 75, 77n351, 94n34, 241, 242, 283, 329 75n335 78, 282, 377, 378 2, 5n21, 11, 13, 14, 15, 38n126, 38n129, 58, 59, 63n267, 74, 75, 78, 79, 82n373, 83, 84, 193n139, 265, 307, 312, 324, 325, 337n46, 365n49 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 312n254, 316n277, 316n280 47, 314, 315, 316 1, 4, 33, 36–38, 47, 75n332, 76, 78, 79, 80n364, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 94n34, 142n290, 152n350, 221n282, 232, 235n363, 257, 261, 275, 277, 311– 23, 324, 370 77, 314n268 75, 77, 187, 190, 212n237, 245, 315, 353 38n124, 75, 77n351, 241, 329 79n358 216 75n331 77 81n358, 216 216 380n17 80n364, 232 80 80, 82

456

Index of Ancient Sources

Matthew (continued) 10.17

10.18 10.19–20 10.22 10.23

10.24–25 10.25 10.28 10.32–33 10.39 10.41– 42 11 11.1 11.2–16.20 11.2– 6 11.2–3

11.4– 6 11.4 11.5 11.7–30 11.7–24 11.7–15 11.7 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16–19

11.16 11.18–19 11.19 11.20–24 11.20 11.25–30 11.25–27

11, 80, 81n368, 82n372, 198n163, 232n352, 362n35, 363 80, 81, 83, 258, 281, 312n255, 313 82 82, 84n379, 313, 314 11, 80n364, 82, 83, 84, 86, 199n169, 216, 232n352, 263, 316, 324, 370 75n331 37n124, 80n364 47n168 82n372 47n168 260n484 214, 216, 217, 219, 291 214n247, 216, 348 102n77, 107, 110–20, 121, 330, 332, 348 42n148, 43, 210, 250 30, 46n166, 52, 53, 110, 121, 210, 212n238, 214, 218n261, 222, 245, 249, 288, 291, 292, 294n165, 295, 332, 348 210 249 41n143, 45n161, 46n166, 52, 53, 55, 314n268 210, 250 217 210, 211, 217 213, 214n246 211 211 212n233, 260n484 37n120, 212, 224, 257 211 211 211, 250 2, 14, 167, 208, 210–15, 217, 220n277, 220n279, 225, 231, 244, 246n420, 264, 373 222, 224 211n230, 213 210, 213, 214, 215, 218, 223 167, 210, 211n232, 214–19, 238 210 218 247, 292

11.25–26 11.25 11.27 11.28–30

12.1–21 12.1–14 12.1–2 12.2 12.3– 4 12.5–7 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.9–14 12.9 12.10 12.11–12 12.11 12.12 12.14–21 12.14–15 12.14 12.15–21 12.15

12.16 12.17–21

12.18 12.19 12.20 12.21 12.22– 45 12.22–24 12.22 12.23–24 12.23

218 210, 283n99, 292n150, 292n155 283, 284, 286, 291, 292, 305 46n166, 218, 219, 227, 292, 305n229, 315n271, 317n281 95n41, 363n44 110–14, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 132, 364n44 116 110, 111, 113, 117 111, 138 111, 113n139, 113n140, 132, 145 111, 138 111 40, 111, 112, 117, 132, 138, 228n328, 357 56n226, 112, 113 198n163, 362n35 112, 113 112 113 113 280n84 306n233 114, 127, 128n219, 129, 155n368, 223, 229, 277, 279 43, 291 39n133, 43n151, 114, 116, 118, 122, 129, 277, 280, 291n145, 363n44 276, 277, 306n233 17n1, 43, 65n281, 74, 114, 276– 80, 281, 291, 308, 309, 310, 321, 374 220n280, 278n76, 279, 285n115, 291n146, 311 276, 277, 279 43n151, 278, 279, 280 278, 279, 311 45, 221, 222, 223, 225, 230 52, 80n364, 90, 94–96, 100n67, 101, 114, 134, 225 45, 220, 224 106, 115, 124, 135, 212, 220, 310n245, 358, 363, 371 21n25, 22, 44, 45, 95, 96, 100, 110, 115n151, 135, 217, 222, 223, 244, 256, 293, 311

Index of Ancient Sources 12.24

12.25–37 12.25 12.26 12.27 12.28 12.29 12.30 12.31–37 12.31–32 12.33–37 12.33 12.34–35 12.36–37 12.38– 45 12.38– 42 12.38 12.39– 40 12.41– 42 12.43– 45 12.45 12.46–50 13 13.1 13.2 13.3–23 13.3–9 13.3 13.8 13.9 13.10–23 13.10–17

13.10 13.11–12 13.13–17 13.13 13.14–15

38, 95, 114, 115n151, 116n159, 118, 124n199, 135, 220, 221, 358n16 115, 116, 120, 135n254, 220 115n153, 220, 246n420 221n285 220, 228n332 58, 136, 213, 214, 220, 222, 248 212n234, 221n285, 225n307 80n364, 217, 221n282 220, 226 220n280, 221 221, 222 191n132, 221 91, 115, 136, 137, 221n285, 222, 224, 229, 257 221 2, 14, 120, 167, 208, 219–26, 231, 244, 264, 373 135n254, 146n317, 223n296 90, 115, 119, 120, 222, 231 91, 116, 119, 208, 222, 224, 225, 231, 242 91, 116, 222, 223, 224, 226, 262, 280, 281n87 224, 225, 248 208, 225, 242 100, 110, 135, 225, 245, 246, 330, 331 246n420, 247n424, 256n468, 259n478 54 244 167, 244–59, 264, 331, 358, 373 253 244, 254n455 191n132 250 253n455, 258, 259 5, 8, 14, 100, 110, 117, 135, 244, 245–53, 254, 255, 257, 258, 330, 359 244, 246, 254n455, 256n464 218n261, 244, 246– 49, 250, 253, 254, 292 246, 249, 252, 254, 257n472, 322n303 245n415, 246n422, 249, 250, 254n455, 257n472 245n415, 249n435, 250, 251, 252, 253n450, 256, 257n472

13.16–17 13.18–23 13.19

13.20–22 13.23 13.24–33 13.24 13.26 13.30 13.34 13.35 13.36– 43 13.36 13.38

13.39 13.41 13.42 13.43 13.47– 48 13.50 13.51 13.52 13.53–58 13.54 14.3–12 14.5 14.13–21 14.13 14.14 14.15–18 14.15 14.19 14.22–33 14.22 14.23 14.25 14.27 14.28–31 14.31 14.33 15.1–20 15.1–9 15.1 15.2– 6

457 249, 254n455, 294n168 190n131, 250n436, 253, 255, 257, 258, 259, 344n75 5, 137, 212n234, 224, 245, 250, 251n440, 253, 254, 257, 336 248, 253n451, 254, 258, 360 253n451, 254, 258 248 206, 254n455 191n132 76 254n455 248 76, 257n470 218n259, 249 137n263, 190, 204, 206, 207, 208, 228n332, 255, 257, 281, 284 76, 77n346, 137n263 189, 284, 295 207 256n469, 295, 299n192 190n131 207 250 191, 351 215n250 198n163, 215n250, 362n35 116 99, 174n39 64n274, 110n123, 330 91n13, 116, 122 39, 40, 330 331 62n264 331n16 250, 285, 286, 292, 294, 295n170, 296, 298, 306 217n259 57n233, 282 293n157 293 293, 305n231 293n156, 305n231 250, 291, 293, 294, 295n170, 297n180, 306n235, 330 60, 61, 121, 122n194, 132, 228n328, 364n44, 366n51 116, 118, 138, 225 118n171 138

458

Index of Ancient Sources

Matthew (continued ) 15.2 15.3 15.4– 6 15.7–9 15.7– 8 15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10–11 15.12–14 15.13 15.14 15.15–20 15.19 15.20 15.21–39 15.21–28

15.21 15.22

15.23 15.24

15.25 15.26–27 15.26 15.27 15.28 15.29–39 15.29–31 15.29 15.30 15.31 15.32–39 15.34 15.35–36 15.36 16 16.1–12 16.1– 4

60n248, 117 117 117, 132, 358 252 103 137, 252 252 117 60, 117, 212, 225, 256 118, 360 118, 200n172 45, 118, 138, 357, 370 118 358 60n248 66, 331 17, 33n101, 40, 51n191, 53, 55, 60– 66, 67, 69n304, 73, 74, 85, 274, 280, 281, 315, 320n294, 321n296, 324, 365n50, 366n51, 369 54, 61, 118, 122, 363n44 21n25, 34, 40, 45n163, 51, 60n251, 61, 63, 64, 69, 274, 375 61, 62 1, 10, 33–39, 45n164, 47, 49, 61, 62, 63, 65n281, 69n305, 73, 74, 85, 90, 142n290, 152n350, 235n363, 261, 312n254, 331, 344, 369, 370 63 274, 275, 331 33n101, 61, 62, 63, 64n274, 66 63, 64, 65, 70, 365n50 62, 65n281, 66, 67, 374 118, 330, 331 39n133, 53–55, 66, 85, 282, 330, 369 49, 54, 57n233 39, 45n161, 54, 55n217 45n161, 54, 93, 319 55, 66, 110n123, 331 169n8 66 331n16 120, 297 105, 121 2, 14, 146n317, 167, 208, 219, 225, 231, 244, 373

16.1 16.2b, 3 16.4 16.5–12 16.6 16.9 16.11 16.12 16.13–23 16.13 16.16–20 16.16 16.17–19 16.17 16.18 16.19

16.20 16.21–20.34 16.21–23 16.21 16.22 16.23 16.24–28 16.24 16.25 16.27 16.28 17.1–13 17.1 17.2 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.9 17.10–13 17.14–20 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.22–23 17.24–27 17.24 17.25 18.1– 4

119, 128n216, 130 118n175 208, 225, 242 119, 120 119, 120 169n9, 250n436 119, 120 119, 120, 250, 338, 360 110, 297n179, 300n201, 304, 306n235 122 296 121, 147n322, 291, 294, 297, 306n235, 330, 332, 336 320n295 294, 295, 297n180, 299n193 8, 121, 332n23, 335– 40, 347, 348, 353, 377 186, 187, 188, 189, 315, 331, 337, 338, 339n59, 349, 353, 379 210, 296, 306 102n77, 121–23, 348 301 78n355, 102n77, 104, 122, 123, 159, 166, 297 301 301 122n192 100n68 47n168 262, 263 84n379, 148n333, 190n128, 295 122n192, 242n402, 282, 295–97, 305 57n233, 305n230 295 174n40, 190, 296, 305 94n31 282n90 295, 296, 297, 304n225, 306 106, 116, 122, 211, 212n238, 297, 304n225 240, 241, 315n269 40n136 241, 242 14, 208, 240– 43, 244, 348 78n355, 104, 122, 166 104n92 122n193, 218n259 218n259 260n484

Index of Ancient Sources 18.4 18.9–14 18.12–14 18.14 18.17 18.18 18.20 18.21–35 18.21 19.1 19.2 19.3–12 19.3–9 19.4 19.14 19.18–19 19.21 19.27–30 19.28

19.29 20.1–15 20.1, 11 20.17–19 20.20–28 20.23 20.25–28 20.25 20.28 20.29–34 20.30–31 20.34 21–25 21–23 21–22 21.1–17 21.2–3 21.2 21.4–5 21.5 21.8–9 21.9–11 21.9

122n192 170n17 36n114, 337, 360 47, 337 8, 85n382, 170n17 186n105, 190 240n393, 279, 287, 323, 336, 338 304n220, 360 150n344 78n355, 79, 122n193, 317n280 39 122 121, 122 121, 138 178 358 348 193n139 3n14, 14, 25, 76, 193n139, 234, 259– 63, 264, 281n87, 314, 373 260 193n139 174 104, 122, 123, 155n373, 166, 312n255 122n192 260n484 301 305n229 277 40, 44, 45, 52, 56n222 21n25, 40, 97 40, 224, 348 2, 102 2, 90, 100, 101, 123–35, 183 49n182, 123 22n31, 96–101, 126, 135, 143, 161, 234, 371 279n81 97n52 25, 97, 98, 279 31n88, 279n81, 305n229 96, 279n81 97, 99, 100n67, 200, 371 21n25, 22, 24, 31n88, 44n154, 45, 52n198, 53n205, 91n15, 97n48, 98, 99, 100, 125, 134, 135, 162n404, 217, 237, 238, 244, 256, 259, 293, 294, 310n245, 371

21.10–11 21.10 21.11 21.12–13 21.13 21.14–17 21.14 21.15–16 21.15

21.16 21.17 21.18–22 21.23–22.46 21.23–32 21.23–27 21.23 21.25 21.26 21.28–22.14 21.28–32

21.28–31 21.28 21.29 21.31–32 21.31 21.32 21.33– 46

21.33 21.34–36 21.34 21.35 21.36 21.37– 44 21.37 21.38

459 98, 105, 159, 160, 166, 174 99, 104, 105, 143, 159, 372 22, 97n48, 98n56, 99, 100, 160, 229 96, 145 234, 235, 322, 379 31n86, 96, 97, 106, 124, 125, 235 39, 45, 93n24, 96, 123, 125, 136 21n28, 97n48, 101n69, 123, 310n245, 358n16, 363, 371 21n25, 22, 24, 44n154, 45, 96, 97n48, 98, 123n196, 125, 134, 136, 146, 358n16 24, 97, 124, 125n202, 126, 138 120 239 29n77, 93, 126, 139, 146, 225, 226, 235, 283 174 30n81, 93n27, 123, 126, 292 93, 123, 125, 127, 129n222, 133, 136, 139, 151, 170, 183 106, 126, 171, 185n98 141n284, 171, 174, 210 14, 126, 167, 196n151, 229n340, 239, 263, 373 126, 168, 169, 170–72, 183, 192, 193n139, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202 168n5 169, 193n139 151, 171 169, 170, 184n96, 199n167 168n5, 170n15, 172, 178, 186 106, 151, 168n5, 170, 171, 192, 198 126, 160, 168, 169, 172–93, 195, 197, 198, 202, 277, 332n23 169, 175, 193 99, 134, 173n35, 229n335, 229n340 173n35, 190, 194n141 173n34, 174, 233n357 173, 194n141 134, 147, 229n340 173, 174n40, 195, 297, 302 185n98

460

Index of Ancient Sources

Matthew (continued ) 21.39 21.40 21.41 21.42– 44 21.42

21.43–44 21.43

21.44 21.45– 46

21.45 21.46 21.1–14

22.1 22.2–7 22.2 22.3–7 22.3– 4 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6–7 22.6 22.7 22.8–10 22.8 22.9–10 22.10 22.11–14 22.13 22.14 22.15– 46 22.15– 40

175n42, 193n138 169 169, 173, 176, 179n66, 186, 191, 192, 193, 201 169, 185, 197n160, 297, 310n245 138, 169n9, 173, 179, 180, 185n98, 186, 189, 195, 339, 347, 378 177 4, 5, 8, 127, 168, 172n28, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190–202, 193, 198, 206n205, 247n424, 263, 285n116, 315, 327, 331, 338, 342, 347, 350n98, 373, 378, 379 172n31, 174, 177, 178, 179 99, 116n158, 127, 140, 143, 161, 169, 174, 183, 185, 197n160 128 100, 127n213, 128, 140, 142n294, 143n296, 197, 229 6n22, 11, 83n379, 100n67, 126, 168, 169, 170, 178, 194–202 169, 197 198, 201, 229n335, 230, 232, 233, 234, 304n220 194n140, 195, 297, 302 11, 196, 229n340 199 194, 201 194n141, 194nn146– 47 194, 201 201n179 194n144, 195, 201 11n39, 164, 195, 196, 199, 200, 201, 233, 234, 264 184n96, 195n150, 196, 196n156 196n152 197, 199 198 199, 259n478 207 197n156, 207 127, 128n218, 130, 139 126, 127, 144

22.15–22 22.15 22.16 22.18 22.21 22.22 22.23–33 22.23 22.29 22.31 22.33

22.34– 40 22.34 22.35 22.36 22.38 22.39– 40 22.41– 46

22.42 22.43– 45 22.44 22.45 22.46 23 23.1 23.2–12 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5–7 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8–12 23.8 23.10 23.13–36 23.13 23.15 23.16–26 23.16

128, 132n239 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 229 125n206, 128n217, 128n219, 129n222 128, 129, 136 130 128, 130 128 123n195 130 130, 138 92, 93n23, 93n27, 100, 125n203, 127, 128, 130, 134n251 127, 131, 133 120n186, 128, 131n231 128n215, 131n230, 132n239 131n232 131n232 357 23, 29–31, 126, 128n218, 133, 294, 298, 300, 309, 321n296 21n25, 30, 294, 298n182 30 134, 148, 283, 300, 306 20n19 133 134, 135, 225, 230n342, 238, 239, 256, 263 100, 212, 226, 227, 238, 263 226–27 226n318, 356n6, 357n8 84n380, 191n134, 226n318, 357n8 137, 219, 226, 227n324 137 137, 226 226, 227n324, 362n35 226, 227n324 226 187, 226n318, 314n268, 357 46n166, 109, 226n318, 314n268 137, 227–32 188, 189, 191, 213, 226n318, 227, 337 138, 191, 227, 228n332, 320, 360 118, 226n318, 227n324, 227n328 45, 138, 228, 357, 370

Index of Ancient Sources 23.17 23.19 23.23 23.24 23.25–29 23.25–26 23.26 23.27–36 23.27–28 23.28 23.29–39 23.29–31 23.32–39 23.32–36 23.32 23.33 23.34–24.1 23.34–39 23.34–36 23.34

23.35–36 23.35 23.36 23.37– 42.2 23.37–39

23.37 23.38 23.39 24–25 24.1–2 24.3 24.9–14 24.9–10 24.9 24.13 24.14 24.15

45, 228 45, 228 107, 133, 151, 228n328, 278n76, 357 45, 138, 151, 228, 357, 370 151 228n328 45, 228 228 137 108n111, 138, 227n325 2, 227n325, 229n337, 230, 234, 304n220 228 164, 200 201 229 91, 137, 221, 229, 230, 234, 237, 372 100n67 83n379, 233 14, 167, 208, 226–39, 244, 264, 373 11, 80n364, 195n150, 198, 228, 229, 232, 362n35, 363, 380n17 228, 230, 233, 234, 372 163n413, 164, 230, 231, 232, 233 228, 230, 231, 243 227n325 99, 134, 143, 145, 159, 166, 167, 201, 226n319, 230n342, 233–38, 264, 371, 372 99, 159, 160, 164, 173, 174, 238, 300, 372 135n254, 137n263, 145, 233, 234, 235, 236–38, 338 59, 99, 147n325, 148, 236– 39, 299, 300 135, 236 134, 145, 226n319, 234, 235 57n233, 135, 297n179 9, 82, 244, 366n51 360n26 82, 85, 244, 281, 312, 313, 380n17 82, 84n379 81, 82, 189, 279, 281, 285, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318, 353 322n303

24.29–31 24.30 24.31 24.32 24.34 24.35 24.51 25.29 25.30 25.31– 46 25.31 25.32 25.34 25.40 25.45 26–27 26.1–5 26.1–2 26.2 26.3–5 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.13 26.14 26.15 26.16 26.18 26.20 26.25 26.26–29 26.28

26.29 26.31 36.32 26.37– 46 26.37 26.39, 42 26.45 26.47 26.51 26.52–54 26.52

461 148, 196n156, 243, 313 284, 295n172 196n156 239n389, 243 208, 209n220, 240, 243– 44 259n479 137n268, 207 247n424 207 3, 260n486, 263, 279n77, 313, 314 148, 190n128, 259n480, 262 281, 312, 313, 314, 337 190n128, 273 273, 313 313 89, 101 134 123, 141 141 100n67, 104, 139– 41 140 104, 140, 144, 308 140, 141, 142n294, 143, 159n390, 161 281, 318 319n289 141, 163n411 142 59, 277, 374 319 147 300, 343 47, 48, 122n192, 145n309, 156n374, 163n413, 235, 298, 299, 301, 304, 307, 308, 319, 322, 327, 340– 45, 350, 351, 353, 374, 375, 378 59, 147n325, 148, 236, 287, 299, 300, 343 142n290, 169n8, 308, 319, 337 337 297n179 297n179 286, 300, 301, 306, 374 59n245, 374 90, 91, 140n282, 142, 143, 160, 319n289 143, 300 285, 286, 300 143

462

Index of Ancient Sources

Matthew (continued ) 26.53 26.54 26.55 26.56 26.57 26.59–58 26.59 26.60 26.61– 64 26.61 26.63– 64 26.63 26.64

26.65 26.66 26.68 27.1 27.2 27.3–10 27.3– 8 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6– 8 27.6 27.9–10

27.11–26 27.11 27.12–13 27.15–17 27.15 27.17 27.18 27.19 27.20–25 27.20 27.21 27.22–23 27.22 27.23 27.24–25 27.24

145, 300n198, 301n207, 306, 374 301, 308, 374 143, 160 301, 308, 374 139, 140 143– 49 144, 145n308 144, 145, 146 300, 301 144, 145, 146, 160, 300, 339n57 300n201, 305n227, 306, 310n245 145n312 59, 145n308, 146n316, 147, 148, 149, 190, 283, 284, 299, 300, 302, 304, 374 109, 149 149 147n325 145n308 154 149–53, 163n411 152n350 151, 152n350 150n343, 152n350, 230, 372 149n340 150 150n340, 151 141, 142, 150n343, 151, 152n350, 153, 160, 250n438, 251, 308, 340n60 153– 66, 371 147, 159, 163n410, 272n30 154 154 156 154, 159n393 139, 154 153, 154, 159n393, 230 93n27, 161, 164, 165 105, 155, 156, 160, 161n403, 233, 236, 372 155n370 2n9, 155n370 156, 159n393, 161n403 161n403 1, 2n7, 11, 12, 153, 161, 165 150, 155, 156, 159, 161, 230

27.25 27.27–31 27.29 27.32–54 27.32 27.35–37 27.35 27.37

27.39– 43 27.40 27.41 27.42 27.43 27.46 27.51–54 27.51 27.53 27.54 27.55–56 27.57– 61 27.57 27.62–28.20 27.62– 66 27.62– 63 27.62 27.64 28.7, 10 28.11–15

28.11 28.12 28.14 28.15 28.16–20

153– 66, 167, 168, 200, 230, 233, 234, 238, 244, 251, 372 303 159, 163n410, 272n30 295n172 165 303n217 125n202, 303 47, 159, 163n410, 272n30, 298, 299, 303, 306, 340, 342n68 160, 286, 300, 302, 303 145n312, 301, 302n207, 303, 306 139, 154n265 163n410, 272n30, 302, 303 125n202, 147n324, 302, 303, 306 125n202 148, 302, 304 145n309, 235, 298n188, 302, 338 238, 304n221 94n31, 281, 286, 297n180, 303, 304n220, 310n246 165, 348 166 128n214, 348 164 162, 165, 230, 304n220, 310n245, 363 223 127n212, 139, 165 100n67, 141n284, 161, 162, 165, 342 337 1n2, 5n21, 147n328, 148, 162, 163nn410–11, 230, 304n220, 359 223 163n411, 165 155 162, 163nn410–11, 216n255, 358 1n2, 5n21, 11, 104, 190n129, 199n169, 265, 275, 282, 285n114, 286, 287n122, 290, 295, 317n282, 319, 321n298, 323n306, 348, 351, 372, 374

Index of Ancient Sources 28.16 28.17 28.18–20

28.18

28.19–20

28.19

28.20

57n233, 199n169, 282, 319, 348, 377 305n231 1, 3n13, 14, 187n107, 190, 199, 205, 265, 281, 282– 86, 295n172, 296, 305n227, 307, 320, 321n296, 323, 329, 347n86, 374, 377 190n129, 272, 277n70, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 292, 305, 306, 309, 375 278, 279, 282, 286, 314, 316, 329, 337, 340n59, 366n51, 377, 378 1– 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 58, 63n267, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86, 87, 199, 257, 265, 278, 279, 285, 305, 396, 307, 311–23, 324, 325, 344, 347, 348, 349n94, 353, 365n49, 375, 376, 377 5, 191, 240n393, 278, 279, 283, 284, 285, 287, 305, 315, 323, 331, 336, 338, 339, 349, 353

Mark 1.4 1.5 1.9–11 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.32 1.34 1.39 1.40–45 2.1–12 2.2–4 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.15–17 2.17 2.23–3.12 2.24 2.25–26 3.2 3.3

47n172, 298 105 28 106n102 285n115 287 59 92n20 92 68n298 39n133, 68n298 362n35 203n187 46, 93, 109 94n33, 108 94 93, 94, 95 77n351, 347n88 198n164 68n298, 68n300 95n41 111n125 111n130 112 112

3.6 3.7– 8 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13–19 3.15 3.22–30 3.22 3.23 3.27 3.32 3.34–35 4.1–2 4.3–20 4.10 4.11–12 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.25 4.29 5.1–20 5.1 5.3–5 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14–20 5.14–15 5.18–20 5.21 5.22 5.37 6.7 6.8 6.10 6.11 6.12–13 6.13 6.20 6.30 6.32– 44 6.34 6.41

463 113n142, 128n219 50, 114, 291n145 39n133, 291n145 291 276, 306n233 95n41 75 95n41 90, 116n159 246n420 225n307 245 245 246n418 245 246 246 246, 247, 249n432, 254 250, 322n303 249 253 224n307 247 76n343 56 56n220 56 57, 291 56 153n357 57n228 57n233 57n228 57 58n238 57, 58n235 10n37, 58, 59 54 102n74, 362n35 297n179 75, 348 79n358 75n331 81n368 79n360, 348 75 174n39 79n360 63n267, 292, 331n15 36, 37n118, 39, 331n15 331n16

464

Index of Ancient Sources 10.46–52

Mark (continued ) 6.45–52 6.45 6.52 6.55 7 7.1–23 7.1 7.2 7.6–7 7.6 7.8–13 7.10 7.19 7.24– 8.9 7.24–30 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.27–29 7.27 7.28 7.31–37 7.31 8.1–9 8.1, 2 8.3 8.6 8.10 8.11–13 8.11 8.12 8.15 8.17–18 8.22–26 8.22 8.29 8.30 8.33 8.34 8.38 9.12 9.14–29 9.14 9.17 9.19 9.29 10.1 10.3– 4 10.28–31 10.33–34 10.34

250, 292 217n259 250 68n298 55n218 54, 117 118n171 116 117 137 117 117 54n208, 60n248 10n37 54, 60n250, 69n304 61, 171n17 69 51, 61 61 10, 33n101, 62 62n261, 65n283 39n133, 54, 66 54 54, 63n267 331n15 55n218 331n15 54n207 119 91, 115 208n217, 225 119n176 250 52, 218n259 217n259 291 296 301 100n68 208n217, 222, 244 297n179 240n392 240n394 242 208n217, 240n392, 242n403 241 39, 122n193 121n189 260 104 155n373

10.47– 48 11.1–11 11.2 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12–14 11.15–17 11.18 11.27 12.1 12.2–3 12.2 12.6 12.7 12.9 12.10 12.12 12.13(–17) 12.15 12.28–34 12.28 12.32–34 12.34 12.35–37 12.37–38 12.38–39 12.40 12.41– 44 13.1–2 13.3 13.9–13 13.9 13.10 13.13 13.14 13.26 13.30 14.1–2 14.2 14.10 14.17, 20 14.22, 24 14.25 14.27 14.28 14.36 14.41

21n25, 31n85, 40, 44, 52 21n25 31n85, 96n46 322n303 96 96 98n55 96n46 96n46 96n46 92, 93, 125n203 128, 174 169 173n35 173n35 173n35, 174n40 185n98 173 173 130, 169, 174 127, 128 128n215, 129, 137 102, 127 120n186, 127 128, 133 133 21n25, 29, 31n85, 133 134 226n319 226n319 134n253, 226n319 226n319 297n179 80, 82 81, 82n372, 313n257 81, 313n257 313 322n303 284 208n217 139, 140 161n399 319n289 319 342 299 337 282 299 59n245

Index of Ancient Sources 14.43 14.47 14.49 14.53 14.56 14.57 14.58 14.59 14.61 14.62 14.65 15.3 15.8 15.10 15.11 15.13–14 15.15 15.31–32 15.38 15.39 15.43 16.7

91, 319n289 143, 300 143, 308 144n302 144, 146 144 145, 339n57 146 298n183 147, 284 149 154n365 154, 156 154 154n365, 155, 156 155n373, 162n403 155n373, 156 154n365, 302 298n188, 302 298n183 128n214 282

Luke 1.35 2.4 3.7 3.21 4.3 4.4 4.9 4.32 5.31 7.1–10 7.2 7.3–5 7.3 7.4 7.6–9 7.7 7.9 7.24 7.29–30 7.33–34 7.35 7.41–47 8.9 9.1 9.6 9.10 9.12–13 9.41 9.43 10.1

28 32 106n102 288n125 301 322n303 301 92n21 68n298 67n293, 69 68 70n306 69 69, 70n308 67, 68, 69 66n289, 70n306 66, 207n209 213n242 212n233, 213n242 213n242 231n243 169n7 246n420 75, 348 79n360, 348 79n360 157 242n403 92n21 348

10.2 10.3 10.8 10.17 10.23–24 10.25–28 10.25 11.14–23 11.14–15 11.15 11.16 11.17–23 11.20 11.25 11.29–32 11.31–32 11.37–52 11.37 11.49 11.52 13.15–16 13.24–30 13.24 13.25–27 13.28–29 13.31 13.34–35 14.1 14.5 14.16–24 14.17 14.18–19 14.21–23 14.21 15.4–7 16.8 19.5–7 19.37 19.39– 40 20.18 22.19–20 22.30 22.64 22.69 22.70 24.47– 49

465 76 80 75n331 79n360, 348 249 131n230 131n230 221n282 90n7, 90n9 135 90n9, 135n254 135n254 220n280 224n300 135n254 223n298 227 102n74 229n334 189 112n135 203 203 203, 204 203, 204 102n74 233n354 102n74 112n135 168n6, 194, 195n148 194n147, 201n179 195 196n154 195 337 209n221 198n164 96 123n197 172n31 342 259, 261n487, 261n490, 281n87 147n325 147n325 147n325 283

Q (Verses according to Luke) 3.7–9 4.1–13 6.43–45 7.3

105 288n125 221 69

466

Index of Ancient Sources

Q (Verses according to Luke) (continued) 7.6– 8 7.7 7.18–23 7.24 7.31 7.33 7.34 10.8 10.13–15 10.13 11.14(–15) 11.16 11.19 11.20 11.23 11.29–32 11.29 11.39–52 11.43 11.46 11.50–51 11.52 13.24–30 13.28–29 13.35 15.4–7 17.6 22.30

69, 70 66n289 41, 42, 43 214n246 208n217 213 198n164 75n331 214n245 214 45, 90 90n9 220 220n280 221n282 115, 208n217 136n261, 222 226 227n324 227n324 208n217 189 203 203, 208 235n364 337 241 261

John 4.29 4.46–54 4.47 4.49 6.35, 48 7.41– 42 7.46 8.44 12.6 12.18–19 12.34 18.28 20.21–23

96n42 67, 69n301, 70 69n301, 69n304 69n301 64n273 31n85 95n36 137n265 141 124n197 310n244 71n316 283

81n370 201n179 92n21 28 311n250 28 7n23 72n319 81 7n23 163n412 81 7n23 107n106 7n23

Romans 1.3–4 1.13 2.17–20 4 9–11 10.19 11.11–15 11.25–32 11.25–26

28, 311, 376 190n131 349 266n7 238n383 182 7 238n383 350

1 Corinthians 3.10–15 3.16–17 6.2–3 11.24–25 11.32 15.9

338 338 261n491, 281n87 341, 342 262n494 335

Galatians 1.13 3 3.8 3.15–18 4.21–31

335 266n7 267 351n102 351n102

Ephesians 2.11–22 2.20–21

5n21 338

Philippians

Acts 1.16–20 2.40 3.25 5.28 5.34–39 7.54–60 10.26 10.28

12 12.1–2 13.12 13.23 13.32–33 13.33–34 13.46–47 14.15 17.1–9 18.5–6 18.6 18.12–17 19.8–10 28.3–6 28.2428

149, 150, 151 209n221 267 163n412 102n74 201n179 72n319 71n316

1.22

190n131

Colossians 1.6

190n131

1 Thessalonians 2.14 2.15–16 4.5

335 229n337 85n382

Index of Ancient Sources

2 Timothy

467

Diodorus Siculus

2.8

311n250

Hebrews

Bibl. hist. 17.102.7

181n80

Diogenes Laertius

1.3–5 5.5 11.31

311n250 311n250 271n27

8.34

339n59

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 10.60.5

James 2.21 2.25

271n27 271n27

181

Herodotus Hist. 3.109

107n106

Homer

1 Peter 2.5 2.7–9

338 178n61, 179, 180

Revelation 1.6 5.10 20.10

180n75 180n75 58n240

Il. 2.87 Il. 11.724 Il. 13.495

182n88 181n79 181n79

Lucian Men. 6 Men. 17

339n59 199n164

Pindar 4. Other Christian Literature

Ol. 1.66 Pyth. 4.252

Barnabas 1.3 12.10–11 16.5 16.10

92n21 31n85 201n180 92n21

1 Clement 12.1, 7– 8

271n27 195n148

Gorg. 455b Resp. 1.351c Resp. 4.420c Resp. 4.421c Pol. 290b

181 181 181 181 181

Nat. 30.16–17

272n36

Sophocles

Ignatius Eph. 9.1 Phld. 2.1 Rom. 9.1 Smyrn. 1.1

338n54 35n108 34n106 311n250

Testament of Solomon 1.7 20.1

41n140 41n140

Hist. rom. 63.1–7

Ant. 344 Phil. 1147

182n88 182n88

Suetonius Nero 13

272n36

Xenophon Symp. 3.6

181

6. Papyri and Epigraphica

5. Classical Literature

Cassius Dio 272n36

Dio Chrysostom Or. 66 §8

Plato

Pliny the Elder

Gospel of Thomas 64

181 181

181

OGIS 90.17 P.Köln 260.3 P.Oxy. 3470.16 P.Petr. 32 (p.67) P.Petr. 59 (p.174)

181 181 181 181 181

This page intentionally left blank

Author Index

Aarde, A. van, 44n160, 137n265 Albertz, R., 346n81, 346n83 Allison, D. C. See Davies, W. D./Allison, D. C. Anderson, J. C., 112n131, 137n268 Arnal, W., 91n11 Aurelius, E., 67n291 Backhaus, K., 4n20, 159nn390–91, 343n71, 351n100, 352n103, 363, 374n9 Bacon, B. W., 102n77 Balabanski, V., 85n384 Bauckham, R., 194n145, 197nn157–58, 201n179, 269n19 Bauer, D. R., 21n28, 25n52, 25n55, 102n77, 103nn78–79, 103n84, 103n86, 267n11, 274n45, 305n277 Baumbach, G., 222n291, 328n5 Baxter, W., 21n27, 32n93, 36n114, 37nn119–20, 39n134, 44n158, 75n335, 365n47 Becker, H.-J., 119n138, 127n212, 235n366 Becker, J., 141n288, 163n412, 338n54 Becker, M., 42n146, 42n148 Berger, K., 42n146, 64n272, 131nn230–31, 261n487, 333n26, 334, 335nn40– 41 Blanton, T. R., 108n112 Bornkamm, G., 7, 50n183, 131n230, 268n13, 285n112, 327n3, 376n11 Böttrich C., 199n169, 239nn386– 87 Broer, I., 17n2, 22n34, 82n373, 108n112, 125n206, 139n274, 146n314, 147n323, 149nn337–38, 149n340, 154n359, 168n2, 260n482, 260n485, 262n493, 262n496, 289n132, 289n136, 295n171 Brooke, G. J., 175n42 Brooks, O. S., 80n362 Brooks, S. H., 78n357

Brown, R. E., 155n373, 156n374 Brown, S., 78n357, 80n362, 80n364, 83n379, 87n387, 312n252, 360n27, 362n36 Bruce, F. F., 153n354, 343n73 Buck, E., 144n303 Burchard, C., 17n2, 63n271, 71nn313–14, 72nn318–19, 72n323, 73nn324–25, 107n109, 108n112, 131n230, 202n181, 204n193, 205n196, 205n198, 207n209, 247n425, 255n458, 255n463, 329n6, 349n95 Burger, C., 31n85, 31n87, 33n97, 40n139 Burnett, F. W., 259n479 Byrne, B., 55n213, 55n219, 282n92 Cameron, P. S., 212n233 Camponovo, O., 187n108, 188nn113–14, 188nn116–17 Cargal, T. B., 156nn374–75 Carter, W., 23n38, 92n18, 97n48, 102n77, 267n11, 273n42, 275n53, 303n215, 308n238, 332n23 Carter, W./Heil, J. P., 171n18, 175n42, 175n45, 178n63, 185nn98–99, 189nn125–26, 191n133, 195n150, 257n470 Chae, Y. S., 36n114, 39n131, 41nn140– 41, 44n159, 52n199, 75n335, 337n49 Chancey, M. A., 257nn53–54 Charette, B., 77n348 Charlesworth, J. H., 20n17, 40nn139– 40, 43n149 Chester, A., 18n3, 19n7, 20n17 Citron, B., 156n374 Clark, K. W., 4n18, 170n16, 361n32 Coenen, L., 333n24, 335n38 Collins, J. J., 18n3, 19nn7– 8, 20nn16–17, 42n146, 42n148, 43n149 Comber, J. A., 39n132, 385n15

470

Author Index

Cope, O. L., 279n77 Cousland, J. R. C., 11n40, 22n34, 24n45, 31n84, 37n117, 39nn131–32, 41n140, 41n142, 42n145, 48n174, 51n189, 52n194, 53n200, 54nn212–13, 55n214, 55n216, 95nn36– 37, 98n54, 98n57, 99n59, 99n64, 100n69, 156n374, 164n417, 165n425, 314n268 Crüsemann, F., 343n74 Culbertson, P., 193n139 Cuvillier, É., 1n1, 79n361 Dauer, A., 67n294, 68nn295–96 Davies, W. D./Allison, D. C., 9, 24n41, 25n54, 26n61, 28n68, 28nn70–71, 30n78, 30n84, 33n97, 46n167, 57n231, 57n233, 62n265, 66n289, 77n347, 84n379, 98n57, 110n122, 117n164, 117n166, 128n218, 141n285, 141n287, 147n323, 156n376, 168n1, 185nn98– 99, 202n181, 218nn260– 61, 218n264, 223n293, 223n298, 240nn292–93, 248n426, 255nn459– 60, 272n30, 272n33, 279n77, 289nn135–36, 294n168, 304n222, 328n3, 339nn58–59, 358n15, 358n17, 364n45, 375n10 Deines, R., 19n6, 19n10, 21n27, 25n50, 31n84, 45n161, 111nn128–29, 147n323, 177n53, 212n239, 257n54, 257n57, 289n136, 329n7, 349n96 Derrett, J. D. M., 259n479 Deutsch, C., 219nn267– 68 Dobbeler, A. von, 3– 4, 38n126, 79n361, 80n364, 185n99, 234n362, 312n252, 314–15, 317n281, 356n6, 360n27 Dobbeler, S. von, 60nn248– 49, 336n43 Doering, L., 111n129, 112nn134–35, 113n139, 188n115 Donaldson, T. L., 66n286, 282nn91–92, 284n103, 295n172, 295n174, 323n306, 358n15 Dormeyer, D., 289n133, 311n249 Douglas, R. C., 361n27 Duling, D. C., 39n131, 39n134, 40n140, 180n77 Dunn, J. D. G., 162n405, 162n409, 360n27, 362n36 Ebach, J., 270n22 Ebersohn, M., 21n28, 22n31 Eckstein, H-J., 2n9, 268n18, 276n61 Elliot, J. H., 180n75 Eloff, M., 26n61, 235n365 Ennulat, A., 131n230, 172n31 Erlemann, K., 193n139, 196n153, 243n409

Evans, C. A., 202n180, 246n417, 249n430, 272n29 Ewherido, A. O., 251n442, 253n451, 254n456 Feldtkeller, A., 54n210, 234n362, 364n45 Feneberg, R., 10n35, 103n81 Fiedler, P., 10n35, 46n167, 50n184, 51nn189–91, 57n243, 64n276, 77n345, 93n23, 96n44, 121n186, 130n229, 133n248, 142n298, 144nn305– 6, 146n314, 155n367, 159n389, 162nn404– 6, 162n409, 172n29, 172n31, 179n65, 206n203, 211n232, 218nn262– 64, 220n278, 226n318, 227n325, 228n331, 238n383, 252n446, 262n493, 267n8, 278n76, 292n153, 308n241, 312n252, 316n277, 336n44, 341n63, 357n8, 362n35 Fisher, L. R., 40n140 Foster, P., 12n42, 170n13, 329n5, 361nn28–29, 365n48 France, R. T., 70n311, 72n321, 142n294, 206n205, 211n232, 220n278, 284n103, 284n107, 289n133 Frankemölle, H., 2n7, 24nn43– 44, 33n101, 51n189, 51n191, 54n212, 82n373, 83n374, 83n378, 93n25, 97n52, 105n97, 105n100, 116n159, 121n186, 140n283, 144n305, 156nn374–75, 161n398, 165n423, 217n256, 229n239, 231nn346– 47, 233n355, 239n388, 240n391, 240n393, 243n411, 272n36, 273n40, 273n42, 282n90, 282n92, 284n103, 288nn125–26, 289n132, 312n252, 313n258, 341n63, 343n71, 343n74, 344n76, 345n80, 361n28, 371n5 Frenschkowski, M., 272n36 Freyne, S., 275n53 Füllkrug-Weitzel, C., 38n126, 60n251 Gale, A. M., 360n21, 364n45 Garbe, G., 3n14, 77n346, 79n361, 84n379, 164nn415–16, 184n97, 196n155, 205n196, 206n206, 208nn215–16, 213n242, 232nn350–51, 234n262, 236nn370–73, 256n466, 262n493, 262n495, 265n2, 272n31, 280n84, 313n259, 314n264 Garland, D. E., 142n294, 226n318, 227nn325–26, 228n332, 235n363, 235n366 Gathercole, S., 213n243 Geist, H., 82n373, 283n97, 293n162, 300n199 Gemünden, P. von, 253n452, 257n472 Gerlemann, G., 55n214, 211n231

Author Index Gibbs, J. A., 83n379, 148nn331–32, 156n375, 196nn155–56, 235n363, 235n366, 285n114, 305n277 Gielen, M., 11n40, 32n93, 38n127, 47nn169–70, 89n1, 91n9, 91n11, 93n27, 95n39, 98n54, 100nn66– 67, 102n76, 103nn79– 80, 103nn84– 85, 106n101, 107n111, 108n113, 108n115, 110n120, 111n125, 111n129, 112nn131–33, 112n137, 113n140, 113n143, 114n144, 114n150, 115n154, 115n156, 116n159, 117nn162– 63, 118n172, 118n175, 119n182, 120n186, 121n187, 121n189, 123nn196–97, 124n199, 124n201, 126n211, 127n212, 129nn221–22, 129n224, 129n226, 130nn227–28, 131nn230–31, 131n234, 133n244, 134n252, 140n281, 143n298, 143n300, 144n302, 144nn306–7, 146n317, 147n326, 151n345, 154n358, 154n362, 154n364, 155n373, 156n373, 156n376, 168nn5– 6, 171nn18–19, 171n22, 172n30, 184n95, 221n282, 221nn286– 87, 222n289, 222n291, 224nn303–5, 288n126, 330n10, 360n21 Giesen, H., 3n14, 62n262, 62n265, 64n273, 64n277, 71n316, 78n355, 84n380, 87n387, 239n386, 278n71 Gnilka, J., 24n42, 27n64, 47n172, 50n184, 54nn212–13, 56nn223–24, 61n260, 63n267, 63n271, 67n292, 81n368, 81n370, 84n381, 93n23, 104n87, 107n108, 131nn231–33, 133n244, 141nn285– 86, 142n290, 151n345, 151n350, 154n361, 155n367, 155n373, 156n374, 162n405, 172n29, 188n118, 210n224, 210n226, 211n230, 214n244, 222n290, 223nn297–98, 225n314, 229n339, 235n363, 235n366, 239nn385– 86, 245n415, 247n425, 251nn440– 41, 252n448, 255n458, 255n464, 262n491, 269n18, 273n38, 273n40– 42, 276nn62– 63, 279n68, 284n107, 289n132, 292n150, 294n168, 303n214, 303n216, 311n251, 331n18, 332n23, 339n57, 339n59, 364n45 Goldstein, H., 34n106 Gollinger, H., 359n20 Goodwin, M. J., 4n19, 294n164 Grassi, J. A., 75n330 Green, H. B., 239n388 Grimm, W., 204n192 Groß, W., 343n72, 343n74 Gundry, R. H., 32n93, 32n95, 33n101, 37n120, 51n189, 51n191, 57n229, 57n231, 57n233–34,

471

58n238, 58n241, 60n247, 61nn251–52, 65n283, 78n353, 78n357, 80n364, 92n19, 94n32, 106nn103–5, 111n129, 124n201, 125n206, 144nn305– 6, 147n321, 147n327, 154n359, 154n363, 156n375, 185nn98– 99, 195n150, 197n159, 197n161, 211n231, 213nn242– 43, 220n279, 224n303, 230n342, 230n344, 242n403, 247n424, 252n444, 253n452, 258n475, 259n479, 282n92, 301n205, 308n238 Gurtner, D. M., 47n172, 303n218, 339n57 Haenchen, E., 235n365 Häfner, G., 144n303, 146n318, 212nn235–36, 231n345 Hagner, D. A., 3n13, 8n32, 15n58, 23n39, 46n165, 46n167, 57n227, 57n229, 57n243, 65n283, 83n379, 93n23, 97n53, 115n153, 121n186, 133n242, 142n292, 144n306, 160n396, 170n14, 178n62, 218nn260– 61, 222n290, 252n445, 255n460, 281n87, 285n115, 289nn135–38, 294n167, 299n188, 301n207, 355n1, 361n28, 361n30, 363n43 Hahn, F., 195n148, 195n150, 198n164, 336n45, 347n87 Hakola, R., 356n7 Ham, C., 37n118, 97n52, 231n346, 341nn62– 64, 343n73 Hampel, V., 78n357, 82n373, 83n374, 83n378 Hare, D. R. A., 2n5, 2n8, 4n18, 4n20, 81n368, 164n415, 164n419, 212n239, 233n354, 233n356, 361n28, 361n32 Harrington, D. J., 59n243, 93n25, 112n136, 126n207, 144nn304–5, 160n397, 175nn42– 43, 175n45, 189nn99–100, 211n232, 235n363, 254n456, 255n462, 262n499, 308n242, 361n31 Hartman, L., 238n381 Harvey, G., 83n378 Hasler, V., 209n221 Hauck, F., 190n131 Hays, R. B., 23nn36–37, 112n137, 265n1 Hedinger, U., 156n426 Heidegger, M., 10n35 Heil, J. P., 36n114, 63n268, 125n206, 146n316, 151n347, 165n422, 269nn18–19, 270n23, 293nn156–57, 293nn161– 63, 294n167, 295n170. See also Carter, W./Heil, J. P. Held, H. J., 61n260, 108n113, 207n210, 207n214, 241n396, 241nn398–99, 331n14

472

Author Index

Hengel, M./Merkel, H., 272n29, 272n32, 272n34, 272n36, 273n41, 274n46 Herzer, J., 298n187, 304n223 Heubült, C., 357n10 Hiers, R., 186n105 Hill, C. C., 201n179 Hill, D., 22n33, 113n140 Hoffmann, P., 147n328, 260nn481– 82 Holtzmann, H. J., 66 Hommel, H., 339n59 Hood, J. B., 270–71 Hoppe, R., 195n148 Horne, E. H., 186n104 Horst, P. W., 305n231 Houlden, J. L., 85n382, 121n189, 357n10 Hübner, H., 152n351, 188n116 Huizenga, L., 287n123 Hummel, R., 7n27, 97n50, 101n70, 109n115, 119n177, 119n179, 119nn183– 84, 121n189, 205n196, 328n3, 360n27 Hunziker-Rodewald, R., 34n104, 34n106, 35n112 Jackson, G., 64n276, 215n253, 271n27, 320n294 Jeremias, J., 34n104, 35n107, 35n111, 55n219, 204n189, 204n191 Johnson, M. D., 25n49, 25nn54–55, 269n18 Jones, J. M., 31n84, 98n55 Kammler, H.- C., 302n207 Karrer, M., 32n93, 41nn140– 41, 99n58, 190n128 Keener, C. S., 78n352, 316n277, 364n45 Kennedy, J., 24n47, 106n103 Kiilunen, J., 131n230, 133n242 Kilpatrick, G. D., 61n255, 78n357 Kingsbury, J. D., 21–22, 23n40, 24n43, 33n97, 33n100, 45n162, 45n164, 97n48, 98n54, 99n59, 102nn76–77, 110n124, 113n141, 114n144, 136n259, 137nn264– 65, 137n269, 142n294, 174n40, 236n369, 245n415, 246n419, 254nn456–57, 255n461, 256n468, 256n470, 272n28, 283n96, 288nn127–29, 289n133, 289n136, 293n161, 299n194, 301n202, 305nn226–28, 306n234, 318n284 Kirchschläger, W., 343n71 Kittel, G., 269n18 Klauck, H.-J., 94n32, 94n34, 175nn43– 44, 193nn137–38, 253n451 Klein, H., 28n68, 125n202, 140n278 Klinzing, G., 338n54, 339nn57–58

Knowles, M., 151n350, 160n394, 230n342, 231n346, 233n355, 233n357 Kosch, D., 212n236 Kraft, R. A., 278n72 Kraus, H.-J., 28n74, 188n112 Kraus, W., 2n9, 199n165, 300n199, 303n215, 305n226, 321n300, 364n45 Krentz, E., 23n40, 266nn3– 4 Küchler, M., 272nn35–36 Kuhn, K. G., 19n10 Kühschelm, R., 156n375, 365n49 Kupp, D. D., 28n69, 47n171, 338n55, 346n83 Kvalbein, H., 42n147 Kwaak, H. van der, 236n371, 236n373 Kynes, W. L., 171n18 Lambrecht, J., 131n230, 177n52, 247n422, 252n448, 254n456, 256n464 Landis, S., 67n292, 67n294, 68n295, 207n209 Landmesser, C., 37n123, 48nn174–75, 112n131 Lang, B., 343n71 Lange, J., 2n8, 81nn369–70, 178n62, 283n96, 283n102, 284n103, 285n114, 292n154, 305n231, 316n278 Langley, W. E., 171n24 Leivestad, R., 214n243 Levine, A.-J., 3n13, 38n128, 63n267, 105n97, 140nn283– 84, 156nn376–77, 162n410, 270n24, 320nn293–94, 362n35 Liedke, G., 261n488 Lindars, B., 68n296, 343n73 Loader, B., 43n149 Loader, W. R. G., 21n28, 40n135, 45n162 Lohfink, N., 96n46, 99n61, 343n74 Lohmeyer, E., 176n50, 179n71, 191n135 Löning, K., 351n101 Lövestam, E., 31n85, 209n220, 242n405 Luck, U., 142n293, 215n249, 218n266, 225n314, 233n358, 285n115, 294n167 Luomanen, P., 12n45, 199n165, 298n185, 357n11 Luz, U., 1n2, 2n6, 3n11, 3n13, 5n21, 8, 11n39, 13n51, 14nn55–56, 17n2, 22nn34–35, 24n41, 24n47, 25n55, 29n76, 36n114, 46n156, 53nn200–201, 53nn204–5, 56nn223–24, 57nn232–34, 59nn243– 44, 62n262, 62n264, 67n292, 67n294, 71n312, 77n344, 77n350, 79n357, 80nn362– 63, 82n372, 82n373, 86n386, 90n7, 94n30, 111n129, 115nn152–55, 116n157, 117nn164– 65, 120n185, 122nn191–92, 124n199, 125n202, 125n206, 129nn222–24, 130n227, 131n231,

Author Index 131n233, 133n244, 133n248, 136n260, 139n273, 139n275, 145n313, 146n319, 148nn329–30, 148n332, 149nn337– 40, 150n342, 151nn345– 46, 151n348, 151n350, 154n359, 154n363, 156n357, 168nn1–3, 169n6, 171n18, 171n22, 171n24, 172n31, 178nn58– 60, 178n63, 190n129, 194n145, 201nn179– 80, 206n205, 207n208, 207n211, 207n213, 211n227, 211n229–31, 212n233, 212n235, 212n239, 216n255, 218n262, 218n264, 219n266, 219nn268– 69, 220n276, 220n280, 221nn282– 84, 221n286, 222n290, 224nn300–302, 227n320, 227nn325–27, 229nn336–37, 229n339, 232nn348–51, 234n360, 236nn373–74, 239nn385– 86, 243n407, 243n409, 243n412, 247n424, 250n438, 253n454, 260nn481– 82, 261n489, 269n18, 273n39, 273n42, 274n47, 275nn53– 54, 276n59, 276nn61– 63, 278n72, 278n76, 281n87, 283nn95–97, 283n102, 288nn124–28, 289nn135–36, 293n158, 293n160, 296n176, 296n178, 297n179, 298n186, 299n190, 300n198, 300n201, 303n215, 307n236, 308n238, 312n252, 316nn274–75, 316n279, 318nn283– 85, 333n23, 337nn46– 47, 339n57, 339n59, 348n91, 356nn6–7, 364n45, 366nn51–52, 366n54, 373n7, 374n8 Malina, B. J., 162n410, 284n103 Mann, C. S., 272n29 Marcus, J., 339n59 Marguerat, D., 2n4, 184n97, 205n196, 232n349, 237n375 Martin, F., 33n97, 36n114, 141n290 Matera, F. J., 265n1 Mayer-Haas, A. J., 111nn128–29, 112n133, 113nn139– 40, 292n154 Mayordomo-Marín, M., 24n41, 27n63, 32n92, 268n14, 268n16, 269n18 McAfee Moss, C., 37n118, 152n350, 343n73 McDermott, J. M., 81n370 McKnight, S., 2n9, 4nn19–20, 9n33, 76n340, 77n345, 239n386 Meier, J. P., 1n2, 84n379, 156n374, 176n50, 236n369, 283nn95–96, 284n103, 291n149, 304n223, 317n282, 331n18, 345n79, 347n87 Meinertz, M., 211n231 Meiser, M., 101n69, 114n150, 358n16 Menken, M., 276n72, 277nn64– 67, 277nn69–70, 278n71, 278n76, 279n79, 279n82

473

Menninger, R. E., 8n33, 222n290, 261n487, 332n23, 337n48, 345n79, 361nn28–29 Merkel, H., 170n15. See also Hengel, M./Merkel, H. Merklein, H., 33n101 Metzner, R., 61n253, 180n72, 332n23 Michel, O., 171n17, 265n1 Minear, P. S., 54n212, 92n19 M’Neile, A. H., 142n293, 247n422, 289n135, 290n138 Moffitt, D. M., 230n242 Moore, W. E., 37n120 Mora, V., 284n103 Münch, C., 248nn427–28, 249n433 Münderlein, G., 239n386 Mussner, F., 185n99, 197n158, 243n409 Newport, K. G. C., 226n315, 231n345 Neyrey, J. H., 277n63, 277n66, 277n69 Niebuhr, K.-W., 42n148 Nolan, B., 104n90 Nolland, J., 26n59, 38n126, 57n253, 62nn264– 65, 66n289, 94nn30–32, 95nn36– 37, 98n55, 105n100, 142n290, 143n297, 148n330, 148n332, 151n345, 151n347, 155n368, 186n102, 186n105, 196n152, 198n162, 204n189, 212n236, 237n377, 238n380, 241n396, 242n405, 243n409, 243n412, 246n421, 247nn422–23, 253n451, 257n470, 260n483, 268n16, 277n69, 278n74, 282nn91–92, 285n113, 288nn125–26, 288n130, 289nn133–35, 290n142, 303n217, 339n57, 340n59 Novakovic, L., 21nn26–27, 21n29, 26n58, 29n75, 30n78, 30n82, 40n136, 40n140, 42nn145– 46, 42n148, 44n158, 46n167, 48n174, 52n195, 52n199, 97n48, 97n50–51, 98n55, 98n57, 341n65 Oberforcher, R., 25n49, 25n51, 25n55, 318n288 Ogawa, A., 172n25, 185n97, 196n151 Olmstead, W. G., 37n122, 126n210, 142n294, 143n301, 159n392, 168nn1–2, 168n4–5, 170nn13–14, 173nn34–35, 173n37, 179n66, 179n69, 183n90, 183n93, 211n232, 219n269 Ostmeyer, K.-H., 26n57, 27nn63– 64, 27n66, 209n220, 271n24 Overman, J. A., 9n33, 12–13, 72n320, 138n271, 164n415, 328n5, 347n86, 357n9, 357n11, 359n19, 360n27, 361n30, 364n45

474

Author Index

Paesler, K., 145n313, 146n314, 146n320 Park, E. C., 3n12, 5n21, 77n344, 79n361, 80nn364– 65, 81n368, 82n372, 82n373, 83n379 Paschke, B., 63n271 Paul, D., 1nn2–3, 14n55, 152n350, 163nn411–12, 223n294, 223n297, 272n34, 272n36, 273n38, 293n158 Perkins, P., 283n95 Pokorný, P., 60n250 Powell, M. A., 103n81, 147nn327–28, 226n318, 272n34, 273n39 Preuss, H. D., 28n74, 177n54 Radermakers, J., 76n336 Ray, W. A., 33n101, 49n181, 70n311 Repschinski, B., 11n40, 22n35, 38n125, 65n283, 89n1, 91n11, 92n21, 94n30, 94n32, 109n116, 109n119, 112nn131–32, 124n189, 124nn199–200, 125nn205– 6, 131nn230–32, 133n246, 134n249, 135n255, 156n374, 172n30, 183n92, 186n101, 222n291, 225n308, 225n310, 360n23, 363n39 Riches, J., 12n42, 323n306, 355n2 Ritter, C., 98n56, 105n97 Robinson, B. P., 338n54 Rochais, G., 59n244 Roloff, J., 84n379, 172n31, 173n38, 184n97, 245nn415–16, 250n438, 251nn440– 41, 252n449, 254nn456–57, 333n24, 333n26, 335 Rothfuchs, W., 152n353 Runesson, A., 85n382, 175n42, 270n22, 356n6, 361n30, 362n35, 364n45 Saldarini, A. J., 4n20, 12–13, 138n271, 159n390, 163n410, 166n427, 176n47, 180, 189n122, 238n384, 251n442, 252n446, 320n293, 320n295, 347n86, 349n93, 355n5, 356n6, 358n15, 360n27, 361n30, 362nn35–36, 363nn38– 41, 364n45, 366n51, 373n6 Sand, A., 25n49, 25n55, 58n241, 78n352, 93n23, 94n34, 98n57, 154n359, 154n361, 155n366, 162n408, 213n242, 218n260, 218n262, 218n264, 222n291, 225n311, 225n214, 228n332, 232nn349–50, 241n396, 245n415, 247n424, 253n451, 254n456, 265n1, 274n46, 285n113, 303n217, 330n13, 331nn18–19 Sauer, G., 97n53 Schaberg, J., 238n102 Schaller, B., 18n3, 20n17 Schenk, W., 7n27, 80n364, 81n368, 330n10

Schenke, L., 335n39 Schenker, A., 343n72 Schmeller, T., 51n188, 54n210, 55n218, 63n267 Schmid, J., 177nn52–53, 200n171, 332n23 Schneider, G., 261n490, 288n126 Schnelle, U., 68n301 Schnider, F./Stenger, W., 28n68, 269n18 Schönle, V., 211n228, 213n242, 215n249 Schottroff, L., 199n164 Schrage, W., 333n24, 333n26 Schreiber, S., 18n5, 19n7, 19n10, 19n14, 20n15, 20n17, 64n273, 187nn108–9, 188n114, 188nn116–17 Schweizer, E., 32n93, 131n230, 170n16, 178n62, 203n183, 223n297, 239n388, 243n409 Schwemer, A. M., 177n54, 188nn114–15 Schwindt, R., 145n309, 304n220 Schwöbel., C., 380n19 Scott, J. M. C., 62n264, 64n278, 65n281 Seebass, H., 19n13, 32n94 Senior, D. P., 13n53, 23nn36–37, 23n41, 103n83, 139nn274–75, 145n308, 149n338, 151n350, 302n208, 302n210, 317n282, 318n287, 355n4, 358n14, 361n31, 366n53 Shirock, R., 220n278 Sider Hamilton C., 163n413 Sim, D., 12nn41– 42, 63n271, 85nn382– 83, 107n111, 272n29, 297n180, 303n215, 303n218, 317n282, 349n94, 357n10, 361n30 Smit, P.-B., 268n17, 269n18 Snodgrass, K., 172n31, 176n51, 179n67, 179n71, 183n93, 184n94, 193n138 Söding, T., 133n243, 195n148, 196n154, 198n164, 228n124, 290nn139– 40, 290n142, 301nn202–3, 301n205, 301–2n207, 347n87 Söllner, P., 145n313 Stanton, G. N., 13n51, 23n36, 23n39, 124n198, 219n267, 318n284, 355n2, 361nn28–29, 362n36, 364n45 Steck, O. H., 99n63, 175n41 Stegemann, H., 18n5, 42n148, 268nn17–18, 269n19, 270n24 Stendahl, K., 153nn354–55, 267n62, 277n68 Strathmann, H./Meyer, R., 158n387, 161n398 Strecker, G., 3n11, 119n179, 156n374, 211n231, 214n247, 215n255, 235n363, 250n438, 285n112, 361n28, 361n32 Stuhlmacher, P., 3n13, 333n26 Suhl, A., 11n39, 22nn30–31, 31n85, 98n55, 146n318, 154n359

Author Index Tagawa, K., 206n207, 351n100 Talbert, C. H., 288n128 Telford, W. R., 239n386, 239n388, 239n390 Theißen, G., 51n188, 160n397, 190n129, 272n37, 286n119, 311n249, 311n251, 321n297, 357n10, 380n18 Theißen, G./Merz, A., 32n93 Thiessen, M., 357n11 Tilborg, S., 102n76, 119n178, 136n259, 137n266, 137n268, 141n289, 152n350, 168n4, 258n475, 332n22 Tisera, G., 67nn291–92, 164n419, 278n72, 278n76, 282n90, 315n270 Trebilco, P., 333n24, 333n26, 335n39 Trilling, W., 2n5, 4n18, 4n20, 8n33, 66n287, 86n386, 89n2, 156nn374–75, 173nn37– 38, 178n59, 190n130, 206n205, 245n415, 248n425 Troxel, R., 303n215 Trunk, D., 60n251, 61n255, 62n261, 64n277, 240n392 Tuckett, C., 91n11, 106n103, 229n337 Vahrenhorst, M., 245n415 Verseput, D., 22n34, 25n52, 29n76, 32n92, 36n114, 52n195, 52n199, 53n205, 78n335, 96n43, 98n55, 104n92, 122n193, 124n198, 211nn231–32, 212n236, 220n278, 224n301, 278n76, 312n252 Viljoen, F. P., 345n79 Vögtle, A., 194n140, 194n142, 194n144, 195nn149–50, 196nn153–55, 199nn164– 65, 200n173, 257n470, 268n18, 285n112 Wainwright, E. M., 61n251, 62n264, 63n266, 65n281 Walker, R., 2n5, 2n8, 11nn39– 40, 86n386, 89n2, 92n21, 102n76, 120n186, 156n374, 195n150, 218n264, 243n409, 312n252 Wansbrough, H., 359n19

475

Ward, R. B., 201n179 Weaver, D. J., 75n331, 75n335, 103n78, 211n232, 303n218 Webb, R. L., 91n11, 106n103 Wedderburn, A. J. M., 82n373 Wegner, U., 67n292, 67n294, 68nn298–99, 69n301, 69n304, 71n312, 71n316, 72n320, 207n209 Wenham, D., 199n167 Weren, W. J. C., 96n46, 97nn51–52, 125n202, 175n43, 183n92, 184nn96–97, 199n164, 201n180, 269n18, 275n52, 364n45, 366n54 Wettlaufer, R. D., 155n372 White, L. M., 360n27 Wiefel, W., 243n409, 247n424, 332n23 Wilk, F., 3n15, 25n54, 56n223, 59n244, 65n285, 71n314, 72n323, 78n354, 81nn368–71, 179n69, 184n94, 189n123, 197n161, 267n10, 267n12, 268n13, 277n64, 302n211, 308nn239– 40, 312nn252–53, 314n268, 315n268, 315n271, 315n274, 317n281, 319n290, 321n296, 346n84, 349n98 Willitts, J., 32n93, 38n129, 43n153, 347n88 Wolff, C., 151n350, 341n64 Wolter, M., 67n294, 94n32 Wong, K.- C., 59n244, 84n380, 260nn484– 85 Wright, N. T., 4n20, 27n65 Yang, Y.-E., 111n127, 111n129, 112nn133–34, 114n148 Zahn, T., 179n64, 206n204, 313n258, 339n58 Zangenberg, J., 51n189 Zeller, D., 202n181, 203n182, 203n184, 204n191, 206n201, 211n230 Zenger, E., 334n35, 343n72, 343– 44n74 Zimmermann, J., 19n7, 19n11, 20n15, 20n17, 42n144, 42n148, 349n97 Zumstein, J., 170n16, 241n396, 241n400, 364n45, 376n11

This page intentionally left blank

Subject Index

Abraham, 25–26, 179, 184n94, 188, 209n220, 232, 261n487, 266– 68, 269n19, 271n24, 271n27, 272, 274, 276, 308–9, 317, 318n288, 320–21, 342, 351–52, 369, 374–75; children of, 107, 206n205, 266– 67, 268n13, 271, 272n28, 318, 321, 346n84, 350n98 Abrahamic sonship of Jesus. See Jesus acclamation, 22n31, 24, 31n86, 45, 52n198, 53n205, 97, 98n55, 99n64, 100, 123–24, 125, 133–34, 334 accusation of blasphemy. See blasphemy addressees, 5, 14, 37–38, 85, 90–91, 97, 105, 106n105, 134–35, 136n261, 143, 152n350, 176n47, 205, 208 adoption, 28, 29, 286, 288, 370 affliction, 80, 85, 212n237, 258, 263n498,  360n26, 380 angels, 35n111, 42n144, 77n346, 188n115, 289n138, 300n198 anti-Judaism, 85n383, 274n47, 380 antithesis/antitheses, 17n2, 108, 186n103, 227n328, 357 apocalyptic, 223n299, 333n26 apologetic, 22, 23n37, 153n357, 358 apostolic conference, 320n295 Archelaos, 114 atoning death. See Jesus: crucifixion of authorities, 1–2, 4, 11, 13, 34–36, 38–39, 45n163, 53, 70n306, 76, 81, 89n2, 91, 92–93, 95n35, 95n40, 100, 101–10, 115–16, 118–19, 120–21, 121–29, 134–35, 136– 41, 142– 44, 146– 47, 148– 49, 151–56, 159– 66, 170–74, 176–77, 178, 183– 85, 185n98, 185n100, 186, 189, 191, 192, 193, 197–99, 200–202, 212–14, 219, 221–27, 229–30, 233, 235–37, 239, 240, 244, 248, 257–59, 263– 64, 272, 274, 279, 280,

283, 285, 297, 302– 4, 309, 310, 332–33, 334, 338, 339, 349, 352, 355–56, 358, 359, 370–73, 378, 379; failure of, 26, 36–37, 38, 39n130, 90, 130, 138, 139, 141, 186, 371; lack of understanding, 111n130, 120, 122, 218n265, 310n245, 357, 359; replacement of, 263– 64, 338, 352, 371; wickedness of, 107, 108, 113, 115, 129, 136–39, 219–25, 257–58, 371 authority of Jesus. See Jesus: authority of baptism of Jesus. See Jesus: baptism of basileia. See kingdom of God beatitude. See macarism Beelzebul/Beelzebul accusation, 37n154, 38, 80n364, 91n8, 94, 115n151, 118, 135, 219–20 Bethlehem, 32, 33n97, 104n90, 124, 163n410, 164n416, 273 Bethsaida, 214–15, 217n259 birth of Jesus. See Jesus: birth of blasphemy, 108–9, 126n207, 149, 160n396, 220– 21, 310n245 blindness, 45, 228, 370 blood/blood curse, 1, 150–53, 156n374, 163– 64, 228, 230, 234, 342, 372, 374. See also field  of blood bread, 64– 66, 289, 292, 331, 342 brood of vipers, 91, 106, 137, 221, 224 Canaan, 61, 158n386 Canaanite woman, 33n101, 40, 45n163, 47, 51, 55, 60– 66, 73, 270n19, 274, 365n50, 374–75 Capernaum, 66, 92n20, 122n193, 214–16, 218n259, 274, 318n286, 374 chief priests, 32n93, 92n21, 99, 100n67, 103– 4, 123–28, 134, 139– 40, 143, 144n302, 145n308, 145n312, 146– 47, 149–52, 153–54,

478

Subject Index

chief priests (continued), 155n373, 159n393, 163– 65, 170, 174, 183, 199n164, 223, 284, 302, 372 children, 1, 22, 24, 31n86, 45, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 96, 97, 123, 124n201, 125n202, 134, 136, 137n265, 146, 164, 210, 211, 213n242, 220n227, 238, 244, 260n483, 331, 372 children of Abraham. See Abraham Christ believers, 7, 64n276, 92n19, 206, 207, 232, 260, 264, 267, 319, 320, 328n4, 333n26, 335, 356n6, 357, 358, 363, 365, 380 Christ/Christ-title, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34nn106–7, 41, 46n166, 64n276, 96n42, 103, 126, 134, 145n312, 154, 206, 210, 213, 214, 218n261, 226, 236, 243, 249, 269n16, 280, 294, 296, 300, 306n232, 311, 321, 323n306, 336, 341n65, 344, 345, 347, 351, 352, 364, 380 Christian community in Jerusalem. See Jerusalem Christians/Christianity, 7, 8, 19, 81n370, 216, 255n461, 267, 320, 327, 333n26, 361 Christology, 5n20, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21–24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32n95, 33, 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 85, 111n129, 141, 240n393, 265– 66, 269, 271, 276n62, 280, 281, 282–307, 309–11, 321n297, 323n306, 324, 330, 340, 347n86, 352, 357, 369, 370, 375–77. See also insight (christological) Church, 3–9, 12, 13, 14–15, 80, 83– 85, 92n92, 94n34, 100, 121, 122, 138, 148, 151, 162, 165, 167, 168, 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 184, 187, 189–91, 195n150, 197, 198, 206, 207, 216, 219, 226, 238n380, 242, 245– 46, 254, 255, 256n470, 257–59, 260– 61, 263– 64, 272, 279, 283, 298, 308, 313–14, 317, 318–23, 327–53, 355– 67, 372–73, 375n10, 377– 80 circumcision, 51, 320, 363 commands, 107, 110–12, 117, 121, 131–33, 138, 188, 190, 252, 276, 278, 282, 285, 296, 305, 306, 320, 349, 352–53, 357, 358, 378 commands of silence/secrecy, 276–77, 297, 306 commission of the disciples. See disciples community. See Church compassion, 36, 39– 40, 45, 48, 62, 77, 86, 111n129, 112, 113n140, 122n192, 132, 138, 145, 237, 279, 280, 357, 370. See also Jesus: compassion of condemnation of Jesus. See Jesus confession: of the Messiah, 21n27, 30, 41, 110, 121, 147n322, 292–96, 357n8; of sins, 47n172, 105, 151; of the Son of God, 110, 281, 286,

291, 292–97, 298n183, 299n193, 305n231, 336, 344, 377 conflict: configuration of, 14, 103, 105, 127– 28,  135–39, 160, 166, 210, 263; motif of, 103–39, 147n328, 162; story of, 1, 11, 86, 97, 123, 128, 133, 139, 160, 309 confrontations, 2, 110, 113, 116, 123, 126, 128, 135, 137, 139, 183, 197–98, 219, 225, 226, 232, 263, 277, 283, 355, 357 contemporaries of Jesus, 209, 211, 214n143, 231n145, 240– 44 cosmos, 148, 177, 190, 208, 259–60, 272, 281, 284, 285, 290, 301, 305, 313, 324, 337–38, 347, 349, 351, 353, 373 covenant/establishment of covenant, 18n5, 32n96, 179, 240n393, 318, 322, 327–28, 332– 45, 350, 351, 353, 378. See also Sinai/Sinaitic covenant crowds, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13–14, 22, 26, 36, 38, 43– 44, 46, 51–55, 60, 71, 73, 75–77, 89, 90–101, 105, 108, 110, 114–15, 117–18, 127, 130, 134–35, 138–39, 140, 142–43, 154, 156–67, 167–74, 183–205, 207, 210–13, 216–18, 219, 222, 225–27, 230, 237–38, 240, 241, 244–59, 263– 64, 277–79, 280, 288, 290, 293, 295, 311, 315, 330–32, 333, 336, 348, 355, 358– 60, 363, 371–73; failure of, 250; lack of understanding, 5, 101, 167, 244–59, 373; relation between crowds and authorities, 11, 13, 38–39, 40, 53, 76, 80n364, 89, 93, 95, 99, 101, 106, 110, 114–16, 117, 127, 135, 140, 156–57, 159, 165–67, 171, 175, 183, 197, 212, 219, 222, 230, 244, 259, 263, 308, 327, 355, 358, 371 crucifixion of Jesus. See Jesus: crucifixion of damnation, 2, 177, 207– 8, 234, 262 David/Davidic covenant, 18, 19–20, 21–22, 25–30, 32, 34, 39, 40, 111, 175n41, 187, 223, 230n342, 269n18, 270, 271, 294, 311, 334n29, 346n82 Davidic sonship of Jesus. See Jesus: as Son of David death of Jesus. See Jesus Decalogue, 117, 357 Decapolis, 50–51, 54, 56 demand for a sign, 90–91, 115–16, 118–20, 146n317, 219–22, 224 demons, 41n140, 56–59, 115n151, 211, 224–25, 291, 306n233, 311, 339n59; expulsion of, 41n140, 56–59, 91, 187n105, 220, 224, 228, 241, 291, 295n170

Subject Index destruction of Jerusalem. See Jerusalem devil, 58, 114–15, 137, 221, 224, 257, 282, 289– 90, 300n198, 301, 305, 374 Diaspora Judaism, 81, 83, 198n161, 204, 347n86 dietary law, 54, 60 disciples, 1, 3n14, 5, 7– 8, 11, 14, 17– 87, 91–92, 94n31, 98n54, 100, 102n77, 107–10, 111–12, 113, 116–22, 124n187, 135, 141, 145, 148n333, 162, 165, 170n17, 184n94, 187, 189–92, 193n139, 196n151, 197–202, 205, 207n213, 212n237, 216–19, 219n270, 220n278, 225– 26, 228–29, 232–36, 239, 241–50, 253, 254, 255n461, 256–57, 257– 64, 275, 279n81, 280– 83, 285, 290, 292–97, 299n189, 301n205, 305– 6, 307– 8, 309–10, 313–25, 328–32, 333, 336–38, 342– 43, 344–53, 360, 363, 369–70, 373–74, 376–78; calling of, 50, 170n17, 207, 328, 335–36, 340; commission of, 4, 11, 18, 33, 36, 50, 51n190, 74–76, 79– 87, 102n77, 190–92, 194–96, 197–99, 201, 212n237, 214, 216, 228–30, 232–34, 236, 246, 256, 262, 275n56, 281, 282, 304nn220–21, 310, 314–15, 317, 319, 322, 324–25, 329, 339, 347, 349, 353, 370, 373; failure of, 241; hostility towards, 212; instruction to (see instruction) discipleship, 50, 58, 73–74, 91, 96, 121, 122n192, 184– 84, 193n139, 198, 205, 207– 8, 219n270, 224, 246, 248, 260, 315n271, 330, 336, 338, 348, 363 disciples of John the Baptist. See John the Baptist dispute, 2n6, 29, 93, 122, 126–29, 133, 144 dogs, 63– 65 double commandment of love, 133. See also love of God; love of neighbor doubt, 96, 223, 246, 289, 305n231 Early Judaism, 18, 19, 29, 34, 40n140, 41– 43, 55n214, 63, 132, 133n243, 137n265, 159, 174n41, 175, 180n73, 181–82, 185n98, 188n116, 209, 223n299, 230n342, 231n346, 251, 262, 266, 270, 286n119, 294n164, 312, 314, 333n26, 338n54, 339n59, 346, 349, 353, 370, 372, 378 Easter, 3, 10, 58, 199, 306, 344, 348, 353, 371, 399n10, 377 ecclesia. See Church ecclesiology, 50n182, 74, 184n97, 198, 218n262, 328–32, 341n65, 342, 348, 352, 359, 378. See also Church Edom, 51

479

elders, 69, 70n306, 101, 104, 106, 123, 125–26, 127n212, 128, 139– 40, 150, 151, 152n350, 153–54, 161, 163, 165, 170, 174, 302, 334n35 election, 35n109, 61, 64n276, 72–73, 107, 118, 153, 177, 187, 193, 200n172, 207, 237, 245n415, 247n424, 264, 266, 268, 272, 276, 310, 313, 317, 321, 335, 341, 347, 350, 351–52, 365, 369, 370, 374–76 Elijah, 174n41, 296 Elijah redivivus, 211, 212n238, 217 enemies of Jesus. See opponents of Jesus enthronization of Jesus. See Jesus entry into Jerusalem, 40n139, 96–100, 123, 124n197, 134, 235, 237, 291, 297, 322n303, 371–72 eschatology, 2, 3n14, 7, 18, 42n144, 76, 77nn344– 45, 86, 98n57, 105n100, 135, 145n313, 148, 172, 178, 184n97, 186, 192, 193, 202, 204–7, 210, 214, 233–34, 236– 37, 242, 247n424, 250, 260n483, 261– 64, 267, 285n115, 302n213, 313, 321, 323n306, 333n23, 335–36, 338n54, 343, 345n80, 348, 349n97, 359, 364, 370, 372, 375n10, 379 ἔθνος, 4, 8, 158n387, 178–85, 192, 198, 350n98 Eucharist, 299, 308n238, 319–20, 331n18, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 350, 378 exile, 25–27, 35n111, 42n147, 158n385, 182, 204, 244, 342n66, 343n73, 371n4 exodus/exodus generation, 35n111, 157n383, 180, 209n220, 343n73 exorcism. See demons faith, 7n27, 33n101, 44, 64– 65, 66– 67, 70–74, 121n186, 126, 204–5, 208, 239, 241, 266n5, 271, 318n287, 329n5, 364, 366n51, 374 family of Jesus. See Jesus feast (eschatological), 192, 202–3, 205, 261, 267 feeding miracles, 39, 40n138, 54–55, 63n267, 64n274, 64n278, 66, 110n123, 157, 330–31 festival. See Passover field of blood, 150, 151 fig tree, 96n46, 125n204, 239 final judgment. See judgment fishers of people, 219n270, 329 forgiveness of sins, 46– 47, 50n182, 86, 94n34, 108, 109, 122n192, 135–36, 163n413, 220–21, 235, 283, 298–99, 304n220, 306, 327, 330, 338, 341, 343n73, 344, 350, 360, 370, 375, 378 fulfillment quotations, 17, 23, 25, 28, 43, 97– 98, 114,  141, 144, 151–52, 153, 251, 276–77, 279–80, 281, 287, 291, 308–10, 324, 340nn59–60, 374

480

Subject Index

Galilee, 54, 60, 78–79, 83, 98–99, 104, 114n147, 118, 122n193, 142– 43, 163n410, 164– 67, 198n161, 208–19, 229, 238, 274–75, 282, 316n280, 351n100, 358, 364n45, 371–72, 377 genealogy, 23–27, 39n130, 209n220, 228, 232, 268, 270n24, 271, 317–18, 341, 342n66, 365, 371, 374 Gentile Christians, 64n276, 119n178, 182, 318, 319–20, 361n32, 363, 367 Gentiles, 2–3, 5n21, 6–7, 9, 20n17, 20nn19–20, 27n66, 38n126, 49n181, 50–51, 53–56, 56–74, 78, 84– 86, 92n19, 157, 170–71, 176, 178, 184n95, 198n164, 202–3, 204– 6, 208, 263– 64, 269–74, 275–76, 280–81, 291, 308, 311– 13, 316, 317nn281– 82, 318, 319–20, 324–25, 333n23, 343– 44, 347, 349–50, 351n100, 358, 361, 364– 65, 366, 369, 373–74, 375, 376 Gentile world, 6, 13, 24, 48, 55, 64, 85, 208, 266– 68, 276, 280, 307, 309, 336, 342, 343n74, 347, 349, 351, 353, 366, 375, 379– 80 gentleness, 97, 98n55, 237, 305n229 Great Commission, 1, 13, 74, 75, 85– 86, 241– 42, 279, 281, 282, 287, 296, 312n252, 314–16, 324–25, 329, 331, 335, 347, 353, 374, 377–78 Hades, 339– 40 halakah, 111, 112–13, 116, 118, 227, 337, 364n44 healings, 17, 21, 27n66, 37, 39– 49, 50, 52–55, 56n226, 57, 58, 59, 65– 66, 66– 67, 68, 69, 71, 75, 86, 90–91, 93–98, 108, 112, 113n139, 114, 123–25, 135–36, 138, 146, 203n187, 212, 220, 222, 224, 235, 240– 41, 252, 277, 280, 282– 83, 291, 294–95, 314–15, 329–30, 348, 369–70, 374, 377 hell, 229n339, 230, 372 Herod Antipas, 116n158, 119n176, 174n39 Herodians, 113n142, 128n219, 136 Herod the Great, 31, 32n93, 102–5, 108, 114, 124, 134, 139n272, 155n368, 158n385, 272n36, 294n165 Holy Spirit, 20n18, 27, 106n105, 220, 220n280, 269n18, 278, 283, 285n115, 288n126, 289, 305, 306, 316n274 hosanna, 45, 96–99, 146, 162n404 hypocrisy/hypocrites, 125n206, 129, 136n259, 137–38, 220n279, 226n318, 229, 371 Idumea/Idumeans, 50–51, 103 Immanuel, 27n67, 42n144, 46, 235, 240n393, 274, 278–79, 287, 293, 299, 305, 323, 346

insight (christological), 22, 24, 44, 57, 93n27, 95, 96–101, 110, 114–15, 135, 147n328, 212, 214, 217–18, 222, 244, 247–56, 292–97, 306, 310n245, 358n16 instruction, 45, 80, 100n68, 112, 117–18, 122, 133, 226, 263, 278, 315, 320, 333nn26–27, 337, 346, 349, 353, 357. See also Jesus: instruction of interpretation, 10n35, 41, 46, 65, 72, 100n67, 105n96, 160, 165n426, 175, 176–77, 178, 182, 201n180, 204, 233, 236, 257, 263, 268, 329, 332n23 irony, 39, 80n364, 103, 104n90, 105n104, 125n202, 130n227, 140– 41, 143n301, 151, 153n357, 206, 214n243, 339n60, 379 Isaac, 261n487, 267, 346n82 Isaiah, 18n5, 41, 42n147, 53, 174n41, 175n43, 185n98, 245n415, 250–52, 253n450, 256, 276, 321–22, 340n59 Israel: condemnation of, 2, 4, 6, 9n33, 11, 12–14, 86, 127, 156n374, 200–202, 208, 216, 238–39, 244– 45, 255n462, 258, 261– 64, 265, 276, 280n84, 327, 332n23, 345, 372–73, 380; failure of, 198n164, 255, 373; focus on, 1, 10, 14, 17, 34, 49, 55, 73–74, 85, 264, 280, 286, 310, 323, 369; hardness of heart of, 245n415, 251– 52, 255, 258; particularism, 208, 365, 371, 373–74, 375; prerogative of, 2, 5– 6, 10, 14, 64, 65, 72, 177, 245n415, 247n424, 265, 310, 321, 350–52, 365, 375, 380; restitution of, 3, 25, 51, 76–77, 86, 259n479, 259– 60, 261– 62, 267n8, 314, 317, 318–21, 324, 329, 336n44, 349, 350–52, 370, 377, 379; soteriological emergency of, 46– 48; substitution of, 4–12, 100n67, 127, 167–71, 176, 178, 184n95, 199, 245, 263, 327–28, 332, 338– 40, 341, 343– 46, 350, 352, 373, 378 Jeremiah, 150n343, 151n250, 153n355, 158n385, 164n416, 174n41 Jericho, 122n193, 224 Jerusalem, 2, 3, 6n22, 11, 20n19, 51n189, 83n379, 90, 96–106, 114, 116–17, 120, 121–23, 123–35, 140, 143, 145– 46, 150n343, 154n362, 155n370, 158nn385– 86, 159– 60, 163– 67, 173–74, 175n42, 183, 185n98, 193n138, 196, 197n161, 200–201, 206n201, 226, 228, 230n342, 233–39, 244, 264, 273–74, 285n113, 291, 297, 303, 304n221, 322–23, 334n35, 338, 359, 366n51, 371–73, 379; Christian community in, 336, 338;

Subject Index destruction of, 3, 6n22, 11, 83n379, 150n343, 152n350, 163– 65, 196, 198n163, 200–201, 230n342, 233–34, 236, 238, 239n368, 244, 264, 273, 323, 358, 366n51, 372–73 Jesus: Abrahamic sonship of, 24, 179, 266– 68, 271–72, 274, 294n165, 309, 317, 384; authority of, 93–94, 108–9, 125, 135, 146, 282– 85 (see also Jesus: power of); baptism of, 106, 285n115, 287– 89; birth of, 27–28, 31–32, 103– 4, 244, 272, 311 (see also virgin birth); compassion of, 36–37, 39, 47, 65, 75, 77, 80n364, 336, 370 (see also compassion); condemnation of, 1, 123; crucifixion of, 1, 2n9,  89, 101, 104, 122, 125n202, 154, 156n373, 160, 162, 237, 297, 300–307, 310n246, 323, 348, 371, 375n10, 377; enthronization of, 285, 296, 300, 304, 307, 374–75; exaltation of, 28, 30, 64, 109, 134, 148, 149n337, 173, 186, 190n129, 191, 195, 199, 256n470, 273, 278, 283, 285, 295–96, 297–307, 310–11, 320, 324, 374, 376, 377; family of, 225, 332; identity of, 14, 29, 30, 48– 49, 59n243, 79, 110, 121, 125, 133, 148, 174n40, 218n261, 222, 250, 265, 277, 286– 87, 291, 294, 296, 306–7, 309–10, 311, 324–25, 375–76; instruction of, 5, 108, 314n268, 315, 336, 344 (see also instruction); as judge, 109n117, 148, 149n337, 214, 262, 281, 337; ministry of, 1–2, 10, 14, 17, 22–23, 29, 31, 33, 39– 41, 43, 47–50, 51, 52–54, 55, 59– 60, 63n267, 73–75, 78–79, 83– 84, 85–91, 93, 95, 99n64, 101, 102n77, 106–7, 108, 110, 114, 123, 125, 134–36, 145– 46, 162, 165, 167, 205, 206, 210, 213–18, 235, 239, 242, 244, 245, 248– 49, 252, 254–55, 257, 258, 267, 271, 274–76, 280– 82, 285n115, 286– 87, 290, 291–92, 294, 298, 300n201, 306–7, 310, 314, 315, 317nn281– 82, 318, 319, 323–24, 329, 336–37, 340nn59– 60, 348, 350–51, 353, 365, 369–71, 373–74, 375–77; mockery of, 139, 149, 160, 272n30, 300–303; obedience of, 171n23, 286, 287n120, 289–90, 297, 301, 304– 7, 374; pastoral office of, 17, 18– 49, 75–  76, 85– 86, 89–90, 98, 108–9, 142n290, 160, 315n268, 317n281, 336–37, 370–71; power of, 30n81, 49, 50n182, 52, 57, 58, 72–74, 86, 92–95, 108–10, 120n186, 123, 125–26, 133, 135, 136, 146, 190, 191–93, 205, 241, 263, 277n70, 282– 86, 289–95, 295n170, 297–300, 302, 304–7, 309, 316n297, 320, 324, 329– 30, 337, 374–75; rejection of, 1–2, 4, 6–7, 13–15, 58n238, 120n186, 147, 152n353, 160,

481

163n410, 166– 67, 173–74, 178, 191, 210–11, 265, 275n56, 280n84, 281n87, 317n281, 321, 325, 332n23, 340n60, 346n84, 362n35, 374, 378; resurrection of, 1n2, 5n21, 28, 30, 48, 59, 64, 74, 104, 121n186, 148, 173, 186, 189, 191, 195, 205, 222–23, 240n393, 242n402, 257n470, 278– 83, 284– 87, 290, 295n172, 296, 297n179, 302– 6, 309–11, 314n268, 317n282, 324, 346n84, 347–50, 352–53, 374– 80; as Son of David, 10, 21, 22, 23, 23– 49, 52–53, 64, 75, 86, 95–100, 124n197, 124n199, 125, 133–34, 135, 144, 146, 162n404, 217, 219, 223, 235, 266, 274, 286, 290, 293, 294n165, 295, 299, 303, 307–11, 318n288, 324–25, 369–72, 375–76 (see also acclamation); as Son of God, 11n39, 22, 23–31, 48, 57, 85, 110, 114, 134, 145n312, 147, 147n328, 172–75, 185– 86, 189, 191, 194–200, 250, 278, 279n81, 280n85, 285n115, 286–307, 307–11, 323n306, 324–25, 330, 336, 344, 370, 374–77; sovereignty of, 57, 139, 293; superiority of, 93, 133; teaching of, 17, 39, 46, 49–50, 52, 92–95, 109–10, 112, 121, 122n192, 123, 125, 128, 129n222, 133, 136, 187, 190–91, 198, 205, 226, 227, 263, 282– 83, 305n229, 315, 318n287, 345n79, 348, 358, 360; as universal Lord, 64, 104, 148, 190, 272, 282, 283, 285, 290, 300–301, 302, 305–7, 309–10, 324, 374–76; works of, 43, 46, 52–53, 74, 210, 213, 214, 216n255, 218n261, 222–23, 249–50, 277, 292–93, 294n165, 318, 348 Jesus story, 1, 6, 9–12, 14, 17, 23–24, 30, 33n101, 39n130, 49, 89, 94, 110, 138, 165– 66, 210, 259, 263– 64, 265, 298, 309, 311, 317–18, 324, 336–37, 343, 347, 351–52, 356n6, 358– 60, 365– 66, 369, 374, 376 Jewish Christians, 28, 57n233, 208, 311, 345n79, 358n15, 361, 366 Jewish-Roman war, 85n382, 366 John the Baptist, 91, 105–7, 114n147, 115, 116, 135, 171, 192, 195, 198n162, 206n205, 210– 14, 217, 221, 266, 288, 297n179, 298, 373; disciples of, 210, 249; inquiry of, 53n205, 110, 121, 210, 245, 288n129, 291. See also sermon of judgment Jonah/sign of Jonah, 121n186, 222–23, 225n313 Joseph (father of Jesus), 9n34, 21n25, 27, 28, 30, 286 Joseph of Arimathea, 128n214, 166, 315n271, 348 Judas, 140, 141, 142n290, 149–51, 230, 319, 377

482

Subject Index

Judea/Judeans, 105, 122n193, 152n351, 162n410, 335, 362n35, 366 judgment, 2, 3, 11n39, 58, 76–77, 91, 105–7, 109n117, 115–16, 134, 145n309, 150n341, 152n351, 163–65, 177, 184, 186, 200–201, 207, 208–9, 210, 214–16, 219, 221–23, 226– 38, 245n415, 253, 259– 64, 278n72, 278n76, 279n77, 281, 304n220, 313–14, 323, 328n4, 348, 359, 372–73 kairos. See salvation history keys to the kingdom, 186– 87, 190, 198, 337–38, 339n59, 348, 377–79 killing of Jesus, 92n21, 118, 127, 129, 140, 144, 150, 191, 193n138, 195n150, 234–35, 277, 297–98, 346n84, 379 kingdom of God, 4, 5, 8, 47, 50, 59, 77n348, 107n111, 171n24, 172, 173, 176– 80, 184, 186–93, 198, 203, 206, 207, 212–14, 224, 227, 245, 247– 48, 252–54, 257, 259– 61, 263, 267, 299, 314–15, 327, 330, 331, 337– 40, 343, 351, 357n8, 377–79 kingdom of heaven. See kingdom of God king of the Jews, 31–33, 102– 4, 124, 154, 159, 272–74, 294n165, 299, 303, 342n68, 375 kyrios (Jesus), 30, 64– 65, 72, 134, 256n470, 278, 283, 285, 293, 295–97, 304, 307, 320, 321n296, 344, 374, 376 law. See Torah lawlessness, 138, 207n213, 228, 254n456 little faith, 241, 293, 305n231, 330–31, 359 Lord. See kyrios Lord’s Supper. See Eucharist love of God, 132–33 love of neighbor, 132–33, 138, 357 macarism, 210, 249, 294 magi/magi pericope, 31, 33, 102– 4, 114n147, 139n272, 159n393, 163n410, 268, 272–76, 310n245, 318, 374, 375 Mary (mother of Jesus), 9n34, 27, 268nn17–18 Mattheanisms, 68–70, 131nn230–31, 149n340, 168n5, 240n393 Matthean narrative. See Jesus story mercy. See compassion Messiah/messiahship, 2, 9, 10, 18–22, 23, 25–36, 38–39, 41– 46, 52–53, 64, 73, 84, 85– 86, 97– 99, 101, 102– 4, 108, 110, 114, 120n186, 124, 133–36, 144, 153, 160, 166, 217, 218n261, 242, 244, 261, 266, 274, 286, 290, 294–95,

298–99, 307, 309–11, 318, 324, 345n79, 357, 365n48, 369–71, 374–76 messianic claim, 147– 49, 222, 235 messianic expectation, 18–20, 26, 32, 41– 44, 98n55, 286 messianic secret, 306n234, 310 ministry of Jesus. See Jesus miracles/miracle stories, 49n182, 73, 314n268. See also feeding miracles; healings mission discourse. See disciples: commission of mission to Israel, 1–7, 9–10, 14, 49, 71, 73, 74– 87, 190, 197n161, 199–200, 234, 255, 258, 264, 265, 307–9, 311–25, 335–38, 350–51, 356, 366, 374, 376–78 mission to the Gentiles/nations, 1–7, 9, 13, 58, 78, 83, 85, 196, 197n161, 199–200, 258, 265, 266, 267n8, 276, 291, 307, 311–25, 344, 364– 67, 375, 377–78 mockery of Jesus. See Jesus Moses, 35n108, 121n189, 157n383, 188, 296, 346n82 mountain, 122n192, 205, 209n221, 241, 282, 290, 297, 322, 323n306 murder of prophets/murderers of prophets, 160, 174, 228–29, 231n345, 232–33, 372 narrative concept, 6, 14, 58, 89, 90, 100n67, 133, 265, 286–307, 307–11, 325, 365n49, 372, 374–75, 379. See also Jesus story Nathan/Nathan’s promise, 19, 26n58 Nazareth, 32n93, 98–99, 229, 274, 362n35 non-Jews. See Gentiles office/officials, 34n106, 193 Old Testament, 20, 26–27, 29, 34, 36, 41, 43, 55, 63, 76, 86, 163, 174n41, 175, 176n47, 179– 82, 195, 206, 209, 231n346, 251, 269–70, 286, 293, 294n164, 307– 8, 327, 342n66, 343, 346, 370, 373 opponents of Jesus, 39, 93n27, 101–39, 143, 148, 153, 156, 159, 165– 66, 201, 211n232, 220, 221, 223, 233–34, 236–38, 242, 244, 257, 340n60, 371, 372 parable theory, 14, 245, 246, 253, 258, 264 parenesis, 155, 170, 207, 254n456, 328n4 Parousia, 58n241, 83– 84, 87, 148, 149n337, 196n156, 216, 236–38, 243, 263, 278n72, 279, 316, 370 particularism. See Israel

Subject Index passion, 11, 14, 30, 48, 59, 89, 104, 109, 139– 66, 183n93, 230, 273, 278, 297–307, 308, 309, 337, 371, 374, 376 Passover, 98, 100n67, 158n384, 140– 41 Passover amnesty, 154–55, 161 pastoral office of Jesus. See Jesus Paul, 190, 238n383, 268n13, 311, 349, 376 peace, 20n20, 77, 175n41 people of God, 2n9, 4, 5n21, 6, 7, 9n33, 13, 20, 32–34, 39, 42n147, 50, 53, 72, 75, 78, 85, 86, 103, 156– 62, 166, 178, 179n66, 182, 184, 201, 245n415, 251, 262, 274, 318, 321, 327–28, 332– 45, 346–53, 372, 378–79 persecution. See affliction Peter, 9n34, 121, 149n338, 186– 87, 190, 199n169, 260, 291–94, 297, 301, 305n231, 320n295, 329, 337, 348, 377, 379 Peter’s confession. See confession: of the Messiah Pharisees, 17n2, 29–30, 37, 45, 61, 80n364, 90– 91, 95, 99, 100n67, 101–2, 105–23, 127–37, 139, 143, 165, 170n16, 174, 183, 189, 191, 201, 206n205, 211–13, 219–33, 240, 252, 257–58, 263, 266, 277, 279, 281n87, 320, 337, 355– 60, 362– 67, 371–72, 379, 380 pigs. See swine Pilate, 81n370, 129, 139– 40, 147– 48, 150n343, 153–57, 159, 161, 223, 230 pilgrimage of the nations, 202, 204, 273–74, 322–23, 379 pilgrims, 98, 161 poor, 46n166, 53, 195, 199n164, 335n36 power of God, 181, 285, 293, 296 prayer/praying, 19, 57n233, 136n260, 137n263, 239n388, 241, 282, 299, 322 prerogative of Israel. See Israel priests/priesthood, 27, 111, 157n383, 181, 182, 230n342, 231, 338n54, 342n66, 349n97. See also chief priests proclamation of suffering, 104, 121–23, 155n373, 166, 301, 304n225 proclamation of the gospel/kingdom/salvation, 46n166, 47, 50, 64, 73, 75, 81, 187, 190n129, 191–92, 213, 246n420, 248, 252, 254, 256– 59, 281n87, 285, 313–15, 318, 353, 369, 373, 375, 376, 377 prologue, 23, 50, 74, 124, 290, 310n245, 324, 376 promise, 17, 20n19, 20n21, 23–24, 26, 29, 33–36, 41, 43, 46, 53, 55, 77n348, 78, 85, 86, 98n55, 121, 144, 153, 178, 179, 182, 184n94,

483

191, 206, 214, 259– 60, 266– 68, 278, 283– 84, 290, 305, 307–9, 319, 321, 332, 337– 40, 342, 344, 351, 365, 369–70, 375–76. See also Nathan/Nathan’s promise promises of salvation. See promise prophet (Jesus), 98–100, 116n158, 174, 229, 372 proselytes, 266, 270–71, 309, 320, 360 prostitutes, 151, 171–72, 198 punishment, 4, 42n147, 151n345, 176, 186, 198n163, 200–201, 230n342, 233–34, 244, 252, 262– 63, 264, 372 Rachel, 164n416 Rahab, 61n256, 268–71 rejection of Jesus. See Jesus repentance, 75, 106, 107, 150n344, 151, 171–72, 181, 214–15, 219, 223, 230, 250, 252 replacement of Israel. See Israel replacement of the authorities. See authorities restitution of Israel. See Israel resurrection, 128, 130n227, 259n479, 302. See also Jesus: resurrection of revelation, 218, 291–96, 307, 309, 324 revolutionary movement, 19n8, 129n223 righteousness, 20, 36, 107– 8, 170, 192, 207, 288n124, 289n136, 357n8 riot. See uproar/riot rock/foundation of rock, 339 Rome, 23n38, 128n219, 129n223, 275n53 ruler, 19, 20n17, 20n19, 20n21, 27, 103, 140n284, 188, 261, 272, 286 Sabbath, 56n226, 110–13, 132, 188n115, 364n44 Sadducees, 91, 93, 102, 105– 6, 119–21, 127–28, 130–31, 206, 221, 225, 229–30, 266, 360 Salathiel, 26 salvation. See promise; salvation history; universalism salvation history, 2, 5n21, 24–26, 27n66, 55, 59, 64, 68, 127, 148, 156, 170, 199, 200, 210, 236–37, 263, 266, 268, 271, 278n72, 291, 307, 309, 311, 317–18, 320, 324, 332n23, 349, 352, 369, 374–75, 377, 380 salvific death. See Jesus: crucifixion of Samaria, 51n189, 78n353, 158n386 Samaritan, 38n126, 78, 84, 96n42 Sanhedrin, 101, 127n212, 128n214, 139– 40, 142– 44, 148– 49, 153–54, 160 Satan. See devil Saul, 158n386, 187n109, 230n342

484

Subject Index

scribes, 29, 45, 52, 61, 90–95, 101– 4, 107–10, 115–20, 123–24, 127–28, 133, 134, 136–39, 144, 146, 174, 189, 191, 201, 219–22, 226–33, 252, 263, 302, 320, 337, 351, 357n8 Scripture, 23n36, 27, 34, 44, 78, 108, 109, 111, 114, 121, 124, 130, 133, 134, 138, 189, 231, 251, 274, 276, 280, 301, 308, 321–24, 352, 365, 369, 371, 380 Septuagint, 44n159, 51n192, 131n231, 157n383, 158, 179n68, 211n231, 274n48, 276n62, 277, 278, 312n256, 333 sermon of judgment, 91, 105–7, 115, 135, 229, 266 Sermon on the Mount, 39, 52, 73, 92, 95, 107, 189, 205– 6, 207n208, 329 sheep/shepherd imagery, 18, 26, 31–39, 40, 44– 48, 50, 74– 80, 85– 86, 89–90, 98, 109, 113, 138, 141, 152n350, 160, 221n282, 274, 277, 314, 315, 316, 330, 331, 336–38, 349, 360, 369–71 Shema Israel, 132n238, 362n32 Shemoneh Esre, 19 Sidon, 50–51, 54, 60– 61, 118, 215 sign of Jonah. See Jonah/sign of Jonah Sinai/Sinaitic covenant, 180n75, 187n110, 188, 336n44, 343n71. See also covenant/establishment of covenant sin/sinner, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48, 109, 172, 211, 262, 287, 353, 371, 375. See also confession: of sins; forgiveness of sins Sodom, 158n385, 209n221, 215nn251–52, 216 Solomon, 19, 40nn139– 40, 187n108, 223, 270n24, 334n29 Son of God. See Jesus: as Son of God Son of Man, 83– 84, 94n32, 109, 146n316, 148– 49, 199n169, 206, 214, 257n470, 259, 262, 278n72, 284, 291n149, 295–96, 298, 300n201, 305n227, 315n268, 337; kingdom of, 84n379, 148n333, 190, 284, 295 sons of the kingdom, 2, 190, 202– 8, 228n332, 365n48 soteriology, 6, 15, 47– 48, 77, 108, 172, 186, 206, 210, 215, 217, 218, 220, 247n424, 276, 293, 298, 306, 307– 8, 310, 319–20, 324, 339n59, 342– 44, 347, 350, 353, 375, 380 sovereignty of Jesus. See Jesus: sovereignty of star, 31, 272, 273n40, 276 substitution. See Israel: substitution of swine, 56–57, 63n271

synagogue, 7, 12, 15, 50, 80n364, 92n20, 137n268, 165, 198n163, 320n295, 333n26, 347n86, 356, 358, 360– 66, 372, 379 Synoptics, 68n301, 70, 95n36, 183n93, 223n295 Syria, 51n191, 52, 85n383, 270, 364, 366n54 Syrophoenician woman. See Canaanite woman table fellowship, 40, 47, 64n274, 109, 198n164, 341 tax collectors, 40, 47, 77n351, 104n92, 109, 151, 170–72, 198, 199n167, 211, 277n69, 299, 330 teaching of Jesus. See Jesus temple, 22, 27, 39, 96, 97, 111, 119n178, 123, 125, 129n222, 129n225, 132, 136, 142– 43, 145– 46, 175n42, 186n104, 188n114, 201n180, 226, 231n346, 232–36, 239, 298n188, 302, 322–23, 338–39, 379; cleansing of, 92, 93n24, 96, 123, 145– 46; destruction of, 11n39, 134, 145– 46, 230n342, 232, 235–36, 300, 323, 357n11; temple logion, 147, 160, 300 thesis of representation, 4, 105, 140, 152–53, 159n390, 164, 170–71, 177, 183, 196, 200, 217, 225n314, 263, 372 titulus crucis, 47, 298, 299, 303, 306, 340 Torah, 12, 17, 45, 54, 60, 108–12, 118, 120n186, 121, 130n229, 131–32, 136, 137, 144, 151, 186–91, 192, 226n318, 227–28, 263, 296n176, 315n273, 317n282, 329n7, 333n26, 334, 340, 349, 356n6, 357–58, 363 trial of Jesus, 140, 143– 44, 150, 160 twelve disciples, 50, 51n190, 76, 77n347, 77n351, 84n380, 86, 187n105, 260– 62, 314, 319, 347– 48, 351, 353, 370, 377 twelve tribes, 14, 25, 51, 76, 86, 167, 259– 63, 264, 267n8, 314, 319, 324, 373, 377 two-tiered Christology, 28, 287, 311, 376 Tyre. See Sidon unbelief, 2n6, 5n21, 9n33, 121n186, 205, 240– 42, 245n415, 255n460, 328n3 universalism, 1, 3, 9, 13–15, 55n218, 59, 64– 65, 72–73, 74, 82, 83, 85, 199, 205, 208, 264, 265– 81, 282–307, 307–11, 313, 316n279, 317– 25, 342– 44, 348–53, 365, 371, 373, 374–78, 380 universal judge. See Jesus: as judge universal Lord. See Jesus: as universal Lord universal salvation. See universalism unrighteousness, 20n17, 20n21, 108n111, 261 uproar/riot, 85n383, 100n67, 140, 142, 155

Subject Index vineyard, 171n24, 172–76, 185, 189n125, 190– 93, 198, 201–2, 338, 373, 378 virgin birth, 27, 279, 310. See also Jesus: birth of voice from heaven, 174n40, 285n115, 287– 89 way of the cross. See discipleship wickedness. See authorities: wickedness of will of God, 17, 46, 109–10, 117, 136, 138, 170, 186, 189, 191, 192, 254n456, 263, 279, 289, 292, 301, 330–31, 332n22, 335n36, 337, 340, 345– 46, 357, 378 wisdom, 213–14, 218n265, 223 withdrawal motif, 61n253, 114, 116, 118, 122, 277

485

woes, 188, 189n119, 190, 210–19, 226–28, 233–34 words of institution, 47, 163, 298–99, 306, 319, 340, 342 works of Jesus. See Jesus: works of world. See cosmos yoke, 20, 43, 46n166, 305n229 Zechariah, 174n41, 230–31, 343n73 Zerubbabel, 26 Zion, 202, 204, 237, 273, 279, 322–23, 338, 352, 353, 379